Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There now, that wasn't too hard, was it? You finally admitted the universe has a cause.
I never claimed it didn't have a cause, so your remark is unjustified . The debate has ALWAYS been what that cause is , God or something like the BB.
But pat yourself on the back if you feel the need
Quote:
See? We're not too far off!
We are as far from you providing proof that God exists as we ever have been . In fact, if some who might have unthinkingly accepted the claims about the CA argument have read this thread, you have likely lost supporters by making this argument , as any thinking person can tell that when you have to exempt your own argument from the rules you wish the other side to play by that your argument is weak and unprovable .
Quote:
If you are willing to concede the logical need for a cause, we can move on to discuss the nature of that cause.
For the material universe, yes. Again, this was never the debate so it is you who seem to be just catching up to speed here . Please proceed now that you finally understand what non creationists are saying .
I never claimed it didn't have a cause, so your remark is unjustified . The debate has ALWAYS been what that cause is , God or something like the BB.
But pat yourself on the back if you feel the need
The argument does include that point, though. It's a basic step in the argument.
Quote:
We are as far from you providing proof that God exists as we ever have been . In fact, if some who might have unthinkingly accepted the claims about the CA argument have read this thread, you have likely lost supporters by making this argument , as any thinking person can tell that when you have to exempt your own argument from the rules you wish the other side to play by that your argument is weak and unprovable .
ok.
Do we agree that a cause exists?
For the material universe, yes. Again, this was never the debate so it is you who seem to be just catching up to speed here . Please proceed now that you finally understand what non creationists are saying .
There now, that wasn't too hard, was it? You finally admitted the universe has a cause.
.
The universe that we see around us today points toward having a cause. What we don't know is what was there before our present universe. If your argument is that your god has always been there, mine would be that there has always been a universe. It has always been there in different forms. Instead of the big bang, perhaps it was a big bounce in which a universe forms, expands then falls back to explode again, forming a new universe.
...and even if we were to concede that before the present universe there was nothing and it was 'caused', it is still your burden to show that it was your particular deity that caused it and not 'The Great Gonzo.'
He seeks to win a chess game by hiding his King in his pocket and then challenging us to check-mate him.
*applauds*
And this is why arguments with theists are eventually pointless. All the special rules they claim that they won't acknowledge and don't accept refutation.
The argument does include that point, though. It's a basic step in the argument.
Again, the debate is not whether our material universe has a cause . The debate is about who or what that cause is, God or something natural .
Quote:
So you concede that a cause is necessary?
A cause for the material universe , yes .
This does not apply to what existed at the point of the BB. Observing that our material universe has a beginning and a cause does not mean that the energy of the BB had a beginning and a causer . Dont conflate the two .
In my mind you are covering ground that no modern evolutionist has ever disagreed with . Please proceed with proving your point instead of insisting evolutionists admit to what you didn't seem to understand they already believed .
This does not apply to what existed at the point of the BB. Observing that our material universe has a beginning and a cause does not mean that the energy of the BB had a beginning and a causer .
He'll NEVER concede this old chum. I fear we are wasting out time.
He'll NEVER concede this old chum. I fear we are wasting out time.
It's nonetheless helpful to let him illustrate in person how weak his argument is , for others that read and may be on the fence to see .
So far he seems surprised that evolutionists don't believe the material universe has a beginning , which shows that he has no understanding of what he argues against if he truly thinks this .
Again, the debate is not whether our material universe has a cause . The debate is about who or what that cause is, God or something natural .
A cause for the material universe , yes .
This does not apply to what existed at the point of the BB. Observing that our material universe has a beginning and a cause does not mean that the energy of the BB had a beginning and a causer . Do t conflate the two .
In my mind you are covering ground that no modern evolutionist has ever disagreed with . Please proceed with proving your point instead of insisting evolutionists admit to what you didn't seem to understand they already believed .
I'm not sure why you're dragging evolution into this for. But now that you've agreed the universe has a cause, the question is if the cause is an intelligent, personal being? Or if it's an impersonal process. It's either one or the other, agreed?
I'm not sure why you're dragging evolution into this for.
Just a description as an opposite of creationist . Change it to non creationist .
Quote:
But now that you've agreed the universe has a cause, the question is if the cause is an intelligent, personal being? Or if it's an impersonal process. It's either one or the other, agreed?
I wouldn't say it has to be a personal or intelligent being . Hinduism posits a Creator but doesn't really get into worrying about intelligence or having a personal relationship with creation . Even some western for a conceive of something unlike this .
But for the sake of this debate, I'll agree to personal and intelligent vs an impersonal natural process . You propose a personal intelligent God and claim to be able to prove it .
Please proceed .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
