(May 31, 2020 at 12:11 am)no one Wrote: Is this contemporary science anything like fairy tale science?

Oof. Looks like I've wasted my time here. I thought there would be a better defense of atheism.

Well, that was easy.

This will end well.

(May 31, 2020 at 12:06 am)Succubus#2 Wrote: How can an incorporeal entity interact with a real universe?

It's a non-sequitur to say because X is made up of matter and energy that therefore it cannot be produced or affected by an immaterial being.

Lol so another nameless faceless theist drone reciting the same crap we have gone over a hundred time  

You lost end of debate 

(May 31, 2020 at 12:17 am)SUNGULA Wrote: Lol so another nameless faceless theist drone reciting the same crap we have gone over a hundred time  

You lost end of debate 

Good argument. 

It wasn't an argument it was a fact 

(May 31, 2020 at 12:16 am)brokenreflector Wrote:

(May 31, 2020 at 12:06 am)Succubus#2 Wrote: How can an incorporeal entity interact with a real universe?

It's a non-sequitur to say because X is made up of matter and energy that therefore it cannot be produced or affected by an immaterial being.

Bel, is that you?

(May 31, 2020 at 12:19 am)SUNGULA Wrote: It wasn't an argument it was a fact 

Claiming things are facts is an even better argument. 

Could be him or any number of other theists who have been stomped here over and over and over 

Nothing new with this one 

---

(May 31, 2020 at 12:20 am)brokenreflector Wrote:

(May 31, 2020 at 12:19 am)SUNGULA Wrote: It wasn't an argument it was a fact 

Claiming things are facts is an even better argument. 

No stating a fact is just that .

(May 31, 2020 at 12:10 am)brokenreflector Wrote: First, where did I claim "things can be reasoned into existence"? Surely, I never wrote that. Are you purposely being dishonest? I was asked how I know. Reasoning and science is how we come to know lots of things. Do you disagree?

I'm beginning to think many of you didn't completely read or understand my first post. Contemporary science doesn't deal with the non-physical, true, but I never claimed that it did. It does however point to a past-finite universe and that's important for the "inference to the best explanation" argument for the existence of God.

I recommend that you go back and re-read my first post.

Okay, once more from the top:

"Ask yourself this question: What are the plausible explanations for the origin of all things? It seems to me that we're left with the following explanations..."

My reply would be "I do not know."

"First explanation. Ultimately, nonbeing produced being. The problem with this explanation should be obvious. How could nonbeing produce being? What would be producing it? Nonbeing is the absence of any kind of existence."

So... this is an assertion. As far as my limited understanind of cosmology is those who study such things are actually saying that "We can 'See' to a certain point in time and space. Anything before that is still 'Guess work' and being intensly scrutinized." At no point to they actually say 'Nothing'.

Second explanation. Something is past-eternal. This something could be the universe, multiverse, or one of its constituents. Or it could be something else entirely. Let's call it X. X would need to exist and there was never a point where the proposition "X exists" was false.

This is an interesting idea... what is it based upon, however? Just your 'Instinct' and.or 'feelings'? The only things 'Eternal' that we know of are matter (Which undergoes many changes as to its form) and 'energy'. Both of which can change into each other. Neither of which can be 'Destroyed' (Caveate of 'Black holes' not wishtanding).

Also... you seem to be of the opinon that [i]only[i] those two options are available? Ther might be more than just those two, perhaps?

Leaving asside your comments about Dr Craig and Dr Kraus, why do you think;

"I argue that in order for the second explanation to work, God must be the eternal cause."

This is any type of answer? You're just positing something for which there might not even have been a question.

There is also the actual fact that we actually have evidece (A functional hypothesis) within our reality of litterally something (Matter in the form of particles) comming into existance where previously no particles existed before.

We also have actual, direct evidence of 'Things' happening with no preceeding cause for their effect.

The world of quantum 'Stuff' is truly styranger than fiction.

Cheers.

Not at work.