The battle of evolution vs creationism

[Simurgh]

Yes, its all a big conspiracy- aliens planted evidence of evolution, with assistance from the CIA, the mafia, and underpants gnomes. Derp.

I don't know about yours, but my underpants gnome is a sneaky little bugger.

They also steal socks from the laundry machine.

Oh, I am so glad this is happening to other people too. For a while there I thought I was the only one with those problems.

So, when the gnome shows up and the sock pixie does her thing, is that before or after the aliens beam you to the mothership? I have just returned and don't you know, i just had another one of those annoying probes done (you know where), and half my socks are missing...i will not tell you what happened to my underwear...very disturbing.

Anyhow, getting back to the young earth issue, can I do that same denial and wishful thinking thing with my age? I mean, i'm not really a fossil yet, but i'm getting there and i would like to be a bit more with it...you know what i mean?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Dude...the empirical world began to exist, and a external cause is absolutely NECESSARY. Not only is it possible for a MGB to exist, but it is absoutely NECESSARY for a MGB to exist...based on the fact that the only other alternative is completely absurd (infinite regression).

This does not make it a tautology, which means it is not a necessary truth. It's negation is not self-contradictory. That's pretty much the end of the story- necessary truths are logical truths, which are all tautologies (either it will rain or it will not rain, A=A, etc.)

Until then, you have no argument, nor do you offer a defeater of the argument.

This is essentially equivalent to this-
:ignore:

You can close your eyes, but it doesn't make the world go away. It just makes it so you can't see it.

 

[cottage]

Well, what I previously said still stands; If you can think of an omnipresent being to not be present, then you are not really thinking about an omnipresent being, you are thinking about a contingent being that could/could not exist. An omnipresent being, by definition, cannot fail to be present, so if you can can conceive of a being whose presence is not felt, then you are not thinking of an omnipresent being.

What I’m saying is not only will it always be possible to conceive the non-existence of any Being, but also there is no Being that imposes itself on my mind. And you can include as many attributes in that conception that you can think of including omnipresence, and with no contradiction. And that’s because the Being exists necessarily only within the prescribed boundaries of a tautological proposition. The existence of a Maximally Great and absolutely necessary being, the Creator and sustainer of all things, and reality itself, would be more certain even than we are of our own existence. And yet it isn’t, for if it were it would not be possible to think what cannot be thought or deny what would be always in our minds.

But those are two different things. First off, for a being to be "present" everywhere today, but not tomorrow is illogical, because you cannot get to a point of ominipresence based on contingent conditions.

So when you say "...a thing might be present everywhere today, but not tomorrow", you are implying that this thing REACHED a point of omnipresence. But how can you reach a point of omnipresence if you are contingent? What pre-conditional chain lead up to this attribute of omnipresence? And not only that, how can you lose the attribute of omnipresence? Unless these attributes are part of this things NECESSARY existence, the attribute can never be gained, and if it can't be gained, it can't be lose. (Unless of course a MGB would grant a contingent being the attribute, perhaps).

I’m sorry but I’m not sure I understand any of that. I think perhaps we’ve digressed and wandered away from the point of the overall discussion?

Umm, cot, an infinite chain of past events leading to the present event is an impossibility, and impossibilities do not "come to past". This fact can be proven philosophically and scientifically....unless you can enlighten me how an infinite chain of past events can lead to this present moment...and I don't think you can, and if you are going to argue against the existence of God, then you must believe in infinite regression, which is believing in impossibilities. So it is based on this impossibility that we can conclude that a First Cause is necessary.

Now you may not like the conclusion, but based on the law of excluded middle, if one possibility is negated, the other alternative wins by default.

Well, I think you must be confusing me with somebody else, because I’m in full agreement that infinities are impossible or incoherent. See my argument below.
But in any case, isn't the MOA supposed to be a stand alone argument? For if it is certain and true then every other argument is at best superfluous, and at worst contradictory for any inductive arguments can be true or false.

I am still trying to figure out how is Cyclops and Pegasus necessary in their existence. That hasn't been explained to me yet.

Now you’re asking a different question! You originally stated that “all possibly necessary truths must exist in reality,” which is false. Pegasus cannot be wingless and Cyclops cannot be bifocal, just as a triangle cannot have fewer or more than three sides, and 2 + 4 cannot be the equal of 6. So they are all true by definition. And as with all tautologies they are merely propositions that agree with themselves, but they do not imply existence. And the MOA is not in the least different in that respect.

