Zone1 have you been baptized?

[ding]

Supposition.

We don't know exactly how what happened happened

we can't know what happened just before and just after what we assume is the beginning of the universe

We do not know anything about at least 95% of all energy and matter in the universe we can observe and we know nothing of the universe we cannot observe.

You want it to be a god so you call it a god.

I say it can't be known with any certainty

It's because you can't address each point head on that you keep posting this BS that has nothing to do with anything.

 

[ding]

They might be wrong and you can;t admit that can you?

Sure I can, if you can show me how they are wrong using logic.

How isn't a condition of the first cause is that it must be eternal?
How isn't a condition of the first cause is that it must be unchanging?
How isn't matter and energy not unchanging?

 

[Blues Man]

Sure I can, if you can show me how they are wrong using logic.

How isn't a condition of the first cause is that it must be eternal?
How isn't a condition of the first cause is that it must be unchanging?
How isn't matter and energy not unchanging?

Mathematics is logic and the math doesn't work. You say math was invented by your all powerful god therefore the math cannot have any limitations but you admit that there are limitations to the math because it breaks down.

Or maybe since we can't explain 95% or more of the matter and energy in the universe we can observe and have no clue what's in the universe we cannot observe then the reality is we will never know what exactly that first cause was and if it even still exists

You are making assumptions about the nature of the first cause.

You cannot know if it is eternal

You are assuming these things.

For all we know your first cause ceased to exist after it did what it did.

 

[ding]

Mathematics is logic and the math doesn;t work

What math is required? It's all based upon logic. There's no math involved.

How isn't a condition of the first cause is that it must be eternal?
How isn't a condition of the first cause is that it must be unchanging?
How isn't matter and energy not unchanging?

 

[Blues Man]

What math is required? It's all based upon logic. There's no math involved.

How isn't a condition of the first cause is that it must be eternal?
How isn't a condition of the first cause is that it must be unchanging?
How isn't matter and energy not unchanging?

Math is logic.

You are using semantics based on assumptions

 

[ding]

Math is logic.

You are using semantics based on assumptions

Math is logical but it's not logic. And I'm not using semantics. I am making assumptions based upon logic. And if those assumptions are wrong they should be able to be easily proven wrong using logic.

The first one states that the first cause must be eternal. That should be pretty easy to understand. It can't be the first cause if it wasn't already there AND always there because that would mean something caused it and existed before it. So it couldn't be first. It's just logic.

 

[Blues Man]

Math is logical but it's not logic. And I'm not using semantics. I am making assumptions based upon logic. And if those assumptions are wrong they should be able to be easily proven wrong using logic.

The first one states that the first cause must be eternal. That should be pretty easy to understand. It can't be the first cause if it wasn't already there AND always there because that would mean something caused it and existed before it. So it couldn't be first. It's just logic.

You logic yields assumptions

Thank you that is exactly what I have been saying and what you have been denying.

You ASSUME there are no alternatives but matter energy and "spirit"
You ASSUME that this spirit is what you call god
You ASSUME this god is eternal all powerful and unchanging

While doing this you ignore everything we do not know everything we cannot know

 

[ding]

You logic yields assumptions

Thank you that is exactly what I have been saying and what you have been denying.

You ASSUME there are no alternatives but matter energy and "spirit"
You ASSUME that this spirit is what you call god
You ASSUME this god is eternal all powerful and unchanging

While doing this you ignore everything we do not know everything we cannot know

You couldn't work through the logic to save your life.

 

[Blues Man]

You couldn't work through the logic to save your life.

You just said you are making assumptions and that has been my argument all along

 

[ding]

You just said you are making assumptions and that has been my argument all along

Is that really what I said? Or did I say... "I am making assumptions based upon logic. And if those assumptions are wrong they should be able to be easily proven wrong using logic.

The first one states that the first cause must be eternal. That should be pretty easy to understand. It can't be the first cause if it wasn't already there AND always there because that would mean something caused it and existed before it. So it couldn't be first. It's just logic."

You are incapable of addressing the logic.

 

[Blues Man]

Is that really what I said? Or did I say... "I am making assumptions based upon logic. And if those assumptions are wrong they should be able to be easily proven wrong using logic.

The first one states that the first cause must be eternal. That should be pretty easy to understand. It can't be the first cause if it wasn't already there AND always there because that would mean something caused it and existed before it. So it couldn't be first. It's just logic."

Logic based on what?

1 that a first cause must be eternal and unchanging
2 that there are no other alternatives than matter energy and "spirit" but you can't really even prove that "spirit" is as real as matter and
energy

What are these 2 assumptions based on?

The 5% of the matter and energy we know exists in the part of the universe we can observe of which we have only a a basic understanding

That is hardly a convincing argument

 

[ding]

Logic based on what?

1 that a first cause must be eternal and unchanging
2 that there are no other alternatives than matter energy and "spirit" but you can't really even prove that "spirit" is as real as matter and
energy

What are these 2 assumptions based on?

The 5% of the matter and energy we know exists in the part of the universe we can observe of which we have only a a basic understanding

No. Those assumptions are not based upon that.

You are incapable of addressing the logic.

 

[Blues Man]

No. Those assumptions are not based upon that.

You are incapable of addressing the logic.

Of course they are.

You assume a fist cause must be eternal and unchanging And that there is nothing but matter energy and "spirit"

 

[ding]

Logic based on what?

1 that a first cause must be eternal and unchanging
2 that there are no other alternatives than matter energy and "spirit" but you can't really even prove that "spirit" is as real as matter and
energy

What are these 2 assumptions based on?

The 5% of the matter and energy we know exists in the part of the universe we can observe of which we have only a a basic understanding

That is hardly a convincing argument

The presence of energy/matter creates space and time. According to the SLoT disorder will increase. Ergo matter and energy are not unchanging.

 

[ding]

Of course they are.

You assume a fist cause must be eternal and unchanging And that there is nothing but matter energy and "spirit"

The presence of matter and energy creates space and time. Matter and energy then will become disorganized. It literally changes and cannot be an eternal source of creating universes. So it can never be a first cause.

 

[Blues Man]

The presence of matter and energy creates space and time. Matter and energy then will become disorganized. It literally changes and cannot be an eternal source of creating universes. So it can never be a first cause.

And how does that prove that "spirit" is the first cause?

Because you assume there are no other alternatives to matter and energy

How does that prove that this "spirit" is the god you worship?

Because you assume that spirit is the only alternative to matter and energy and that "spirit" is what god is

You basically just made up a definition of what god is and used that as proof of the existence of that god Oh and you know there can only be one of those gods too.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nope.

supposition is not reason.

you are basing everything on the assumption that there is a god.

that is bias by definition

science makes assumptions and guesses; I don't see you saying science is made up.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Supposition.

We don't know exactly how what happened happened

we can't know what happened just before and just after what we assume is the beginning of the universe

We do not know anything about at least 95% of all energy and matter in the universe we can observe and we know nothing of the universe we cannot observe.

You want it to be a god so you call it a god.

I say it can't be known with any certainty

and yet even though science assumes and guesses you have no problem believing it is real.

 

[Blues Man]

science makes assumptions and guesses; I don't see you saying science is made up.

Science makes no assumptions

Scientists do.

Do you not see that all this "logic" talked about results in nothing but making up a definition of what god is then using that definition to prove that god's existence?

 

[Blues Man]

and yet even though science assumes and guesses you have no problem believing it is real.

Science does not assume

Scientists do

See the difference?