There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Serenity7855]

I thought your knowledge was from God. Why do you change your argument with ideas from the minds of man?

Because of your ignorance to things sacred you have no idea how silly this post sounds.

 

[McBell]

Because of your ignorance to things sacred you have no idea how silly this post sounds.

:biglaugh:

 

[Serenity7855]

Nope I linked a 1 chapter of a lecture from a collection of lectures which are part of a physics lesson plan of a physics department at a university. Now you have firmly established that you are in fact a liar.

A bit of a drastic accusation to make about such a triviality. Not worth the immoral act of bearing false witness, but, as you like.

Yes he is "expert" which seems to know nothing about physics. So he is an expert on omitting information and fool people which are ignorant of not just physics but philosophy. He is an expert is sophistry.

You speak of Him as though his is an aggressive atheists with the morals they possess. He is a Christian who selflessly tries to spread the word of God throughout the world. William Lane Craig is a analytical philosopher and Christian theologian. Craig's philosophical work focuses on philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and philosophy of time. His theological interests are in historical Jesus studies and philosophical theology. Craig has contributed to discussions of the cosmological argument for God's existence, divine omniscience, theories of time and eternity, and the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. I would say that your appraisal of Him being ignorant of physics and philosophy is an argumentum ad hominem intended to bolster your own strawman fallacies.

We both linked to sources relevant to our particular argument. Where is the difference. My comparison is sound as in both cases we sought relevant expert opinion relevant to both of our arguments. Do you get it now?

Empirical evidence trumps logic. Evidence is used to prove if a premise is true or not. My sources prove that your expert used a false premise, thus the argument is unsound.

Look at my remark and then your follow up. It is a nonseqitur. It bears no connection to my statement, therefore, a response cannot be made.

Many idea are counter intuitive to how we see the world. Using our own sense the Earth appears flat and it appears as if the sun orbits the Earth. Yet using tools such telescopes along with math we can prove that both these ideas are false. So 1 seems intuitive but in fact is not due to QM.

1 is a logically sound premise and not an inner perception. QM must be treated as a unique phenomena with attributes outside of the norm and it's laws. It is unpredictable to the point of theories being impossible to accurately be established.

Yes it is based on inductive reasoning. As per my example pages ago it fails as P1 is false.

No, it does not. Your opinion is biased to your agenda. Your agenda is to prove the existence of God to be a fallacy. Why you think you can do that after 2000 years of failed attempts fails me.

This is happens when taking a general statement and make it a universal statement. For example the Sun rose this morning ad previous morning does not make it a universal truth that the Sun will raise tomorrow or the next day and so on.

Well, armed with sufficient knowledge of how the sun sheds it's light on us, one can accurately state that the sun will rise tomorrow, unless we had a massive break down of natural laws. Your argument is, therefore, nonsensical. It is a logical fallacy.

We have external information that in fact the Sun is a finite object which will one day become a object which is not the Sun. For that matter we can not make a universal statement that there will be an Earth or planet for the raising of the Sun to be observed.

Your statement stupefys intelligent people making them look ignorant. That the sun will eventually run out of energy in a few billion years time is not sufficient reason for concern today or tomorrow, or as to whether it will rise or not tomorrow. The argument is meaningless and contributes nothing to this argument, other then causing it to stall. It is not a very good comparison. I heard it said that such statements are scare mongering.

Inductive logic can be wrong and has been wrong before. It is deductive logic, if not ridden with fallacies, which can not be wrong. Duductive logic take a generalization to form a specific. Induction take observations and applies this to a generalized law to objects unobserved aka BB singularity. However induction can not guarantee the truth of the premises do not guarantee the truth of it's conclusions. Inductive reasoning is about probability. You are completely confuse these two methods of logic providing another justification that you in fact have no idea what you are talking about

You accuse me of being confused yet the statement, "Anything that begins to exist has a cause" could not be any clearer and uncluttered. Your paragraph is a simple statement made to look complex. It is intended to stall discussion plus to make the writer look more intelligent then he/she really is. It is disingenuous.

 

[Serenity7855]

CONTINUED

David Hume wrote about inductive reasoning and it's flaws. Most of his work and work built upon it is free to access at various free university databases.

Thank you.

Virtual particles and atom decay are uncaused. So we have two examples which prove P1 is wrong. Also you have admitted that you do not understand logic or philosophy by extension. So it is easy to see you think this, it is an argument from ignorance, your own ignorance.

Insult are a sign of being cornered. Logic can not get you out of it so insults and false accusation are used. Quantum sub-automic particles are unique and separate from natural phenomena as it acts randomly and without logic. You know this but you are using it as a last straw. People in the real world who are not closed minded can see the separation. Quantum sub-automic particles may have existed before the big bang in which case they could be a part of the body of God.

Craig only debates people with a flashy position. I need not debate Craig as I have shown his argument to be unsound. It has been unsound for centuries for that matter.

There we are, then.

