Atheist.net Full of Erroneous Thinking

[Parture]

Re: 1dave1 @ atheist.net

What is your source for how the disciples died?

Some verses in the Bible and some extra-Biblical sources.

And how do we know none of them changed their mind?

Because there is no record they changed their minds and they died for it.

It seems unlikely that if one of them denied that he had seen Jesus risen that this would be preserved in writing.

It seems likely that if one or more said that they had never seen Jesus alive from the dead then they would have said so since Paul even said that most were still alive to do so that he included in his list of eyewitnesses. And since they all died as martyrs for this testimony of seeing Jesus alive from the dead that doesn't mesh well with claiming they didn't see Him.

Your right a quick web search failed to find a case. But of course if someone went to their death proclaiming the lie it would be hard to determine that they knew it was a lie.

Anyway you have all of history to find one person who willingly died for a lie. You can't even find one.

But does Peter ever say he was in a group who all saw risen Jesus. Does John?

In their accounts, yes by their words these are groups just as given by Paul and and the Gospels and Acts. Never anything to contrary.

What I mean here, is there any quote where someone is recounting a specific incident where he was with a group who all saw risen Jesus?

Yes, John and Peter in their epistles. Matthew in his gospel and John in his gospel. Even Paul when he saw Jesus testifies those with him heard the voice, saw the light and also fell to the ground with Him, and saw the man, but only Paul could understand what Jesus was saying. The Gospels were oral accounts preserved. There was not a contrary message to this in the beginning in the primary sources.

But would any record of this be preserved?

As was said before, Paul said if there was a contrary message to what was being taught from the beginning, someone would have come forth.

We have very few records from the time. The early christians would be unlikely to preserve such records. And there were hundreds of years when such records would have been considered heresy and would have been destroyed.

Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity. In fact, take any ten figures and Jesus has more sources written about Him within 150 years of the person's death. The early Christians are very likely to preserve this record. It's something you would want put to papyri right away so all the books of the NT were written before 65 AD except for Revelation which was written about 95 AD. Since all but 11 verses can be quoted from the early church fathers in the 1st and 2nd century if someone burned something centuries later that's irrelevant.

Are you sure you aren't making the common atheist fallacy here?

Do you mean the fallacy of believing something with no evidence? No, since I gave you the evidence and you have nothing to counter it.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Right?

Right. But such an overwhelming preponderance of evidence as we have seen is evidence.

See above. How do we really know that many people didnt come forth to say otherwise?

I saw above. Didn't see anything to help you. We can only go with evidence. If you want to suggest someone came forth to say otherwise, then you need some evidence. What we do have is many points of corroboration the disciples believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead. Christians like evidence so we will stick with the evidence and let you stir.

But can you provide a quote where James is saying he was with a group who all saw risen Jesus?

Why is this required? The twelve groups listed didn't include James and that's alright since James was not an original Apostles. Whether James was included in the 500 or not makes no difference. He was converted as a result of seeing Jesus alive from the dead.

(this to establish that a group saw Jesus, and because it was a group all seeing the same thing, it could not have been an hallucination)

That's correct group hallucinations are impossible. And of those instances where there were individuals alone seeing Jesus physically in person, it's unlikely all would be hallucinations anyhow.

And now part 2 of your proof requires that the diciples went to their death rather than deny having seen risen Jesus.

That's correct, that's the evidence we have from both the New Testament, extra-Biblical and non-Christian sources.

What is your source for the manner of their deaths?

The church fathers and the Bible and non-Christian sources. All this information is common knowledge. Just read their writings. We have a total of 45 sources within 150 years of Jesus' death.

Do you have any source that claims to be an eyewitness to their deaths?

Starting with John who placed himself at the cross when Jesus died. I don't know of any sources of eyewitnesses of their deaths but some must have been present because, for example, Stephen's entire testimony was recounted. Though in most instance, it wouldn't make much sense for those Apostles to be present who would be the only to write about it, since they would be grabbed from the crowd and accosted.

[Parture]

You could be right: we could have happened before, but we have no way of knowing it now. Besides, for all we know, time has not existed indefinitely, so your argument fails no matter how you look at it.

