Quote from trainr:
________________________________________
Quote from trainr:
In the mind, we can conceive truths that are eternal and unchanging.
________________________________________
Since you havenât refuted it, the statement stands. As a matter of fact, your response is in agreement.
________________________________________
Quote from trainr:
For example, a thing cannot be both existent and non-existent simultaneously.
________________________________________
[/b]You lost me. Are you disagreeing, with this as your evidence, or are you agreeing? I donât see how you can tell me what Godâs character is â or isnât â unless you agree in his existence; in which case you donât have an argument.
________________________________________
Quote from trainr:
That is an eternal truth upon which other truths may depend, but itself depends on no other truth to be known.
________________________________________
[/b]As interesting as you may find that statement, it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. The argument so far is regarding existence, not character, unless you are agreeing God exists; at which point we can move on to character.
________________________________________
Quote from trainr:
The existence of these other truths depends on a self-evident truth; they have a cause that is self-evident or cause-less.
________________________________________
[/b]I donât understand what youâre saying. I suspect itâs incomprehensible, but Iâm open to explanation. The context of my statement is a thing that is not eternal must meet the condition you quote. An eternal truth â or an eternal God â require no cause, else they would not be eternal.
________________________________________
Quote from trainr:
Therefore, the statement, âAll effects have a cause except an ultimate causeâ is true and not tautological.
________________________________________
[/b]I donât think youâve established anything of the sort. Most of what you present here is mush.
________________________________________
Quote from trainr:
In the non-abstract, we can conceive of something called God. In order for this to be true of God, God must be eternal.
________________________________________
[/b]At this point you are speculating. You donât have enough foundation to make either claim, and both appear meaningless upon inspection.
________________________________________
Quote from trainr:
Or, if God is eternal, he meets the requirement of being an ultimate cause.
________________________________________
[/b](The literal meaning of universe is âone set of things.â The definition itself strongly implies that it isnât all there is. A better word for that set would be âomniverse.â If there is more than this one set, the universe could not be a simultaneous superset and a subset of itself. )
One of the meanings of eternal is unchanging. We know by observation that the universe doesnât meet that requirement.
Please prove the universe is eternal, if you feel otherwise.
________________________________________
Quote from trainr:
When you propose that all things are caused, and that therefore God doesnât exist as a First Cause (because he violates the rule of causality, needing himself to be caused), you are proposing an infinite series of causes, which is meaningless; like a bunch of mailmen delivering an infinite series of letters, but no one wrote a letter.
________________________________________
[/b]Yet, youâve been arguing against a causeless cause; you therefore believe all things are caused, unless you have a third alternative, your âpositron pairsâ comment notwithstanding.
[/b]Alternately, heâs as wrong now as he was then, and the babbling is yours.
None taken. [/B]
