• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
That's okay, I've already taken logic 101. My logic is flawless.

The flaw was that your argument was just an equivocation. Sure, if you grind anything up into dust - it will be dust. But that does not mean that all things are dust, or that we came from dust.

You have an equivocation fallacy, which you cantilever into a non-sequitur.
 

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
The flaw was that your argument was just an equivocation. Sure, if you grind anything up into dust - it will be dust. But that does not mean that all things are dust, or that we came from dust.

You have an equivocation fallacy, which you cantilever into a non-sequitur.

I never did say that all things ARE dust.

Okay, so you are suggesting what, that complex compounds that we find in living organisms have always existed as complex compounds? Are you suggesting that DNA was always DNA? Or are you suggesting that complex molecular compounds like DNA originated from even more complex molecular compounds?

What are you saying exactly, when you say that we did not come from dust?
 

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
Yes that must be it. Yet I see fallacious arguments used to support your views.

Well, then if I am wrong, I am most certain that you have evidence to show that biological compounds do not have their origins in the dust of the earth.

I'd like to see that evidence please.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
I never did say that all things ARE dust.

Okay, so you are suggesting what, that complex compounds that we find in living organisms have always existed as complex compounds?
Nope.
Are you suggesting that DNA was always DNA?
Erm...well of course, when it wasn't DNA it wasn't DNA. I don't think you thought that question through.
Or are you suggesting that complex molecular compounds like DNA originated from even more complex molecular compounds?
Nope. But you are suggesting that complex molecules like DNA need to have come from an even more complex entity. I believe that complex molecules formed from less complex molecules - which has of course been proven by science to be the case.
What are you saying exactly, when you say that we did not come from dust?
That we did not come from dust.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
This is a fallacy. You are taking similarities within "dust" and life to infer a false conclusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy#cite_note-1

No he is not. He is saying that dust contains the necessary ingredients to produce life. He is not saying that God used all the elements in that dust, as you are being blatantly duplicitous in trying to put those words in his mouth. What he has said is exactly right. From dust we were created and from dust we continue to perpetuate life, ex-materia. You are intentionally complicating the issue in order to confuse, which is very dishonest.

Genesis 3:19

By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."

How do the different elements in the body compare with those found on the earth?

Specific elements play critical roles in the structures of proteins and the activities of enzymes in the human body. The table below outlines some of the uses of elements in humans6 and in the soil which forms the crust of the earth.7 Soils (including clay) contain dissolved minerals which are incorporated and stored by plants for our consumption or eaten by an animal that we later consume. The most abundant elements in the Earth’s crust are oxygen (46.6%) and silicon (27.7%). Minerals that combine these two elements are called silicates, which are the most abundant minerals on the Earth. Eight main elements account for more than 98 percent of the crust’s composition. The earth’s crust contains most of the mineral nutrients our body requires. Oxygen is the most abundant element in both the human body and the earth’s crust. The human body is made up almost entirely of 13 elements. Oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen make up 96% of our body’s mass. The other 4% of body weight is composed almost entirely of sodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium, iron, phosphorus, sulfur, chlorine, and iodine. Silicon as an element in the human body (less than one percent) is not as prevalent as it is in the earth’s crust; however we require this small amount of silicon for bone development, and it is found in skin and connective tissue. Silicon dissolves in water and can be abundant in oceans and nearly all other waters. Microscopic single-celled algae, called diatoms, and some brown (Phaeophycota) and green (Pediastrum boryanum) algae require silica to build their cell walls.8 So we can see that the composition of living things is not simply a mirror image of the elements available to them.

If [cells] are continually supplied with the right kind of energy and raw materials, and if all 75-plus of the RNA and protein molecules required for DNA-protein “translation” are present in the right places at the right times in the right amounts with the right structure, then cells make proteins by using DNA’s base series . . . [Thus,] living things operate in understandable ways that can be described in terms of scientific laws—but, such observations include properties of organization that logically imply a created origin of life. . . . [T]here are many more levels of order than I had once imagined and that order in nature, and a mind in tune with it, were guaranteed by God Himself.

Gary Parker

(Job 10:9) “Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?”

(Romans 9:20-21) “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?”

https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/from-dust-to-dust/

I am so surprised that a man of your unquestionable academic abilities is so impuissant and incompetent in being able to fathom that out. But I am very happy to put you right.
 
