It's time to review, once again, the cosmological argument for God's existence

[Ringtone]

No. Not wrong. Quite entirely correct. For your answer to that question was that it “always” existed. You might not get it, but if it “always” existed, then it wasn’t created.

I never said that matter/energy has always existed.
I never said that matter/energy has always existed.
I never said that matter/energy has always existed.

I expressed the exact opposite regarding its existence.
I expressed the exact opposite regarding its existence.
I expressed the exact opposite regarding its existence.

The whole point of the cosmological argument is that the universe (i.e., matter/energy or the spacetime continuum) could not have always existed and, therefore, began to exist in the finite past when it was created by God!

What I did say in the above is that something has always existed.
What I did say in the above is that something has always existed.
What I did say in the above is that something has always existed.

That eternal something is God the Creator!
That eternal something is God the Creator!
That eternal something is God the Creator!

 

[BackAgain]

I never said that matter/energy has always existed.
I never said that matter/energy has always existed.
I never said that matter/energy has always existed.

I expressed the exact opposite regarding its existence.
I expressed the exact opposite regarding its existence.
I expressed the exact opposite regarding its existence.

The whole point of the cosmological argument is that the universe (i.e., matter/energy or the spacetime continuum) could not have always existed and, therefore, began to exist in the finite past when it was created by God!

What I did say in the above is that something has always existed.
What I did say in the above is that something has always existed.
What I did say in the above is that something has always existed.

That eternal something is God the Creator!
That eternal something is God the Creator!
That eternal something is God the Creator!

That’s not what you said.
I’ll remind you:

1. Something does exist rather than nothing.
2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. Absurdity!
3. Hence, something has always existed

Look closely at number 3.

Now, I’ll concede that —standing alone — that doesn’t mean that you intended to claim that matter/energy “always existed.” However, our discussion proceeded despite your persistent & petty resort to endless ad hominem. When I noted that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, I asked basically where it came from. And you did point out that it always existed.

Additionally, I ask asked you if matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed then to say that God “created” it denies that premise. (If it was created then it can be created.)

So I’ll also concede that (largely due to your contradictory ad hominems) it is possible that there resulted some miscommunication or misunderstanding. (You started by claiming that I was “too smart” but ended up asserting that I was an idiot, a moronan imbecile and related notions. So, yeah. You were contradictory.)

Bottom line: your otherwise tidy set of syllogisms still packed some problems that result in them not being as definitive as you claimed. In terms of cosmology, let’s see what we agree on and where we may have some issues.

Can matter/energy be created? I say that perhaps not in the present universe since I accept the scientific evidence that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed. So, to say that God created “all” (including matter/energy) is either a logical contradiction OR there is a suppressed premise. Would it be fair of me to infer that your position is that God could “create” matter/energy in some pre-existent realm not bound by our recognized rules of science?

Also, if it wasn’t a different realm, but I was somehow correct that there must be at least one exception to the principle that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, then maybe it is matter/energy that can come into existence without having first been “created.” Or maybe it’s God that came into existence without having been created.

These questions aren’t the totality of the discussion we had before or the concerns raised. Your answers (and anybody else’s answers sometimes lead to more questions. So, we can either agree to discuss this stuff on an adult level

 

[Ringtone]

It has not always existed.

Correct. That's the whole point of the cosmological argument for God's existence. The universe has not always existed and, therefore, had to be created by God.

So why did you reinforce BackAgain's confusion by giving his madness in post #56 a thumbs up? The only thing that makes sense to me is that BackAgain initially interpreted my observation that something has always existed to mean that matter/energy has always existed.

We are now well-past the point of a mere misunderstanding. There is no way to rationally justify BackAgain's confusion beyond this point.

Also see post #61.

 

[Ringtone]

That’s not what you said.

You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.

 

[BackAgain]

You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.

Ok. So you hide behind the fact that you’re an asshole to slink away. You’re a gutless pussy and truly stupid. So, now gfy.

 

[BackAgain]

Are you on shrooms? LSD? Weed?

Like Aquinas, I'm a classical theist. Aquinas and I wholeheartedly agree. Logic 101. Of course, any given thing cannot be the cause of it's own existence.

You write, "It is because you contend that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. . . .

No. I. Don't! I have never asserted that, you drooling 'tard. Not once, not ever.

You write, "you conclude that matter/energy must have always existed."

No. I. Didn't! I have never asserted that, you drooling 'tard. Not once, not ever.

Gfy. Apparently you didn’t understand that earlier, you piece of crap.

 

[Ringtone]

Gfy. Apparently you didn’t understand that earlier, you piece of crap.

You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.

 

[Ringtone]

That’s not what you said.
I’ll remind you:

1. Something does exist rather than nothing.
2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. Absurdity!
3. Hence, something has always existed

Look closely at number 3.

