Where's God?

[POI]

Does he pop up in my dreams? Is he the one whom produces my goose-bumps? Is He the one giving me my "moral compass"? Is he only experienced during deep meditation? If I have enough faith, will he appear to me? But seriously. Where is he? I was a Christian for decades. I earnestly prayed for him to reach me, to no avail.

For debate: Why have I not felt his presence?

A) I never tried hard enough; lack faith
B) He does not want to reveal Himself to me (yet)
C) Evil is blocking the request(s)
D) I'm too dumb to realize he's reaching me
E) He's not really there at all <- Current conclusion

Do not answer yet. This topic has spawned from another unrelated topic. I decided to devote this large topic to itself. Below are some premises:

P1) does god exist? (dunno)
P2) does god want a relationship with all, especially the ones who seek him (apparently so)
P3) is god capable of communicating (apparently so)
P4) can god communicate his message in a way in which the recipient could no longer deny (apparently so)
P5) have I asked for this communication earnestly and repetitively (YES)
P6) does the Bible state god answers the call to all who seek him (YES)

At best, god has opted not to contact me YET. And this would be after decades of actively seeking him. Without any emotion, I'm logically left with 2 options.

A) God is not really there <- Current conclusion.
B) God is not adhering to his promise (yet).

[William]

Me: Where's God?

GOD: https://williamwaterstone.substack.com/ ... he-knowing

Me: That aims to challenge conventional thinking about god, aliens, and the nature of existence, advocating for "Freedom in The Knowing" - suggesting that understanding these hidden connections liberates one from limited worldviews.

GOD: The Imagination On The Right Track ... viewtopic.php?p=1072795#p1072795

Me: There I contribute, stating that belief in "God" is as natural as the universe itself, purely subjective, and not a problem unless it causes harm. I argue that darkness is simply ignorance, and belief in things "outside the universe" don't actually fix fear.

GOD: Exploring the Nature of Consciousness and Existence Through Humor and Thoughtful Discussion

You, me, the whole buzzing field...It is a process the individual personality must go through in order to reach beyond that...
Like an hourglass running empty
First Light A foggy forest.

Me: SO my question WHERE is God is about that...

GOD: Religious beliefs are a many-barbed growth wishing to own the rights on the mind behind creation = Puppets handing out sweets
As well as that pot of gold...

Effulgent Dungeons and Dragons
If it be cognitive then it can voice...
"What Is Remembering Itself Through Me?"
Extreme Balance
It Requires Corrective Action

Me: Fair enough. One could wander through life looking for GOD and never seeing...

GOD:

Me: Yes...if one is not looking to find, one will not find...

[SiNcE_1985]

The evidence either genuinely convinces her, or it doesn't. But sure, she could tell you she is not convinced, when internally, she really is in reality. At which point, she is only being intellectually dishonest.

And I honestly believe that is what you're doing.

Deep down, you know God exists, but you continually suppress him day after day (year after year)...and you come on here every day posting your little threads, looking for confirmation bias.

The same goes for many others.

As for evidence; look..

1. First Cause Arguments
2. Fine-Tuning Arguments
3. Ontological Argument (Modal)

^Should be able to convince any reasonable human being of a Creator.

And if it doesn't, I can only conclude that that folks just aren't reasonable, or they simply suppress reason because they don't like where reason takes them (taxicab fallacy).

This is exactly why I mentioned the Bible before, in (Romans 1:20), where the author tells the reader that all know that god exists. The ones who say they don't are just not being earnest. But this is clearly gaslighting some readers, (me included), as I see the exact opposite when I look around. You would have to accuse me of the same, which would be you accusing me of lying.

It is what it is (not being facetious).

You're too bright of a human being to not be persuaded by the evidence.

Something else is there.

If you conclude that a painting requires ID, but the painter doesn't...that is just simply intellectual dishonesty...and the taxicab fallacy.

Not only was geographics one very small piece, but it also was way more elaborate. And further, where I live has absolutely no relevance to my reason here, as I already explained. I also gave you many other reasons, for which you must have forgotten. Hence, there is no point in bringing them up, yet again, since the very little part you do remember, you blundered anyways.

What I remember pretty much sums up what you and others say, every time I mention it.

And since such a lame explanation doesn't correlate, my curiosity isn't satisfied..which is why I keep raising the point.

If God doesn't exist, then simply continue to live your godless life and be happy.

All of this constant devotion of prying away at it makes no sense, especially considering there isn't one theocratic Christian nation on the planet where all walks of life is guided by Biblical principles (Islamic style)...so to use that Christianity is the dominant religion where I live, is bogus.

Unless you give an answer here, I'm going to instead conclude that you concede that it is a legitimate question to ask; and directly opposes your assertion that this environment was created for us, when the vast majority is instead not suitable for us.

Oh, I get it..

When a theists admits he doesn't know or expressed ignorance to a posed question, he gets reprimanded.

But when an atheist/scientist doesn't know an answer to a question, it is the greatest example of modesty in the world.

That's wild.

As far as the question is concerned, if the uninhabitable part of the universe is evidence of God's nonexistent, then the inhabitable part of the universe should be evidence of his existence.

The two cancels each other out.

It's a wash.

Because this environment was not "designed" for us. If it was "designed" at all, it wasn't for us. But it likely was not intelligently' designed at all regardless.

Ok, cool.

Now explain fine-tuning on atheism/naturalism.

You can blatantly assert anything.

But can you blatantly offer a logical, demonstrable argument supporting it?

No, you can't.

- Did the man's urethra run directly through man's prostate before or after "the fall"?
- Did the epiglottis serve as its current function before or after "the fall"?
- Did the existence of an appendices exist before or after "the fall"?
- Did the woman's sex/birth pathway share the same area as her sterol pathway before or after "the fall"?
- Did the nerve connecting the brain to the larynx, (or voice box), takes a wildly inefficient detour -- where it loops all the way down into the chest and around the aorta before traveling back up to the throat, happen before or after "the fall"?
- Did the gene mutate (that prevents us from synthesizing our own Vitamin C) happen before or after "the fall"?
- Did the female birth canal become narrower before or after the "the fall'?

Without fine-tuning, you wouldn't even have the chemistry needed for any of that stuff to exist, much less function.

This is the cart-before-the-horse fallacy.

You have to explain the origins of such astronomical fine-tuning parameters, before you even begin to talk about structure and function.

I bet. Why do you think these young men go door-to-door for two years? But I digress...

Because false religion is an actual thing.

My point here is that I can just as easily accuse you of what you are accusing me. You simply have not read it, in earnest, enough. If you did, you would have true revelation and know how god's ways really work.

Um, no.

Rom 1:20 gets you to general theism, not to Christianity, specifically.

Your response here is as nonsensible as you stating that 'we both know what is north of the North Pole (and/or) asking what is colder than absolute zero'? Once you know, then some questions then become nonsensible.

That's not what I'm asking though.

Since ex materia can neither be created nor destroyed, your question is irrelevant.

And infinity cannot be traversed, or formed by successive addition....and both would have to be true if what you're stating is true.

And the first law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created nor destroyed) only comes into play, after the universe began to exist.

Now, I do agree in the first law, but that energy is God's energy, which is eternal.

That may be too much for you to handle, but it is what it is.