I don't get it.

I’ll put it again for you this time more explicitly:

Everything in nature is subject to cause and effect, which requires movement and change since one thing acting in relation to another in time is the definition of causality. So if causality transcends nature then it must involve movement and change. But there was no time before the Big Bang and therefore causality could not pre-exist the beginning of the universe, and so cause and effect, which acts in relation to time as mutation and movement, is only coherent after the universe is begun. Thus if God is the cause of nature then he is subject to movement and change, which contradicts the notion of a timeless, immutable, unmoved mover; and on that account God is in want of a cause.

But that isn't the point. The point is whether or not the proposition is true or false, and in the case of necessary existence, if it is possible for a proposition to be true, it must be true. Proposition X cannot be both possibily necessarily true, but actually false at the same time. If it is false, then it isn't even POSSIBLE for it to be true. If a proposition is possibly necessarily true, then it follows that this proposition must be necessarily false.

It isn’t possible for the opening premise to be true because there is no omnibenevolent Being, and the fifth premise isn’t true because there is no Being in reality. I gave you an argument to demonstrate that last point and you said ‘Premise 1 is definitely false.’ I’m still waiting for you to explain why it is false.

It is; once it is realized that the existence of a necessary being COULD be true.

But what ‘Christians believe’ isn’t necessarily true, since ‘Jesus did not rise from the dead’ is not contradictory.

 

[cottage]

Fine. So then you believe that the natural world exist necessarily, right?

If you mean the material world, then no, I don’t.

Right!! So you have a standard of mercy that apparently God doesn't ahere to. So you've just argued against me phrasing it "standards of goodness" and replaced it with your own standard, which is a "standard of mercy". So in order to claim that God is not merciful, you have to hold to a standard of what YOU believe to be merciful. So why is your standard of mercy better than God's?

There are no standards of all mercifulness. 'All merciful' is an absolute term and it means there can be no greater mercy than to prevent or make impossible all suffering.

So based on your logic, when people go to prison after being convicted of a crime, and they suffer because of it.....do you honestly feel as if the judge or jury are immoral for putting prisons in a place where they will suffer...or did the judge or jury have MORALLY SUFFICIENT REASONS for putting prisoners in prison, where they will suffer?

Suppose all of this "suffering" that you are talking about is a result of God's judgement?? Did you ever think of that? Suppose God allowed people to suffer as a way to strengthen their faith. There are many people that can testify that they become closer to God as a result of their suffering.

I’m very surprised that you can’t see the pit you’ve dug for yourself and fallen into here. If someone goes to prison for a crime then it is because an individual or society suffered as the result of the person’s crime. So it was a case of suffering that made it necessary to see that the criminal suffered. Your argument incoherently requires suffering in order to justify suffering. And are you really saying that God allows suffering as a means to increase their faith in him? Well, then, I rather think that’s made my argument for me!

I don't see how this is a defeater of the argument.

Then let me put it more graphically. The argument sets itself up to fail because there is a possible world where no such being necessarily exists and is ever-present, and that is the world of experience, and a part of reality, which being contingent can be conceived to be non-existent without involving any contradiction. And as there is no contradiction in denying any necessary existence in experience, experience being part of reality, there is therefore no necessary being existent in reality.

 

[McBell]

Dude...the empirical world began to exist, and a external cause is absolutely NECESSARY. Not only is it possible for a MGB to exist, but it is absoutely NECESSARY for a MGB to exist...based on the fact that the only other alternative is completely absurd (infinite regression).

You keep repeating this completely empty claim as though it were fact.

How about you actually support this claim?

No escape. I can care less about tautologies and all of that other stuff.

Blatant lie.
You rely upon the word games to dismiss what you dislike.

What you NEED to do is find out a way at which an infinite chain of events can be traversed, which is exactly what you have to believe if you negate a First Cause. Until then, you have no argument, nor do you offer a defeater of the argument.

No, you have to show there had to be a first cause.
You have not shown it.
You merely jump up and down screaming that there had to be one.

In fact, at this point I am wondering who it is you are trying to convince, us or yourself.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You keep repeating this completely empty claim as though it were fact.

How about you actually support this claim?


Blatant lie.
You rely upon the word games to dismiss what you dislike.



No, you have to show there had to be a first cause.
You have not shown it.
You merely jump up and down screaming that there had to be one.

In fact, at this point I am wondering who it is you are trying to convince, us or yourself.

