The Theory of Evolution.

[Guest]

Yes, but I am looking for something more quantitative than qualitative. For instance, are you aware of something that begins to exist without using a finite amount of already available mass/energy?

When

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 1:1-3

One Considers

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it. Isaiah 55:11

The Incredible Word Of God

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Psalms 33:6

One Will Never Look At The Creation In Quite The Same Way Again

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Psalms 19:1-3

Unless....

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:36

See?

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4

Believe And Be Blessed Beloved

Love, Joe

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Viole, no one agrees with you because this is so demonstrably defiant of the Laws of Physics, all our observations, and logic.

Laws of Physics and observations are exactly what make this syllogism irrelevant.

And yet you'll find yourself entirely incapable of demonstrating how so.

Entropy flows in one direction, even pop science knows that:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-04/bummer-week-metamaterial-toy-black-hole-shows-time-travel-impossible

Actually, I am surprised that there are modern people who still take this medieval argument seriously (which, ironically, intended to prove Allah existence).

But even if it were able to prove that there is a cause (there might be, indeed) you still need to prove that the cause

is conscious, and He is the God of Christianity.

First of all no - you don't understand arguementation.

If you're using an arguement to establish a point that, once established, is the premise to another point then that premise is not the conclusion of another point.

Here, let me show you.

If A then B.

A therefore B.

If B then C.

B therefore C.

Therefore, if A then C.

What you're suggesting is A needs to presuppose C.

It doesn't. That's the whole purpose of the arguement. It established the syllogism.

So, bearing that in mind, I already make the case you're pretending I didn't.

Remember that I pointed out that if the cause transcends time then it's timeless/eternal.

An eternal cause that's static (unchanging) would have a static effect on the material universe, so it's dynamic. The immaterial things that exist are abstract objects like numbers and absolute laws and personalities.

Therefore, it must have been a personality, or, as you put it, a consciousness.

He's demonstrably the God of Christianity because of fulfilled prophesy and the witness of the Holy Spirit, but that comes only after your concessions that if A then B, A therefore B, and if B then C, B therefore C.

It is like being exhausted after 1 KM during a marathon run.

No, it's nothing like that. At all. Not even a little bit like that in any respect... see my above explaination for details.

Viole, logic is not something that bends to your impressions. It's a tool that has to be learned and applied and you haven't learned it and don't know how to apply it, which is suprising because its the mathmatical formulas of placing abstract concepts other than numbers- it should be easy for you.

Actually, there is a big choice of ways to attack it. We already discussed some of them.

They were demonstrably fallacious so your big choice is to choose fallacy or reject fallacy.

Consider for instance the sentence

- Everything that begins to exist has a cause

I might be slow, but I cannot think of anything in our daily observations that begins to exist. Could you provide an example?

First, this only goes to prove my assertion. If we never observe things to just pop into being out of nothing, it supports my case and damns yours. Surely you can see that.

But further, I already mentioned that to you that you began to exist. There was a time before Viole (unless your a solopsist).

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

haha.

Looks like she's reached the end of her atheist playlist, but it's set on "repeat".

Notice how her argument has now shifted back to genetic fallacies and chronological snobbery against the argument instead of actually dealing with the argument itself, I think she tried that same one about a month ago.

"The Cosmological Argument is too old and was invented by a Muslim, so therefore the argument must be wrong"

...And after I told her twice that the pre big bang state is ontologically(or causally) prior to the universe and not temporally prior she ignores it and carries on acting as if the time issue is an insurmountable obstacle.

She's also tried this idea before that the Cosmological argument doesn't prove the God of Christianity as if that saves atheism from the argument. It's a case of, "Sure the argument shows there is a God, but since we don't know which God, we can still believe there is no God. Woohoo!". How absurd and how sad, rehashing previously failed arguments hoping they'll stick this time. What do they say about people to do the same thing over expecting different results?

Fez, you're right...

I think you mean, "Don't feed the Swede" - it's got a nice ring to it.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Is that all that you've got?

Sorry, but this is a typical case of male's arrogance.

That's sexisim.

So much for your equality.

Looks like you are not able to answer the question either: what example can you provide concerning something that begins to exists?

