They aren't actually "trick" questions, you know.

[steve_bank]

Lion does not gasp that many people do not think theological debate and theology based on a hodgepodge of ancient writings of unknown authorship is a valid intellectual enterprise.

To me it is al a variation of the kind of argument 'how many angels fit on the head of a pin'. Argu,ents that reduce to thinking gyou know what god wants by interpolating scripture.

Some of us just don't take theology based on the belief of deity is valid or meaningful in an intellectual sense. Theology has meaning in emotional satisfaction.

Over my years on the forum it comes down to attempted proofs of god which fall into 4 or 5 formulations and variations. None of which hold up under logic and scrutinyy

And that would be for the god forum.

What Steve doesn't gRasp is that his post was a great example of what he was bemoaning. All emotion and no intellect.

You're on...........

Let's see if you can back up your emotions with some intellect. I challenge YOU to show me where the Kalam is logically deficient. Parroting something you read on line is not intellect. You will need to defend the reasoning of your counters. I'm ready. Show me some intellect.

Lets see who gets emotional.

Same response. I co not consider arty arguments on the existence of deities of any kind to be an intellectual exercise, any more than I would consider the debate of the existence of Sonata Claus an intellectual exercise.

It is about a shared delusion.

This is not a trick response/

 

[remez]

Lion does not gasp that many people do not think theological debate and theology based on a hodgepodge of ancient writings of unknown authorship is a valid intellectual enterprise.

To me it is al a variation of the kind of argument 'how many angels fit on the head of a pin'. Argu,ents that reduce to thinking gyou know what god wants by interpolating scripture.

Some of us just don't take theology based on the belief of deity is valid or meaningful in an intellectual sense. Theology has meaning in emotional satisfaction.

Over my years on the forum it comes down to attempted proofs of god which fall into 4 or 5 formulations and variations. None of which hold up under logic and scrutinyy

And that would be for the god forum.

What Steve doesn't gRasp is that his post was a great example of what he was bemoaning. All emotion and no intellect.

You're on...........

Let's see if you can back up your emotions with some intellect. I challenge YOU to show me where the Kalam is logically deficient. Parroting something you read on line is not intellect. You will need to defend the reasoning of your counters. I'm ready. Show me some intellect.

Lets see who gets emotional.

Same response. I co not consider arty arguments on the existence of deities of any kind to be an intellectual exercise, any more than I would consider the debate of the existence of Sonata Claus an intellectual exercise.

It is about a shared delusion.

This is not a trick response/

Steve,
You are missing the gorilla. You continually present these emotional tantrums as evidence of your reasoning. Stop emoting and think about it for once. If that is the extent of your intellectual reasoning then it is you that is living in the delusion. Here is what I mean.

You confidently stated the Kalam could not stand up to your scrutiny and logic. I asked you to present your intellectual reasoning to make such an unsupported assertion. And as I predicted....... you gave me nothing more than another emotional temper tantrum. So go back and look at post 145. At least that was an attempt at an intellectual counter.

Is emotion the extent of your reasoning abilities?

If so, then you are no more logical than those you are complaining about. You are just an emotional atheist spouting off confidently about that which you really know nothing about. You are the same thing you are complaining about and you DON"T SEE IT. And that ................IS DELUSIONAL.

 

[remez]

Lion does not gasp that many people do not think theological debate and theology based on a hodgepodge of ancient writings of unknown authorship is a valid intellectual enterprise.

To me it is al a variation of the kind of argument 'how many angels fit on the head of a pin'. Argu,ents that reduce to thinking gyou know what god wants by interpolating scripture.

Some of us just don't take theology based on the belief of deity is valid or meaningful in an intellectual sense. Theology has meaning in emotional satisfaction.

Over my years on the forum it comes down to attempted proofs of god which fall into 4 or 5 formulations and variations. None of which hold up under logic and scrutinyy

And that would be for the god forum.

What Steve doesn't gRasp is that his post was a great example of what he was bemoaning. All emotion and no intellect.

You're on...........

Let's see if you can back up your emotions with some intellect. I challenge YOU to show me where the Kalam is logically deficient. Parroting something you read on line is not intellect. You will need to defend the reasoning of your counters. I'm ready. Show me some intellect.

Lets see who gets emotional.

The Kalam is logically deficient from its first argument "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". On a quantum level, that's not necessarily the case, so it's an invalid premise to start with. Then its second argument "The universe began to exist" is also not necessarily correct. The universe may very well be some kind of infinite series of expansions and retractions from singularities and the BB was just some uninteresting midpoint of that.

