Received: by 10.68.211.103 with SMTP id nb7mr3376887pbc.6.1338087570002;
        Sat, 26 May 2012 19:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: pr3ni53242pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.abortion,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic,alt.recovery.catholicism
Subject: Re: Why women have abortions
References: <dk9vq75q42cnfp1cito171cj7oc3b803rb@4ax.com> <vM6dnU9O551TaTLSnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@giganews.com> <okj4r7tfsmhe0s6rvklomtgb5j6f7c4h3r@4ax.com> <-Y-dncejwM9Bai_SnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@giganews.com> <arydnacv3vgyLi7SnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@posted.localnet> <UI2dnaiakLrpqiDSnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@posted.localnet> <b4pqr7psbilm0icn2uvnv7sv19d334a2i4@4ax.com> <ivmdnQqKEMMeESDSnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@posted.localnet> <rl9rr7l1gvt8pp890mcsg0msbva3t23too@4ax.com> <ZdednVvrf82SoCPSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@posted.localnet> <usiur7t47rjflj17shn8v33npne89dhj1d@4ax.com> <jsSdndfh9IbQIyLSnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@posted.localnet> <uirgil-7D949B.15301325052012@bignews.usenetmonster.com>
From: Rockinghorse Winner <rwin...@badass.edu>
User-Agent: nn/6.7.3
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 19:15:52 -0700
Message-ID: <obf899-mcb.ln1@badass.edu>
Lines: 74
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 28cb76ed.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=OcnHJmUhL9Hc_WgCkn9MLEL?0kYOcDh@J^nJe[DYEXo@Ugc<O3eESCE65fN?UHOE=CJnYPi4E@?6Gc2GXZD4Am<FI3JJIX@f`cIW7FM7`?C9]F

Uirgil <uir...@uirgil.ur> writes:

>In article <jsSdndfh9IbQIyLSnZ2dnUVZ_oadn...@posted.localnet>,
> "Patrick" <barker...@erinot.com> wrote:

>> "Attila" <<procho...@here.now> wrote
>> > But still no proof.
>> 
>> 
>> There are several lines of reason that prove God's existence. 

>You have a very corrupt definition of "prove" is you believe that.

>> The first is the so-called Cosmological Argument.
>> there are essentially three possibilities as to the origin of the universe 
>> and the implications about God:
>> 
>>   1.. That the universe emerged from nothing. Little needs to be said about 
>> this notion. Nothing produces nothing. This premise is neither logical nor 
>> reasonable.
>>   2.. That the universe is eternal. Among many scientific reasons why the 
>> universe is not eternal are: (a) the big bang theory, (b) the abundance of 
>> hydrogen, and (c) the irreversible decay of the universe.

>There are, in fact, suggested theories in which the universe had no 
>beginning. Until all of them have been disproved, and they haven't been 
>yet, we cannot know that your claims are valid. 


>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The skeptic sometimes asks, "Well, then, who created God?" The answer is 
>> that no one created God, as he is eternal.

>An assumption not supported by any objective physical evidence.


> A rule of logic states that every 
>> effect must have an antecedent cause. But God is not an effect; rather he is 
>> a cause.

>There is no reason why something cannot be both!

>> The logic here is simple but compelling.

>Only to the choir.







>> Since something exists, 
>> and since something cannot arise from nothing

>But how does one prove there ever was a nothing from which something 
>sprang? It hasn't been proven yet!


>> and further that the universe 
>> itself is not eternal-something outside of the universe must be eternal.

>Actually, the notion of something outside "the universe" is irrational.

But reason itself is irrational.

Terry
-- 
"For I would ride with you upon the wind,    |/    
Run on the top of the dishevelled tide,      |/    Gentoo Linux
And dance upon the mountains like a flame."  |/
    -Yeats                                   |/