Evidence

[McBell]

Suppose my neighbor was Osama Bin Laden and God knew that as long as Bin Laden remained alive he would find a way to fly planes in to building. So God commanded me to kill my neighbor, would it be right to do so? Isn’t that a morally sufficient reason to kill my neighbor? Hmmmm. The point is, God would not order you to do anything that wasn’t for the best. Since I trust God, I have faith that if God ordered me to do such, he would have morally sufficient reasons for doing so.

So in a nutshell you are saying that if god says to do something it must be moral?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Thank you.



I responded:


You ignored everything other than the quote. You didn't address a single point of any argument I linked to for you which you requested. Not one. Instead, you entire response to these was


So after asking for explanations, you ignored them.

I tried another approach. Instead of arguing about infinities using formal systems you don't know about, I dealt with the other way you respond to arguments:


I went into some detail about things that we know happen that you might label as absurd. An extract:


Again, no response. Then there are the various inaccuracies you've presented every single time you talk about physics, mathematics, cosmology, or logic. I devoted a whole page (and more) to the ways you mischaracterized Penrose, the big bang, and "science" here and again here. You still persisted in your inaccurate descriptions of cosmology and physics and in the process you dismissed someone who actually is in this field here.

Every argument, from your infinities to your big bang and "before there was time" arguments have been addressed ad nauseum. You've just ignored them, claimed they were absurd, or regurgitated the same simplified arguments you started with as if they were axioms, but you treated them as arguments..

To much stuff. I don't have the patience to go through all of those links and watch videos and all that kind of stuff. Give me your single best evidence for refutations against...

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument
2. The Modal Ontological Argument
3. The Argument from Consciousness
4. The Argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus

I need direct answers.....not 20 different links which content does an absolute poor job of offering refutation of the arguments.

 

[Sculelos]

So in a nutshell you are saying that if god says to do something it must be moral?

God is good, God created everything. Therefore he can destroy anything he wants to for his reasons he will tell us all in 657.5 years of judgement. So it's not like anyone will have any doubts about anything after he explains to you everything in detail in 657.5 years.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

To much stuff.

Had you addressed the arguments when I raised them in the first place, rather than wait until now and then claim you can't address them all because there's too much stuff, you wouldn't be in this position of having to claim that your arguments are correct but that you cannot go through counter-arguments.

I don't have the patience to go through all of those links and watch videos and all that kind of stuff.

Especially when ignorance takes so little time.

Give me your single best evidence for refutations against...

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument
2. The Modal Ontological Argument
3. The Argument from Consciousness
4. The Argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus

As these arguments are raised in ways you haven't ever specified (for example, despite my repeated request that you show, using modal logic, your derivation for the modal ontological argument, you never did), it is rather hard to tell what exactly I'm supposed to argue against. The fourth argument is easily addressed: assuming N. T. Wright and Craig and others are correct (a big assumption), and we don't have a good historical explanation for the evidence we have, it is not therefore logical to assume that the only rational explanation is by definition vastly more improbable than any historical explanation (that's what miracles are).

The ontological argument was addressed but as you continued to throw around terms from possible world semantics without really understanding them all you do against any refutation is dogmatically reassert the same thing. You pretend you have an argument, but as you cannot address counter-arguments except by repeating the same premise over and over again, it isn't an argument but an axiom.

As for the kalam argument, take you pick: cosmology, quantum physics, analysis, the formal definition for infinitesimals, etc.

I need direct answers.....not 20 different links

No, what you need is a better understanding of the arguments you present.

You present an argument which depends upon modal logic and possible world semantics. You haven't even studied basic propositional and predicate calculi, let alone modal logic, so you can't address even a single refutation. You could have picked any single one of the important links I gave you on the kalam argument, but you ignored them all. Your understanding of cosmology is simply wrong, as even in the standard model all that we have is a breakdown of all known physics after the big bang, and therefore there is no reason to assume your model of causation (which is 2500 years old and long out of date) has anything to it. You talk about time but know nothing of minkowski geometry nor can you assert why your antiquated model of causation, which is rooted in time, should matter or hold when there is no time.

And so your counter-arguments have always been "that's absurd" (even when it's part of our reality, like infinities in quantum physics), or repeating the "argument" you treat as axiomatic.

which content does an absolute poor job of offering refutation of the arguments.

It might help if you read them. Or understood your own arguments.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

To much stuff. I don't have the patience to go through all of those links and watch videos and all that kind of stuff. Give me your single best evidence for refutations against...

