I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

Ace, your claim was that "anything that is not material is not energy and does not exist". I categorically refuted this. Energy exists independently of matter, as in the vacuum energy attested to by the Casimir effect, vacuum fluctuations, dark energy, previously unknown gravitational fields, etc. Matter is itself potential energy which is equivalent and convertible to energy (e=mc2). Space and time are also not matter, but do exist.

Now that I have refuted your first fallacy, you ask if God is exempt from the logical order which would make it necessary for the creation to have a creator to begin with. The transcendental argument answers this. God transcends the logical order of the universe, not in exemption, but in primariness. The universe exactly follows Gods order, not vice versa. Which means that the logical order which makes it necessary for the creation to have a creator is transcendent, is present in Gods nature, such that the creation is not exempt from the requirement of a creator.

Now, that I've refuted several of your fallacies yet again, you just return to continuing the repetition of the same fallacies you have been repeating through the last ten pages.

So god made everything and is everything and can be anything? Well in that case so can santa, easter bunny and any other thought up character. Can't quite disprove that I'm affriad.

I have already answered this fallacy. You are attacking viewpoint X, and thereby pretending to attack my viewpoint Y, though you are only addressing viewpoint X, a caricature and straw man which is not my viewpoint. Further, the ontological differentiation between viewpoint X and viewpoint Y makes it obvious that viewpoint X (santa, FSM, fairies) could not be the transcendent God of my viewpoint Y, since they do not transcend the attributes of spatiotemporal, material existence, but contain all of them. From this ontological differentiation lies the epistemic differentiation, in that my argument supports a transcendent God, not a contingent being.

Can you answer where god came from

I have already answered this question.

If you are asking this question of the God my argument arrives at, then it is a fallacy. For (quoting now) the question asks for temporal account for the ontogenesis of a nontemporal being whose ontogenesis is accordingly nontemporal. The question is, in other words a fallacy, because it applies a standard to something to which that standard in and of the nature of the thing does not apply. It's like asking "What exists outside of the totality of all existence?". The question is meaningless because it contradicts itself by positing existence outside of "the totality of all existence", a self-referential contradiction. Like the question of "When/how did God come into existence?" predicates temporal contingency of God, when my argument clearly proposes a God which is a nontemporal being.

and where all that energy came from?

The God that my argument arrives at as actus purus means that God, in his essence is pure energeia, energeia (Greek) being the Greek equivalent translated into Latin actus. In other words, any energy in the universe is the actualising (or energizing, in the Greek) principle of God at work. So he created the universe out of nothing, but the power (energy) to do so lies in his own nature. As for a temporal account for it's origin, that is the fallacy I answered above. As for the origin nontemporally, it lies in the being of God as the actualising principle of all actuality, and the infinite potence (as in, not limited in which potentialities he can actualise) of a being which is the actualizing principle of any potential actuality inside the universe.

---

Then we can regard your claim as the usual non-validatable bollocks then?

Which claim would you consider "bollocks", and on what rational grounds?

See above! More to the point, given that you cannot or will not justify it, it was an absolutely pointless observation on your part!

I said that in reply to Minimalists statement that "he has already rejected Christianity". My only point was that that is irrelevant to the rationality of his rejection, and the rational basis of it. I too, have been an atheist, I too have rejected Christianity before I accepted it. It makes no difference to whether it is true, and more importantly for this debate, to the rational soundness of my arguments.

As Arcanus pointed out:

First, I do not think Jon Paul has any expectations about how people here might treat him. His expectations are about how people here treat his arguments, given the extent of his experience with atheists claiming to esteem rational discourse. Those familiar with it know that rational discourse concentrates on the merits of the argument, not the character, attitude, circumstance, etc., of the arguer.

The fact that you have rejected Christianity is not entirely relevant (however interesting it might be biographically), but rather the basis for that rejection. There is ample evidence on this board that most of the atheists here who were former Christians were so around adolescence or earlier; in other words, the level of theological literacy is comparable to that of Sunday School children. His position amounts to, "Let us evaluate now, as grown ups, the rational integrity of your objections"—with tremendous emphasis on the "rational" point, governed as it is by the unforgiving rigor of logic. And given the fascinating array of logical fallacies (e.g., Begging the Question, Straw Man, Prejudicial Language, etc.), that evaluation is, by all accounts, speaking volumes.

(...)

He is not asking you to convert; he is not even asking you to be rational (although he expects you to be). But he is asking you to respond to the merits of his argument, with your response being evaluated by the unforgiving rigor of logic. If it holds up, that's great.

If it doesn't, that's great.