Kalam just uses unproven assertions as truths and comes to unwarranted conclusions as a result. That doesn't even start to get into how it then immediately goes and abandons its first premise by sticking this uncaused thing into the middle of it to be able to shoehorn a proof of God into the mix.

Sir Tom,
I think Steve is finished proving my point. So very briefly…………

The Kalam is logically deficient from its first argument "Whatever begins to exist has a cause". On a quantum level, that's not necessarily the case, so it's an invalid premise to start with.

Indeterminism does not mean uncaused. That counter fails.
Further.....
to deny the law of causality is to deny reasoning. To deny science. How does that render your position more logical?

Then its second argument "The universe began to exist" is also not necessarily correct. The universe may very well be some kind of infinite series of expansions and retractions from singularities and the BB was just some uninteresting midpoint of that.

The pedagogy is a mess there. So my guess is you are trying to challenge PREMISE 2 with a oscillation model of the universe. Thereby creating and eternal past causing p2 to fail.

Well..........your science fails you there..............

It is your counter that fails. The oscillation models have been discarded into the trash bin. 1. The conservation of entropy would still infer a beginning. Thus you only just kicked the can down the road. 2. There is not enough matter in space that could allow gravity to re-collapse the universe. 3. It fails the singularity theorem. This counter fails again and again and again and again and again.

Note how you were motivated to construct a model with an eternal past. Because that would mean that the universe has no cause. Because that which is eternal has no cause.

Kalam just uses unproven assertions as truths and comes to unwarranted conclusions as a result.

You have yet to counter the Kalam in anyway. Your presented counters fail logic and the science. No Theology required there. Thus your conclusion is based on nothing reasonable.
and this.......

That doesn't even start to get into how it then immediately goes and abandons its first premise by sticking this uncaused thing into the middle of it to be able to shoehorn a proof of God into the mix.

....also leads you nowhere. For that is a counter suggesting special pleading. A case you cannot make after revealing your motivations earlier to construct a cosmogony with and eternal past. See, you understand the reasoning. That which is eternal is uncaused.
Further………….
The counter of special pleading here is ignorant of history. The cosmological argument has been around for over two thousand years. It predates the SBBM. Prior to the SBBM the universe was also a very plausible candidate for the eternal uncaused cause. It wasn’t special pleading then. Only now that science has plausibly eliminated the universe from that list of the first cause you now emotionally desire to assert your pseudo fallacy.

Conclusion…..Nothing you presented comes close to refuting or rebutting the Kalam.

 

[skepticalbip]

Serious problems with the Kalam argument:

The first premise, "whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning" assumes the desired conclusion. It asserts a cause is necessary without any support for the assertion... but then it says nothing about something eternal that didn't begin.

The second premise. "the universe began to exist" is a baseless assumption.

So the conclusion, "Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning" is a baseless conclusion drawn from unevidenced (so unsupported) assumptions.

There is no evidenced theory that the universe began and even if there were there is no evidenced theory that a cause was necessary. Then there are several cosmological models of a universe with no beginning. A new one that is drawing some serious consideration is a model offered by Penrose called 'Conformal Cyclic Cosmology'... https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=conformal+cyclic+cosmology&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart


The Kalam argument boils down to nothing more than an argument from ignorance, making assertions based on 'what feels right' rather than based on knowledge.

 

[steve_bank]

If you dispense with causation and conservation then you can imagine anything, including the unversed popping up out of nothing,

Given causation for me the universe always was and always will be, in changing forms.

As to Penrose and the rest cosmology and pop science is an industry that generates books. Popper wrote that for something to be science it must be testable. Cosmology is not testable. Because a theory of cosmology can be made to fit observation does not mean it is truth. Correlation is not causation.

There is no scientific theory or explanation possible to explain ultimate organs of the universe.

 

[steve_bank]

Same response. I co not consider arty arguments on the existence of deities of any kind to be an intellectual exercise, any more than I would consider the debate of the existence of Sonata Claus an intellectual exercise.

It is about a shared delusion.

This is not a trick response/

Steve,
You are missing the gorilla. You continually present these emotional tantrums as evidence of your reasoning. Stop emoting and think about it for once. If that is the extent of your intellectual reasoning then it is you that is living in the delusion. Here is what I mean.

You confidently stated the Kalam could not stand up to your scrutiny and logic. I asked you to present your intellectual reasoning to make such an unsupported assertion. And as I predicted....... you gave me nothing more than another emotional temper tantrum. So go back and look at post 145. At least that was an attempt at an intellectual counter.

