INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

Sure it does. Arguments from (a single) authority don't bolster your assertion.

1. My single source is a representative example.
2. The research paper he, Guth, and Borde worked on is the state of reliable cosmology today.
3. The BBT theory and all of it's adherents (which is pretty much everyone) are also sources (excepting the scientific fantasy guys).

If you want a list of top cosmologists that deny actual infinites or natural explanations for the universe I can supply it but I only gave one because no amount would make any difference with someone who is committed to a worldview that lacks evidence or even a reason to think possible.

The best conclusion consistent with almost all the evidence is that the universe began to exist a finite time ago and does not contain the explanation for it's existence. In fact not one atoms or natural entity contains an ultimate natural explanation for it's existence.

Just to be unique why don't you go with the best evidence and reliable science there is, instead of swan diving into fantasy land and calling it science.

 

[1robin]

Why would that even be necessary?

Because they were stated as claims to reliable knowledge. I can understand your reluctance to back up non-scientific claims 9and they all were) because they can't be.

Says who?

Says every piece of evidence ever observed. Supply a single example of an actual infinite or a natural explanation for bringing anything into being or abandon the claims to such.

 

[1robin]

Wow, so you're a physicist too??

Quote the statement where I claimed that.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Sure it does. Arguments from (a single) authority don't bolster your assertion.

Not to mention that he's completely misrepresenting that one authority in the first place, as has been covered ad naseum already, likely on this very thread- and the argument he's misrepresenting doesn't even get him to his desired conclusion anyways (i.e. that God exists).

 

[1robin]

You can’t be serious.

You asked for evidence for my claim that we know it’s possible that life could come from non-life.

That is not what you asked. You said you asked me for evidence and I ignored it.

At this point, I’m going to have to just call this for what it is: dishonesty. You can’t possibly read through all that scientific material and disagree with what I’ve said.

That is demonstrably false. I actually did exactly what you claimed I could not do. There was no evidence I have ever found in any link you have given plus the ones I have read on my own that was an example of evidence that life came from non-life. There was not even an experiment where anything I would not have granted as almost certain was created. Natural can create lower than equilibrium complexity, it can create on rare occasions a momentary slightly higher than equilibrium complexity. It has never been shown to produce complexity even remotely as complex life. You are giving me evidence a turtle can reach .1 mile per hour which I would have granted up-front. Then your using fantasy to claim it can go Mach 50. Science has been wrong vastly more times than right. Every one of your claims comes front he most unreliable end of the scientific spectrums that exist. Teams of people and millions are spent on what I work on. I have 11 or 12 failures out of 12 instruments currently. That is science that has been worked on since the 60's and can be tested. You actually expect me to believe that people who can't produce anything remotely close to life on purpose know it arose by chance billions of years ago? This is just plain weird and most of it does not even match the criteria for science to begin with.

Every little bit of information gleaned from those studies gets us closer to understanding how our world operates, which is how we usually learn things, by incremental steps. If you are assuming that Miller and Urey expected life to just spring out of inorganic matter (or that that should have happened) then you’d be wrong. The Miller-Urey experiments showed us that show that common organic molecules can be synthesized from common inorganic materials, which is HUGE! And yet you brush it off like it was a waste of time or something. Not to mention the fact that the experiment was recently revisited and the results turned out to be even more promising than in the original experiment. The evidence that’s been gathered to date hasn’t contradicted their findings either, it’s only bolstered them. So excuse me I wonder what you’re talking about.

Every single experiment has shown what I would have and have granted nature can do on it's own. Produce very low complexity. Life is complexity on levels that are astronomical in comparison. You can't produce sand and iron in nature and claim that proves the Taj Mahal arose on it's own. I can post just as many articles from reputable scientists that claim there exists no reason to make that outrageous extrapolation and more reason to think life could not have arisen on it's own, and they would be based on far more reliable data and logic.

I have supplied:
1. Counter claims from reputable scholars that contradict yours.
2. The actual representative examples that illustrate the overreach and hyperbolic estimations employed in those experiments.
3. The actual reasons why they are not evidence.
4. Analogies to indicate the disparity between what they actually did and what they extrapolate from it to explain.
5. I have provided the actual (apparently) brick walls that suggest the impossibility of what you claim.