Still throwing small pebbles at an intellectual giant, Mest?

 

[McBell]

Still throwing small pebbles at an intellectual giant, Mest?

You should pass whatever you are taking around... :yes:

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If you mean the material world, then no, I don’t.

Something has to be necessary, cot. Either there is a supernatural Creator that is necessary in its existence, or there has to be a necessary existing material world. So which is it?

There are no standards of all mercifulness. 'All merciful' is an absolute term and it means there can be no greater mercy than to prevent or make impossible all suffering.

You said there is no standard, yet you proceeded to tell me the standard. It seems to be that an 'All merciful' being would contradict an omnibenevolent being. If you can't punish/discipline those that need it, then there is no moral accountability, which may even add to even more suffering.

I’m very surprised that you can’t see the pit you’ve dug for yourself and fallen into here. If someone goes to prison for a crime then it is because an individual or society suffered as the result of the person’s crime. So it was a case of suffering that made it necessary to see that the criminal suffered.

And I am surprised you think that the above statement is a defeater of what I said. So as I said; if God inflicts punishment on someone which will allows him/her to suffer, how is that any different than what we do in society when we send a person to prison for a crime?

Your argument incoherently requires suffering in order to justify suffering. And are you really saying that God allows suffering as a means to increase their faith in him? Well, then, I rather think that’s made my argument for me!

Then as I said before, you have a PRESUPPOSITION...a standard based on the way you think things shouldn't be if it were in fact true. Yet you haven't given ANY reason as to why your standards/opinion on when suffering should be permitted/prohibited and why (besides the one above, which is similar to my example of God and disciple).

Yes...God allows suffering as a means to increase our faith in him. This is not just me saying it, but this is a biblical concept. Remember the story of sinking Peter (Matt 14:22). When Peter lost faith, he began to sink and therefore suffered mentally (fear).

Why is that so difficult to accept?

Then let me put it more graphically. The argument sets itself up to fail because there is a possible world where no such being necessarily exists and is ever-present, and that is the world of experience, and a part of reality, which being contingent can be conceived to be non-existent without involving any contradiction. And as there is no contradiction in denying any necessary existence in experience, experience being part of reality, there is therefore no necessary being existent in reality.

Ok so I can take it two ways. The first way is is simple; I can just merely point out the fact that saying there is a possible world at which no such being exists, you are thereby saying the concept of such a being is absurd. You haven't demonstrated this yet. What you said was "I can conceive of the non-existence of such a being"...which is an irrational statement to make...because you are essentially saying "I can conceive of an omnipresent being to NOT be present." For example; I can conceive of the non-existence of my parents...but IF my parent's existence was NECESSARY, I cannot conceive of their non-existence.

The second way I can take it is to just point out the fact that if you negate the existence of God, the only other alternative is INFINITE REGRESSION in a material world. This is absolutely absurd...so God must exist based on the fact that the only other alternative is logically impossible. And law of excluded middle, once again; if A and B are the ONLY options...then if not A, then B.


Our exchanges kinda remind me of the martial art of Wing Chun. Wing Chun is a close range system..and the cool thing about the art is there is a counter attack for not only every attack, but also every block. So if your opponent blocks your attack, you immediately follow it up with a counter-attack, so blocking is just inefficient in this system, it is ineffecitive, in fact, Wing Chun practioners WANTs you to block.

And you are definitely blocking, cot

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You should pass whatever you are taking around... :yes:

:cigar:

 

[McBell]

You haven't demonstrated this yet.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Well, I think you must be confusing me with somebody else, because I’m in full agreement that infinities are impossible or incoherent.

But if the universe (all space, time, energy, matter; STEM) is eternal, then infinities, the same infinites that you agree are impossible/incoherent, would have to be traversed. No way out of that one.

See my argument below.
But in any case, isn't the MOA supposed to be a stand alone argument? For if it is certain and true then every other argument is at best superfluous, and at worst contradictory for any inductive arguments can be true or false.

I find it more than a coincidence that both arguments makes a case for a supernatural/necessary being, they are distinct arguments, yet in the end you wind up at the exact same place...a supernatural and necessary being that does not depend on anything for its own existence. More than a coincidenky.

Now you’re asking a different question! You originally stated that “all possibly necessary truths must exist in reality,” which is false. Pegasus cannot be wingless and Cyclops cannot be bifocal, just as a triangle cannot have fewer or more than three sides, and 2 + 4 cannot be the equal of 6. So they are all true by definition. And as with all tautologies they are merely propositions that agree with themselves, but they do not imply existence. And the MOA is not in the least different in that respect.