You would not have happened twice, but you would have happened already because you would have had an eternity to do so. This is how you know infinite regress is impossible. If time didn't always exist then it needs a cause outside of itself. So no matter how you look at it your argument fails.

You still have not explained how your god can create anything without time. Being "outside time" is not an explanation, it is a dodge that does not work. Besides, if your god can be outside time, so can the universe itself. Perhaps you should become a pantheist?

We can't know everything. It is unreasonable to demand to know everything to know if God exists. It is enough to accept the evidence since nature can't start up from nothing nor always have existed then nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. And this is whom we call God. "Outside of time" is the explanation since obviously time did not always exist. It needs a cause. Don't doge this. If you want the universe to exist outside of time yet you require time for something to come into being then according to you we would never have existed. If you want some timeless singularity to start the universe up you still fail because, because a mind is needed to create a mind. The lesser can never produce the greater. Pantheism is false since God is outside of time and space. And God can't have morals below our own, so He has a conscience and morality. Nature by itself doesn't have that.

Judging from the sources we have, the resurrection most likely did not happen, so Jesus' claim is just self-delusion.

Historians don't use your sources since they are too late and irrelevant. They concern themselves with the primary sources. Of the 45 sources within 150 years of Jesus' death none of them suggest otherwise about the the disciples' belief they had seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings.

We have already presented naturalistic explanations, and your problem of the lack of a proof for the resurrection does not go away by ignoring them.

Of the 45 sources, 24 of them speak of the resurrection of Jesus. That's an astounding number of sources, more than enough. None of your naturalistic theories work such as swoon theory. For Jesus wouldn't have looked much like a risen Messiah. I doubt he could even walk with holes in his feet and his back scourged down to the bone. No respectable scholar uses that approach. And almost all scholars deny fraud theory and hallucination theory, so what you have you got?

[Parture]

I never claimed that particles, or anything for that matter, actually come from your idea of nothing (non-existence). I am saying that linear cause and effect is a rule from within our universe, to assume that it is a rule outside the universe is presumptuous.

If according to your theory there is no causation outside the universe, then the universe would never have come into being so to assume there is no causation is to betray your own existence. Any theory you propose cannot contradict itself.

Because you refuse to explain why I only could have happened in the past if the universe had infinite regress (which by the way makes no sense, considering the fact that whenever I do happen, from my standpoint it is always going to be the present) I'm just going to go ahead and humor you. Lets suppose you are right, if the universe had infinite regress I would have happened already, and therefore I would not exist today. So what. How does the time at which I occur in any way affect whether or not the universe can have infinite regress? And even if the universe can not contain an infinite amount of causes and effects within it, how does that logically prove god?

Your standpoint is irrelevant. If you have an eternity to come into being, you had an eternity to come into being. Therefore, you should have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Very simple for a child or teenager to understand. Not so simple for you because you hate God. Any theory you propose can't contradict itself. If you want infinite regress to be true then you should not exist now since you would have happened already. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call the uncreated Creator. The common name we give to the uncreated Creator is God. So the issue is not whether God exists, but who God is? Therefore, atheism is false and you are living a lie.

This is what you originally said in the OP: if there was an infinite regress you would have happened already having had an eternity do so. And you would never have existed because the past would continue to go on for eternity never reaching this point.

That's right.

In the first sentence you claim that if infinite regress were the case, then I would have already existed, past tense. But then in the following sentence you say that if infinite regress were the case then I would never have existed, also past tense, contradicting yourself. But then you provide a bizarre reason to explain why the past could never reach the present moment, suggesting that the past could never reach the present because it goes on for eternity. This is confusing and nonsensical at best. I thought you deliberately worded it this way so you could say that infinite regress is a contradiction, therefore god. If you had just said 'if there was an infinite regress you would have happened already having had an eternity do so, therefore you would not exist today,' it wouldn't have been confusing. At any rate, the time at which I exist is irrelevant in attempting to disprove infinite regress. And whether or not infinite regress in our universe is possible, is irrelevant in attempting to prove god created our universe.

The contradiction lies with infinite regress because it is both true you would have have happened already and you would never existed. You had an eternity to have existed so you should have happened before now. And if an eternity was going on it would be going on for eternity before now so this point would never be reached so you should not exist now. Any system of belief that contradicts itself is false. Based on this evidence, infinite regress is impossible, therefore nature needs a cause outside of itself, and this whom we call God.