I am unsure how I have not met the burden my claims require and then some.

And no, such studies would not prove that life has to be created by intelligence because the scientists are recreating natural environments that could have been present early in the earth’s history, so you can throw that old apologetics line out the window already.

Using Miller Urey as an example they did no such thing. The parameters they used first are now thought to be absolutely wrong, second they were tweaked for optimality after they had failed, third they were designed to lessen the caustic effects of the known to be rich oxygen levels of early earth. They cheated by every definition of the word. I have seen similar examples of this in other experiments but do not claim it occurs in them all. Yes intelligence was required for the experiment, no they cannot possibly duplicate nature as it existed without it.

What are we pretending they know is true??

That additional amino acids beyond what they claimed were produced.


Continued:

 

[1robin]

Amino acids (the building blocks of life) are organic molecules. They were produced from inorganic compounds. Hello?!

Sand and iron are the building blocks of the empire state building. Nature can and I would have expected produced both but the building did not arise on it's own. How many times and how many analogies are required to illustrate this? I will give you another from the great scholar A. E. Wilder about complexity. If You tore up a billion piece jig saw puzzle and put it in a tumbler. You would expect that by chance a few pieces would fit together. You would never expect the puzzle to assemble completely or beyond 2 or 3 pieces at a time. There is a reason for this. The chances a piece that does fit right would come apart are astronomically greater than that it would stay together until all the pieces fit together correctly. This gets very very complex but that is a basis for thermodynamics, complexity and equilibrium, monkeys and Shakespeare being a stupid anology, etc... What these scientists are ALL doing is getting a piece or two together and using the most hypothetical and extremely optimistic speculation to claim it proves they all can self assemble.

Change your analogy to: We didn’t just go to the moon, we went several miles beyond it. Therefore we can’t rule out the prospect that manned space travel is an actual possibility now. Now it’s more accurate. You want us to just assume that life occurring naturally is impossible; well it certainly isn’t now that a great deal of evidence exists that counters that assumption.

That analogy would cease to represent the disparity in what is done and what is claimed. I am not claiming it was impossible. I am claiming there are very very good reasons to think it probably is. That is why abiogenesis is considered or is a law without known exception accepted as a rule by geneticists, etc...

And since we’re pretending things, are we also pretending you can back up your last sentence?

Wow. That statement is as factual as any statement could possibly be. I know of no one that would deny it. They only claim it occurred anyway.

And they’ve been rejected by numerous people with numerous valid reasons.

Everything, no matter how certain has critics. However it is a virtual consensus that life requires probabilities that defy comprehension.
The very first necessity is existence come from non-existence from a natural cause. That probability according to everything known is zero. Get past that one and we will get to the next. Get past the next few million and we may be at the point where probabilities associated with life are relevant.

Let’s stick to the evidence that you requested, that I’ve provided for.

I did not ask for evidence very low complexity can be created by nature and then fantasy can be applied to it. I want evidence life arose on it's own.

You didn’t actually say that with a straight face, did you? Are you forgetting your multiple posts with multiple swaths of sources cut and paste from websites? (Most of them didn’t even work!)

I meant to and thought I had, mentioned that there are two exceptions to what I stated. My stats on secular morality, and what you mentioned. My other 6000 posts gave limited sources. BTW your the one who said my sources were to few. Which is it? It also was only one source that only it's link did not work. I also offered to supply additional sources for any one that found one that did not work. No one took me up on it.

I actually did some real research, verified and read the sources I provided and then cited them in a way that you could actually look at them, and you’re going to say this to me? Please.

Say what. You posted too much material of exactly the same type for me time to make reading practical? That is the most innocuous and true statement possible.

Which link?

The one that lead to a PDF. It crashed my computer once and would not print for a half hour but I managed to read it all. I believe it was this one. Generic Darwinian selecti... [Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2007] - PubMed - NCBI

And I’m sick of dishonesty and obfuscation. You’re going to render them irrelevant beforehand? Okay, then you’re claiming willful ignorance and our conversation is over, because I’m not interested in talking with someone who has purposely put blinders on.

