Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anselm's Objection to Past-Infinite Universe

xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 11:40:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Beliver: There must have been a first cause.

Atheist: No, it is possible that the universe always existed.

Anselm: No, the universe cannot have existed for an infinite amount of time, because in order to get to this moment now, an infinite amount of moments would have had to been proceeded. Since you cannot proceed an infinite amount of moments to arrive at a certain moment then the universe can therefore have not existed for eternity.

This seems like a strong response to me, but I have seen that it has been discredited by others. Can someone explain why this is a weak response?
Nolite Timere
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 12:02:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 11:40:38 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Beliver: There must have been a first cause.

Atheist: No, it is possible that the universe always existed.

Anselm: No, the universe cannot have existed for an infinite amount of time, because in order to get to this moment now, an infinite amount of moments would have had to been proceeded. Since you cannot proceed an infinite amount of moments to arrive at a certain moment then the universe can therefore have not existed for eternity.

This seems like a strong response to me, but I have seen that it has been discredited by others. Can someone explain why this is a weak response?

I imagine an atheist might bring up Zeno's paradox. For example, they might say "In a race, the quickest runner can never overtake the slowest, since the pursuer must first reach the point whence the pursued started, so that the slower must always hold a lead."

And then point out that this assumption is refuted by observation, which suggests that infinite events happen.

But as we know, the existence of the Plank length discredits any notion of a physical continuum, so that argument has no bearing on physical reality.
crazedAtheist
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 12:20:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
But as we know, the existence of the Plank length discredits any notion of a physical continuum, so that argument has no bearing on physical reality.
not necessarily. the plank length just shows the lowest scale that our usual physical and geometric interpretations apply. it could still be continuous, we just wouldn't be able to create equipment able to measure smaller distances. (at least with current theories)
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 12:23:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 12:20:57 PM, crazedAtheist wrote:
But as we know, the existence of the Plank length discredits any notion of a physical continuum, so that argument has no bearing on physical reality.
not necessarily. the plank length just shows the lowest scale that our usual physical and geometric interpretations apply. it could still be continuous, we just wouldn't be able to create equipment able to measure smaller distances. (at least with current theories)

Actually, space and time are undefined below a certain point, as confirmed by the uncertainty principle.

In any case, the physical existence of the continuum has not been established, so the argument doesn't work.
crazedAtheist
Posts: 39
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 12:29:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 12:23:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/28/2015 12:20:57 PM, crazedAtheist wrote:
But as we know, the existence of the Plank length discredits any notion of a physical continuum, so that argument has no bearing on physical reality.
not necessarily. the plank length just shows the lowest scale that our usual physical and geometric interpretations apply. it could still be continuous, we just wouldn't be able to create equipment able to measure smaller distances. (at least with current theories)

Actually, space and time are undefined below a certain point, as confirmed by the uncertainty principle.
well there you go, neither discredited nor established.

In any case, the physical existence of the continuum has not been established, so the argument doesn't work.
it hasn't been discredited either, but i get the line of thought, its a sketchy counter at best.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 12:31:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 12:29:07 PM, crazedAtheist wrote:
At 3/28/2015 12:23:59 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/28/2015 12:20:57 PM, crazedAtheist wrote:
But as we know, the existence of the Plank length discredits any notion of a physical continuum, so that argument has no bearing on physical reality.
not necessarily. the plank length just shows the lowest scale that our usual physical and geometric interpretations apply. it could still be continuous, we just wouldn't be able to create equipment able to measure smaller distances. (at least with current theories)

Actually, space and time are undefined below a certain point, as confirmed by the uncertainty principle.
well there you go, neither discredited nor established.

In any case, the physical existence of the continuum has not been established, so the argument doesn't work.

It's an entailment of the uncertainty principle, which has been established quite thoroughly.

it hasn't been discredited either, but i get the line of thought, its a sketchy counter at best.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 12:49:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"In some of his popular apologetics writings, Craig uses the following argument to support a key premise in his kalam cosmological argument, viz., that the universe began to exist:

"Suppose we meet a man who claims to have been counting down from infinity and who is now finishing: . . ., -3, -2, -1, 0. We could ask, why didn"t he finish counting yesterday or the day before or the year before? By then an infinite time had already elapsed, so that he should already have finished. Thus, at no point in the infinite past could we ever find the man finishing his countdown, for by that point he should already be done! In fact, no matter how far back into the past we go, we can never find the man counting at all, for at any point we reach he will already have finished. But if at no point in the past do we find him counting, this contradicts the hypothesis that he has been counting from eternity. This shows again that the formation of an actual infinite by never beginning but reaching an end is as impossible as beginning at a point and trying to reach infinity."

Call this "the immortal counter" argument". The argument can be expressed as a reductio, with (1) below as the premise set up for reduction:

1. The past is beginningless (conceived as a set of events with the cardinality A0, and the order-type w*).

2. If the past is beginningless, then there could have been an immortal counter who counts down from such a past at the rate of one negative integer per day.

3. The immortal counter will finish counting if and only if he has an infinite number of days in which to count them.

4. If the past is beginningless, then there are an infinite number of days before every day.

5. Therefore, the immortal counter will have finished counting before every day.

6. If the immortal counter will have finished counting before every day, then he has never counted.

7. Therefore, the immortal counter has both never counted and has been counting down from a beginningless past (contradiction)

8. Therefore, the past is not beginningless (from 1-7, reductio).

The undercutting defeater can be brought out by a careful look at (3). Grant the 'only if'. But why think the immortal counter will finish his count if he has had an infinite number of days to count them? For it's epistemically possible that he's counted down an infinite number of negative integers from a beginningless past, and yet has not counted them all. So, for example, he could now be counting "-3", so that he has just finished counting an infinite number of negative integers, viz., {...-5, -4, -3}, and yet he has not counted down all the negative integers. Given this epistemic possibility, any reason for believing his (3) is undercut.