You realize that 'this point' you are referring to is the present. So to say that 'if there was infinite regress an eternity would still be going on never reaching this point,' is to say that eternity never reaches the present. But how can that be true? The present is the only point in eternity that actually exists, in fact, eternity functions as a perpetual present moment.

Your theory does not hold as was said, if there was an infinite regress there would be an eternity going on before now so this point would never be reached, since eternity would still be going on for eternity.

I did quote you, but i clearly said that that was the first time you ever mentioned that I would not exist right now.

You didn't say that at all. Rather, you said, "Show me where you wrote in a previous post that I would not exist right now. I did not see it." So I gave you the post which was prior to our current discussion about it. I probably posted this a dozen times already.

I showed you what you originally posted, and you did leave out that detail. You worded it in such a way that it appeared that you were deliberately attempting to create a false contradiction.

What I posted that you quoted was this, "I never said anything about recurring as was said many times. I said you would have already happened and gone so you wouldn't exist now. You are really slow aren't you." You responded by saying, "this is the first time you ever mentioned that if infinite regress was the case then I would have happened in the past, consequently, I would not exist right now." That's simply not true, for there are many posts I have repeated the statement "you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so." Don't assume I am speaking of recurring for I said "already happened." "Already" means it should have happened already and thus, not now. If I meant how you misread then I should have used a word like "recurred before". You're simply misreading. Careless atheist.

I challenge you to write the above passage into a logical argument, use as many syllogisms as you like. If you can do it, and have them at least be valid, then I can say that you are actually making progress. If you reply to this post with no syllogisms to demonstrate your logic, I'll take it as you conceding that what you have written above is illogical, incoherent, rubbish.

How about I just repeat it so the reader can see there is no problem with it and thus, you are being illogical avoiding it. I am standing on the foundation of evidence but you are not so you will need to make some progress.

I see energy in nature all the time. Go check out a nuclear power plant for example. Whether there is an infinite number of forms or not you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. And you would never have existed because an eternity would still be going on before this point. Infinite regress is dumb and self-contradictory.

You do realize that the universe doesn't exist in space-time, but rather space-time exists in the universe, right? It is a very basic concept.

You realize those two statements in your petty self are one in the same, since the universe is space-time. Very simple to understand. Cyclical universes, multiverses, etc. don't change anything.

I'm not proposing infinite regress, I'm demonstrating how the claims you make about infinite regress are illogical. Let me be clear, the crux of this debate hinges on the fact that you claim an uncreated creator is the only logical explanation for our universe. You use a 4 step proof in a feeble attempt to demonstrate this. I have only addressed the first two steps and pointed out the logical inconsistencies present in these steps. Not only that, but I have implied an alternative logical explanation for the existence of our universe. Just in case you missed it here it is again, in syllogism form.

I am glad you are not proposing infinite regress now, so stop arguing for it. I have responded to everything to show you that you are being illogical and your claim for an infinite regress is self-contradictory. You're free to respond to my points or shut your mind down. Sorry, couldn't find anything in what you said for an alternative logical explanation to infinite regress. Why keep this secret to yourself? Share it with the world. People might think you are full of you know what being coy.

Proof of a larger system

P1- Finite systems require larger support systems in order to exist.
P2- Our universe exists as a finite system.
C- Our universe requires a larger support system in order to exist.

Sounds like infinite regress to me, because you will just say the next larger system above that and on and on. You would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. And you would never have existed because a past eternity would still be going on. Boring.

Proof that a larger system is all that is required

P1- In order for any finite system to exist, all that is required is a larger system to produce it.
P2- Our universe exists as finite system.
C-- A larger system is all that is required to produce our universe.

There you have it, I have shown you that there is no need to jump to the god conclusion.

Your argument is faulty because you shut your mind down to that larger natural system. You need to ask what caused it. Since it is natural, and you admit nature needs a cause, then you are implying infinite regress, but you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

We are left with no other possibility as usual than nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call God. God is the great I AM, the Intelligent mind. God is infinite but does not infinitely regress, because God is outside of time and space. Amen.

That's not enough though. You would need to receive what God did for you to avoid going to Hell.