Is emotion the extent of your reasoning abilities?

If so, then you are no more logical than those you are complaining about. You are just an emotional atheist spouting off confidently about that which you really know nothing about. You are the same thing you are complaining about and you DON"T SEE IT. And that ................IS DELUSIONAL.

In wetern cultures we grow up with the Santa Claus myth. It is part fear, 'You better not pout you better not shout 'He knows when you are good or bad' 'He knows when you'v been sleepin'. As the song goes.

Be good and get presents. Eventualy as we grow up we realize it is a myth, but a plaeasnt one that carries over to adulthood as a social ritual.

To me religion is the same, except that believers stay in the childhood reality of belief in a myth. There is debate in religion and theology, not intellectual debate. Theology reduces to extrapolation on a few quotes in the old and new testaments and personal feelings of knowing what god/jesus wants.

 

[Learner]

In wetern cultures we grow up with the Santa Claus myth. It is part fear, 'You better not pout you better not shout 'He knows when you are good or bad' 'He knows when you'v been sleepin'. As the song goes.

Be good and get presents. Eventualy as we grow up we realize it is a myth, but a plaeasnt one that carries over to adulthood as a social ritual.

Interesting concept. Start first with santa, at an early age with the fear of not being granted your materialistic wants. Then in adulthood throw aside your materialisitic wants because its now, not really such a good thing.

To me religion is the same, except that believers stay in the childhood reality of belief in a myth. There is debate in religion and theology, not intellectual debate. Theology reduces to extrapolation on a few quotes in the old and new testaments and personal feelings of knowing what god/jesus wants.

Commandments and laws in the theology are many... "what is wanted" by God isn't an issue imho. The little of quotes that you mention of Jesus would make it quite incredible if not "miraculous".... "if" you were to take it from the view that , knowing about "other" people then: there's more texts about Jesus than anyone else of that time in history (sort of what Bart Erhamn said once).

If its the case that there aren't any intellectual debate's in theology at least we can have a good discussion and see where it goes from there.

 

[remez]

The first premise, "whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning" assumes the desired conclusion.

P1 everything that begins to exist has a cause.
How does that assume anything?

It asserts a cause is necessary without any support for the assertion

It asserts what it says that "everything that begins to exist has a cause." Supported by logic. You are free to deny that the law of causality, but that would render your position irrational. Most of science is the search for the causes of events we observe.

but then it says nothing about something eternal that didn't begin.

I agree. That concept is a logical implication of the law of causality.

The second premise. "the universe began to exist" is a baseless assumption.

No it is a theologically neutral premise that can be supported with science and philosophy. Nothing is assumed.

So the conclusion, "Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning" is a baseless conclusion drawn from unevidenced (so unsupported) assumptions.

“Therefore the universe has a cause.” …is the deductive conclusion that logically follows from the premises. If you wish to challenge the logic or the plausibility of the premises then go for it. But emotionally calling them assumptions is what is unsupported.

 

[remez]

If you dispense with causation and conservation then you can imagine anything, including the unversed popping up out of nothing,

And you are comparing my beliefs to Santa Claus?

Given causation for me the universe always was and always will be, in changing forms.

That’s fine I have nothing against fairy tales. I prefer science and logical reasoning.

There is no scientific theory or explanation possible to explain ultimate organs of the universe.

Why not…..sex is biological.

From Post 166

In wetern cultures we grow up with the Santa Claus myth. It is part fear, 'You better not pout you better not shout 'He knows when you are good or bad' 'He knows when you'v been sleepin'. As the song goes.

Be good and get presents. Eventualy as we grow up we realize it is a myth, but a plaeasnt one that carries over to adulthood as a social ritual.

To me religion is the same,

And there is your problem. Your analogy is more emotional than reasonable. Where is the science?

 

[steve_bank]

Yes, I am making an analogy between religious faith an a child's belief in Santa Claus. Note that the tradition of giving on Christmas actually dates back to a real person centuries' ago. A man named Nicolas who was reported to toss pouches of money to poor as he rode by. BecamemSaint Nick.

The difference is we know the origins of Sanata Claus and a real flesh and blood historical figure.

We do not know if there was a flash and blood Jesus, though I suspect there was one. We also do not know who wrote the sections in the bible.

I believe somewhere in the NT it says a believer must be as a child. Tending a flock of sheep and the like. If you are not childlike in your faith I doubt you are experiencing the true faith.