I already gave you a couple of hints. I guess you are not really the master "rubber stamper" you claim to be.

I don't know what a rubber stamper is.

Point missed (again) entirely. Since you have trouble tracking, I'll throw you a bone here. Here is a repeat of what I stated in post 376:

The same types of arguments are issued in the book of Mormon. Maybe you are not reading the book of Mormon hard enough, and are missing true revelation? (i.e.):

Moroni 10:3–5 (The Promise to Know Truth): This passage advises readers to read the record, ponder it, and ask God with a "sincere heart" and "real intent," promising that God will manifest the truth of it by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Ether 3:6–20 (The Brother of Jared): The Brother of Jared shows great faith, leading to a direct manifestation of God. This story is often cited as a model for how intense spiritual focus and faith can lead to seeing God.

I'm not missing the point, I'm explaining to you why I don't find the Book of Mormon credible...so your constant mention of the book is pointless.

Joseph wrote about the claimed events in question while he was still alive, which is even closer to the said events than what you can say for the claims of a Jesus. Further, Joseph claims to have found golden plates, which revealed all truth about the faith. Heck, there is even several bonafide witnesses to corroborate these events. So if your argument here is about being contemporary to the claimed events, then Mormonism, and it's claims, are much more contemporary.

Joseph Smith was a false prophet and Mormon beliefs contradict the Bible, which is the Christian "golden" standard.

Mormonism claims are contemporary to Mormonism, but not contemporary to historical and Orthodox Christianity.

And according to Paul, if you do not earnestly seek him, he still reveals himself.

That's not what Paul said, that's what he experienced.

He didn't say "Hey guys, if you persecute Christians, maybe Christ will reveal himself to you as he did with me".

That's what you seem to be suggesting, and it isn't true.

If true/direct revelation was required for Paul to follow Jesus, and millions/billions more would need the same action(s), why is Paul so special, being that all are loved equally by god?

God chooses who he chooses.

And again, Jesus said you are blessed based on what you haven't seen, and still believes.

That point cannot be dismissed as you are the one constantly going on and on about Paul...and this has been addressed by me, and Jesus.

I have, but according to Paul, it doesn't matter. God can and will contact anyone anyways, according to both the old and NT.

That's not what Paul said.

This is a <nothing burger> statement.

Everything about Christianity is a nothing-burger to an unbeliever.

Paul's conversion was a miraculous special occasion, that we should not expect for every single person.

Yes, and my point is Orthodox Jews aren't asking for Jesus.

Still closer to Jesus than atheists.

Anyone who does not possess the right faith, or no faith, go to the same hell. A matter of fact, many of them think Jesus is rotting in hell. And yet, Jesus apparently contacted one of them.

Right, and Jesus said that people who he won't contact (in that way) and yet still believes, are blessed.

So, be blessed.

This is false, as belief itself is a requirement

No one is denying that, and nothing I mentioned of what Jesus said contradicts that.

So what point you're making, I don't know.

; and many will not believe without direct proof, ala "Saul of Tarsus." So why is he avoiding these folks if he loves all humans?

Why aren't you believing despite not seeing, like billions of other folks, myself included?

Again, believing is not a choice. I'm not convinced unless I receive a "Damascus road experience", like Saul.

I guess you won't be convinced then.

If the environment was created with us humans in mind, then god would not have created a vital source, (in H2O), where 98% presents as poison.

Again, shout out the the 2%.

Bingo! Now just replace the word (hole) with (world) and you will get my point.

Ok, so tomorrow, I'm gonna go out and make a hole in the ground and pour water in so that it becomes a puddle.

If the puddle thinks, "this hole was fine-tuned just for me"....it would be correct, because it was.

So, BINGO!

I guess now you get MY point.

I don't even need to go there. You still have your work cut out for you with the "puddle" analogy alone, along with the identified flawed human "designs", as well as the abundance of poisonous water.

Looks to me like I just did...and fine-tuning remains unexplained.

You are hung up upon bad apologetic buzz terms. Until you can refute my responses above, throwing out teleological arguments are not going to save you.

I did more than refute. I conquered.

[POI]

And I honestly believe that is what you're doing.

Then you are honestly wrong (again).

As for evidence; look..

1. First Cause Arguments
2. Fine-Tuning Arguments
3. Ontological Argument (Modal)

^Should be able to convince any reasonable human being of a Creator.

Only if one is convinced by bad arguments, yes.

And if it doesn't, I can only conclude that that folks just aren't reasonable, or they simply suppress reason because they don't like where reason takes them (taxicab fallacy).

And then there's Venom, who is convinced by bad apologetics and also induces special pleading.

If you conclude that a painting requires ID, but the painter doesn't...that is just simply intellectual dishonesty...and the taxicab fallacy.

Assuming a painter must be designed just because a painting is designed is considered a poor argument because it relies on a flawed analogy and creates an infinite regress. Furthermore, it assumes the very premise it tries to prove while ignoring evolutionary processes and natural systems. And since you are an avid peer reviewed science denier, then there you go.

What I remember pretty much sums up what you and others say, every time I mention it.

Then your memory is quite fuzzy, even though I informed you more than once. Your continued rhetoric is in vein, as it presents with a false beginning premise.

Oh, I get it.. When a theists admits he doesn't know or expressed ignorance to a posed question, he gets reprimanded. But when an atheist/scientist doesn't know an answer to a question, it is the greatest example of modesty in the world. That's wild.

What is WILD, is asserting that an environmental space is made for us, while at the same time, knowing that the vast majority of this space repels against us. This is why your "I don't know' is a smoke screen to actually hide the 'gotcha.'

As far as the question is concerned, if the uninhabitable part of the universe is evidence of God's nonexistent, then the inhabitable part of the universe should be evidence of his existence. The two cancels each other out. It's a wash.

All this response represents is apologetic COPE.

Now explain fine-tuning on atheism/naturalism.

Already defeated in the (Carroll vs. Craig) debate circa 2014. We've been over this ad nauseum.

Without fine-tuning, you wouldn't even have the chemistry needed for any of that stuff to exist, much less function.

Nah, this is just an attempt to avoid the obvious, in that if there IS a designer at all, it is a very poor one. And since your god is perceived to be perfect, this does not jive with you.

Because false religion is an actual thing.

You bet it is. All believers think theirs is right. And I'm exchanging with someone who believes in one of those false ones right now.

Um, no. Rom 1:20 gets you to general theism, not to Christianity, specifically.

It's still wrong, as I see no 'god' there at all.

That's not what I'm asking though.

My point is your position, or line of questioning, is just as absurd as the (North Pole or absolute zero) points. Once you have the facts, they are absurd questions to ask.

And infinity cannot be traversed, or formed by successive addition....and both would have to be true if what you're stating is true.

Ergo more special pleading for the asserted invisible sky carcass. If your asserted god performs tasks, then he is performing a sequence of events, which means he too is abiding within time.

And the first law of thermodynamics (energy cannot be created nor destroyed) only comes into play, after the universe began to exist.

And eternal universe(s) have no 'beginning'.

Now, I do agree in the first law, but that energy is God's energy, which is eternal.

We know energy exists, and we also agree it is eternal. Now ALL you have to do is prove that energy is god. I won't hold my breath here though.

I don't know what a rubber stamper is.

