Atheist.net Full of Erroneous Thinking

[Parture]

I will answer a few things. I have a life and therefore do not intend to read through your ramblings on proof of the bible and what not I find it incredibly boring. No level minded historian bases belief on something as bold as supernatural events on just one book plus maybe a few other writings. Jesus was not well documented considering it's claimed he was performing miracles. He was unmentioned by any Roman historians at the time. I do not doubt he may have existed. Indeed the bible accurately names people and places, but none of this proves supernatural events.

I find you incredibly boring also. You come across as a "dullard". The Bible is not one book, but 66 books across 1500 years by 40 authors in different places and different settings. These are the contemporary writings of the day. Jesus is the most documented person in antiquity. Tiberius who died just 4 years after Jesus only had 9 sources written about him within 150 years of his death, whereas Jesus had 45. In fact, Jesus has more sources written about him than any ten figures in antiquity combined, so to deny Jesus by claiming a lack of documentation is a double standard since I am sure you don't throw out everyone in antiquity along with Jesus.

Not only do we not have any historians writing about Jesus when he was alive, we don't have any sources of other Messiah's either we know of at the time. This only shows they were considered of no significance by the general authorities. If you want to doubt Jesus existed this same problem exists for everyone in antiquity so you would have to deny all the popular figures of antiquity, but what historian is that belligerent? If you have a doublestandard it shows you have a bias.

What proves the supernatural event of the resurrection of Jesus is that you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs. The burden remains on you as it has been for all skeptics in previous centuries.

It seems we had a misunderstanding. I now realize you are assuming the same person can not exist more than once because you believe we have a soul. This actually made me laugh when I realized it was that simple. There is no reason to assume life has any kind of magical essence and I do not believe humans or any other animal have a soul. If someone existed in another universe with my exact genetic make-up and past experiences they would be the same person. Therefore you argument as to why infinite regress is impossible has been easily beaten. Of course you will disagree with me because you believe in souls, but that's besides the point.

I actually made no mention of the soul. I said if there was an infinite regress, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. Even if a person in one universe and a person in another universe had the exact same experiences they would still be two separately distinct independent sovereign beings with their own free will. You chose to overassume by thinking of a person reoccurring in history, but obviously that's not what I meant. Even if a person could reoccur in history it doesn't matter anyway because the you that you are now would have happened already, having had eternity to do so. Either way you slice it, infinite regress was wrong. You misunderstood, yes, but it doesn't matter anyway, you're still wrong.

If you want to talk about the soul that's a different matter. Even if there was multiple universes there is something underneath the genetic code that could make someone else very similar to you different. The soul is proven to exist as a permanently existing sovereign being with self-consciousness and having a spirit of God-consciousness and a body of world-consciousness. The proof is that since Jesus resurrected, so shall we. My favorite proof is that it would be evil of God to create us with a soul and spirit aware of His existence and then allow us to cease to exist. That would be like having a child and telling that child who is fully are of their parents that they must be put to sleep permanently when they reach the age of 12. It's just evil. Man has a soul of mind, will and emotion made in God's image; whereas animals have a soul too but it will cease to exist and is not made in His image. Our soul is unique which is easy enough to figure out by simply observing the fact that we are so much different from all other creatures.

Now, the other thing I'd like to get on to is actually supporting an infinite creator but showing that your god is not necessary. You certainly are slow not to understand the simple example I gave, but I can't help but wonder if you pretended to believe I was still attempting to disprove infinite regress simply to avoid having to provide a proper response. Nonetheless, we shall try again. I shall start by restating that I am agnostic to an infinite creator. Indeed, I'm actually quite convinced that something needs to been infinite, but as I do not believe in souls I see no reason why that infinity should not be the regress itself. However, lets assume for the moment infinite regress is not real so we can move on to the important bit.

We can talk about my God later, but first accept that the uncreated Creator exists since nature can't always have existed. If there was an infinite regress of nature 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 this is whom we call the uncreated Creator or God. At least Antony Flew, who is far smarter than you and has done an about face from being the leading atheist of the 20th century, accepts this starting foundation before deciding on who God is.

So there exists the uncreated Creator outside of time and space. It is more accurate to call God uncreated rather than infinite because saying infinite might confuse some people thinking God exists inside an eternal regress of time. When you use the term infinite, it should be used in the sense that God is infinitely greater than us.

My point, which you totally misunderstood (whether that was down to slow wit or intentional misleading I am not sure), was that the required infinite creator does not need to be a magic being. This is the infinite breeding ground of universes. There is no infinite regress here I've moved on, we are calling the breeding ground an infinite creator. There is absolutely no reason for us to assume there is a conscious being, an infinite breeding ground fills all of the rational slots and none of the irrational ones.

