The battle of evolution vs creationism

[ImmortalFlame]

Philosophers recognize that eternity can also mean "atemporal" or timelessness. It can either mean "endless duration of time" or it can mean "without time/atemporal". So close, but no cigar.

But what you described was not "atemporal" or "timeless", what you clearly described as an infinite sequence of you sitting in a chair. I don't care what "philosophers recognize". I'm telling you that you cannot separate the notion of eternity, which is an infinite amount of time, from the notion of time itself. Eternity and timelessness are not the same thing.

I'll be having that cigar, now.

 

[Ouroboros]

The discussion and difference between "atemporal" and "timelessness" (and some critique of Craig's view on God's relation to time/space etc) from the Stanford's Philosophical Encyclopedia: Eternity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Not in the scenario. Nope.

exactly

In the scenario, nothing was caused.

ok.

Once again, in the scenario, nothing was caused.

Okay so in what way was your analogy productive in proving your point if the key elements are vitally different in your own view?

The only thing that is faulty is your understanding of the scenario. Nothing in the scenario suggests that something was cause. Now, if you move to the God scenario, look...I said it at least 100 times already.......God was ATEMPORAL before the universe, and temporal AFTER the universe?

It seems apparent that you (and others) don't understand what that means. He was atemporal (without time) before creation. When he "created" the universe, at that very instance time was created...so the actual event was in time, the first moment of time. No one is saying that God remained temporal after creation or whatever else misrepresentations that you may have.

What you don't seem to understand is that there cannot be a "before" time. And that Atemporal beings cannot "create a cause". To be a cause or to form a cause you must be temporal (by definition). So if god was temporal to create the universe then he could not have been temporal within the universe.
IT is unfortunate that you cannot grasp this concept. Though I don't fully blame you. This is an unusually difficult concept for some people to grasp and is understandable if you cannot grasp it.

But to review.
There is no "before" the universe. If god is atemporal then he could not have "caused" the universe.

I agree, there was no chronological (before), but there was a causal (before).

There is no real functional difference between the two. Instantaneous still requires temporal existence.

You apparently just don't get it. God was "not" within the universe"...cmon now. I will keep my responses short and sweet because I haven't seen anyone on here adequately portray or respond to what I said in a way to show me that you understand what is being said.

I understand fully. I also understand exactly where you are wrong. As does nearly everyone else. You cannot be temporal in respects to our universe while being outside our universe.

So god is atemporal. Now you claim that during his atemporal state he was the cause of the universe an then somehow shifted into a temporal state. However this is logically impossible. Your confusion arises when you think that instantaenous "cause" such as a a bowling ball resting on a cushion means something other than what it does.

Changeless causality in this case still requires time. Ergo it is still temporal.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Then the rest of my post would still stand.

No because you said "You'd still have to breath, and that requires motion and time."

That's what you initially said. Then I said "suppose I am thinking of a being that didn't have to breath?"

Then you said the rest of your post would still stand, despite the fact that I countered your point about motion and breathing, so in fact the rest of your point WOULDN'T STAND BECAUSE ALL I NEEDED TO DO WAS MAKE THE SCENARIO AT WHICH THE BEING WASN'T BREATHING, THEREFORE, NO MOTION AND NO TIME!!!!!...yet you still say that your post will stand?

See, this is exactly what I am talking about right there. Makes me wonder if I am wasting my time.

Sorry Kryptid...no more exchanges man. I just can't deal with crap like that. Refuse to.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Except, in your example, you required time to precede your sister.

If there were no moments which lead to my sister, where is the freakin time!!!

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

“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.” Call of the Wild (Post 1051)

Obviously I meant atemporal, cottage. But nice catch.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

But what you described was not "atemporal" or "timeless", what you clearly described as an infinite sequence of you sitting in a chair.

No that isn't what I described. If I am sitting in a chair completely motionless for all eternity, there were no moments which lead to the sitting...so if there aren't moments before, there are no moments after...so there isn't a "sequence" of anything. Time just simply doesn't exist. Is this concept so difficult to comprehend?