1. The Kalam Cosmological Argument

Makes baseless assertions about how the Universe functions and uses an inaccurate model of the big bang, physics and infinity to reach an erroneous conclusion which tells us nothing about the Universe. It fails to sufficiently support any of its premises.

2. The Modal Ontological Argument

Based entirely on defining God into existence by arbitrarily attaching attributes to the concept and making baseless assertions about what is "necessary" without any actual evidence or reason.

3. The Argument from Consciousness

A baseless argument that asserts a lot of unproven premises and makes assertions without any kind of merit based on creating a false dichotomy and asserting that there is no natural scientific explanation for a given phenomena.

4. The Argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus

There's absolutely no historical accounts of this event happening that are either outside of the Bible or from contemporary sources.

 

[Sculelos]

One thing is people can not truly believe in divinity and the big bang. Especially creation and the big bang. They do not mix, they are axioms, the mixing of which leads to a giant paradox.

You must willfully and ignorantly believe in a chaotic order of meaningless or you must willfully and truthfully believe in a God who did create the Heavens and the Earth, and that the World is the heavens and the Earth. And that the Earth is stationary and the heavenly luminary's move around the Earth once every 24 hour period. You must also believe the Earth is built out of a two-square system with the farthest distance to the Sea of Glass being 540 Million miles with the universe being 630 Million miles out from Earth in the East and West directions and being 315 Million miles out from the North to South directions. When we cross the portal line we simply move to the opposite side. If you could reach the end of the universe and pass the 90 million mile thick Sea of Glass you would end up in the center of the Earth. You must also believe that their are 7 layers of heaven with 7 portals of compression with 7 planets that are recognized as 10 planets with 1 body.

1= The Universe
7= Earth, Moon, Mercury/Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter/Saturn, Uranus/Neptune.
10=Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus

 

[Ouroboros]

God is good, God created everything.

Then everything should be good that he created. He created illness, disease, disasters, and many other things that aren't that great. The world isn't perfect. So somewhere he screwed up.

Therefore he can destroy anything he wants to for his reasons he will tell us all in 657.5 years of judgement. So it's not like anyone will have any doubts about anything after he explains to you everything in detail in 657.5 years.

If we are his creation and all that he creates is good, then we are good and what we're doing is not evil or need judgment. If we are made in his image, we are like God, so we are gods.

 

[McBell]

God is good, God created everything. Therefore he can destroy anything he wants to for his reasons he will tell us all in 657.5 years of judgement. So it's not like anyone will have any doubts about anything after he explains to you everything in detail in 657.5 years.

This is nothing more than a pile of empty claims.

Thanks for playing though.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What is "a state of nothingness"? Is this something you believe has any basis in the actual world?

No. I believe a state of absolute nothingness is impossible as long as there is a necessary God.

How did God step into time if he's atemporal? Stepping into time is a change, it's an act, that is the beginning of the existence of God as a temporal being. Change was always possible so time was always a factor. If God can make himself a temporal being, he always was a temporal being.

He was atemporal, but he didn’t remain atemporal. He stepped in time with the first act of creation. He is temporal now, but before creation he was atemporal.

13.7 billion years ago, God “willed” the universe in to existence with a singularity. It was only at the moment that he willed the universe in to existence that time began. And from that very moment seconds passed, minutes passed, hours passed, days passed, months passed, years passed, decades passed, centuries passed, millenniums passed…and there has been “time” ever since then. God became temporal from the moment the first change occurred (the creation). So therefore, God went from a atemporal state, to a temporal state.

Time doesn't have to reach anything. What are you talking about?

Ok, I got one better for you. There could never be a “present” if an infinite amount of “past” moments preceded it. That better?

The present is here

And?

it is always the present

Is it always 9:00?

it doesn't have to go through the whole causal chain of the past

This is clearly false. This is like saying “I didn’t have to go through childhood (past) to reach adulthood” (present).

the present is the state of things right now and I am part of that state.

And?

If what I perceive as the present is actually a part of an infinitely regressive causal chain of the past, whatever that means, then I'm not really sure how that makes any difference.

I am amazed at how you are adamantly denying the causal chain. Let me just briefly break this down for you. I refuse to spend too much time on obvious stuff, since it is bad enough I spent to much time arguing over whether or not something can come from nothing. Before you were born, your parents had to meet, right? Before they met, your grandparents had to meet, right, and so on and so forth. The point is simply this; the chain cannot go back to eternity past, because in order for any parent to be born there would have to be an infinite amount of “parent’s” leading up to the parents birth which would include yours. So in essences, no parent would be born. Now if you don’t see the problem with that, then I can’t help. I will leave you to continue believing in absurdities.