Last edited:

cottage

Well-Known Member
But how else could objects come into existence unless there were element to use. Plus, it is impossible for it to come from nothing as there is no nothing in our universe just something so an object has no alternative but to come into existence from something.

The argument that I’ve been making is that the Kalam argument is unsound, which it is, as the first premise cannot be demonstrated as a general proposition in order to find for the conclusion: "The universe has a cause". I don’t think one needs to be a committed atheist or an intellectual colossus to understand that there is no evidence of new matter being introduced in the universe but only existing matter changing form.

A particular point to be made though is that the argument cannot be defended by appealing to incredulity or question-begging by asking for, example “So how could the universe come into existence then?” which is merely assuming what the conclusion of the argument has failed to prove. Also, something coming into existence uncaused is a very different matter to supposing that something can come from nothing; the former is not contradictory and may even be true, whilst the latter is logically absurd.

You see, everything was created in the spirit before it was created in the flesh. Spirit is eternal and tangible. It is matter, not unlike quantum sub-automic particles. That is the great thing about the plan of Salvation. It is perfect. My old Mollie, a Jack Russell Dog, died two years ago aged 16. It was like losing a close friend. I was devastated at her parting and still get choked up when I look at her photos. Thankfully, I sincerely believe that I will see Mollie again. Imagine how hard it would be if I had to accept that an animal who I dearly loved I would never ever see again. I am in a win win situation. If I am wrong then it will not matter as I will be dead. If I am right then I will be elated to see my Mollie again. I cannot lose either way.

I understand your sentiments concerning Mollie and the loss of losing a pet, and if you live in hope of seeing her again in another life then I certainly won’t presume to disabuse you of the idea. Nor do I want to tangle with your religious faith in general, or to be continually tramping over old ground, but I have to say the argument that matter is eternal is not sustainable, logically or philosophically. All material causes must run to an infinite regression, which is impossible (and historically the bane of every atheist argument to an eternal material world). And also by posing any material form as self-existent then that evidently contradicts and challenges the concept of a Supreme Creator, the originator of all existence outside of himself (God).

I have probably learned more in this thread then any other thread I have taken part in. I have had to adjust my opinions many times as a result of new knowledge being presented to me by the likes of posters such as yourself. But nothing that has been said has phased my testimony of divinity, on the contrary, I knew little about quantum theories before starting this thread. I know a lot more now, which still isn't much, but I am convinced that quantum sub-automic particles is probably closer to God's design then any other science is. Particles that alter their state by being observed is miraculous. I find it awesome and another witness for the existence of God.

I think it is a truism that everybody has something to teach and something to learn.

An important point to consider here is that quantum particles are still matter and a finite aspect of the material world, and from a philosophical viewpoint we can conceive of every speck of matter and the contingent world itself to be annihilated. But if the actions of sub-atomic particles can be described as “miraculous”, then an uncaused cause is a possibility that deserves the same recognition. And of course there is one hugely significant distinction to be made between God and the particles: we know quantum sub-atomic particles actually exist! A naturalistic but contingent explanation for the world’s existence is therefore looking increasingly likely, even if a thing spontaneously coming into existence is not what we would traditionally have considered to be “natural”.
 

TheGunShoj

Active Member
It's offensive to me, all Christians, and it is offensive to God. The fact that you spend the time to type out all other words in your sentences, and this one word in particular, the one which has the word Christ in it, you degrade. It is offensive. And it is intended to be offensive. And you know it.

Lol. Sure, I'll just take your word for it that you speak for EVERY Christian in the world. Including the ones that wear big golden crosses around their necks. I'm sure the symbol is very offensive to them.

People don't type out every word in their sentences. See my "lol" at the beginning of the comment? I'm sure you've seen OT, NT, TOE and many other abbreviations on this forum. It's the internet. People abbreviate all sorts of things, get over it. And for the record, I've never once used the term "xtians" until just now for this discussion so don't imply that I'm using it to be offensive.
 
Last edited:

Looncall

Well-Known Member
Well, then if I am wrong, I am most certain that you have evidence to show that biological compounds do not have their origins in the dust of the earth.

I'd like to see that evidence please.