Craig thinks he has a reply to this.

"I do not think the argument makes this alleged equivocation [from 'infinite' to 'all'. -EA], and this can be made clear by examining the reason why our eternal counter is supposedly able to complete a count of the negative numbers, ending at zero. In order to justify this intuitively impossible feat, the argument"s opponent appeals to the so-called Principle of Correspondence"On the basis of the principle the objector argues that since the set of past years can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the set of negative numbers, it follows that by counting one number a year an eternal counter could complete a countdown of the negative numbers by the present year. If we were to ask why the counter would not finish next year or in a hundred years, the objector would respond that prior to the present year an infinite number of years will have elapsed, so that by the Principle of Correspondence, all the numbers should have been counted by now.

But this reasoning backfires on the objector: for on this account the counter should at any point in the past have already finished counting all the numbers, since a one-to-one correspondence exists between the years of the past and the negative numbers." (Craig, "Review of Time, Creation, and the Continuum", p. 323.)

Thus, Craig thinks the objector is committed to the claim that the counter will finish his count iff the days he's counted can be put into a 1-1 correspondence with the set of natural numbers. And since this can be done at any day of a beginningless past, the counter should always be done. But that contradicts the hypothesis that he's been counting down from a beginningless past.

But this won't do at all. For why, exactly, must the objector presuppose that the counter will finish his count iff the set of days he counts can be put into 1-1 correspondence with the set of natural numbers? Craig says that it's because otherwise the objector can't account for the possibility of an immortal counter who finishes the task on a particular day, as opposed to any other day. Now granted, counting a set of days that can be put into such a correspondence is a necessary condition for counting down a beginningless set of negative integers, but why in the world are we supposed to think it also sufficient?

Call the biconditional above 'Craig's Claim' (hereafter 'CC'):

(CC) The counter will have finished counting all of the negative integers if and only if the years of the past can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with them.

Now consider the following epistemically possible scenario as an undercutting defeater for CC:

Suppose God timelessly numbers the years to come about in a beginningless universe. Suppose further that He assigns the negative integers to the set of events prior to the birth of Christ, and then the positive integers begin at this point. Then the timeline, with its corresponding integer assignment, can be illustrated as follows:

"-3 -2 -1 Birth of Christ 1 2 3"

Suppose yet further that God assigned Ralph, an immortal creature, the task of counting down the negative integers assigned to the years BCE, and stopping at the birth of Christ. Call this task "T". With this in mind, suppose now that Ralph has been counting down from eternity past and is now counting the day assigned (by God) the integer -3. In such a case, Ralph has counted a set of years that could be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the set of negative integers, yet he has not finished all the negative integers.

This case shows that, while it is a necessary condition for counting all of the events that one is able to put them into a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers, we have reason to doubt that it's sufficient. For if the events that are to be counted have independently "fixed", or, "designated" integer assignments set out for one to traverse, one must count through these such that, for each event, the number one is counting is the same as the one independently assigned to the event. In the scenario mentioned above, God assigned an integer to each year that will come to pass. In such a case, Ralph must satisfy at least two conditions if he is to accomplish T: (i) count a set of years that can be put into a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers, and (ii) for each year that elapses, count the particular negative integer that God has independently assigned to it. According to CC, however, Ralph is supposed to be able to accomplish T by satisfying (i) alone. But we have just seen that he must accomplish (ii) as well. Therefore, being able to place the events of the past into a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers does not guarantee that the counter has finished the task of counting all the negative integers. And given that this scenario is epistemically possible CC is undercut. But recall that CC is Craig"s rationale for (3). Thus, (3) is undercut. "

http://exapologist.blogspot.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 12:50:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Theists should stick with Leibnizian or Aquinian or Clarkian cosmological arguments that are compatible with an eternal (or non-eternal) universe imo.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 12:56:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Tl;dr version: If the past is beginningless then an infinite set of events has already been traversed before every point of a beginningless past, and that is why there is only a finite set of subsequent events between that point and the present. So between any specifiable point in time (like 13.7 billion years ago) and now (the present) there is only a finite set of moments. Therefore you could get the present from any point in the past even if the universe is infinitely old.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 1:05:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The idea that the need for a "first cause" is obviated by an infinite past is completely absurd, at least to the extent that an infinite past is offered as an "explanation" for the universe or any state of the universe. Until something has been explained in an explicable way, nothing has been properly explained at all. An infinite number of (ultimately) inexplicable explanations does not get you to an explanation. It's like trying to explain why a segment of a bridge is suspended in air by appealing to its connection to the segment next to it, and so for all the segments, without ever positing the need for bridge supports.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 1:13:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 12:56:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Tl;dr version: If the past is beginningless then an infinite set of events has already been traversed before every point of a beginningless past, and that is why there is only a finite set of subsequent events between that point and the present. So between any specifiable point in time (like 13.7 billion years ago) and now (the present) there is only a finite set of moments. Therefore you could get the present from any point in the past even if the universe is infinitely old.

I don't understand how this is relevant to Anselm's point. No point in the past is representative of an "infinite past".
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 1:29:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 1:13:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/28/2015 12:56:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Tl;dr version: If the past is beginningless then an infinite set of events has already been traversed before every point of a beginningless past, and that is why there is only a finite set of subsequent events between that point and the present. So between any specifiable point in time (like 13.7 billion years ago) and now (the present) there is only a finite set of moments. Therefore you could get the present from any point in the past even if the universe is infinitely old.

I don't understand how this is relevant to Anselm's point. No point in the past is representative of an "infinite past".

