INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[SkepticThinker]

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

Nope. I said this:

I guess the evidence I was asked to provide is just going to be ignored.

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.

Sorry, the current state of the science disagrees with you.

What is it that you think my claim is, exactly??

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.

You can quote all the opinions you like (I know you enjoy that kind of thing).

I'd rather see what science has been done and what results have been produced.

I have supplied:
1. Counter claims from reputable scholars that contradict yours.

And I gave you more than opinions, I gave you scientific results (that you apparently don't accept).

2. The actual representative examples that illustrate the overreach and hyperbolic estimations employed in those experiments.

Huh?
I have to ask you again, what is it that you think I’m claiming?

3. The actual reasons why they are not evidence.

They are evidence, no matter which way you look at them. Your dismissal of them (without even reading most of them) don’t constitute reasons why they aren’t evidence.

4. Analogies to indicate the disparity between what they actually did and what they extrapolate from it to explain.

Your analogies were inappropriate and inaccurate. I corrected them though.

5. I have provided the actual (apparently) brick walls that suggest the impossibility of what you claim.

All you did was speculate and give me some philosophical stuff.

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.

I don’t know how many times you can miss the point of this experiment, but here you go again. Not to mention the pile of others you dismissed without reading.

I’m not repeating myself anymore, I’m done with that.

That additional amino acids beyond what they claimed were produced.

There’s no pretending necessary.

 

[1robin]

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.

That was not a question and you know that very well. However as usual let's pretend it was a question. What did I say that justifies the questions sincerity.

I have already explained this in detail. I have a math degree. That includes some very rigorous physics. However none of that is really necessary. Teenagers scoff at many of the claims made by these deep enders of science. Exactly how much education does it take to understand Penrose's simplistic comments, Vilenkin's emphatic statements, or Lennox's base level comments on the philosophic incoherence of most of Hawkings latest book. That is what I like about these debates. Dawkin's rhetoric, Hawkings fantasies, and Harris's assumptions are completely unraveled by simplistic logic. Their claims are hidden in speculations and ambiguous technical language but do not survive a child's scrutiny. You do not have to have any scientific training to know Hawkings book is 1 part science, 49 parts speculation based on no evidence, and 50 parts incoherent attempts at philosophy.

You do not have to be smart to know:

Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

gravity - Stephen Hawking says universe can create itself from nothing, but how exactly? - Physics Stack Exchange

Is a pathetically stupid and incoherent statement.

Do you not know gravity is something? Is it not derivative and natural? Is that not circular reasoning?

I have experience in physics from the same school that helped more than any other putting a man on the moon. I live in the rocket city. None is needed. It was by attending lectures from some very immanent scientists at that university, that I first lost my mesmerization with theoretical science. Whatever I claim about science, I have no idea how to spell so ignore type Os.

 

[1robin]

Nope. I said this:

I guess the evidence I was asked to provide is just going to be ignored.

I am running out of time but you are correct here. My brain did not register the word "was" in your statement. My fault. Why was that statement made before the links to the evidence or did it refer to some other previous attempt at "evidence"? Either way this was my mistake. I will try and respond to the rest (if it is relatively free from insults) as soon as I can.

 

[cottage]

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?

I most certainly do not agree with (2) and your use of the term “best evidence” in respect of that assertion is nothing more than speculation.
I agree that heat death or the Big Freeze is possible, perhaps likely even, but I utterly reject your assertion that “in no case will it cease to exist altogether”, even though that state of affairs suits my own metaphysical argument for a renewed universe. You have no warrant for making such an absolute assertion about contingent matter as if it were a certain truth.

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’m sorry but it seems to me that anything you struggle with is to be dismissed as a “semantic technicality”. The argument I gave you was not a “semantic exercise” and nor was it about absolute certainty. As a matter of fact it was grounded in experience. Here it is again, see for yourself.


“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. In the former case denial involves a contradiction in experience; we simply have to accept that everything involves mutation, movement and change, and that is how cause and effect is explicable. In the case of the latter we first have to assume there is something that can be meaningfully called “beyond nature”, and that is something we can deny in general experience, and secondly if everything beyond nature is subject to cause and effect then God is subject to mutation, movement and change. The only way out of that impasse is to make a special plea and say it doesn’t apply to God. But in that case “Everything beyond nature is subject to cause and effect” is a false premise!”

