Message from discussion Why women have abortions
Received: by 10.68.211.103 with SMTP id nb7mr3376887pbc.6.1338087570002;
Sat, 26 May 2012 19:59:30 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Why women have abortions
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <vM6dnU9O551TaTLSnZ2dnUVZ_tSdnZ2d@giganews.com> <email@example.com> <-Y-dncejwM9Bai_SnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@giganews.com> <arydnacv3vgyLi7SnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@posted.localnet> <UI2dnaiakLrpqiDSnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@posted.localnet> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <ivmdnQqKEMMeESDSnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d@posted.localnet> <email@example.com> <ZdednVvrf82SoCPSnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@posted.localnet> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <jsSdndfh9IbQIyLSnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@posted.localnet> <uirgil-7D949B.email@example.com>
From: Rockinghorse Winner <rwin...@badass.edu>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 19:15:52 -0700
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
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
>> 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.
"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." |/