Atheist.net Full of Erroneous Thinking

[Parture]

I never said there was no causation outside the universe. I said to assume it worked the same way outside the universe as it does in the universe is presumptuous.The physics outside the universe is unfathomable for us because all we know is the physics inside the universe.

If there is physics outside of the universe then that implies an infinite regress, but you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do. And if there is no cause then you wouldn't have come into being.

Why would I have happened already? Saying because I had an eternity to do so doesn't explain why I must have happened already. If possibilities are infinite, then an infinite amount of things other than myself could have existed before me. Tell me why the existence of an infinite amount of things that are not me, is impossible before my actual existence in an infinite regress. Saying because I would have happened already since I had an eternity to do so is not an answer, it's just repeating your assertion. Keep in mind that I am not saying the universe has an actual infinite regress of linear causes and effects, I'm just pointing out that your logic is faulty.

You keep asking why you would have happened already after it was already said why: because you had an eternity to come into being before now. Infinite possibilities doesn't change that, it would still be infinite regress having had an eternity. It is also true you would have never existed because an eternity would still being going before this point. Infinite regress contradicts itself.

Again, how is it both true that with infinite regress I would have happened already and I would never have existed? Why can't one be true and the other false, or neither be true, because I exist right now? How do you prove it? Just saying it is so doesn't make it so.

Why ask this question? after it was already explained why both would be true and thus contradict each other. Both show infinite regress is false and because they are self-contradictory also. That's exactly what one needs in showing your faith is false. I am not just saying it, but showed you the reason why which you are avoiding.

How is it possible for eternity to exist in the infinite regress model? The only way it can exist, is with a present moment, an infinite past, and infinite future. So why would it be impossible for this present moment to exist if the infinite past led up to this moment? Keep in mind the infinite past is always going to lead up to a present moment in eternity, whether it be this one or another.

Infinite regress is an eternity of the past if it were true. It is not an eternity of the future, because this point would never have been reached since infinite regress would still be going on. And there would be no present moment because it would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. Your mistaken assumption is if a past eternity existed this point would be reached. It's not so, since the past eternity would still be going on for eternity to never reach this point. And of course, you would have happened already too since you had an eternity to come into being. It's a contradiction.

Yeah I wanted you to show me a post where you mentioned it previous to the post which I said was the first time you mentioned I would not exist now. And you never did.

Why shut your mind down to the fact that "I gave you the post which was prior to our current discussion about it. I probably posted this a dozen times already"?

I know there were many post where you said "you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so." But that statement can be taken more ways than one, and since you never clarified which one you meant, I took it how I first understood it. Furthermore, already does not mean "it should have happened already and thus, not now." The superbowl has happened already, and guess what, it's happening again. I have typed on the key board already, and guess what, it is happening right now. Things that have already happened does not mean they won't happen again, all it means is that it occurred once in the past.

You can only take it more ways than one if you read into it more than what is plainly stated. My advice would be to less assuming. "Already happened" means before, not now. You just don't think carefully. The superbowl that is happening now is not the superbowl that happened before. You again assume. What you typed on the keyboard before is not the same as now. That which already happened has happened.

Do you know what writing a logical argument in syllogism form means? Obviously not.

Obviously you are all talk because in reality you don't apply syllogisms properly.

Ask any physicist if the universe exists in space-time, and they will tell you that it does not. They will tell you space-time exists in the universe. It is very simple to understand, but you seem to have trouble with basic scientific concepts. If the universe existed in space-time, what would separate the inside of the universe from the outside of the universe? There would be no way to distinguish where the universe ends, and the non-universe begins, because space-time is connected with no dividing boundaries. Since our universe does not exist in space-time, we conclude that our universe is finite, and it ends where space-time does not exist.

I said the universe is space and time. Six or half a dozen of the other. You are again imply infinite regress because you said "the non-universe begins". That which "begins" demands a cause. If you want to play with Russian dolls one inside another that's still infinite regress which is false.

I am saying the universe does not appear to have infinite regress in which every effect in the universe has a necessary antecedent cause for eternity. Linear cause and effect cease to exist in a quantum singularity. To ask what caused the singularity is to preform a categorical error. Cause and effect as we know the concept did not exist until the big bang. It is impossible for us to fathom the dynamics of a quantum singularity and it's environment, and it is erroneous to demand that our idea of physics be applied to such a phenomena.

There are no scientists who think cause and effect don't exist in a quantum singularity, otherwise they would just close up shop and stop trying to find the cause. And if there was no cause we would not have come into being. But I am glad you admitted "the universe does not...have infinite regress" so we don't need to talk about infinite regress anymore after all this time talking about it when you didn't believe in it anyhow. That's funny. It's funny how atheists and agnostics will switch back and forth from infinite regress to something from nothing and then back again. Other words you use that betray you are "until". "Until" implies a cause since something can't come out of non-existence. The law of cause and effect remains true in all natural phenomena from smallest particle to the largest system. We have trillions and trillions of cause and effects to support this, and no hard evidence something comes from nothing, so nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space.

