Aliens

[gracedwithlife]

That is what infinite regress means: an eternity of the past of cause and effects what atheists try to introduce to replace God which fails of course since you would have already happened having had an eternity to do so.

Infinite regress means that there is an infinite chain of propositions. Events are not propositions.

Infinite regress is a past eternity of cause and effects.

[Hakurei Reimu]

That is what infinite regress means: an eternity of the past of cause and effects what atheists try to introduce to replace God which fails of course since you would have already happened having had an eternity to do so.

Infinite regress means that there is an infinite chain of propositions. Events are not propositions.

Infinite regress is a past eternity of cause and effects.

Look up infinite regress on wikipedia. You will find a different definition. We characterize the eternal universe in a finite set of propositions that are a statement about the structure they form. By definition, the propositions terminate and do not form an infinite regress.

[gracedwithlife]

Look up infinite regress on wikipedia. You will find a different definition. We characterize the eternal universe in a finite set of propositions that are a statement about the structure they form. By definition, the propositions terminate and do not form an infinite regress.

Look it up yourself, they are cause and effects at the basest level.

Ergo, infinite regress of cause and effects are impossible because if there was, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

[Hakurei Reimu]

Look up infinite regress on wikipedia. You will find a different definition. We characterize the eternal universe in a finite set of propositions that are a statement about the structure they form. By definition, the propositions terminate and do not form an infinite regress.

Look it up yourself, they are cause and effects at the basest level.

I'm looking at it right now. It doesn't say that.

[PopeyesPappy]

Eternity is not a duration. You cannot use the mere fact that it is eternity to come to the conclusion that I would have happened sooner.

If you, along with many atheists, propose an infinite regress of cause and effects then by definition of an infinite number of past cause and effects, you would have had an infinity 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.

God provides this proof of Himself by observing nature that is simple enough for all to understand so that you are without excuse when He sends you to Hell for rejecting His only begotten Son.

There's also the hidden assumption here that I can only happen once.

It is explicit fact, nothing hidden, that the you that you are now in this moment is the only moment that you are you now.

Without that temporal structure, nothing can create the universe

Your theory is not supported by the evidence, for nature, both its space and time, can't always have existed, for if they had you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

It is a possibility that you have already happened, Grace. It is also possible that there are multiple copies of you right now in other parts of the multiverse. I don't find those possibilities very likely, but it is a possibility.



What is not possible is the existence of Jewish zombie saviors purposely put here by the your first cause specifically to provide a path to eternal salvation for your sorry egoistical ass. That isn't possible because that is a fairy tale much of which was stolen from Bronze Age civilizations by the Iron Age ones that made up the rest of story.

[aitm]

Is this the same creator god that made a woman so filthy that he demanded they be set outside society when they have their period?
Is this the same creator god that can't beat another army because they had iron wheels on their chariots?
Is this the same creator god that says the sky is water and the moon is a light and the sun was created after the plants on earth?
Is this the same creator god that claims there is a dragon inside the earth capable of gathering a third of the stars in his tail and flinging them to earth?
Is this the same creator god who proclaims there shall be no other god but me and then creates another one?


meh, me thinks you give too much credit to your god, if there is a god that created the universe it sure as hell wasn't your piece of shit one.

God of the Bible is the one you can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the eyewitness testimony of the Apostles.

interpretation: I know the babble is nonsense and has been completely proven wrong, therefore I will "make-up" crazy science to use to back up my shaky beliefs that my parents handed down to me.

[Mister Agenda]

Whats the matter, didn't daddy give you your Barbie doll? All you've done on here is reproach, condemn and chastise. How many times do you need to be reminded that your actions by your own standards are arrogant and sinful? You can talk infinite regress and any other BS you want but ultimately can't prove. You condemn yourself by your own actions, you sinful little girl.

It is proven. If you want to claim an infinite regress of cause and effects, you would be wrong because you would have already happened having had an eternity to do so.

You know, saying 'it is proven' a lot doesn't make your claim more believable. That infinite regress is impossible is your claim. That an eternal past implies that 'it's impossible to have gotten to the present' is your argument. You are light years from a proof. You say the present is impossible with an eternal past: that's what you have to prove, you can't just sneak it in.

Now, assuming you can do that, there are many alternatives to an infinite regress that don't invoke a personal being. The math and science works for a quantum fluctuation to start a universe, and quantum fluctuations are causeless, they exist essentially because absolute nothingness is probably impossible. Other possible 'first causes' are postulated that are also natural. Like a medical examiner with a body, you have to rule out natural causes before you get to speculate on the motives of the murderer.

[Mister Agenda]

I rest on the fact that infinite regress and something from nothing are impossible without any challengers.

You should take some courses on logic and get back to us. You don't get to declare your assertions facts that stand until someone disproves them. They remain assertions that don't have to be accepted unless proven true.

Now that second one is particularly shaky, given that virtual particles appear from nothing without a cause, meaning that the only thing we can truthfully say we've observed beginning to exist does so from nothing without a cause.

[Mister Agenda]

Start from the point of evidence what you observe.

You observe nature. In nature you see cause and effect. If there was an infinite regress of cause and effect, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space being uncreated.

Fallacy of composition. You assume that the universe must behave according to the laws that hold within it, like assuming that a wall made of unbreakable bricks must be unbreakable. The universe could have begun without a cause (causeless quantum fluctuation, for instance). Not enough evidence yet to make that a strong possibility, but it's not a possibility that can be hand waved away.

[Mister Agenda]

I made no assumption nor did you show any. Glad to see you couldn't find fault with the proof...

If there was this atheist infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

It's not an atheist 'infinite regress'. There are plenty of theists who believe God has existed eternally, which raises the same question of him never getting around to the present. And putting God outside of time and space doesn't make him eternal or transcendant, it makes him nonexistent, not to mention the issue of when a timeless being would create a universe and where a spaceless being would put it.

[Mister Agenda]

I just watched a documentary last night on the universe and they said Jupiter is so large that if it got any larger it would have itself turned into a star. But what it does do is shield earth from lots of asteroids that without it life on earth would not exist.

Lots of star systems have gas giants. By your logic, ours are here to shelter us from asteroids. Why do you suppose other star systems have them?

[FrankDK]

> You're going the wrong direction.

Wrong in terms of the conclusion you want, but right in terms of reality.

> As Jesus was able to depart from this realm to the next instantly, so will all those who are raptured.

Any evidence for this?  That you believe it isn't evidence.  That others believe it isn't evidence.  That you feel you couldn't go on if it weren't true isn't evidence.

> Since Jesus proved His resurrection and rapture, this is what He has in store for us even the unsaved. Then He returns with His overcomers to reign on earth for 1000 years.

What evidence is there that Jesus "proved" his resurrection?  In fact, he almost certainly never lived.  He is most likely a fictional character, an amalgam of several other characters, some also fictional, some real.

Do you have any evidence for your claims?

Frank

[gracedwithlife]

What evidence is there of rapture?

As Jesus was raptured so will we be as He told us so.

[FrankDK]

What evidence is there of rapture?

As Jesus was raptured so will we be as He told us so.

I understand that's your CLAIM, but that's not evidence.  Every religion makes claims; that doesn't make them true.

What evidence is there that Jesus rose from the dead?  That you believe it isn't evidence.  That others believe it isn't evidence.  That you wish it were so isn't evidence.

Where's the evidence?

Frank

[aileron]

What evidence is there that Jesus rose from the dead?  That you believe it isn't evidence.  That others believe it isn't evidence.  That you wish it were so isn't evidence

Do you mean to suggest that "Thus sayeth the Lord!" doesn't work with atheists?  Geese, what do religionists have left?