Christians don't believe God is a magic being. There is no evidence for other universes, but even if there was it wouldn't matter because you would have happened already if infinite regress were true, having had an eternity to do so. A breeding ground of nature or in the supernatural realm is an infinite regress. I think what you are trying to propose is a non-being infinite creator breeding ground, but that has two problems: a) breeding ground implies cause and effect in an infinite regress (thus false), and b) a non-mind can't produce a mind for the lesser can never produce the greater. An unconscious entity can't produce a conscious one. Without a mind there is no purpose, but is arbitrary and meaningless.

p.s. I do think you are lunatic too for avoiding those passages of Scripture and for your choice to go to Hell.

[philosophik]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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

[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.

[philosophik]

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.

I never said the larger system is without causation. I have said repeatedly that causation in the larger system does not follow the same rules as it does in our universe, because there is no space-time in the larger system. Therefore infinite regress is not an issue because infinite regress requires linear cause and effect which requires space-time. I think it's funny that churchwork edited my post for mindless repetition when that is all you do, and I reply to it. What does he expect from me when I ask you for your logic and all you do is repeat your assertion. Of course I am going to repeat myself, what else can I 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?

Ok, I'll use your tactic. If there was an infinite regress, I would exist right now, because I had an eternity to do so. Why would I exist right now, you ask? Well, because I had an eternity to do so. There is the proof, built right into the assertion. This is the type of tactic you put forth. Any time you ask me why I would exist right now, all I'm going to say is because I had an eternity to do so. Is this type of explanation convincing? If you say no, then why would you expect me to be convinced when you implore the same method? If you say yes, well then you are in a quandary because my assertion is just as convincing as yours, so how do we figure out who is right?

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.

You say you have given proof, well so have I in my above response, so how do we figure out who is right? You say I would have happened already, and I say I would happen right now, and both our reasons are the same, because we had an eternity to do so. Now all we can do is show our logic, since you made the claim first, I'll let you show your logic first. Keep in mind if all your going to do is say because I had an eternity to do so, then that is all I'm going to do and we will never get anywhere.

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.

I never said that there was an eternity going on in the past, again I am just entertaining the idea to show how your claims about eternity are unfounded and not supported by any sort of logic. Eternity does not go on for eternity in the past, the past has already happened, it's over, there is no 'going on for eternity in the past' in actuality, it is just an idea to explain how we reach this point given the idea that our universe is eternal. Remember, the present moment is the only time that actually exists, and if there was an eternal past, it would always reach the present moment. Furthermore, the idea of an eternal past only has meaning from a reference point in the present moment, so saying 'eternity is eternity which would still be going on thus never reaching this point' only serves to display your fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. Because if it were true, then no points in eternity would ever be reached and thus there would be no past, present, or future, which of course, are all necessary for eternity to be a meaningful concept.

[Parture]

I never said the larger system is without causation. I have said repeatedly that causation in the larger system does not follow the same rules as it does in our universe, because there is no space-time in the larger system. Therefore infinite regress is not an issue because infinite regress requires linear cause and effect which requires space-time. I think it's funny that churchwork edited my post for mindless repetition when that is all you do, and I reply to it. What does he expect from me when I ask you for your logic and all you do is repeat your assertion. Of course I am going to repeat myself, what else can I do.

Since your larger system is not without causation then it must abide in the law of cause and effect rendering it false since infinite regress is false. It doesn't matter if you think there are different rules, causation is always causation producing an effect.

Again, you are repeating yourself as was said since all you need to do is compare your timeless spaceless universe with the the timeless spaceless uncreated Creator, for to create a mind, will, emotion, self-consciousness, God-consciousness, world-consciousness, intuition, communion and conscience a mind is needed. That which has no mind can't give life by itself, never has and never will. The lesser can never produce the greater. Address this, stop avoiding and repeating yourself. Purpose implies a mind. There is purpose, so our Creator has a mind. This is Step 3 of the NEW 4 Step Proof for God.

Ok, I'll use your tactic. If there was an infinite regress, I would exist right now, because I had an eternity to do so. Why would I exist right now, you ask? Well, because I had an eternity to do so. There is the proof, built right into the assertion. This is the type of tactic you put forth. Any time you ask me why I would exist right now, all I'm going to say is because I had an eternity to do so. Is this type of explanation convincing? If you say no, then why would you expect me to be convinced when you implore the same method? If you say yes, well then you are in a quandary because my assertion is just as convincing as yours, so how do we figure out who is right?

Why would you exist right now if you had an eternity to come into being before now in your infinite regression? You're contradicting yourself, for that which precedes now takes precedence to your violation of it. Drop your assertion and realize if there was an infinite regress you would have an eternity of infinite regress to come into being before now, having had an eternity to do so.

You say you have given proof, well so have I in my above response, so how do we figure out who is right? You say I would have happened already, and I say I would happen right now, and both our reasons are the same, because we had an eternity to do so. Now all we can do is show our logic, since you made the claim first, I'll let you show your logic first. Keep in mind if all your going to do is say because I had an eternity to do so, then that is all I'm going to do and we will never get anywhere.

