The cosmological argument revisted.

[McBell]

If your only objection to the KCA is that “the claim is old”………

Your claims in this thread have already been thoroughly refuted in every way possible and then some.
So until you can bring something new to the table...

then I can pretty much proclaim victory.

You can add that bold empty claim to your ever growing long list of bold empty claims.

When atheist make a claim I usually can spot my point of disagreement and I explain why I disagree. Why can’t you do the same? ……….. why this annoying tendency of avoiding the responsibility of supporting your claims?

do you ever get tired of chasing your own tail?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe, but you have to justify that conclusion…………..

Nope. You are simply trying to use a strawman argument and I and others are not letting you do so.

This was your fatal error:

"The claim is that if the universe had a cause, "

You do not get to make that sort of assumption. It makes your argument a waste of time. You would need to justify that claim. You do not appear to be able to do so, you lose by default.

 

[McBell]

.... you lose by default.

And it is my opinion that there is no "winner" in this "debate" because it has not been a "debate"....

However, for those with black/white thinking....

 

[Subduction Zone]

And it is my opinion that there is no "winner" in this "debate" because it has not been a "debate"....

However, for those with black/white thinking....

Well no "debate" of the OP's ever is a debate. I have not see one of his threads that is not refuted in the very first post. The rest of the thread is just him ignoring corrections and pretending that they did not exist.

 

[leroy]

I call that an unsubstantiated assertion.

Given that we know that the universe exists (and I guess we agree on that) and the existence of a parallel cause is at least questionable, the universe seems to do pretty well without a cause whereas the cause seems to need people to believe in it.

So are you saying that the universe/cosmos came in to existence without a cause ?

I think you haven't sufficiently explained the difference between KCA-cause and KCA-effect. You have asserted that the cause is necessary for the effect but you didn't logically show the difference..

I need more clarification on what you mean and why is it relevant

The claim is that the universe had a cause......I define cause as something that the effect (universe) needs to come in to existence.

 

[leroy]

Well no "debate" of the OP's ever is a debate. I have not see one of his threads that is not refuted in the very first post. The rest of the thread is just him ignoring corrections and pretending that they did not exist.

Please quote a mistake made by me

 

[leroy]

Your claims in this thread have already been thoroughly refuted in every way possible and then some.
So until you can bring something new to the table...

Can you quote a single claim made by me that has been refuted ......please quote the refutation too

You can add that bold empty claim to your ever growing long list of bold empty claims.



do you ever get tired of chasing your own tail?[/QUOTE]

 

[leroy]

Nope. You are simply trying to use a strawman argument and I and others are not letting you do so.

This was your fatal error:

"The claim is that if the universe had a cause, "

You do not get to make that sort of assumption. It makes your argument a waste of time. You would need to justify that claim. You do not appear to be able to do so, you lose by default.

The claim has been justified , if you disagree then spot the actual mistakes

 

[Aupmanyav]

So are you saying that the universe/cosmos came in to existence without a cause ?

Yeah, somethings do not have a cause - virtual particles for example. Although I stand for a (yet elusive) cause for apparent creation of the universe, but do not credit it to any God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please quote a mistake made by me

Why? You won't own up to your errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The claim has been justified , if you disagree then spot the actual mistakes

No, it has been refuted by multiple posters. This is an example of you making an error and not owning up to it.

 

[leroy]

Yeah, somethings do not have a cause - virtual particles for example. Although I stand for a (yet elusive) cause for apparent creation of the universe, but do not credit it to any God.

Virtual particles “pop” in to existence as a consequence of an imbalance in a “sea” of energy………they do have a cause.

As an analogy.

Imagine that you have a $1usd dolar bill in your wallet………….and that you owe $20 mexican pesos

Also imagine that 1usd = 20 mexican pesos

So trivially you can say that you have zero money, but that is not literally true (you still have a 1 usd bill in your wallet)

Then imagine that the value of the dollar goes up to 21 Mexican pesos…………….so suddenly (and trivially) you can say that money pop in to existance from “nothing” and now you have more than zero USD………..but in the strict sense of the word, the money didn’t really came from nothing, there was a cause.

 

[leroy]

Why? You won't own up to your errors.

Back to your dishonest “tactic”……………. Claim that I am wrong, but refuse to quote a mistake made by me.

 

[leroy]

No, it has been refuted by multiple posters. This is an example of you making an error and not owning up to it.

Then quote the actual error (made by me or my sources) and quote the “refutation” for that mistake.

The fact that you are unable to do that simply shows that you are just inventing stuff.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Back to your dishonest “tactic”……………. Claim that I am wrong, but refuse to quote a mistake made by me.

LOL! No, that is what you do. I even pointed out an error in my very next post. You simply won't own up to your errors.

You are trying to treat the universe as if it were Newtonian. Guess what? It isn't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then quote the actual error (made by me or my sources) and quote the “refutation” for that mistake.

The fact that you are unable to do that simply shows that you are just inventing stuff.

No, no, no. Your error is much more basic than that. No need to use sources etc.. You want people to play a silly game. Go back. Reread the posts. If you do not understand something ask questions. Don't pretend that you have any "higher ground" here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Virtual particles “pop” in to existence as a consequence of an imbalance in a “sea” of energy………they do have a cause.

As an analogy.

Imagine that you have a $1usd dolar bill in your wallet………….and that you owe $20 mexican pesos

Also imagine that 1usd = 20 mexican pesos

So trivially you can say that you have zero money, but that is not literally true (you still have a 1 usd bill in your wallet)

Then imagine that the value of the dollar goes up to 21 Mexican pesos…………….so suddenly (and trivially) you can say that money pop in to existance from “nothing” and now you have more than zero USD………..but in the strict sense of the word, the money didn’t really came from nothing, there was a cause.

Poor analogy since that is not what virtual particles do. And no, they do not have a cause. At least not a known one. They appear to do so without cause.

Virtual particles pop in and out of existence on their own and their is no "cause". If you could find one you would earn a Nobel Prize. They pop into and out of existence constantly. One the quantum level events are a matter of statistics and not cause and effect.

 

[leroy]

LOL! No, that is what you do. I even pointed out an error in my very next post. You simply won't own up to your errors.

You are trying to treat the universe as if it were Newtonian. Guess what? It isn't.

Show me a post where I treated the universe as if it where Newtonian ………………support your accusations.

 

[leroy]

No, no, no. Your error is much more basic than that. No need to use sources etc.. You want people to play a silly game. Go back. Reread the posts. If you do not understand something ask questions. Don't pretend that you have any "higher ground" here.

If you do not understand something ask questions.

Ok so my question is, when did I ever made a mistake in this thread?..............can you quote such mistakes ? can you quote at least 1 mistake?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Show me a post where I treated the universe as if it where Newtonian ………………support your accusations.

No, just acknowledge corrections when they are given. I am not playing that game since it is an endless attempt to distract from your failures. Let's keep it in the present.