Brasas: Why not go full monty and call it divine revelation or the holy spirit while we are at it? I believe that the Bible contains knowledge that can only be known through divine revelation, so that can indeed provide a different type of certainty. However, arguing that God exists because there is divine revelation is circular, so I see no reason to bring it up in this discussion.
Brasas: Philosophers hold/assert that nothing can come from nothing. Ergo: Metaphysical transmutation is impossible.
I am really curious if you consider this an argument or just an assertion It's not just asserted, but good reasons are given for thinking is true. First, it is rooted in metaphysical intuition. To suggest otherwise is to quit doing serious metaphysics and resort to magic. Second, if something can come from nothing, then it is inexplicable why anything and everything do not come into existence uncaused from nothing. Lastly, it is strongly confirmed by our experience and everyone who benefits from science has strong motivation to accept it.
Brasas: Causality is necessary to prove existence has a cause.
You say this in the negative, that existence cannot be understood without causality. (Scientific distraction, as I said you would, you offer what are called hidden variables interpretations of atomic and particle behavior) The currently unpredictable behaviors of atoms are in an existent frame work, so they are not truly random and they don't show what you want it to show, that something can come from nothing.
Brasas: What you are doing here and throughtout the thread (apparently unconsciously - but I can't exclude bad faith) is defining a priori, and implicitly to boot, what is logical and what not. And therefore you assert a unique interpretation of the evidence to be THE valid one, refusing even to accept that the alternative interpretations MAY be valid.
You need evidence to interpret in order to have an interpretation, and you have neither evidence nor an interpretation. All you have is a hypothetical that you can't even show is logically coherent. I don't exclude other interpretations, but I do exclude things that are illogical. I'm not redefining logic because you could ask any logic professor and they'd tell you the same thing. The way to prove that something is not possible is to show that it is illogical, so I don't have to deal with the possibility of your hypothetical being true until you can show that it is at least logical.
Brasas: Your assertion is a valid logical proof, no mere argument, whereas the alternative is an illogical invalid fallacy. Easy to win any debate like that. It's almost as if the definition of logic itself and of causality and of what constitutues proof is implicitly part of the premises we disagree on.
I'm not asserting something is true, I'm giving good reasons to think the premises are true, then putting them in a logically valid deductive argument that serves as logical proof. It's easy to win only because you won't give a single reason to think your hypothetical is logical.
Brasas: Need I say it? This is why I keep calling you arrogant. And why I rethoricaly assert you must consider us to be in a lesser condition to yourself. We poor dark morons, or we poor fallen sinners.
It's perfectly possible for intelligent people to use poor arguments, but you're not using a bad argument, you're insisting on something that's illogical and you're refusing to back up your claim. I'll admit that behavior does reflect poorly on your intelligence, but that's all on you.
Brasas: Also, you insist on proof from others, without providing proof yourself. You offer a lot of arguments and evidence, but they are not universal undisputable proof. I at least twice have told you why I will not offer proof - I believe it is impossible to prove any metaphysical belief - we lack the tools - not science, nor logic, nor anything can prove such. You are the one wanting to prove, therefore the onus is on you, not on me.
You prove something is true when you show that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt, not when you've provided the impossible standard of universal indisputable proof. I've given lots of evidence for premises that shows that they are true beyond a reasonable doubt and put them in a logically valid deductive argument, where the truth of the premises grantee the truth of the conclusion, so I've done my job. Whether you think there is reasonable doubt is up to you, but you have given no reason to think that there is. If you wish to stick your head in the sand and insist that it is impossible to do what I've already done, then be my guest, but don't try to pass that off as me being arrogant.
Brasas: Bottom line, you offered logical arguments and empirical arguments. You were told where we see different possibilites that would falsify your premises. You are either incapable or unwilling to see through those other eyes and say, "you may be right, and I may be right, let's agree to disagree." Instead you repeatedly either ignore the objection out of hand (is sweeping under the rug a logical fallacy?) or restate your arguments as if we haven't understood them.
A hypothetical that has not been shown to be logically coherent does not yet count as a possibility. Even if were somehow able to show that it was possible, it would not challenge my premises until you had shown that it was more plausibly true. If you get to the point where you've made that effort, but we disagree on which premise is more plausible, only then we can agree to disagree.
Brasas: As devil's advocate
wink wink ;) I can embrace illogicality. I can postulate that the universe is illogical. There is no cause. We can never understand the universe and our existence. We imagine causes, conjure patterns to exist, but we are wrong. Examples of randomness, injustice, moral dilemmas abound. But of course you believe they are evidence of something else entirely; some hidden plan, from a hidden being, with a hidden will. Hiding from what? God only knows...
You are free to embrace illogicality and everyone else is just as free to dismiss you for being illogical. You can postulate all the illogical things that you want, but they're all impossible because they're all illogical. This is not very complicated.
Brasas: This ontological position is as tautological and dogmatic as yours. They are both epistemologically equivalent.
This is only true if you ignore everything I've presented.
