Logically speaking, which makes sense, a natural cause or a unnatural cause?

Proud Human

New member
Must read the details to answer? Atheists say. The universe is eternal. Therefore the cause is eternal and has always existed. Let me try to explain this way of thought ok.

Ok every effect has a cause. An effect exist because a cause exist. An effect exist then it must respectfully must be true that the cause has just existed. Meaning in plain English. I think therefore I am. An effect exist in reality, therefore a cause exist in reality. In this case the effect is in the same time frame and place of the cause not needing an unnatural cause.

Christians says. In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth.

First implying of a creation. Creation exist because there was no existence of creation. Therefore saying it had a beginning. In this case the cause of the universe is unnatural. First there was nothing then there was the effect from an unnatural or "uncause" cause. They say why is there something rather than nothing. There defense must be the law of thermodynamics. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Thus the natural cause of the universe cannot exist because the natural cause cannot create the universe from nothing in which they believe the universe is not eternal but finite.


Which one makes sense in this time with science. Atheists if you can, please. Same with Christians.
 
Back
Top