Fair enough, and no hard feelings.
Pointless to you perhaps, but not to everyone. 'Winning' the argument may be a futile goal, but hopefully learning something from the arguments is achieved (or just, mental exercise). I can understand not wanting to get into it though, so by no means must you do so.

The above is not a direct answer, it's a dodge, you introduced the word cause in your answer. You are kind of saying - again - it's impossible for the universe to have existed (forever or not) without any cause. I think we all have got the message that you believe that.

But, you know you can't prove that, you know that's your belief (your choice). And so you should know that this belief of yours is conditional on circunstancial "causes" rather than some absolute truth. These circunstancial causes are for example where and when you were born and from whom.

Now, you are clearly a determinist, and as I hope you have observed (the above should make it very explicit) I am not. My belief is stuff happens without reasons/causes. Call it randomness, accident, chance, luck, or whatever you prefer - I believe you know the concept I am referring to.

It’s perfectly ok that you do not believe as I do as I know this is an unknowable fact. Noone can prove it one way or the other – it’s purely metaphysical belief. So, from humility, I find it very easy to say: I might be wrong, existence may have been caused by some supreme being.

Now, I hope you realize, I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right. The only thing I care about, is to understand if you, like me, are capable to admit the above, but with the reversed positions. Are you able to say: I might be wrong in my belief, maybe god does not exist? Maybe the universe is eternal. Maybe the universe started by luck.

If you can’t you are IMO just as much of an arrogant fundamentalist as any atheist that cannot admit existence may have been caused. Also, and at the risk of this being too personal, if you can't admit theoretically that your faith may be misguided, then I'd say your faith is brittle.

Just like there can't be courage without fear, so faith needs doubt.

It was not a mistake, it was deliberate. I told you ontology is BS because there is no need for a first mover.

And the leaf disturbs a wasp, which stings your hand,which causes a pain reflex, which moves a rock, moving a leaf, dis...
Just like your example this is not helpful.The universe is not a leaf.

I was talking about Crag, not Aquinas,but thanks for the lecture. His arguments are all baseless assumption, many of which don;t matter anymore.

It is very straightforward to call BS on, you repeating them doesn;t make em better. THERE MUST NOT BE A FIRST CAUSE,UNDERSTAND THIS. Infinite regression is possible, we know that now.

No, it musn't. There is no reason to assume that it is enormously powerful. A small snowflake can turn into an avalanche.

And this is where you show you haven't really understood why these arguments are from the dark ages.

Yeah you don't seem to understand the "necessarily follows" part when you repeat Crag Hacks BS.

This isn't a courthouse. Lies and hearsay aren't evidence.


The only implication is that what caused our universe most likely had a beginning,too, and that, and that and like I told you about 50 times now, infinite regression is possible. Aquinas did not know this, so he is excused. Crag Hack is making loads of money on his BS, so he is excused, you....sorry nope, not excused.

You don't know that. If time had a beginning, then it must have had a cause. And that cause must transcend time and immaterial! So, hence a pixie tried to measure time and thereby created it! Because how else can you measure something which doesn;t exist? Hello Crag, this is Louis,Crag, I'm so glad to have you back, where you belong!

Isn't the personality part of the soul? Then if it changes, so does the soul. But the concept of soul does not allow changes by definition.
Don't forget that this soul crap was all thought up before we knew that severe brain injuries can cause this kind of thing. Back then there was no brain surgery to keep these people alive. And if someone survived they probably assumed he was possessed by the devil or whatever.

There are many out there because it is very easy to do with what we now know. I searched for one at random, but I'm sure you can find better ones.
http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2013/12/18/craigs-five-ways-part-one/

That is a very slippery slope religious people usually avoid. Because the next question is how many books,people do you need to make any ridiculous claim real?

I disagree. The bible is evidence of god much like crop circles are evidence of frolicking aliens, mediums are evidence of spirits or noises in the dark are evidence of ghosts - provided you twist and narrow the meaning of "evidence" enough untill it's borderline useless.

(www.dictionary.com)
ev·i·dence [ev-i-duhns]
noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: The circles on the crops were visible evidence of frolicking aliens.

Of course, if what you're interested in is the truth then it's just like you said - neither the bible or the others i listed above are evidence of anything.

He has five, but deserves six. :P

Me not so good with numbers. :O

I had a feeling the imagery of frolicking aliens would capture your imagination.