Dust is dry. All life that we know of requires a liquid medium. Some life even carries the water around with them.
 

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
Sonofason had written:
Okay, so you are suggesting what, that complex compounds that we find in living organisms have always existed as complex compounds?

Bunyip responds:

Well that's a relief.

Sonofason had written:
Are you suggesting that DNA was always DNA?

Bunyip responds:
Erm...well of course, when it wasn't DNA it wasn't DNA. I don't think you thought that question through.

That's interesting, because the definition for the word "always" is:
1. at all times
2. forever
3. at any rate: in any event
Always - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So let me ask you the same question using another word that means the same thing as the word "always".

Are you suggesting that DNA was forever DNA?

If I had thought you would be this deceitful in your responses, I probably wouldn't even bother carrying on this discussion with you. But I see why you are doing this. When a person has no legitimate argument, they often just become argumentative in order to ignore and/or avoid the issue at hand. That, it seems, is what you are doing. Or, you just don't know what the word "always" actually means, and therefore do not understand that I have indeed considered the question I asked you; and that, as always, my word was correct and precise.

Sonofason had written:
Or are you suggesting that complex molecular compounds like DNA originated from even more complex molecular compounds?

Bunyip responds:
Nope. But you are suggesting that complex molecules like DNA need to have come from an even more complex entity. I believe that complex molecules formed from less complex molecules - which has of course been proven by science to be the case.

First, I have never suggested that molecules like DNA need to have come from even more complex entities. But it doesn't surprise me that you would misconstrue the truth once again in this conversation.

Sonofason had written:
What are you saying exactly, when you say that we did not come from dust?

Bunyip responds:
That we did not come from dust.

That is interesting. Check this out.

"All atoms heavier than hydrogen and helium, including the elements important in living systems (carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur) are produced in stars by nuclear fusion reactions. The atoms are then blown out into interstellar space toward the end of a star's lifetime when the star explodes as a nova or, more rarely, a supernova. The atoms then form molecules and dust particles and gather into the enormous clouds that have been visualized by the Hubble Telescope in extraordinary detail. The dust particles, composed largely of silicate minerals, are called interstellar grains. The grains are coated thin layers of ice and frozen gases like carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, ammonia and methanol, as well as a variety of more complex organic compounds. The last point is among the most significant new discoveries about the interstellar medium. That is, organic compounds composed of carbon and the other biogenic elements are not limited to the Earth and its neighboring planets in our solar system, but are present wherever stardust gathers into interstellar clouds. We live in an organic universe."
Creatures from the Black Lagoon: Lessons in the Diversity and Evolution of Eukaryotes

But somehow, even though all scientists know very well that this planet, and everything on it, was at some point in it's history, dust; You're argumentative nature causes you to refute all scientific knowledge on the subject.
 

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
Lol. Sure, I'll just take your word for it that you speak for EVERY Christian in the world. Including the ones that wear big golden crosses around their necks. I'm sure the symbol is very offensive to them.

People don't type out every word in their sentences. See my "lol" at the beginning of the comment? I'm sure you've seen OT, NT, TOE and many other abbreviations on this forum. It's the internet. People abbreviate all sorts of things, get over it. And for the record, I've never once used the term "xtians" until just now for this discussion so don't imply that I'm using it to be offensive.

I was not referring to people wearing crosses. I was referring to those who exchange the Word Christ with x in the word Christians. That to all Christians is offensive. And I do speak for all Christians. Yes, I do see now that Serenity was not addressing you when he mentioned that using the word xtians is offensive to Christians. I just thought you should know that it is offensive. And of course, I'm already over it.
 

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
The argument that I’ve been making is that the Kalam argument is unsound, which it is, as the first premise cannot be demonstrated as a general proposition in order to find for the conclusion: "The universe has a cause". I don’t think one needs to be a committed atheist or an intellectual colossus to understand that there is no evidence of new matter being introduced in the universe but only existing matter changing form.

The argument of the amount of matter remaining constant is a non sequitur. It just does not follow that creation would increase or decrease the total matter content of the universe. If it were to change every time that something is created then the creation must needs be from nothing. As it is from existing element the universal matter content will remain constant. The matter contained on earth did not increase when I was borne because I have been created, like Adam and Eve, from the dust of the ground, element. I do not see how you can dispute that. Everything is created by element and element has always existed. The creation comes when element is used to construct, in the physical world, or to grow, in the natural world.