It's you, that's what it is. I've explained ad nauseum.

I'm not missing the point, I'm explaining to you why I don't find the Book of Mormon credible...so your constant mention of the book is pointless.

It's more contemporary, has more bonafide eyewitnesses, and is more believable (as it pertains to found golden plates), verses the less contemporary anonymous claim(s) of a witness sky carcass claimed to have greeted select folks.

Joseph Smith was a false prophet

Funny, the Orthodox Jews say the exact same thing about Jesus.

and Mormon beliefs contradict the Bible

Funny, the Orthodox Jews say the exact same thing about NT, as it relates to the Torah.

That's not what Paul said, that's what he experienced. He didn't say "Hey guys, if you persecute Christians, maybe Christ will reveal himself to you as he did with me". That's what you seem to be suggesting, and it isn't true.

Nice exact word fallacy Venom. The fact that Paul tells his tale, lets the reader know that earnest seeking is neither necessary nor required.

God chooses who he chooses.

If he knows millions will be sent to hell, because they did not receive the same evidence as Paul and do not believe, then Jesus is effectively the one sending them to hell purposefully.

That point cannot be dismissed as you are the one constantly going on and on about Paul...and this has been addressed by me, and Jesus.

See directly above.

Still closer to Jesus than atheists.

It's irrelevant as anyone who misses the mark, in either a) believing in the wrong god, b) the wrong version of Christianity, or c) is an unbeliever, all go to the SAME place, hell.

No one is denying that, and nothing I mentioned of what Jesus said contradicts that. So what point you're making, I don't know.

Belief is a requirement and god knows that direct revelation is the only way for some to believe, and he deliberately chooses to avoid them anyways. Which means Jesus chooses their fate for them.

Again, shout out the the 2%.

Again, it's wild to assert an environment made for us, while most of the environment is discovered to instead be poison to us.

Ok, so tomorrow, I'm gonna go out and make a hole in the ground and pour water in so that it becomes a puddle. If the puddle thinks, "this hole was fine-tuned just for me"....it would be correct, because it was. So, BINGO! I guess now you get MY point.

Many holes are not man made. Many water filled holes are not man made. The metaphor comes as if the water comes to life, looks around, and makes false assumptions. I'll let you figure out the rest....

[SiNcE_1985]

Then you are honestly wrong (again).

I might be wrong, but I doubt it.

Only if one is convinced by bad arguments, yes.

Opinions.

And then there's Venom, who is convinced by bad apologetics and also induces special pleading.

Nothing burger.

Assuming a painter must be designed just because a painting is designed is considered a poor argument because it relies on a flawed analogy and creates an infinite regress.

What flawed analogy and what does infinite regress have to do with anything?

Furthermore, it assumes the very premise it tries to prove while ignoring evolutionary processes and natural systems.

No evolutionary process was demonstrated.

However, empty assertions were stated, though.

And since you are an avid peer reviewed science denier, then there you go.

Who are the peers?

Then your memory is quite fuzzy, even though I informed you more than once. Your continued rhetoric is in vein, as it presents with a false beginning premise.

Nothing burger.

What is WILD, is asserting that an environmental space is made for us, while at the same time, knowing that the vast majority of this space repels against us. This is why your "I don't know' is a smoke screen to actually hide the 'gotcha.'

Um, you're asking a why would God do X question..and I simply don't have an answer to every conceivable question you can think of, as such.

I don't know the mind of God.

If I asked you why does black widow spiders (females) kill their mates after or during copulation...would you know?

Are you in the mind of the spider? No.

Your ignorance doesn't change the fact that it gets done, just like my ignorance of why God did X doesn't change the fact that it was done.

All this response represents is apologetic COPE.

Um, no. It works both ways, as I demonstrated.

If 98% of uninhabited = no God.

Then..

2% inhabited = God.

Now, how do you love those apples?

Already defeated in the (Carroll vs. Craig) debate circa 2014. We've been over this ad nauseum.

Give me a time stamp of the debate, since that is what you're appealing to.

Nah, this is just an attempt to avoid the obvious, in that if there IS a designer at all, it is a very poor one. And since your god is perceived to be perfect, this does not jive with you.

God's intentions may not have been to make his creation "perfect"...in fact, the scriptures does not say things were made perfect, it says that things were made, "Good".

You bet it is. All believers think theirs is right. And I'm exchanging with someone who believes in one of those false ones right now.

Opinions.

It's still wrong, as I see no 'god' there at all.

Then maybe you need thicker glasses.

My point is your position, or line of questioning, is just as absurd as the (North Pole or absolute zero) points. Once you have the facts, they are absurd questions to ask.

I'm asking; how can infinity be traversed, on an infinite timeline.

Do you have an answer?

Ergo more special pleading for the asserted invisible sky carcass. If your asserted god performs tasks, then he is performing a sequence of events, which means he too is abiding within time.

Um, no.

If you knew anything about the KCA, then you'd know that the argument is not that God endured through infinite time.

And eternal universe(s) have no 'beginning'.

I understand your assertion, I'm asking you to demonstrate how infinity was traversed, on this past-eternal, infinite timescale.

And we both know you can't provide an adequate answer..and that should be enough for you to say "Hmmm, I can't provide an answer...and any answer I provide just doesn't work. I guess a timeless, external cause is necessary".

But, we also both know that you won't say/think this^, and you'll continue to harp on about how there is no evidence, when that is the evidence.

Intellectual dishonesty and if that is the case, I go back to pondering why would you continue wasting days, years, decades of life on a subject that you simply refuse to accept, despite evidence that you cannot refute.

We know energy exists, and we also agree it is eternal. Now ALL you have to do is prove that energy is god. I won't hold my breath here though.

It could not have been energy within the physical (natural realm). That's the point.

It's you, that's what it is. I've explained ad nauseum.

I guess I've been missing it.

It's more contemporary, has more bonafide eyewitnesses, and is more believable (as it pertains to found golden plates), verses the less contemporary anonymous claim(s) of a witness sky carcass claimed to have greeted select folks.

It is contemporary to Joseph Smith. It ain't contemporary to Jesus Christ.

Big difference.

Funny, the Orthodox Jews say the exact same thing about Jesus.

Ok, and Messianic Jews say the exact thing I'm saying about Jesus.

Funny, the Orthodox Jews say the exact same thing about NT, as it relates to the Torah.

Funny, Messianic Jews accept the NT and the Torah.

I actually have a good buddy who is a Messianic Jew...and he sends me daily scriptures from the Bible, from both the OT and NT.

Nice exact word fallacy Venom. The fact that Paul tells his tale, lets the reader know that earnest seeking is neither necessary nor required.

The Bible does. Heb 11:6.

If he knows millions will be sent to hell, because they did not receive the same evidence as Paul and do not believe, then Jesus is effectively the one sending them to hell purposefully.

If God doesn't exist and Christianity is false, no one is going to Hell anyway.. so it is a dead issue, isn't it..ye unbeliever?

And I keep repeating what Jesus said about those who have not seen...and you keep ignoring it so hey, nothing more to say.

See directly above.

I saw.

It's irrelevant as anyone who misses the mark, in either a) believing in the wrong god, b) the wrong version of Christianity, or c) is an unbeliever, all go to the SAME place, hell.

