Wait... you're an evolution denier, too?
Proof of the existence of God
- Thread starter Jason.Marshall
- Start date
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
of course not.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
keep your eyes covered, i've had it with you... for now.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
exactly what i said is what i meant.
Got it.
You post rubbish and declare you've had it with me ...
Care to explain?
My response is, how do you know everything with a beginning has a cause?
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
It was about 300,000 years before things cooled down enough for that to happen or for it to travel anyway.
Last edited:
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Somebody in the net says:
A cause in physics is a flow of energy from a region of higher energy to a region of lower energy. An effect is the change that results.
That is still begging the issue, what is the cause of the flow?
Thinking on facts and logic requires us to always seek out the ultimate cause of everything with a beginning, otherwise it is all begging the question.
Okay, guys, don’t give any attention whatsoever to anyone redefining nothing so that it is no longer literally nothing but something, he is just into making us chase a wild goose, so don’t fall for it, even though he writes volumes and volumes of fictions.
Sorry, I can’t answer to everyone, I am only one writer, writing for myself; if you have a good thought, put it in brief language, concise, precise, and definite: don’t bring in links or authorities (just appropriate it and simply mention that you borrow it, but don’t have to put any link: your borrowed idea is valid on its own merit – and you have done your duty to give credit to the author even though you don’t bother with links and explicit attributions.
Okay, for guys who want to explain away that parents are not the cause of their children, please just stop quibbling.
It’s useless.
Let us just concentrate on this idea, everything with a beginning has a cause.
Now, do your own thinking on facts and logic, please stop already with evading the instant issue, everything with a beginning has a cause.
Everytime I reply to one of you guys I notice later that you have succeeded to take away my attention from the idea, everything with a beginning has a cause.
So, and no more links from any source whatever, give your own thinking and writing on this idea, everything with a beginning has a cause.
It is a self-evident idea.
Dear readers here, I will have to go to another board in this forum to see whether I can get posters to dialog with me on the idea, everything with a beginning has a cause -- the usual atheists here are always unremittingly into evasions, nothing else.
And don’t bring in as example whatever not of the realm where we actually exist in, live in, make a living in, die in, and get buried in: nothing like virtual particles, all these fictions are altogether nothing of the reality of our existence and life.
Give an example like the baby has a beginning, it has its cause in its parents.
Or like this one which is macabre, you commit sucide by hagning yourself, the suicide event has a beginning, and you are the cause.
So, present an example of something that has a beginning but no cause: please, nothing of fictions, your example be in the realm where we exist in, live in, make a living in, die in, and get buried in.
If you insist on such fictions like virtual particles, then just set up your own thread to talk about the fiction of virtual particles.
Everyone, concentrate on this idea, it is self-evident that everything with a beginning has a cause.
If you don't find it self-evident, just give an example from the realm where we exist in, live in, make a living in, die in, and get buried in, of someting with a beginning that does not have a caujse: no need to write volumes and volumes of words, one example proves your point perfectly -- if you can present one.
So write on this matter in your next post here.
A cause in physics is a flow of energy from a region of higher energy to a region of lower energy. An effect is the change that results.
That is still begging the issue, what is the cause of the flow?
Thinking on facts and logic requires us to always seek out the ultimate cause of everything with a beginning, otherwise it is all begging the question.
Okay, guys, don’t give any attention whatsoever to anyone redefining nothing so that it is no longer literally nothing but something, he is just into making us chase a wild goose, so don’t fall for it, even though he writes volumes and volumes of fictions.
Sorry, I can’t answer to everyone, I am only one writer, writing for myself; if you have a good thought, put it in brief language, concise, precise, and definite: don’t bring in links or authorities (just appropriate it and simply mention that you borrow it, but don’t have to put any link: your borrowed idea is valid on its own merit – and you have done your duty to give credit to the author even though you don’t bother with links and explicit attributions.
Okay, for guys who want to explain away that parents are not the cause of their children, please just stop quibbling.
It’s useless.
Let us just concentrate on this idea, everything with a beginning has a cause.