I showed you what is wrong with your proof in my comment immediately preceding this one. To repeat! Our reasons are not the same, because while it is true in an infinite regress there is an eternity going on before now, it is not the case you could happen now because an eternity goes on forever before now, that is, if you want to introduce the theory of infinite regress. Likewise, you would have happened already having had an eternity to do so. You had an eternity to come into being before now which takes precedes over your claim you had an eternity to come into being now, because what comes before and its law trumps what claims you want to make after.

So of course you deserve an infraction because you have nothing to support your claim, yet you will keep repeating it. And frankly that's boring, not worthy of my time.

I never said that there was an eternity going on in the past, again I am just entertaining the idea to show how your claims about eternity are unfounded and not supported by any sort of logic. Eternity does not go on for eternity in the past, the past has already happened, it's over, there is no 'going on for eternity in the past' in actuality, it is just an idea to explain how we reach this point given the idea that our universe is eternal. Remember, the present moment is the only time that actually exists, and if there was an eternal past, it would always reach the present moment. Furthermore, the idea of an eternal past only has meaning from a reference point in the present moment, so saying 'eternity is eternity which would still be going on thus never reaching this point' only serves to display your fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. Because if it were true, then no points in eternity would ever be reached and thus there would be no past, present, or future, which of course, are all necessary for eternity to be a meaningful concept.

I realize you are trying to argue against the evidence why infinite regress can't be true while at the same time you don't believe in infinite regress, but a timeless universe without causation outside above our universe, which is a contradiction because a timeless spaceless cause needs a mind, for the lesser can never produce the greater.

Understand there are many atheists who believe in an infinite regress of cause and effects just as there are many who believe the universe comes from nothing. Silly I know. I've argued with hundreds if not thousands of them. But your theory is no less silly for you have a timeless universe that always existed and mindlessly causes our universe to come into being. That will never do. The lesser can never produce the greater.

Try to understand that Step 1 of the Proof deals specifically with claims of infinite regress in time. Step 2 deals specifically with those who claim something comes from nothing (the first two Steps in the original 4 Step Proof and the NEW 4 Step Proof are the same).

Where the NEW 4 Step Proof goes next in Step 3 is to deal with what you are contending with, for those who want a timeless singularity or timeless spaceless cause outside the universe that always existed but you want not to have a mind and be God. Simply, the lesser can never produce the greater. Your other worldly imaginary universe can never mindlessly produce this one because within this one are minds. In the original 4 Step Proof, Step 3 just says don't misrepresent God because it happens so often. Step 4 of the original 4 Step Proof then addresses the idea of supernatural infinite regress even if it is timelessness. By natural we mean outside the known natural cause and effects. Hence, really Step 4 of the original 4 Step Proof is the same in essence as Step 3 in the NEW 4 Step Proof. While in the original 4 Step Proof I mingled discussion of Christ throughout as the Creator and Savior in Step 3 that you ought not to misrepresent, in the NEW 4 Step Proof I explicitly stated as a header in Step 4 the resurrection proves Jesus is God with all that entails as the proof.

You err when you say if there was an eternity in the past yet you don't want there to be infinite regress of time, for that is what eternity is, an infinite regress of cause and effects in time. There is no way around it, so cut the doubletalk!

I think you deserve an infraction for repeating yourself and not dealing with the error of it: "and if there was an eternal past, it would always reach the present moment." No! Remember, it would never reach this moment because it would still be going on for eternity. While you only assert, we know an infinite regress always goes on and never stops, because that is what infinite regress is. If you don't like it, find another term. Infinite regress is taken for that which goes on for eternity before now! If you want to introduce infinite regress you must accept what you are saying that eternity is going on before now. If eternity goes on to include now then it is not eternity (infinite regress). Funny! That is funny!

You said, "if it were true, then no points in eternity would ever be reached and thus there would be no past, present, or future, which of course, are all necessary for eternity to be a meaningful concept." Exactly! Indeed! Eternity of infinite regress is a meaningless concept it being false for the very reason you stated. So accept it! I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for your wonderful contribution for the thing you don't even believe anyway.

[philosophik]

Since your larger system is not without causation then it must abide in the law of cause and effect rendering it false since infinite regress is false. It doesn't matter if you think there are different rules, causation is always causation producing an effect.

There are two types of causation. Linear causation and non-linear causation. Infinite regress is an issue with linear causation, but it is not an issue with non-linear causation.

Linear causation necessitates space-time, and can be described as every cause simultaneously being an effect. In other words, cause A has effect B, and effect B simultaneously becomes cause B resulting in effect C, and so on. Thus space-time is required to structure these ordered events, where every cause has an antecedent cause in time, and results in a subsequent effect in space; which, of course, are necessary conditions for infinite regress to emerge as a concept.

With no space-time, however, there is no structure to order linear cause and effect. Consequently, the concept of infinite regress is null and void. In the larger system, which has no space-time, non-linear cause and effect is the rule. Where every cause does not require an antecedent cause, and every effect does not necessarily become a cause of something else. With no structure, there is nothing to prevent causes from happening uncaused, and nothing that requires effects to transform into a cause.

