Attn: Theists - What would it take to prove you wrong?

[Esquilax]

You can't have a time before time itself existed. God exists beyond time and brought time into existence so you can have events that run in a sequence. The events begin with the Big Bang.

Good thing you asserted that baselessly! I was worried for a second, but since you said it, it immediately became true. Whew!

So listen, motherfucker; I've read the last few hilarious pages of you attempting to defend your flawed and useless argument by ignoring everything we say and asserting your position over and over, but that doesn't get you off the hook when it comes to answering the damn questions I asked way back at the beginning of this Kalam idiocy.

How do you know the universe began to exist? How do you know that whatever it was before the big bang- not god, but the universe as it was before the Planck time- isn't the eternal thing? Beyond you just really wanting your god to be the eternal thing, in your petulant child way, where do you actually draw that opinion from?

And where do you get off claiming that my position is "things happening for no reason," when your position is exactly that with regard to your god, give or take some flowery, obfuscating language?

You're dodging the question because we are talking about what is responsible for the existence of the laws of physics. You can't use the laws of physics to explain the origins of the universe as they only exist within the universe as part of the universe.

How do you know? How can you possibly say that there weren't some other variant of physics beyond the big bang that caused the bang itself? Do you know something we don't? Measured beyond the Planck wall?

You can't use what you're trying to explain to explain what you're trying to explain.

Oh, you mean like "things can't come from nothing for no reason, so my answer is that god did it, and he came from nothing for no reason because he's the perfect circle?"

The depths of your dishonesty and intellectual laziness is astounding.

There has to be an explanation beyond and separate to what you're trying to explain. God would fit the bill very nicely. What kind of God? This one right here will do.

Oh man, here we go. This is what I find completely and utterly hilarious about Kalam: it doesn't even get you to your god. And you've just hit right on this: it's so apparent that you don't give a shit about what might actually be beyond the big bang, you don't even care about obeying the premises of your own argument. It doesn't matter what god is actually there, you've got no evidence, you just really want it to be Jesus!

So it's not even about truth, just what you want to be true. You've just displayed how little you believe your own fucking argument.

But that's a slightly different debate. You have to start with an appreciation of Gods general existence before you can get into what he told us about himself in the holy scriptures right there.

Keep drinking the kool aid, asshole. And answer the fucking questions.