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.
Continued:

Forgive me, but I really don’t need to be reading swathes of copy and paste; I’m entirely familiar with Craig’s arguments and have my own rebuttals, a couple of which I’ve used in my exchanges with you. Most of the stuff in there I’ve either already answered or they’re arguments to which I have no objections. So if you don’t mind I would rather have the discussion with you and not have it conducted through the verbatim writings of a third party.

 

[Ouroboros]

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

That's kind'a where I'm at. The world, itself, with us in it, including consciousness, and wut-ever... = God. The base of our existence.

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

That's my problem. I still consider myself an atheist.

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

Cultural indoctrination. That's the God-type most people talk about. Trying to convey the idea of a different definition of God gets confusing. Most people are stuck with the omni-xyz monotheistic trinity personal Biblical God that you can pray to and will answer "maybe", "no", or "later." (Not sure if "yes" is part of his/her/its vocabulary yet. )

 

[Ouroboros]

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.

Funny thing. All that we feel, see, smell, experience is very subjective and illusionary. Our mind/consciousness is just emergent from the natural, and ... well, kind'a illusionary then too. And now some physicists talk about that the world is nothing but a hologram, i.e. even matter is an illusion. So an illusion is having an illusion about the illusionary world? :areyoucra

 

[Sees]

Funny thing. All that we feel, see, smell, experience is very subjective and illusionary. Our mind/consciousness is just emergent from the natural, and ... well, kind'a illusionary then too. And now some physicists talk about that the world is nothing but a hologram, i.e. even matter is an illusion. So an illusion is having an illusion about the illusionary world?

Of course this is how everything truly is and it is in constant motion

 

[Ouroboros]

Of course this is how everything truly is and it is in constant motion

OMG! I can see a white rabbit in there!

(Dang. Now I want to watch that movie again. It's been a couple of years since last.)

 

[Sees]

OMG! I can see a white rabbit in there!

(Dang. Now I want to watch that movie again. It's been a couple of years since last.)

First one must meditate on "there is no spoon" for a day, then watch.

I have a book on philosophy and spirituality of the Matrix that came out a few years after the movie... It was very interesting to read. It's not like Jediism where they try to build off the movie's mythos but goes over interpretations of reality and how some wanted to say the Matrix was a Christian film, Buddhist, etc.

 

[Ouroboros]

First one must meditate on "there is no spoon" for a day, then watch.

I can accept there's no spoon. I can eat ice cream without it.

But I can't get through that there's no ice cream. Argh! Evil.

I have a book on philosophy and spirituality of the Matrix that came out a few years after the movie... It was very interesting to read. It's not like Jediism where they try to build off the movie's mythos but goes over interpretations of reality and how some wanted to say the Matrix was a Christian film, Buddhist, etc.

I remember going on a forum after the movie and all the talk. It was quite educational. Since a lot of religion have similar motifs and ideas, it's easy to identify different religions in it. I can totally see that.

 

[cottage]

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.

Quite! And a dogmatic belief that a supernatural being that sent his son, who was born of a virgin, to earth to die for our sins, and seeks a relationship with his own creation isn’t the “best fit, most explanatory and consistent with most of the evidence”! In fact the only evidence we have indicates that the world had a beginning.

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.

That is a ridiculous argument from authority. This school yard “My Dad is bigger than your Dad” stuff isn’t the proper way to carry on a debate. These third person allusions mean nothing. By all means refer to these learned men but present their arguments here, in your own words, so that I may have a chance to refute to 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.

That statement (1) is saying nothing at all. And in any case evidence from this world is not evidence for other worlds.

2. It is far more IMO (but at least equivalent) as speculative a conclusion as mine.

Let me remind you that you are not merely proposing a First Cause, or even a deist God, upon which we might find common ground; your argument is for a thinly-veiled dogma, the Biblical God and a world that is 6000 years old, created by a being that demands fealty from his creation yet seeks for it to worship and love him. I think your proposal is far more fanciful and speculative than 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).

To say causality doesn’t depend upon the universe is to imply that it exists as some kind of ethereal or necessary being in its own right. If that is the case then it is for you to show that it is the case instead of continually making unsupported assertions to that end. What general experience do you call upon to make your assertion or what demonstrative reasoning can you provide? None!

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.

You're not seeing the difference, which is that I don’t have a dogmatic position that I’m prepared to die in a ditch to defend. And nor was it a claim: I gave two opposing hypotheses.

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?

I’m trying to have a grown up debate with you but your default position is to keep pulling up the drawbridge and making pleas to authority. I’m sorry but it’s infantile.

