Quote from: odolvlobo on Today at 03:35:28 AM

Quote from: BADecker on Today at 02:03:48 AM

Quote from: odolvlobo on Today at 01:27:08 AM

Your "countless examples" consist only of man-made machines. What about machines that are not man-made? Can you show that they also have makers? There are certainly many more examples of machines that are not man-made than there are of man-made machines, so if it were actually true that you could use odds to prove something in this case, you would still be wrong.

Can you show even one example of a machine that you absolutely know does not have a maker? Our vast experience is that machines have makers, without even one example of a machine not having a maker.

So here are examples of non-manmade machines with no maker: ribosomes (protein synthesizer), clouds (electrical generator), rivers (rock crusher), rain (irrigation). Of course I could go on and this list would be much longer than your list of machines with makers. Our vast experience is that most machines do not have makers, but you choose to ignore them in order to support your premise.

Prove that these machines have no maker. The Antikythera mechanism is a machine that is over 2,000 years old. We don't know who the maker was. Maybe it didn't have a maker, right? Are you serious?

Quote from: odolvlobo on Today at 03:35:28 AM

Quote from: BADecker on Today at 02:03:48 AM

Quote from: odolvlobo on Today at 01:27:08 AM

You believe that God created it because you assume that there is and always has been exactly one entity (God) capable of creating the universe. I reject that assumption because there is no good reason to accept it.

Here is the good reason to accept it. We, being of the universe, only know the things of the universe. God, in creating the universe would have to be outside of it during the creation of it. We know only one thing about outside-the-universe. That one thing is "outside-the-universe." Since God created the universe, and since He was outside at the time He created, and since the outside is one (at least to our understanding), God is One.

Ok, I get it. Part of your definition of God includes everything outside of the universe. I still reject your assumption because we don't know anything about anything outside of our universe, or even that an "outside-the-universe" exists. Furthermore, even if we assume that there is an "outside-the-universe", we don't know whether it created the universe or it was created along with the universe.

I didn't say that I define God as everything outside the universe. We don't even know if the word "everything" is even a word that we can use to describe "what" is outside the universe. Non-universal things are so extremely different than things of the universe, that we don't have a way of even considering them intelligently. So, we are in somewhat of agreement about outside-the-universe.

The point is, machines have makers. There are two observations regarding machines. We know who the makers of some of them are, and we don't know who the makers of other of them are. The thing that we can't even conceive of is that machines come into existence without a maker. But that idea - some machines don't have makers - actually fits the outside-the-universe God idea, because we barely understand the concept of o-t-u at all, just like we barely understand the concept of machines without makers.

Quote from: odolvlobo on Today at 03:35:28 AM

Quote from: BADecker on Today at 02:03:48 AM

Quote from: odolvlobo on Today at 01:27:08 AM

Furthermore, you are begging the question. Your statement "If something else created the universe, then the 'something else' is God" defines God as that which created the universe, and elsewhere you try to prove that God created the universe. In other words, you are trying to prove that God created the universe by using a definition of God as the creator of the universe.

Actually, you are giving God an additional name. You are calling Him "God," and you are calling Him "Something Else." Machines have makers.

Simply stated, it is a logical fallacy to say that the creator is God, therefore God created everything. It's called begging the question. Also, stating that "machines have makers" over and over doesn't make it true.

Try fitting a Ford Piston into a Chev engine. First we have no universe. Then we have a highly complex universe, the parts of which work together well, with a physics that can't be broken. All this made by something outside of the universe that we can't even conceive of. Even if God is a corporation, still one God. But since we can't even conceive of what o-t-u would be like, all we understand is one o-t-u... one God.

Perhaps after thousands of years, and much attempting - like we haven't been trying for thousands of years already - we will finally find a machine without a maker. This concept goes entirely against any idea of machines and machinery. You seem to be moving in the direction of religion when you talk like this.

Cool