Atheist.net Full of Erroneous Thinking

[Parture]

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.

Religion agrees with science since God is proven to exist. God uses science in His word and implores you to get rid of your pseudo-science: science so falsely called. This is your own new age babble.

Since nature can't start up from nothing nor always have existed, therefore it needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, and this is whom we call the uncreated Creator.

You lose out in life.

[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.

[Mystermenace]

...science...proven...nature...existed...cause...t ime and space...

When you use these words in a religious context they do not have the same meaning as when used in a scientific context.
Therefore, your arguments may make you comfortable within your religion, but when you export your arguments outside your religion and into the world of science they become nonsensical.

You lose out in reality.

[Parture]

Since science wouldn't exist without religion (as proven in this thread) to try to practice science outside of religion is vanity and a religion unto itself, thus contradicting yourself. What you are trying to practice is pseudo-science, not reality at all. And there is no need to export anything as science is contained within religion. To take science out of religion is possible, but only if you want to do pseudo-science. Obviously, scientists who are Christians, even other theists would agree.

You lose out in reality.

[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.

[Mystermenace]

Since science wouldn't exist without religion (as proven in this thread)

This was never proven in this thread. Go infract yourself.

to try to practice science outside of religion is vanity and a religion unto itself, thus contradicting yourself. What you are trying to practice is pseudo-science, not reality at all. And there is no need to export anything as science is contained within religion. To take science out of religion is possible, but only if you want to do pseudo-science. Obviously, scientists who are Christians, even other theists would agree.

This has not been shown to be obvious. Go infract yourself.

You lose out in reality.

This is a direct copy of my statement. Go infract yourself.

As I have stated, you need to specify the definitions of science that your religion uses. The common definitions don't apply.
Imagine we are the only two engaged in this debate. Your gibberish is a waste of time because I ignore it, it's not relevant.

We cannot debate because you do not speak to my rebuttals. Each argument in the 4 step argument is old and was long ago discredited. If you don't have enough respect for your god to understand your own arguments, or to put forth the effort to develop and present new strong arguments, no one else will either.

[Parture]

This was never proven in this thread. Go infract yourself.

This was proven by observing nature which you did not try to refute in the 4 Step Proof for God. Your avoiding is worthy of an infraction.

This has not been shown to be obvious. Go infract yourself.

Self-declaration is worthy of another infraction.

This is a direct copy of my statement. Go infract yourself.

This is not subject to infractions.

As I have stated, you need to specify the definitions of science that your religion uses. The common definitions don't apply.
Imagine we are the only two engaged in this debate. Your gibberish is a waste of time because I ignore it, it's not relevant.

Again, self-asserting and false accusation, for you don't back your claim.

We cannot debate because you do not speak to my rebuttals. Each argument in the 4 step argument is old and was long ago discredited. If you don't have enough respect for your god to understand your own arguments, or to put forth the effort to develop and present new strong arguments, no one else will either.

There is nothing to rebut when you just assert your claim without trying to defend it. Boring. You are a dullard.

Don't think God's proof of Himself changes over time. It is the same powerful proof from the beginning. You can't improve on what is perfect.

It would seem quite disingenuous to want another proof while the proof given is not only the best one, but unchallenged by you.

[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.