Now, I’ll concede that —standing alone — that doesn’t mean that you intended to claim that matter/energy “always existed.” However, our discussion proceeded despite your persistent & petty resort to endless ad hominem. When I noted that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, I asked basically where it came from. And you did point out that it always existed.

Additionally, I ask asked you if matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed then to say that God “created” it denies that premise. (If it was created then it can be created.)

So I’ll also concede that (largely due to your contradictory ad hominems) it is possible that there resulted some miscommunication or misunderstanding. (You started by claiming that I was “too smart” but ended up asserting that I was an idiot, a moronan imbecile and related notions. So, yeah. You were contradictory.)

Bottom line: your otherwise tidy set of syllogisms still packed some problems that result in them not being as definitive as you claimed. In terms of cosmology, let’s see what we agree on and where we may have some issues.

Can matter/energy be created? I say that perhaps not in the present universe since I accept the scientific evidence that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed. So, to say that God created “all” (including matter/energy) is either a logical contradiction OR there is a suppressed premise. Would it be fair of me to infer that your position is that God could “create” matter/energy in some pre-existent realm not bound by our recognized rules of science?

Also, if it wasn’t a different realm, but I was somehow correct that there must be at least one exception to the principle that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, then maybe it is matter/energy that can come into existence without having first been “created.” Or maybe it’s God that came into existence without having been created.

These questions aren’t the totality of the discussion we had before or the concerns raised. Your answers (and anybody else’s answers sometimes lead to more questions. So, we can either agree to discuss this stuff on an adult level

I'm repeating myself because you're as obtuse as a pile of bricks.
I'm repeating myself because you're as obtuse as a pile of bricks.
I'm repeating myself because you're as obtuse as a pile of bricks.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.

 

[BackAgain]

I'm repeating myself because you're as obtuse as a pile of bricks.
I'm repeating myself because you're as obtuse as a pile of bricks.
I'm repeating myself because you're as obtuse as a pile of bricks.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.

You remain a liar and quite stupid. You’re an idiot. You’re a coward, a real pussy. And of course, you’re a liar.

You remain a liar and quite stupid. You’re an idiot. You’re a coward, a real pussy. And of course, you’re a liar.

You remain a liar and quite stupid. You’re an idiot. You’re a coward, a real pussy. And of course, you’re a liar.

Now again, gfy.

 

[Ringtone]

You remain a liar and quite stupid. You’re an idiot. You’re a coward, a real pussy. And of course, you’re a liar.

You remain a liar and quite stupid. You’re an idiot. You’re a coward, a real pussy. And of course, you’re a liar.

You remain a liar and quite stupid. You’re an idiot. You’re a coward, a real pussy. And of course, you’re a liar.

Now again, gfy.

You are on an exegetical thread regarding the cosmological argument for God's existence, which is predicated on the imperative that the universe could not have always exited and, therefore, necessarily began to exist in the finite past claiming it proves the opposite.

You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.

 

[Ringtone]

That’s not what you said.
I’ll remind you:

1. Something does exist rather than nothing.
2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. Absurdity!
3. Hence, something has always existed

Look closely at number 3.

Now, I’ll concede that —standing alone — that doesn’t mean that you intended to claim that matter/energy “always existed.” However, our discussion proceeded despite your persistent & petty resort to endless ad hominem. When I noted that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, I asked basically where it came from. And you did point out that it always existed.

Additionally, I ask asked you if matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed then to say that God “created” it denies that premise. (If it was created then it can be created.)

So I’ll also concede that (largely due to your contradictory ad hominems) it is possible that there resulted some miscommunication or misunderstanding. (You started by claiming that I was “too smart” but ended up asserting that I was an idiot, a moronan imbecile and related notions. So, yeah. You were contradictory.)

Bottom line: your otherwise tidy set of syllogisms still packed some problems that result in them not being as definitive as you claimed. In terms of cosmology, let’s see what we agree on and where we may have some issues.

Can matter/energy be created? I say that perhaps not in the present universe since I accept the scientific evidence that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed. So, to say that God created “all” (including matter/energy) is either a logical contradiction OR there is a suppressed premise. Would it be fair of me to infer that your position is that God could “create” matter/energy in some pre-existent realm not bound by our recognized rules of science?

Also, if it wasn’t a different realm, but I was somehow correct that there must be at least one exception to the principle that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed, then maybe it is matter/energy that can come into existence without having first been “created.” Or maybe it’s God that came into existence without having been created.

These questions aren’t the totality of the discussion we had before or the concerns raised. Your answers (and anybody else’s answers sometimes lead to more questions. So, we can either agree to discuss this stuff on an adult level

I missed this post. I will try one last time. One issue at a time.

