More Absolutes

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You continue repeating the same lines without adding anything to your argument or refuting the main points of mine.

“…You continue repeating the same lines without adding anything to your argument…”

That’s because you haven’t exposed error in my arguments.

"...or refuting the main points of mine....."


But I HAVE been “refuting” various points you made! Because I just did! Although I am not sure if you would call them your “main” points, here are the examples of this in my post before last:

“…”….This is where you err. We can all agree that if it happens, it's an event…..” (your quote)

The beginning of most things can be called an “event” (what about the beginning of a length of string? ) but this would NOT be strictly true for the beginning of the universe if that beginning was also the beginning of time. The reason for this is as follows:…(my response)…”

So I DID refute your assertion that “We can all agree that if it happens, it's an event”.

“…“…..We (thus far) have conceded that any event we have been able to observe has been caused….” (your quote)

That is simply not true;……… (my quote)….”

So I DID refute your assertion that “any event we have been able to observe has been caused”.

“…..“….The third stage is moot for us, because the law of cause and effect has been accepted since ancient times…..” (your quote)

The fact that the ancients thought everything had a cause doesn’t give the hypothesis any more credence than the fact that many ancients thought the Earth was flat. Length of history of opinions doesn’t verify a hypothesis; only logic and evidence can do that….(my quote)….”

So I DID refute your assertion that “The third stage is moot for us”.

I am not sure if you would call any of these your main points because I don’t know what you would regard as the points that are the “main” points but, never-a-less I DID refute them.
Which particular points do you regard as your main ones?
Note that I may not necessarily refute ALL your points whether they are you main ones or not.
For example, when you said:

“…Time is a construct created for the convenience of man; not a constraint within which God exists. His existence outside of space, time, known physical reality, has always been, will always be.…..”

Rather than exactly refute it, I said “just for the sake of argument, suppose you are right….”. I don’t see anything wrong with that response just because I didn’t strictly refute your assertion!