Oh, I am well aware of non-believers, like yourself, looking for opportunities to scream "plagiarism" at the Christians, which is why you will find the letters WLC at the bottom of the article which means that you are falsely accusing me of a crime that I have not commited, it is a logical fallacy.

My accusation is accurate as you have made mistakes in logic as has Craig. It is your inability to see a fallacious argument. It is you repeating the argument here. It is your defending the argument here.

If the shoe fits...

Where is the connection between my exposure of your inability to see the source of my article and your disjointed response.

Absolutely right. Until knowledge changes it is completely acceptable to follow the consensus of physicists and what is taught in physics classes. Do you practice say voodoo medicine or do you go to a doctor taught at a university when sick? Do you go to educated experts or find fringe hedge doctors?

Just because it is being taught does not mean it is true. We once taught that the earth was flat.

No as "nothing" in physics is still something,

What, like a theory means a fact. Science has a habit of changing the meaning of long established words to fit in with their experimentations without telling the rest of the world what they have done for fear of exposure. Nothing, in my valcabulary means nothing. This is just a defence against the eloquent words spoken by WLC ""Things which don’t exist can’t be caused to ‘do’ anything, since they aren’t *there* to be influenced by a cause.” He really is a formidable opponent isn't he. Nothing cannot be acted upon by something.

there is no example of nothing, it is a unless term in physics.

There is no example of something coming from nothing when the universe was created but you believe that.

Now by saying nothing but not providing the information that this "nothing" is in fact something Craig is misleading people with his argument.

No, "Things which don’t exist can’t be caused to ‘do’ anything, since they aren’t *there* to be influenced by a cause.” is an accurate and true statement. You just prefer to give it different values then anybody else.

There is no natural process in which a ship is assembled in nature. Also a ship does not begin to exist as all the material of the ship already existed. This is word games used by your, or where ever you copy your arguments from. To compare a constructed object to a natural occuring object is exactly the fallacy I said it was.

This is another example of you need to make things seem more complex then the actually are.

The material exists as material. Eg wood, steel, cloth etc, etc... When you look at it you see raw materials, you do not see a ship. Only when the shipbuilders have taken those materials and constructed a ship from them does the ship begin to exist. The proof of the Pudding is to try and set sail in the raw materials. You could drown as I fear it will sink. This is a simply concept. From something, something has been created. Where there was no ship a ship has been created. It is not rocket science, it is common sense. Complicating it to put yourself on a pedestal is dishonest and unethical.

Never said ex-nihilo, this a strawman and red herring to distract away from your flawed arguments. See reference above about "nothing". Also ex-nihilo is your argument, God created the universe from nothing. It is not my argument. You are trying to apply your argument as mine and completely fail to realize this concept is core to your doctrine. Ex-nihilo is firmly rooted in Greek's Prime Mover which now adapted by Christianity as well as Judaism and Islam.

Let me clarify for you. Ex-nihilo is NOT my argument. My argument is ex-materia. The scriptures do not say that God created the universe from nothing, indeed, I cannot think of a scripture that mentions the universe. Yep, I just checked it and it is not mention, another argument from ignorance. Therefore to say that the universe was created Ex-nihilo and is firmly rooted in Greek's Prime Mover, which now adapted by Christianity, as well as Judaism and Islam, is a logical fallacy, having no evidence to prove it. You are starting to get shoddy.

Now, If the universe were created ex-materia then we must use the same premise as ex-nihilo, that is, that it will be common place in nature. Guess what, it is, so, by that logic, If ex-nihilo works to create the universe it has to be common place in nature. Guess what, it is not. Logic dictates that ex-materia causation is the most like method by which the universe came into existence, proving P1 of KCA is accurate and true. Creation via ex-nihilo is a logical fallacy born out of an appeal to ignorance.

More strawmans as I never said from nothing, also the same could be applied to God. Also since causality is a principle of objects within the Universe this principle does not apply to a state before the universe. The answer of God is special pleading as KCA establishes infinite regress then stops, breaks it's own argument's rules by placing God, unproven assertion, outside of the argument. So not olny is God an unproven assertion by the nature of God is an assertion itself. You are using an assertion to prove and assertion.

Once again a response that is a nonseqitur. The response does not match my statement.

Negative as no one physics says the universe was created. You are using another assertion to prove an assertion.

Repeating a falsehood does not make it true. The universe was brought into existence, it was created. Created does not mean to bring something into existence from nothing, it means to reorganise something into something else.

create

kriːˈeɪt/Submit
verb
1. bring (something) into existence."he created a thirty-acre lake"

synonyms: generate, produce, design, make, fabricate, fashion, manufacture, build, construct, erect, do, turn out; bring into being, originate, invent, initiate, engender, devise, frame, develop, shape, form, mould, forge, concoct, hatch;

An physical object is not created by a reorganization of existing matter. We do not even know how matter started to exist.

Well, of course it is. The material is wood. By cutting it, shaping it and gluing it, you create a chair. That is a physical object that came from a raw material, wood.

Matter, or element, has always existed. It can neither be created or destroyed. It was in the singularity and will continue to exist for ever. It had no beginning, therefore, it can have no end.