If the universe is infinitely old for any one point you pick and infinite amount of moments will have passed prior to that point. For any two points you pick (like the present and some other point) a finite amount of time will have passed between those two points.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 1:59:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 1:29:54 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/28/2015 1:13:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/28/2015 12:56:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Tl;dr version: If the past is beginningless then an infinite set of events has already been traversed before every point of a beginningless past, and that is why there is only a finite set of subsequent events between that point and the present. So between any specifiable point in time (like 13.7 billion years ago) and now (the present) there is only a finite set of moments. Therefore you could get the present from any point in the past even if the universe is infinitely old.

I don't understand how this is relevant to Anselm's point. No point in the past is representative of an "infinite past".

If the universe is infinitely old for any one point you pick and infinite amount of moments will have passed prior to that point. For any two points you pick (like the present and some other point) a finite amount of time will have passed between those two points.

I still don't understand the relevance =/
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 4:59:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 12:50:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Theists should stick with Leibnizian or Aquinian or Clarkian cosmological arguments that are compatible with an eternal (or non-eternal) universe imo.

Clarkian? I'm familiar with Leibniz and Aquinas, but not Clark?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:32:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 11:40:38 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Beliver: There must have been a first cause.

Atheist: No, it is possible that the universe always existed.

Anselm: No, the universe cannot have existed for an infinite amount of time, because in order to get to this moment now, an infinite amount of moments would have had to been proceeded. Since you cannot proceed an infinite amount of moments to arrive at a certain moment then the universe can therefore have not existed for eternity.

This seems like a strong response to me, but I have seen that it has been discredited by others. Can someone explain why this is a weak response?

Time is an emergent property. If you imagine a completely empty universe, an infinite vacuum, nothing but space, in this universe, time doesn't exist. To say there must be a beginning of time, and that is a beginning of all things, that is wrong. Time has two primary components, repetition, and flow. Repetition is what we use to measure flow. The rotation of the Earth (day), the swinging of a pendulum (seconds, minutes, hours) or the vibration of a crystal (seconds), are all examples of repetition being used to measure flow. The flow aspect is due to entropy. The tendency for things to evolve toward greater disorder, thermal dynamic equilibrium.
The beginning of time isn't the beginning of all things. In our example universe, the vacuum universe exists, yet time does not. It wouldn't make sense to ask, "when did the vacuum universe begin," when it is free of time. For our observable universe, time began when our observable universe began. But, that doesn't mean there wasn't a timeless state that gave birth to time and our universe. Time itself can be born from an eternal state of which time isn't present. The eternal state, to not have time, must be in a state of maximum equilibrium and have no events occurring in it.
What is suspect is the case, an infinite vacuum universe is the foundation for our universe and any other universes that may exist. In this infinite vacuum, there is no time. Therefore the vacuum universe is eternal and requires no beginning. Our visible universe isn't in a state of maximum equilibrium and therefore has time and would need to begin. But, that beginning wouldn't be the beginning of all things, including time.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 5:48:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 11:40:38 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Beliver: There must have been a first cause.

Atheist: No, it is possible that the universe always existed.

Anselm: No, the universe cannot have existed for an infinite amount of time, because in order to get to this moment now, an infinite amount of moments would have had to been proceeded. Since you cannot proceed an infinite amount of moments to arrive at a certain moment then the universe can therefore have not existed for eternity.

This seems like a strong response to me, but I have seen that it has been discredited by others. Can someone explain why this is a weak response?

This is just an atheist way of avoiding the implications. It's a semantic argument to say there was no time and therefore no first cause. This only comes up when it is too refute a theist claim.

Because despite this semantic argument there are atheist scientist who propose that the universe is a bubble in meta-universe, or the result of 2 branes impacting in a multiverse.

Quit simply the "cause" is not part of this space-time, the cause created this space-time.

The Atheist resorts to denying anything other than the material universe. On the basis that they only accept what they want to accept. That is to say only when they read it in a source that supports their view (scientific journal) or is something they and only they experience (rejecting everyone else's experiences).

But what ever, an eternal universe that describes the conditions of the universe right now, is rejected by scientist, mathematicians, and theist alike. There are a few theories of an eternally expanding and shrinking universes, but these don't seem likely.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 6:02:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 5:48:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/28/2015 11:40:38 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

The Atheist resorts to denying anything other than the material universe. On the basis that they only accept what they want to accept. That is to say only when they read it in a source that supports their view (scientific journal) or is something they and only they experience (rejecting everyone else's experiences).

"atheist only accept what they want to accept." And yet there is no evidence of a super natural realm of which theists accept. It seems the theist is accepting what they want to accept.

As an atheist, I'll accept your supernatural realm as soon as you prove it exists. That seems to be the most rational position. Doing otherwise, is either simply believing what others say without reason, or simply accepting what I want to be true. Neither I find appealing in any sense.

It's not our fault the case for theism or supernatural claims is completely free of evidence. That is kind of your guy's issue. Don't hate that we simply have a higher standard of evidence in relation to belief, then does the theist. Who seems to have a far to low standard of evidence in relation to belief.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 6:28:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 4:59:23 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/28/2015 12:50:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Theists should stick with Leibnizian or Aquinian or Clarkian cosmological arguments that are compatible with an eternal (or non-eternal) universe imo.

Clarkian? I'm familiar with Leibniz and Aquinas, but not Clark?

Samuel Clarke.

http://plato.stanford.edu...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 6:34:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 1:59:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/28/2015 1:29:54 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/28/2015 1:13:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/28/2015 12:56:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Tl;dr version: If the past is beginningless then an infinite set of events has already been traversed before every point of a beginningless past, and that is why there is only a finite set of subsequent events between that point and the present. So between any specifiable point in time (like 13.7 billion years ago) and now (the present) there is only a finite set of moments. Therefore you could get the present from any point in the past even if the universe is infinitely old.