So in the case of our universe, the singularity could be viewed as cause A, and since there was no space-time until the big bang, or effect B, then the singularity as the initial cause does not require an antecedent cause. The singularity could be the uncaused cause of the 4 dimensional observable universe we now inhabit. Or it may be a result of another uncaused cause that emerged from the unstructured larger system. We may never know which is the case, but there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that it was a sentient being, or proclaim infinite regress.

Again, you are repeating yourself as was said since all you need to do is compare your timeless spaceless universe with the the timeless spaceless uncreated Creator, for to create a mind, will, emotion, self-consciousness, God-consciousness, world-consciousness, intuition, communion and conscience a mind is needed. That which has no mind can't give life by itself, never has and never will. The lesser can never produce the greater. Address this, stop avoiding and repeating yourself. Purpose implies a mind. There is purpose, so our Creator has a mind. This is Step 3 of the NEW 4 Step Proof for God.

I already told you that the universe is creating minds all the time, and it does not have mind. You may say that god created the universe, but all that is really saying is that god created a mindless creation, which in turn, facilitated the emergence of minds, or in other words, the mindless produced minds. How would go about proving that god in fact created our minds any ways?

It seems your argument that a mind is needed to create a mind hinges solely on the assertion that the lesser can never produce the greater, which is patently false. A grain of sand is lesser than a beach, but grains of sand produce beaches. An atom is lesser than a brain, but atoms produce brains. An H2O molecule is lesser than an ocean, but H2O molecules produce oceans. In fact, in nature the lesser is a requirement for the greater to be produced. Finally, a sperm and an egg is lesser than an adult human, well I think you can see where this is headed.

Why would you exist right now if you had an eternity to come into being before now in your infinite regression?

I told you, that is why I exist right now, because I had an eternity to do so, and I finally did. In any case, we seem to have a fundamental difference in our understanding of eternity and how it affects what actually comes into being when we philosophize about infinite regress. Since we both agree that the universe does not have an infinite regress, continuing to discuss how thing would come into being if there was an infinite regress is pointless, especially since we can't even agree on what eternity means.

a timeless spaceless cause needs a mind,

Why?

for the lesser can never produce the greater.

Oh because of this again, well good thing the larger system is greater than our human minds.

But your theory is no less silly for you have a timeless universe that always existed and mindlessly causes our universe to come into being. That will never do. The lesser can never produce the greater.

The larger, timeless system has not always existed, for if it did, that would imply time; and thus the statement is self contradictory. The larger system simply just exists. There is no past tense. Furthermore, just like our universe mindlessly causes virtual particle to come into being, the larger system can mindlessly cause a singularity to come into being--if it's laws of physics allow it, then there is no reason why it can't happen.

Try to understand that Step 1 of the Proof deals specifically with claims of infinite regress in time. Step 2 deals specifically with those who claim something comes from nothing

Oh I understand it, however those two steps only address the laws of physics from within the universe, but since the universe did not come from within the universe, then those two steps have no bearing on the origins of the universe.

Where the NEW 4 Step Proof goes next in Step 3 is to deal with what you are contending with, for those who want a timeless singularity or timeless spaceless cause outside the universe that always existed but you want not to have a mind and be God. Simply, the lesser can never produce the greater. Your other worldly imaginary universe can never mindlessly produce this one because within this one are minds.

It is not an 'other worldly imaginary universe,' because if it were, then there would be nothing for the universe to exist in. Because our universe is finite, it requires something larger than itself to exist in. What exactly this larger system consists of, or what kind of physics dictate its existence is beyond our scope of awareness.

In order to emphatically declare that the larger system cannot mindlessly produce minds, you must be aware of what it is in fact not capable of, which of course, you are not. No one is. What we do know, is that it exists as a phenomena that is capable of producing our universe, and sustaining it. This universe is then capable of producing minds by proxy. Naturally, the universe and the larger system are greater than our minds, so this doesn't violate your assertion that 'the lesser can never produce the greater,' which I have pointed out is not a universal truth anyways.

In the original 4 Step Proof, Step 3 just says don't misrepresent God because it happens so often. Step 4 of the original 4 Step Proof then addresses the idea of supernatural infinite regress even if it is timelessness. By natural we mean outside the known natural cause and effects. Hence, really Step 4 of the original 4 Step Proof is the same in essence as Step 3 in the NEW 4 Step Proof. While in the original 4 Step Proof I mingled discussion of Christ throughout as the Creator and Savior in Step 3 that you ought not to misrepresent, in the NEW 4 Step Proof I explicitly stated as a header in Step 4 the resurrection proves Jesus is God with all that entails as the proof.

Because I have raised legitimate objections to your first two steps, I see no reason to address the other two.

You err when you say if there was an eternity in the past yet you don't want there to be infinite regress of time, for that is what eternity is, an infinite regress of cause and effects in time. There is no way around it, so cut the doubletalk!

Again I was just entertaining the notion of an eternity with an infinite regress, it was a philosophical exercise I took a part in because I felt you were logically misconstruing the concepts. But as I noted above, we can't agree on what eternity means so this exercise was futile and is really besides the point anyways.