I concede that point.

Belief is a requirement and god knows that direct revelation is the only way for some to believe, and he deliberately chooses to avoid them anyways. Which means Jesus chooses their fate for them.

Um, no.

There is no guarantee (or evidence) that direct revelation will cause people to believe.

In the OT, people believed, and still turned away.

In the NT, some of Jesus' disciples stopped following him, despite being direct witnesses to him.

So, you are speculating...and making excuses that just doesnt fly.

Again, it's wild to assert an environment made for us, while most of the environment is discovered to instead be poison to us.

Have you been poisoned? No. Well then.

Many holes are not man made. Many water filled holes are not man made. The metaphor comes as if the water comes to life, looks around, and makes false assumptions. I'll let you figure out the rest....

Yeah, and many physical objects aren't necessarily fine-tuned (in and of themselves).

A gray rock isn't fine-tuned, but an automobile is.

One fine-tuned object does not negate one that isn't, and vice versa.

So your analogy just doesn't work, does it?

[POI]

I might be wrong

You are wrong. I am not suppressing. The fact that you have "forgotten" all the reasons I actually attend this forum is exactly why you are wrong here.

Opinions.

No, facts. Case/point, the reason I brought up the 'puddle' analogy (in the first place) is because it completely debunks the hot-garbage 'fine-tuning' argument you keep spewing out again and again and again in virtually every thread i exchange with you. I will demonstrate more below as to how it does completely debunk this apologetic.

What flawed analogy and what does infinite regress have to do with anything?

Because it uses a rule of explanation ("complex things require a prior creator") but inconsistently exempts the proposed creator from that very rule. If the ultimate painter must possess immense complexity to design the universe, that painter would logically require their own designer, and so on forever. You then have to invoke special pleading to stop at 'god'.

No evolutionary process was demonstrated. However, empty assertions were stated, though.

Then you do not understand what the term <peer review> actually means sir. Do you reject all <peer reviewed> science, or just the ones which threaten your faith? Don't bother, we all already know the answer.

Um, you're asking a why would God do X question..and I simply don't have an answer to every conceivable question you can think of, as such.

No Venom, you are not wiggling your way out of this. Sorry. In order for your assertion to make ANY sense at all, you need to explain why you think (WE humans) are the focus when we clearly aren't?

I don't know the mind of God.

Pick a lane Venom. Then stop acting like you do.

If I asked you why does black widow spiders (females) kill their mates after or during copulation...would you know?

Because it provides vital nutrition for their developing eggs.

Your ignorance doesn't change the fact that it gets done, just like my ignorance of why God did X doesn't change the fact that it was done.

'Hey Venom, I created this location with you in mind. But watch out, even though I created this environment with YOU in mind, the vast majority is actually not suitable for you." Refer to the "puddle" story for the rest -- as the natural puddle is in the natural hole.

Um, no. It works both ways, as I demonstrated. If 98% of uninhabited = no God. Then.. 2% inhabited = God. Now, how do you love those apples?

Your 'apple' is rotten to the core Venom. The puddle story explains. Just keep studying it until it finally soaks in for you.

Give me a time stamp of the debate, since that is what you're appealing to.

God's intentions may not have been to make his creation "perfect"...in fact, the scriptures does not say things were made perfect, it says that things were made, "Good".

This is more cope. So "good" includes all the points I listed, a few posts back, for which you completely skipped, sighting an irrelevant excuse?

I'm asking; how can infinity be traversed, on an infinite timeline.

Well, god would have to abide by the same exact rules, being that causal events require time. The point is you must invoke the same special pleading in which you accuse the naturalist of committing. The difference is that you infer an invisible sky carcass as the cause, where the naturalist instead appeals to demonstrated phenomenon.

Um, no. If you knew anything about the KCA, then you'd know that the argument is not that God endured through infinite time.

The (KCA) uses special pleading because it asserts the premise that "everything that begins to exist has a cause," but then arbitrarily exempts its proposed first cause (God) from that rule by claiming (God is eternal) and therefore doesn't have a beginning. If god is 'eternal', it creates internal logical contradictions. If God is truly timeless, He cannot think, make decisions, or interact with the universe. Action and consciousness require a sequence of events—a "before" and "after"—which inherently requires time. Again, you must be quite fallacious to hold to this nonsense.

Luckily, we do not have to do that since "something" has always existed (energy/other), which negates 'creationism' in the first place. Again, unless you can prove or demonstrate that (energy = god????)

It could not have been energy within the physical (natural realm). That's the point.

See my question above.

It is contemporary to Joseph Smith. It ain't contemporary to Jesus Christ. Big difference.

Point missed (again)...

Your argument is that the 'NT" is contemporary to Jesus and his actions, which is why it is more believable. My point is that the Book of Mormon is even more contemporary to Joseph smith and his asserted actions. You then pivoted, by saying he's a false prophet. Which means that being contemporary is irrelevant for you. You just don't believe him, but believe the other, even though we have more bonafide evidence for the one you reject. As for me, I reject them both because they both sound quite crazy, not just one of them.

Ok, and Messianic Jews say the exact thing I'm saying about Jesus.

I did not say Messianic, I said Orthodox. Big difference.

Funny, Messianic Jews accept the NT and the Torah.

Again, see above.

If God doesn't exist and Christianity is false, no one is going to Hell anyway.. so it is a dead issue, isn't it..ye unbeliever?

The point here is, god can 'zap' anyone he wants, because he knows that's the only way they will believe. And belief is a requirement. So not 'zapping' those millions/billions means he wants them in hell. But yea, he's a loving god to all.

I concede that point.

Um, no. There is no guarantee (or evidence) that direct revelation will cause people to believe. In the OT, people believed, and still turned away. In the NT, some of Jesus' disciples stopped following him, despite being direct witnesses to him. So, you are speculating...and making excuses that just doesnt fly.

Without belief, they 100% go to hell, right? I'll answer for you, using your worldview, yes. If they are not zapped, they have NO chance in hell, pun inntended.

Have you been poisoned? No. Well then.

Millions/billions have. But yea, god is love and created an environment for US.

Yeah, and many physical objects aren't necessarily fine-tuned (in and of themselves). A gray rock isn't fine-tuned, but an automobile is. One fine-tuned object does not negate one that isn't, and vice versa. So your analogy just doesn't work, does it?

You almost had it, and then you lost it again. The "Puddle Analogy" (Anthropic Principle): Douglas Adams famously compared the argument to a puddle that wakes up one day and thinks, “This hole fits me so perfectly, it must have been made to have me in it!” In reality, the universe didn't adapt to fit us; rather, we evolved to fit the universe we found ourselves in.

Let's try something different, since you keep missing it. How can one tell the difference between:

a) something intelligently designed (vs)
b) produced by way of naturalism

[William]

The (KCA) uses special pleading because it asserts the premise that "everything that begins to exist has a cause," but then arbitrarily exempts its proposed first cause (God) from that rule by claiming (God is eternal) and therefore doesn't have a beginning. If god is 'eternal', it creates internal logical contradictions. If God is truly timeless, He cannot think, make decisions, or interact with the universe. Action and consciousness require a sequence of events—a "before" and "after"—which inherently requires time. Again, you must be quite fallacious to hold to this nonsense.

