You have not justified the necessity of a cause. You have just asserted it.
This seems like you are trying to alter vocabulary, in order to maintain your position.
One can readily observe from my post (562) that while I merely "asserted" cause, due to the example I provided, cause is necessary for such phenomena to occur. It can easily be argued that cause is necessary, since any event cannot occur without it.
If you have an example of any event that occurs completely without cause, please provide it. I would suggest explaining how the event is independent of cause, from a biological, chemical, and physical standpoint.
Time is a component incorporated into each of the three dimensions of space, to give a continuous four-dimensional 'space-time'. Please see my earlier comments for the unambiguous evidence for the Big Bang. As modelled mathematically, the inflation of space-time generates gravitational energy (the force of gravity is actually a distortion of space-time; mass distorts space-time, and distorted space-time produces matter with an energy equivalence to the inflation of space-time). Regarding my capacity for a personal theology of Big Bang, while I might have the occasional good day, I am in no way capable of the insights and creative mathematical modelling that Einstein was able to produce, and I don't count a brilliantly successful theory in the same category as the wishful thinking of theology.
None of this contradicts, nor answers my points made. I will allow you to skip answering how time, a metaphysical component of life, was created, because I know that is beyond your ability, or any atheist/anti-theist's ability to answer.
Allow me to restate: what evidence do you have that "nothing" existed before the Big Bang? (Note that I agree with this particular claim) By your own wording, a claim of extraordinary requires unambiguous evidence. Thus, to even make such a claim, you, by your own reasoning, must have evidence of this. Again, what evidence do you submit that "nothing" existed before the Big Bang?
How did what condition come about, exactly? How did DNA become a molecule? How did DNA become the replicating molecule of all life, thus establishing the common ancestry of all living things on the planet?
Molecules do not have 'innate drive to survival'. Natural selection provides a test of fitness. Animals display behaviours that indicate motivation to survive, and behaviours are related to brains made of proteins coded in DNA.
Notice the contradiction within your own point? Here, I will italicize/bold it for you: "Molecules
do not have 'innate drive to survival'. Natural selection provides a test of fitness. Animals display
behaviours that
indicate motivation to survive, and behaviours are related to brains made of proteins coded in DNA."
You are simply avoiding using the same terminology. An innate drive is clearly indicative of "motivation," expressed as "behaviour." Again, what caused, I will use your words, animals to display behaviours indicating motivation to survive?
It looks to me like you are inventing something you call 'the supernatural' as a convenience to your comfort. I already find attempts at comprehending 'the natural' are not a matter of what is comfortable, so it will not be me rejecting that which is difficult. But you have still not established that the model called 'the supernatural' refers to anything real or relevant.
You are simply dismissing evidence, in this case existing definitions, in order to substantiate your claim.
We would both agree that the supernatural cannot be proven via natural evidence. We both agree that "the natural"
is. Meaning, that the natural exists in reality and is fact, beyond being disproved.
Science attempts to explain the natural by various theories, laws, and tested hypothesis. Even if the tests fail, the natural event which the tests were directed toward, exist. Earth exists. The science community can run tests, hypothesize, create theories and laws for centuries; if every single one failed, that still does not negate the earth as existing.
Supernatural, by definition, exists beyond the natural. Therefore, science, which is limited to testing of natural phenomenon, cannot test something (the supernatural) that exists beyond its limits. This is why the supernatural cannot be proven nor disproved. You can claim it is all imagination conjured up for comfort; yet you cannot prove that. This makes your claim an extraordinary claim lacking any evidence.
It is quite niche, so niche that I'd struggle to count how many people take two-way differences in the speed of light as a serious proposition.
So, we agree that light travels at a uniform rate. As I said, I did not even know that was a suggested argument.
On to the real debate:
Yes. There are many here who claim they have unambiguous evidence for their god claims. But no one has ever given unambiguous evidence for their claims. So I cite the fact of the complete lack of any unambiguous evidence for any god claim ever, that such claims are in fact hot air, and thus god claims are invalid. You can try for 'lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack' if you like, but lack of promised evidence is evidence that god believers can't support their claims as promised.
Let us focus on your claims, as I am not concerned with the claims of others who have no bearing or input within our dialogue.
Your citation is simply a lack of evidence for others' claims? This is illogical. As stated in a previous post by myself, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You can dismiss it all you like, but that fallacy still applies to you. Unless you can cite evidence, unambiguous evidence, that the Christian God does not exist, then you, by your own logic, have a claim that can be dismissed.
Mathematics, logic and thought are the products of a brain that works in a particular way. Mathematics is a modelling system and so is logic. They are tools invented by humans.
None of this is evidence of existence of mathematics, logic, or thought. You are arguing they exist without evidence.
We both agree logic exists. As do math and thought. Yet, neither one is evidenced by physical means (ie: natural in essence). These are abstract ideas, only alluded to by figurative representation. The same can be applied to the Christian deity.
I will not reference two points I made in the error post, along with your respective responses, in order to demonstrate a final point:
JSAN: So, can we both agree to maintain integral arguments? Thus far, you seem to be making absolute claims, using falsehoods as support. I would argue that is a lack of integrity.
STU: No, I am just dismissing your god claim as a delusion, on the basis that there is no unambiguous evidence for any. And there is no other kind of reason to believe you are right, and there are many reasons to believe you are deluded.
This is demonstrating that very lack of integrity. To classify someone as delusional, meaning to have a psychological deficiency, is rude at best, and evident of an arrogant, superiority-obsessed ego. I would not classify an atheist as "delusional," as I would understand that they are basing their views of theism on what they observe. The same for an agnostic. The same for most theists (exceptions always exist). However, for the anti-theist, what generally occurs is a preference of ignorance to any arguments or claims that are detrimental to their personal bias and leanings. Yet, even with this clear illogical attribute, I would not call them "delusional."
Now, you can dismiss all this, as I am sure you will, as trite musings of a theist. And that is fine, as it is your right. But, that does not make you correct in your analysis, nor conclusion. Once again, utilizing your own argumentative logic, unless you can provide evidence for this claim of delusion, then you can be dismissed as false.
JSAN: Also, burden of proof lies with both parties.
STU: In a criminal case, there is no burden of proof on the defence. In this case you are prosecuting the case for the existence of a god, and I cannot prove the non-existence, so you have the burden of proof exclusively.
This is false on two accounts. First, in criminal cases, the defense does have a burden of proof. We can claim that "innocent until proven guilty" is true, however, if a person is found with a bloody knife, next to the victim, with a motive, we would surely agree that the burden lies on the defendant to prove their innocence.
In criminal cases, burden lies with both parties to prove their respective side and story. Using the example of a criminal case is also akin to special pleading. Interesting how it is only a fallacy when utilized by your opposition, but perfectly acceptable when you use it.
As argued before, one can prove non-existence. I can prove unicorns do not exist as a reality outside of artistic culture. I can prove Bertrand Russell's Teapot does not exist, using a logical process of elimination. You are simply shifting burden of proof, because you cannot provide evidence for your extraordinary claim.
As a closing note, any argument that cannot stand upon the very criticisms and scrutiny that it levels against opposition, fails. Such an argument is illogical, for it cannot withstand mirrored scrutiny. Your claim, if it
relies on that argument, cannot stand upon its own criticism and scrutiny.
lain: He said 'in man' it demonstrates as being inquisitive. Trying to 'be' like our God, we are inquisitive. Why? Because we AREN'T omniscient. I don't agree with Cabinetmaker, but he didn't misspeak.