When String Theory first came out some scientists considered it philosophy because it could not be tested. Science is far from monolithic. As speculation into new theory develop=s it is after 'theoretical;, but that is how it starts. Some things develop into useful models, some do not. There are no absolutes in science of any kind.
Theology is theology. I do not equate it with rational reasoning. Theology uses the same logic as science. A valid logical argument like a syllogism simply means the conclusion follows from the premise. If god exists and the bible is the inspired word of god, then theology follows logically. The problem is god and Jesus are both not provable in any objective rational manner. It is all supposition.

For over a 1000 years RCC theologians have synthesized a consistent theology with no logical ambiguities assuming the premise is true.

You might call theology an exercise in metaphysics. Science is metaphysics tied to unambiguous physical definitions. The meter, kilogram, and second.

Faith is fine if it improves your life. I do not equate it to rational reasoning.

 

[skepticalbip]

P1 everything that begins to exist has a cause.
How does that assume anything?

It assumes that what we experience on the human scale (which is where our 'common sense' is based) applies on both the cosmological scale and atomic scale. Science has found that one hell of a lot of reality does not fit our 'common sense'.

It asserts what it says that "everything that begins to exist has a cause." Supported by logic. You are free to deny that the law of causality, but that would render your position irrational. Most of science is the search for the causes of events we observe.

Again, on the human scale that is our understanding.

but then it says nothing about something eternal that didn't begin.

I agree. That concept is a logical implication of the law of causality.

The second premise. "the universe began to exist" is a baseless assumption.

No it is a theologically neutral premise that can be supported with science and philosophy. Nothing is assumed.

It isn't supported by science. It may be one of many cosmological models that may or may not be anywhere close to reality but I personally know of no scientific cosmological model that claims a beginning. Now pop science, science fiction, philosophy, and theology may claim such a thing but truth isn't found in what someone 'wants to believe'. I gave you a link to scientific papers from scientists who disagree and support that disagreement with a model that is so far standing up to scrutiny.

So the conclusion, "Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning" is a baseless conclusion drawn from unevidenced (so unsupported) assumptions.

“Therefore the universe has a cause.” …is the deductive conclusion that logically follows from the premises. If you wish to challenge the logic or the plausibility of the premises then go for it. But emotionally calling them assumptions is what is unsupported.

No, is is a conclusion that follows from 'wishful thinking' premises. True conclusions are only drawn from premises that are known to be true.


So back to my conclusion of what the argument is;
The Kalam argument boils down to nothing more than an argument from ignorance, making assertions based on 'what feels right' rather than based on knowledge.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It assumes that what we experience on the human scale (which is where our 'common sense' is based) applies on both the cosmological scale and atomic scale. Science has found that one hell of a lot of reality does not fit our 'common sense'.

Also, name one thing that 'begins to exist.'
Evetything i experience is, near as i can tell, merely existing things in new phases, states, or configurations.
And the Faithful must agree to this.
Part of the creationist playbook is the observation life comes from life (and an assumption life can ONLY come from life), meaning that they have yet to see life 'begin to exist.'
So, what DO they see BtE?

 

[Learner]

It assumes that what we experience on the human scale (which is where our 'common sense' is based) applies on both the cosmological scale and atomic scale. Science has found that one hell of a lot of reality does not fit our 'common sense'.

Also, name one thing that 'begins to exist.'
Evetything i experience is, near as i can tell, merely existing things in new phases, states, or configurations.
And the Faithful must agree to this.

I concur with the same experience.

Part of the creationist playbook is the observation life comes from life (and an assumption life can ONLY come from life), meaning that they have yet to see life 'begin to exist.'
So, what DO they see BtE?

So far , life does seem to come from life. Its not like we can combine the well known elements we know so much about in the science lab, to combine in the right proportions , oxygen, carbon , hydrogen , nitrogen , calcium , phosphorus and a few others to zap them into life - nor has it been seen in nature , why then and not now?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I concur with the same experience.

So, you reject the 'begins to exist' argument as well.

So far , life does seem to come from life.

Yes, now go reread skepticalbip describing how we can't be sure the stuff within our limited experience applies to the entire universe.

 

[steve_bank]

I concur with the same experience.

Part of the creationist playbook is the observation life comes from life (and an assumption life can ONLY come from life), meaning that they have yet to see life 'begin to exist.'
So, what DO they see BtE?

So far , life does seem to come from life. Its not like we can combine the well known elements we know so much about in the science lab, to combine in the right proportions , oxygen, carbon , hydrogen , nitrogen , calcium , phosphorus and a few others to zap them into life - nor has it been seen in nature , why then and not now?