I don't understand how this is relevant to Anselm's point. No point in the past is representative of an "infinite past".

If the universe is infinitely old for any one point you pick and infinite amount of moments will have passed prior to that point. For any two points you pick (like the present and some other point) a finite amount of time will have passed between those two points.

I still don't understand the relevance =/

Unless I'm really misunderstanding the OP his argument was that because you cannot traverse an infinite amount of moments to get to one particular moment (the present) then the universe could not be infinite. But I'm saying for ANY moment in the past you specify to the present moment there will be a finite amount of moments. So you won't be traversing the infinite which would undercut anselm's argument...right?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,082
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/28/2015 6:53:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 6:28:27 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/28/2015 4:59:23 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 3/28/2015 12:50:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Theists should stick with Leibnizian or Aquinian or Clarkian cosmological arguments that are compatible with an eternal (or non-eternal) universe imo.

Clarkian? I'm familiar with Leibniz and Aquinas, but not Clark?

Samuel Clarke.

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Thank you. I agree with your original statement.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 1:20:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 6:02:47 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:48:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/28/2015 11:40:38 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

The Atheist resorts to denying anything other than the material universe. On the basis that they only accept what they want to accept. That is to say only when they read it in a source that supports their view (scientific journal) or is something they and only they experience (rejecting everyone else's experiences).

"atheist only accept what they want to accept." And yet there is no evidence of a super natural realm of which theists accept. It seems the theist is accepting what they want to accept.

What realm is this? and once it is explained and demonstrated to exist sufficiently for you then it will no longer be supernatural.

by realm I guess you are referring to another dimension? Do some scientist advocate other dimensions? Why yes they do. so another dimension is not so supernatural is it.


As an atheist, I'll accept your supernatural realm as soon as you prove it exists. That seems to be the most rational position. Doing otherwise, is either simply believing what others say without reason, or simply accepting what I want to be true. Neither I find appealing in any sense.

It's not our fault the case for theism or supernatural claims is completely free of evidence. That is kind of your guy's issue. Don't hate that we simply have a higher standard of evidence in relation to belief, then does the theist. Who seems to have a far to low standard of evidence in relation to belief.

Who says it is completely free of evidence? that is just a lie you tell yourself and others. Your argumentation for atheism is devoid of logic and reason. Semantics, rhetoric, illogical sayings that actually match perfectly with fallacious arguments. That is the argumentation atheist use.

theist don't say believe without evidence. We don't need to hash all the arguments, but they are built on evidence. As most arguments from logical theist are, they base their beliefs on observations and data about the real world.

So you unconvinced by another persons witness, shame you haven't had a spiritual experience you couldn't blame on drugs. Shame you can't reasonably accept historical accounts of events. Shame you insist chance and a series of low probability events have succeeded in bringing us here.

Some of us just never feel that lucky or stupid
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 1:18:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/28/2015 6:34:39 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/28/2015 1:59:11 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/28/2015 1:29:54 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 3/28/2015 1:13:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/28/2015 12:56:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Tl;dr version: If the past is beginningless then an infinite set of events has already been traversed before every point of a beginningless past, and that is why there is only a finite set of subsequent events between that point and the present. So between any specifiable point in time (like 13.7 billion years ago) and now (the present) there is only a finite set of moments. Therefore you could get the present from any point in the past even if the universe is infinitely old.

I don't understand how this is relevant to Anselm's point. No point in the past is representative of an "infinite past".

If the universe is infinitely old for any one point you pick and infinite amount of moments will have passed prior to that point. For any two points you pick (like the present and some other point) a finite amount of time will have passed between those two points.

I still don't understand the relevance =/

Unless I'm really misunderstanding the OP his argument was that because you cannot traverse an infinite amount of moments to get to one particular moment (the present) then the universe could not be infinite. But I'm saying for ANY moment in the past you specify to the present moment there will be a finite amount of moments. So you won't be traversing the infinite which would undercut anselm's argument...right?

Except that by specifying any moment in the past, you are necessarily not talking about an infinite past, since there is no single moment in the past which occurred an infinite amount of time ago.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 4:38:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 1:20:48 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/28/2015 6:02:47 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:48:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/28/2015 11:40:38 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

The Atheist resorts to denying anything other than the material universe. On the basis that they only accept what they want to accept. That is to say only when they read it in a source that supports their view (scientific journal) or is something they and only they experience (rejecting everyone else's experiences).

"atheist only accept what they want to accept." And yet there is no evidence of a super natural realm of which theists accept. It seems the theist is accepting what they want to accept.

What realm is this? and once it is explained and demonstrated to exist sufficiently for you then it will no longer be supernatural.

by realm I guess you are referring to another dimension? Do some scientist advocate other dimensions? Why yes they do. so another dimension is not so supernatural is it.



As an atheist, I'll accept your supernatural realm as soon as you prove it exists. That seems to be the most rational position. Doing otherwise, is either simply believing what others say without reason, or simply accepting what I want to be true. Neither I find appealing in any sense.

It's not our fault the case for theism or supernatural claims is completely free of evidence. That is kind of your guy's issue. Don't hate that we simply have a higher standard of evidence in relation to belief, then does the theist. Who seems to have a far to low standard of evidence in relation to belief.

Who says it is completely free of evidence? that is just a lie you tell yourself and others. Your argumentation for atheism is devoid of logic and reason. Semantics, rhetoric, illogical sayings that actually match perfectly with fallacious arguments. That is the argumentation atheist use.

Good, finally a theist who has evidence. I can't figure out why you've been withholding it from the world. I can't wait to hear of what tangible evidence you have. Tell me about the evidence you have.

theist don't say believe without evidence. We don't need to hash all the arguments, but they are built on evidence. As most arguments from logical theist are, they base their beliefs on observations and data about the real world.