Negative. Natural object occur in nature in the case of living organism which can reproduce. Rivers form due to our understand of descriptive laws of natural. There is no process in nature in which a ship is assembled by wind, gravity, etc. You skipped over the fact that ships are not found in nature but instead forced on reproduction. Find me a ship which was assembled by natural laws without any interference from a human. Simple request.

No there is no process in nature that can build a ship, yet. But what is your point. Creation is not dependant on nature, although a ship builder is a natural entity and he can build a ship so does that mean that a ship is created through nature. Either way it is irrelevant as to whether nature created it or the Leprechauns created it, it has been created. You need to let this one go. It is blatantly plain and clear to see that the chair did not exist at one moment and then it did. It was created out of a tree.

 

[Shad]

A bit of a drastic accusation to make about such a triviality. Not worth the immoral act of bearing false witness, but, as you like.

Well since you said it was a blog when in fact it was a lecture plan shows you either didn't read it when you claimed you did (lie) or you are lying about it being a "blog".

Liars for Jesus are amusing when caught.

You speak of Him as though his is an aggressive atheists with the morals they possess. He is a Christian who selflessly tries to spread the word of God throughout the world. William Lane Craig is a analytical philosopher and Christian theologian. Craig's philosophical work focuses on philosophy of religion, metaphysics, and philosophy of time. His theological interests are in historical Jesus studies and philosophical theology. Craig has contributed to discussions of the cosmological argument for God's existence, divine omniscience, theories of time and eternity, and the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. I would say that your appraisal of Him being ignorant of physics and philosophy is an argumentum ad hominem intended to bolster your own strawman fallacies.

A Christian which uses unsound arguments, selling books to solely Christians on the topic, does lectures at Christian universities and will not debate anyone without a flashy title. He is not a very good philosophy as he is using arguments which can be refuted using basic philosophy and logic. My comments would be ad hominem if I said he was an idiot without addressing his arguements. However since I have been addressing his arguements pages before his name was even brought up it is not ad hominem. It is a conclusion based on his flawed KCA, his other flawed arguments and his uses of all these flawed arguments as the foundation of all his talks. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, sometime it's a duck.

Look at my remark and then your follow up. It is a nonseqitur. It bears no connection to my statement, therefore, a response cannot be made.

Actually it is not. One is an from a train physicist (empirical), one is from a philosopher (logic). I wonder which one knows more about physics mhhh... One source (empoirical) provide evidence that the (logic) argument is in fact unsound. This is how one proves a premises as true, empirical date. So my statement is completely true and relevant.

1 is a logically sound premise and not an inner perception. QM must be treated as a unique phenomena with attributes outside of the norm and it's laws. It is unpredictable to the point of theories being impossible to accurately be established.

Moving the goal post fallacy. QM occurs in nature as does causality. Beside as I said before all I need is one example to render P1 false which I have.

No, it does not. Your opinion is biased to your agenda. Your agenda is to prove the existence of God to be a fallacy. Why you think you can do that after 2000 years of failed attempts fails me.

Negative, I have not once said God does not exist or that my argument propose that there is no God. I am merely refuting a flawed argument. It is your faith, ignorance of logic and philosophy is blinding you. Ignorance which you have admitted to previously.



Well, armed with sufficient knowledge of how the sun sheds it's light on us, one can accurately state that the sun will rise tomorrow, unless we had a massive break down of natural laws. Your argument is, therefore, nonsensical. It is a logical fallacy.

Your statement stupefys intelligent people making them look ignorant. That the sun will eventually run out of energy in a few billion years time is not sufficient reason for concern today or tomorrow, or as to whether it will rise or not tomorrow. The argument is meaningless and contributes nothing to this argument, other then causing it to stall. It is not a very good comparison. I heard it said that such statements are scare mongering.

Intelligent people can still be wrong especially if they do not have data available which we have now. My example was to show that intuition is in fact the worst method to use in logic, science and philosophy. The argument was in fact accurate as just because something is a certain way now or in the past is not a valid reason to assume it will be true in the future. This is true for casualtiy. This is the problem of induction which take observations of known objects and applies it to unknown objects. It is your inability to comprehend logic which stalls conversation. If you know a minimal methods of logic you would not be tripping over your own illogical thoughts for pages. It is only scare mongering as your own illogical thoughts have back lashed and you are in a panic.

You accuse me of being confused yet the statement, "Anything that begins to exist has a cause" could not be any clearer and uncluttered. Your paragraph is a simple statement made to look complex. It is intended to stall discussion plus to make the writer look more intelligent then he/she really is. It is disingenuous.

I understand the statement however as proven the statement is false. This is why you are confused, you are ignorant of philosophy and logic.

 

[Serenity7855]

1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

If you went down the list of definitions, instead of dishonestly picking the one that most suits your own beliefs, you would have found this. 6. to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design: If we are going to debate please try an make it honest and without trickery, anything else is pointless and, more importantly, fruitless.

Looks like you never looked up the word at all as the first definitional clearly shows to create is not a natural process.