They rendered themselves irrelevant beforehand. Nothing in existence makes abiogenesis any less valid. It does not take dishonesty (which by the way requires access to information about motivation which you do not have) to illustrate that.

So what?

Chicken butt.

Why must I do that? What does it have to do with my claim?

Are you suggesting your claims are not absolutely dependent on what I asked you to demonstrate? Nature is kind of necessary for it to produce life would not you think?

The rest of this is just more dishonesty.

I have no interest in your baseless get out of jail free claims.

Not the primary resource (also it’s been confirmed, replicated and improved upon), but see above.

What does that mean? That experiment was bogus and it did not produce anything even remotely close to life.

The only way you can really say such a thing with any honesty is to completely ignore the links I provided.

I have no interest in your critiques about what you can't know about my motivations. If your so sick then do not reply to me. I am sick of your accusations.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I have never tested this out before but what would occur if god was actually material existence alone. Pantheism in short.

How could an atheist deny that god without resorting to semantic arguments.

Animism and pantheism occurred long before the monotheisms we have now so why is it that spiritual monotheistic deities are exclusively argued against?

 

[Sees]

I have never tested this out before but what would occur if god was actually material existence alone. Pantheism in short.

How could an atheist deny that god without resorting to semantic arguments.

Animism and pantheism occurred long before the monotheisms we have now so why is it that spiritual monotheistic deities are exclusively argued against?

If we decide to call all that exist God, nobody can argue nothing exist... Only that details are not quite what we perceive and that everything is transitory. But people will still have a problem with it by saying it is just word play or that it is elegant materialism in disguise.

 

[1robin]

Not to mention that he's completely misrepresenting that one authority in the first place, as has been covered ad naseum already, likely on this very thread- and the argument he's misrepresenting doesn't even get him to his desired conclusion anyways (i.e. that God exists).

That surely is convenient. All the evidence points to a finite universe could not possibly mean that all evidence points to a finite universe. Great argument. I have shown over and over and over that is exactly what he meant. He did so himself in the most emphatic terms by showing all the most popular alternative fantasies to what he claimed are not just wrong, they can't possibly be right. If you can claim he meant exactly the opposite of what he said then I claim you meant exactly the opposite of what you said and are in perfect agreement with my claims. That is certainly a handy tactic.

He meant the universe and all the evidence within it points to a finite existence in the past. The end.

This reminds me of that black knight argument. "Your arms off", "no it isn't", "well what is that then", "it's only a flesh wound". It may work as satire. It is simply sad as argumentation.

 

[1robin]

I have never tested this out before but what would occur if god was actually material existence alone. Pantheism in short.

How could an atheist deny that god without resorting to semantic arguments.

Animism and pantheism occurred long before the monotheisms we have now so why is it that spiritual monotheistic deities are exclusively argued against?

God as a concept is a disembodied mind. Hypothetical God's that are material are not God as defined by the Bible, the Quran, or philosophy.

 

[1robin]

Quantum fluctuations are God?

Quantum fluctuations have God as the best explanation for their existence but in what way are they God?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You are making a career out of claiming what you can't possibly know. You have no idea what level of education I have in any field. I have read far more than ten books on theoretical science. I have been to far more than ten academic discussion given by actual Phd's given at my and other universities. I have read transcripts of professional debates on the best theoretical science that exists. So much for my lack of knowledge.

Anyone can say this on the internet. Anyone can say anything on the internet.
Rather than patting yourself on the back about how educated and smart you think you are, you could just demonstrate it with educated and intelligent argumentation, and that should speak for itself.

Just sayin ...

 

[1robin]

“He and I say the universe began to exist and one of two things will occur in the future. It will never end in either of them.”

I had answered this, but before I could post it my mouse locked up and I had to restart my computer. I will be far more brief by virtue of laziness in this repost.

I misunderstood what you meant by end. These are my official claims.

The universe will end (as we know it) in one of two ways according to the best evidence available.

1. It will die a heat death. All energy and mass will be evenly dispersed through a finite amount of space that will continue to increase but always remain finite. It will always exist but in an unrecognizable form.
2. The decay of the universe will be suspended by God and perfectly maintained according to revelations.

In no case will it cease to exist all together.

Do you disagree with both statements?