Is this a dressed up Zeno's paradox or something?

If that’s what you want to call it.

Let's put this more clearly.

1. God is defined as an omniscient, omnipotent being that necessarily exists in every possible world.
2. The actual world is a possible world.
3. The actual world exists.
4. Therefor, God exists.

Same thing, right? The cheat is just more apparent.

1. Leprechauns are defined as magical beings that necessarily exist in every possible world.
2. The actual world is a possible world.
3. The actual world exists.
4. Therefor, leprechauns exist.

The Ontological Argument makes a case for the existence of a maximally great being. The Argument DOESN’T state who the being is. The MGB as defined by the argument can be any God, since “God” is just a title. It isn’t the “name” that points directly to Jehovah or Yeshua. That is why Christians use the Argument based on the Resurrection of Jesus, because if Jesus rose from the dead, then he is who he said he is and the existence of Yeshua is corroborated.

God is a product of our minds.
Our minds are a product of the universe.
Therefor, God does not necessarily exist.

Premise 1 is unsupported. Premise 2 is demonstrably false. So the conclusion is very much so false.

Yes, I am saying nature did it. The difference is, I can provide you with heaps of actual material evidence, things you can see, touch and measure, and a well constructed theory describing precisely how nature did it . The keyword here is "how" .

You can give me evidence of microevolution. That animals of the same kind produce a wide variety of the same kind. You cannot give me any evidence I can see, touch, and measure that will tell me that we every living creature share a common ancestor. These are two competing view……the actual science of microevolution, and the religion of macroevolution. You can’t even scientifically explain how life can come from non-life. You cant get to evolution without explaining how did life get here in the first place. So, you have your work cut out for you.

I don't care if you think it's the right explanation or not, but it is definitely a well thought out explanation based on all the available natural evidence.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish, bears produce bears. That is the only explanation that you’ve ever seen. If you want to believe that the first dog came from a non-dog, then by all means, believe it. Believe what you want, just like you believe that something can come from nothing. But to erroneously call it science, that is very disingenuous.

"God did it" is not an explanation, it's one of those things people say when they can't think of an explanation.

Saying “nature did it” without any observational evidence is one of those things naturalists say when they desperately want to negate the existence of ID.

Like:
a: "hey, why are all the chairs upside down?"
b: "ghost pirates"

Yet you went back and forth with me over whether or not something can come from a state of nothingness. How is saying that ghost pirates made the chairs upside down any more irrational than even believing that something may very well come from nothing?

Do you accept the sky being a solid object keeping water from leaking in as a fact?

I never had any reason to.

If you look up "forklift" in a dictionary, it is actually defined as a vehicle for lifting and carrying heavy loads.
That means vehicles are actually forklifts.

Well, in the Ancient Hebrew language, if there was no word for “sphere”, then guess what would be the next best word?

So what exactly is the theological method for finding out things about reality?

I didn’t say there was a theological method. I am saying observation is supposed to be part of science. Theological implications are not, obviously, because no one has ever seen God, yet we use logical arguments that lead us to the conclusion that he exists. No observation needed.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So in a nutshell you are saying that if god says to do something it must be moral?

I am saying God's commandments are a reflection of his holy character.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Makes baseless assertions about how the Universe functions and uses an inaccurate model of the big bang, physics and infinity to reach an erroneous conclusion which tells us nothing about the Universe. It fails to sufficiently support any of its premises.

Wait a minute, the kalam states that the universe began to exist. Open any textbook on cosmology and you will find it. So how is a baseless assertion when it is completely in line with contemporary cosmology?

Based entirely on defining God into existence by arbitrarily attaching attributes to the concept and making baseless assertions about what is "necessary" without any actual evidence or reason.

If it is possibly necessarily true, then it is in fact true. I don’t know what part of that you people don’t understand. If it is possible for such a being to exist, then it must exist. The question is, is it possible? That is the bottom line.

A baseless argument that asserts a lot of unproven premises and makes assertions without any kind of merit based on creating a false dichotomy and asserting that there is no natural scientific explanation for a given phenomena.

The mind and brain is not the same thing, which I’ve already demonstrated.

There's absolutely no historical accounts of this event happening that are either outside of the Bible or from contemporary sources.

First off all the Gospels were written within 30 years after the death of Christ and some of Paul’s letters date to even earlier that. Second, there are external sources outside the bible that suggests that Jesus lived, was crucified, buried, and three days later his tomb became empty. So you are absolutely wrong in both regards.