It's not infinite regress because I never said there was an infinite amount of finite systems. If the larger system to our universe is finite as well, then naturally there must be a larger system than that. And if that system is finite, well then there is one larger than that and so on. All that means is there has to be one system that is not finite, and that system is reality itself. Reality is an incomprehensibly vast existence that appears to contain a seemingly infinite amount of systems. But it only appears that way from our extremely limited perspective. From our perspective it appears as infinite regress because we view things as past, present, and future dictated by linear cause and effect. But our perspective is so limited, that us trying to understand these larger systems is like a single cell organism in a petri-dish trying to understand cosmology. Our knowledge and understanding is not capable of grasping concepts that we have no idea exist, much like the single cell organism does not have the capacity to comprehend the theory of general relativity or the big bang.

I realize you are doing the old switcheroo trick, but your first finite system can't come from nothing, that is, non-existence, but then you betray yourself again, because you said "then naturally there must be larger system than that" and so on and so on, as you said, "well then there is one larger than that and so on" and so on and so on. Then the hook comes when you said, "all that means is there has to be one system that is not finite" which is infinite regress--the very thing you said you were not trying to support. So funny! Then comes your false humility that cause and effect might not be true because you think things are too complicated after your theory you just suggested has cause and effect in an infinite regress. I am getting whiplash from your doubletalk.

If there was no cause then you would never have existed; and you can't come from nothing or start up all by yourself. Silly. You don't realize it but you are trying to be God, because you are always going to have an excuse when the evidence is clearly in. You demand effectively that you need to be all-knowing to know, but only God could be all knowing. Obviously you are not God since God is not a doubletalker. The thing is we do know, because nature can't start up from nothing nor always have existed; hence, the uncreated Creator. What is really disingenuous in all of this I think is you resort to quantum particles, the most complicated thing ever known to man, in which there is as many quantum theories as there are quantum scientists. Any great quantum scientist says they really have no idea about it, so you can't admit it into evidence that it shows something from nothing. Do you see how dishonest your are being? We can only see down to the 10^25 level but we know it goes down to at least the 10^125 level some calculation. Yet things could be even smaller than that. If something is smaller then it stands to reason these are causal agents, so is quite asinine to pompously assume that something in nature comes from nothing when such does not even exist. Crazy.

The larger system has a nature of it's own, but it cannot be understood the way we understand our nature, because it is not our nature, it obeys different laws. Our nature did have a cause, the big bang. There was no cause 'before' the big bang, because time did not exist as we know it until that event occurred. How such an event occurs is beyond our ability to even fathom.

You have a doubletongue. You suggest a universe outside our universe without the law of cause and effect but then say "it obeys different laws" which is a causal relationship to "obey". The big bang didn't start up all by itself or come from nothing, so it has a cause. Why shut your mind down to this fact? Even Stephen Hawking admits that. He says there is a cause for the point at the end of the badminton shoot or for the singularity. If there was no cause for the big bang you would not exist, nor would the big bang. If time did not exist before the big bang so according to you nothing could cause it, then time would never exist according to your theory nor would the big bang. Since time did not always exist and can't start up from nothing, we know it was caused by that which is outside of time whom we call the uncreated Creator or God. We don't need to know the how, but the who--the uncreated Creator. God takes care of the how. Stop requiring you be God to know if God exists. That will never do.

You really need to abandon your 'you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so' argument because it is meaningless in the 'larger system' context. It only applies if our universe had an infinite regress, and even then, why would it be impossible for me to happen twice, or more, given there was an eternity to do so?

In the larger system you invoke of infinite regress, it remains true that you would have had an eternity to have come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Shutting your mind down to this fact doesn't make it go away. What shutting your mind down does do is lead you to Hell, since it is obvious to us all however much some of us shove it under the rug.

Infinite regress would apply to any natural system, since every natural system needs a cause. If it didn't then it wouldn't exist.

Even if you could happen twice which is illogical because nothing can happen twice, you would have happened twice already before having had an eternity to do so.

The cause of nature outside itself is the larger system. Simple.

Not only is it larger (figuratively speaking) but uncreated. This is whom we call God who has a mind which is necessary to create minds since the lesser can never produce the greater, e.g. two atoms bouncing can't create self-consciousness. A non-mind interatomic interaction can't become self-aware. It's just particles reacting according to laws. Laws need a law-giver.