I am repeating the same thing over and over again. I mean, what part of that don't you people understand? Time is not a factor in this scenario, it doesn't exist.

I don't care what "philosophers recognize". I'm telling you that you cannot separate the notion of eternity, which is an infinite amount of time, from the notion of time itself. Eternity and timelessness are not the same thing.

I'll be having that cigar, now.

So you would rather call it timeless than eternity? Fine...it doesn't matter what you choose to call it, as long as the concept remains the same. No matter what word you want to describe the concept, the concept shall remain the same. So go ahead, have the cigar.

 

[DeepShadow]

It occurred to me today how silly this is.

Evolution a scientific study
Creationism a philosophical study
...

If Scientists and Religions make this clear we will no longer need this debate room. If Scientist just do their part we can call this room Creationism (Philosophy or Science)

Exactly. To me, it's like people arguing about bowling vs. salmon.

"Bowling is a sport, salmon isn't! Therefore bowling is better!"

"Puh-lease! Salmon is food, food keeps you alive! Bowling spends energy, food gives you energy! Duh! Salmon is better!"

"Bowling is aerobic exercise, so it DOES make you live longer! Salmon is fatty, so it's not good food!"

"Cold water fish have good fat! Omega 3's! Cuz Science!"

"Bowling is cool! Cuz Fun!"

*mimes eating a bowling ball, spits in disgust*

*covers ears* "BOWLING"

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Meanwhile, some of us are eating salmon while bowling...and wondering what the hell is wrong with those people....

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Okay so in what way was your analogy productive in proving your point if the key elements are vitally different in your own view?

If I am sitting perfectly still in a chair in a timeless state, and a rabbit pops in to being next to the chair, my existence precedes the rabbit, just not in time. That is the point.

What you don't seem to understand is that there cannot be a "before" time.

I agree, there cannot be a before time in a temporal sense. But since I am not speaking in terms of temporality, that doesn't apply to me. I gave a scenario at which time did not exist.

And that Atemporal beings cannot "create a cause". To be a cause or to form a cause you must be temporal (by definition). So if god was temporal to create the universe then he could not have been temporal within the universe.
IT is unfortunate that you cannot grasp this concept. Though I don't fully blame you. This is an unusually difficult concept for some people to grasp and is understandable if you cannot grasp it.

Refuse to repeat myself on this point.

But to review.
There is no "before" the universe. If god is atemporal then he could not have "caused" the universe.
There is no real functional difference between the two. Instantaneous still requires temporal existence.


I understand fully. I also understand exactly where you are wrong. As does nearly everyone else. You cannot be temporal in respects to our universe while being outside our universe.

So god is atemporal. Now you claim that during his atemporal state he was the cause of the universe an then somehow shifted into a temporal state. However this is logically impossible. Your confusion arises when you think that instantaenous "cause" such as a a bowling ball resting on a cushion means something other than what it does.

Changeless causality in this case still requires time. Ergo it is still temporal.

Or this one. Nothing you said negates the point that I've been making from the very beginning, so there is no need to address this any further.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Not my argument. I’ve been consistent on this forum in arguing that the universe is uncaused, since that implies no contradiction, and therefore no infinite regression. It is logically possible, whilst all other explanations or beliefs run to absurdities or self-contradiction.

Explain to me what does it mean to be "uncaused", yet consistently in a state of motion/change?

But then why do you keep veering off to other arguments if you believe the MOA is certain? (!)

Because, the more arguments that support my view, the better. There is never to many.

Actually you are quite wrong. Immutability has always been a specific characteristic of God and his unchanging and unchangeable nature is even documented in scripture. And if God is not immutable then that is a weakness, and he is not the same God once he has changed. An immutable God is one that does not change, but is invariable in keeping his supposed covenant promises, and his immutability defines all his attributes.

Any circumstance that you can give me at which God "changes", it will have absolutely NOTHING to do with his nature. None of the omni's change for the better or worse. God is capable of change in the sense that when we do right, God is pleased...when we do wrong, God is upset...but this has nothing to do with his nature.