Your strategy is pretty clear: the only way you can win this is by getting me banned as a troll :-(

I am afraid you are not strong enough to accept to be intellectually challenged by a woman.

More judgments based on gender.

You're really badly discriminatory.

Why do you hate men so much Viole? Is that why you reject God, because he's a Father figure and you have such a clear agenda to reject masculine correction?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Yes, but I am looking for something more quantitative than qualitative. For instance, are you aware of something that begins

to exist without using a finite amount of already available mass/energy?

That's exactly the point Viole.

Since it doesn't happen yet it must have then there was a cause, and since there wasn't any mass/energy by necessity since mass and energy were created then it was an immaterial cause.

You're proving the point you're seeking to reject.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

OldEnglishSheepdog,

remember what I said to you a while back in that email? ( dated March 21)

Was I spot on or what? Check it out:

I am afraid you are not strong enough to accept to be intellectually challenged by a woman.

Yes you were. I've kept that in mind and noticed many times how right you were.

At first I though it might have been a cover, but I think your interpretation of the fact that "The lady doth protest too much" was spot on.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Is that all that you've got?

Sorry, but this is a typical case of male's arrogance.

Looks like you are not able to answer the question either: what example can you provide concerning something that begins to exists?

Your strategy is pretty clear: the only way you can win this is by getting me banned as a troll :-(

I am afraid you are not strong enough to accept to be intellectually challenged by a woman.

In the above post you're asking ME if that's all I got, refering to my supposed 'male arrogance'. It seems then that you're attributing my statement to me, as the originator. Surely then if you yourself attribute my statement to me then it serves as an example of something which began to exist, of which I'm the originator.

Bazinga!

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Actually, your first question is a good one. My understanding is that there are a number of math models that show that there is an infinite number of universes.

O please. They suppose that there could be. There's a world of difference there.

If that is the case, then there is no need to posit a first universe.

Of course there is - this doesn't solve the problem it simply differs the problem to a larger, more theoretical scale.

But further, entropy is running its course. This universe had a beginning irrespective of other universes - that's the relevant point.

This doesn't even start to deal with anything we're concerned with here.

As I noted there are some possible tests for these models, and in the future we may be able to rule some (all?) of them out.

On the other hand, it is not a logical fallacy not to accept the premise of God.

Yes it is, because you haven't dealt with our cosmological dilemma by suggesting the possibiilty of other universes, at all.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Yes, but I am looking for something more quantitative than qualitative. For instance, are you aware of something that begins

to exist without using a finite amount of already available mass/energy?

That's exactly the point Viole.

Since it doesn't happen yet it must have then there was a cause, and since there wasn't any mass/energy by necessity since mass and energy were created then it was an immaterial cause.

You're proving the point you're seeking to reject.

So, the answer to my question is ...?

Do you have evidence of something "beginning to exist" which does not require pre-existing mass energy?

Apart from the universe itself, of course

How many times do you need us to answer the question?

Your personality and Luftwaffle's post are two answers you fled from. Why do you need more from which to run away?

Further, the whole point that the only instances we can cite are the results of immaterial minds calling things into existance since material things are not popping into being out of nothing proves the point.

We've established that from nothing, nothing comes, we've established that from the agency of consciousness things begin to exist, and it's established that the material universe is finite because of entropy and the laws of motion (otherwise you have an infinite regression of past events), and you're establishing that matter and energy don't just pop into being from nothing (which you don't seem to realize is cutting off the branch you're sitting on) therefore matter and energy had to come into existance from an immaterial consciousness.

What you think is a defeater for this argument is actually continuing to lend support to the arguement.

1. Matter and energy don't just pop into being uncaused out of nothing.

2. Anything that doesn't just pop into being uncaused out of nothing came caused out of something.

3. Therefore matter and energy had a cause from something.

You're attempts at including qualified defeaters are logically incoherent and you continue to prove yourself wrong.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

[Your personality and Luftwaffle's post are two answers you fled from. Why do you need more to run away from?

Do you really believe that I, and my personality, would exist without previously existing matter/energy?

Can you think without eating food?

You've got to be kidding.