(August 19, 2014 at 4:26 am)revivin Wrote: Everything in nature needs a cause to exist, but that implies infinite regress of cause and effects which would entail you having had an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened.

I already refuted that pages ago. You're going to get banned if you keep heedlessly repeating yourself when you've been proved wrong, you know.

Quote: So nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated by the uncreated Creator.

Technically speaking, the universe is outside of nature. It'd be a fallacy of composition to assert that what's true of something inside the universe is true of the whole.

Also, I'm not seeing any positive evidence for anything you're saying. You're just asserting it based on intuition. And, uh, you do understand that your argument could only get you to "cause for the universe," not "uncreated creator being." You've still got a big case to make to get up to the cause being a being, let alone the christian god.

(August 19, 2014 at 4:30 am)Esquilax Wrote: Technically speaking, the universe is outside of nature.

The universe is nature. You can use these words interchangeably if you like.

(August 19, 2014 at 4:31 am)revivin Wrote:

(August 19, 2014 at 4:30 am)Esquilax Wrote: Technically speaking, the universe is outside of nature.

The universe is nature. You can use these words interchangeably if you like.

So now you're just demanding that we use definitions that make your argument easier to make? Why should we do that?

(August 19, 2014 at 4:34 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(August 19, 2014 at 4:31 am)revivin Wrote: The universe is nature. You can use these words interchangeably if you like.

So now you're just demanding that we use definitions that make your argument easier to make? Why should we do that?

Because that's what he believes.

(August 19, 2014 at 4:34 am)Esquilax Wrote: So now you're just demanding that we use definitions that make your argument easier to make?

It wouldn't make much sense for you to use a definition that I am not using, otherwise you won't understand what I am saying.

(August 19, 2014 at 4:37 am)revivin Wrote:

(August 19, 2014 at 4:34 am)Esquilax Wrote: So now you're just demanding that we use definitions that make your argument easier to make?

It wouldn't make much sense for you to use a definition that I am not using, otherwise you won't understand what I am saying.

The point still remains: "the universe" is not the same thing as "things inside the universe." Especially since one of the things inside the universe, not insignificantly, is spacetime. You have absolutely no evidence that the universe requires a cause, or is even subject to regular causality.

Or that your purported cause is a god, by the way.

(August 19, 2014 at 4:37 am)revivin Wrote:

(August 19, 2014 at 4:34 am)Esquilax Wrote: So now you're just demanding that we use definitions that make your argument easier to make?

It wouldn't make much sense for you to use a definition that I am not using, otherwise you won't understand what I am saying.

Semantics does not win an argument.

(August 19, 2014 at 4:40 am)Esquilax Wrote: The point still remains: "the universe" is not the same thing as "things inside the universe."

The universe as a whole if it always existed you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore the universe needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated by the uncreated Creator.

(August 19, 2014 at 4:26 am)revivin Wrote:

(August 19, 2014 at 4:24 am)Esquilax Wrote: Sorry, but when your argument is "everything needs a cause to exist, except for god who doesn't," then you are special pleading, and you believe in something that breaks the rules you're trying to put in place.

Everything in nature needs a cause to exist, but that implies infinite regress of cause and effects which would entail you having had an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened. So nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated by the uncreated Creator.

AKA, the definition of special pleading.

This is becoming tiresome and my patience is wearing thin.

(August 19, 2014 at 4:44 am)revivin Wrote: The universe as a whole if it always existed you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore the universe needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated by the uncreated Creator.

There being an eternity does not mean that time stops progressing in a linear fashion. If we're sitting in an eternity right now, that doesn't mean there was literally an infinite length of time in the past. Time still elapses as normal.

Besides, as I've been saying to you for seven stupid pages now, time began with the expansion of our local universe in the big bang. Time as it exists now did not exist in the points before our universe beginning. Hence, the universe has always existed in that its beginning heralded the "start" of time, and it's not eternal.