Wait a minute, am I missing something here? If Pegasus cannot be wingless (by nature), and Cyclops cannot be bifocal (by nature), then if you conceive of both doing something contrary to their nature, then you are not actually conceiving them, but something else with their names attached to it. You are doing the same thing with respect to a MGB.

I’ll put it again for you this time more explicitly:

Everything in nature is subject to cause and effect, which requires movement and change since one thing acting in relation to another in time is the definition of causality. So if causality transcends nature then it must involve movement and change. But there was no time before the Big Bang and therefore causality could not pre-exist the beginning of the universe, and so cause and effect, which acts in relation to time as mutation and movement, is only coherent after the universe is begun. Thus if God is the cause of nature then he is subject to movement and change, which contradicts the notion of a timeless, immutable, unmoved mover; and on that account God is in want of a cause.

I can conceive of a scenario at which God, before the universe was created, existed atemporally (timelessly). The only way I can think of this is if God himself was completely motionless/stationary...yet content. Now, if God was in this state for eternity, then there is no concept of time, because there was no moments prior to God in his motionless state, and if there were no moments prior, there can't be any moments after.

Now, when at the very INSTANT that God began to create, it was at that INSTANT that time began, and time continues to go on and and on and on into a potentially infinite future.

What you said would be an excellent refutation, IF the argument was that God continues to exist atemporally (without time) AFTER creation of the universe. But that isn't the argument. The argument is that God was timeless before creation, and temporal after creation. The creation of time is a irreversible effect that even God himself is subjected to forever.

It isn’t possible for the opening premise to be true because there is no omnibenevolent Being, and the fifth premise isn’t true because there is no Being in reality. I gave you an argument to demonstrate that last point and you said ‘Premise 1 is definitely false.’ I’m still waiting for you to explain why it is false.

And Premise 1 is?

But what ‘Christians believe’ isn’t necessarily true, since ‘Jesus did not rise from the dead’ is not contradictory.

I was just merely stating what we believe.

 

[idav]

What you said would be an excellent refutation, IF the argument was that God continues to exist atemporally (without time) AFTER creation of the universe. But that isn't the argument. The argument is that God was timeless before creation, and temporal after creation. The creation of time is a irreversible effect that even God himself is subjected to forever.

Interesting point. My take is that god would be both (after time began) because existence is both temporal and atemporal. God can't be temporally bound because the power and energy of God doesn't physically allow such a thing. If god became only temporal then such a god has no more power than random chance.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Interesting point. My take is that god would be both (after time began) because existence is both temporal and atemporal. God can't be temporally bound because the power and energy of God doesn't physically allow such a thing. If god became only temporal then such a god has no more power than random chance.

It can't be both. Temporal is with time...atemporal is without time.

 

[idav]

It can't be both. Temporal is with time...atemporal is without time.

I know what temporal and atemporal are. I think its both if god is supposed to be transcendent. Regardless existence is both. Not all existence is a temporal part of space-time, anything with high enough energy is exempt due to special relativity.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I know what temporal and atemporal are. I think its both if god is supposed to be transcendent. Regardless existence is both. Not all existence is a temporal part of space-time, anything with high enough energy is exempt due to special relativity.

I happen to disagree. But since your view doesn't affect my argument ----> :beach:

 

[idav]

I happen to disagree. But since your view doesn't affect my argument ----> :beach:

If God is atemporal only then we can hardly say he exists and would have no influence in temporal realities, if God is temporal only then god is limited to causality and its own laws of nature. So far as I can tell being one over the other severely limits god. I know you disagree but I think its sound.

 

[cottage]

Something has to be necessary, cot. Either there is a supernatural Creator that is necessary in its existence, or there has to be a necessary existing material world. So which is it?

No! It does not! Existence could be contingent. The Argument from Contingency is itself a contingent assertion, and may be true or false.

You said there is no standard, yet you proceeded to tell me the standard. It seems to be that an 'All merciful' being would contradict an omnibenevolent being. If you can't punish/discipline those that need it, then there is no moral accountability, which may even add to even more suffering.

You are just making God appear weak or impotent. I’m saying if God is all merciful and omnibenevolent then he would not cause or permit his creation to suffer. You are saying in effect that there has to be evil, which must therefore be punished. False! Evil and suffering only exist if an omnipotent God caused them to exist. And it is evidently absurd to say God was compelled to create evil and suffering. Now try me with the Free Will Defence?