William Lane Craig has been instrumental in discarding immutability in favour of a ‘changeless God’, specifically to address difficulties encountered with a contingent cause. But if God is immutable then by definition his attributes cannot be other than what they are. But if he isn’t, then it is logically possible for him to change or lose any of his omni-characteristics since none are necessary to the concept, except perhaps necessary existence. And if he can downgrade once then he can do so again. Immutability is the very concept that underwrites his being, and yet this has been abandoned, the sole purpose being to justify his creating the world, which itself is nonsensical (a self-sufficient, omnipotent being that needed to create a world of creatures for his comfort and needs).

A being that loses his omni's is less greater than a being that doesn't. It is possible that there could exist a being that doesn't lose his omni's, which WOULD make this being's existence/attributes NECESSARY.

And not only that, but your position is flat out illogical. You said "...then it is logically possible for him to change or lose any of his omni-characteristics since none are necessary to the concept".

Do you not see the illogic in that? If it is logically possible for him to lose his omni-characteristics, then he had to HAVE it in order to lose it? So how would he ever reach the intrinsic maximum value of ANY of the omni's if he didn't necessarily have it? He couldn't reach the values from contingent circumstances...so if he has/had it, he has it based on necessity.

If there was a first cause then one thing existed before the other. So if God has always existed but the world has not, then God was prior to, or preceded, the existence of the world. And that is an expression of time!

You are assuming that every cause must precede its effect in time, and that is not the case. Again, the bowling ball example...a bowling ball that is resting on a cushion in a timeless state never began to rest on the cushion, yet it is still the cause of the dent in the cushion despite never preceding the cushion in time. This is called simultaneous causation.

Your analogy is misconceived: worldly phenomena and a perishable material object cannot exist eternally.

It was just an analogy, cot. I am not making the argument that this actually occurred, I am merely pointing out an scenario at which simultaneous causation would occur.

So instead of harping on a case that I am NOT making..how about you go ahead and respond to the "sitting man" analogy that the others on here cannot seem to grasp. That is an argument that I AM actually making.

And anyway we’re not speaking of an inanimate object, like a ball on a cushion; according to Craig we’re speaking of ‘intelligence’, a ‘personal being’, and one that must first will something antecedent to it happening.

Its funny you say that, because I actually got the "ball on a cushion" analogy from Craig, who used this same point to illustrate the same thing I am proclaiming.

We are speaking of a first or initial cause. And if a timeless God created the existence of causality* that enabled the universe to begin, and the effect occurred in temporality, then creation could not occur simultaneously, for a period of time is self-evidently involved in any cause-effect progression.

Right, and this "first period of time" is the instant at which time was created along with the universe. The only way time could be initiated is if there was something outside of time to initiate it. So no material answer can get the job done...so you are left with immaterial...and immaterial (supernatural) cause.

* Incoherent! There cannot be a cause of causality! It’s beginning to look as though timelessness is an impossible concept.

If there cannot be a cause of causality, then causality is infinite...leading right back to infinite regression which you admit is absurd. One post you claim that it is absurd, and the next post you continue at attempts to negate the only other possible alternative to this absurdity. Hmmm.

A supposedly self-sufficient God created the world because he had unfulfilled wishes or desires, i.e. to have a relationship with his creation. Absurd and contradictory!

I am working on a response to this, admittedly.

I’m aware it’s mildly similar to Anselm’s OA, but in reverse almost. And I would accept that God exists in reality if it were universally assented to in experience and if it were impossible to think otherwise.

Either believe in God, or either believe in infinite regression (which you already said it absurd), or believe that the universe popped in to being uncaused out of nothing. Take your pick regarding the latter 2.

 

[shawn001]

FYI,

50 Years After the Discovery of the Big Bang!

Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

With Alan Guth, Robert Wilson, Robert Kirshner, Avi Loeb

[youtube]V6rUi65qLqc[/youtube]
50 Years After the Discovery of the Big Bang! - YouTube

 

[shawn001]

It was the 50th anniversary recently.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

If I am sitting perfectly still in a chair in a timeless state, and a rabbit pops in to being next to the chair, my existence precedes the rabbit, just not in time. That is the point.