 

[idav]

Wait a minute, the kalam states that the universe began to exist. Open any textbook on cosmology and you will find it. So how is a baseless assertion when it is completely in line with contemporary cosmology?

Show me where the Big Bang model states that the energy from the big bang began to exist. You won't find it cause it isn't part of the theory. There are other theories that try and say how it came about like vacuum fluctuations from nothing or some creator creating it or some turtle vomiting out the cosmos. Whatever the theory they are guesses as to where it came from. No speculation is any better in answering that question. Big bang starts with the premise of existence. Hawkings does get a little into it but is working with the model that all this energy already existed and from there is able to explain what the energy did and how long it took to evolve into matter and suns and planets.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Had you addressed the arguments when I raised them in the first place, rather than wait until now and then claim you can't address them all because there's too much stuff, you wouldn't be in this position of having to claim that your arguments are correct but that you cannot go through counter-arguments.

I just thought to myself “why bother”.

Especially when ignorance takes so little time.

I am not ignorant of anything that I discuss on here.

As these arguments are raised in ways you haven't ever specified (for example, despite my repeated request that you show, using modal logic, your derivation for the modal ontological argument, you never did), it is rather hard to tell what exactly I'm supposed to argue against.

Look the argument up, Legion. It is out there for all to see.

The fourth argument is easily addressed: assuming N. T. Wright and Craig and others are correct (a big assumption), and we don't have a good historical explanation for the evidence we have, it is not therefore logical to assume that the only rational explanation is by definition vastly more improbable than any historical explanation (that's what miracles are).

The rational explanation is based off the historical evidence.

The ontological argument was addressed but as you continued to throw around terms from possible world semantics without really understanding them all you do against any refutation is dogmatically reassert the same thing.

It was addressed but it wasn’t successfully refuted. The very fact that some of you people don’t seem to understand the concept of contingent truths and necessary truths is evidence of why the same thing keeps getting repeated.

As for the kalam argument, take you pick: cosmology, quantum physics, analysis, the formal definition for infinitesimals, etc.

Cosmology…the universe began to exist……quantum physics exist in the universe, therefore, quantum physics began to exist as well…an actual infinity can’t exist in reality, no one can traverse infinity, nor can you reach infinity by successful addition, nor can you have an infinite number of things. It can’t happen.

No, what you need is a better understanding of the arguments you present.

And what you need to do is offer better refutations against the arguments I present.

You present an argument which depends upon modal logic and possible world semantics. You haven't even studied basic propositional and predicate calculi, let alone modal logic, so you can't address even a single refutation.

So give me one example of something that I said that will give you the impression that I don’t understand what I am talking about. Just one. I am BEGGING you to give me one. Show me. I’ve presented the ONTOLOGICAL argument. Everything that I said has been COMPLETLEY in line with modal logic. So you have no basis for calling me out for being ignorant of such matters. Give me an example, show me how I don’t know about the subject. I’ve started a whole thread on the subject and answered practically every objection that you people have thrown my way, including yours. The thread had dozens of pages of me responding to objections. You make it seem as if you are this “big tough intellectual guy” that has all the answers. Well, so far, I am not impressed at all.

You could have picked any single one of the important links I gave you on the kalam argument, but you ignored them all.

I can post links that are contrary to your links. That will get us nowhere (even though we are not getting anywhere regardless).

Your understanding of cosmology is simply wrong

All I said was the universe began to exist. That is supported by science and logical reasoning.

, as even in the standard model all that we have is a breakdown of all known physics after the big bang, and therefore there is no reason to assume your model of causation (which is 2500 years old and long out of date) has anything to it.

I’ve already explained why I believe what I believe. Attack what I specifically said instead of this generic stuff.

You talk about time but know nothing of minkowski geometry nor can you assert why your antiquated model of causation, which is rooted in time, should matter or hold when there is no time.

Apparently you are the one that isn’t reading what I post, because if you had, you would know that I do in fact explain my model of “causation”, in fact……me and sonofdad are having a discussion about this very topic right now…..not to mention the dozens of times I discussed it with others. So it would be nice if you knew your “facts”.

And so your counter-arguments have always been "that's absurd" (even when it's part of our reality, like infinities in quantum physics), or repeating the "argument" you treat as axiomatic.

Absurdities cannot happen in reality. Contradictions can’t happen in reality. Point blank, period.

It might help if you read them. Or understood your own arguments.

