Book of Acts: Pure Fantasy

[KichigaiNeko]

There seem to be nine at the moment...but then I iz a suspicious Kitteh

[Phil]

Mine knows Kung Fu.

[KichigaiNeko]

OH Yeah!?!?!?!

[Whateverist]

Again, it's a simple question. Since the Universe has a beginning, there are only three possibilities..

either something always was (eternal first cause)
the universe began out of literally nothing
or there is an infinite regress of causes

Okay, I'll play. Wait, if I choose door number one "something always was", doesn't that mean the universe never actually had a beginning? Like everything else, the universe changes over time. But beginning a new phase is hardly the same thing as an actual beginning. At no point did nothing become something. Rather at some point in the past, that which we recognize as something came from something not differentiated into the categories which currently describe the stuff of the universe.

There was always something but that something that always was is certainly not a beginningless magic genie. Get real.

[Phil]

Again, it's a simple question. Since the Universe has a beginning, there are only three possibilities..

either something always was (eternal first cause)
the universe began out of literally nothing
or there is an infinite regress of causes

Okay, I'll play. Wait, if I choose door number one "something always was", doesn't that mean the universe never actually had a beginning? Like everything else, the universe changes over time. But beginning a new phase is hardly the same thing as an actual beginning. At no point did nothing become something. Rather at some point in the past, that which we recognize as something came from something not differentiated into the categories which currently describe the stuff of the universe.

There was always something but that something that always was is certainly not a beginningless magic genie. Get real.

You do know you're not playing fair with the christoholic right? He never heard of the trilemma argument and this is nothing more than a repackaged version meant to impress the ignorant church masses. It's a bifurcation fallacy in "science" clothing.

[Whateverist]

You do know you're not playing fair with the christoholic right? He never heard of the trilemma argument and this is nothing more than a repackaged version meant to impress the ignorant church masses. It's a bifurcation fallacy in "science" clothing.

I haven't heard of the trilemma argument either but it isn't very impressive, is it? Maybe its a parlor trick. Surely no one takes it seriously.

[Phil]

You do know you're not playing fair with the christoholic right? He never heard of the trilemma argument and this is nothing more than a repackaged version meant to impress the ignorant church masses. It's a bifurcation fallacy in "science" clothing.

I haven't heard of the trilemma argument either but it isn't very impressive, is it? Maybe its a parlor trick. Surely no one takes it seriously.

Here you go CLICK HERE.

Read about Lewis' Trilemma which is the Christian apologetics bifurcation fallacy. This "question" the christoholic is asking is nothing but the same bifurcation fallacy repackaged.

[genkaus]

I think you should tell me what you specifically believe happened before we get into this further.

I believe that the existence of the universe is eternal. There is no time in which the universe did not exist in some form or another.

The observable universe did not exist - certainly. There was no space or time for it to exist in, atleast not space and time that grew out of that singularity as we understand those concepts now. I cannot hold any rational beliefs beyond that.

[brotherlylove]

Again, it's a simple question. Since the Universe has a beginning, there are only three possibilities..

either something always was (eternal first cause)
the universe began out of literally nothing
or there is an infinite regress of causes

Okay, I'll play. Wait, if I choose door number one "something always was", doesn't that mean the universe never actually had a beginning? Like everything else, the universe changes over time. But beginning a new phase is hardly the same thing as an actual beginning. At no point did nothing become something. Rather at some point in the past, that which we recognize as something came from something not differentiated into the categories which currently describe the stuff of the universe.

There was always something but that something that always was is certainly not a beginningless magic genie. Get real.

If the Universe began to exist, it had a cause. To say something always was, it means that there is an eternal first cause of the Universe.

So it seems that you have no problem believing in something eternal, but it an eternal person that you do not believe is possible. Why is an eternal Universe more plausible than an eternal person?

---

You do know you're not playing fair with the christoholic right? He never heard of the trilemma argument and this is nothing more than a repackaged version meant to impress the ignorant church masses. It's a bifurcation fallacy in "science" clothing.

I haven't heard of the trilemma argument either but it isn't very impressive, is it? Maybe its a parlor trick. Surely no one takes it seriously.

Here you go CLICK HERE.

Read about Lewis' Trilemma which is the Christian apologetics bifurcation fallacy. This "question" the christoholic is asking is nothing but the same bifurcation fallacy repackaged.

There is no such thing as a "christian apologetics bifuraction fallacy". You're talking about a false dilemma, and if I am offering one, feel free to present your argument.

---

I think you should tell me what you specifically believe happened before we get into this further.

I believe that the existence of the universe is eternal. There is no time in which the universe did not exist in some form or another.

The observable universe did not exist - certainly. There was no space or time for it to exist in, atleast not space and time that grew out of that singularity as we understand those concepts now. I cannot hold any rational beliefs beyond that.

So, you're postulating an eternal past? The problem with that is, you can't have an infinite series of past events. The reason being, that you could not reach the present with an infinite past, because you would have to traverse an infinite number of events to get to today. The Universe would have to start somewhere for us to be having this conversation.

[Minimalist]

No one designed the designer. God is an eternal being.

Forgive me for saying this but you have to be a fucking lunatic to believe in such utter nonsense.