-
Features
There are No Conscientious Explanations to Disprove the Proof for God and Jesus Being God
- Thread starter revivin
- Start date
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
You haven't proven shit. YOu've stated that infinite regress is impossible but your explanation makes no sense.
And you've stated that 'something from nothing' is impossible, but you haven't addressed the reason scientists might think that nothing produces something, so your statement is meaningless. Therefore, your 'since' is premature.
Special pleading, yep.
THe rules are the rules except when we want them to have exceptions.
Why can't the universe be uncreated, if you're going to accept that SOMETHING can be uncreated?
It makes perfect sense. Since you propose an infinite regress of cause and effects then by that very definition you have had an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is what we refer to when we say God. God first and foremost is the uncreated Creator. This are His prime characteristics when we speak of God.
Infinite regress has been proven impossible in my post #43. No challengers to this proof. The only other option an atheist has is to say the universe came from nothing, but that too is proven false, since that which does not exist can't cause anything, for it does not exist, just like a square circle doesn't exist, it can't cause anything either.
Ford
Contributor
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2010
- Messages
- 7,231
- Location
- Freedomland
- Basic Beliefs
- Just don't knock on my door on a Saturday Morning
Ah, the old "everything needs a cause...except God!" argument.
And I thought Special Pleading was nearly extinct...
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
It may be internally consistent, but you haven't explained it in any way that makes sense.
Why is that a conclusion?
How does that follow?
You've just asserted an excuse for the god you want to believe in.
You've not yet shown that infinite regresses are impossible nor that if they are impossible, therefore god.
You just keep repeating yourself. Without adding any 'sense' to the nonsense.
- - - Updated - - -
No it hasn't.
Just everyone asking you to actually explain this proof.
You have absolutely no fucking idea that 'proven' means, do you?
Barbarian
Member
OK.
No. Explain how this part follows from the previous one, because to me it seems like a complete non sequitur. So what if he had an eternity to come into being if, for example, he needed exactly an infinity of time to come into being? Think of (real) numbers, negative and positive. Your claim here is equivalent to claiming that if the numbers extend to infinity in both directions, then we cannot have a zero because it should have been placed somewhere far into the negative direction.
It is.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Please re-read post #39, because the part of that post that you refused to even acknowledge completely demolished the "proof" you offered in post #43.
Barbarian
Member
nvm, wrong person has been addressed.
I read that post and couldn't find anything that refuted why infinite regress impossible.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Wait, what? Might want to edit those quote tags there.
lol. atheists are confusing themselves with numbers
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
Yet, all the other problems remain, untouched by your regard.
That would be 'avoiding,' right?
No problems to speak of.
dystopian
Veteran Member
Actually, you would if you had actually seriously bothered to read it. Let me again, repeat the argument. Step by step.
1) YOU argue that because infinite regress means "you have had an eternity to come into being before now so you should have already happened."
2) And YOU argue that therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself.
My argument to that, as detailed in #43, shows that
1) not only is it NOT true that having had an eternity to come into being means it should have already happened (re-visualize the die with infinite sides if you need to understand this)
but 2) There is NO reason WHATSOEVER to think that even IF I had come into existence before now that this is at all a problem and that therefore infinite regress can not be true; because after all, there is no reason why I can't have come into existence many times over the course of an infinite timeline. At no point would this present a problem that requires a first cause as a solution.
This means that 3) your argument as to why infinite regress is impossible has been refuted. Period. If you want to insist otherwise, you will first have to address both of my points; something you seem unable to do.
Barbarian
Member
Sorry, dystopian, I deleted it almost immediately, did not mean to address you.
dystopian
Veteran Member
no worries, it happens.
You don't explain how your die applies to this situation. But if you claim an infinite regress of cause and effects then by that definition you would have had an eternity to come into being before now so you should already happened. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated by the uncreated Creator.