I think you deserve an infraction for repeating yourself and not dealing with the error of it: "and if there was an eternal past, it would always reach the present moment." No! Remember, it would never reach this moment because it would still be going on for eternity. While you only assert, we know an infinite regress always goes on and never stops, because that is what infinite regress is. If you don't like it, find another term. Infinite regress is taken for that which goes on for eternity before now! If you want to introduce infinite regress you must accept what you are saying that eternity is going on before now. If eternity goes on to include now then it is not eternity (infinite regress). Funny! That is funny!

It also seems we don't agree on what infinite regress means as well. I never conceded that infinite regress always goes on and never stops in actuality. I maintain that infinite regress is nothing more than a concept, and that it does not somehow literally go on into the past for eternity like some sort of real reverse time phenomena. My definition of infinite regress is that it is a concept, which only makes sense from the present moment; and is used to describe an infinite past from the universe's present state of affairs, if the universe is eternal. Until we agree on the defintion, there is no point in arguing about it.

You said, "if it were true, then no points in eternity would ever be reached and thus there would be no past, present, or future, which of course, are all necessary for eternity to be a meaningful concept." Exactly! Indeed! Eternity of infinite regress is a meaningless concept it being false for the very reason you stated. So accept it! I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for your wonderful contribution for the thing you don't even believe anyway.

This is what I mean when I said we could not agree on the definition of eternity.

My definition--eternity is a term that describes beginning-less and endless time, or in other words, eternity is the present moment proceeding after an infinite amount of past events, and preceding an infinite amount of future events.

Your definition, based on what you said above--eternity is a term that does not include a past, present, or future and therefore is meaningless.

Note- If churchwork decides to apply one of his completely unnecessary infractions, which seems to be his M.O. with any and all atheist, then this will be my last post. I have read other post in the atheism and science sections, and if any one dare to disagree with churchwork, or continue to question a position that is inadequately defended, he pulls out the only weapon he has left, MOD powers. Seriously churchwork, why do you even have an atheist section, or allow atheist on this forum at all? You should really consider having a disclaimer that states 'read the threads before joining, and if your are not a christian who agrees with me, then don't bother joining because I will end up silencing you with my trigger happy infraction gun.' Any how Parture, if I do end up getting an infraction and get temporarily banned, we can continue this discussion over at christianforums.com if churchwork does not delete this link. I don't see why he would, it is another Christian forum. If it comes to that, I have the same screen name there and you can PM me or just start a new thread titled 4 step proof of god and I'll know it's you.

[Parture]

There are two types of causation. Linear causation and non-linear causation. Infinite regress is an issue with linear causation, but it is not an issue with non-linear causation.

Non-linear (outside of time) causation is what God did. Since the cause needs to have a mind to create a mind, you're avoiding this point.

Linear causation necessitates space-time, and can be described as every cause simultaneously being an effect. In other words, cause A has effect B, and effect B simultaneously becomes cause B resulting in effect C, and so on. Thus space-time is required to structure these ordered events, where every cause has an antecedent cause in time, and results in a subsequent effect in space; which, of course, are necessary conditions for infinite regress to emerge as a concept.

I agree.

With no space-time, however, there is no structure to order linear cause and effect. Consequently, the concept of infinite regress is null and void. In the larger system, which has no space-time, non-linear cause and effect is the rule. Where every cause does not require an antecedent cause, and every effect does not necessarily become a cause of something else. With no structure, there is nothing to prevent causes from happening uncaused, and nothing that requires effects to transform into a cause.

In no space time only one cause requires no antecedent effect, that would be God, because a mind is needed and only God has a mind. Alas, I am repeating myself. Every effect needs a cause that's why its an effect, and every effect always becomes a cause of something else. Always! Before you said there was "non-linear causation" outside of time, now you say there is not sometimes. Sounds ad hoc.

So in the case of our universe, the singularity could be viewed as cause A, and since there was no space-time until the big bang, or effect B, then the singularity as the initial cause does not require an antecedent cause. The singularity could be the uncaused cause of the 4 dimensional observable universe we now inhabit. Or it may be a result of another uncaused cause that emerged from the unstructured larger system. We may never know which is the case, but there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that it was a sentient being, or proclaim infinite regress.

I am glad you stand against your atheist brethren who try to promote "infinite regress". You're a lone wolf in the wilderness. That the singularity is the cause of the big bang in now way suggests the singularity is uncaused. Since the singularity has no mind and you admit non space time has causation, then the singularity needs a cause, that being God. There can only be one uncaused cause, because anything that exists needs an ultimate mind, for the lesser can never produce the greater. So the singularity has a cause whether directly God Himself or as result of God's actions. Your doubletongue is flapping hard when you said "another uncaused cause that emerged." That which emerges is not an "uncaused cause" but had a "caused cause" because it emerged. There is no need for you to assume a non-mind could create the universe for a non-mind can never produce the greater, that being a mind. We can go even farther than that. We can say only One Mind can create a mind since man can't do what God did over 13.7 billion years.

