(May 11, 2016 at 9:24 pm)SteveII Wrote: @ Time Traveler

Setting aside my missteps with word choices earlier, what reasons to you have to think that causation presupposes the existence of time?

You already asked, and I already answered on page 65 of this thread.

(May 11, 2016 at 8:33 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(May 11, 2016 at 8:04 pm)Time Traveler Wrote: Steve, you just copied and pasted my entire rebuttal without adding anything yourself. Was my response really so good, you just wanted to post it twice?

Sometimes that happens when I spend too long typing out a reply--it just posts the original post. Damn. I will never be able to articulate my point so well as I did in that lost post...

I'm sorry you lost your original post, that's gotta suck. But I did pose several questions which I'd like to hear your response to. Perhaps you can invoke divine inspiration to reclaim your lost words.

(May 12, 2016 at 10:14 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

RoadRunner79 Wrote:Why?

Intellectual integrity comes to mind.

Sorry, if I was unclear... The why was directed at the first statement about tiny things.

Oh, sorry RR. I made the same mistake.

(May 12, 2016 at 11:48 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Oh, sorry RR. I made the same mistake.

It was my bad... I should have deleted or hidden the second part of the quote

(May 12, 2016 at 7:55 am)Rhythm Wrote:

SteveII Wrote:If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.

............................................................

Quote:1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you’ve got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1'), you’ve got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.

If you wish to point to this claim as support for some other claim, fine...but you'll have to remain consistent with it - and we both know you won't.  

Quote:2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn’t come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don’t bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can come into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can’t be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn’t have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!

Why are you asking questions as though someone had to answer for your lack of imagination or knowledge, lol?  Generally, when a person is supporting a premise, they offer explanations.

Quote:3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'. The science of cosmogeny is based on the assumption that there are causal conditions for the origin of the unuiverse. So it’s hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that (1') is more plausibly true than false.

The science of cosmogeny is based upon methodological materialism and causal determinism, which, like the first bit of support you offered...we both know you won't be able to remain consistent with.

-In summary: It's insensible to point to authorities or authoritative statements that you will later deny the authority of: "These statements are true, except when they aren't..and my case is a case where they aren't".  Fine, but why are we discussing authorities or authoritative statements that do not apply to the god you are proposing?  Their truth in one case speaks to an exemption to that truth how?  More confusingly...why are we discussing something and nothing at all?  Where in the premise is either referenced...how could such a discussion be support of the premise -regardless of the truth of any proposition offered-?

First, thanks for addressing the points and not what everyone else did: various versions of "prove it". 

This list was from the link I supplied. I did not write it (I'm really tired of writing it). 

Regarding your point, it seems you are saying the argument is special pleading for God. P1 says "began to exist". Isn't the argument of most atheist to say the universe did not begin to exist? Doesn't that simply move the question to "did the universe begin to exist"?  No special pleading.

(May 12, 2016 at 9:46 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:

SteveII Wrote:Sorry. But how does there not being an infinite number of truths make God finite?

You say there are no actual infinites. Therefore, if God is actual, he is not infinite. If he is infinite, he is not actual.

I do say, and if you don't then you misunderstand what an actual infinite is. It is a useful abstract concept used in math and philosophy. There is no such thing as an actual infinite of things/anything/items/thoughts/moments/causes/whatever you want to fill in here top make it make sense for you.

(May 12, 2016 at 8:54 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: 1. Everything that began to exist, existed previously in a different form

2. The universe began to exist

Therefore:

3. The universe existed in different forms before it began to exist in its current form

*******

1.If the universe existed in different forms before it began to exist in its current form, then a race of omnipotent, formless unchanging, green, manic-depressive extraterrestrials who exist sans the universe must necessarily be responsible for universe beginning to exist in its various forms.

Therefore:

A race of omnipotent, formless unchanging, green, manic-depressive extraterrestrials exist, who exist sans the universe and are responsible for the universe beginning to exist in its various forms.


(Please provide defeaters for my premises, otherwise you MUST accept my conclusion as true.)

Defeater for P1: infinite regression of past causes is logically absurd.

So God is finite? How long will he last for?

(May 11, 2016 at 1:44 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: I wasn't calling you an idiot; you seem very well educated.

I don't see that at all. I see Steve more like the apologist version of the well trained African Grey Parrot, well able to mimic the arguments of others without the ability to truly understand what he is saying.

If he understood Kalam, he'd have stopped using it long ago.