Brian37,
Certainly you can. You would not be here attempting to refute it if it could not be postulated.
Theists typically don't ignore that implication. We explain that we believe that God is the answer. ChadWooters has already done a creditable job of that.
Why is that the only plausible eternity? Why is that plausible at all? Why should eternity cycle between everything and nothing? Why is nothing becoming everything plausible?
The light switch analogy fails because it doesn't cycle by itself. Without cognition it is a fixed state, and not a switch at all. Do you have a better analogy?
As soon as you postulate cycle 1 as the cause of cycle 2, that begs the question as to what caused cycle 1, and so on. The problem is called "infinite regress."
Perhaps you'd like to postulate something that isn't refuted by the very logic you present to refute your target postulate.
And there we are again, in an infinite regression. Thus, the seasons analogy fails as well, because it does not escape the chain of causality that is at the heart of the dilemma, and once again you refute yourself.
You will never succeed in your argument until you postulate something that escapes causality, and when you successfully postulate something that escapes causality you will have nullified your own refutation of God.
Regards,
Shadow_Man
Brian37 Wrote:Not only are they projections of human desires, there is no way to postulate "eternity" with an infinite cognition as the starting point.
Certainly you can. You would not be here attempting to refute it if it could not be postulated.
Brian37 Wrote:You cannot claim everything has a cause then ignore the implication that your "super cause" has to have a cause itself.
Theists typically don't ignore that implication. We explain that we believe that God is the answer. ChadWooters has already done a creditable job of that.
Brian37 Wrote:"Eternity" is only plausible as an up and down cycle without a cognition. Much like a light switch goes from off to on back to off.
Why is that the only plausible eternity? Why is that plausible at all? Why should eternity cycle between everything and nothing? Why is nothing becoming everything plausible?
The light switch analogy fails because it doesn't cycle by itself. Without cognition it is a fixed state, and not a switch at all. Do you have a better analogy?
Brian37 Wrote:As soon as you postulate a super hero as the cause of that cycle, then it begs the question as to what caused that super hero, and what caused that super hero and so on. The problem is called "infinite regress".
As soon as you postulate cycle 1 as the cause of cycle 2, that begs the question as to what caused cycle 1, and so on. The problem is called "infinite regress."
Perhaps you'd like to postulate something that isn't refuted by the very logic you present to refute your target postulate.
Brian37 Wrote:If you can accept the seasons of the planet changing without a god, just like lightening does not need Thor to be the gap answer, than the universe can also simply be either a finite thing, or the result of the end of another season that lead to our big bang.
And there we are again, in an infinite regression. Thus, the seasons analogy fails as well, because it does not escape the chain of causality that is at the heart of the dilemma, and once again you refute yourself.
You will never succeed in your argument until you postulate something that escapes causality, and when you successfully postulate something that escapes causality you will have nullified your own refutation of God.
Regards,
Shadow_Man
