(August 4, 2024 at 2:01 am)Paleophyte Wrote:

(August 4, 2024 at 12:11 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: You can listen to the Christian radio...

I would rather file my teeth off on concrete.

But their songs have such a nice beat and are easy to dance to.

The observed inter-dependent of any parts of universe implied the changing form/qualities of parts of the universe that did not coming from each parts of universe itself independently. 
The changing form/qualities of those parts describing that there were previous attributes/qualities/conditions turned to later attributes/qualities/conditions. 
So, there was beginning of those parts. 
Hence, universe is not eternal. 
It started to form, hence there is starter/creator/designer.

A beginning does not imply a creator. Try again.

A changing..is not a beginning ..and certainly not of "the universe" which would still be "the universe" no matter what configuration it's various parts were in. That's what the universe is...everything, however it is. Thus...it's pretty rough to state that your "beginning" is just a changing...even if a beginning needs a creator..which, as above, it does not.

Gosh, I've never seen anything like this on this forum. Thanks for opening such an original and inviting topic.

(August 6, 2024 at 11:06 pm)soulcalm17 Wrote: The observed inter-dependent of any parts of universe implied the changing form/qualities of parts of the universe that did not coming from each parts of universe itself independently. 
The changing form/qualities of those parts describing that there were previous attributes/qualities/conditions turned to later attributes/qualities/conditions. 
So, there was beginning of those parts. 
Hence, universe is not eternal. 
It started to form, hence there is starter/creator/designer.

'Will no one rid me of this meddlesome Watchmaker?' - Henry II, 1170

Boru

(August 6, 2024 at 11:06 pm)soulcalm17 Wrote: The observed inter-dependent of any parts of universe implied the changing form/qualities of parts of the universe that did not coming from each parts of universe itself independently. 
The changing form/qualities of those parts describing that there were previous attributes/qualities/conditions turned to later attributes/qualities/conditions. 
So, there was beginning of those parts. 
Hence, universe is not eternal. 
It started to form, hence there is starter/creator/designer.

The only part of that I understood were these assumptions:

1. So, there was beginning of those parts. 

NB there is a point of origin past we currently can't understand. A beginning is the point in time or space at which something begins, since both time and space are characteristics of the universe we currently observe, beginning seems like an inadequate word. 

2. Hence, universe is not eternal. 

Nope, your using a false equivalence, by equating the universe we currently observe with what existed before its point of origin, and we don't know what that was, so it is unevidenced assumption on your part, that the universe might can't be eternal, and simply (for example) have existed in some other form.

3. It started to form,        hence there is starter/creator/designer.

Dear oh dear, that's the clumsiest non-sequitur I've seen, and that includes your contradictory debacle in the KCA thread, where in the space of just two posts you went from a straw man decrying atheists for believing in magic, to championing magic as the core of your beliefs in a deity. 

It also looks suspiciously like you're denying the antecedent, either everything has a natural cause contained within the physical universe, or there is supernatural causation that forms no part of it, you can't premise the first, then claim the second logically follows. We observe the first, there is no objective evidence the second is possible.

(August 7, 2024 at 7:02 am)Sheldon Wrote:  hence there is starter

In the Aristotelian/Thomist First Cause arguments, the English word "cause" is an unfortunate translation of the Greek word αἰτία. This Greek word has quite a different meaning from the English word "cause." 

The αἰτία of X are all the things that must be the case in order for X to be the case. Some of these may be what Aristotle called the "efficient cause," but others include simply the conditions necessary.

So for example in Lawrence Krauss's book on why there is something rather than nothing, he argues that given the laws of nature as they are, it is inevitable that the universe would exist as it does. In Aristotelian terms, the laws of nature are the αἰτία of the universe, if Krauss is correct. It sounds funny, maybe, to say that the laws of nature cause the universe, but that's just because "cause" is such a bad translation. 

By definition, every contingent thing in the universe has some αἰτία on which its existence depends. (That's just tautological.) Everything that moves and changes is contingent. 

What logical fallacy would you apply to demonstrate that the above description is faulty?

(August 7, 2024 at 7:32 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(August 7, 2024 at 7:02 am)Sheldon Wrote:  hence there is starter

that the above description

Not relevant to my post, the 4 words you quoted were from someone else, and even that lacks context.

The intellectual strikes again.

(not Sheldon)