Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenchu
Saying "the source must have had a creator" is fairly niave. That is to say dumbly that you know everything, and can see evey factor that is present. I don't believe for a second you know next to anything about the real way this world works, so I'll stick with my way.
|
You're so wrong. I'm not naive at all. If you say we MUST have had a creator, then it's safe to apply them to the whole tree. I'm talking based on logic. What you said is an example of religious fallacies that religious people say all the time (I don't know if you are or not but I'm just saying your argument is something created by them to justify the existence of God).
Als you ask me do you know what's the very first source when on my quote I wrote there is no first source? I honestly don't know what you're talking about.
You're making a rule that everything that we see now has a creator and apply it to some nonsense which does not need a creator? This is just dumb. And your elements explanation, that is what religion and old philosophers said, modern science is different
File:Particle overview.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia =D
the theory that we always existed is very well thought. I guess you need to check it out.