No, I looked it up and then I cut and pasted it, three times here, this will be the fourth. This is how it is defined.

1.

create

kriːˈeɪt/Submit
verb1. bring (something) into existence."he created a thirty-acre lake"

synonyms: generate, produce, design, make, fabricate, fashion, manufacture, build, construct, erect, do, turn out; bring into being, originate, invent, initiate, engender, devise, frame, develop, shape, form, mould, forge, concoct, hatch

https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=...browser&q=unique#hl=en-GB&q=create+definition

2.

create

To build, assemble, or produce an object or idea. The act of creating is usually tied to being innovative with existing materials. For example, a person may create a new product by combining existing products that a company sells.

What is create? definition and meaning

3.

Create

to make something new or original that did not exist before

How do I create a new file?
In the last week, 170 new jobs have been created.
the story of how God created the world
newly/specially/recently etc created: the newly created post of general secretary

create - definition of create by Macmillan Dictionary

4.

PRIMARY MEANINGS OF:
create
1v bring into existence

create - Dictionary Definition : Vocabulary.com

I do not think there is any doubt what create means. Most dictionaries say the same, including the one you quoted.

Beside this we are taking existing matter and merely reorganizing it, we are not creating new matter, just using what is there. A painting is not natural.

You really need to stop digging or you will never get out of that hole.

You may be talking about taking existing matter and merely reorganizing it, but I am talking about creation in all of its forms.

Expertise grants authority to speak on a matter. If someone is not an authority in a field their opinion is useless. I do not see my doctor if I have car issues, I do not see my mechanic if I have the flu. This is how academy in fact works.

The greatest retail manager I ever meet was a road sweeper who cut a break through a friend. He had no idea what the retail industry was all about but people would listen to this non-expert in retail simply because he surrounded himself with experts who were the best in the industry. My experts can be found on many different Web sites. Your logic does not work all the time there are those willing to write the message and there are messengers willing to deliver that message. Qualifications are a piece of paper. I have three. They just demonstrate an ability to learn. Many people with degrees never go into the field of the degree but end up in a completely different vocation. I have a degree in environmental engineering but ended up as a project manager designing refrigeration for commercial vehicles. Your appeal to authority is a fallacy.

No I was under the impression you put forward that chaos material existed before the big bang. You pointed out my impression was wrong. However by continuing down this line of argument in which I acknowledged I did not understand it properly you are creating a strawman.

How?

P1 is unsound as prove by me pages ago. Yes I am speculating how the KCA is not speculation. It is supposed to be proof of a cause, you name this cause as God. I acknowledge my speculation, you take yours as fact. Now if QM is the root of the universe beginning God is not requires. God is an unnecessary hypothesis as QM would be accepted as an answer. Just because God is required by you does not mean this is fact. This is an appeal to emotion. You beleive in God, have invested emotional and probably financially into the God system. You need God. Such appeals must be left at the door not excess baggage one drags into a conversation.

I am not taking it as fact here, which is why I said, the cause could be a God. The appeal to emotion can also be yours and your god, science.

Someone's own illogical arguments causing a backlash. If you want to form logical arguments using proper methods of logic, you do not get to pick and choose which rules you follow. Which rules should be applied especially when said rules are used to refute your arguments. If you do not want to "play by the rules of the game" do not play. In other logic based argument these rules are always applied. However since KCA and God is personal to you, you feel that you should not play by said rules.

Absolute rubbish

 

[Shad]

CONTINUED

Insult are a sign of being cornered. Logic can not get you out of it so insults and false accusation are used. Quantum sub-automic particles are unique and separate from natural phenomena as it acts randomly and without logic. You know this but you are using it as a last straw. People in the real world who are not closed minded can see the separation. Quantum sub-automic particles may have existed before the big bang in which case they could be a part of the body of God.

It is only an insult as you feel offend when I point out in your own words that you are ignorant of logic and philosophy. You are appealing to your own emotions and you own inability to deal with it.

If God has a body then there is a material substance which contradicts your ex-materia arguments. See this happens you have no idea what you are talking about. You tip over old statements in new statements.

There we are, then.

If we are debating why suggest I contact Craig? Oh that is right you are not making your own arguments you are copying directly from Craig's work.

Where is the connection between my exposure of your inability to see the source of my article and your disjointed response.

I read the sources and have refuted it as sophistry pages ago. Try to keep up. I am asking for a direct source not just who said it. Since you are getting your argument directly from Craig's site you can link the page in which you copy/paste from. This is basic citations as taught in grade school literature.

Just because it is being taught does not mean it is true. We once taught that the earth was flat.

This is a myth as the Earth's shape as a spherical object was establish by the Greeks centuries ago and taught in Western education systems since 400 BCE.

When physics has changed I can adjust my views. However this has not happened yet as I am completely justified in accept the whole of the consensus and lesson which are in basic physic courses.