You cannot be sitting in a chair in a timeless state.
1) if something "popped" into being next to you in a timeless state then that "something" would have always been next to you. There is no way that something would not exist.

I agree, there cannot be a before time in a temporal sense. But since I am not speaking in terms of temporality, that doesn't apply to me. I gave a scenario at which time did not exist.

In everything you have stated IS in regard to a temporal state. Your example in which time did not exist is so drastically flawed that it is not applicable.

Refuse to repeat myself on this point.

Thank you! Because continually repeating broken logic that has been demonstrably disprove is getting old.

Or this one. Nothing you said negates the point that I've been making from the very beginning, so there is no need to address this any further.

I don't even have to negate anything. I haven't stated anything to negate your point. Your own point negates itself and all I did was point out why. Your continual denial of the meaning of your own words and logical (rather illogical actually) processes does not make it correct. It is still as wrong as it was the first time you stated it.

 

[adi2d]

You're sitting in a chair. Look at the chair. It is obvious it was I'd.
You are sitting in a chair somewhere. The universe you are in

So are all three necessary? Are they all eternal?

 

[Parsimony]

No because you said "You'd still have to breath, and that requires motion and time."

That's what you initially said. Then I said "suppose I am thinking of a being that didn't have to breath?"

Then you said the rest of your post would still stand, despite the fact that I countered your point about motion and breathing, so in fact the rest of your point WOULDN'T STAND BECAUSE ALL I NEEDED TO DO WAS MAKE THE SCENARIO AT WHICH THE BEING WASN'T BREATHING, THEREFORE, NO MOTION AND NO TIME!!!!!...yet you still say that your post will stand?

See, this is exactly what I am talking about right there. Makes me wonder if I am wasting my time.

Sorry Kryptid...no more exchanges man. I just can't deal with crap like that. Refuse to.

My post would still stand because breathing was only one aspect of it. You ignored the parts about the neurons, nerve signals, metabolism and subatomic motion.

If you could be perfectly still so that not even your neurons could fire, then you wouldn't experience the passage of time. In that sense, you would be right. However, your inability to experience time would not prevent time from existing for others who happen to not have their neurons frozen.

 

[cottage]

Obviously I meant atemporal, cottage. But nice catch.

“The argument is that God was timeless before creation, and atemporal [existing without relation to time] after creation. The creation of time is a irreversible effect that even God himself is subjected to forever.”
It's not a catch. I can't understand what it is you're stating. The two sentences taken together do not make sense, even with 'atemporal' added. Explain?

 

[cottage]

Explain to me what does it mean to be "uncaused", yet consistently in a state of motion/change?

‘Uncaused’ means there is no motion or change until the state of motion and change begins, obviously!

Any circumstance that you can give me at which God "changes", it will have absolutely NOTHING to do with his nature. None of the omni's change for the better or worse. God is capable of change in the sense that when we do right, God is pleased...when we do wrong, God is upset...but this has nothing to do with his nature.

‘God is upset’! Oh come on! <giggles> And this has everything to do with his nature. God is immutable, omnipotent and self-sufficient - if he is God. He doesn’t absurdly change himself to please, gratify, emote, or align himself with a human-centric world view.

A being that loses his omni's is less greater than a being that doesn't. It is possible that there could exist a being that doesn't lose his omni's, which WOULD make this being's existence/attributes NECESSARY.

And not only that, but your position is flat out illogical. You said "...then it is logically possible for him to change or lose any of his omni-characteristics since none are necessary to the concept".

Do you not see the illogic in that? If it is logically possible for him to lose his omni-characteristics, then he had to HAVE it in order to lose it? So how would he ever reach the intrinsic maximum value of ANY of the omni's if he didn't necessarily have it? He couldn't reach the values from contingent circumstances...so if he has/had it, he has it based on necessity.