1. Everything that is created has a cause.

(a) Everything is defined as all things that exist, as in parameter 6 See Post 2792.
(b) Create is to bring into existence, as in parameter 4.See Post 2792.
(c) Cause is the Genesis of effect, as in parameter 5.See Post 2792.

A chair is part of everything. It was created by using element that has always existed. It was caused to exist by the chair maker. All parameters have been met, therefore, the premise is correct. It is as simple as that.

2. The universe began to exist.

Where there was a singularity there is now a universe. It began to exist after the Big Bang.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Self explanatory. No logical fallacies or philosophies to argue over. Just simple common sense.

A particular point to be made though is that the argument cannot be defended by appealing to incredulity or question-begging by asking for, example “So how could the universe come into existence then?” which is merely assuming what the conclusion of the argument has failed to prove. Also, something coming into existence uncaused is a very different matter to supposing that something can come from nothing; the former is not contradictory and may even be true, whilst the latter is logically absurd.

It may be different in context but in principle it is the same. Both cases do not fit in with our current understanding of the universe and the natural laws that we have ascribed to it. Both cases are therefore supernatural events, just like God is. Perceptions that could be true but have no evidence or precedence. Just like God. Both are appeals to incredulity. The latter, at least, has matter and anti-matter in its favour.


I understand your sentiments concerning Mollie and the loss of losing a pet, and if you live in hope of seeing her again in another life then I certainly won’t presume to disabuse you of the idea. Nor do I want to tangle with your religious faith in general, or to be continually tramping over old ground, but I have to say the argument that matter is eternal is not sustainable, logically or philosophically. All material causes must run to an infinite regression, which is impossible (and historically the bane of every atheist argument to an eternal material world). And also by posing any material form as self-existent then that evidently contradicts and challenges the concept of a Supreme Creator, the originator of all existence outside of himself (God)

First thing that I notice in this paragraph was the last sentence. "And also by posing any material form as self-existent then that evidently contradicts and challenges the concept of a Supreme Creator, the originator of all existence outside of himself (God)" I cannot think of a single instance in the Scriptures where God has been described as the "originator" of all existence outside of himself. The creator, yes, but never the originator. Create is to organise existing matter, ex-materia, whereas, originator suggests making something from nothing. I have read the Scriptures many time but that does not preclude me from being wrong, so, if you know any different then please correct me, however, it just does not fit for him to be the originator of all things when intelligence can neither be created or destroyed. The scriptures teach us about the atom and it's constituent parts and tell us that the electron, a sub-automic particle, is intelligent. Like sub-automic particles know when they are being observed so change their behaviour. It clearly states that light and intelligence are synonymous with each other and we know that light and electrons have characteristic similarities. Scriptures say, there is those that act and those that are acted upon, as in electrons acting upon the nucleus. And then, just last week, I find this scientific article on intelligence (mind) being contained within every single matter molecule.

Absent-minded Science​

To bring the problem closer to home, imagine your own development in your mother’s womb. You – originally a single cell – developed steadily in complexity and size. Your body grew, and your nervous system differentiated itself from other types of cells in your little body. Nerve cells grew, lengthened, interconnected, and eventually formed your brain, spinal cord, and so on. Every step of this process was incremental – small change after small change. At what point did your mind emerge? At what point did it suddenly pop into existence where it was wholly absent before? And if it did suddenly emerge, why at a certain point in time and not a moment earlier or later?

Here’s one more way of thinking about the problem: Imagine observing a brain surgery. You are able to peer into the brain from the outside through a hole cut in the skull. You have a microscope that allows you to peer into the structure of the brain. Let’s imagine you could even go further than modern technology allows, and you could look into the living brain with such detail that individual dendrites and synapses are distinguishable. Where is the mind? All we will ever see by looking at a brain and its components from the outside are the electrochemical energy flows that comprise the brain’s activities. We will never see the mind. Yet we know, more than we know anything else, based on our own experience as thinking beings, that it’s there.

