I’m sorry but your arguments make little sense. How can there be a “final regression”? That’s a contradiction in terms!
My good friend, "Bible Student", has counciled me two or three times to let this one go as we are going around in circles with neither of us conceding or being willing to empathise with each others point of view, He is right. To continue to contend over the same points is not in keeping with the Commandments of God. Contention always creeps in. At the same time you are building a repertoire of comments that denigrate my ingelegence whilst elevating your own. That is not only unnecessary but it is unethical. If you are on a higher intellectual level to me, which I am sure you are, then you know exactly what I mean by "finale regression" so there is no reason to even mention it to me, other then to stupefy me.
No, you are not to assume I believe that. In fact I have said no such thing – please go back and look at what I actually wrote.
I did not say that I will assume anything. I asked a question "Am I to assume" A question not a statement of fact. But, as my intellectual superior, you would know that.
You may, may not, be aware that there are two connotations in regard to the term “universe”? The one concerns itself with the space-time continuum, and the other with everything that can be described as everything known or perceived to be the case. I mostly use the old philosophical term “The World” which has the same meaning as the latter. So the two distinct events, the Singularity and the Big Bang (expansion), are collectively the “universe” or the “world”.
This is just another case of science making up its own rules again. Like "Theory" meaning something different then it's original definition when said in a scientific connotation. To me the "universe" is what I see in the night sky, when I look up, or what I have seen through the Hubble telescope. It is inconceivable space filled with planets, stars, black holes, and much, much more. It is the result of a BB followed by a Rapid Expansion that occurred at a phenomenal speed. That is how I see it, and that is how everyone I know sees it. It is an honest perception.
The Singularity
a point at which a function takes an infinite value, especially in space–time when matter is infinitely dense, such as at the centre of a black hole.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=...r&q=Google#hl=en-GB&q=what+is+the+singularity
Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems
The Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems are a set of results in general relativity which attempt to answer the question of when gravitation produces singularities.
A singularity in solutions of the Einstein field equations is one of two things:
1. a situation where matter is forced to be compressed to a point (a space-like singularity)
Penrose
Notice that Hawkins says "a situation where
matter is forced to be compressed"
And yet that is precisely what you’ve been doing! You are on record as claiming in your arguments that because cause is observed in the universe it follows that the universe must be caused. It does not.
I have not said that. You misrepresent me. I have said that cause and effect is a natural law of the universe. It follows that because we see no other type of natural cause that no other type of natural cause exists, otherwise, we would have discovered it by now. It is exactly the same as you saying that God does not exists because if he did we would see some kind of evidence by now, which is something that atheists all to frequently proclaim. Both cases are possible, to the disbelieves, but highly unlikely, especially if you are an atheist. In both cases the event would be supernatural as they are both outside of the naturalistic laws of the universe. I have made it as clear as I can that naturalistic laws break down pre-BB.
What you’ve described isn’t the argument made by the Kalam, which is “Whatever begins to exist has a cause”; and “Whatever begins to exist” includes the Singularity itself.
No, because we don't know that as it existed outside of space, time, Mass and volume. For it to have always existed it would need time so it just existed. It certainly did not have a beginning, that we know of, however, I can see what you are doing. Convince us that the singularity had a beginning in order to make matter finite and disprove Kalam Cosmological argument. You are very naughty and desperate to prove that you are right, even though you are manipulating the event.
Do you know what is really sad about this? It is how it exposes the lack of morals that atheists and non-believers have. If a Christian had said such an obviously false statement, as this is, another Christian would have amicably brought it to his/her attention, not to belittle but out of pure concern. I have done it and it has been done to me, yet I have never seen an atheist do it. Why? Because the goal is to take away the belief in deities, regardless as to whether it is ethical or honest. They say nothing and in doing so support and perpetuate the immorality.
But an argument cannot be made from the particular to the general without appealing to the Fallacy of Composition. A deductive argument can only be made from the general to the particular, and that cannot be done by begging the question.
The use of fallacies, by atheists, is dishonest on so many levels. The facts are the facts. Matter has always existed in one form or another. That is not fallacious. That proves that KCA is accurate. Everything that begins to exist, in its own right, has a cause.
The philosophy of religion is not concerned with theology but examines arguments to the concept of God, particularly the classic arguments, such as the Cosmological, the Teleological, and the ontological arguments, but also moral arguments and the evidential Problem of Evil etc, the purpose being to examine the arguments for coherency, inconsistencies and contradictions. Bible literacy or inerrancy etc has never been a part of my examined studies and has no relevance to the above.
This is something that truly baffles me. Why would anyone want to study the authenticity of a God without studying his proclaimed words. What benefit to humanity would studying how to prove things wrong to Christians be. Who teaches the subject, Satan? I mean, I see no benefit in dissecting the coherency, inconsistencies and contradictions of theology other then to try and put a negative light on it. You are studying material relating to a God that you do not believe exists. Why would you do that. By what authority do you do it, man or God.
That’s logically absurd! You are of course entitled to believe whatever you wish but I’m saying to you that matter is finite and contingent, and since it cannot logically be both contingent and necessary it demonstrably cannot be eternal.
You are wrong. Matter has always existed.
I’m not sure what it is you think you’re saying, but my challenge is for you to show how causality can be both contingent and necessary. And then you could watch one of William Lane Craig’s videos where he articulately explains the infinity problem. You are actually presenting the standard atheistic response, which has never been successfully made! ....
I am not going to respond to this as I believe that I have adequately answered it many times now but you are ignoring my logic, therefore, I anticipate that you will do the same again.
Then by your own admission he is not the cause of matter coming into existence.
No, I said he organised it from existing element that has always existed. He caused the current state of existence. I believe you are misrepresenting me again.
I’ve pointed out that you can’t defend specific objections to the Kalam by side-stepping them and then that is exactly what you immediately proceed to do, leaving the objections unassailed!
That is your interpretations of my words. Your interpretations are wrong.
We cannot state what happened prior to the Singularity. Many cosmologists say it doesn’t even make sense to ask the question: “What existed before the Singularity?” and yet here you are supposing to know that matter is eternal!
I believe it because I am a Christian. For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy; God has told us that matter has always existed. Intelligence has several meanings, It is the light of truth which gives life and light to all things in the universe. It has always existed.
The singularity existed, it is its state of existence that is not known. From that existence sprang the universe with all it contained. I contained matter.
We do know the Singularity was a physical event and we do know that nothing physical is eternal and that’s because it is contingent, regardless of it acting in or out of time.
Can you substantiate your claim? Only, I think you are wrong just because it existed outside of space, time, energy and mass.
But if the Singularity itself began to exist then that confirms that at least one object of physical matter did not exist prior to its beginning, and it cannot be argued that some other aspects of matter are necessary rather than contingent without appealing to the Fallacy of Division,....... .
It is a big "IF" though. For the singularity to have a beginning would require time to define that beginning, no time existed pre-BB. But you know this because you are on a different level to me.
