Atheism irrefutable.

[37818]

Seriously? Are there any other Christians -or indeed anyone- who believe(s) that a cause in order to be a cause must be finite and temporal?

What effect is infinite without beginning and not a change? No such thing. Effects by meaning have a cause. All causes are temporal and finite as to bring about their effects, and so are temporal and finite. Explain how it can be any other way?

[37818]

Needs clarification. It does not make sense.

As to Christians knowing God you gave a one word reply, "faith." That can mean anything from truth to error. And faith, while needed, does not create the reality.

IT is possible that natural law and the nature of our physical existence is the cause of our 'mere?' existence.

That makes no sense at all. You still do not understand. Existence is either the state of a thing (verb) or the everywhere (noun). Natural law requires existence (noun) for it to be (existence, the verb). Existence (noun) precedes everything that exists (the verb).

[37818]

Sigh - prove existence. If you can't - and you can't - then it's an assumption.

Metaphysics: it's not for wimps.

Existence is presumed without proof of it. So many theists argue proofs for the existence of God. In such arguments existence is not what needs proof, God does. The issue becomes existence versus God. The question then is why does existence need God?

Uncaused existence is the logical starting point. Existence and cause are two different things.

[shunyadragon]

As to Christians knowing God you gave a one word reply, "faith." That can mean anything from truth to error. And faith, while needed, does not create the reality.

True, but not meaningful beyond what one believes.

That makes no sense at all. You still do not understand. Existence is either the state of a thing (verb) or the everywhere (noun). Natural law requires existence (noun) for it to be (existence, the verb). Existence (noun) precedes everything that exists (the verb).

I understand very well as always in the past you are simply arguing fro the assumption of what you believe to be true. Begging the Question big time.
Makes perfect sense. Existence may be everywhere, and Natural Law is possibly eternal and the cause of everything.

[Teallaura]

Existence is presumed without proof of it. So many theists argue proofs for the existence of God. In such arguments existence is not what needs proof, God does. The issue becomes existence versus God. The question then is why does existence need God?

Uncaused existence is the logical starting point. Existence and cause are two different things.

A presumption is just an assumption defined by when it occurs. Translation YES, it's an ASSUMPTION.

You keep wanting to skip proofs but you can only do that when everyone agrees that an assumption doesn't require it. No one sane is going to concede an assumption that disproves their conclusion.

So, if you want to argue that God necessarily exists with people other than Christians, you have got to deal with proving the underlying assumptions - which in turn would prove God's existence, negating your 'don't need proof' thesis in its entirety.

Until you are willing to at least try to understand the opposition POV, you are hopelessly stuck with an argument that doesn't do what you think it does.

And this is getting a bit much - I'm bowing out. No one should have to fight five fronts at once.

[Teallaura]

True, but not meaningful beyond what one believes.



I understand very well as always in the past you are simply arguing fro the assumption of what you believe to be true. Begging the Question big time.
Makes perfect sense. Existence may be everywhere, and Natural Law is possibly eternal and the cause of everything.

Psst, technically, he has to be arguing with the assumption that his conclusion is true, not that his assumptions are. All argument is based on assuming the assumptions are true in order to provide the basis to argue from.

I think you're correct, he probably is begging the question but thus far, he hasn't stated anything that outright proves he's arguing from the assumption of the truth of the conclusion, even though he is arguing in a circle.

Okay, really leaving now....

[crepuscule]

What effect is infinite without beginning and not a change? No such thing. Effects by meaning have a cause. All causes are temporal and finite as to bring about their effects, and so are temporal and finite. Explain how it can be any other way?

Not any other way? How is it metaphysically impossible that a cause is atemporal and infinite, other than because you say it can't be?

[37818]

Makes perfect sense. Existence may be everywhere, and Natural Law is possibly eternal and the cause of everything.

Like I said you really do not understand.

Natural law meaning what? To have meaning it has to exist. Natural law, what ever it my entail, is contingent on it existing. Therefore existence, uncaused existence precedes natural law. Uncaused existence is the starting point for there to be any natural law.

[37818]

A presumption is just an assumption defined by when it occurs. Translation YES, it's an ASSUMPTION.

You presume the existence of existence to be an assumption! Either a thing is true or it is not true. For a thing to be true it has to exist or it is not true.

