Be that as it may, I found your arguments cogent and in need of support, thus my post. And I will expand the offering by dishing up some other examples. Maybe this thread isn't dead yet.
I noticed in your first post on this thread that you raised the issue of Begging the Question. You will find that many of the assertions here suffer from this fallacy. Whether it be Intelligent Design or the existence of Multi-verses the conclusion is smuggled somewhere in the premise. Even the term “Intelligent Design” implies an intelligence that has yet to be proven. And, by definition, cannot be. But I have another example that may serve to demonstrate my point.
Texas Songwriter (TS) noted in his first post
Hubble, Eddington, Wilson and Penzias (microwave background), Smoots findings via WMAP, and COBE (cosmic background explorer).....all scientifially point to a cosmological beginning....a moment when just before that singularity...there was nothing...NO THING.
Which I agree with and will take as a given, by definition. Then TS writes:
The moment, just prior to the singularity,...that point in the history of the universe when time, space, energy and matter came to be....what caused it. Why would nothing suddenly create...it is not a scientific concept or a valid philosophical concept. To creeate everhything from nothing. Nothing exist at that time...science tells us....So, by inductive reasoning something, beyond time and space, some atemporal entity had to be the cause...had to make a personal decision to create from nothing...
The problem here is that the writer is applying Post Hoc Laws to an empty Universe that contained none. By his previous post he stated there was nothing...NO THING which means there were no Laws of Causality either. NOTHING mean precisely that, NOTHING . So the Law of Physics that says something can't come from nothing didn't exist either. It is a very subtle form of Begging the Question that escapes most. The majority of posters here indulge in it on a regular basis though, get used to it.
Same goes for the Circular Argument issue. 'reasonisfaith' (now there's an oxymoron for you) demonstrated that in the posting:
1) All things must take place in ‘Infinite Universes’ 2) The God of Abraham is included in the set of all things (this is termed from the point of view of the secular logician). 3) Therefore God must be included in at least one of those universes.
We have Assertion Without Proof All things must take place in ‘Infinite Universes which is fallacious since this is unprovable as a premise, Propositional Fallacy. Then: The God of Abraham is included in the set of all things (this is termed from the point of view of the secular logician). Begging the Question. Followed by Therefore God must be included in at least one of those universes. Circular Argument since neither 'Infinite Universes' nor 'the God of Abraham' is verifiable. Sure in a formal syllogistic sense of:
If A then B
A
Therefore B
the structure is valid but the Propositions which form the Premises are either Circular or Begging the Question, THEREFORE invalid.
Returning to Texas Songwriter (109) again:
So, since the universe had a beginning (science tells us) it had to have a beginner (a Cause).
Once again applying Laws of Physics to a NOTHING by asserting an absolute Law of Causality which wouldn't have existed yet. If it did exist then something existed in the Universe prior to the Big Bang, refutes the proposition that EVERYTHING came into existence at that point.
I'll end this post here since the discussion takes a radically different turn due to the entrance of some new players.
There are some problems with your refutation of my comments, but really we are getting a bit off track from the big picture.
To quote Adrian Rogers: “Just because something doesn’t make sense to you doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense.”
I think this illustrates the basic problem faced by the atheist—he demands to be given intellectual access to phenomena which is beyond his (and our) capability to understand, and when he is not given such access, his solution is to claim the phenomena doesn’t exist.
But we can understand the following, and it is consistent logically: God is not only separate from the natural world—he is greater than it.
It also seems a very subtle form of begging the question that escapes most to assume that the Law of Causality can come into existence from NO THING.
An empty universe???? I think not. That was never said. There was no universe.....NO THING. You strain at a gnat. Your pretext is exposed, and you thinking it goes unnoticed, you then proceed to make ridiculous assertions. Begging your pardon, but I will leave the begging the questions to you.
Once again applying Laws of Physics to a NOTHING by asserting an absolute Law of Causality which wouldn't have existed yet.
The entire point of my remarks are to expose the fact that physics cannot account for origins. It is a METAphysical concept about which I remark. However, here we are. Whatever caused the universe to be, as declared by Einstein, Hubble, Eddington, Wilson, Penzias, Smoote, and many others, (all of science declares that this whole ball of wax BEGAN) it must have been intelligent, immensely powerful, personal (to decide to bring it into existence as opposed to nothingness).
By the way, can you give me one example of an actual infinite (nonmathemetical concept as opposed to a numerical devise). Can you give one empirical evidence that there are mulitiple universes? No need to write back, I have said what I need to say. I think readers can understand wht I have said, and, if they read carefully, can understand what you have assertested.