So you unconvinced by another persons witness, shame you haven't had a spiritual experience you couldn't blame on drugs. Shame you can't reasonably accept historical accounts of events. Shame you insist chance and a series of low probability events have succeeded in bringing us here.

Your right. I think those humans were lying. And you believe them. You believe in magic. I think it is you who should feel the shame of gullibility. Guess what, "Mohammed also received direct revelation." You believe his claims correct? If you shame me for not believing the claims and testimony of others, you should also shame yourself for not believe Mohammed. You also believe Josh Smith found some golden plates correct. He said he did. Apparently that is all you need to believe things. Don't forget Elron Hubbert, have you joined Scientology? Another person claiming something to be true. Shame on you for not accepting his claims also. I'm sure you believe in ALL the Greek gods also. Those people said they existed also. Hinduism, you are buying that one to. People said that one is true also. Shame on you for not believing them.
At least I'm consistent. I think all of you are lying. You on the other hand, you accept the claims of one group. Then you dismiss the claims of another. Both having the same exact methods of claiming truth. You "shame" me for not believing the claims of Hindus, Muslims, or Mormons. Yet you yourself reject their claims, and apply no shame to yourself.
When you have evidence for your claims let me know. Or, I guess you already said you have evidence. So show it to me. What is your evidence?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 5:21:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 4:38:21 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 3/29/2015 1:20:48 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/28/2015 6:02:47 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:48:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/28/2015 11:40:38 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

The Atheist resorts to denying anything other than the material universe. On the basis that they only accept what they want to accept. That is to say only when they read it in a source that supports their view (scientific journal) or is something they and only they experience (rejecting everyone else's experiences).

"atheist only accept what they want to accept." And yet there is no evidence of a super natural realm of which theists accept. It seems the theist is accepting what they want to accept.

What realm is this? and once it is explained and demonstrated to exist sufficiently for you then it will no longer be supernatural.

by realm I guess you are referring to another dimension? Do some scientist advocate other dimensions? Why yes they do. so another dimension is not so supernatural is it.



As an atheist, I'll accept your supernatural realm as soon as you prove it exists. That seems to be the most rational position. Doing otherwise, is either simply believing what others say without reason, or simply accepting what I want to be true. Neither I find appealing in any sense.

It's not our fault the case for theism or supernatural claims is completely free of evidence. That is kind of your guy's issue. Don't hate that we simply have a higher standard of evidence in relation to belief, then does the theist. Who seems to have a far to low standard of evidence in relation to belief.

Who says it is completely free of evidence? that is just a lie you tell yourself and others. Your argumentation for atheism is devoid of logic and reason. Semantics, rhetoric, illogical sayings that actually match perfectly with fallacious arguments. That is the argumentation atheist use.

Good, finally a theist who has evidence. I can't figure out why you've been withholding it from the world. I can't wait to hear of what tangible evidence you have. Tell me about the evidence you have.

theist don't say believe without evidence. We don't need to hash all the arguments, but they are built on evidence. As most arguments from logical theist are, they base their beliefs on observations and data about the real world.

So you unconvinced by another persons witness, shame you haven't had a spiritual experience you couldn't blame on drugs. Shame you can't reasonably accept historical accounts of events. Shame you insist chance and a series of low probability events have succeeded in bringing us here.

Your right. I think those humans were lying. And you believe them. You believe in magic. I think it is you who should feel the shame of gullibility. Guess what, "Mohammed also received direct revelation." You believe his claims correct? If you shame me for not believing the claims and testimony of others, you should also shame yourself for not believe Mohammed. You also believe Josh Smith found some golden plates correct. He said he did. Apparently that is all you need to believe things. Don't forget Elron Hubbert, have you joined Scientology? Another person claiming something to be true. Shame on you for not accepting his claims also. I'm sure you believe in ALL the Greek gods also. Those people said they existed also. Hinduism, you are buying that one to. People said that one is true also. Shame on you for not believing them.
At least I'm consistent. I think all of you are lying. You on the other hand, you accept the claims of one group. Then you dismiss the claims of another. Both having the same exact methods of claiming truth. You "shame" me for not believing the claims of Hindus, Muslims, or Mormons. Yet you yourself reject their claims, and apply no shame to yourself.
When you have evidence for your claims let me know. Or, I guess you already said you have evidence. So show it to me. What is your evidence?

You misunderstand basic reasoning. Data or evidence is nothing without interpretation. This interpretation is argument or theory.

Explainations are justifiable if they account for current data.

Theist believe in God becuase observations such as a finite universe, living systems, rationale of physical interactions, personal experiences, world wide innate desire for the metaphysical, ect. Are all evidence of a creator.

You are just another fool thinking supernatural means does not exist. You are neither skeptical or logical in your world view. It is presuppositional and assume a world narrowly defined by a modern methodology and limited mind.

You put your faith in the scientific writings of mankind that lack any explanatory power of anythings origin, that have it your way reject personal responsibility, brillance, or dignity

I personally wouldn't want to spend enternity along with people like you
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 5:40:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 5:21:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/29/2015 4:38:21 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 3/29/2015 1:20:48 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/28/2015 6:02:47 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:48:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/28/2015 11:40:38 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

The Atheist resorts to denying anything other than the material universe. On the basis that they only accept what they want to accept. That is to say only when they read it in a source that supports their view (scientific journal) or is something they and only they experience (rejecting everyone else's experiences).

"atheist only accept what they want to accept." And yet there is no evidence of a super natural realm of which theists accept. It seems the theist is accepting what they want to accept.