[philosophik]

If there is physics outside of the universe then that implies an infinite regress, but you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do. And if there is no cause then you wouldn't have come into being.

Not if the larger systems physics don't operate like ours. And if our larger system is uncaused, no infinite regress. And if the larger system is timeless, there is no linear eternity for me to have happened already.

You keep asking why you would have happened already after it was already said why: because you had an eternity to come into being before now. Infinite possibilities doesn't change that, it would still be infinite regress having had an eternity. It is also true you would have never existed because an eternity would still being going before this point. Infinite regress contradicts itself.

So what. So what if I had an eternity to come into being, that does not mean I had to, especially if the conditions did not permit my existence. Of course infinite possibilities changes that. If before the present moment, an infinite past played out an infinite amount of possible scenarios in which I did not exist, then it doesn't matter if I had an eternity to come into being because the infinite amount of actual scenarios did not include me. But since my existence is a possible scenario, then there is nothing that prohibits me from happening somewhere along eternity. All you have done is create a false contradiction and when I ask you to show your logic all you do is just repeat your assertion. If I said 'infinite regress is possible, because eternity lead up to my existence right now' and you ask me to explain how I think my existence right now proves infinite regress, and all I do is repeat what I said, that is not explaining anything. It is using the assertion to prove the assertion, that is a logical fallacy. But that is all you do.

Why ask this question? after it was already explained why both would be true and thus contradict each other. Both show infinite regress is false and because they are self-contradictory also. That's exactly what one needs in showing your faith is false. I am not just saying it, but showed you the reason why which you are avoiding.

Like I said before, repeating your claim to prove your claim is not showing any thing. Why if I had an eternity to do so, do you conclude that I must have existed already? I want you to explain why you come to that conclusion, not for you to just keep repeating it. Furthermore, your second claim that eternity would still be going on therefore the past would never reach this moment doesn't even make sense. If eternity has the capacity to play out an infinite amount of possible scenarios, why could this not be one of them? Saying because the past would be going on for eternity, so it would never reach this point, is the same as saying no points in time ever happen in eternity, because an eternal past would never reach any point. But that is clearly illogical because eternity is an infinite amount of points in time, and the only moment when time actually exists is in the present.

<Removed mindless repetition>

[Parture]

Not if the larger systems physics don't operate like ours. And if our larger system is uncaused, no infinite regress. And if the larger system is timeless, there is no linear eternity for me to have happened already.

If you want a physics without causation in a greater universe outside our universe then our universe would never have come into being. An uncaused larger system would be infinite regress because it always existed, but you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. If the larger system is timeless like God would be, then simply compare God to your timeless universe, for a mind is needed to create a mind, therefore God trumps your timeless universe. Bouncing particles alone can never produce self-consciousness, volition, feelings, conscience and intuition. The lesser can never produce the greater.

So what. So what if I had an eternity to come into being, that does not mean I had to, especially if the conditions did not permit my existence. Of course infinite possibilities changes that. If before the present moment, an infinite past played out an infinite amount of possible scenarios in which I did not exist, then it doesn't matter if I had an eternity to come into being because the infinite amount of actual scenarios did not include me. But since my existence is a possible scenario, then there is nothing that prohibits me from happening somewhere along eternity. All you have done is create a false contradiction and when I ask you to show your logic all you do is just repeat your assertion. If I said 'infinite regress is possible, because eternity lead up to my existence right now' and you ask me to explain how I think my existence right now proves infinite regress, and all I do is repeat what I said, that is not explaining anything. It is using the assertion to prove the assertion, that is a logical fallacy. But that is all you do.

You had to have come into being before now if there was infinite regress, because you had an eternity to do so. That's the reason. Pretty simple. You also would never have existed, because eternity would still be going on for eternity, thus never reaching this point. So your theory is wrong on both accounts and that it contradicts itself. What was the reason? I just said, because of eternity still going on or having had an eternity to come into being. You keep avoiding this point, asking me to repeat it yet again. Why be obnoxious?

Like I said before, repeating your claim to prove your claim is not showing any thing. Why if I had an eternity to do so, do you conclude that I must have existed already? I want you to explain why you come to that conclusion, not for you to just keep repeating it. Furthermore, your second claim that eternity would still be going on therefore the past would never reach this moment doesn't even make sense. If eternity has the capacity to play out an infinite amount of possible scenarios, why could this not be one of them? Saying because the past would be going on for eternity, so it would never reach this point, is the same as saying no points in time ever happen in eternity, because an eternal past would never reach any point. But that is clearly illogical because eternity is an infinite amount of points in time, and the only moment when time actually exists is in the present.