Luckily, we do not have to do that since "something" has always existed (energy/other), which negates 'creationism' in the first place. Again, unless you can prove or demonstrate that (energy = god????)

The CCA resolves this.

[SiNcE_1985]

You are wrong. I am not suppressing. The fact that you have "forgotten" all the reasons I actually come here and debate is also your wrong.

Example I've used before...

Star Wars, I was never a fan.

Nothing about it has ever appealed to me...not the storyline. Not the characters. Nothing.

That said, you won't find me on Star Wars fan forums arguing or debating about any matters related to it.

It has no bearing on my life whatsoever, and I am a super NON-fan.

So why would I completely engulf my life around it? Year after year.

Huh?

That is what you're doing with Christianity. You reject it.

So leave it alone. Simple.

No, facts. Case/point, the reason I brought up the 'puddle' analogy (in the first place) is because it completely debunks the hot-garbage 'fine-tuning' argument you keep spewing out again and again and again in virtually every thread i exchange with you. I will demonstrate more below as to how it does completely debunk this apologetic.

Will you? Please do.

Because it uses a rule of explanation ("complex things require a prior creator") but inconsistently exempts the proposed creator from that very rule. If the ultimate painter must possess immense complexity to design the universe, that painter would logically require their own designer, and so on forever. You then have to invoke special pleading to stop at 'god'.

Um, that's the point, it cannot go on forever.

That is the whole point of the argument against infinite regress.

Infinite regression is impossible, so there must be a first cause.

This is not special pleading, this is an appeal to the best explanation...and atheism (naturalism) just simply doesn't have the explanatory power needed to explain the stuff that needs to be explained.

Then you do not understand what the term <peer review> actually means sir. Do you reject all <peer reviewed> science, or just the ones which threaten your faith? Don't bother, we all already know the answer.

I asked who are the peers?

More than likely, the same folks who already believes in the stuff.

No Venom, you are not wiggling your way out of this. Sorry. In order for your assertion to make ANY sense at all, you need to explain why you think (WE humans) are the focus when we clearly aren't?

I already addressed this.

Pick a lane Venom. Then stop acting like you do.

I don't act like I do.

Because it provides vital nutrition for their developing eggs.

Did the spider tell you that?

Or are you acting like you know the mind of the spider?

'Hey Venom, I created this location with you in mind. But watch out, even though I created this environment with YOU in mind, the vast majority is actually not suitable for you." Refer to the "puddle" story for the rest -- as the natural puddle is in the natural hole.

We don't inhabit the vast majority of the environment that ain't suitable for us, though.

Looks like we were carefully placed into the 2% that is, though.

Your 'apple' is rotten to the core Venom. The puddle story explains. Just keep studying it until it finally soaks in for you.

Nothing burger.

Yeah, and Dr. Craig responded to Sean Carroll's bit, about fine-tuning.

Did you see that part? Wanna share it?

This is more cope. So "good" includes all the points I listed, a few posts back, for which you completely skipped, sighting an irrelevant excuse?

You said perfect. The Bible says good.

Moving along.

Well, god would have to abide by the same exact rules, being that causal events require time. The point is you must invoke the same special pleading in which you accuse the naturalist of committing. The difference is that you infer an invisible sky carcass as the cause, where the naturalist instead appeals to demonstrated phenomenon.

Um, you were asked a question. I asked how can infinity be traversed, on naturalism?

And instead of answering the question, you've deflected to God.

We can address God after you've answered my question.

How can an infinite amount of points be traversed, on an infinite timeline from past eternity, on naturalism?

The question stands.

The (KCA) uses special pleading because it asserts the premise that "everything that begins to exist has a cause," but then arbitrarily exempts its proposed first cause (God) from that rule by claiming (God is eternal) and therefore doesn't have a beginning. If god is 'eternal', it creates internal logical contradictions. If God is truly timeless, He cannot think, make decisions, or interact with the universe. Action and consciousness require a sequence of events—a "before" and "after"—which inherently requires time. Again, you must be quite fallacious to hold to this nonsense.

I find it amazing that you're quick to call the act of God enduring infinite time, as fallacious...but when it comes to the universe doing the same thing, everything is fine and dandy.

Talk about special pleading.

Again, God did not endure through infinite time, and we'll address that once you answer my question above.

Luckily, we do not have to do that since "something" has always existed (energy/other), which negates 'creationism' in the first place. Again, unless you can prove or demonstrate that (energy = god????)

Infinite regress. Impossible.

Point missed (again)...
Your argument is that the 'NT" is contemporary to Jesus and his actions, which is why it is more believable. My point is that the Book of Mormon is even more contemporary to Joseph smith and his asserted actions.

This is nonsense.

Mormonism is an offshoot of Christianity, and for it to hold any weight, the beliefs must be contemporary from the foundation of the belief system itself...which is Christianity.

Nothing about Orthodox Christianity is dependent upon what someone claims they saw 2,000 years later.

The standard was set 2,000 years prior, and if you (or your beliefs) aren't contemporary to that standard, then you are a fraud.

So just drop the Mormon stuff, capesh?

You then pivoted, by saying he's a false prophet.

He was.

Which means that being contemporary is irrelevant for you. You just don't believe him, but believe the other, even though we have more bonafide evidence for the one you reject. As for me, I reject them both because they both sound quite crazy, not just one of them.

Opinions.

I did not say Messianic, I said Orthodox. Big difference.

Those who reject the historical evidence for Jesus, has no bearing on those who accepts it.

The point here is, god can 'zap' anyone he wants, because he knows that's the only way they will believe. And belief is a requirement. So not 'zapping' those millions/billions means he wants them in hell. But yea, he's a loving god to all.

God could also create a universe from nothing, and one that is fine-tuned and discoverable, which he did.

And that in itself should be enough to convince a reasonable person.

Without belief, they 100% go to hell, right? I'll answer for you, using your worldview, yes. If they are not zapped, they have NO chance in hell, pun inntended.

Then I guess it's in their best interest to believe.

Millions/billions have. But yea, god is love and created an environment for US.

This is a red herring.

I'm still waiting on fine-tuning to be explained, on naturalism.

You almost had it, and then you lost it again. The "Puddle Analogy" (Anthropic Principle): Douglas Adams famously compared the argument to a puddle that wakes up one day and thinks, “This hole fits me so perfectly, it must have been made to have me in it!” In reality, the universe didn't adapt to fit us; rather, we evolved to fit the universe we found ourselves in.

I am aware of the puddle analogy. Instead of red herringly explaining what the analogy is, how about directly addressing what I had said?

Let's try something different, since you keep missing it. How can one tell the difference between:

a) something intelligently designed (vs)
b) produced by way of naturalism

Been there, done that.

1. Order.
2. Purpose.
3. Function.

A system that has all 3 of those components, we recognize as a product of ID.

Our universe began with astronomically low entropy, which means it wasn't a random, chaotic event.

It was an intelligently ordered event, and mathematically precise....which has all the markings of a powerful, intelligent, casual agent.

[POI]

So why would I completely engulf my life around it? Year after year. Huh? That is what you're doing with Christianity. You reject it.

And the circle(s) continue... I've explained my case to you, over and over and over again. But you've basically forgot almost all of it. This time, please make an extra special note:

I come here because:

- Most of my immediate family are religious, talk about it frequently; and as not to invite discord, I like to exchange with folks for which will not cause permanent damage -- (anonymous is key here).