I already told you that the universe is creating minds all the time, and it does not have mind. You may say that god created the universe, but all that is really saying is that god created a mindless creation, which in turn, facilitated the emergence of minds, or in other words, the mindless produced minds. How would go about proving that god in fact created our minds any ways?

The universe is not actually creating minds though it may appear to the flesh that it is. It is rather the conduit God uses to bring minds into existence along with His directly breathing the breath of life into the body to create a living soul at the point of inception, for man is not a spirit, nor just a soul, nor just a body. Man is tripartite: spirit, soul and body. "For the word of God [66 books of the Bible] is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4.12). Joints give you movement, marrow gives you sensation (our spinal cord). Again we read, "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess. 5.23). I'm always repeating what you are always avoiding. A mind is needed to create a mind since the lesser can never produce the greater.

There has not been enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe to even produce 1 protein molecule of 200 amino acids, and you need at least 1000 protein molecules to produce the simplest life from the dust and particles of the universe. Scientists will try to simulate this always falling short, but that's the best they can do because that simulation is just a facsimile, never the real thing, because the real thing can mutate and generate to be a catalyst in sentient life for one component of man's tripartite nature-namely, the body. It does not have a living soul and body fully developed in God's image if God were to be a man, until God breathes in the breath of life directly creating man's spirit which when it makes contact with the body, man becomes a living soul.

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" Gen. 2.7). Hence, "And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Only man can do all these things. "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so" (Gen. 1.28-30).

Only man can replenish the earth. No other creature can do this showing that God created us. No other creature has dominion over the earth or ever will but man, again, proving God did it. No creature has control over every living thing but man, because God created us. No creature can access every tree. If naturalism is true it would be more likely more than just one creature could share in this responsibility. God's going to come like the rain very soon and you will be left without.

It seems your argument that a mind is needed to create a mind hinges solely on the assertion that the lesser can never produce the greater, which is patently false. A grain of sand is lesser than a beach, but grains of sand produce beaches. An atom is lesser than a brain, but atoms produce brains. An H2O molecule is lesser than an ocean, but H2O molecules produce oceans. In fact, in nature the lesser is a requirement for the greater to be produced. Finally, a sperm and an egg is lesser than an adult human, well I think you can see where this is headed.

Finally after 5 paragraphs you at least try to deal with the fact a mind is needed to create a mind. Natural elements are part nature, hence a grain of sand is part of the beach. It is neither greater no lesser just part of the system, and it has no self-consciousness nor does the beach as a whole. Atoms only make up the component of the capsule in which the body, soul and spirit utilize. The atom has no self-consciousness and never will, so it is lesser. Since all the atoms in the universe that ever existed were unable to interact together to produce even one protein molecule you know God did it. A sperm and an egg are, again, the complements utilized, for notice an egg can never produce life by itself, nor can a sperm. So it is erroneous to say these lesser things could create a mind. They can't. In fact, since the sperm and egg are already part of the God-conscious, self-conscious, world-conscious being they had not come from nature alone.

I told you, that is why I exist right now, because I had an eternity to do so, and I finally did. In any case, we seem to have a fundamental difference in our understanding of eternity and how it affects what actually comes into being when we philosophize about infinite regress. Since we both agree that the universe does not have an infinite regress, continuing to discuss how thing would come into being if there was an infinite regress is pointless, especially since we can't even agree on what eternity means.

How can you have an eternity to come into being right now when an eternity is still going on before now? That's the nature of eternity, it goes on for forever in infinite regress. What you even agree too is if there was an infinite regress in cause and effects of the past for eternity, you don't believe in it anyway. So move on from Step 1 even if you don't like the reasoning, since it does not materially impact our discussion in the proof for God, because you don't believe in infinite regress anyhooo! You though should agree if an eternity is going on for eternity before now then it is still going on as eternity does and would still be doing.

Why?

Because the lesser can never produce the greater. We observe this in world. Man is unable to do what God did, create a sentient being from bouncing particles alone. The best man can do is simulate it robotically and pretend like it has self-awareness.

Oh because of this again, well good thing the larger system is greater than our human minds.

A larger system can't have attributes less than a mind for we have a mind. It most certainly is lesser if it is not self-aware which is the attribute of a mind. The greatest thing in this universe or any others is not just having a mind, volition, feelings but self-consciousness through these functions to the highest level in creation. And it is not enough to just have intuition, communion and conscience, but a spirit through which we have God-consciousness. And it is not enough to just have a body but the highest body order ever known, so much so, God Himself entered His creation in just such a body. He did not come as a fish or a giraffe.

The larger, timeless system has not always existed, for if it did, that would imply time; and thus the statement is self contradictory. The larger system simply just exists. There is no past tense. Furthermore, just like our universe mindlessly causes virtual particle to come into being, the larger system can mindlessly cause a singularity to come into being--if it's laws of physics allow it, then there is no reason why it can't happen.