[Parture]

There is no reason for infinite regress to be impossible. Infinite regress itself could be the infinity you are seeing in god.

Not at all. The infinite regress you propose is of nature, but if infinite regress were true, we would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. This fact alone proves nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space. And this is whom we call the uncreated Creator or God. There is no infinite regress outside of time. It is simply the uncreated Creator. This takes humility to accept.

Sounds very similar to the multiple reality theory, for which there is quite good evidence (look up the buckyball experiment). Although unlike you I will not make any decisions on something we have little or no understanding of, I would point out that if there really are multiple realities they would point towards the existence of an infinite regress.

There is no multiple reality. We have proven the existence of the uncreated Creator so that's it. If you have little understanding then I trust you won't make a decision for atheism. Even if there was multiple realities they all exhibit cause and effect so you should have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

Your brain is evolved to see the world as cause and effect. Perhaps the true nature of reality is not cause and effect. If this is the case your argument implodes. You or I have no way of knowing this is not true. How do you explain quantum randomness?

True we can only go with the evidence, but if it were true there was no such thing as cause and effect then you would never have come into being and would not exist. All we can do is go with the evidence and the evidence is we see trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature, which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, atheism is wrong since infinite regress is impossible and something can't come from nothing.

Again I ask you to read up on dark matter. I think you will find we have some insight into what is beyond our universe and it seems something can come from virtual nothingness.
Our brains may just be evolved to see the universe in a certain way which makes them good at surviving. We didn't evolve to become theoretical physicists it's simply a byproduct of our adaptions for survival. From what we understand of the world around us we do not experience a 'true' reality at all, but rather have to piece together small individual laws which are part of a whole.

You're confusing dark matter and empty space with that which does not exist. That which does not exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist. So the universe can't come from nothing. Dark matter and empty space are not nothing for they are made up of particles. Sure we experience true reality. This is a true world and we are real human beings.

Seeing as there is no reason to believe infinite regress is impossible this still stands and you are yet to show it to be wrong.

As was said countless times, infinite regress is impossible, because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. You must deal with this point if you want to talk about it.

How can you possibly know the nature of this infinite creator you seem so confident in? Please find me an answer other than the bible I will completely ignore any bible related claims.

Now that we know God exists, we are free to find out where He has revealed Himself. God acknowledges Himself. Jesus does that. He also must prove Himself. Jesus does that too, since the original disciples testified to having seen Jesus alive from the dead in various group settings. Since you can find no naturalistic explanation for this, you convince people to believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior, Creator and Resurrected. The primary source for proof Jesus is God is the Bible. Historians don't throw out a document because the historian is biased. He deals with it and gleans what data he can from it.

Doesn't it seem odd that the Christian image of him thinks like a human being and is attributed with being male and capable of fathering a son?

God condescends Himself to us. But it is not entirely true what you said because remember also, the Godhead is a Trinity of 3 Persons. All I can say about that right now is that God is relational in 3 Persons, so the Godhead can't help but create out of the glory that is the Triunity of God.

1. Your infinite creator argument has been exposed as wrong, but you won't accept the arguments and constantly claim infinite regress is impossible, although you have no logical reason to believe this.

I've responded to all points to show you that is not the case at all and quite the opposite actually.

2. To jump from an infinite creator to a magical super-being described by the bible is a huge leap of faith for which you have no evidence to support.

Don't jump, but compare Jesus. Find out who provides a proof as good as Jesus does in paying for the sins of the world and by the resurrection proof. None can compare.

3.You seem to have a psychological need to be certain of something. To pretend we are certain about things physics is only starting to catch glimpses of is insane. You're engaging in science with a bias to evidence which supports your cause. A true scientist or just a rational human being will look at all the evidence with an open mind and then make an informed decision on what his cause should be.

I would be agnostic right now if the evidence wasn't so compelling. You should be agnostic and not atheist if you didn't need to be so certain. Think how insane you are since we observe trillions and trillions of causes in nature, and no hard evidence something happens all by itself, then to claim otherwise that causation doesn't exist. If causation didn't exist, you wouldn't exist since you would have no cause to your existence.

