Re: TheMessianicManic
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMessianicManic

Quote Originally Posted by TheMessianicManic
"That which does not exist can't cause anything because it does not exist, so non-existence can bring existence into being."

I think it's also the case that that which does not exist cannot be brought into existence. Something cannot spontaneously come from nothing and something cannot be made to come from nothing.
Right so you are agreeing with what I said, something can't come from nothing. Therefore, nature needs a cause and can't start up from nothing.

"infinite regress of cause and effects is impossible, because of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that nature always has a cause"

Not true. A universe which exists at the quantum scale (as ours did at the Planck epoch) is a universe for which time has no meaning. To say such a universe "begins" or "has a cause" doesn't even really make sense. Also, the evidence points to time being tenseless, which means nothing ever really "comes into being." All points in time are equally real. Things in the future won't come into being, because they already exist in their own time. Since all things at all points in time are equally real, infinite regress is perfectly possible.
By cutting off the sentence in half, you end up arguing against something completely else. Let's put the sentence back together as was originally intended and deal with it as a whole: "infinite regress of cause and effects is impossible, because of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that nature always has a cause, but if there was an infinite regress you would by that definition have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should already have happened."

You've made the mistaken assumption in your pseudo-science that the very minute is not subject to cause and effect, but just because it is small is not grounds for not having to abide in cause and effect. Let's go back to the evidence. The evidence tells us there are trillions of cause and effects in nature which is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt nature is always subject to causation. If you want to introduce an element that is without time in nature, i.e. timeless nature, you have entered into the realm of that which is outside of time and space then all you need to do is compare various claims on that which is timeless. Since a mind is needed to create a mind because the lesser can never produce the greater, we know the timeless entity has a mind, one of the characteristics of God. Therefore the uncreated timeless Creator always trumps your timeless mindlessness.

You've taken issue with the term "come into being"; all that is meant by this is causation from one time to the next as we observe causation in nature so nature, our universe, requires a cause and could not always have existed.

Just because all things in nature are equally real does not change the fact that nature could not always have existed, for the fact remains, if nature always existed in an infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so. So nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated. This uncreated Creator is whom we call God. This is really common knowledge and common grace for all of us to know according to Romans 1.20 so none of us are without excuse in observing nature.

"Infinite regress as well is shown to be self-contradictory because you should never have existed because an alleged past eternity would continue to go on for eternity never reaching this point."

Under the tenseless view of time, no event needs to "reached" in order for that point in time to exist. All points in time exist. The past still exists and the future already exists. Movement through time is an illusion caused by the fact that the process by which our brains accumulate memories is entropic and at any point in time the number of memories a person has will correlate to the amount of entropy in the universe.
It is pseudo-science to claim the future already exists, for the future by definition is in the future. It hasn't happened yet. That's why it is called future. If your tenseless time states that every point in time is real, that does not overturn the fact that if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects, you should never have come into being, because a past eternity would continue to go forever never to reach this point. Whether you have a memory of something or not does not change the fact that causation exists in all things in nature. Even your memory has causation derived from natural events in combination with your own exertion and free will.

"Therefore, nature needs a cause outside of itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated."

"Outside of time and space" is a contradiction in terms. "Outside" is a spatial orientation. Without spacetime, no such orientation is possible.
Outside need not be a spatial orientation, but a frame of reference, that is, not within nature. So that which is outside of time and space easily can bring into existence spacetime.

As I see it, ultimately, your biggest problem is you have rejected the uncreated Creator because of misaligned thoughts in not letting the evidence guide you. That evidence is cause and effect is never violated, not even in your erroneous imagination of the quantum level.