Now, do your own thinking on facts and logic, please stop already with evading the instant issue, everything with a beginning has a cause.
Everytime I reply to one of you guys I notice later that you have succeeded to take away my attention from the idea, everything with a beginning has a cause.
So, and no more links from any source whatever, give your own thinking and writing on this idea, everything with a beginning has a cause.
It is a self-evident idea.
Dear readers here, I will have to go to another board in this forum to see whether I can get posters to dialog with me on the idea, everything with a beginning has a cause -- the usual atheists here are always unremittingly into evasions, nothing else.
And don’t bring in as example whatever not of the realm where we actually exist in, live in, make a living in, die in, and get buried in: nothing like virtual particles, all these fictions are altogether nothing of the reality of our existence and life.
Give an example like the baby has a beginning, it has its cause in its parents.
Or like this one which is macabre, you commit sucide by hagning yourself, the suicide event has a beginning, and you are the cause.
So, present an example of something that has a beginning but no cause: please, nothing of fictions, your example be in the realm where we exist in, live in, make a living in, die in, and get buried in.
If you insist on such fictions like virtual particles, then just set up your own thread to talk about the fiction of virtual particles.
Everyone, concentrate on this idea, it is self-evident that everything with a beginning has a cause.
If you don't find it self-evident, just give an example from the realm where we exist in, live in, make a living in, die in, and get buried in, of someting with a beginning that does not have a caujse: no need to write volumes and volumes of words, one example proves your point perfectly -- if you can present one.
So write on this matter in your next post here.
I'm wondering, as Pachomius cycles yet again through his stock phrases and doesn't actually say anything new, doesn't advance his argument, whether or not he realises that his argument is used, almost exactly, for a rather different purpose. I'm not referring to what will ultimately be his unsound "proof" of God, but to the notion that the is no free-will other than our mere perception of "choice".
If Pachomius wants to argue that God necessarily exists because "everything with a beginning has a cause", then he can not dispute that every action we take has a cause, every decision we make has a cause, and that our "choice" is caused, our reasons for choosing are caused, the causes are likewise caused.
And by "caused" I do refer to the absolute obeyance of the laws of physics that lead from the cause to the effect. There is no room for something that is not part of the chain, nor does not obey the laws of physics.
If Pachomius, in his desire to "prove" that God exists, is certain that nothing with a beginning does not have a cause, then he must accept, agree, and promote the notion that all our actions are caused, with no possibility of deviation from the laws of physics that move us from cause to effect.
Any such deviation that might give rise to a truly "free" action is to introduce a beginning without a cause.
So, Pachomius, which is it? Do you accept that free will does not exist in this otherwise unending causal chain that obeys the laws of physics? Or do you want your God to allow freewill, in which case you must (by thinking on facts and logic) agree that things with a beginning might have no cause.
Personally I am of the "no free-will" camp, and I have no issue with the notion that "everything with a beginning has a cause" as long as you limit your logical conclusions to that from which you limit your examples.
So please, move on with your argument.
Assume that I and others have accepted your notion that everything with a beginning has a cause.
Assume that we have thought on facts and logic.
And please move on with your argument.
You have your proposition: everything with a beginning has a cause.
What is your next step in your argument to "prove" thatwe have no freewill God exists?
If Pachomius wants to argue that God necessarily exists because "everything with a beginning has a cause", then he can not dispute that every action we take has a cause, every decision we make has a cause, and that our "choice" is caused, our reasons for choosing are caused, the causes are likewise caused.
And by "caused" I do refer to the absolute obeyance of the laws of physics that lead from the cause to the effect. There is no room for something that is not part of the chain, nor does not obey the laws of physics.
If Pachomius, in his desire to "prove" that God exists, is certain that nothing with a beginning does not have a cause, then he must accept, agree, and promote the notion that all our actions are caused, with no possibility of deviation from the laws of physics that move us from cause to effect.
Any such deviation that might give rise to a truly "free" action is to introduce a beginning without a cause.