I wrote:

1. Something does exist rather than nothing.​

2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. Absurdity!​

3. Hence, something has always existed.​

You responded:

Look closely at number 3.​

Okay. #3 reads, Hence, something has always existed.
_________________


Do you agree that #3 reads, Hence, something has always existed.

Yes or no?

 

[BackAgain]

You are on an exegetical thread regarding the cosmological argument for God's existence, which is predicated on the imperative that the universe could not have always exited and, therefore, necessarily began to exist in the finite past claiming it proves the opposite.

You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.
You are a pathological liar and a sociopath.

You’re still an asshole and a lying cowardly pussy.
You’re still an asshole and a lying cowardly pussy.
You’re still an asshole and a lying cowardly pussy.

I happen to agree that the universe had to come into creation. That requires that matter/energy/space/time also had to have all been created. So, you jerkoff, you’re still saying that matter/energy CAN have been created — which violates the scientific law holding that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.

Why are you so enormously thick? Did you get your newborn baby head confused with a basketball at birth? You were dribbled too often? You’re a real douche and you don’t know anything close to what you think you know. You’re too dull to even contemplate questions.

 

[BackAgain]

I missed this post. I will try one last time. One issue at a time.

I wrote:

1. Something does exist rather than nothing.​

2. Existence cannot arise from nonexistence. Absurdity!​

3. Hence, something has always existed.​

You responded:

Look closely at number 3.​

Okay. #3 reads, Hence, something has always existed.
_________________


Do you agree that #3 reads, Hence, something has always existed.

Yes or no?

I believe it does since I copied and pasted your OP quote. So, imma gonna go with “yes.”

 

[Ringtone]

I believe it does since I copied and pasted your OP quote. So, imma gonna go with “yes.”

Something has always existed
≠
Matter/energy have always existed
​

Those are two very different assertions!

You wrote:

Now, I’ll concede that —standing alone — that doesn’t mean that you intended to claim that matter/energy 'always existed.'​

Good! Because I never said nor implied that matter/energy have always existed—not once, not ever. I would never argue such a thing.

Now forget all about what you think I intended, and let us simply examine what I did say, nothing more and nothing other.

At this point in the flow of the dialogue, you observed:

Matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed.​

Correct? Yes or no?

Now for the moment, forget about any additional questions you may have asked.

 

[BackAgain]

Something has always existed
≠
Matter/energy have always existed
​

Those are two very different assertions!

You wrote:

Now, I’ll concede that —standing alone — that doesn’t mean that you intended to claim that matter/energy 'always existed.'​

Good! Because I never said nor implied that matter/energy have always existed—not once, not ever. I would never argue such a thing.

Now forget all about what you think I intended, and let us simply examine what I did say, nothing more and nothing other.

At this point in the flow of the dialogue, you observed:

Matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed.​

Correct? Yes or no?

Now for the moment, forget about any additional questions you may have asked.

I see you want to be the director here. Lol. I tell ya what. I’ll play along. But I have a couple of preconditions. (Call me a co-director.) First: you’re going to have to try to just cut out the personal attacks. That’s non negotiable. Second: these discussions sometimes raise related points. If I choose to take an off road once in a while, I will. And you’ll accept that with poise and grace (and in full compliance with the first precondition.)

Now, to get back to the actual discussion:

Yes. I did, in fact, address the scientific principle that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed. In fact, I’ve repeated that several times. could you maybe speed this up? I’m retired, but I don’t choose to waste my time doing this silly step by step process which won’t change the outcome anyway.

 

[Ringtone]

I see you want to be the director here. Lol. I tell ya what. I’ll play along. But I have a couple of preconditions. (Call me a co-director.) First: you’re going to have to try to just cut out the personal attacks. That’s non negotiable. Second: these discussions sometimes raise related points. If I choose to take an off road once in a while, I will. And you’ll accept that with poise and grace (and in full compliance with the first precondition.)

Now, to get back to the actual discussion:

Yes. I did, in fact, address the scientific principle that matter/energy can be neither created nor destroyed. In fact, I’ve repeated that several times. could you maybe speed this up? I’m retired, but I don’t choose to waste my time doing this silly step by step process which won’t change the outcome anyway.

Fine. We've cleared the way to the final point in the line of logic anyway. Though regarding it a waste of time that won't change the outcome would not seem to encourage the open mindedness of good faith, I'll do my best. After all, I can only tell you what I've been telling you all along.

The First Law of Thermodynamics (a.k.a, the Law of Conservation) would not ontologically precede or have primacy over the power and will of God the Creator!

The First Law of Thermodynamics (a.k.a, the Law of Conservation) would not ontologically precede or have primacy over the power and will of God the Creator!

I'm repeating myself, for it is at this very point, over this very matter, that our line of communication keeps breaking down! Seemingly, this is the point at which you react without regarding ontological order or context.