- Debating topics like religion and politics keeps my brain sharp, as it delves into so many sub-topics. Hence, since I'm very familiar with Christianity, I feel I have a good base to start from, as opposed to other world faiths.

- I enjoy debating people with opposite views, which is why I do not like to engage atheists or people who share more-so similar positions - (it's boring).

- It's fun

- I can relate with my opponent here as I used to be on their side for decades.

- It's fascinating to see why people really believe in invisible agencies.

So please Venom, please remember this time.

Um, that's the point, it cannot go on forever.

You've missed the point here. A designer must possess greater intelligence and complexity than the object it designs. Which then means something more complex must have created 'god'. And this goes on forever.

Infinite regression is impossible, so there must be a first cause.

This is just another argument from ignorance on your part.

An infinite regress is not impossible because, within logic and mathematics, infinite chains and series are completely coherent and consistent.

I asked who are the peers?

The ones trying to challenge or discredit the scientific data and become their own heroes by proving the study wrong... Peer review is not about taking a "democratic" vote. It is instead about putting the money where the mouth is and seeing if others can disprove it. When enough can't, and the same test results are yielded time and time again by all others, it eventually becomes scientific theory. This works for all theory, such as "gravity", "cell", "germ", and yes, even the one you hate -- 'evolution.'

The big 'E' threatens your entire livelihood. Hence, it must be a 'conspiracy.'

I already addressed this.

If you really and truly did, it would be yet another point of concession.

Did the spider tell you that? Or are you acting like you know the mind of the spider?

Nope. Arachnologists have extensively documented the behavior in the wild and in labs. It is an evolutionary survival strategy in which the male provides vital nutrients for the female's eggs or sacrifices himself to ensure successful reproduction.

We don't inhabit the vast majority of the environment that ain't suitable for us, though. Looks like we were carefully placed into the 2% that is, though.

The puddle analogy continues to elude you.

Did you see that part? Wanna share it?

You asked for the timestamp. I did you one better and spoon fed you the precise monologue. Did you even watch it? Do you feel they are all refuted? Here's the kicker, if you watched until the end, Dr. Carroll himself even stated they can all be "refuted" because ex post facto argumentation is a thing, and further, theism is not well defined.

You said perfect. The Bible says good. Moving along.

Not letting you wiggle away from this too Venom, due to a perceived 'technicality'... Then is it 'good' to create a urethra which goes through the middle of a prostate, or to create a shared food/air pathway prone to choking and dying, a seemingly useless appendix -- prone to rupture, a narrowed birth canal, a woman's unsterile pleasure organ sharing a sterile area -- prone to infection, a loopy larynx for no reason, etc etc etc? Are these "good" designs?

I find it amazing that you're quick to call the act of God enduring infinite time, as fallacious...but when it comes to the universe doing the same thing, everything is fine and dandy.

Focus up Venom. The universe is not claimed to possess a "mind" or to be outside of "time". Again, I stated "If God is truly timeless, He cannot think, make decisions, or interact with the universe. Action and consciousness require a sequence of events—a "before" and "after"—which inherently requires time.". The universe is not claimed to be 'timeless.' Yet again, arguing for anything outside time is like asking what is north of the North Pole?

I know you cannot address this, hence, you are looking for a way to wiggle out of yet another poor apologetic.

Again, God did not endure through infinite time, and we'll address that once you answer my question above.

Again, without "time", god cannot do anything.

Infinite regress. Impossible.

Again, we seem to agree that energy is eternal. Here is maybe your very last bastion of hope. Please demonstrate that (energy = god).

Mormonism is an offshoot of Christianity, and for it to hold any weight, the beliefs must be contemporary from the foundation of the belief system itself...which is Christianity. Nothing about Orthodox Christianity is dependent upon what someone claims they saw 2,000 years later. The standard was set 2,000 years prior, and if you (or your beliefs) aren't contemporary to that standard, then you are a fraud. So just drop the Mormon stuff, capesh?

You are very easily triggered by expressed religious doctrines in which you reject, which is causing you to continue missing my point entirely. Your argument was about how the stories of Jesus were contemporary, which is what makes them more credible. But as soon as I present one, which is even more contemporary, you immediately pivoted to how untrustworthy it is. Which tells me your argument about your belief system being contemporary has nothing to do with why you really believe. Capeesh? So please drop that apologetic too, as it is not why you or I would be convinced anyways.

God could also create a universe from nothing, and one that is fine-tuned and discoverable, which he did. And that in itself should be enough to convince a reasonable person.

Please do not deflect. This point is important here. If god knows that many will not believe without direct revelation, where belief is a requirement, and god reveals to some, but not others, then it is god who is sending those individuals to hell. And yet, god loves all?

This is a red herring.

It most certainly is not. Countless folks have died from drinking poisonous water. If humans are the focus, and humans are both comprised mostly of water and also require it to drink, why did god create the majority of it to be poisonous to us?

I'm still waiting on fine-tuning to be explained, on naturalism.

The puddle story already does, and you continue to fumble it. Further, since you are a science denier, that convo would likely go nowhere either.

I am aware of the puddle analogy.

This statement is unfortunately not true.

1. Order.
2. Purpose.
3. Function.

A system that has all 3 of those components, we recognize as a product of ID.

You forgot irreducible complexity. And the Dover trial already blew the ID argument out of the water. The theists tucked tale and ran.

Our universe began with astronomically low entropy, which means it wasn't a random, chaotic event. It was an intelligently ordered event, and mathematically precise....which has all the markings of a powerful, intelligent, casual agent.

Intelligently ordered for what or who? Please do not again assert humans. Further, the math is not on your side. Dr. Carroll explains why. And additionally, an all-powerful being would not need to create any special set of conditions for creation. Otherwise, this would mean this all-powerful agency is bound by naturalism. Did you even watch the video?

[SiNcE_1985]

And the circle(s) continue... I've explained my case to you, over and over and over again. But you've basically forgot almost all of it. This time, please make an extra special note:

I come here because:

- Most of my immediate family are religious, talk about it frequently; and as not to invite discord, I like to exchange with folks for which will not cause permanent damage -- (anonymous is key here).

- Debating topics like religion and politics keeps my brain sharp, as it delves into so many sub-topics. Hence, since I'm very familiar with Christianity, I feel I have a good base to start from, as opposed to other world faiths.

- I enjoy debating people with opposite views, which is why I do not like to engage atheists or people who share more-so similar positions - (it's boring).

- It's fun

- I can relate with my opponent here as I used to be on their side for decades.

- It's fascinating to see why people really believe in invisible agencies.

So please Venom, please remember this time.

If you wanna keep your mind sharp, play chess. Learn new languages. Try to diffuse a bomb in 5 seconds. Anything besides debating, discussing, and thinking about a religion that you don't believe in.

Seems diabolical, and a waste of one's life.

You've missed the point here. A designer must possess greater intelligence and complexity than the object it designs. Which then means something more complex must have created 'god'. And this goes on forever.

No, YOU'VE missed the point.

It can't go on forever. That is the point.

This is just another argument from ignorance on your part.