No one has seen a planet form, bit we have a good idea how it happens. If you want discuss abiogenesis we can go over to scene.

 

[remez]

Yes, I am making an analogy between religious faith an a child's belief in Santa Claus.

And it is a false analogy. Here is why............

You said................

Some of us just don't take theology based on the belief of deity is valid or meaningful in an intellectual sense. Theology has meaning in emotional satisfaction.

Over my years on the forum it comes down to attempted proofs of god which fall into 4 or 5 formulations and variations. None of which hold up under logic and scrutinyy

This is important..................Notice you just emotionally rejected the evidence for God's existence. Thus concluding God has no evidence. I gave you a chance to put some intellect behind your groundless rejection. You did not respond as to why you rejected the evidence. Instead you emotionally jumped to your pet meme of Santa Claus.
So....and this is key........
Your only connection to that pseudo analogy is your emotional rejection of the evidence for God.

So you're emoting that God and Santa each have no evidence......the basis of your false analogy.

Santa Claus has no evidence for his existence.
God does.................and your are emotionally rejecting the evidence.
So the commonality that your analogy rests upon only exists in your emotions.

 

[remez]

P1 everything that begins to exist has a cause.
How does that assume anything?

It assumes that what we experience on the human scale (which is where our 'common sense' is based) applies on both the cosmological scale and atomic scale. Science has found that one hell of a lot of reality does not fit our 'common sense'.

Nice try.
You did not quote what I was responding to and trashed the context.
So I put it back in.........................

The first premise, "whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning" assumes the desired conclusion.

P1 everything that begins to exist has a cause.
How does that assume anything?

It assumes that what we experience on the human scale (which is where our 'common sense' is based) applies on both the cosmological scale and atomic scale. Science has found that one hell of a lot of reality does not fit our 'common sense'.

...........and what do we have.............a non sequitur.

However by abruptly changing the topic, you must have realized that your original special pleading counter failed to even scratch the Kalam.

but then it says nothing about something eternal that didn't begin.

I agree. That concept is a logical implication of the law of causality.

The second premise. "the universe began to exist" is a baseless assumption.

No it is a theologically neutral premise that can be supported with science and philosophy. Nothing is assumed.

It isn't supported by science. It may be one of many cosmological models that may or may not be anywhere close to reality but I personally know of no scientific cosmological model that claims a beginning.

I did not assert that any cosmological model claims a beginning. I do assert that FROM the most plausible SBBM one can most plausibly infer that the universe began to exist. I do assert that from the BGV theorem one can do the same. Thus all of your other wildly speculated cosmological models desiring an eternal past are far far far less plausible than the SBBM.
again................

It isn't supported by science. It may be one of many cosmological models

..... note what you are actually conceding there. In one sentence you are claiming no evidence but in the next conceding the possible evidence. Cool.

I gave you a link to scientific papers from scientists who disagree and support that disagreement with a model that is so far standing up to scrutiny.

OH Really? Just how does the CCC avoid the BGV theorem. That is a test. Let's see if YOU can get beneath the pop science. I'll be waiting.

I must add here, I admire and respect the work of Roger Penrose, I just don't see how this model is even remotely possible.

So the conclusion, "Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning" is a baseless conclusion drawn from unevidenced (so unsupported) assumptions.

“Therefore the universe has a cause.” …is the deductive conclusion that logically follows from the premises. If you wish to challenge the logic or the plausibility of the premises then go for it. But emotionally calling them assumptions is what is unsupported.

No, is is a conclusion that follows from 'wishful thinking' premises.

Again your new premature conclusion there rests upon your new attempts above to counter the argument. Your counters again failed. In a couple instances you actually seemed to concede more to my position. If you think that my counters to your counters were insufficient then show me.
But so far............. You have yet counter either premise or the logic.

Note I did not simply deny your counters I destroyed them.

 

[remez]

Also, name one thing that 'begins to exist.'
Evetything i experience is, near as i can tell, merely existing things in new phases, states, or configurations.

At the risk of looking like I’m talking to the wall…..How is what you are espousing any different the mereological nihilism?


Because according to your reasoning George Washington never began to exist and still does exist, b/c he always existed, b/c only fundamental particles exist. Even though we have no present empirical evidence of his presence in the present.

 

[skepticalbip]

Nice try.
You did not quote what I was responding to and trashed the context.
So I put it back in.........................

The first premise, "whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning" assumes the desired conclusion.

