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.
With respect I think it would be more fruitful to the debate if there was less of the complaining. And
if by a final regression you actually mean a first uncaused cause then that must be something immaterial as an actual infinite cannot exist.
The universe began to exist.
Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite.
An actual infinite cannot exist.
An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
William Lane Craig
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.
Well there you are then! If naturalistic laws break down prior to the Big Bang event then how can it be inferred from cause and effect in the universe that cause and effect must apply outside the universe? That is the very point Ive been hammering home.
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.
Your first sentence makes the point very well!
Whatever begins to exist means exactly what it says; it sets out the principle from which, by the rules of inference, the argument supposes to imply its conclusion. But since we see nothing beginning to exist in the universe and we cannot know of anything prior to the singularity and the Big Bang on the basis of what we see happening in the universe, then it cannot be stated that the singularity or anything beyond the universe requires a cause, which means the argument cannot be sound.
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.
This is just a general attack on atheists, and really it is outrageous to disparage your critics moral standing in such a sweeping manner. Im not here to mock your beliefs or damage your faith but only to question your arguments. Please explain what you mean by "such an obviously false statement"?
Ive noticed that throughout the thread you appear rather too quick to find offence. Youre not a victim; so why not just relax and enjoy the debate?
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 above is no more than a blind assertion. It is not a fact that matter has always existed!
And in any case you directly contradict yourself; you say matter has always existed and then you say Everything that begins to exist, in its own right, has a cause.!
1) Nothing can be scientifically, logically, or philosophically proven to show that matter existed prior to the Big Bang. 2) Every particle of matter can be conceived to be non-existent with no contradiction implied. 3) An actual infinity is impossible, and therefore there cannot be an infinite regression of temporal causes.
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.
And who may I ask claims the authenticity of the God of classical theism: Christianity, Islam or Judaism? Ive tried to explain to you that the discipline isnt concerned with belief systems but only with the concept of God; i.e. generally the omnipotent, benevolent creator and sustainer of existence.
You are wrong. Matter has always existed.
I give you a proper argument and in response I get a bald assertion!
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.
Forgive me but your logic makes no sense because there cannot be an infinite number of past events.
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.
But this is what you said:
Yes, at last. God is indeed the cause of matter. He organised the intelligence, that are eternal, into atoms, molecules and matter.
So you are claiming that there was an eternal intelligence and God caused it to become matter. So matter at some point didnt exist. And this eternal intelligence did it come from God? If it didnt come from an omniscient God then what is it?
That is your interpretations of my words. Your interpretations are wrong.
Im sorry to have to pick you up on this again but I havent had a proper response to the argument I gave showing that the conclusion of the Kalam argument doesnt follow from the major premise. Instead of refuting the objection youve attempted to by-pass it with other arguments. Im happy to post the objection again in a summarised form if you wish?
Can you substantiate your claim? Only, I think you are wrong just because it existed outside of space, time, energy and mass. [/QUOTE
The singularity, as described, is a physical phenomenon and as such it is contingent; it logically doesnt have to exist, and if it doesnt have to exist then it cannot be necessary and eternal.
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.
No! A thing that comes to exist where before there was nothing at all doesnt require time to facilitate its being.
And yes, I am on a different level to you and in the same way that you are on a different level to me with your knowledge of scripture and bible exegesis.