1. The kalam cosmological argument
2. The ontological argument
3. The argument from consciousness
4. The Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus

I understand all four of these arguments and I am willing to discuss any of these issues with ANYONE, whether by phone…text…video…in person….whatever. Try me

 

[adi2d]

Suppose my neighbor was Osama Bin Laden and God knew that as long as Bin Laden remained alive he would find a way to fly planes in to building. So God commanded me to kill my neighbor, would it be right to do so? Isn’t that a morally sufficient reason to kill my neighbor? Hmmmm. The point is, God would not order you to do anything that wasn’t for the best. Since I trust God, I have faith that if God ordered me to do such, he would have morally sufficient reasons for doing so.

So that is a yes then? You would kill your neighbor. Scary

The men who flew the planes into the towers believed God was telling them to do so.


Since you have no way of knowing who God is really talking to (if anyone) maybe we would be better off not listening to the voices in our heads

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Wait a minute, the kalam states that the universe began to exist. Open any textbook on cosmology and you will find it. So how is a baseless assertion when it is completely in line with contemporary cosmology?

Because there's a difference between "the beginning" of something as the big bang is referred to and the kind of "beginning" you are referring to. We currently have no reason to believe that the matter that comprised the big bang did not exist in some form prior to the big bang (if "prior to the big bang" is anything other than a contradiction in terms). Find me a single scientific textbook which clearly states - with evidence - that absolutely nothing could have possibly existed before the big bang.

If it is possibly necessarily true, then it is in fact true. I don’t know what part of that you people don’t understand. If it is possible for such a being to exist, then it must exist. The question is, is it possible? That is the bottom line.

This is called "defining something into existence". We understand it perfectly, it's just that it's a very poor argument based on supposition rather than evidence. We have no reason to believe a "maximally great being" exists or that such a being is necessary, or even if the "possibility" of it existing means it must exist. This is entirely based on assumptions.

The mind and brain is not the same thing, which I’ve already demonstrated.

So?

First off all the Gospels were written within 30 years after the death of Christ and some of Paul’s letters date to even earlier that.

Actually, the earliest gospels are currently estimated to have been written between around 50 AD at the very earliest and 110 AD at the latest (according to an NIV study Bible), and the earliest letter of Paul is estimated to have come from around 52 AD (according to the Anchor Bible series). None of these accounts are direct or contemporary.

Second, there are external sources outside the bible that suggests that Jesus lived, was crucified, buried, and three days later his tomb became empty. So you are absolutely wrong in both regards.

Where?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The rational explanation is based off the historical evidence.

Historical methods are intended to determine how likely a particular historical account is (be it of a person, a culture, an event, etc.), and in particular to present what the historian thinks is the most likely conclusion for any determination given the evidence.

Miracles, by definition, are as improbable as you can get.
So let's take a conservative scholar's evaluation of the reliability and nature of our sources (e.g., Richard Bauckham's).


Even a very high evaluation of the quality of our evidence, and even granting that we lack good explanations for why the followers of Jesus claimed he had risen from the dead than we have, we do know one thing: There are no historically possible explanations for what Jesus is said to have done, from turning water into wine to rising from the dead.

This means that however improbable a particular explanation of Jesus' resurrection is, even if it is that Jesus never existed, it is more probable than Jesus actually rising from the dead. Historical evidence is limited to applying what we know the way the universe works (e.g., the laws of physics, the psychology of human beings, the nature of religious movements, etc.) to the evidence we have, and deriving the best explanation.

The resurrection of Jesus violates everything we could apply to the evidence because it violates everything we know about how the universe works. Which means that as far as historical analysis is concerned, anything which is possible given the laws of physics is more probable than Jesus' resurrection.

The very fact that some of you people don’t seem to understand the concept of contingent truths and necessary truths

Philosophers developed notational schemata for mathematics (including logic) because of the lengthy explanations required to build an argument without rules of validity, logical operators, and notations for predicates/propositions. Moreover, by distilling an argument down to the logical structure, and stripping away anything other than the logic itself, it is far easier to spot problems. Which is why this:

The argument is as follows;...

is inadequate prima facie. It is not formal, but does rely upon technical terms which are not defined. For illustration, here is a scan I made of possible worlds notation:

And here is a proof about perfection and existence:

When you make arguments about necessity and possible worlds, you are appealing to formal logic and formal definitions with specific rules about validity and entailment. When you don't follow these, and don't understand them, it becomes impossible to explain why you are incorrect.

no one can traverse infinity

Again with the axioms. This can be done any number of ways. Take, for example, temperature. The kelvin scale was specifically constructed because it is absolute. Temperature relates to the motion of "particles" in e.g., boiling water, and equilibrium (how "heat" moves, say from boiling water to the pot one is using once you remove the heat source). The kelvin scale increases infinitely, but it has an absolute zero. Yet we have been able to create systems which go below that mark, and thereby go beyond the range of temperatures from 0 to infinity, and are hotter than any possible temperature (an infinite range).