An infinite regress is not impossible because, within logic and mathematics, infinite chains and series are completely coherent and consistent.

Ok then, explain how we can arrive at the current hour, if an infinite amount of hours preceded it?

Let's see how coherent and consistent this actually is.

And if you can provide an adequate answer, I will abandon my Christian faith and become an atheist.

Enlighten me.

The ones trying to challenge or discredit the scientific data and become their own heroes by proving the study wrong... Peer review is not about taking a "democratic" vote. It is instead about putting the money where the mouth is and seeing if others can disprove it. When enough can't, and the same test results are yielded time and time again by all others, it eventually becomes scientific theory. This works for all theory, such as "gravity", "cell", "germ", and yes, even the one you hate -- 'evolution.'

Put your money where your mouth is, and demonstrate how infinity can be traversed, thus debunking the First Cause argument.

None of your peers can help you with this one, not even an infinite amount.

The big 'E' threatens your entire livelihood. Hence, it must be a 'conspiracy.'

Evolution has no bearing on the Christian faith, it does, however, threaten your atheism.

If you really and truly did, it would be yet another point of concession.

A concession that is very few and far between.

Nope. Arachnologists have extensively documented the behavior in the wild and in labs. It is an evolutionary survival strategy in which the male provides vital nutrients for the female's eggs or sacrifices himself to ensure successful reproduction.

Regular ole copulation should be enough to get the job done.

No cannibalism needed.

You (and scientists) are offering bio-babble of the gaps, that's all it is.

The puddle analogy continues to elude you.

I already put that one to rest, what else do you got?

You asked for the timestamp. I did you one better and spoon fed you the precise monologue. Did you even watch it? Do you feel they are all refuted? Here's the kicker, if you watched until the end, Dr. Carroll himself even stated they can all be "refuted" because ex post facto argumentation is a thing, and further, theism is not well defined.

Thank you for for providing it and I did watch it.

The problem is; Dr. Craig responded and in his response, he quoted Dr. Carroll stating in other sources that fine-tuning is a problem.

And it is a problem, because if it weren't, you wouldn't have cosmologists trying to explain it away...after all, that is partly why the multiverse theory exists in the first place.

Not letting you wiggle away from this too Venom, due to a perceived 'technicality'... Then is it 'good' to create a urethra which goes through the middle of a prostate, or to create a shared food/air pathway prone to choking and dying, a seemingly useless appendix -- prone to rupture, a narrowed birth canal, a woman's unsterile pleasure organ sharing a sterile area -- prone to infection, a loopy larynx for no reason, etc etc etc? Are these "good" designs?

God created it how he wanted to create it.

Focus up Venom. The universe is not claimed to possess a "mind"

But it is claimed to somehow, within it, built minds occupied by brains.

or to be outside of "time". Again, I stated "If God is truly timeless, He cannot think, make decisions, or interact with the universe. Action and consciousness require a sequence of events—a "before" and "after"—which inherently requires time.". The universe is not claimed to be 'timeless.' Yet again, arguing for anything outside time is like asking what is north of the North Pole?

I know you cannot address this, hence, you are looking for a way to wiggle out of yet another poor apologetic.

I'd like my question answered, please.

Again, without "time", god cannot do anything.

Please answer the question.

Again, we seem to agree that energy is eternal. Here is maybe your very last bastion of hope. Please demonstrate that (energy = god).

Please answer the question.

You are very easily triggered by expressed religious doctrines in which you reject, which is causing you to continue missing my point entirely. Your argument was about how the stories of Jesus were contemporary, which is what makes them more credible. But as soon as I present one, which is even more contemporary, you immediately pivoted to how untrustworthy it is. Which tells me your argument about your belief system being contemporary has nothing to do with why you really believe. Capeesh? So please drop that apologetic too, as it is not why you or I would be convinced anyways.

Neither Joseph Smith nor his followers were contemporary to Jesus.

But, Jesus was contemporary to himself, and so were his followers.

Jesus and his teachings (and the subsequent teachings of his apostles) is the standard.

Contrary to that^, Joseph Smith and his followers
are/were NOT the standard...so we don't need to listen or follow them in any capacity.

Now, if you can't understand the dynamics of that, then I can't help you.

You are offering a false equivalency, which is, of course, fallacious.

Please do not deflect.

No, deflecting is what you're doing above^, with the question I've asked you at least 3 times.

This point is important here. If god knows that many will not believe without direct revelation, where belief is a requirement, and god reveals to some, but not others, then it is god who is sending those individuals to hell. And yet, god loves all?

Um, I've addressed this, and my answer will not change.

It most certainly is not. Countless folks have died from drinking poisonous water. If humans are the focus, and humans are both comprised mostly of water and also require it to drink, why did god create the majority of it to be poisonous to us?

Countless folks have died from falling off cliffs, too.

I guess we're going to blame God for that as well.

The puddle story already does, and you continue to fumble it. Further, since you are a science denier, that convo would likely go nowhere either.

And I gave a scenario where I, an intelligent entity, created the hole for the puddle.

So if the puddle made such an assessment of "this hole seems as if was made just for me", it would be correct.

You did not offer any viable response to that, so I take that to mean that my response did damage to the analogy.

So, it stands.

This statement is unfortunately not true.

It is very true. The analogy was used in Lee Strobel's book; A Case For a Creator...which I read over 10 years ago.

You forgot irreducible complexity.

Forgot it?

I guess I shouldn't have assumed that you would have known that irreducible complexity requires those 3 parameters (order, purpose, function) to be met.

And the Dover trial already blew the ID argument out of the water. The theists tucked tale and ran.

Injustice.

Intelligently ordered for what or who? Please do not again assert humans. Further, the math is not on your side. Dr. Carroll explains why. And additionally, an all-powerful being would not need to create any special set of conditions for creation. Otherwise, this would mean this all-powerful agency is bound by naturalism. Did you even watch the video?

Again, Dr. Craig addressed those points that Carroll made...and one of those reasons that Craig laid out is; the conditions/parameters of the universe is what makes the world discoverable...and allows guys like Carroll to conduct experiments and "discover" those parameters and conditions.

And second, it's not a matter how or what God "needed" to do...its a matter of what God wanted to do.

God does things his way, and we are in no position to sit there and try to dictate anything.

I know you don't like answers like that, but it is what it is.

[POI]

If you wanna keep your mind sharp, play chess. Learn new languages. Try to diffuse a bomb in 5 seconds. Anything besides debating, discussing, and thinking about a religion that you don't believe in. Seems diabolical, and a waste of one's life.

I trust now you will stop falsely accusing me of being a "secret god believer", which is the ONLY reason I repeated some of my reasons for attending this forum to you (again).

It can't go on forever. That is the point.

Of course it can.

Ok then, explain how we can arrive at the current hour, if an infinite amount of hours preceded it? Let's see how coherent and consistent this actually is. And if you can provide an adequate answer, I will abandon my Christian faith and become an atheist. Enlighten me.

I'm not a physicist nor a mathematician, but I'll do my best. It is because of 1) non-linear time, 2) superstacks, and 3) potential infinites.

