Re: First Cause (to Aaron)
Aaron Oakley (s_aarono@eduserv.its.unimelb.EDU.AU)
Wed, 2 Apr 1997 09:33:43 +1000 (EST)
> David Court-
>
> Your insistence upon getting an answer to the question "where did we come
> from?" raises an obvious counter-question that I have yet to see a
> rational answer to- "Where did God come from?"
>
> (DAVE 3/28) I agree, that is a good question. When the first is answered
> by those who deny a creator, we should consider it. I believe God is
> self-existent. That is a belief for which I have no tangible proof, so you
> will have to accept that this is what I believe. Furthermore, I believe we
> have been "designed" by a creator. Again, I cannot prove that.
>
> However, we know, as human beings, know that we are not self-existent. So,
> we know we had to have come from somewhere. If not by direction from a
> designer, from where? It seems there are many here who deny that a creator
> exists - so they must know where we came from. Seems simple enough. If we
> weren't designed, how did we come about?
>
> What do you believe Aaron?
Aaron O.-
You say that if we deny that a creator exists, then we must know
where we came from. This is not true. It is better, in my opinion,
to withhold judgement if there are insufficient facts to draw
a firm conclusion. It is unreasonable to state that "I don't
know where we humans came from, therefore God made us."
Of course, ALL of the scientific evidence points to an evolutionary
origin for the human species. The argument then comes back to
where the universe came from. Our knowledge of the origins
of the universe are incomplete. But that does not mean that
we should fall back onto the "God did it" hypothesis. This
explanation is just as bad as no explanation at all.
The burden of proof lies with the proponent. If you believe that
God did it, then prove it.