So, Pachomius, which is it? Do you accept that free will does not exist in this otherwise unending causal chain that obeys the laws of physics? Or do you want your God to allow freewill, in which case you must (by thinking on facts and logic) agree that things with a beginning might have no cause.
Personally I am of the "no free-will" camp, and I have no issue with the notion that "everything with a beginning has a cause" as long as you limit your logical conclusions to that from which you limit your examples.
So please, move on with your argument.
Assume that I and others have accepted your notion that everything with a beginning has a cause.
Assume that we have thought on facts and logic.
And please move on with your argument.
You have your proposition: everything with a beginning has a cause.
What is your next step in your argument to "prove" that
I'm wondering, as Pachomius cycles yet again through his stock phrases and doesn't actually say anything new, doesn't advance his argument, whether or not he realises that his argument is used, almost exactly, for a rather different purpose. I'm not referring to what will ultimately be his unsound "proof" of God, but to the notion that the is no free-will other than our mere perception of "choice".
If Pachomius wants to argue that God necessarily exists because "everything with a beginning has a cause", then he can not dispute that every action we take has a cause, every decision we make has a cause, and that our "choice" is caused, our reasons for choosing are caused, the causes are likewise caused.
And by "caused" I do refer to the absolute obeyance of the laws of physics that lead from the cause to the effect. There is no room for something that is not part of the chain, nor does not obey the laws of physics.
If Pachomius, in his desire to "prove" that God exists, is certain that nothing with a beginning does not have a cause, then he must accept, agree, and promote the notion that all our actions are caused, with no possibility of deviation from the laws of physics that move us from cause to effect.
Any such deviation that might give rise to a truly "free" action is to introduce a beginning without a cause.
So, Pachomius, which is it? Do you accept that free will does not exist in this otherwise unending causal chain that obeys the laws of physics? Or do you want your God to allow freewill, in which case you must (by thinking on facts and logic) agree that things with a beginning might have no cause.
Personally I am of the "no free-will" camp, and I have no issue with the notion that "everything with a beginning has a cause" as long as you limit your logical conclusions to that from which you limit your examples.
So please, move on with your argument.
Assume that I and others have accepted your notion that everything with a beginning has a cause.
Assume that we have thought on facts and logic.
And please move on with your argument.
You have your proposition: everything with a beginning has a cause.
What is your next step in your argument to "prove" thatwe have no freewill God exists?
If Pachomius wants to argue that God necessarily exists because "everything with a beginning has a cause", then he can not dispute that every action we take has a cause, every decision we make has a cause, and that our "choice" is caused, our reasons for choosing are caused, the causes are likewise caused.
And by "caused" I do refer to the absolute obeyance of the laws of physics that lead from the cause to the effect. There is no room for something that is not part of the chain, nor does not obey the laws of physics.
If Pachomius, in his desire to "prove" that God exists, is certain that nothing with a beginning does not have a cause, then he must accept, agree, and promote the notion that all our actions are caused, with no possibility of deviation from the laws of physics that move us from cause to effect.
Any such deviation that might give rise to a truly "free" action is to introduce a beginning without a cause.
So, Pachomius, which is it? Do you accept that free will does not exist in this otherwise unending causal chain that obeys the laws of physics? Or do you want your God to allow freewill, in which case you must (by thinking on facts and logic) agree that things with a beginning might have no cause.
Personally I am of the "no free-will" camp, and I have no issue with the notion that "everything with a beginning has a cause" as long as you limit your logical conclusions to that from which you limit your examples.
So please, move on with your argument.
Assume that I and others have accepted your notion that everything with a beginning has a cause.
Assume that we have thought on facts and logic.
And please move on with your argument.
You have your proposition: everything with a beginning has a cause.
What is your next step in your argument to "prove" that
That's your mistake. The realm we live in is nothing like the time when the entire universe was the size of an atom. The way you try to win a debate is to silence anyone making a legitimate criticism. You don't get to make up rules just to suit your argument.
Neither is God a part of the realm I actually exist in. It's a fiction.