Always existing doesn't imply time always existed, for the uncaused cause exists outside of time and never ceased to exist nor was ever caused to come into being. For something to "just exist" implies it always existed whether in time our outside of time. We don't know virtual particles come into being outside of space-time just because they are too complicated and small to observe. Why assume? Since those virtual particles eventually lead to the body of man fully formed (in God's image of course) and receives a spirit to be a living soul with world-consciousness, self-consciousness, and God-consciousness we know that virtual particle could not have ultimately originated from mindless space time, since mindless space time is lesser than a mind, just as a particle of dust is lesser than a human being, because that particle of dust has no self-awareness. A non-mind space-time likewise has no self-consciousness. That's why God is so amazing because only He can do this, for His mind is the ultimate mind. His intuition and conscience are perfect.

Oh I understand it, however those two steps only address the laws of physics from within the universe, but since the universe did not come from within the universe, then those two steps have no bearing on the origins of the universe.

We don't have to worry about the origins of the universe for Step 1 by those who claim infinite regress, because in infinite regress there is always another origin to an origin. I am glad though you agree infinite regress is impossible, so we can move from Step 1 to Step 2. Step doesn't need to explain origins either because it is simply addressing the fallacy of thinking something can come from nothing, for that which does not exist can't produce anything. Now that you agree also that the universe can't come from nothing, you can move onto Step 3. The first 2 steps destroy the faith of lots of atheists. The kicker comes in in Step 3 and 4 to win.

It is not an 'other worldly imaginary universe,' because if it were, then there would be nothing for the universe to exist in. Because our universe is finite, it requires something larger than itself to exist in. What exactly this larger system consists of, or what kind of physics dictate its existence is beyond our scope of awareness.

Your statement is false, for this universe doesn't need to exist in another universe and even if it had, it would still need to be circumscribed by God. The universe doesn't require something larger than itself to exist in. It is all that has been created by God. Your hostility to God causes you to come up with mistaken assumptions.

In order to emphatically declare that the larger system cannot mindlessly produce minds, you must be aware of what it is in fact not capable of, which of course, you are not. No one is. What we do know, is that it exists as a phenomena that is capable of producing our universe, and sustaining it. This universe is then capable of producing minds by proxy. Naturally, the universe and the larger system are greater than our minds, so this doesn't violate your assertion that 'the lesser can never produce the greater,' which I have pointed out is not a universal truth anyways.

We know for a fact your imaginary greater universe, that one billion pound gorilla you carry on your back, can't produce a mind, because it has no mind of self-awareness. The lesser can never produce the greater. You don't need to know all the things your imaginary universe can't do, for you would be requiring you be God to know for sure, but that is self-contradictory because obviously you are not God. We have no reason to believe your imaginary universe exists, but if it did, we know it could not produce minds because it has no mind; hence, God is the ultimate cause. The proxy would be from God. The universal truth is a mindlessness can never produce a mind, for mindlessness doesn't know how to generate self-consciousness and conscience. These are two elements greatly lacking in your faith, thus morally degrading yourself for Satan.

Because I have raised legitimate objections to your first two steps, I see no reason to address the other two.

Since I have shown you the error in your thinking regarding the first two steps it is highly advisable you deal with those first before moving on. First things first as they say.

Again I was just entertaining the notion of an eternity with an infinite regress, it was a philosophical exercise I took a part in because I felt you were logically misconstruing the concepts. But as I noted above, we can't agree on what eternity means so this exercise was futile and is really besides the point anyways.

I realize you are just entertaining the idea, but you are also stating the things you say affirmatively, for you say since this is true, then this must be true: since this moment is always present, there must be infinite regress. Not at all! as explained why. My advice is since you are making mistakes trying to defend infinite regress and you don't even believe in it anyway, then don't worry about it. You agree with Step 1 anyhow. Move on! I was hoping we could get through all 4 Steps in the next year, so get off Step 1.

It also seems we don't agree on what infinite regress means as well. I never conceded that infinite regress always goes on and never stops in actuality. I maintain that infinite regress is nothing more than a concept, and that it does not somehow literally go on into the past for eternity like some sort of real reverse time phenomena. My definition of infinite regress is that it is a concept, which only makes sense from the present moment; and is used to describe an infinite past from the universe's present state of affairs, if the universe is eternal. Until we agree on the defintion, there is no point in arguing about it.

It doesn't matter that you don't agree what infinite regress is, for you know how I am using the term for Step 1 of the proof, that if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, it would still be going on, and thus you would never have come into being, because it would still be going on for forever never reaching this point. Find yourself another term. Stop trying to high jack mine in your petty self arguing over semantics. Personally, can't think of another term in the English language that is better than "infinite regress" or "eternity of the past" in nature. Look, you are still arguing against Step 1 when you agree with Step 1 that there can't be infinite regress which you don't believe is possible anyway, so move onto Step 2. You're killing my brain cells with your mindlessness. That's worthy of an infraction: not dealing with the argument and arguing over terminology.