You're starting from the position that God does not exist whereas I am starting from the evidence of trillions and trillions of cause and effects and the 1st law of thermodynamics which you violate. You're simply catering to some assumptions that violate reality out of your hostility and independency to your Creator for which I assure you that you will go to Hell for because you don't want to be redeemed back to God, and it is a choice to want to be eternally separated from God. You have nobody to blame but yourself.

I've fallen into the trap and done what I said I wouldn't...Oh well I have some time on my hands.

You shouldn't have tried to think things through? Maybe that's the problem is you don't do that enough, but usually just shut your mind down. That's what worldly people do. After you receive trillions of pieces evidence, don't embarrass yourself with false humility by claiming there is no such thing as cause and effect or there is still not enough evidence even though you can't find one thing that happened all by itself. Silly. That's just being belligerent. Guess what? There is no belligerent people in Heaven. God doesn't care for those types.

[Parture]

There is nothing new about the "4 Step Proof". It fails for several fundamental reasons.

It's new because it is not the original 4 Step Proof for God. In terms of the proof of either, this proof was available to people who lived 5000 years ago so in that sense it is new at all. We are all without excuse (Rom. 1.20).

The proof repetitively confuses the physical processes which are internal to our universe with the environment which is external to our universe.

The proof includes both the internal processes of our universe as well as any environment posited external to our environment. If you want to propose an external natural cause to our universe then you would be extending this in an infinite regress, but as we have seen, infinite regress is impossible because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

Conservation of energy and/or matter, causation, time, space, etc. have no meaning beyond the boundaries of our universe.

If causation had no meaning beyond our universe then the universe would never have come into being. You should not exist according to your theory.

Words such as "never", "always", "already", "eternal" have no meaning beyond the borders of space-time.

This is my very point, that outside of space-time exists the spaceless and timeless uncreated Creator since space-time did not always exist nor can it start up from nothing. The uncreated Creator is whom we call God. Where does He reveal Himself but in Jesus Christ by proof of His resurrection.

The proof depends upon these concepts having meaning--they don't.

The proof does not depend on these terms. The proof is well formulated based on the evidence of trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature. If nature always existed you would have happened already, and nature can't come from nothing. So nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call God the uncreated Creator.

The idea that "the lesser can never produce the greater" is so poorly defined it is useless.

It need not be defined by more than that. That which does not have a mind can't produce a mind. That which has no conscience can't produce a conscience. Simple so you can understand the lesser can never produce the greater.

A nebula can condense into a star system. (lesser complexity produces greater complexity)

Nothing in nature is as complex as the human mind, so a nebula or star system can't produce a mind alone by itself. The nebula is going to condense further into empty space. The star system is just a fluctuation of matter in the process. Your scope is too narrow. You're seeing complexity where there is not near as much as in the DNA of a human being. Our most powerful telescopes can see down to the 10^25 level, but we know the depths of small things goes to at least 10^125 factor. And yet this does not compare to the complexity of the mind with free will, feelings, conscience, self-consciousness and God-consciousness, the ability to commune and sense our intuition where the Holy Spirit resides in those who are born-again.

A group of scientists can build a large hadron collider. (lesser size produces greater size)

A group of scientists, with free will, a conscience, a mind, emotions, are certainly greater than a hadron collider. A hadron collider can't create us, but we can create the collider. In fact, the entire universe can't produce the collider, but we can.

A farmer can plant and harvest seed crops (lesser seeds produces greater seeds)

A farmer is lesser than seed crops? You really have a low view of man. I don't see crops with feelings and free will.

Two human cells can create multiple humans, each with its own mind. (lesser life produces greater life)

The human cell with DNA is the process God uses to create a mind. Nature can't produce a single celled replicating organism so behind nature is God who created the first single celled replicating organism. God inserts into His creation from dust a replicating organism.

If you copy nonsense from one forum to another it remains nonsense.

But if you don't then you don't. How deep.

It's unlikely that you can convince anyone in this forum of the existence of your god, but at least you could try to present ideas with a modicum of intellectual challenge. Use the brain god gave you!

It's likely someone will be convinced in Christ because many atheists do give their lives to Christ when they see it's crazy to believe in infinite regress or something from nothing. Antony Flew the most famous and published atheist scholar of the 20th century as of 2004 is a theist. Just think all his life until he reached his 80's he was living lie as an atheist. Hopefully you don't wait that long.