Repeating the claim is not the proof of the claim, but the proof of the claim is the proof. You keep asking the same question after the answer was already given why you would have happened already, since you would have had an eternity to do so. It is also true you would never have existed, because in an infinite regress a past eternity would still be going on for forever never reaching this point, since it would be going on for eternity. However many scenarios could be played out makes no difference, because eternity is eternity which would still be going on thus never reaching this point. I am just taking you on your own words when you say there was an eternity going on in the past. If there was an eternity going on in the past then you will have to accept the consequences that go with that in your theory.

[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.

[Parture]

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

I am responding to the claim of infinite regress of time so when atheists make this claim I can easily come back and say according to your theory you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. This is a standard formulation.

If you want to argue instead that there was no time before time, this is whom we call God, the uncreated Creator who is timeless and spaceless.

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.

Absolutely, just as God says in Rom. 1.20 space-time is evidence of non-space-time, for this is whom we call the uncreated Creator who has a mind which is needed to create a mind. Your timeless nothing can't cause anything because it doesn't exist. Nothing always comes from nothing. You want things to come into being without a cause, but you betray yourself with your own words when you use words that imply causation. Funny. The Bible says be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8).

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.

I am not saying that. God is spaceless and timeless though God can't bring anything into being without causing it. The same would be true of your timeless spaceless nothing, but it couldn't even do that because it doesn't exist. There is no non-space-time apart from God Himself who is spaceless and timeless, since a mind trumps your mindless spaceless timelessness. Have you thought that you project yourself onto this idol of yours? So you are a dullard instead of having the vibrant life of a Christian. The difference between your spaceless timelessness compared to God being spaceless and timeless is yours is non existent because it is mindless.

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.

Current scientific theory agrees the 1st law of thermodynamics applies if you want to include a spaceless timelessness that itself has no energy or power so it doesn't change anything. Physicists are laughing at you and they don't believe in spaceless timelessness apart from God Himself.

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

I am referring to that which is lesser can't produce the greater in all things. The universe can't create God, but God create the universe. The universe can't create a hadron collider but man can. The universe can't create a single celled replicating organism but God can. Bouncing particles alone can't create my self-consciousness, but Go can.

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?

God talks by His Holy Spirit to our spirit intuitively, through our conscience and communion with Him. When we pray to God this is our communication with Him which reaches intuitively into our spirit to His Spirit in our spirit. Praise the Lord! You communicate with the evil spirit in your innerman; he guides you in all things to Hell. When a person is born-again, the Holy Spirit removes the evil spirit in you so you can have God's life.

Prove all things. There is the testimony of the Spirit in our spirit, there is the word of God and the Holy Spirit that makes the cross effective, and there is agreement among members of the body of Christ. It is very powerful multiple corroboration so we can be sure!

"A still small voice" (1 Kings 19.12).

"And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting" (Acts 11.12).

"God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" (John 4.24).

"For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit" (Rom. 8.5).

"It is the Spirit that beareth witness" (1 John 5.6).

"He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches" (Rev. 2.7).

"I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet" (Rev. 1.10).

"But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law" (Gal. 5.18).

"howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries" (1 Cor. 14.2).

"For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him" (2 Cor. 11.4).

"But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6.17).

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.

There is no science that exists that claims something comes from nothing, no evidence for such a thing, so you are delusional. That which doesn't exist can't cause anything. It doesn't exist! The more scientists study the universe the more they say there must be the "transcendent causal agent" otherwise know know as God. The issue for you should not be if God exists but who God is.

Lots of people have come to Christ because they gave into the fact scientifically something can't come from nothing nor always have existed, because they realize they would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. And because they can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs.

What you are practicing s not science but "profane vain babblings, and oppositions of science so falsely called" (1 Tim. 6.20). You're a quak.

You're embarrassing yourself. Tealize Stephen Hawking disagrees with you since he says the singularity or point at the end of a badminton shoot needs a cause.

God didn't say don't observe nature to prove His existence, but observe it, i.e. it's vast beauty and complexity and always abides in cause and effect for which we can render some conclusions from.

[Mystermenace]

This is a standard formulation.

Absolutely, just as God says in Rom. 1.20 space-time is evidence of non-space-time,

Current scientific theory agrees the 1st law of thermodynamics applies if you want to include a spaceless timelessness that itself has no energy or power so it doesn't change anything.

I am referring to that which is lesser can't produce the greater in all things.

There is no science that exists that claims something comes from nothing,
The more scientists study the universe the more they say there must be the "transcendent causal agent" otherwise know know as God.

Tealize Stephen Hawking disagrees with you since he says the singularity or point at the end of a badminton shoot needs a cause.

When you combine religion and science, the end result is not science.

Using science words makes your religion sound like a hodge-podge of pseudoscience and new age justification.