What, like a theory means a fact. Science has a habit of changing the meaning of long established words to fit in with their experimentations without telling the rest of the world what they have done for fear of exposure. Nothing, in my valcabulary means nothing. This is just a defence against the eloquent words spoken by WLC ""Things which don’t exist can’t be caused to ‘do’ anything, since they aren’t *there* to be influenced by a cause.” He really is a formidable opponent isn't he. Nothing cannot be acted upon by something.

Yes those within the field use words which confuse laymen. If you want to understand their terminology take a course in physics. You are complaining about your own ignorance and your own inability to keep well versed in physic terminology.

Again you go right back to the strawman of Craig. After clearing stating there is no such thing as nothing in Physic you ignore it and just repeat Craig's flawed arguments. Logic seem beyond your grasp.

There is no example of something coming from nothing when the universe was created but you believe that. No, "Things which don’t exist can’t be caused to ‘do’ anything, since they aren’t *there* to be influenced by a cause.” is an accurate and true statement. You just prefer to give it different values then anybody else.

Yah because we have no example of nothing. It is not proper terminology in physics. It is a layman word used to construct a strawman to fool other layman like yourself. Also I never said I believed that, strawman. It is Craig, and you, giving different values of words used in physic not I.

This is another example of you need to make things seem more complex then the actually are.

The question of existence and the universe is a complex question. I am not obligated to dumb down anything due to your inability to understand. Also my comment is completely true and accurate.

The material exists as material. Eg wood, steel, cloth etc, etc... When you look at it you see raw materials, you do not see a ship. Only when the shipbuilders have taken those materials and constructed a ship from them does the ship begin to exist. The proof of the Pudding is to try and set sail in the raw materials. You could drown as I fear it will sink. This is a simply concept. From something, something has been created. Where there was no ship a ship has been created. It is not rocket science, it is common sense. Complicating it to put yourself on a pedestal is dishonest and unethical.

You do not understand as a ship is not a natural object. No one constructs a tree, no one constructs a river. By a comparison of a constructed object to one that is not you are trying to infer a design of everything. This false as a false analogue, you argument is nonsense. Again this goes back to your strawman of nothing.

Let me clarify for you. Ex-nihilo is NOT my argument. My argument is ex-materia. The scriptures do not say that God created the universe from nothing, indeed, I cannot think of a scripture that mentions the universe. Yep, I just checked it and it is not mention, another argument from ignorance. Therefore to say that the universe was created Ex-nihilo and is firmly rooted in Greek's Prime Mover, which now adapted by Christianity, as well as Judaism and Islam, is a logical fallacy, having no evidence to prove it. You are starting to get shoddy.

No this is Christian doctrine. God created everything from nothing. If there was something God used to create everything then he did not create everything. This causes the issue of if there is a material which God used how can one tell God is not a product of said material. Read your Bible again.

Hebrews 11:3
Revelations 4:11
2 Maccabees 7:28

Once again a response that is a nonseqitur. The response does not match my statement.

Negative. "Now, If the universe were created ex-materia then we must use the same premise as ex-nihilo ie from nothing." In which I responded by saying I never said nothing. You are constructing a strawman you can knock down so pointing this fallacy out is accurate. Your claim of a fallacy is false.

Ex-materia is the opposite of ex-nilho so you can not use the same premise. Both are different ideas. P1 is still false as it say everything which begins to exist has a cause. How I have given two example which refute this. Problem of induction again.

Something does not need to be common in nature for it to be a probable cause, something common does not mean it must be applied to everything. Again the flaws of P1. Most forms of live have no brain at all, this is far more common in life than the brain we have. So following your flawed logic we should have no brain at all.

Causality dictates a cause of objects in the universe, not the universe itself. This is the basic principle of causality.

Ex-niliho is firmly root in the the idea of a first cause or prime mover. This was assimilated into Christianity and Islam. It is required in KCA.... Again proving you have no idea what you are talking about. Also ex-materia is moving the goal posts in regards to KCA due to KCA view that there is no ex-materia but a cause. Find me ex-materia, prove ex-materia. Until you do so you are using an assumption to prove an assumption. You are also begging the question by assuming objects which KCA is attempting to prove.

You have no proven P1 one, you rambled on about
Try to keep up and not repeat refuted arguments.

I have proved it. I am just not inclined to accept your special pleading now that your argument has been proven unsound.

Now if there was an ex-materia cause it could be QM, it could be "chaos matter" it could be anything. Now of which proves God.

Repeating a falsehood does not make it true. The universe was brought into existence, it was created. Created does not mean to bring something into existence from nothing, it means to reorganise something into something else.

1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.

Since causation is an ordinary process it does not fall under the word create.

An physical object is not created by a reorganization of existing matter. We do not even know how matter started to exist. An physical object is not created by a reorganization of existing matter. We do not even know how matter started to exist.

Well, of course it is. The material is wood. By cutting it, shaping it and gluing it you create a chair. That is a physical object that came from a raw material, wood.

Matter, or element, has always existed. It can neither be created or destroyed. It was in the singularity and will continue to exist for ever. It had no beginning, therefore, it can have no end.