Use the brain God gave you. If you want non-space and non-time to bring into existence time and space but you don't want it to be God, then you have a problem because a mind is needed to create a mind and mere spaceless timelessness doesn't have that.

Think.

[Mystermenace]

It's new because it is not the original 4 Step Proof for God. In terms of the proof of either, this proof was available to people who lived 5000 years ago so in that sense it is new at all. We are all without excuse (Rom. 1.20).

Okay, well, none of the points are new.

The proof includes both the internal processes of our universe as well as any environment posited external to our environment. If you want to propose an external natural cause to our universe then you would be extending this in an infinite regress, but as we have seen, infinite regress is impossible because you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

If the infinite regress argument were relevant then in an infinite regress all possibilities would occur an infinite number of times. This occurrence of me would just be the current one. Your rebuttal fails.

If causation had no meaning beyond our universe then the universe would never have come into being. You should not exist according to your theory.

Causation is not the only way things can come into being. Your rebuttal fails.

This is my very point, that outside of space-time exists the spaceless and timeless uncreated Creator since space-time did not always exist nor can it start up from nothing. The uncreated Creator is whom we call God. Where does He reveal Himself but in Jesus Christ by proof of His resurrection.

The proof does not depend on these terms. The proof is well formulated based on the evidence of trillions and trillions of cause and effects in nature. If nature always existed you would have happened already, and nature can't come from nothing. So nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call God the uncreated Creator.

Again, you are talking about time outside of our space-time universe. This doesn't make sense.
You claim that nature cannot come from nothing, but you give no supporting reasoning. In the absence of space-time and the laws of physics of our universe there is nothing to prevent something coming from nothing.

It need not be defined by more than that. That which does not have a mind can't produce a mind. That which has no conscience can't produce a conscience. Simple so you can understand the lesser can never produce the greater.

It's a good argument if there is any reasonong behind it. There isn't.

Nothing in nature is as complex as the human mind, so a nebula or star system can't produce a mind alone by itself. The nebula is going to condense further into empty space. The star system is just a fluctuation of matter in the process. Your scope is too narrow. You're seeing complexity where there is not near as much as in the DNA of a human being. Our most powerful telescopes can see down to the 10^25 level, but we know the depths of small things goes to at least 10^125 factor. And yet this does not compare to the complexity of the mind with free will, feelings, conscience, self-consciousness and God-consciousness, the ability to commune and sense our intuition where the Holy Spirit resides in those who are born-again.

A group of scientists, with free will, a conscience, a mind, emotions, are certainly greater than a hadron collider. A hadron collider can't create us, but we can create the collider. In fact, the entire universe can't produce the collider, but we can.

A farmer is lesser than seed crops? You really have a low view of man. I don't see crops with feelings and free will.

This is where you completely misunderstood my clear point that the "lesser can never produce the greater" is poorly defined. Your rebuttal is irrelevant.

The human cell with DNA is the process God uses to create a mind. Nature can't produce a single celled replicating organism so behind nature is God who created the first single celled replicating organism. God inserts into His creation from dust a replicating organism.

Are you making this up or did god explain this to you directly?

It's likely someone will be convinced in Christ because many atheists do give their lives to Christ when they see it's crazy to believe in infinite regress or something from nothing. Antony Flew the most famous and published atheist scholar of the 20th century as of 2004 is a theist. Just think all his life until he reached his 80's he was living lie as an atheist. Hopefully you don't wait that long.

The only ones who give Antony Flew those credentials are those who want to claim that a conversion from atheism to theism.

[Parture]

Okay, well, none of the points are new.

The format is NEW because nobody has stated in this precise compact order before.

If the infinite regress argument were relevant then in an infinite regress all possibilities would occur an infinite number of times. This occurrence of me would just be the current one. Your rebuttal fails.

Even if something could occur an infinite number of times, this instance of this time would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

Causation is not the only way things can come into being. Your rebuttal fails.

When you say something "can come into being" you are implying a cause.

Again, you are talking about time outside of our space-time universe. This doesn't make sense. You claim that nature cannot come from nothing, but you give no supporting reasoning. In the absence of space-time and the laws of physics of our universe there is nothing to prevent something coming from nothing.