If you want to use the example of frolicking aliens instead, then that still fits perfectly in line with how evidence is defined. Someone who sees crop circles and forms the belief in frolicking aliens has used them as grounds for their belief, and it has been proved to them that it is true, so it fits with both definitions. If you deny that there were grounds for their belief, then you are essentially saying that they formed a belief that was uncaused. Most people consider crop circles to be weak evidence of frolicking aliens because they weigh it against stronger evidence that indicates otherwise, but it is a misconception to say that weak evidence doesn't qualify as evidence. It is always possible to misinterpret evidence, so evidence is capable of making us extremely confident that our interpretation of what is true corresponds to objective truth, but it never shows anything to be objectively true. The stronger the evidence for something, the more confident we can be in our interpretation, and eventually we become confident enough that it justifies forming a belief that it is true aka it is proven to us.

No one forms beliefs that they think they aren't justified by evidence in forming. We are free to think that they are overconfident in their interpretation of evidence, that they have a lower standard of evidence, that the evidence more strongly indicates a different, mutually exclusive belief, or simply that the evidence is insufficient to justify our own belief, but it is illogical to deny that they used evidence in the formation of their belief. We do not have an objective standard of truth by which to compare their belief to and declare to be false, so our disagreement with others about what is true boils down to interpreting evidence differently than they do.

*sigh*

The reason why you think there is no need in the first place is because you confused the two. *sigh*

I'm not sure you could miss the point any harder if you tried. The example was of a causal series ordered per se, where each of the secondary causes in the chain has no power to move on their own and gains the ability to move only because of the primary cause, and in which each cause acts simultaneously. You can't have an infinite chain of secondary causes without a primary cause. I dumbfounded as to why you think I said the universe was a leaf... *sigh*

"logically lol lol lol, have you actually looked at what Sir Thomas Dumbass Aquinas wrote? First of all he assumes there can't be an endless regression of cause and effect. And then he immediatly jumps to the conclusion that the first cause must have been god.
Plus he basically just copied what Aristoteles said and planted god on top. "

You called him a dumbass and asked me if I had looked at what he wrote. Indeed, I have, but it is readily apparent that you never have, nor do you have a clue about how philosophy works. On the other hand, you're the one making the assumptions about what his arguments are. This is really getting to be painful. Not only do you completely misunderstand the argument from first cause, but you use your misunderstanding of that argument to argue against a completely different argument. Let me slow it down for you. If X is the cause of Y, X can't be dependent on Y for its existence, because then Y would be the cause of X. If a being created space and time then it can't be dependent on space and time for its existence. Oh really? I've love to see you demonstrate that claim. A snowflake can trigger an avalanche, but it can't create an avalanche from nothing. We can do all sorts of things with matter, but we can't create matter itself. /facepalm

Not only are the dark ages a myth, it is a logical fallacy to say that an argument is wrong because of when it was created. Go take a history class or read a few books about it. If you take a logic class, one of the first things that they will teach you is that if an argument as true premises and an valid form, then its conclusion is logically necessarily true. But don't let logic get in the way with you disagreeing with WLC. Ummm...I hate to tell you this, but dictionary definitions don't only apply in courthouses. It's generally helpful when evaluating evidence not to assume a priori that its lies and hearsay. And even then, if someone believed a lie and took it as grounds for their belief that something was true, then the lie is by definition evidence for that. You really have no excuse for claiming to know what Aquinas thought when you haven't read a thing he's written. In Aquinas' view, it was at least theoretically possible for a causal series ordered per accidens to regress to infinity and thus have no beginning point (ST 1.46.2). If you think infinite regress is possible in reality, then by all means demonstrate it. It's like you just make up what you think philosophy is, create a ridiculous straw man argument, and then think you're smarter than professional philosophers. If only someone had pointed out pixies WLC it would have defeated his whole argument. *sigh* This would be embarrassing for you knew enough to be embarrassed, so please, just go take a philosophy class or read some books on it.

Sorry, I didn't phrase it correctly. I should have said that it is logically impossible for us to exist if there is an infinite past without an external will existing. I think the cosmological arguments prove that it is logically necessary for God to exist. Even without those arguments, I think the historical evidence is enough to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, which is evidence of God's existence. Saying that my beliefs are conditional on where I was born and from whom is a genetic fallacy. Our universe is not characterized by random things popping in and out of existence uncaused. If you were walking along with someone and you heard a loud sound, you would naturally think that something had caused it. If they claimed that nothing had caused it, you would rightly regard them as crazy. Can you give me just one experience you've had of an event that was uncaused?