There seem to be two options here: (1) Accept that the prevailing view, that mind mysteriously emerges from mindless matter, is not much different than the religious notion of a soul attaching to the fertilized egg or at some point later in its development. (2) Accept that mind is inherent in all matter to some degree and that there is a tiny sort of mind in the fertilized egg (and even tinier minds in the constituents of the egg) and that as the egg complexifies into you, so your mind complexifies.

This second view is known as panpsychism, fleshed out to some degree by Greek and Indian philosophers thousands of years ago and developed significantly since then. David Skrbina’s Panpsychism in the West is a wonderful history of these ideas and more. Panpsychism, while out of fashion for much of the twentieth century, is coming back into fashion in the twenty-first century as more and more thinkers realize that the prevailing “emergence theory of mind,” a type of reductionist materialism, fails as a matter of principle.

Noetic Now Journal | Institute of Noetic Sciences

Just how God created our spirits. Incrementally, bit at a time, by organising the ingelegence that had always existed, making us refined beings of light and knowledge. Not such a far fetched concept now is it? The world is playing catch up to God again. How many more Bible verses can be found for undiscovered phenomena?

As long as we believe that the standard cosmological model is correct we have to believe in the existence of the singularity, which contains the matter of the universe. Matter that must needs be eternal in nature as it exists outside of space and time.
 
Last edited:

Serenity7855

Lambaster of the Angry Anti-Theists
CONTINUED

An important point to consider here is that quantum particles are still matter and a finite aspect of the material world, and from a philosophical viewpoint we can conceive of every speck of matter and the contingent world itself to be annihilated. But if the actions of sub-atomic particles can be described as “miraculous”, then an uncaused cause is a possibility that deserves the same recognition. And of course there is one hugely significant distinction to be made between God and the particles: we know quantum sub-atomic particles actually exist! A naturalistic but contingent explanation for the world’s existence is therefore looking increasingly likely, even if a thing spontaneously coming into existence is not what we would traditionally have considered to be “natural”.

That quantum sub-automic particles exist is all we really know. We do not know why they act like they act. To be intelligent enough to know when they are being observed is awesome. What do they do when not being observed, that could be miraculously awesome. Even God like. With all due respect, science is becoming more and more accepting of supernatural phenomenon the more we find out about quantum theories. You need to expand your mind to at least consider it or run the risk of being left behind. Just recently it was found that 60 to 65% of our heart is neurons. That the heart is as intelligent as the brain is in many areas. Who would have thought that a decade ago. God said that his word is written on the hearts of all men. Suddenly that scripture becomes clear and precise.

Scientific Evidence: The Heart is an Intelligent Electromagnetic Field Generator That Thinks

The heart is one of the most important organs in the human body, because it is one of the main mediums for connecting us to each other and the Universe. Conventional science has taught us that the main role of the heart is to pump blood to all the systems of our body. This definition of the heart is not very accurate. Besides pumping blood, the heart also has an intelligence of its own.

According to neurocardiologists, 60 to 65 percent of heart cells are neuron cells, not muscle cells.2 This discovery has helped them develop experiments that have proved the heart works similar to the brain and in some ways is even superior to the brain. This may be the reason that the heart is the first organ to function after conception. Within about 20 days after conception, the heart starts to function, but the brain does not function until after roughly 90 days. This information tells us that the brain is secondary to the heart.

Scientific Evidence: The Heart is an Intelligent Electromagnetic Field Generator That Thinks : Conscious Life News

I am not saying that an uncaused cause is impossible, just that there is no precedence or precursor and no reason for it to happen within our natural world. It is an appeal to incredulity. As for quantum particles being finite. That is yet to be proven. Many scientists claim that they transcend the big bang so have always existed.
 
Last edited:

cottage

Well-Known Member
The argument of the amount of matter remaining constant is a non sequitur. It just does not follow that creation would increase or decrease the total matter content of the universe. If it were to change every time that something is created then the creation must needs be from nothing. As it is from existing element the universal matter content will remain constant. The matter contained on earth did not increase when I was borne because I have been created, like Adam and Eve, from the dust of the ground, element. I do not see how you can dispute that. Everything is created by element and element has always existed. The creation comes when element is used to construct, in the physical world, or to grow, in the natural world.

I don’t think you’ve quite understood my point since you agree exactly with what I’ve been saying, which is that since no new matter is introduced it follows that everything that begins to exist in the universe is formed from already existent matter in the universe.

