Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Graham
True, however...
Which rests on the assumption that there is some form of "creator" and the logical precursor to that is where did that creator come from, the response is generally that we have to assume that He always existed.
|
All true, but I'm not going to go in to all that again now ... might be a little OT to go into all that detail here
Quote:
|
However Occams Razor suggests that if you have two explanations that fit the facts you should pick the one that requires the least number of assumptions. The belief in a creator involves a whole series of extra assumptions, so whilst it is a *possible* hypothesis, it's not, logically, a *probable* hypothesis.
|
All of which may be true, but this is a principle, not a law - unless there is some evidence that, throughout history, the 'correct' explanation always turns out to have been the one that required fewer assumptions.
Quote:
|
Because God didn't tell us about it, or because those who wrote it didn't *know* that there were any other worlds elsewhere in the universe?
|
Both. God used humans to write the Bible, and they only wrote beyond their own ability to perceive when circumstances required it (e.g. writing a prophecy). The Bible writers had no way of knowing about other worlds, and God had no need for them to know. Now there's a whole mouthful of assumptions for you to chew on
Quote:
|
Star Smashers of the Galaxy Rangers
|
This is the first time I have ever met anyone else who has read that ... I am not alone!!!!