Nature (the spacetime continuum of matter and energy) is not the Creator. God is! God created the universe and its contents ex nihilo!

The First Law of Thermodynamics holds that like mass (a body of matter), energy is always conserved: that is to say, while it can be transferred from one place to another or transformed/converted from one form to another, it can neither be created nor destroyed by any natural mechanism in the extant universe.

God is the Creator of nature and the Author of the laws by which nature's processes are governed. Nature is bound by the laws of physics, not God!

 

[Indeependent]

Correct. That's the whole point of the cosmological argument for God's existence. The universe has not always existed and, therefore, had to be created by God.

So why did you reinforce BackAgain's confusion by giving his madness in post #56 a thumbs up? The only thing that makes sense to me is that BackAgain initially interpreted my observation that something has always existed to mean that matter/energy has always existed.

We are now well-past the point of a mere misunderstanding. There is no way to rationally justify BackAgain's confusion beyond this point.

Also see post #61.

Which post of yours addresses the issue?

 

[Indeependent]

Correct. That's the whole point of the cosmological argument for God's existence. The universe has not always existed and, therefore, had to be created by God.

So why did you reinforce BackAgain's confusion by giving his madness in post #56 a thumbs up? The only thing that makes sense to me is that BackAgain initially interpreted my observation that something has always existed to mean that matter/energy has always existed.

We are now well-past the point of a mere misunderstanding. There is no way to rationally justify BackAgain's confusion beyond this point.

Also see post #61.

I read Post 42 and I see where you are coming from.
The issue that "God" did not create His creation with the ability to comprehend God in any manner whatsoever but the struggle to do so is certainly not a sign of inherent disrespect.

 

[Ringtone]

I read Post 42 and I see where you are coming from.
The issue that "God" did not create His creation with the ability to comprehend God in any manner whatsoever but the struggle to do so is certainly not a sign of inherent disrespect.

I'm not sure I follow you. I would say that God and His creation are readably apprehensible but not comprehendible. That seems to be what you're saying. I would agree.

 

[BackAgain]

Fine. We've cleared the way to the final point in the line of logic anyway. Though regarding it a waste of time that won't change the outcome would not seem to encourage the open mindedness of good faith, I'll do my best. After all, I can only tell you what I've been telling you all along.

I have been very open minded. I have found you very close minded. But, time will tell.

The First Law of Thermodynamics (a.k.a, the Law of Conservation) would not ontologically precede or have primacy over the power and will of God the Creator!

You say this based on what, precisely?

The First Law of Thermodynamics (a.k.a, the Law of Conservation) would not ontologically precede or have primacy over the power and will of God the Creator!

Yeah. You just claimed that.

I'm repeating myself, for it is at this very point, over this very matter, that our line of communication keeps breaking down! Seemingly, this is the point at which you react without regarding ontological order or context.

You insist on using the phrase “ontological” like a touchstone. It doesn’t strengthen your argument. And again. No need to try to talk down to me. The object here is for you to speak (write) clearly. For example, your use of “ontological order” is a packed term, but not one you choose (or have chosen) to define.

Nature (the spacetime continuum of matter and energy) is not the Creator. God is! God created the universe and its contents ex nihilo!

According to faith. But faith alone doesn’t prove a logical point. Indeed, it is a failure to utilize logic since it presumes the sought to be established conclusion as a premise. So, instead of just stating the conclusion as a premise, I am pressing you to properly support that premise

The First Law of Thermodynamics holds that like mass (a body of matter), energy is always conserved: that is to say, while it can be transferred from one place to another or transformed/converted from one form to another, it can neither be created nor destroyed by any natural mechanism in the extant universe.

Up to a point, I agree with that. But the highlighted part is not a stipulation of the first law of thermodynamics. It is something you have seen fit to add to it. If it’s a correct qualification of the 1st Law, then tell me your basis for that qualification. Can you?

God is the Creator of nature and the Author of the laws by which nature's processes are governed. Nature is bound by the laws of physics, not God!

Let’s say for the sake of discussion (preliminarily) that God created nature and the scientific laws. Then, yes. It would make abundant good sense to presume that nature is now bound by the laws of physics. It would also make good sense to say that God is not so bound. But — and again, I’m asking a question not stating a premise — to merely state your belief that God created nature and the rules that bind nature is essentially to assume your conclusion as your premise in order to “derive” you conclusion. You said, in your original statement (in effect) that your syllogisms “proved” the existence of God. My question is: “do your syllogisms do that?”

I maintain that they don’t , because you cannot use the existence of God as a premise to craft a syllogism to prove the existence of that very God. Or, to be a bit more precise, you can’t do that and maintain that you’ve done so by any valid set of syllogisms. It is the fallacy of begging the question.

I could continue, but this one is plenty long enough. I will (in the way I’ve asked you to proceed) similarly await your response.