Exactly. We do not know. This is reasonable position to hold. Now since we both agree there are objects which are neither created nor destroyed we do not require the God hypothesis at all according to Occum's Razor. Taking this along with the information provided by my QM link we can reasonable conclude that QM's effect on matter caused the BB. No need for God.

Just to avoid the time delay it takes you to realize you have contradicted your own arguments for God I will say this now. You again have refuted your own argument.

Well, of course it is. The material is wood. By cutting it, shaping it and gluing it, you create a chair. That is a physical object that came from a raw material, wood.

Matter, or element, has always existed. It can neither be created or destroyed. It was in the singularity and will continue to exist for ever. It had no beginning, therefore, it can have no end.

 

[Shad]

If you went down the list of definitions, instead of dishonestly picking the one that most suits your own beliefs, you would have found this. 6. to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design: If we are going to debate please try an make it honest and without trickery, anything else is pointless and, more importantly, fruitless. [/quote[

You mean how you did by not even quoting one definition example?

verb (used with object), created, creating.
1.to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes. (mine)

2.to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention. (Personal so does not apply to natural)

3.Theater. to perform (a role) for the first time or in the first production of a play. (personal, does not apply to natural

4.to make by investing with new rank or by designating; constitute; appoint: to create a peer. (personal, does not apply to nature)




5.to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to: The announcement created confusion. (nature and personal)




6. to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design: to create a revolution; to create an opportunity to ask for a raise. (personal)



verb (used without object), created, creating.
7 to do something creative or constructive. (personal)

8. British. to make a fuss. (them Brits)

adjective 9. Archaic. created.

No, I looked it up and then I cut and pasted it, three times here, this will be the fourth. This is how it is defined.

You are horrible at copying and pasting before. Only when pressed do you quote the entire definition. Also you are jumping from one source definition to another rather than the definition from one source. You can cherry pick definition this way which is a fallacy

2. Give a personal example so does not apply to nature

3. Is flawed as it is personal example not natural

4. Bring imply intent so a flawed definition in this threads context

I do not think there is any doubt what create means. Most dictionaries say the same, including the one you quoted.

You are using the word create when it come to intent as in building a ship. You then uses the word when it comes to a natural object with no intent. Hence why I do not use the word but using "cause to" or "causes"

Mine says there are different definition of create. You are using create in one definition then using as a definition of intent to prove god. This is a fallacy.

Yes using a certain definition of word in context is reasonable and not a fallacy. It is when you take the word create in term of a ship which is to create with intent (personal) and apply it natural (not personal). The fallacy is your own.

You really need to stop digging or you will never get out of that hole.

No hole at all. This is an accurate statement of how nature works. We are not creating new matter or new energy. We are using what is available.

You may be talking about taking existing matter and merely reorganizing it, but I am talking about creation in all of its forms.

Which is a fallacy. As you are using an example of a ship "created" using preexisting matter and comparing it to "create" as in the creation of matter.

The greatest retail manager I ever meet was a road sweeper who cut a break through a friend. He had no idea what the retail industry was all about but people would listen to this non-expert in retail simply because he surrounded himself with experts who were the best in the industry.

Thus he is a non-expert in which other people treat as an expect. This is their problem not mine. I am not obligated to treat a non-expert as an expert because he knows experts. One of my friends is married to a doctor. However this by no means that he knows anything about the medical field by being in close contact with a doctor.

My experts can be found on many different Web sites.

You mean non-experts since Craig is not a physicist.

Your logic does not work all the time there are those willing to write the message and there are messengers willing to deliver that message.

This just shows that people repeating these messages have no grasp of logic nor what they are talking about. They are just repeating a unsound claim and displaying their own ignorance.

Qualifications are a piece of paper.

A paper which a certification that in fact said person is an expert and qualified to talk about their expertise. Try getting a job as a doctor without certified qualifications....

I have three. They just demonstrate an ability to learn. Many people with degrees never go into the field of the degree but end up in a completely different vocation. I have a degree in environmental engineering but ended up as a project manager designing refrigeration for commercial vehicles. Your appeal to authority is a fallacy.

None of which oblivious related to physics, logic nor philosophy. Appeals to authorities are valid if in fact the authority is an expert within the relevant field which mine were. This is called citation and quoting. This is basic literature in grade school. These arguments are fallacious when in fact the source is a non-authority.

How?

I made an error in reading one of your comment and replied based on this error. You pointed this error out. I acknowledged it. To put forward an argument based on a comment which is in error and admitted to be flawed is a strawman. So your strawman is replying to a comment which we previous agreed is now moot.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? (strawman)

I am not taking it as fact here, which is why I said, the cause could be a God. The appeal to emotion can also be yours and your god, science.

You are using KCA as fact when it is not to prove God as a fact. You argued against every possibility like QM except for God becuase this is the only acceptable answer for you. You are comprising now as your arguments have been refuted and you are in a corner. You can either accept KCA is flawed and proves nothing thus your arguments for the last few pages are moot. By doing so you agree with me. Also be acknowledging God is a possibility, which I accept as one of many, you are agreeing with me again. You are also agreeing with me that there is no justification for God as a cause over any other cause.