A

nd I am surprised you think that the above statement is a defeater of what I said. So as I said; if God inflicts punishment on someone which will allows him/her to suffer, how is that any different than what we do in society when we send a person to prison for a crime?

Because in society there is evil, pain and suffering - that your God made both possible and actual!

Then as I said before, you have a PRESUPPOSITION...a standard based on the way you think things shouldn't be if it were in fact true. Yet you haven't given ANY reason as to why your standards/opinion on when suffering should be permitted/prohibited and why (besides the one above, which is similar to my example of God and disciple).

Once again, I’m not laying down any standards or any moral code that presumes to know what is right or what is wrong. I’m merely identifying a contradiction, where God is supposed to be all merciful, when we see in experience everyday that people are not being shown mercy but are suffering horribly.

Yes...God allows suffering as a means to increase our faith in him. This is not just me saying it, but this is a biblical concept. Remember the story of sinking Peter (Matt 14:22). When Peter lost faith, he began to sink and therefore suffered mentally (fear). Why is that so difficult to accept?

I can accept it quite readily, despite not believing a word of the Bible, because it fits with what we experience. As you say ‘God allows suffering’. Therefore he is indifferent to human’s pain and suffering, ergo not all merciful.

Ok so I can take it two ways. The first way is is simple; I can just merely point out the fact that saying there is a possible world at which no such being exists, you are thereby saying the concept of such a being is absurd. You haven't demonstrated this yet. What you said was "I can conceive of the non-existence of such a being"...which is an irrational statement to make...because you are essentially saying "I can conceive of an omnipresent being to NOT be present." For example; I can conceive of the non-existence of my parents...but IF my parent's existence was NECESSARY, I cannot conceive of their non-existence.

No, you’ve barely got one third of my argument, and even then it’s misunderstood.

1) If can conceive of no Being [put whatever attributes you like in this space], then there is no logically necessary Being, because I can’t think what I can’t think. And the fact is that I can do this, and so can you!
2) More tellingly, no Being imposes itself on my mind. My mind is a possible world, a state of affairs that is devoid of any necessarily existent and ever present Being. So there is at least one possible world where such a Being fails to exist, and from which it follows…well you know the rest.
3) If the Being exists in reality, and experience is part of reality, then the Being exists in experience. But this is impossible since everything in experience can be denied as contingent; therefore nothing in it is necessary, ever-present and eternal.

The second way I can take it is to just point out the fact that if you negate the existence of God, the only other alternative is INFINITE REGRESSION in a material world. This is absolutely absurd...so God must exist based on the fact that the only other alternative is logically impossible. And law of excluded middle, once again; if A and B are the ONLY options...then if not A, then B.

Nonsense! The argument supposes that cause is transcendent. If that is the case then causality, which is contingent, needs a cause mounting up to God who if he is part of the chain also needs a cause since he too must be contingent. And there is no contradiction in something coming into existence uncaused.

Our exchanges kinda remind me of the martial art of Wing Chun. Wing Chun is a close range system..and the cool thing about the art is there is a counter attack for not only every attack, but also every block. So if your opponent blocks your attack, you immediately follow it up with a counter-attack, so blocking is just inefficient in this system, it is ineffecitive, in fact, Wing Chun practioners WANTs you to block.

And you are definitely blocking, cot

I’m not really seeing my arguments fully addressed as I would like. And I’ve not yet revealed my pièce de résistance - saving that for whenever. Tee hee!

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

No! It does not! Existence could be contingent. The Argument from Contingency is itself a contingent assertion, and may be true or false.

Yes it does, cot. I am not talking about specific things, I am talking about the material universe as a WHOLE. The whole chain of events from past eternity which would include all STEM and causality in general. You can't (logically) say that the material universe in its entirety is contingent. If it is contingent, that would mean that it didn't have to be here, so what can cause the universe to be here that is also excluded/external from the universe...NOTHING..if God is completely out of the equation, that is.

You are just making God appear weak or impotent. I’m saying if God is all merciful and omnibenevolent then he would not cause or permit his creation to suffer.

And by saying that, you are giving me your standard of what it means to be merciful. So you are entering the discussion with a presupposition, which you have no basis on having whatsoever. First of all, "merciful" is subjective anyway, as is evident because I completely disagree with you with the meaning of the word.