If you’re saying the omni-qualities are absolutely necessary to the concept, and therefore logically unchanged or unchangeable, then I’ll give you arguments to show that they evidently are not, with all that is implied by that! It is not necessary, for instance, for God to be omnipotent he need only be sufficiently powerful to create the world. So omnipotence isn’t necessary. And even Craig recognizes this and carefully refrains from using the term ‘omnipotent’ and instead describes God as ‘unimaginably powerful’ or ‘extremely powerful’. Oh, and then there’s that statement of yours: “the creation of time is a irreversible effect that even God himself is subjected to forever.” We’re seeing omnipotence draining away before our very eyes! And then there is the attribute of omnibenevolence, the contradiction of which is self-evident and utterly unimpeachable. Then as I’ve already demonstrated elsewhere, there are instances where no being can be described as omnipresent, and hence there is no necessarily ever-present God. Therefore it is the case that God’s nature is changed or different from what is claimed. So the omni-qualities are changed, discarded or just plain inaccurate. And if there is a God then that is only possible if he is not immutable. And if God does exist but is not immutable then that makes him a lesser God than one who otherwise would be.

You are assuming that every cause must precede its effect in time, and that is not the case. Again, the bowling ball example...a bowling ball that is resting on a cushion in a timeless state never began to rest on the cushion, yet it is still the cause of the dent in the cushion despite never preceding the cushion in time. This is called simultaneous causation.

<splutter> Of course every cause precedes its effect in time, that’s what causality is. If you remove the relation of time from the two events then there are no two events, for if cause and effect is the same thing [contradiction], then you have a single event that it is not associated with any other thing. Also if God already exists then he pre-exists the world. If there is a gap, between one event occurring and then another, then that is the definition of time: ‘The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.’

It was just an analogy, cot. I am not making the argument that this actually occurred, I am merely pointing out an scenario at which simultaneous causation would occur.

Nevertheless, it is, with respect, a poor and misleading analogy. An analogy is a similarity between two things and on which a comparison can be made. And there is no similarity between physical phenomena and eternity. I see no point in it.

So instead of harping on a case that I am NOT making..how about you go ahead and respond to the "sitting man" analogy that the others on here cannot seem to grasp. That is an argument that I AM actually making.

Well, excuse me! I’m answering a case that you’ve made to me, and now by way of a response you’re directing me to the argument made by others! Just give me the argument, whatever it is, and I will of course reply.

Its funny you say that, because I actually got the "ball on a cushion" analogy from Craig, who used this same point to illustrate the same thing I am proclaiming.

‘Proclaiming’!
Sometimes I forget I’m debating you. So many of your arguments appear to be Craig’s that it’s almost like having a debate with him by proxy, with you as the intermediary.
But, seriously, wouldn’t you say my remarks on that analogy are reasonable and justified?

Right, and this "first period of time" is the instant at which time was created along with the universe. The only way time could be initiated is if there was something outside of time to initiate it. So no material answer can get the job done...so you are left with immaterial...and immaterial (supernatural) cause.

I was responding to your argument regarding the fanciful concept of simultaneous causation. And clearly if there was a ‘period of time’ involved then simultaneous causation is impossible!
Your last two sentences are addressed below.

If there cannot be a cause of causality, then causality is infinite...leading right back to infinite regression which you admit is absurd. One post you claim that it is absurd, and the next post you continue at attempts to negate the only other possible alternative to this absurdity. Hmmm.

Then you’ve plainly not grasped my argument. If you propose a cause of the principle of cause and effect then that requires you to appeal to the contingent principle of causality, which is evidently circular nonsense. Causality is a contingent feature of this material world. And my argument is that causality began (and will end) with the world. There is not the least contradiction or absurdity in conceiving the world not to be, and if the world can cease to be then so can every contingent feature, including causality. So there is no necessity in cause, and if your God is dependent upon a contingent feature then either he too is contingent or he is an invention.

Either believe in God, or either believe in infinite regression (which you already said it absurd), or believe that the universe popped in to being uncaused out of nothing. Take your pick regarding the latter 2.

