[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
1. There is no reason there should be something rather than nothing. Nothing can't create something. So since there is something, an entity immeasurably powerful, somehow outside of time must have created it.

Okay. That might make sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHEN?

To make sense, an argument needs accepted premises otherwise it's just cranking the organ and playing GIGO.
When did these premises become accepted? -
-There is no reason there is something rather than nothing.
- Nothing can't create something.

And then the most gigantic, almost disconnected to the wild assertion premises is "SINCE there is something ....MUST".

Come on, kids that can't play in vegas read this stuff, let's promote some semblance of logic on here.

luckyme