I've never said no-God or proposed this as a fact. My use of this term was to show your own illogical arguments refute previous arguments made by you. I am pointing out the logical consequences of your illogical arguments and self-refuting way of arguing you use.

Absolute rubbish

Its very accurate. A few pages ago you accept QM and two examples of uncaused objects. You realized this followed by special pleading in order to take back your previous acknowledgement of proof that KCA is unsound. I pointed out fallacies which cause you complain and whine like a child. The reason for this is you own arguments are illogical and easy to refute. You do not want to play by the rules and methodology of logic since both have been repeatedly used against you and Craig. I am not obligated to play according to the whims and rules of a person who can not even grasp basic logical principles.

 

[outhouse]

Man factually created deities.

Not the other way around.

 

[Shad]

Time to bow out I think as this is just going in circles. I have firmly establish KCA is unsound by links to QM, virtual particles, atomic decay and problems with induction reasoning. Serenity has no grasp of the knowledge behind their own arguments including logic, philosophy and physics. As evident with the use of fallacious arguments and the hilarious confusion between inductive and deductive reasoning.

 

[Bunyip]

Time to bow out I think as this is just going in circles. I have firmly establish KCA is unsound by links to QM, virtual participial, atomic decay and problems with induction reasoning. Serenity has no grasp of the knowledge behind their own arguments including logic, philosophy and physics. As evident with the use of fallacious arguments and the hilarious confusion between inductive and deductive reasoning.

You have been very, very patient. Sadly you are not engaging with an honest man.

 

[Serenity7855]

Time to bow out I think as this is just going in circles. I have firmly establish KCA is unsound by links to QM, virtual particles, atomic decay and problems with induction reasoning. Serenity has no grasp of the knowledge behind their own arguments including logic, philosophy and physics. As evident with the use of fallacious arguments and the hilarious confusion between inductive and deductive reasoning.

Yes, I believe you are right. You are not going to be able to establish that KCA is unsound, simply because of its simplicity and, of course, it is not unsound. As for virtual particles, atomic decay, do you know when KCA came into existence by a chap called Al-Kindi. It was in the medieval times, the 1400s. I would say that a argument that stands the test of time, over 600 years, must have something going for it. It has, it is true and it give an indication that God is the Grand Designer of this most awesome creation, which is why aggressive atheists attack it, and the people who defend it, with unscrupulous claims of dishonesty and a lack of intelligence. As predictable as the sun rising in the morning. Well, it will save me the time and effort in responding and refuting the latest verbose nonsense you have posted. God loves you though even though you deny him.

Many times you have accused me of being ignorant of logic, philosophy and physics. Of being unfamiliar with the fallacy arguments and inductive and deductive reasoning. To a degree you are absolutely right, however, I have never claimed any different. I do not have any formal education in the sciences, I am a good retail manager though, and I can comprehend what I read.. It is because I can do that, that I have refuted almost every erroneous claim that you have made against KCA, and me. I think for a layperson that I have done a good job in defending my faith by exposing the bigotry and closed mindedness of the non-believer and his agenda to inject disbelief in a very real God. You, not so much, as you have had a formidable opponent, with no real education in the subject, who has still given someone, who thinks he is in the know, a good run for his money. That has to Smart.

 

[Shad]

Yes, I believe you are right. You are not going to be able to establish that KCA is unsound, simply because of its simplicity and, of course, it is not unsound. As for virtual particles, atomic decay, do you know when KCA came into existence by a chap called Al-Kindi. It was in the medieval times, the 1400s. I would say that a argument that stands the test of time, over 600 years, must have something going for it. It has, it is true and it give an indication that God is the Grand Designer of this most awesome creation, which is why aggressive atheists attack it, and the people who defend it, with unscrupulous claims of dishonesty and a lack of intelligence. As predictable as the sun rising in the morning. Well, it will save me the time and effort in responding and refuting the latest verbose nonsense you have posted. God loves you though even though you deny him.

Peace

 

[adi2d]

Yes, I believe you are right. You are not going to be able to establish that KCA is unsound, simply because of its simplicity and, of course, it is not unsound. As for virtual particles, atomic decay, do you know when KCA came into existence by a chap called Al-Kindi. It was in the medieval times, the 1400s. I would say that a argument that stands the test of time, over 600 years, must have something going for it. It has, it is true and it give an indication that God is the Grand Designer of this most awesome creation, which is why aggressive atheists attack it, and the people who defend it, with unscrupulous claims of dishonesty and a lack of intelligence. As predictable as the sun rising in the morning. Well, it will save me the time and effort in responding and refuting the latest verbose nonsense you have posted. God loves you though even though you deny him.

Many times you have accused me of being ignorant of logic, philosophy and physics. To a degree you are right, however, I have never claimed any different. I do not have any formal education in the sciences, I am a good retail manager though and I can read and comprehend. It is because I can do that that I have refuted almost every erroneous claim that you have made against KCA and me. I think for a layperson that I have done a good job in defending my faith by exposing the bigotry and closed mindedness of the non-believer.