But now I’ll show why your inference to God is false. Consider the following statement: Everything in nature is subject to cause and effect. That is an inferential argument that nobody can deny. But now consider this: Everything beyond nature is subject to cause and effect

You have set up an entirely semantic technicality argument that basically means that anything less than absolute certainty is invalid. This as usual disqualifies your statement. These entirely semantic exercises only show a lack of infinite descriptive capacity in human language not a false dichotomy in reason.

I found some statements by Craig that circumvent these semantic objections that I will use. However the argument is not Craig's. It has existed and has been valid since the Greeks. Craig just sidestepped these theoretical language loopholes used as parachutes or crutches.

1. The existence of contingent beings.
The deepest question of philosophy is, “Why do contingent beings exist at all?” By a contingent being I mean a being which exists but which might not have existed. Examples? Mountains, planets, galaxies, you, and me. Such things might not have existed. By contrast, a necessary being is a being which exists by a necessity of its own nature. Its non-existence is impossible. Examples? Many mathematicians believe that numbers and other abstract objects exist in this way. If such entities exist, they just exist necessarily.

Now experience teaches that everything that exists has an explanation of its existence: either in its own nature, if it exists necessarily, or in an external cause, if it exists contingently. So what about the universe, where by “the universe” I mean all of spacetime reality, not just our observable portion of it? What is the explanation of its existence? Well, since the universe is contingent in its existence, the explanation of the universe must be found in an external cause which exists beyond time and space by a necessity of its own nature.
Now what could that be? There are only two kinds of things that could fit that description: either abstract objects, like numbers, or God. But abstract objects don’t stand in causal relations. The number 7, for example, has no effect upon anything. Therefore, it follows that the most plausible explanation of the universe is God. Hence, the existence of contingent beings makes God’s existence more probable than it would have been without them.

Although I’ve presented this reasoning inductively, we can also put it in the form of a deductive argument: Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in its own nature or in an external cause).

The universe exists. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is not natural. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is non-natural.

2. The origin of the universe.

My first argument is consistent with the assumption that the universe is beginningless, or eternal in the past. But is it? There are good reasons, both philosophically and scientifically, to doubt that the universe is beginningless. Philosophically, the idea of an eternal past seems absurd. Just think about it! If the universe never had a beginning, that means that the series of past events goes back to infinity, that the number of events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can’t go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist.

This philosophical conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. We now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning a finite time ago. In 2003 Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. What makes their proof so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe. Because we can’t yet provide a physical description of the first split-second of the universe, this brief moment has been fertile ground for speculations. But the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that the quantum vacuum state out of which our universe may have evolved—which some scientific popularizations have misleadingly and inaccurately referred to as “nothing”—cannot be eternal in the past but must have had a beginning. Even if our universe is just a tiny part of a much grander “multiverse” composed of many universes, their theorem requires that the multiverse itself must have a beginning.
Speculative theories, such as Pre-Big Bang Inflationary scenarios, have been crafted to try to avoid this absolute beginning. But none of these theories has succeeded in restoring an eternal past. At most they just push the beginning back a step. But then the question inevitable arises: Why did the universe come into being? What brought the vacuum state into existence?
Well, unless you’re willing to say the universe just popped into being uncaused out of absolute non-being, there must be a transcendent cause beyond space and time which created the universe. Clearly, then, God’s existence is more probable given the beginning of the universe than it would have been without it.

