And why should Sarkus distinguish between beginning with a new form and beginning with from nothing even of existence itself?
Because one is just a change of form.
The other is the coming into existence of that which is then changing form.
Do you not see the difference between the two?
That is what Sarkus wants to do all the time because he wants to indulge in vain pomposity by verbosity and also in obfuscation by vain verbosity.
To be honest I see none of that from him.
I see clearly worded questions, and explanations for why those questions are felt to be important.
If he sees the need for clarity for a distinction he feels is being overlooked, why the issue in providing that clarity, or explaining why the distinction is not overlooked and, in your view, is not warranted?
Why do you feel unable or unwilling to answer those questions?
When a writer does not make any qualification why should anyone make distinction and then feel so smart in catering to his vain pomposity by verbosity and also seeks to derail the exchange by obfuscation via vain verbosity?
if the writer has overlooked the possibility of there being a distinction, raising it is warranted.
Even if one disagrees about whether there is a distinction or not, the raising of the issue is warranted.
And as for your continued use of the phrases "vain pomposity" and "vain verbosity", you seem to be the only one guilty of that here.
Suppose you take up my proposition, everything with a beginning needs a cause.
And let me see whether you will ask me whether it is this or that when I don t make any qualification in the first place.
I think Sarkus' point is valid: there is a category difference between the beginning of an arrangement of that which already exists, and the beginning of the existence of that which is then arranged.
If you make such a universal claim as you do, you encompass all categories.
While you can provide examples of one category, and while we can perhaps accept that proposition as true as it is applied to that one category, what is your justification for then applying it to the second category?
At the moment you have provided none.
Sarkus has seemingly identified where you were intending to go with your line of questioning: To use acceptance of the proposition as it applies to the first category as justification for acceptance as applied to the second is a logical fallacy: category error.
He has spotted this of your intended argument, and has headed you off at the pass, so to speak.
A preemptive desire to resolve this issue so that it does not become an issue later on, but an issue that must be addressed at some point.
And you now cry foul because you have no suitable response.
Or that is how it seems to me.
And no doubt to him, and others.
People like Sarkus are no different from the lazy, quibbling, time and trouble wasteful office worker, who when the boss tells him to get him a cup of coffee, he asks the boss "Should I get it from Starbucks or just from the coffee dispenser in the office?
If my employees didn't ask and brought me a coffee from the dispenser then I would think less of them than the one who had the foresight to ask and bring me one from Starbucks.
Asking the question up front provides clarity and thus efficiency of action and a more satisfactory resolution.
I urge all my employees to ask questions if they do not understand something.
And if a bad result happens because of a lack of clarity in instructions then I encourage them all to review what and where the additional clarity could have been efficiently sought that would have led to a satisfactory result.
And to then be sure to seek that clarity the next time.
But maybe you work differently.
You seem not only to be mistaking the questioning for procrastinating, but as it applies to the matter of your proposition you seem unable to even acknowledge that the category difference is there.
If you think it justified to ignore that category difference then simply provide it and then people can move on.
But you do not even acknowledge it.
Now you will also start making distinction and asking me whether the boss is this or that or whether the worker is this or that, and you as an atheist with your peculiar dodging and muddling up the issue will succeed making a poster go on and on catering to your vain pomposity with verbosity or obfuscation with vain verbosity.
If the distinction is there and is seen to be significant, why would one not raise the matter?
You may have issue with what you perceive we atheists try to do, yet we often have issue with theists trying to demonstrate a proof or logical argument for the existence of God using fallacious reasoning / logic, yet they seem unable and often simply unwilling to acknowledge where the flaw is.
If you can not address what is a clear category difference even in the proposition you are making then you are already on fallacious grounds as far as a sound conclusion is concerned.
My view, and no doubt view of Sarkus and others of our ilk, is why bother with the rest until we are sure of the foundation upon which the argument is built.
Tell you what, Baldee, you take up my proposition, everything with a beginning needs a cause, and just reply with spontaneity and candor after reading the whole text of my message and exercising your routine reading comprehension.
Sure.
But please spell my name correctly next time.
It seems to be true that everything within the universe with a beginning needs a cause.
We have no evidence and no justification for assuming the same of anything not within the universe.
Or of the universe itself.
That is what atheists are always into: dodging the issue, muddling up the issue, playing the fool or dummy, and also bashing God and theists with insulting analogies like celestial teapot (Bertrand Russell), or playing their most fraudulent scam of fake humility, "I [they] don't know."
I am sorry you feel that way about genuine intellectual endeavours to understand and examine arguments for and against the existence of God.
But please tell me how we dodge the issues?
How do we muddle up the issue when it is merely clarity that we seek?
If we raise issues that you have not thought of before, or are unable to address civilly, why should we take your position with any seriousness?
It is your view that such questions are "muddling up the issue" that speaks not to what we do in trying to understand the issues, but rather it speaks to your inability to think critically about your own position.
I also have issue with your accusation that we bash God with analogies such as the teapot.
If nothing else this thread should have laid out fairly robustly what the position is that we take with the teapot, and why it is a fair and valid analogy, with no bashing intended, nor perception of bashing warranted other than through an unwarranted sense of protectionism that would place sacred figures beyond scrutiny.
As for your last point, Pachomius: please tell me what you believe as utterly true: am I wearing a formal shirt today, or not?
I don't want statements of probability.
I want to know: do you believe I am wearing a formal shirt today?
Yes or no?
And if you say "no" then presumably you must mean you believe I am not wearing a formal shirt?
Or maybe you would like to admit that you simply don't know?
Ah, but of course, according to you it is a "fraudulent scam of fake humility" to conclude that you don't know.