I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

Mr. Paul's arguements have been addressed.

Addressed? Yes. Addressed exactly like you just addressed them, begging the question that they are "refuted" without actually refuting them.

Read through the thread. I've answered every objection to my argument (that's why I'm still here on page 26!) and I haven't seen any response which actually addressed the substance of the arguments without confounding them with a straw man, a misunderstanding of the argument, or other fallacies.

Those who gave reason for rejecting the arguement, according to Jon, "Just didn't understand properly".

That is not what I said. I said they either used fallacies to attack me, did not understand the argument, or confunded the argument with some other argument which is not mine.

Again, I ask of Jon, please post exactly what it is of your arguements or "proofs" that you are claiming are not being refuted.

Again, read through the read. What of, my arguments HAS been refuted? I have seen no refutation of A) the a posteriori argument from potentiality/contingency, B) the epistemological, a priori argument from the logical coherency of the epistemic structure of Christian worldviews.

Sure, I have seen ridiculed the theory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But that is not a refutation of either A, or B. Until you categorically refute and show the error in my arguments and evidence A and B, then insofar as this debate is concerned, the arguments remain unrefuted and rationally sound.

---

I now fully understand why they say god is non-material.

If you didn't understand this from beginning, then you understood less than every Christian since two thousand years.

It breaks every law there is.

Since the God my argument arrives at transcends the natural world, invoking natural laws to disprove the proposition is like invoking macrophysics to understand microphysics. You cannot invoke laws that predict certain natural laws and behaviour a place where those natural laws and behaviour does not apply. You cannot apply the notion of time and space outside the spatiotemporal universe, for instance.

Physicists understand this, otherwise it would be meaningless to speak of an "expanding universe", since that entails a spatiotemporal limitation to the extent of the spatiotemporal realm, and applying spatiotemporal thinking to outside of the spatiotemporal realm is then a fallacy (the classical question .. "but if the universe ends somewhere, what is there then outside it?", which ignores that the sentence itself has posited a spatiotemporal "end" to the universe).

This fact is reflected in the works of many physicists, and is often exploited by atheist philosophers, like Quentin Smith, who like to use the actual ontic embodiment of "the natural laws breaking down at a certain point in time" (a self-contradiction since temporality implies natural laws), beyond which we cannot apply natural laws, for instance to postulate the spontaenous generation of the universe by way of a quantum fluctuation (a rather fringe theory often advocated by atheists, for instance, Purple Rabbit on this forum earlier in the debate).

It's beyond the scientific method because it's outside just about everything. It's a useless argument.

It is beyond the scientific method because the scientific method a priori excludes the investigation of any proposition which includes objects that transcend the natural world.

Again, such an a priori exclusion is not a refutation of my arguments. If you appeal to such an a priori exclusion of God as a possibility for investigation, as evidence that God does not exist, then you are begging the question, and the same can be done in the opposite direction, by begging the question that God does exist and excluding any other possibility a priori on no logical grounds. But that is not what the scientific method mandates at all. It is methodological naturalism, which in no way implies scientific realism (i.e. that it's means and scope of investigation, and it's level of knowledge about that scope, namely the natural world, is the complete reality, which much in modern physics, like in quantum physics, has explicitly disproven by demonstrating real limits to our knowledge, and a radically different natural world that would have been called supernatural a few centuries ago).