Again that is why I was only focused on the single premise 2 of the KCA. You jumped over to the FTA and mixed that reasoning with the KCA to rebut the entire KCA. When I pointed this out to you, you then claimed I was the one jumping around to purposely confuse the issue.
My case to the context of this thread was specifically ...... that I have evidence for my beliefs. That's it. I could have chosen several different pieces of evidence to refute your claim here .....
Faith is a belief, conviction, held without the support of evidence, sometimes held even in the face of evidence to the contrary....
.... I chose to specifically provide the evidence I had for the reason of p2 of the KCA which is just one argument that leads to the conclusion that God exists. It was very narrow. I'm not trying to convince you that the argument is compelling. I certainly find the argument compelling and it has physical evidence to support p2. Thus I have evidence for what I believe. I concluded this with you back in post 63. Thus I don't hold my belief without evidence. My beliefs are not blind. Should the universe be proven to be eternal my belief would surely be in need of revision, no doubt. So yes atheism would be back on the table of possibilities.
As for the rest ..................
I did not see your evidence. Perhaps it was because I did not recognize what you presented as being evidence that supports the proposition of Creation.
Creation?
It supports p2 of the KCA and that you did agree to........... lets review the case from posts 16 through 63.
your post 16...
my reply 36......
Specifically with regards to the universe beginning to exist.
CMB, second law of thermodynamics, GTR, temp ripples in the CMB seeding galaxies, redshift, all of the spacetime theorems specifically the BGV theorem, observed time dilation in gamma-ray bursts, SBBM, the decay times of distant supernova light intensity, H-He abundance, inflation, etc.
From an atheistic cosmologist….
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." - Alexander Vilenkin
your response to that in post 61
....... According to the evidence, yes, the universe does indeed appear to have had a beginning 13 billion years ago.....in its present form,
My response to that specifically concluded ...... post 63...............
Again that was my point……I do have evidence that the universe began to exist, thus I have evidence for my belief that God exists. Hold on…..I’m not asserting that a beginning universe proves God exists, only that is evidence that supports my belief that he exists because the universe then needs a transcendent cause. How many worldviews purport a transcendent cause?
Case Closed I have evidence for what I believe. I should have stopped right there.
But.....
Since then you have been attempting to
redirect the debate to counter the KCA in its entirety. Which is a related issue for sure, but not the case I was here making. So having made my case with you, I went along with defending the KCA,
but then you started blaming me for getting off point. I had already made my point. I was continuing on with this other issue out of courtesy to you and for the thrill of the debate.
Now you are complaining you don't have enough time to properly address the topic and are blaming me for purposely trying to confuse the issue. So what is it you really want?
further from your last post......
It is not the evidence that leads to a conclusion. The evidence supports the reasoning that leads to the conclusion. Hence premise 2 is overtly supported by the science I provided.
Thus I have evidence to support the reasoning for what I believe. What is so hard about that?
I understand what you are saying, but do not agree that you have evidence that supports your reasoning.
but again your post in 61.........
....... According to the evidence, yes, the universe does indeed appear to have had a beginning 13 billion years ago.....in its present form,
.......but that is precisely p2 of the KCA. Thus you understood that I presented evidence that reasonably infers a past finite universe, which was my point. I don't have a blind faith.
So what is it you want?
What you seem to be assuming NOW is that my evidence has to pass your subjective epistemological standard to count as evidence. Well you aren't the final authority of that by any means. Thus you would have to make a case as to why that should be the case. I'm ready to explore that epistemological red herring, if that is what you choose, but don't blame me for getting off the topic.