And my goodness...call it Divine Intervention...but I would like to share with you a direct quote from one of my fb friend on his status...it says:

"I appreciate the rough days! Who wants everything to be perfect all the time?? Not me!!! The struggles and hardships make you better baby!!!"

Now suppose God inflicted hardships upon him to make him "better"?

You are saying in effect that there has to be evil, which must therefore be punished. False! Evil and suffering only exist if an omnipotent God caused them to exist. And it is evidently absurd to say God was compelled to create evil and suffering. Now try me with the Free Will Defence?

There has to be evil if you allow individuals to have free will!!! You cannot guarantee that people with the FREEDOM to do whatever they want will do the right thing all of the time, cot. If the goal is for people to have FREE WILL, then evil will come as a result because...newsflash...people do bad things, cot!!!

And do you know how I can tell my rational is on point? Simple, because if a omnibenevolent being existed and he had the power to create human beings, but didn't, then there would be no evil, right? But once he created human beings, there you have it; EVIL!!!

Once again, I’m not laying down any standards or any moral code that presumes to know what is right or what is wrong. I’m merely identifying a contradiction, where God is supposed to be all merciful, when we see in experience everyday that people are not being shown mercy but are suffering horribly.

Yes you are!!! And Christians disagree...God is NOT all merciful, because if he was, there wouldn't be a doctrine of hell, now would it? So your view is just incompatible with traditional Christianity, and it is begging the question anyway.

No, you’ve barely got one third of my argument, and even then it’s misunderstood.

1) If can conceive of no Being [put whatever attributes you like in this space], then there is no logically necessary Being, because I can’t think what I can’t think. And the fact is that I can do this, and so can you!
2) More tellingly, no Being imposes itself on my mind. My mind is a possible world, a state of affairs that is devoid of any necessarily existent and ever present Being. So there is at least one possible world where such a Being fails to exist, and from which it follows…well you know the rest.

A being that has necessary existence cannot fail to exist. If you can think of such a being which DOESN'T exist, then you are not thinking of a NECESSARY BEING. You are thinking of a CONTINGENT being.

Omnipresence (ONP) is a concept. Non-omnipresence is also a concept (NOP). Once again, law of excluded middle. You are either ONP, or NOP. There is no grey area. No in-betweens.

Now, to be ONP is to exist in all possible worlds. That is the definition. To be NOP is to be able to exist/not exist some possible words, but NOT all.

Follow me so far?

Now, we are going by the concept, the definition alone...if you say you can conceive of a possible world at which a ONPB (b=being) DOESN'T exist, you've just rendered the ONPB to a NOPB, because that is the definition of a NOPB.

In the very instant that you begin to conceive of a possible world at which a ONPB doesn't exist, you've just changed concepts...it happened that fast...so fast you didn't even know it. The concepts are not the same, and that is what you continue to do.

3) If the Being exists in reality, and experience is part of reality, then the Being exists in experience. But this is impossible since everything in experience can be denied as contingent; therefore nothing in it is necessary, ever-present and eternal.

And #3 is based on your misunderstanding of the kalam cosmological argument. If God is timeless before creation, then there is no contingency, because God's act of creation (nor his existence) depends on anything outside of himself. Which is what must happen if your refutation is solid.

Nonsense! The argument supposes that cause is transcendent. If that is the case then causality, which is contingent, needs a cause mounting up to God who if he is part of the chain also needs a cause since he too must be contingent.

See above.

And there is no contradiction in something coming into existence uncaused.

So there is no contradiction in something popping into existence completely uncaused out of nothing?

I’m not really seeing my arguments fully addressed as I would like. And I’ve not yet revealed my pièce de résistance - saving that for whenever. Tee hee!

I will tell you like I tell anyone else...hit me up on messenger.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

If God is atemporal only then we can hardly say he exists and would have no influence in temporal realities, if God is temporal only then god is limited to causality and its own laws of nature. So far as I can tell being one over the other severely limits god. I know you disagree but I think its sound.

 

[Runewolf1973]

So there is no contradiction in something popping into existence completely uncaused out of nothing?

The way I see it, there is always a cause and there is always an effect. The cause does not need to be of supernatural origin, it could be naturally existing. I described it in another thread...

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...onism/159928-no-need-god-because-we-have.html

Therefore, the universe was not "created" by some perfect being. The universe and all things in it formed because in the beginning and even before the Big Bang, whatever there was was naturally imperfect. That infinitesimally small flaw, imperfection, or deviation reacted violently and resulted in the formation of the first energy.