We can also formulate this reasoning in the form of a deductive argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
From which it follows logically that
Therefore, the universe has a cause
Again, as we have seen, the best candidate for such a transcendent cause is God.
3. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
In recent decades scientists have been stunned by the discovery that the initial conditions of our universe were fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent agents with a precision and delicacy that literally defy human comprehension. This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are given mathematical expression, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the gravitational constant. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. Second, in addition to these constants there are certain arbitrary quantities which are just put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy in the very early universe.
Now all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by even a hair’s breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed and life would not exist. We now know that life-prohibiting universes are incomprehensibly more probable than any life-permitting universe.
Now there are three possible explanations of this extraordinary fine-tuning: physical necessity, chance, or design.
Now it can’t be due to physical necessity because, as I’ve said, the constants and quantities are independent of the laws of nature.
So maybe the fine-tuning is due to chance. After all, highly improbable events happen every day! But what serves to distinguish purely chance events from design is not simply high improbability but also the presence of an independently given pattern to which the event conforms. For example, in the movie Contact scientists are able to distinguish a signal from outer space from random noise, not simply due to its improbability but because of its conforming to the pattern of the prime numbers. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent agents exhibits just that combination of incomprehensible improbability and an independently given pattern that are the earmarks of design.
So, again, God’s existence is clearly more probable given the fine-tuning of the universe than it would have been without it.
We can also formulate this reasoning into a simple deductive argument:
1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to either physical necessity or chance.
From which it follows logically:
3. Therefore, it is due to design.
Thus, the fine-tuning of the universe implies the existence of a Designer of the cosmos.
Read more: The Craig - Krauss Debate at North Carolina State University | Reasonable Faith

Continued:

 

[1robin]

Anyone can say this on the internet. Anyone can say anything on the internet.
Rather than patting yourself on the back about how educated and smart you think you are, you could just demonstrate it with educated and intelligent argumentation, and that should speak for itself.

Just sayin ...

Quote any statement I made that is a bragging or arrogant claim about how smart I am. I am sick of these personal retorts that have no basis in reality. You are going to have to start justifying them or I will simply delete them or ignore a post if it contains to many of them. I do not have time for this.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Craig is not he source. That argument goes back to Socrates at least. It has been tweaked along the way but adopted by many of histories greatest thinkers. It is still a valid concept among cosmologists and philosophers today. No one has ever done the slightest thing to dent it's logical coherence. It may not ultimately be true but it has no flaw in it's reasoning. BTW discrediting a source and therefor an argument is a genetic fallacy, especially when your source is incorrect. I also never use the hotel paradox in any argument. I have never liked it nor thought it productive.

That's funny.

Many people don't actually consider it a valid concept, and many people don't think it's logically coherent. All of which has been pointed out to you so many times I've lost count now.

Repeating it doesn't make it any more true this time than last time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Quote any statement I made that is a bragging or arrogant claim about how smart I am. I am sick of these personal retorts that have no basis in reality. You are going to have to start justifying them or I will simply delete them or ignore a post if it contains to many of them. I do not have time for this.

I'm sorry and I don't really want to derail the thread into this, but you do it CONSTANTLY.

One week you're a mathematician, the next day you're a psychologist, the next week you're more educated than physicists, you've seen every debate every recorded, etc., etc. It's not really a good arguing strategy - I'm just trying to help you out here.

But carry on if you like. Just sayin.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because they were stated as claims to reliable knowledge. I can understand your reluctance to back up non-scientific claims 9and they all were) because they can't be.

This is what was said:

It is a large leap from that point all the way to the highly personal, humanistic deities of common thought which tend to be a reflection of how the good old boys of a certain time and culture see/want things.

What evidence is required to back up that sentence???

Says every piece of evidence ever observed. Supply a single example of an actual infinite or a natural explanation for bringing anything into being or abandon the claims to such.

According to you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Quote the statement where I claimed that.

Do you know what a question mark means?

Here's what you said:

That is what experts in the far more reliable ends of science claim. Penrose for example said Haking's M-theory is not even a good excuse for not having a theory.

I have more than enough education to know they have no idea what they are talking about. They never have to produce anything that works, and nothing is actually falsifiable so it is not even science. It contradicts evidence, many times is based on nothing what so ever, and posits things that are most likely impossible.

Hence my question.

I'm wondering why you think you know better than the people who actually study this stuff for a living.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Not to mention that he's completely misrepresenting that one authority in the first place, as has been covered ad naseum already, likely on this very thread- and the argument he's misrepresenting doesn't even get him to his desired conclusion anyways (i.e. that God exists).

Well yeah, that too.