The world is uncaused. And that isn’t to say, absurdly, that the world came from or was produced by nothing. In simplified terms existence appeared where before there was nothing at all. I have written a lengthy discussion on this, and I might bore you with it at some stage.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You cannot be sitting in a chair in a timeless state.

Please enlighten me on why not? The concept is coherent, as it does not violate any logic. But I will tell you what concept is incoherent, the idea that infinity can be traversed..which is what one must believe if a timeless cause is negated. If you cannot demonstrate how a timeless cause is a irrational belief, then you have no argument.

1) if something "popped" into being next to you in a timeless state then that "something" would have always been next to you. There is no way that something would not exist.

Makes no sense.

In everything you have stated IS in regard to a temporal state. Your example in which time did not exist is so drastically flawed that it is not applicable.

You havent demonstrated why the idea of a timeless cause is irrational.

I don't even have to negate anything. I haven't stated anything to negate your point. Your own point negates itself and all I did was point out why.

What you did was change the scenario. In the analogy, whether you like it or not, what I described was a state of atemporality. The only thing you did was attempt to change this state in to temporality, which I refused to let ride. All you can do is state "You cannot sit in a timeless state", which is what you said above, WITHOUT explaining why not?

Your continual denial of the meaning of your own words and logical (rather illogical actually) processes does not make it correct. It is still as wrong as it was the first time you stated it.

Deny a timeless cause and welcome to the realm of absurdities (infinity).

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

“The argument is that God was timeless before creation, and atemporal [existing without relation to time] after creation. The creation of time is a irreversible effect that even God himself is subjected to forever.”
It's not a catch. I can't understand what it is you're stating. The two sentences taken together do not make sense, even with 'atemporal' added. Explain?

God was timeless before creation, and became temporal after creation. That is what I meant.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

‘Uncaused’ means there is no motion or change until the state of motion and change begins, obviously!

So it existed in a timeless state, right? So if it was in a timeless state, what would have to occur for there to be a motion/change? And why did that motion or change occur when it did? Why not later, or sooner?

Second, the universe is constantly changing...there is always motion. If everything was perfectly stationary with no motion...there are no internal conditions that would allow things to "suddenly" start moving/changing...and since God doesn't exist (on your view), there are no external conditions that would allow this motion/change either.

You have some problems there, cot.

‘God is upset’! Oh come on! <giggles> And this has everything to do with his nature. God is immutable, omnipotent and self-sufficient - if he is God. He doesn’t absurdly change himself to please, gratify, emote, or align himself with a human-centric world view.

Then he can't be benevolent in any regard, cot.

If you’re saying the omni-qualities are absolutely necessary to the concept, and therefore logically unchanged or unchangeable, then I’ll give you arguments to show that they evidently are not, with all that is implied by that! It is not necessary, for instance, for God to be omnipotent he need only be sufficiently powerful to create the world. So omnipotence isn’t necessary.

But cot, we are talking about a maximally GREAT being. If he has only "sufficient" power, and not MAXIMAL GREAT POWER, then he is not a maximally great being. We can conceive of a being that is greater, namely; a MAXIMALLY GREAT being.

And on another note...the argument is that God created the universe from nothing. I can't think of anything greater than that. Humans create many wonderful things from pre-existing matter. God created the universe without pre-existing matter. See the difference? I don't know of anything that can exhibit more power than that.

And even Craig recognizes this and carefully refrains from using the term ‘omnipotent’ and instead describes God as ‘unimaginably powerful’ or ‘extremely powerful’.

Omnipotence mean the capability to do anything that is logically possible. 'unimaginably powerful' or 'extremely powerful' would definitely fit the bill.

Oh, and then there’s that statement of yours: “the creation of time is a irreversible effect that even God himself is subjected to forever.” We’re seeing omnipotence draining away before our very eyes!

My point was it is impossible for time to be "erased" or "disappear" after its creation. And this isn't a case of omnipotence "draing away before our very eyes". To help illustrate this point, do something for me; can you conceive of a being that is soooo maximally great that it can make time disappear?? Can you?? I will wait.