I never talked about time outside of space-time. The reason why something can't come from nothing was as was said because that which doesn't exist can't produce anything. It doesn't exist: it has no existence, no energy, and your theory would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

It's a good argument if there is any reasonong behind it. There isn't.

The reasoning was already said, the lesser can never produce the greater.

This is where you completely misunderstood my clear point that the "lesser can never produce the greater" is poorly defined. Your rebuttal is irrelevant.

I am glad you can't show it, so your response is irrelevant. That you got all coy on me at this juncture may help you to realize this is where you are stuck.

Are you making this up or did god explain this to you directly?

He explained it to me directly as has has to all of us in our reasoning and conscience as well as through His word (66 books of the Bible) and by the Holy Spirit so we are all without excuse. Not only does God tell us this in His word, since He created all things (Gen. 1.1) making us in His image (1.26,27) from dust (2.7a) and breathed in the breath of life (2.7b) directly creating our spirit making us a living soul (2.7c), it stands to reason too because you can't produce replicating life from dust.

The only ones who give Antony Flew those credentials are those who want to claim that a conversion from atheism to theism.

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1.20).

Guess what? You're without excuse if you remain an atheist.

[Mystermenace]

The format is NEW because nobody has stated in this precise compact order before.

By new I thought you meant original; my bad.

Even if something could occur an infinite number of times, this instance of this time would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so.

Do you know that you don't know what infinite means?
Even if this instance of this time has already happened, the next instance of this time may not have already happened; there are an infinite number of them.

When you say something "can come into being" you are implying a cause.

That's true if you assume there are no other modes than "cause" of coming into being, which would be begging the question of the possibility of other modes of coming into being.

I never talked about time outside of space-time. The reason why something can't come from nothing was as was said because that which doesn't exist can't produce anything. It doesn't exist: it has no existence, no energy, and your theory would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

You claim that nature cannot come from nothing, but you give no supporting reasoning. In the absence of space-time and the laws of physics of our universe there is nothing to prevent a spontaneous coming into existence without a cause.

The first law of thermodynamics only has relevance inside our space-time universe. Something from nothing outside of our universe is not a violation of the laws that began with and are confined to our universe. That is why our universe needs no separate cause to begin its existence.

The reasoning was already said, the lesser can never produce the greater.

That is a claim, not an analysis.

He explained it to me directly as has has to all of us in our reasoning and conscience as well as through His word (66 books of the Bible) and by the Holy Spirit so we are all without excuse. Not only does God tell us this in His word, since He created all things (Gen. 1.1) making us in His image (1.26,27) from dust (2.7a) and breathed in the breath of life (2.7b) directly creating our spirit making us a living soul (2.7c), it stands to reason too because you can't produce replicating life from dust.

That is completely irrelevant as supporting evidence of the claim you made that god personally directs every occurrence of DNA replication, which is never mentioned or implied in the bible.

Guess what? You're without excuse if you remain an atheist.

I need no excuse nor need to be excused to be an atheist.

[Parture]

By new I thought you meant original; my bad.

"Nothing under the sun is truly new" (Eccl. 1.9).

Do you know that you don't know what infinite means? Even if this instance of this time has already happened, the next instance of this time may not have already happened; there are an infinite number of them.

The next would have happened already also, because it too had an eternity to have happened already.

That's true if you assume there are no other modes than "cause" of coming into being, which would be begging the question of the possibility of other modes of coming into being.

That's called false humility, assuming something could come into being without being caused as there is no evidence for such, and we have trillions and trillions of causes as evidence. So you are begging the question for something to come into being without being caused. That's a contradiction--another favorite of the corrupted mind of atheists.

You claim that nature cannot come from nothing, but you give no supporting reasoning. In the absence of space-time and the laws of physics of our universe there is nothing to prevent a spontaneous coming into existence without a cause.

The reason was already given why something can't come from nothing: "because that which doesn't exist can't produce anything. It doesn't exist: it has no existence, no energy, and your theory would violate the first law of thermodynamics." Since something can't come from nothing, the universe comes from that which is outside of time and space, the uncreated Creator.

The first law of thermodynamics only has relevance inside our space-time universe. Something from nothing outside of our universe is not a violation of the laws that began with and are confined to our universe. That is why our universe needs no separate cause to begin its existence.