I am not using infinite regress as a concept. I am saying if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects as many atheists contend for, I present Step 1 to shut them down in their mindlessness. We don't need to agree on terms, but you do need to agree on the way I am using the term for the proof for it is the proof that is in view and not your dislike of this or that term for this or that meaning. We are dealing in meanings and not terms, but it's good to use the best term possible, so I am glad you couldn't find one better than the one I used for what I am describing.

This is what I mean when I said we could not agree on the definition of eternity.

We agreed, you just didn't realize it, that infinite regress is impossible (my definition).

My definition--eternity is a term that describes beginning-less and endless time, or in other words, eternity is the present moment proceeding after an infinite amount of past events, and preceding an infinite amount of future events.

Infinite regress is eternity of the past. Infinite progress is eternity in the future. The word "eternity" by itself is lacking because it leaves out which directly specifically we are talking about, for there can be eternity of the future but none of the past or an eternity of the past but then none in the future (for the sake of those who are arguing for an infinite regress still). Since you agree on the meaning, after all this time why are you still arguing about Step 1 when you agree infinite regress is impossible? It's because of your flesh, I assure you, that needs to die on the cross with Christ to your petty self. Are you selfless enough to allow God to do this for you to bring you to that sure death to your old man? so you can move on to Step 2? Even if you can't, move on anyway! It will be 2012 before we know it.

Your definition, based on what you said above--eternity is a term that does not include a past, present, or future and therefore is meaningless.

I never said, "eternity is a term that does not include a past, present, or future." You deserve another infraction for blatantly sinning bearing false witness. I said since infinite regress is false then there is not a past eternity, so this present moment would be true and so could be future eternity. What is meaningless is to profess infinite regress when it doesn't exist. You're slow eh?

Note- If churchwork decides to apply one of his completely unnecessary infractions, which seems to be his M.O. with any and all atheist, then this will be my last post. I have read other post in the atheism and science sections, and if any one dare to disagree with churchwork, or continue to question a position that is inadequately defended, he pulls out the only weapon he has left, MOD powers. Seriously churchwork, why do you even have an atheist section, or allow atheist on this forum at all? You should really consider having a disclaimer that states 'read the threads before joining, and if your are not a christian who agrees with me, then don't bother joining because I will end up silencing you with my trigger happy infraction gun.' Any how Parture, if I do end up getting an infraction and get temporarily banned, we can continue this discussion over at christianforums.com if churchwork does not delete this link. I don't see why he would, it is another Christian forum. If it comes to that, I have the same screen name there and you can PM me or just start a new thread titled 4 step proof of god and I'll know it's you.

These infractions are necessary because if you keep erring unchecked, repeating yourself mindlessly, you waste valuable space and time. If I was on a forum and made your same mistakes I would expect the same infraction for repetitively redundant errors. Let us give thanks to God that there are good moderators here at biblocality forums. Notice you are not banned, but these infractions are healthy for you, so you can remember not to make the same mistakes again. You shouldn't promote another forum just because of your own obstinacy.

We are banned at christianforums.com and so is the word biblocality. You realize the majority control of that forum is run by the Roman Church, the great harlot of religious Rome (Rev. 17) that makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications (14.8) the Bible says. Go see for yourself. Hope to have you back here and continue the discussion when you feel ready, possibly even to give your life to Christ.

[philosophik]

These infractions are necessary because if you keep erring unchecked, repeating yourself mindlessly, you waste valuable space and time. If I was on a forum and made your same mistakes I would expect the same infraction for repetitively redundant errors. Let us give thanks to God that there are good moderators here at biblocality forums. Notice you are not banned, but these infractions are healthy for you, so you can remember not to make the same mistakes again. You shouldn't promote another forum just because of your own obstinacy.

You did get infractions on another forum and was banned, that is why you promoted this forum. Man your are the biggest hypocrite of the greatest magnitude. The moderator here is absolutely horrible, a good moderator doesn't hand out infractions because posters disagree with him, but that is churchworks greatest weapon, MOD power. I have read his 4 step proof and all his critics amply dismantled it, so what does he do, hands out infractions. Pathetic. The only reason you don't get any infractions here is because you share the exact same delusions as him.

We are banned at christianforums.com and so is the word biblocality. You realize the majority control of that forum is run by the Roman Church, the great harlot of religious Rome (Rev. 17) that makes drunk the nations with the wine of the wrath of her fornications (14.8) the Bible says. Go see for yourself. Hope to have you back here and continue the discussion when you feel ready, possibly even to give your life to Christ.

Why am I not surprised that you were banned. I belong to 8 other forums and have never received an infraction for what I say. Three of them are christian forums, not including this joke site. I don't think it's coincidence that out of the three forums we have mutually joined, you were banned from two of them, and the only one you were not banned from is a forum where the moderator has the same horrible debating skills, the same pathetic arguments, and shares the same self righteous attitude. I would love to respond to the rest of your post, but I'm not going to waste my time doing it on a forum where the moderator holds your hand and pats you on the back for continually doing things that gets you banned on any other respectable forum. If you want to continue this debate, PM and we can agree on another forum to join, but I'm not wasting my time on this one anymore.