What realm is this? and once it is explained and demonstrated to exist sufficiently for you then it will no longer be supernatural.

by realm I guess you are referring to another dimension? Do some scientist advocate other dimensions? Why yes they do. so another dimension is not so supernatural is it.



As an atheist, I'll accept your supernatural realm as soon as you prove it exists. That seems to be the most rational position. Doing otherwise, is either simply believing what others say without reason, or simply accepting what I want to be true. Neither I find appealing in any sense.

It's not our fault the case for theism or supernatural claims is completely free of evidence. That is kind of your guy's issue. Don't hate that we simply have a higher standard of evidence in relation to belief, then does the theist. Who seems to have a far to low standard of evidence in relation to belief.

Who says it is completely free of evidence? that is just a lie you tell yourself and others. Your argumentation for atheism is devoid of logic and reason. Semantics, rhetoric, illogical sayings that actually match perfectly with fallacious arguments. That is the argumentation atheist use.

Good, finally a theist who has evidence. I can't figure out why you've been withholding it from the world. I can't wait to hear of what tangible evidence you have. Tell me about the evidence you have.

theist don't say believe without evidence. We don't need to hash all the arguments, but they are built on evidence. As most arguments from logical theist are, they base their beliefs on observations and data about the real world.

So you unconvinced by another persons witness, shame you haven't had a spiritual experience you couldn't blame on drugs. Shame you can't reasonably accept historical accounts of events. Shame you insist chance and a series of low probability events have succeeded in bringing us here.

Your right. I think those humans were lying. And you believe them. You believe in magic. I think it is you who should feel the shame of gullibility. Guess what, "Mohammed also received direct revelation." You believe his claims correct? If you shame me for not believing the claims and testimony of others, you should also shame yourself for not believe Mohammed. You also believe Josh Smith found some golden plates correct. He said he did. Apparently that is all you need to believe things. Don't forget Elron Hubbert, have you joined Scientology? Another person claiming something to be true. Shame on you for not accepting his claims also. I'm sure you believe in ALL the Greek gods also. Those people said they existed also. Hinduism, you are buying that one to. People said that one is true also. Shame on you for not believing them.
At least I'm consistent. I think all of you are lying. You on the other hand, you accept the claims of one group. Then you dismiss the claims of another. Both having the same exact methods of claiming truth. You "shame" me for not believing the claims of Hindus, Muslims, or Mormons. Yet you yourself reject their claims, and apply no shame to yourself.
When you have evidence for your claims let me know. Or, I guess you already said you have evidence. So show it to me. What is your evidence?

You misunderstand basic reasoning. Data or evidence is nothing without interpretation. This interpretation is argument or theory.

Explainations are justifiable if they account for current data.

Theist believe in God becuase observations such as a finite universe, living systems, rationale of physical interactions, personal experiences, world wide innate desire for the metaphysical, ect. Are all evidence of a creator.

You are just another fool thinking supernatural means does not exist. You are neither skeptical or logical in your world view. It is presuppositional and assume a world narrowly defined by a modern methodology and limited mind.

You put your faith in the scientific writings of mankind that lack any explanatory power of anythings origin, that have it your way reject personal responsibility, brillance, or dignity

I personally wouldn't want to spend enternity along with people like you

Don't worry, you won't be spending eternity with anyone, not even yourself.

Cite the evidence you have. You said you had evidence.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 8:26:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 5:40:26 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 3/29/2015 5:21:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/29/2015 4:38:21 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 3/29/2015 1:20:48 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/28/2015 6:02:47 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:48:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/28/2015 11:40:38 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

The Atheist resorts to denying anything other than the material universe. On the basis that they only accept what they want to accept. That is to say only when they read it in a source that supports their view (scientific journal) or is something they and only they experience (rejecting everyone else's experiences).

"atheist only accept what they want to accept." And yet there is no evidence of a super natural realm of which theists accept. It seems the theist is accepting what they want to accept.

What realm is this? and once it is explained and demonstrated to exist sufficiently for you then it will no longer be supernatural.

by realm I guess you are referring to another dimension? Do some scientist advocate other dimensions? Why yes they do. so another dimension is not so supernatural is it.



As an atheist, I'll accept your supernatural realm as soon as you prove it exists. That seems to be the most rational position. Doing otherwise, is either simply believing what others say without reason, or simply accepting what I want to be true. Neither I find appealing in any sense.

It's not our fault the case for theism or supernatural claims is completely free of evidence. That is kind of your guy's issue. Don't hate that we simply have a higher standard of evidence in relation to belief, then does the theist. Who seems to have a far to low standard of evidence in relation to belief.

Who says it is completely free of evidence? that is just a lie you tell yourself and others. Your argumentation for atheism is devoid of logic and reason. Semantics, rhetoric, illogical sayings that actually match perfectly with fallacious arguments. That is the argumentation atheist use.

Good, finally a theist who has evidence. I can't figure out why you've been withholding it from the world. I can't wait to hear of what tangible evidence you have. Tell me about the evidence you have.

theist don't say believe without evidence. We don't need to hash all the arguments, but they are built on evidence. As most arguments from logical theist are, they base their beliefs on observations and data about the real world.

So you unconvinced by another persons witness, shame you haven't had a spiritual experience you couldn't blame on drugs. Shame you can't reasonably accept historical accounts of events. Shame you insist chance and a series of low probability events have succeeded in bringing us here.