And then there is the attribute of omnibenevolence, the contradiction of which is self-evident and utterly unimpeachable. Then as I’ve already demonstrated elsewhere, there are instances where no being can be described as omnipresent, and hence there is no necessarily ever-present God.

Im sorry, I must of missed that one.

Therefore it is the case that God’s nature is changed or different from what is claimed. So the omni-qualities are changed, discarded or just plain inaccurate. And if there is a God then that is only possible if he is not immutable. And if God does exist but is not immutable then that makes him a lesser God than one who otherwise would be.

How does any of these changes effect any of the omni-qualities, cot.

<splutter> Of course every cause precedes its effect in time, that’s what causality is. If you remove the relation of time from the two events then there are no two events, for if cause and effect is the same thing [contradiction], then you have a single event that it is not associated with any other thing.

There was never two events. There was one single event that initiated the causal chain for the rest. Second, cause and effect isn't necessarily the same thing, EXCEPT in the case of the first event.

You can't have motion without time, and you can't have time without motion...in order for either one to begin to exist, both had to begin simulatenously and not in successive order.

Also if God already exists then he pre-exists the world. If there is a gap, between one event occurring and then another, then that is the definition of time: ‘The indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole.’

Even in the above definition-"...continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole".

That definition does the concept no justice. There was no past before creation, cot. The past only goes back to the moment of creation..and the future carries on indefinitely.

Nevertheless, it is, with respect, a poor and misleading analogy. An analogy is a similarity between two things and on which a comparison can be made. And there is no similarity between physical phenomena and eternity. I see no point in it.

But there is a similarity between what I described in the analogy, and what NEEDED to take place in order to negate the existence of infinite regress.

What I find amazing is how you guys continue to tell me how screwed up the analogy is, but neither one of you are taking the task in explaining how, if you negate a timeless cause, would you get over the absurd hump of infinite regress. If you take a timeless cause out of the equation, you are stuck with infinite regress. But no one is talking about the infinite regress and the absurdities that comes with it. Every wants to to tell me how bad the analogy is...when it isn't bad at all, actually.

‘Proclaiming’!
Sometimes I forget I’m debating you. So many of your arguments appear to be Craig’s that it’s almost like having a debate with him by proxy, with you as the intermediary.

Well, when it comes to Christian apologetics, Bill Craig is probably the best we've got, and I am a big fan, as you can tell. However, despite learning many things from him, I also add my own little twist to things. I would like to think that despite heavily following his work, I have my own style.

Christian apologists that I am very fond of:

1. William Lane Craig
2. Kent Hovind
3. Alvin Plantiga
4. J.P. Moreland
5. Mike Licona (honorable mention)

But, seriously, wouldn’t you say my remarks on that analogy are reasonable and justified?

No, because it doesn't negate the point that I am making

There is not the least contradiction or absurdity in conceiving the world not to be, and if the world can cease to be then so can every contingent feature, including causality. So there is no necessity in cause, and if your God is dependent upon a contingent feature then either he too is contingent or he is an invention.

Well, then we will have to get more in depth, because to me, your position is shaky. I mean, you say the universe is uncaused...then you say it was uncaused and then began moving or whatever. I really don't know what your position is. You haven't clearly defined your position and quite frankly I am sick of assuming your position only for you to tell me how wrong I am in that assumption. So...define your position first.

HOWEVER...regardless of what your position is, it is quite apparent that regardless of what either of us believe, we have to believe that something is necessary. Either the universe (STEM) is necessary, meaning it never failed to exist, or God is necessary. Neither God nor the universe could have popped in to being out of nothing...so either God or the universe had to exist necessarily, but it can't be both, and to negate one is to grant the other.

And to me, theism is wayyy more plausible than naturalism.

The world is uncaused. And that isn’t to say, absurdly, that the world came from or was produced by nothing. In simplified terms existence appeared where before there was nothing at all. I have written a lengthy discussion on this, and I might bore you with it at some stage.

Simply it.