That which is outside of time and space is confined to the whole in which it is included, so the 1st law of thermodynamics would be violated for that whole. That's why our universe needs a cause to begin its existence. You can't have magical fairies popping into existence from nothing.

That is a claim, not an analysis.

It is a substantiated claim since we observe the lesser is never able to produce the greater. You're always violating proven principles.

That is completely irrelevant as supporting evidence of the claim you made that god personally directs every occurrence of DNA replication, which is never mentioned or implied in the bible.

I am only answering your question. You asked me if God directly showed me: "did god explain this to you directly?" God told me you are jealous because you never received any direct revelation from God of His existence, but He also told me the reason is because you don't come to Him with an honest heart. "If you search for him with all your heart and soul, you will find him" (Deut. 4.29). "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart" (Jer. 29.13).

God directs. He has infinite foreknowledge to see our free-choices, so as each person whom God foreknew before the foundations of the world comes into being from the genetic material of their parents to produce a living soul, God accounts for it and says it is good. All is within His divine providence and care otherwise it would never happen!

God of the Bible directs every occurrence of everything. "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matt. 10.30). In order to do this God must approve or predestinate all DNA replication according to His foreknowledge.

I need no excuse nor need to be excused to be an atheist.

You do need an excuse for being an atheist and to be excused to be an atheist, since nature proves God and who God is--the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Mystermenace]

The next would have happened already also, because it too had an eternity to have happened already.

By your analysis of infinite regresson everthing already happened before any time occurred. Your concept of infininty doesn't match any standard formulation.

That's called false humility, assuming something could come into being without being caused as there is no evidence for such, and we have trillions and trillions of causes as evidence. So you are begging the question for something to come into being without being caused. That's a contradiction--another favorite of the corrupted mind of atheists.

Your point is that evidence from within our space-time universe is evidence for the non-space-time outside our universe.
You are positing new physics.

The reason was already given why something can't come from nothing: "because that which doesn't exist can't produce anything. It doesn't exist: it has no existence, no energy, and your theory would violate the first law of thermodynamics." Since something can't come from nothing, the universe comes from that which is outside of time and space, the uncreated Creator.

Your point is that physics from within our space-time universe applies to the non-space-time outside out universe.
That still doesn't work.

That which is outside of time and space is confined to the whole in which it is included, so the 1st law of thermodynamics would be violated for that whole. That's why our universe needs a cause to begin its existence. You can't have magical fairies popping into existence from nothing.

Your idea that the 1st law of thermodynamics works outside of time and space is not part of current science theory.
If you are a physicist you are being laughed at by every other physicist in the world.
If you are not a physicist you are being laughed at by every physicist in the world.

It is a substantiated claim since we observe the lesser is never able to produce the greater. You're always violating proven principles.

I constantly observe the lesser producing the greater. Are you referring to complexity, quantity, size, etc. in this proven principle?

I am only answering your question. You asked me if God directly showed me: "did god explain this to you directly?" God told me you are jealous because you never received any direct revelation from God of His existence, but He also told me the reason is because you don't come to Him with an honest heart. "If you search for him with all your heart and soul, you will find him" (Deut. 4.29). "You will seek me and find me; when you seek me with all your heart" (Jer. 29.13).

God directs. He has infinite foreknowledge to see our free-choices, so as each person whom God foreknew before the foundations of the world comes into being from the genetic material of their parents to produce a living soul, God accounts for it and says it is good. All is within His divine providence and care otherwise it would never happen!

God of the Bible directs every occurrence of everything. "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matt. 10.30). In order to do this God must approve or predestinate all DNA replication according to His foreknowledge.

So now you claim that god talks to you directly. How do you convince others that the voice you hear is god's and that god reveals knowledge to you other than what is found in the bible?

You do need an excuse for being an atheist and to be excused to be an atheist, since nature proves God and who God is--the Lord Jesus Christ.

Nature is evidence, analysis of evidence is proof. You have tried to wrap your analysis inside scientific jargon, but this attempt fails because you do not understand the science. You would do better to prove god with scripture and leave science to those who have read a science book. You won't convert anyone but you won't embarrass yourself as much either.