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.

The essence of my argument is that the material world is finite i.e. it has not always existed and doesn’t have to exist at all. And since matter isn’t a logical absolute it may continue existing indefinitely or it may cease to exist altogether. If you remember I gave two hypotheses, both of which were grounded in the world’s finitude, one expounding the former possibility and the other the latter.

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).

Yes, in the physical world!

2. Cause and effect has no known dependence on the natural.

Cause and effect has no known existence beyond what is 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.

All the available evidence, to borrow your favourite term, says nothing existed before the Big Bang. No space and no time. And causality is contingent and by definition a time related phenomenon. Nothing happens simultaneously, B always follows from A, which precedes it in time. It is always A, then B. And therefore causality could not have pre-existed the Big Bang.

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.

Your argument is not sound. Your second premise is false since you are trying to say causality exists independent of the world, a statement that isn’t true. Cause and effect as only ever been observed in the material world, and being contingent it cannot be necessary. So your argument is refuted empirically and logically.

 

[Thief]

In fact the only evidence we have indicates that the world had a beginning.

So...can we say Soemone had to be First......in the beginning....


That is a ridiculous argument from authority. This school yard “My Dad is bigger than your Dad” stuff isn’t the proper way to carry on a debate. These third person allusions mean nothing. By all means refer to these learned men but present their arguments here, in your own words, so that I may have a chance to refute to them.

...and could we argue that Someone, in the scheme of superlatives would be Greatest of All?...hence the term Almighty.
That He might be a Father is out of the question?


That statement (1) is saying nothing at all. And in any case evidence from this world is not evidence for other worlds.

In lack of evidence can we speculate upon likelihood?


Let me remind you that you are not merely proposing a First Cause, or even a deist God, upon which we might find common ground; your argument is for a thinly-veiled dogma, the Biblical God and a world that is 6000 years old, created by a being that demands fealty from his creation yet seeks for it to worship and love him. I think your proposal is far more fanciful and speculative than mine!

If you choose to make denial of a Creator...okay...let me stand back and watch.


To say causality doesn’t depend upon the universe is to imply that it exists as some kind of ethereal or necessary being in its own right. If that is the case then it is for you to show that it is the case instead of continually making unsupported assertions to that end. What general experience do you call upon to make your assertion or what demonstrative reasoning can you provide? None!

How about cause and effect?....that simple axiom of science!




You're not seeing the difference, which is that I don’t have a dogmatic position that I’m prepared to die in a ditch to defend. And nor was it a claim: I gave two opposing hypotheses.

I have no dogmatic faith.....or perhaps you could point out such detail?...my way?


I’m trying to have a grown up debate with you but your default position is to keep pulling up the drawbridge and making pleas to authority. I’m sorry but it’s infantile.





The essence of my argument is that the material world is finite i.e. it has not always existed and doesn’t have to exist at all. And since matter isn’t a logical absolute it may continue existing indefinitely or it may cease to exist altogether. If you remember I gave two hypotheses, both of which were grounded in the world’s finitude, one expounding the former possibility and the other the latter.




Yes, in the physical world!




Cause and effect has no known existence beyond what is natural.


I think of God as natural.


All the available evidence, to borrow your favourite term, says nothing existed before the Big Bang. No space and no time. And causality is contingent and by definition a time related phenomenon. Nothing happens simultaneously, B always follows from A, which precedes it in time. It is always A, then B. And therefore causality could not have pre-existed the Big Bang.

For the singulairty to be truly singular....point 'b'...cannot be allowed.
At the formation of point 'b'....infinity would be simultaneous.


Your argument is not sound. Your second premise is false since you are trying to say causality exists independent of the world, a statement that isn’t true. Cause and effect as only ever been observed in the material world, and being contingent it cannot be necessary. So your argument is refuted empirically and logically.

Discounting all of spirit as non-existent?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

a dogmatic belief that a supernatural being that sent his son, who was born of a virgin, to earth to die for our sins, and seeks a relationship with his own creation isn’t the “best fit, most explanatory and consistent with most of the evidence”! In fact the only evidence we have indicates that the world had a beginning.

Not only is it not the best explanation, it is not ANY explanation at all. Consider the following argument-

"If propositions are answers to questions AND if explanations & justifications are propositional AND if "mysteries" beg questions instead of answering them AND if X is "the ultimate mystery" (i.e. theos), then X neither explains how things actually are nor justifies why things ought to happen one way or another; therefore X is both metaphysically & ethically vacuous (i.e. unintelligible)." ("180 Proof", Summa Atheologica)

 

[1robin]

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.