P1 everything that begins to exist has a cause.
How does that assume anything?

It assumes that what we experience on the human scale (which is where our 'common sense' is based) applies on both the cosmological scale and atomic scale. Science has found that one hell of a lot of reality does not fit our 'common sense'.

...........and what do we have.............a non sequitur.

However by abruptly changing the topic, you must have realized that your original special pleading counter failed to even scratch the Kalam.

I didn't change the topic. I am just continuing pointing out that you are offering unsupported assertions. The reality is that no one knows the reality of the long ago universe... that is why there are so fucking many mutually contradictory theories. They are attempts to understand. I know for theists "we don't know' is an anathema but in a search for truth that is the only reasonable position. Someone who claims to know stops searching. Someone who believes not only stops searching but also denys contrary evidence.

The logical conclusion of that syllogism shows that if the premises presented as true are, in fact, true then, and only then, the conclusion is true. Unfortunately, there is no reason to assume the premises are true unless someone just happens to believe, with no evidence, that they are.

but then it says nothing about something eternal that didn't begin.

I agree. That concept is a logical implication of the law of causality.

The second premise. "the universe began to exist" is a baseless assumption.

No it is a theologically neutral premise that can be supported with science and philosophy. Nothing is assumed.

It isn't supported by science. It may be one of many cosmological models that may or may not be anywhere close to reality but I personally know of no scientific cosmological model that claims a beginning.

I did not assert that any cosmological model claims a beginning. I do assert that FROM the most plausible SBBM one can most plausibly infer that the universe began to exist. I do assert that from the BGV theorem one can do the same. Thus all of your other wildly speculated cosmological models desiring an eternal past are far far far less plausible than the SBBM.
again................

You are offering no argument. You are only offering what you believe. What is 'plausible' for you is claims that fit within your particular worldview. For a worldview to mean anything it must be supported by something other than faith. It needs testable evidence. That is what the various cosmological models are - offerings of testable ideas of what the universe may be. I am offering no claim of what the universe is because I don't know and that is the reason I find cosmology fascinating. I find arguments from ignorance to be nothing more than feeble attempts to support already held beliefs, not attempts to find truth.

It isn't supported by science. It may be one of many cosmological models

..... note what you are actually conceding there. In one sentence you are claiming no evidence but in the next conceding the possible evidence. Cool.

Conceded what? I still maintain that we don't know. We don't know if any of the many models offered are close to reality or not. That is why there are scientists still trying to figure it all out.

I gave you a link to scientific papers from scientists who disagree and support that disagreement with a model that is so far standing up to scrutiny.

OH Really? Just how does the CCC avoid the BGV theorem. That is a test. Let's see if YOU can get beneath the pop science. I'll be waiting.

I must add here, I admire and respect the work of Roger Penrose, I just don't see how this model is even remotely possible.

Other than it blows a hole in what your belief system holds, do you have any supported reasoning to not think it possible?

So the conclusion, "Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning" is a baseless conclusion drawn from unevidenced (so unsupported) assumptions.

“Therefore the universe has a cause.” …is the deductive conclusion that logically follows from the premises. If you wish to challenge the logic or the plausibility of the premises then go for it. But emotionally calling them assumptions is what is unsupported.

No, is is a conclusion that follows from 'wishful thinking' premises.

Again your new premature conclusion there rests upon your new attempts above to counter the argument. Your counters again failed. In a couple instances you actually seemed to concede more to my position. If you think that my counters to your counters were insufficient then show me.
But so far............. You have yet counter either premise or the logic.

Until those premises can be supported by something other than faith, they are nothing but wishful thinking.

I am still waiting for you to offer some evidence that our experiences on the human scale always apply on the cosmic scale and the atomic scale.

I am still waiting for you to offer some evidence (not assertion of belief) that the universe had a beginning.

I am still holding the position that such reality is still an unknown. It is you that is asserting certainty in your faith so you that needs to supply convincing evidence.

Note I did not simply deny your counters I destroyed them.

Blind faith runs deep in this one. .

 

[steve_bank]

To me this is not a trick question.

Why believe the Genesis creation story written maybe 2500 years or so by an unknown author? Can't speak for everybody, I expect most of us here are capable of introspection and questioning one's beliefs.

Is it possible for a Christen to question the creation story along with Adam and Eve?

A general response goes something like this. A somewhat circular argument.

How do you know the bible is true? Because god inspired it.
How do you know god exists? Because god is in the bible.
OK but how do you know the bible is true? Because god inspired it.....