The point of Zeno's paradox is that it should hold true for all motion (that is, it should be impossible for anybody to move). That's why it's a paradox. The way it is solved is by realizing a flaw in the logic: summing an infinite number of increments can result in a finite point.


Every minute, 60 seconds pass. Every second, a billion nanoseconds pass. We can keep going and going to infinity by infinitely reducing the intervals of time, yet somehow we always get to the next minute.

So give me one example of something that I said that will give you the impression that I don’t understand what I am talking about.

I like the Alvin Plantaga's version of it

Here's what Plantinga thinks of a better form of what you've shown:
"if it is even possible that God, so conceived, exists, then it is true that he does, and, indeed, necessarily true that he does. As it is stated, however, there is one fairly impressive flaw: even if an essence entailing is maximally great in W is exemplified, it does not so far follow that this essence entails is maximally great in α. For all we have shown so far, this being might be at a maximum in some world W, but be pretty insignificant in α, our world. So the argument does not show that there is a being that enjoys maximal greatness in fact; it shows at most that there is a being that in some world or other has maximal greatness" (from The Nature of Necessity).

Basically, you've convoluted the entire argument.

I’ve presented the ONTOLOGICAL argument

You haven't. You've presented one part of one version and it is logically flawed because you've conflated different proofs badly described and did not know that even Plantinga (The Nature of Necessity) agrees that this isn't a proof unless you accept the premises (of course, you didn't indicate these and I don't know if you realize what they are): "Hence our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion. But since it is rational to accept their central premiss, they do show that it is rational to accept that conclusion. And perhaps that is all that can be expected of any such argument."

He acknowledges that if you don't agree with the premises he and others have begun with, than the proof fails. But as you've never read Plantiga's books, you wouldn't know.

All I said was the universe began to exist. That is supported by science and logical reasoning.

"It is true that “if there was no first event, then there must have been an event prior to any given event”, but it is not true that there must have been an event prior to any given time...There can be infinite beginningless temporal regresses of sensible-thing efficient causes in history, even if there was a beginning to history in the sense of a time at and before which there were no sensible things and nothing happened. This makes some trouble for Craig’s basic kalam cosmological argument...A problem for this argument is that ‘the universe of sensible things’ could have begun to exist in the sense that there is time at and before which there were no sensible things and after which there were ‘fast-starting’ beginningless series of sensible-thing causes in which series each sensible thing begins to exist and is caused by a member of the series that began to exist earlier." p. 198 of Sobel's Logic and Theism

That's one logical objection. And as for the science, I've already quoted cosmologists and physicists who disagree with you, but you don't appear to really care about what the science says.

I do in fact explain my model of “causation”,

It's contradicted by empirical observation.

Absurdities cannot happen in reality.

How do you explain quantum entanglement, actual instantiations of Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment, or any number of ways in which "absurdities" like (A & not A) occur all the time in physics? You don't.

 

[PolyHedral]

How do you explain [...] actual instantiations of Wheeler's delayed-choice experiment, or any number of ways in which "absurdities" like (A & not A) occur all the time in physics? You don't.

By changing models.

 

[Skeptisch]

The men who flew the planes into the towers believed God was telling them to do so.
Since you have no way of knowing who God is really talking to (if anyone) maybe we would be better off not listening to the voices in our heads.

:yes: :liturgy:
God told me to invade Iraq, Bush tells Palestinian ministers.
BBC - Press Office - George Bush on Elusive Peace

 

[McBell]

I am saying God's commandments are a reflection of his holy character.

Nice dodge.

However, it does not answer the direct question you used it to dodge.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So that is a yes then? You would kill your neighbor. Scary

The scenario was if I knew that as long as my neighbor remained alive, he would be responsible for killing 3,000 people by flying planes through buildings. If you don’t see how that that killing would be justified, then nothing I say further will matter.

The men who flew the planes into the towers believed God was telling them to do so.

No, they believed that God approved their actions. Big difference.

Since you have no way of knowing who God is really talking to (if anyone) maybe we would be better off not listening to the voices in our heads

Assuming it is a voice. Supposed God appeared to me via burning bush?