Your right. I think those humans were lying. And you believe them. You believe in magic. I think it is you who should feel the shame of gullibility. Guess what, "Mohammed also received direct revelation." You believe his claims correct? If you shame me for not believing the claims and testimony of others, you should also shame yourself for not believe Mohammed. You also believe Josh Smith found some golden plates correct. He said he did. Apparently that is all you need to believe things. Don't forget Elron Hubbert, have you joined Scientology? Another person claiming something to be true. Shame on you for not accepting his claims also. I'm sure you believe in ALL the Greek gods also. Those people said they existed also. Hinduism, you are buying that one to. People said that one is true also. Shame on you for not believing them.
At least I'm consistent. I think all of you are lying. You on the other hand, you accept the claims of one group. Then you dismiss the claims of another. Both having the same exact methods of claiming truth. You "shame" me for not believing the claims of Hindus, Muslims, or Mormons. Yet you yourself reject their claims, and apply no shame to yourself.
When you have evidence for your claims let me know. Or, I guess you already said you have evidence. So show it to me. What is your evidence?

You misunderstand basic reasoning. Data or evidence is nothing without interpretation. This interpretation is argument or theory.

Explainations are justifiable if they account for current data.

Theist believe in God becuase observations such as a finite universe, living systems, rationale of physical interactions, personal experiences, world wide innate desire for the metaphysical, ect. Are all evidence of a creator.

You are just another fool thinking supernatural means does not exist. You are neither skeptical or logical in your world view. It is presuppositional and assume a world narrowly defined by a modern methodology and limited mind.

You put your faith in the scientific writings of mankind that lack any explanatory power of anythings origin, that have it your way reject personal responsibility, brillance, or dignity

I personally wouldn't want to spend enternity along with people like you

Don't worry, you won't be spending eternity with anyone, not even yourself.

Cite the evidence you have. You said you had evidence.

I did cite it. the person saying that there is no evidence for God is just espousing a slogan line.

A finite universe points to a beginning to the universe. A regressive track of causal events leads to the beginning of the universe coming from a causal agent not part of this universe. The initial conditions to produce intelligent life like ourselves show the universe was create with certain parameters at it's initial creation.

God is classically attributed to creating the universe for the purpose of producing us.

So fact supports theism.

This of course was a quick summary because I don't expect being able to have a rational debate with you over the facts or the inferences.

But needless to say this is evidence for a God.
NoMagic
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 8:55:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 8:26:43 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/29/2015 5:40:26 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 3/29/2015 5:21:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/29/2015 4:38:21 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 3/29/2015 1:20:48 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/28/2015 6:02:47 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:48:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/28/2015 11:40:38 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

The Atheist resorts to denying anything other than the material universe. On the basis that they only accept what they want to accept. That is to say only when they read it in a source that supports their view (scientific journal) or is something they and only they experience (rejecting everyone else's experiences).

"atheist only accept what they want to accept." And yet there is no evidence of a super natural realm of which theists accept. It seems the theist is accepting what they want to accept.

What realm is this? and once it is explained and demonstrated to exist sufficiently for you then it will no longer be supernatural.

by realm I guess you are referring to another dimension? Do some scientist advocate other dimensions? Why yes they do. so another dimension is not so supernatural is it.



As an atheist, I'll accept your supernatural realm as soon as you prove it exists. That seems to be the most rational position. Doing otherwise, is either simply believing what others say without reason, or simply accepting what I want to be true. Neither I find appealing in any sense.

It's not our fault the case for theism or supernatural claims is completely free of evidence. That is kind of your guy's issue. Don't hate that we simply have a higher standard of evidence in relation to belief, then does the theist. Who seems to have a far to low standard of evidence in relation to belief.

Who says it is completely free of evidence? that is just a lie you tell yourself and others. Your argumentation for atheism is devoid of logic and reason. Semantics, rhetoric, illogical sayings that actually match perfectly with fallacious arguments. That is the argumentation atheist use.

Good, finally a theist who has evidence. I can't figure out why you've been withholding it from the world. I can't wait to hear of what tangible evidence you have. Tell me about the evidence you have.

theist don't say believe without evidence. We don't need to hash all the arguments, but they are built on evidence. As most arguments from logical theist are, they base their beliefs on observations and data about the real world.

So you unconvinced by another persons witness, shame you haven't had a spiritual experience you couldn't blame on drugs. Shame you can't reasonably accept historical accounts of events. Shame you insist chance and a series of low probability events have succeeded in bringing us here.

Your right. I think those humans were lying. And you believe them. You believe in magic. I think it is you who should feel the shame of gullibility. Guess what, "Mohammed also received direct revelation." You believe his claims correct? If you shame me for not believing the claims and testimony of others, you should also shame yourself for not believe Mohammed. You also believe Josh Smith found some golden plates correct. He said he did. Apparently that is all you need to believe things. Don't forget Elron Hubbert, have you joined Scientology? Another person claiming something to be true. Shame on you for not accepting his claims also. I'm sure you believe in ALL the Greek gods also. Those people said they existed also. Hinduism, you are buying that one to. People said that one is true also. Shame on you for not believing them.
At least I'm consistent. I think all of you are lying. You on the other hand, you accept the claims of one group. Then you dismiss the claims of another. Both having the same exact methods of claiming truth. You "shame" me for not believing the claims of Hindus, Muslims, or Mormons. Yet you yourself reject their claims, and apply no shame to yourself.
When you have evidence for your claims let me know. Or, I guess you already said you have evidence. So show it to me. What is your evidence?

You misunderstand basic reasoning. Data or evidence is nothing without interpretation. This interpretation is argument or theory.

Explainations are justifiable if they account for current data.

Theist believe in God becuase observations such as a finite universe, living systems, rationale of physical interactions, personal experiences, world wide innate desire for the metaphysical, ect. Are all evidence of a creator.

You are just another fool thinking supernatural means does not exist. You are neither skeptical or logical in your world view. It is presuppositional and assume a world narrowly defined by a modern methodology and limited mind.

You put your faith in the scientific writings of mankind that lack any explanatory power of anythings origin, that have it your way reject personal responsibility, brillance, or dignity

I personally wouldn't want to spend enternity along with people like you

Don't worry, you won't be spending eternity with anyone, not even yourself.