How can I clean the board.

And I can't even find the red queen

 

[Serenity7855]

Yes, I believe you are right. You are not going to be able to establish that KCA is unsound, simply because of its simplicity and, of course, it is not unsound. As for virtual particles, atomic decay, do you know when KCA came into existence by a chap called Al-Kindi. It was in the medieval times, the 1400s. I would say that a argument that stands the test of time, over 600 years, must have something going for it. It has, it is true and it give an indication that God is the Grand Designer of this most awesome creation, which is why aggressive atheists attack it, and the people who defend it, with unscrupulous claims of dishonesty and a lack of intelligence. As predictable as the sun rising in the morning. Well, it will save me the time and effort in responding and refuting the latest verbose nonsense you have posted. God loves you though even though you deny him.

Many times you have accused me of being ignorant of logic, philosophy and physics. Of being unfamiliar with the fallacy arguments and inductive and deductive reasoning. To a degree you are absolutely right, however, I have never claimed any different. I do not have any formal education in the sciences, I am a good retail manager though, and I can comprehend what I read.. It is because I can do that, that I have refuted almost every erroneous claim that you have made against KCA, and me. I think for a layperson that I have done a good job in defending my faith by exposing the bigotry and closed mindedness of the non-believer and his agenda to inject disbelief in a very real God. You, not so much, as you have had a formidable opponent, with no real education in the subject, who has still given someone, who thinks he is in the know, a good run for his money. That has to Smart.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes, I believe you are right. You are not going to be able to establish that KCA is unsound, simply because of its simplicity and, of course, it is not unsound. As for virtual particles, atomic decay, do you know when KCA came into existence by a chap called Al-Kindi. It was in the medieval times, the 1400s. I would say that a argument that stands the test of time, over 600 years, must have something going for it. It has, it is true and it give an indication that God is the Grand Designer of this most awesome creation, which is why aggressive atheists attack it, and the people who defend it, with unscrupulous claims of dishonesty and a lack of intelligence. As predictable as the sun rising in the morning. Well, it will save me the time and effort in responding and refuting the latest verbose nonsense you have posted. God loves you though even though you deny him.

Many times you have accused me of being ignorant of logic, philosophy and physics. Of being unfamiliar with the fallacy arguments and inductive and deductive reasoning. To a degree you are absolutely right, however, I have never claimed any different. I do not have any formal education in the sciences, I am a good retail manager though, and I can comprehend what I read.. It is because I can do that, that I have refuted almost every erroneous claim that you have made against KCA, and me. I think for a layperson that I have done a good job in defending my faith by exposing the bigotry and closed mindedness of the non-believer and his agenda to inject disbelief in a very real God. You, not so much, as you have had a formidable opponent, with no real education in the subject, who has still given someone, who thinks he is in the know, a good run for his money. That has to Smart.

The Kalam is unsound, it is unsound and invalid. That was established centuries ago. Even Craig himself admits that the Kalam is no more than an intuition.

All of your mockery about blindness and bigotry would apply far better to yourself. How old the Kalam is proves only that it comes from a time where peop,e thought that the earth was flat.

 

[Serenity7855]

How can I clean the board.

And I can't even find the red queen

Ah, there's that thorn in the side again trying to stir the contentious pot up again with his confrontational rhetoric. Water off a ducks back.

 

[Serenity7855]

The Kalam is unsound, it is unsound and invalid. That was established centuries ago. Even Craig himself admits that the Kalam is no more than an intuition.

All of your mockery about blindness and bigotry would apply far better to yourself. How old the Kalam is proves only that it comes from a time where peop,e thought that the earth was flat.

Don't you have a beach to surf somewhere as your contributions are tediously crass and nasty.

 

[Bunyip]

Don't you have a beach to surf somewhere as your contributions are tediously crass and nasty.

Don't you have even a shred of honesty? Why does your god oblige you to make a liar of yourself?

Sadly bearing false witness is something that your god forbids, and yet you engage in gleefully and constantly. It seems that you only pretend to believe - if you really believed you would not take such delight in breaking your covenant.

Sure Serenity, anything anyone says that you can't refute - you pretend that they have been 'nasty', it is as infantile and transparent a deflection as could be imagined.

The Kalam is unsound and invalid - your own source, Craig admits so. Move on and spare us any more false witness.

You expect others to listen to your testimony - but it is the testimony of a proven fraud who cares nothing for the truth and prefers to fling mud rather
than to honestly engage. If your intention here was to drive people away from faith and make believers look like foolish bigots, that would make more sense.

 

[Bunyip]

Serenity

You have lied more, insulted more and been far more close minded and bigoted than all of the people you have engaged with put together.
As I said, people like you are faith's worst enemy.

Your OP started with insults and bigotry and you respond to every honest, considered response people have given you with further insults, mockery and bigotry.

Keep it up, you are an asset to atheism. Poor God, he needs no enemies when he has friends like you.

You referred to everyone who rejects the Kalam as mindless, brain washed bigots in your very first post - so don't think anyone has missed the hypocrisy.