You keep wanting to skip proofs but you can only do that when everyone agrees that an assumption doesn't require it. No one sane is going to concede an assumption that disproves their conclusion.

You are arguing the existence of assumption. Now again, either a thing is true or it is not true. A thing is true only if and how it exists.

So, if you want to argue that God necessarily exists with people other than Christians, you have got to deal with proving the underlying assumptions - which in turn would prove God's existence, negating your 'don't need proof' thesis in its entirety.

In such an argument, again, one must presume existence to argue a proof for God's existence. Again, either a thing is true or not true. A thing is true only if it exists.

Until you are willing to at least try to understand the opposition POV, you are hopelessly stuck with an argument that doesn't do what you think it does.

The so-called opposition POV presumes existence, does it not?

And this is getting a bit much - I'm bowing out. No one should have to fight five fronts at once.

What is the starting your starting point? What is it you yourself are presuming?

A proof is to show the existence of a thing. Again, existence is what is presumed.

[37818]

Not any other way? How is it metaphysically impossible that a cause is atemporal and infinite, other than because you say it can't be?

Explain what you mean by an atemporal infinite cause. For example, the very concept of an uncaused cause is both eternal and temporal. What is uncaused is eternal. As a cause is finite and temporal. Atemporal and temporal are two different things as well, so infinite and finite are two different things. So an atemporal infinite cause would be multiple things. Unless said cause did not cause anything finite and temporal.

[shunyadragon]

Explain what you mean by an atemporal infinite cause. For example, the very concept of an uncaused cause is both eternal and temporal. What is uncaused is eternal. As a cause is finite and temporal. Atemporal and temporal are two different things as well, so infinite and finite are two different things. So an atemporal infinite cause would be multiple things. Unless said cause did not cause anything finite and temporal.

An atemporal cause would be a cause outside time, which would be what Natural Law as an eternal cause would be, outside time and space of our universe, and all possible universes.

Natural Law would not be a temporal 'thing.'

[Teallaura]

You presume the existence of existence to be an assumption! Either a thing is true or it is not true. For a thing to be true it has to exist or it is not true.

...

Bible, your own definition calls this a presumption - you do understand that presumption and assumption are only different in time frame - otherwise, a presumption is just an assumption.

IF the presumption is true, prove it. Prove that existence has an external reality.

Which you can't - we are already PRESUMING existence.


I left off the rest because you're getting lost here. Your argument is that you don't have to prove that God exists because of uncaused cause - but that argument rests on the presumption of existence, which cannot be proven. If I were still an atheist, this wouldn't even slow me down since I'd likely accept a multiverse (gah) view - which makes pink unicorns and non-existent existence possible thereby avoiding the whole thing.

But if I were taking it seriously, then I'd simply argue that not knowing cause isn't the same thing as uncaused - in other words, I'd use the 'magic' of physics (tell me quantum doesn't qualify ) to argue that there must be a cause we just don't know of yet (multiverses help here, too - icky though they be).

That all translates to your argument remains uncompelling for the atheist - and circular to the theist.

[Teallaura]

Explain what you mean by an atemporal infinite cause. For example, the very concept of an uncaused cause is both eternal and temporal. What is uncaused is eternal. As a cause is finite and temporal. Atemporal and temporal are two different things as well, so infinite and finite are two different things. So an atemporal infinite cause would be multiple things. Unless said cause did not cause anything finite and temporal.

Sigh, it's yet another trick - they are now using your logic but renaming God. Shuny is calling Him 'natural law'.

This looks like crap to me - I've not seen it before but it looks like a simple dodge. I'll have to read up before making up my mind about it, though.

[Teallaura]

Seriously? Are there any other Christians -or indeed anyone- who believe(s) that a cause in order to be a cause must be finite and temporal?

Here Bible is talking about what caused the universe - that cannot be finite and temporal because that would make the cause part of the effect. An uncaused cause must be infinite and eternal.

[Tassman]

Here Bible is talking about what caused the universe - that cannot be finite and temporal because that would make the cause part of the effect. An uncaused cause must be infinite and eternal.

Is there any reason why we cannot attribute these qualities (i.e. "infinite and eternal") to the universe itself...why add a deity into the mix?