Cite the evidence you have. You said you had evidence.

I did cite it. the person saying that there is no evidence for God is just espousing a slogan line.

A finite universe points to a beginning to the universe. A regressive track of causal events leads to the beginning of the universe coming from a causal agent not part of this universe. The initial conditions to produce intelligent life like ourselves show the universe was create with certain parameters at it's initial creation.

God is classically attributed to creating the universe for the purpose of producing us.

So fact supports theism.

This of course was a quick summary because I don't expect being able to have a rational debate with you over the facts or the inferences.

But needless to say this is evidence for a God.

That isn't evidence of your god. I could just as easily claim that is evidence of another creator god, not yours. I could also claim that is evidence of many gods. Clearly one god couldn't do all of this, just to much work. I could claim our universe was created my mortal beings, perhaps very advance scientists.
The things you cite are arguments, not evidence. Evidence is a tangible, real thing. A photo is evidence. Finger prints are evidence. DNA is evidence. I will give you that you have arguments. I will give you that you have testimony. But you don't have tangible evidence.
Notice the similarities.
Something that doesn't exist:
Evidence.......NO
Arguments for its existence........Yes
Testimony for its existence.........Yes
Gods
Evidence.........NO
Arguments for their existence.......Yes
Testimony of their existence.......Yes
The things you cite are arguments, not evidence. Do you have any tangible evidence? Evidence is physical. Do you have physical evidence?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2015 9:09:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/29/2015 8:55:49 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 3/29/2015 8:26:43 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/29/2015 5:40:26 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 3/29/2015 5:21:59 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/29/2015 4:38:21 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 3/29/2015 1:20:48 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/28/2015 6:02:47 PM, NoMagic wrote:
At 3/28/2015 5:48:47 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 3/28/2015 11:40:38 AM, xXCryptoXx wrote:

At least I'm consistent. I think all of you are lying. You on the other hand, you accept the claims of one group. Then you dismiss the claims of another. Both having the same exact methods of claiming truth. You "shame" me for not believing the claims of Hindus, Muslims, or Mormons. Yet you yourself reject their claims, and apply no shame to yourself.
When you have evidence for your claims let me know. Or, I guess you already said you have evidence. So show it to me. What is your evidence?

You misunderstand basic reasoning. Data or evidence is nothing without interpretation. This interpretation is argument or theory.

Explainations are justifiable if they account for current data.

Theist believe in God becuase observations such as a finite universe, living systems, rationale of physical interactions, personal experiences, world wide innate desire for the metaphysical, ect. Are all evidence of a creator.

You are just another fool thinking supernatural means does not exist. You are neither skeptical or logical in your world view. It is presuppositional and assume a world narrowly defined by a modern methodology and limited mind.

You put your faith in the scientific writings of mankind that lack any explanatory power of anythings origin, that have it your way reject personal responsibility, brillance, or dignity

I personally wouldn't want to spend enternity along with people like you

Don't worry, you won't be spending eternity with anyone, not even yourself.

Cite the evidence you have. You said you had evidence.

I did cite it. the person saying that there is no evidence for God is just espousing a slogan line.

A finite universe points to a beginning to the universe. A regressive track of causal events leads to the beginning of the universe coming from a causal agent not part of this universe. The initial conditions to produce intelligent life like ourselves show the universe was create with certain parameters at it's initial creation.

God is classically attributed to creating the universe for the purpose of producing us.

So fact supports theism.

This of course was a quick summary because I don't expect being able to have a rational debate with you over the facts or the inferences.

But needless to say this is evidence for a God.

That isn't evidence of your god. I could just as easily claim that is evidence of another creator god, not yours. I could also claim that is evidence of many gods. Clearly one god couldn't do all of this, just to much work. I could claim our universe was created my mortal beings, perhaps very advance scientists.

Well you almost have the rational concept of evidence down. Evidence is observations that either support or disprove a particular explanation. It is evidence for my god and your other examples are competing explanations. So your blanket statement "that is not evidence.. blah blah" is just atheist rhetoric and garbage slogans.

The things you cite are arguments, not evidence. Evidence is a tangible, real thing. A photo is evidence. Finger prints are evidence. DNA is evidence. I will give you that you have arguments. I will give you that you have testimony. But you don't have tangible evidence.

The universe is finite, the universe has initial conditions that resulted in intelligent life. Those are facts and evidence.

The finger print, the photo those are evidence as well. They mean nothing to a prosecutor with out an argument. And the point of defense is to explain equally within reasonable doubt the presence of the evidence.

Sound arguments are not made of just bare assertions. See that is the atheist argumentation. but it is not logic or rationale. It's atheist like you who make arguments of nothing but bare assertions and unfounded premises. So I guess i can't criticize you too much for not knowing what a good argument based on evidence looks like.

Notice the similarities.
Something that doesn't exist:
Evidence.......NO
Arguments for its existence........Yes
Testimony for its existence.........Yes
Gods
Evidence.........NO
Arguments for their existence.......Yes
Testimony of their existence.......Yes
The things you cite are arguments, not evidence. Do you have any tangible evidence? Evidence is physical. Do you have physical evidence?

Oh okay now we move on to the next Atheist tactic in which you define what evidence is, and of course you define it so narrowly that it is only physical composed of matter and energy.

Well the creation of the universe is material evidence. God makes visible things from the unseen things. And that is what we have occurring. galaxies and stars being created from dark matter and energy.

If you read my argument the evidence I am citing is observational FACT of this universe.

Sorry I don't have God recorded on youtube for you. But eye witness accounts will have to do.

Please go google evidence, argument, and justification. I can't educate you on reason and logic when you refuse to learn it.