Repeating the far lesser adopted conclusion that it is a flawed argument makes that no truer by repeating either. The argument has survived for 3000 years based on merit and is still as much an obstacle for materialists as it ever was. That is why almost every theological/cosmology debate spends massive amounts of time discussing it. I can agree that it is a les than certain proposition. The claim it has any deductive flaws is a rational insanity hard to imagine. Much of my recent posts have been an illustration or an endeavor to either point out there exists no way to settle these issues that will convince either of us or an attempt to provide one. You appear to be using my claims for another purpose are evaluate them in another context.

 

[1robin]

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.

It is dishonorable to insist something is true and also refuse to bother providing evidence it is. It is also futile, trivial, and an anti-dated derailment. I have never claimed to be a mathematician (I do not even like doing it), a physicist, a psychologist, or even made a claim that insinuates or requires any one of those labels. This claim is a utter lie (and I do not throw that term around lightly).

 

[1robin]

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???




According to you.

Proof that some ambiguous "good ol boys" (whatever that means), constructed doctrine based on preference. All the evidence suggests the exact opposite conclusion.

 

[1robin]

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.

Because people who study that stuff for a living make a far far better case for it's inaccuracy than those that support them make.

When Penrose calls an assumed proposition not even a god excuse for not having a theory, it is pretty safe to believe something has gone very wrong. Their is too much at stake for these guys to make hyperbolic statements like that that have no foundation.


I have no idea how to make more reveling and obvious statements about the quality of arguments than I have. I even used scholars just as or more prestigious to indicate why they are so terrible. What more can be necessary to illustrate what I claimed.

I do want to clarify something I said:

I have more than enough education to know they have no idea what they are talking about.

That is far too general. I should have said. I have (but it does not require) more than enough education to know that many of their claims are absurdities. This is reinforced by the fact the most eminent scholars possible also say that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

That was not a question and you know that very well. However as usual let's pretend it was a question. What did I say that justifies the questions sincerity.
I have already explained this in detail. I have a math degree. That includes some very rigorous physics. However none of that is really necessary. Teenagers scoff at many of the claims made by these deep enders of science. Exactly how much education does it take to understand Penrose's simplistic comments, Vilenkin's emphatic statements, or Lennox's base level comments on the philosophic incoherence of most of Hawkings latest book. That is what I like about these debates. Dawkin's rhetoric, Hawkings fantasies, and Harris's assumptions are completely unraveled by simplistic logic. Their claims are hidden in speculations and ambiguous technical language but do not survive a child's scrutiny. You do not have to have any scientific training to know Hawkings book is 1 part science, 49 parts speculation based on no evidence, and 50 parts incoherent attempts at philosophy.
You do not have to be smart to know:
gravity - Stephen Hawking says universe can create itself from nothing, but how exactly? - Physics Stack Exchange
Is a pathetically stupid and incoherent statement.
Do you not know gravity is something? Is it not derivative and natural? Is that not circular reasoning?

Well, I’d say I’m smart enough to know that taking a single sentence from someone’s work isn’t going to give you much information about what they’re talking about.
But hey, if you want to pretend you're a physicist, go right ahead. It doesn't make you more knowledgeable about physics than people who spend their entire lives studying it. And next time we’re discussing law, you can tell us about all how you know more about law than lawyers. And next time we talk about psychology, you can tell me that you know more than psychologists and psychiatrists. That doesn’t make it so though.

I have experience in physics from the same school that helped more than any other putting a man on the moon. I live in the rocket city. None is needed. It was by attending lectures from some very immanent scientists at that university, that I first lost my mesmerization with theoretical science. Whatever I claim about science, I have no idea how to spell so ignore type Os.

Um, okay. So if I went to the same school as the guy who cured polio, does that make me just as educated in virology as a virologist?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is dishonorable to insist something is true and also refuse to bother providing evidence it is. It is also futile, trivial, and an anti-dated derailment. I have never claimed to be a mathematician (I do not even like doing it), a physicist, a psychologist, or even made a claim that insinuates or requires any one of those labels. This claim is a utter lie (and I do not throw that term around lightly).

I guess I have a better memory than you do.