 

[1robin]

Now a word about these so-called double standards that you constantly refer to: Anything is logically possible including “God” as a supernatural cause of the world, providing there are no contradictions. And it isn’t a matter of “double standards” where a logically sound argument, that is to say without contradiction, can demonstrate an alternative to what is asserted, whether physics based, metaphysical or even a competing supernatural hypothesis. We don’t know the nature of the world or how or why it came about; so in order for one hypothesis to be convincing to the point where rejection is impossible then there must be no other logically possible hypothesis that presents an opposing view. And since we cannot explain the world directly from experience it all comes down to what is theoretically or logically possible. In other words the sceptic meets the theist on his or her own terms – and I do so myself (See my metaphysical argument in the thread “Why does God have to be perfect”). But if the opposing hypothesis is non-contradictory, while the God hypothesis is (and it is on several counts) then it fails as an explanation for the world. And the conclusion must follow just as it would on the contrary, if it were the other way about.

The criteria for what makes a meaningful argument is quite a bit more demanding than it simply not be self contradictory. There are countless things that are not self contradictory that are perfectly absurd arguments. I made no claims concerning rejection being impossible. Unfortunately any length will be appealed to in order to maintain the possibility of rejection. My claims concern best fits, most explanatory, and most consistent with most of the evidence, etc.. They have nothing to do with an inability to reject them.

People that serve on college boards and teach the philosophical technicalities you refer to posit God as a first cause concept. Scholars far more familiar with these concepts than 99.99% of us have done so as well for thousands of years. I have to believe they would have been aware of any philosophical fouls committed.

I try and steer clear from arguments that chiefly concern language parameters as have been arbitrarily established. I do not like arguments from contingency and necessity when used by scholars on my side for God, much less by your side. I tend to confine my self to things that can be reliably or reasonable be extrapolated from reason.

I have no idea what his has to do with my double standards claim.

Let me restate one of them.

You claimed to be able to reasonably state the ultimate end (though I still can not believe you mean non-existence, though that is all that is left) of the universe. You cannot do so and deny the validity of extrapolating from the universe things probably true about it's cause for several reasons.

1. Your conclusion is contrary to all the evidence known.
2. It is far more IMO (but at least equivalent) as speculative a conclusion as mine.
3. The cause of the universe (or cause and effect) has no dependence on the universe. There exists no reasons to suspect it does not apply for the universes cause. BTW I do not (at this time) know of any reasons cause and effect would not apply to the supernatural as well).
4. You do not have any cause or reason to claim the universe will end at all. There is nothing to extrapolate from or to for your claim.

The emboldened sentence is self-contradictory. (!)
And we are not talking about theoretical science at ground we are talking about a supernatural being that supposedly that seeks a relationship with its creation. That is the point in dispute.

There was a misunderstanding in the issue generally concerning what you are claiming but I see no contradiction or even potential for it in that bolded statement. neither do Christians who are professors of the rules behind contradiction. I think I can agree with your later statement but have no idea what is has to do with the former.

Yes, that’s quite true in the sense that Almighty God is the All-sufficient Supreme Being, the creator and sustainer of all things and the ens realissimum - and yet bizarrely there can be no absolute proof! But non-believers see no reason to think there is any such being and so we settle for a much lower standard, which is that the claim must be factually true in general experience and not logically contradictory. But even that standard isn’t met!

This much relied upon supposed contradiction is more illusive than bigfoot or a liberal who lowers taxes. I have considered the possibility that I am simply not capable of seeing what you mean. I have there for considered what men who are experts in contradiction, theology, and philosophy have thought. There are many of histories best in every field I have mentioned that claim there is no contradiction where you claim there is. On what basis am I to believe you are right and Aquinas or Plantinga (for example) is wrong?

You are misrepresenting what I said. In no argument or statement of mine has it ever been stated that the world must end.

You comments concerning an end of the universe have confused me from the start. Please state what it is you are claiming about an end and the universe's future. I apologize if I have misunderstood you but it would have been very easy for anyone to have done so.

An inferential argument may be valid but that is not to say it is sound. I gave an example further up the page.

Let me get a specific example of this.

1. Everything known is consistent with cause and effect on every level including the Quantum (where things do begin to exist, but have causes).
2. Cause and effect has no known dependence on the natural.

I submit cause and effect is a valid extrapolation for the dynamics that resulted in the existence of a universe where before nothing natural existed.

What exactly (outside of an exercise in rhetoric) is unsound here? I admit it is not an absolute certainty but claim it is a very sound reasoning.