The universe is governed by laws such as gravity, which thankfully doesn't function randomly or by chance, but according to math that we can calculate to a high degree of accuracy. It might appear to us that an avalanche or a tornado happens randomly because we don't see the inner workings of what is causing them as they are happening, but we know that they are following laws inherent to nature. Luck is how we perceive improbable events, but there actually is no such thing as luck because any person who randomly flips a coin for long enough will always approach 50/50. Why don't metaphysical proofs count as proof? I've already said a number of times in this thread that I could be wrong about anything that I've interpreted to be true. As such, it's possible I could have misinterpreted the evidence for the resurrection and thereby wrong about the identity of the God that exists. I could be wrong about the premises or the form of an argument, but if they are true and valid, then I can't be wrong about the conclusion that follows is necessarily. If something is illogical, then regardless of whether I am right or wrong about it being illogical, it has no possibility of happening. Any number of logical things are possible, but I do not see how it is logical for luck to account for the existence of the universe, much less anything at all. No one knows with 100% certainty whether someone or something will turn out to be trustworthy, so faith can always be misplaced. Just as having courage is acting in spite of having fear, having faith is acting in spite of having doubt.

Dictionary definition of soul might include personality (and I'm not saying it's not connected) but the Bible is a bit more vague as to the definition.
We talk about Mind, Body and Soul as separate but connected things. I'm not saying that personality doesn't come from the soul in some way - I'd certainly like to think so - but we have no real knowledge of how it works.
As for the soul being unchangeable - if combined with the first, that would make it a logical impossibility (you've already said that personality changes as we grow) - so either we have no soul or the soul does not equal personality. You defined the soul as unchangeable for this argument. God is unchangeable but our souls can be tainted and then cleansed.
Another possibility is that the soul influences personality but can be interfered with by a damaged case (brain) in the same way that a perfectly good computer program can be interfered with by faulty hardware. thanks, I'll look at it later when I've more time.
Edit: Ok, it wasn't as long as I thought so I've read it - it deals with the first 2 points but makes the same groundless claims you have - I call it groundless because you've given the conclusion without the proof / method.
The rebuttal claims that there's no reason there can't be an infinite regress of causes, without saying why, and that "there's no shortage of viable explanations", without giving any.
The article mentions the multiverse as another possible solution, without going into Craig's arguments as to why that doesn't solve the problem.
You could just as well have linked me to your post. I'd suggest that somewhere between '1 comic cartoon' and 'hundreds of pieces of writing' there lies the answer that evidence is sufficient to make something worth a look. I can't give you an exact number of course, that's kind of subjective.
Your use of the word 'ridiculous' though is tainting your argument - if it's ridiculous, that already suggests it's not true (though sometimes 'ridiculous' things turn out to be true, like life thriving in arsenic).
I'm not saying that at a certain number of books, something becomes proven true. I'm saying that a long history of belief and writings that are full of wisdom should be worth considering as a possibility.
You, of course, need to look at it for yourself with an open mind to determine if it's true for you. If you find that it seems ridiculous, you can either close the book there or look for why other (including intelligent) people continue to believe it. Maybe you misunderstood something or maybe you lack the background knowledge for it.

Edit 2: I've done a quick search for 'infinite regression of causes' and found these 2 random sites:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=53110
http://anthonyflood.com/sadowskyendlessregress.htm

The first seems to liken it to a circle - but since the universe seems headed to end in entropy, and not a Gnab Gib (as in previous post), it doesn't seem to fit the model of our universe, despite the cycles in nature.
The 2nd seems to argue against it but I've not gotten all the way through it yet.

Does anyone have a link to explain infinite past regression of causes that fits our universe's model? (or just explain infinite regression better?)

The two what? Try to be more specific. The reason there is no need for a first cause is because there could be infinite regression, we know that now. About the 45th time I tell you.

I'm not sure you could miss the point any harder if you tried. The point was to tell you that your example is a strawman, but I hate that word, so I explained it with the flowers,bees and leaves.

Yes clearly I have never looked at it, and all the stuff I quote to you I came up with myself because I live in the dark ages and don't know shit. Or was that the other guy, am I "confusing the two"?

This is really getting to be painful. There could be other things it is dependent upon which we can't fathom, there is no reason to assume it is a "being" with a "mind".

I do that when you demonstrate something that isn't dependant on time and space.

There is no nothing. There is no need for anything to be created out of nothing.

Seriously are you a dumbass? The dark ages a myth? Old arguments can't be outdated, proven wrong? I guess that mindset is a necessity when you believe books that were created by mindless desert folk thousands of years ago.

Weird, I wonder how the two make sense in your mind, logic and Crag Hack.

Team jamotide created your god.

How?

Everyone is smarter than "professional philosophers" if that is the kind of BS you need to believe to become one. Why are pixies a strawman but not other gods?

omgs and you keep quoting definitions of logic

Man do you even read what you write? How does all this jive with logic?

Of course, no such thing as luck, but souls, gods,timeless spaceless being for sure!

That is kind of the definition of metaphysical,genius.

You will get there eventually.

Your problem is not faith, it is a fundamental misunderstand of logic and evidence.

Ah so you know it's all BS, but being the spiteful fighter you believe it anyway.