 

[1robin]

I most certainly do not agree with (2) and your use of the term “best evidence” in respect of that assertion is nothing more than speculation.
I agree that heat death or the Big Freeze is possible, perhaps likely even, but I utterly reject your assertion that “in no case will it cease to exist altogether”, even though that state of affairs suits my own metaphysical argument for a renewed universe. You have no warrant for making such an absolute assertion about contingent matter as if it were a certain truth.

My statement is unaffected by your acceptance or denial of either contention. They are still the most likely probabilities known. I made my claims knowing which you would prefer but neither are consistent with ceasing to exist which is what I think you had claimed. A thing that ceases to exist does not suffer heat death. Only things that are have qualities or properties. The least likely future state is non-being of the contents of nature. I really can't believe you are claiming this.

By renewed are you suggesting. Oscillation, eternal recurrence, or cyclic models?

I’m sorry but it seems to me that anything you struggle with is to be dismissed as a “semantic technicality”. The argument I gave you was not a “semantic exercise” and nor was it about absolute certainty. As a matter of fact it was grounded in experience. Here it is again, see for yourself.

Arguments that rely completely on language use and not on extrapolation from actual existence are rhetorical IMO. I see very little value in them. Let me illustrate an example of that.

If I said a woman was hot, and then later said she was cool. A semantic objection would be to claim that two self contradictory claims to truth can't both be true. However in fact I meant two different things common in language use and both can be true at the same time.

That is an example of something that has no actual contradiction in reality being forced into a technical contradiction based on semantics. It is like trying to get a guilty person declared innocent based on a technical violation concerning procedure.

Now forget for a moment whether you agree with anything I said. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

“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. In the former case denial involves a contradiction in experience; we simply have to accept that everything involves mutation, movement and change, and that is how cause and effect is explicable. In the case of the latter we first have to assume there is something that can be meaningfully called “beyond nature”, and that is something we can deny in general experience, and secondly if everything beyond nature is subject to cause and effect then God is subject to mutation, movement and change. The only way out of that impasse is to make a special plea and say it doesn’t apply to God. But in that case “Everything beyond nature is subject to cause and effect” is a false premise!”

Let me try to step by step reflect what you have said here.

1. You and I both agree that cause and effect applies to all observations in the natural. Good start.
2. Ok next you claim no inference is meaningful beyond the natural because it negation does not involve a contradiction. I see the wheels are coming off. It is not the criteria of a meaningful claim that its negation produce a contradiction. That criteria might add to or detract from how strong the argumentation is not it's validity for inclusion.
3. To say the supernatural exists is a very (almost necessary) claim. You seem to dismiss this for reasons I can't get. If things are apprehended in the natural which have no origin, cause, or dependence on the natural ten the supernatural (or beyond the natural) realm becomes a virtual necessity. This would take so long to illustrate and evaluate it is self prohibitive, but for now I want you to at least understand what I claim in response to specific claims you make.
4. You said that cause and effects extrapolation to the supernatural would result in God's being subject to mutation, change, and movement. You are first going to have to illustrate why this is. How is God mutated by an outside force (like thermodynamics for example) if cause and effect apply to the supernatural? I just do not see what your saying. The existence of cause and effect does not establish a hierarchy of causal forces. For example time would not degrade or mutate God because cause and effect existed. There is not much use in my trying to guess what you meant. Lay it out and I will evaluate it.

Forgive me, but I really don’t need to be reading swathes of copy and paste; I’m entirely familiar with Craig’s arguments and have my own rebuttals, a couple of which I’ve used in my exchanges with you. Most of the stuff in there I’ve either already answered or they’re arguments to which I have no objections. So if you don’t mind I would rather have the discussion with you and not have it conducted through the verbatim writings of a third party.

[/QUOTE] My argumentation long ago changed criteria. I over time have confined my goals with satisfying myself that an argument was sufficiently stated. God only require that we present the truth as best we can determine it. I do what is necessary to satisfy myself, it is up to you what you do with it. Just to show you the ambiguity involved here. Another atheist has said I must supply more evidence and sources, that same person also gave me a weeks worth of reading in a torrent of links. You suggest you desire less to read. There is no norm here, there is no known limit or requirement. I do what satisfies my conscience, what is done with it is not my responsibility. When discussing things with me (as we have been doing page after page after page) you will from time to time get long winded responses, brief responses, and various length references. I can not keep up with everyone's desired amounts and types of material. The best way to deal with this impracticality is for you to read what you wish and not read what you wish. As long as you explain what was done by you there is no offense given and no complaint on my part possible. Do as you wish, just let me know what was done.