Mark Houlsby wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
LiamToo wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
I just found the following article, which may cheer the theists:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...2-2517335.html

And here's the refutation:

http://www.tothesource.org/11_8_2006/11_8_2006.htm

Not sure that it genuinely *refutes* the thesis expounded in the Times
article, but it's certainly a point-of-view which is somewhat opposed.

It seems to me that there are two distinct arguments here.

(1) Everything must have a cause. Therefore God exists.

(2) Everything but God must have a cause. Therefore God exists.

Dawkins rejects the former, while while the theists claims that he is
setting up a strawman as their argument is really the latter.

With every respect to you, Vince, Mike Murray already pointed out why
all this is hogwash.

For all I know, you may agree that it is.

I do agree although I may not have said so explicitly. I don't think
that you can prove the existence of God by a law of causation to which
God is not subject.