1. Everything that is created has a cause.

(a) Everything is defined as all things that exist, as in parameter 6 See Post 2792.
(b) Create is to bring into existence, as in parameter 4.See Post 2792.
(c) Cause is the Genesis of effect, as in parameter 5.See Post 2792.

A chair is part of everything. It was created by using element that has always existed. It was caused to exist by the chair maker. All parameters have been met, therefore, the premise is correct. It is as simple as that.

We’ve already agreed that whatever begins to exist begins from pre-existent matter in the universe. But it does not follow that everything that is created in the universe means that the universe itself is created, and so to say the conclusion follows deductively from the opening premise is false since that is to fallaciously argue in a circle.

2. The universe began to exist.

Where there was a singularity there is now a universe. It began to exist after the Big Bang.

This premise is not disputed. The "universe" is everything existent, to include the singularity, which itself was a physical event.


3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Self explanatory. No logical fallacies or philosophies to argue over. Just simple common sense.

No, no, no! It isn’t “self-explanatory” unless you beg the question, which seems to be the sum total of your every response. I’m beginning to despair of you ever being able to see the logical problem in a blindingly false deduction. Nevertheless I’ll try again:
“Everything created in the universe has a cause” is not the same as “Everything created has a cause.” I believe I’ve already explained a couple of times that you are guilty of the fallacy of composition by asserting that what is true of a thing’s parts must therefore be true of the whole. By the rules of inference the only way that the Kalam argument’s conclusion could be demonstrated is by deduction from a necessary truth to give us, as a general principle, what the argument assumes in its primary premise, which cannot be done. Let me know if it isn’t clear what I’m saying and I’ll put it in different words for you.

First thing that I notice in this paragraph was the last sentence. "And also by posing any material form as self-existent then that evidently contradicts and challenges the concept of a Supreme Creator, the originator of all existence outside of himself (God)" I cannot think of a single instance in the Scriptures where God has been described as the "originator" of all existence outside of himself. The creator, yes, but never the originator. Create is to organise existing matter, ex-materia, whereas, originator suggests making something from nothing. I have read the Scriptures many time but that does not preclude me from being wrong, so, if you know any different then please correct me, however, it just does not fit for him to be the originator of all things when intelligence can neither be created or destroyed. The scriptures teach us about the atom and it's constituent parts and tell us that the electron, a sub-automic particle, is intelligent. Like sub-automic particles know when they are being observed so change their behaviour. It clearly states that light and intelligence are synonymous with each other and we know that light and electrons have characteristic similarities. Scriptures say, there is those that act and those that are acted upon, as in electrons acting upon the nucleus. And then, just last week, I find this scientific article on intelligence (mind) being contained within every single matter molecule.

To be honest I’m not really interested in what scripture says or in any particular religious faith. My argument concerns the God of classical theism, the Supreme creator of all things existent. If yours is a lesser “God” in that respect then that is a matter for you. God, at least according to classical theism, is a being that has always existed and cannot fail to exist; he is then the Absolutely Necessary Being. But all matter is contingent, meaning it doesn’t have to exist at all, and it is ‘finite’ meaning it is not eternal. And we know this because of the impossibility of an infinite regression of causes; only the concept of God or similar can escape that conclusion, and on that account if God exists and matter exists then God is the cause of matter. And of course if matter were intelligent and eternal then that would remove the need for God altogether!



As long as we believe that the standard cosmological model is correct we have to believe in the existence of the singularity, which contains the matter of the universe. Matter that must needs be eternal in nature as it exists outside of space and time.

Matter is still causally constrained and therefore subject to an infinite regress.
But the point needs to be made again that the Kalam argument cannot be defended by side-stepping the objection (as given above) to offer a rebuttal on a different point while leaving the objection in place.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
No, that is not true. But it is true that you are wrong. All organic molecules that presently exist contain elements that were previously particles of dust.

Actually I am right as you are taking similarity of vague verses and retrofitting those into science. You are taking terminology such as DNA and concluding that it is in "dust" while ignoring the toxic elements in "dust" and that "dust" in not uniformed enough within other "dust". This is a fallacy as I said and a fallacy of weak induction. Just change the word dust for stuff same generalized term used as a specific and a answer for a specific question
 
Last edited:
Top