-->
@PGA2.0
God would be the process, His creating. So, you have a transcendent eternal being (thus without cause) creating the physical, external universe.
What is the result and what comes before God since you pretty much admitted God is a process.
You could've found the definition before makes this error but oh well. I'll wait for you understand what you did wrong or lie about what you just did.
as I explained in my last post
As I will say again, all I see is completely different comparisons, begging the question and shifting the burden of proof. Now if you think I missed something please present an argument and make it short if you can.
Good, then that makes two of us, yet I have heard the argument for no causality.
? I reject your appeal to creatio ex nihilo on the basis it has never ever been demonstrated to be true. Please present an argument for it instead of speculating.
One such argument is the Steady State Theory which has been refuted by most scientists as implausible.Another, if a transcendent being did not cause the universe and it came from nothing there can be no cause since nothing would have no cause or need of a cause.Another is brute facts, that there is no explanation for a fact.Another is the argument from quantum physics that "there can be effects without causes. And if quantum events do not need causes, then perhaps the universe doesn’t either." https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/do-quantum-mechanics-invalidate-the-causal-principle/
Yet again showing you have no clue in presenting an argument for what you believe in. Instead of actually providing an argument for your side you are still resorting to well this can't happen and this and this or implying it so my side is correct. I don't care about your constant shifting I care about an argument for God which you have yet to give.
Self-creation is a self-refuting term.
So you are telling me God doesn't exist? In order for something to exist it would need to start from somewhere. If you want to challenge this point then go ahead but bear in mind I have the entire observable world as proof for my hypothesis yet you have nothing.
What would an eternal being need with time?
Another begging the question. "Eternal being need" under your worldview is stating God has no need so it is contradictory. You are not presenting an argument instead posturing as if you had. I keep calling you out on it but you keep doing it. What don't you understand?
Anything that has a beginning in this physical universe can be explained in a time-relationship.
Thank you for agreeing with my hypothesis "In order for something to exist it would need to start from somewhere" and thus clearing showing you have no ground in the physical universe. Only in something we can't verify to be true.
The R.C. Sproul example/analogy just illustrates a very annoying fact, that there is a garden (the universe) yet no reasonable explanation given for it if there is no gardener.
Anti-science claim yet again. We see through fossils that plant life existed before humans yet here you are stating the opposite. Your analogy doesn't work when plant life is not contingent on humans but here you saying it is not reasonable to think that. I guess another point of you wanting answers and go as far as not even use the best way to view the world as in science to make sure you are correct. You instead reject science and carry out with this anti-science rhetoric.
All I am pointing out to you is that it is most reasonable to believe that if I found a formula for something that is verified outside myself I would think someone else was responsible for it since it conveys information.
I would like an answer to the difference between invention and a discovery. This is the only new point that I have yet to see if it is at least one argument for God. If you don't bother to answer that question then don't expect me to respond back. You have shown clearly not to present arguments instead posture about your side by only talking about the other. It must really be difficult to support the very thing you believe in when you need someone else's help to make your argument. Your argument has basically summed up too hey look how bad they are. That is all. I have never see an argument that has come close to hey look how good I am. Having stories is saying how good you are, it is pandering to a base. I don't know if this is a problem with theists because all of you sound like preachers instead of good debaters willing to even present an argument for your side.
It is not me who is avoiding answering questions.
Please asking question to my question is not an answer. It is just another deflection.
My reasoning is that we are creatures of reason and meaning. It seems built into our DNA. If the universe has no meaning to it then we are creating something that has no ultimate meaning. Yet you continually look for meaning. You debate meaning on DebateArt.com.
Yet again feelings. Your DNA point can equate to the non-sequitur point of Jesus resurrected because there was an empty tomb. Realizing any scientist would never accept a resurrection as a reasonable explanation for something not being in the same place it was before. It is like me saying where is my keys. The only reasonable explanation is that it resurrected.
Saying my reasoning is that humans have reason is a bad argument. You are basically saying I do this therefore it must be true. No attempt to made to demonstrate it to be the case. No something akin to scientific racism doesn't count. Both have no argument and like you said all you had to courage to say was it "seems" like to be the case. Meaning you have no backing it what you say.
I do not see humans coming from apes.
Anti-science and anti-American judicial system. I didn't see the fossils therefore we don't come from apes. I didn't see the person get murdered therefore the person didn't get murdered. You fly in the face of deductive reasoning yet you preach "reason" and for the other it doesn't matter that the person is innocent until prove guilty. It only matters innocent until I see them to be guilty.
Actually experiencing it or seeing it happen is a factual confirmation.
Never mind how unreliable testimony can be. We have don't have standards to uphold instead we should accept everyone's of the world. I wonder what happens in a court of law whenever there is opposing viewpoints. I'll tell you, nothing will get done.
What I am saying is I have experiential evidence that what I think is confirmed by what I experience.
No you don't. In order for you to have experiential evidence you would need to be an authority figure on the things you talk about. Meaning there would have to be some sort of standard for the supernatural but we don't have it so the next best thing I am guessing either a physician or biologist. By looking at your profile you have met none so saying this is false. You are even retired so you might well be not well-versed in the current literature to make arguments because on experiential evidence. of course you can be experienced citing old information but what good is that when we have new information?
And you can't stop assuming that materialism and naturalism are true. You assume this even though it does not make sense from your foundational starting point - chance happenstance.
I haven't given a single argument because you have failed to present one. Whatever is a strawman.
I know when someone starts attacking the man instead of the arguments they are bankrupt. This is what you just did.
Your words speak for itself.
That is just an assertion.
Whatever you say about dog can be said about God. Do tell me any differently.
Thus, you know of Him while you deny Him.
"I know when someone starts attacking the man instead of the arguments they are bankrupt. This is what you just did." You just called me a liar if it wasn't clear. This is getting into Mopac levels of stupidity.
It was an appeal to the Bible as evidence as well as other arguments.
The Bible is not a reliable source of information.
Again, you keep avoiding any answers.
I avoid because you do. You can't answer a straight forward question so why should I?
I believe there is a difference between the mind and the brain.
Feel whatever you want. Demonstrate it if you actually want me to take whatever you said here seriously.
Well that is precisely the point, isn't it?
Clearly showing God has no basis in reality but you still believe in it. This conversation is more or less done. I'll just finish commenting on what I deem to be relevant and say goodbye.
Science starts with a philosophical presupposition.
Great point. At least we can agree on something.
Given I missed out a lot mainly due you essentially saying God has no physical backing, I have nothing more to discuss. When you have physical evidence do come back to me. You can of course reply to what I said here but don't expect me to reply back given you have already made clear what you lack with your beliefs. A physical backing.
Adiós, muchacho
