a2dc6860   
   XPost: alt.autos.toyota, rec.autos.driving, alt.society.liberalism   
   XPost: alt.fan.michael-moore   
   From: gn779631@cox.net   
      
   On 7/15/2010 11:03 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the   
   Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:   
   > OK, this is THE ULTIMATE QUESTION we must ask God:   
   >   
   > "DO YOU HAVE A CREATOR?"   
   >   
   > If he answers "no," he's an atheist. If he answers "yes," he's not the   
   > Almighty God.   
      
   That doesn't logically follow.   
   >   
   > If everything needs a creator, so does God.   
      
   I see. So you're making up new arguments to prove yours.   
      
   No one set as a condition that everything needed a creator. You and I   
   were "created" when our parents had sex and sperm and egg did their   
   thing. But it's entirely possible a being started the process off.   
      
   > If you propose the argument that everything which exists needs a   
   > creator, you have to accept the implications. That means if God   
   > exists, he must have had a creator. And because God's creator exists,   
   > he must have had a creator too - and so on and so on to an infinity of   
   > creators.   
      
   I'm an atheist, and even I don't follow this silliness. If the   
   definition of God is the creator of everything in existence that we are   
   aware of, why does the possibility that he was created change that   
   definition?   
      
   Whether or not God exists is not actually knowable. But trying to   
   logically prove or disprove his existence logically requires a singular   
   definition of God, which you don't have.   
   >   
   > (link above)   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)