An infinite series of finite causes.

[JonathanL]

The problem with both of you is no competent educational background in the science you ridicule and denigrate.

I would love to see where I did any of that in this thread.

[seer]

Well if gods nature is not static, if god acts, then according to your own logic, gods existence is impossible because it would require an infinite regression of actions.

No Jim, first God's acts do not necessarily have to be physical, and we are speaking of an infinite number of past physical causes and effects. Second, just because God can act does not mean He was acting. My point remains though, there would be no way to scientifically prove a past number of infinite universes/events leading up to ours.

[JimL]

No Jim, first God's acts do not necessarily have to be physical, and we are speaking of an infinite number of past physical causes and effects.

Doesn't matter seer. If an infinite number of cause and effect events is impossible then they are impossible regardless of whether they are physical actions or mental actions.

Second, just because God can act does not mean He was acting.

Even if that argument made sense, the same could be said about a greater cosmos.

My point remains though, there would be no way to scientifically prove a past number of infinite universes/events leading up to ours.

And so does mine, if the above is true, then there is no way to prove it is true in either case whether the infinity of events be acts of the universe, or acts of god.

[MaxVel]

I would love to see where I did any of that in this thread.

That's Shunya-speak for "You disagreed with me and showed where I was wrong"

[JonathanL]

That's Shunya-speak for "You disagreed with me and showed where I was wrong"

Well, Matt did most of the showing, I was just here for the ride.

[shunyadragon]

Two things. 1) That an infinite regression can or cannot be empirically proven shows that the question is metaphysical.

This is a cop out, because Craig and other apologists use the argument to justify that our physical existence must have a beginning, therefore an Intelligent 'Source' outside the universe.

2) Quantum Mechanics has do do with finite things.

False, Quantum Mechanics does not define the micro-world as either finite nor infinite. It deals with the properties of the micro-world. Actually, with no potential boundary to the Quantum World it is potentially endless and eternal.

[shunyadragon]

No Jim, first God's acts do not necessarily have to be physical, and we are speaking of an infinite number of past physical causes and effects.

Our physical existence is potentially infinite and eternal, and cannot be limited by a sequence of an actual infinity set of an infinite number of causes and effects.

[37818]

This is a cop out, because Craig and other apologists use the argument to justify that our physical existence must have a beginning, therefore an Intelligent 'Source' outside the universe.

There is no empirical [physical] evidence. The arguments are therefore metaphysical.

False, Quantum Mechanics does not define the micro-world as either finite nor infinite. It deals with the properties of the micro-world. Actually, with no potential boundary to the Quantum World it is potentially endless and eternal.

False. Provide evidence that what you said is not false.

In physics quantum refers to a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents.

Discrete being individually separate and distinc.

Quantity being a finite amount.

[mattbballman31]

Empty bluster!

Just show me how the premise(s) of a deductive metaphysical argument can be true. That's all I ask. Because, even you are aware that a deductive argument can be a 'sound' argument ONLY if it is both valid AND all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound. I.e. its conclusions cannot be shown to be true.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

I just had an idea. Maybe your reading skills are so bad, that if I write 'too much', you're brain synapses get clogged, things get blurry, and, like the sheep in Animal Farm, an inner voice starts bleating "Science gooooooooooood, metaphysics baaaaaaaaaaaad."

So, let me try this. Let's take this one step at a time. Just answer my questions one at a time.

When you say "SHOW" in your demand that I show how a premise in a deductive metaphysical argument can be true, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY 'SHOW'?

I'm trying to get you to at least UNDERSTAND me, before you try to refute me. Please, just try to UNDERSTAND where I'm come from.

Do you think there is only ONE understanding to the verb 'show' when you want me to SHOW you how a premise in a metaphysical argument can be true?

Please answer this one question, and we can get to the next step. I REALIZE, and SUSPECT, that when you say 'HOW', you're meaning 'demonstrate via various scientific methodologies'.

That may or may not be correct, AT THIS POINT. Right now. ALL I WANT TO DO, is to see if this is what you're meaning, and then we can get to the point where you can, at least, UNDERSTAND what 'I MEAN' by 'SHOW'. THEN, we can get to whether or not WHAT YOU UNDERSTAND ME TO BE SAYING can be a KIND OF SHOWING in that domain of inquiry that is metaphysical.

Please answer my question. This is the only way I can think of to make headway here.

[mattbballman31]

NO!!!!

Fine. Be an idiotic troll, for all I care. It's a free country.

[shunyadragon]

There is no empirical [physical] evidence. The arguments are therefore metaphysical.

That is not what Craig claims

In physics quantum refers to a discrete quantity of energy proportional in magnitude to the frequency of the radiation it represents.

Only the measurement of Quanta scale matter and energy, and this does not address whether the Quantum world is fine nor infinite, nor temporal nor eternal.

[Tassman]

When you say "SHOW" in your demand that I show how a premise in a deductive metaphysical argument can be true, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY 'SHOW'?

I'm trying to get you to at least UNDERSTAND me, before you try to refute me. Please, just try to UNDERSTAND where I'm come from.

[seer]

Metaphysical arguments like that there was an infinite number of past causes and effects that lead to this universe?

[seer]

Only the measurement of Quanta scale matter and energy, and this does not address whether the Quantum world is fine nor infinite, nor temporal nor eternal.

What are you talking about? As far as we know this universe had a starting point and is finite, and as far as we know we only find the quantum world in this universe. The rest is metaphysical speculation.

[37818]

That is not what Craig claims

What does he claim is physical evidence for?

Only the measurement of Quanta scale matter and energy, and this does not address whether the Quantum world is fine[?finite] nor infinite, nor temporal nor eternal.

Infinite and eternal are metaphysical arguments. That there are infinite possibilities is a matter of the quantum world. The mathematics of quantum physics.