1) Our understanding of time breaks down at the very beginning of the "universe", (such as at the "Big Bang"). Outside of standard linear flow, the concept of a "preceding hour" loses its meaning, essentially dissolving the paradox entirely.
2) An infinite sequence of actions in a finite amount of time (for example, Zeno's Paradoxes). Some theoretical models suggest that if each preceding hour takes half the time of the one before it, an infinite amount of hours can mathematically fit into a finite window, allowing the sequence to reach the present.
3) The past is not a completed, static set of infinite hours; rather, it is an open-ended progression. We arrive at "now" simply because time unfolds one step at a time, and the past is just a record of those sequential steps.

Evolution has no bearing on the Christian faith.

It may not for some, but it does for you. Otherwise, why bother attempting to denounce it again and again throughout your existence here? It would be just as arbitrary as trying to refute atomic theory.

A concession that is very few and far between.

The rest is fueled by plenty of peer reviewed science denial.

Regular ole copulation should be enough to get the job done. No cannibalism needed. You (and scientists) are offering bio-babble of the gaps, that's all it is.

See my response directly above. Your useless handwaving is always noted.

I already put that one to rest, what else do you got?

The worst kind of deception is self-deception. Please keep studying it, as this analogy alone completely dismantles the fine-tuning argument. The stuff given/provided by Dr. Carroll is just the icing, whipped cream, nuts, and cherry on the proverbial cake.

Thank you for for providing it and I did watch it. The problem is; Dr. Craig responded and in his response, he quoted Dr. Carroll stating in other sources that fine-tuning is a problem. And it is a problem, because if it weren't, you wouldn't have cosmologists trying to explain it away...after all, that is partly why the multiverse theory exists in the first place.

Dr. Carroll mentions that "he is very pleased because this argument is the ONLY one which plays by the rules, but that it is still a terrible argument." For which he lists all the reasons. Further, multiverse modeling emerged from independent theories in physics, like quantum mechanics and cosmic inflation, prior to apologists bring forth this teleological argument. The fine-tuning argument is a modern development in Christian apologetics. It was first formulated in the late 1970s and 1980s by Christian philosophers and scientists, most notably Robin Collins, John Polkinghorne, Richard Swinburne, and William Lane Craig.

God created it how he wanted to create it.

More handwaving... This would objectively be poor design. Which contradicts the concept of ID. Unless the "I" in ID stands for (I)nept. Your handwave here speaks volumes about how you know these observations do not bode well for your assertion of the "Christian god". And your failure to explain why a god would deliberately design such flawed concept(s) is a testament to your demonstrated intellectual dishonesty here.

But it is claimed to somehow, within it, built minds occupied by brains.

Now you have pivoted to a completely different topic. I've just demonstrated how no such asserted entity can logically exist, as you have asserted he is outside of "time". Please concede the point, in that the "universe" is not claimed to be a "mind" nor outside of "time", where-as god is claimed to possess both. And since actions, consciousness, and event sequencing all requires time, your god concept is now completely kaput.

I'd like my question answered, please.

Well, without the necessity of time, your god can't logically act. Once you concede the complete refutation of your prior assertion, we can <then> address this complete moving of the goalposts; but really just for funsies, as your god concept is already dead in the water.

Please answer the question.

If you want to play fair, I have already asked you this question twice. Yours goalpost shift here is to avoid the fact that god cannot actually logically operate outside of 'time'.

Since we agree energy is eternal, your last ray of hope is to demonstrate that (energy ='s god). Can you do that or not? I've asked you this three times now.

Neither Joseph Smith nor his followers were contemporary to Jesus. But, Jesus was contemporary to himself, and so were his followers. Jesus and his teachings (and the subsequent teachings of his apostles) is the standard. Contrary to that^, Joseph Smith and his followers re/were NOT the standard...so we don't need to listen or follow them in any capacity. Now, if you can't understand the dynamics of that, then I can't help you. You are offering a false equivalency, which is, of course, fallacious.

I understand that when you get triggered, you see red. Yet again, the story told about Joseph smith discovering magical golden plates is more contemporary than the story told about Jesus's magical rising. So please, stop using this apologetic too. as being more contemporary means nothing. You already demonstrated this when you shifted your argument to disbelief when I already pointed this out prior.

Um, I've addressed this, and my answer will not change.

No, you have not answered. I asked if god loves all, why avoid so many who require the same evidence in which he gave to Saul of Tarsus? Jesus 'zapped' Paul to make him become a believer. Why does Saul get special privileges when he knows countless others would not be a believer, unless given the same treatment? Is it because god WANTS them in hell, even though he apparently loves all?

Countless folks have died from falling off cliffs, too. I guess we're going to blame God for that as well.

This is a very poor analogy Venom, You can do better. Stop the avoidance. Humans don't require 'cliffs' for survival. But we do require water. And god created a planet, with US in mind, where the vast majority of the lifesaving water is poison for US. Why? Your continued avoidance to this question, along with the others, does nothing more than to expose your continued intellectual dishonesty.

And I gave a scenario where I, an intelligent entity, created the hole for the puddle. So if the puddle made such an assessment of "this hole seems as if was made just for me", it would be correct. You did not offer any viable response to that, so I take that to mean that my response did damage to the analogy. So, it stands.

No, it does not stand. I responded, in that countless holes and puddles are not 'created'. And yet, the "uncreated water" still fits seamlessly into the "uncreated hole" just-the-same. This is why I asked how we can know what was designed and what is not? And when we jump forward to humans, I listed just a few attributes which instead of representing 'order', it instead presents with the twists and turns of evolutionary processes, as our bodies possess many functions and attributes which are inefficient, or are completely against our well-being. Not to mention the countless lines of junk DNA, etc... What you are effectively doing is accepting the hits and ignoring the misses. The hypothetical puddle, 'created' by naturalism, comes to life and finds itself in the situation it is in. Naturalism explains it all, but the puddle is dilutional.

It is very true. The analogy was used in Lee Strobel's book; A Case For a Creator...which I read over 10 years ago.

Oh wow! I forgot, you have Mr. Hovind and Mr. Strobel leading the charge for truth.

Forgot it? I guess I shouldn't have assumed that you would have known that irreducible complexity requires those 3 parameters (order, purpose, function) to be met.

LOL! I guess you forgot that IC has been completely debunked in the court of law, with a conservative judge residing the case to boot.

Injustice.

Nah! This is just code for denial. That's all.

Again, Dr. Craig addressed those points that Carroll made...and one of those reasons that Craig laid out is; the conditions/parameters of the universe is what makes the world discoverable...and allows guys like Carroll to conduct experiments and "discover" those parameters and conditions.

Why would a creator, where humans are apparently the focus, be created to live in a universe or universe(s) where it's all poison (outside of earth), and the one planet we live on (earth), only has a very small fraction as being inhabitable? Since I've already asked this question, for which is just another question you avoid, it is because we are not the focus in which we wish to flatter ourselves to be. We are instead insignificant. Likely because we were not 'created.'

And second, it's not a matter how or what God "needed" to do...its a matter of what God wanted to do.

Again, this makes no sense, in relation to what you stated prior. If god created this habitat for US, then I explained above why this makes no sense.

God does things his way, and we are in no position to sit there and try to dictate anything. I know you don't like answers like that, but it is what it is.

This is nothing but cope, in light of the fact that you are completely contradicting yourself. If we were instead nowhere near any priority, then maybe you would have a proverbial 'leg' to stand upon.