You are continually referring to these Red Herrings such as muliverses (and nothing cannot produce anything. I have never argued for those things, so why do you do it?
And explain to me how you deduce that A is greater than B in the example I gave you?
There is no observation ever made, and no evidence ever observed where nothing existed and then something existed (much less without a cause). Call it what you wish. The point is there is no evidence it has occurred nor ever could. As I have said my boss did his dissertation in information theory. The fact that every known effect happens only when a change of information occurs is consistent with every observation and every theoretical construct that deals with reliable philosophy. Let's pretend that however does not mean it is true of things beyond nature. Why do I always have to pretend only when I am talking with a non-theist?
1. If anything exists beyond nature it is supernatural to begin with.
2. Even to be generous you are arguing from the greatest silence possible.
3. No evidence ever has or even theoretically will be available to evaluate an uncaused universe by.
4. Nothing never changes states of information because it contains none. There exists nothing to change state to get anything out of.
Call an uncaused universe whatever you wish and I will use that term. I am growing weary with the semantic off ramps.
Am I suspending cause without possible justification? Perhaps you should think about that for a moment. Cause and effect is the way we understand the world, of course it is, and without that feature the world would very quickly come to an end. And actually if the world comes to an end, as many scientists believe it will, then every feature of the world will be gone including the principle we know as cause and effect. That will leave nothing; which is exactly what scientists tell us existed before the Big Bang. So I think that is rather more theoretically possible than your arbitrarily proposing something in the nothingness that employed a contingent feature that was yet to exist and simply as a means to buttress a superstitious belief.
Cause and effect are evident in the world, they do not appear to be dependent on it.
So.
1. I have a theory or proposition that has no known exception.
2. You have one that has no known occurrence.
And it is your side who always insists faith is irrational. Truly amazing.
Hardly, given what Ive just explained above. And further more I believe-that it is possible; I dont believe-in it, whereas you wont allow anything to count against your belief-in faith. This is an important point. I can be wrong in all my speculations, and so I dont hold to any of them as an article of faith as you must.
You did not explain anything above. You said something I know most of science actually refutes and said some mythical scientists believe it. Where was the explanation, where was the evidence, where was anything at all beyond an unknowable assertion that contradicts every known relationship? You can't assert truth into existence any more than you can a universe.
We believe that Caesar was a human being who is supposed to have done such-and-such, and we believe, with good reason, that our family are real people that care for us, but you believe that a non-human, that you dont know for sure even exists, is to be thought of in the same way? I find the last aspect rather worrying for humanity in general, but Ill leave you with that.
There is far more textual evidence for Christ than Caesar and even what exists for Caesar is known to be in large part propaganda he himself wrote. That takes care of the historical existence of both and is exactly what I said it was. Jesus was no less human than anyone. He just had something else in addition. I do know for certain he exists even as a savior but even a majority NT scholars from all sides agree he was a historical figure. Simply on a historical basis I would place his existence as more certain than anyone in ancient history. There might be one or two with superior evidence but not many and none textually. My family did not die for me even if they would , they haven't. My God died for me when I hated him. I can't see how that is a problem. I think you keep forgetting that hundreds of millions of us have experienced him and for the first time in our lives knew what absolute peace and infinite love was.
"Why?" God doesnt exist other than as a concept, unless it can be shown otherwise.
Not to you. I did not mention the word concept in what you responded to. I occasionally do because that is all he is to non-believers and which concept is under discussion comes with the context where that concept is found. The point was that you use one set of methodology and another set for God and that indefensible.
You just say things without any structured argument or supporting premises. There is only one reality, even allowing for our far from complete knowledge of the world.
I can't think of too many things that are not composed of states and types. Plasma, solid, liquid and gas are all types of matter. In a debate a person occasionally must submit what can't be proven as a possible explanation for data. In this case I am distinguishing the supernatural (which is not governed by any natural laws we know of), from the natural. They together are types of reality. They are both theoretically real and not of the same type. Can we knock of having to define terms that are well understood every 5 minutes. You know exactly what I mean, but are for some reason equating the unproven with the undefinable. Why? When the source of the universe or cause and effects nature are discussed you are more than willing to operate in the arena where no evidence exists and much evidence contradicts. Why the double standards? Yet I never asked you to explain in detail what that beginning was or why cause and effect would cease with the universe.
Exactly! From the world of experience, and from which all your thoughts and ideas are compounded.
Which part was your idea of a universe that exists independent of cause come from? Which part of reality even remotely suggested cause and effect are dependent on nature? Do you not realize the double standards your using?
Im sorry but Im not sure that makes sense. Can you re-phrase it for me please?
I mangle language as much as anyone but that statement was IMO very well stated. I will try and make it clearer anyway. You can't use the probability of a natural event to calculate the probability of a natural event. At best you might be able to make some very specious claim about frequency over a given time but not the probability of any one act at any time. If I knew that wine was made by natural means 20 billion times I have not lowered or increased the probability it could not have been done by non-natural means. I have only indicated something about how often it is. Miracles are by their definition exceptions to rules.
And what evidence would that be then?
Not even the most committed atheist if honest could assign the Bible's testimony a zero probability of being true. So the only issue is the relative level of probability it is true. That would require a lot of time and a set of criteria but I think the fact it has some probabilistic level of truth. I can find studies of any type you wish to name if necessary, but it comes down to a personal estimation in the end.
With respect Im coming to despair of you ever giving me a proper argument. The above is just one such example. Im sorry but Im not finding your replies sufficiently challenging, pertinent or objective most of the time.
If the claim of a person known to be trustworthy does not carry weight in an argument with a person who trusts them then your dissatisfaction with my argument and pretty much every claim ever made says more about you than the argument. Basically I was saying that trustworthy testimony is about the most often used mechanism in history for evaluating claims, but as usual only concerning God is that a problem.
