Originally posted by sonship
Special pleading, not convincing.

I refered to Aristotle in the discussion.
You refered to Zeno in the discussion.
Not much difference in motivation explained by your face savng special pleading.

Only because you think you are infallible.
Do you admit that your quotes of Greek philosophers made claims, for which they provided no argument?
Do you admit that my reference to Zeno made no claims whatsoever?
Do you admit that when I criticized your Greek philosophy quote it was not in fact your reference to Aristotle?
Ooops. You've been caught, but your infallible. What to do.

There was no rock to begin with to do any dreaming.
There are rocks everywhere. You clearly have lost the thread of the discussion.

But on a more serious note, the whole proposed theory (Paul Davies) was that the particles come out of the quantum vacuum.
Sorry, but I am not talking about proposed theories by Paul Davies, I am talking about quantum mechanics. And on a serious note, you you haven't addressed my comments, but instead repeated your claim, as seems to be the only thing you are capable of.
Let me take it real slow, try and pay attention this time:
1. Space and time exist.
2. At a particular point in space-time, there is what appears to be a vacuum.
3. A few moments later, some particles appear in that vacuum.
4. There is no known cause for them appearing.
5. The fact that there was space where they appeared a few moments prior to them appearing is not indication of causation. It does not mean the space caused the particles.

If it remains your claim that the empty space 'causes' the particles, then please define what you mean by causation.
I also notice that you are yet to answer my other questions with regard to causation. When I make a decision, is it your claim that that decision was caused by some event at the beginning of the universe?

Originally posted by sumydid
Speaking from a completely logical and scientific point of view.

If something exists, that means it was created. A creation is an effect. There must be a cause, in order to have an effect. The necessary cause involves effort and energy expense. The thing that expended the effort and energy in order to cause something to be created, is properly describ ...[text shortened]... fore always existing which is completely speculative with no supportive evidence in existence.

God exists without being created. But we are told God is spirit and you apparently are talking about something that is physical, which we know must have a cause to exist.

Only because you think you are infallible.

I wrote that I was not infallible.
Now admit that you lied.

Did you admit it yet?
Did you admit it yet??
Did you admit it yet???

Do you admit that your quotes of Greek philosophers made claims, for which they provided no argument?
Do you admit that my reference to Zeno made no claims whatsoever?
Do you admit that when I criticized your Greek philosophy quote it was not in fact your reference to Aristotle?
Ooops. You've been caught, but your infallible. What to do.

I wrote that neither I or J P Moreland was not infallible.
Now admit that you lied that my position is infallible.

Did you admit it yet?
Did you admit it yet??
Did you admit it yet???

Irrelevant mind games on nit picky little side issues.
Back to something substantial.

Why do you think there is something instead of nothing ?
Or are you just interested in objecting to what a theist might believe?

Are you only interested in heaping "burden of proof" on anyone who decides to dare to believe something ?

Originally posted by sonship
I wrote that I was not infallible.
Now admit that you lied.

No, I did not lie. I never said that you didn't write that you were not infallible. I said you think you are infallible. Now I sure can't read your thoughts, but you haven't, as far as I recall, admitted to a single error in this whole thread despite me showing conclusively that you have committed quite a number of errors.

Irrelevant mind games on nit picky little side issues.
In other words, you will not actually admit that you are fallible in this instance.

Why do you think there is something instead of nothing ?
I have no idea. I am not even sure if the question makes sense.

Or are you just interested in objecting to what a theist might believe?
I am interesting in objecting to people who make false claims - as have you, and as has J. P. Moreland. Note that I am not calling either of you liars, just yet, but you are getting pretty close when you deny making an error despite being shown that you are in error.

Are you only interested in heaping "burden of proof" on anyone who decides to dare to believe something ?
No, you may believe whatever you like. However when you state 'it is known' or 'it follows logically' or 'it is a scientific fact' or 'I have a philosophical argument that shows', when in reality all you have is a belief, then you are stating a falsehood.
You never said "I believe there are a finite number of things in the universe". You stated that there were a finite number of things and tried to pass it off as fact.
You never said "I believe the universe had a beginning, and it was created by God". You tried to make the claim that you had sound philosophical arguments to support the claim. I have since shown that the arguments are not sound, but you are apparently unwilling to admit it.
The burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim. He is not even required to shoulder the burden, so long as he is only claiming it to be a belief. But when he states that it is fact, and that he has supporting argument, then he is expected to provide said argument, or admit that he doesn't in fact have it.

Originally posted by sonship
[b Are you only interested in heaping "burden of proof" on anyone who decides to dare to believe something ?[/b]

It is very rare for anyone on this forum to ask for proof of a belief so long as
you do not present your beliefs as facts. Facts can be substantiated, beliefs (by
their nature) cannot.

I really cannot see the point of theists claiming they have proof of their brand
of theism when all it does is dilute their faith!

Originally posted by RJHinds
God exists without being created. But we are told God is spirit and you apparently are talking about something that is physical, which we know must have a cause to exist.

When I speak of someTHING existing, I'm speaking of what we see all around us. So yes you are correct, I'm talking about the universe.

Either way this conundrum is looked at, the end result is something or someone having always existed.

In the case of the universe having always existed, there is not a shred of evidence whatsoever. In the case of God having always existed, we at least have testimony where the revelation was handed down to us by the Creator Himself, and that testimony was permanently recorded in what was the best way possible back then. That testimony doesn't represent absolute proof. In fact, eye-witness testimony is never absolute proof. However the testimony of witnesses does at least outweigh zero evidence, and eye-witness testimony is powerful enough in our courts to render a verdict. So obviously it does hold at least SOME value as evidence.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
It is very rare for anyone on this forum to ask for proof of a belief so long as
you do not present your beliefs as facts. Facts can be substantiated, beliefs (by
their nature) cannot.

I really cannot see the point of theists claiming they have proof of their brand
of theism when all it does is dilute their faith!

No one has absolute proof either way, Wolfgang. You know that.

These things are a matter of faith and belief.

Which again is why we Christians collectively scratch our heads at the skeptics' unceasing attempts to destroy our beliefs and mock us. If the skeptic is worth his or her salt, then he/she already knows there is no way to disprove our beliefs.

My personal opinion on why the skeptics circle overhead in every spiritual forum is because they are seeking answers. Part of the skeptic's search for answers is to shoot down everything they hear... that to me is a protection mechanism. The whole process is very counterintuitive. I see it as the subconscious of the skeptics driving them to search for answers to the unknown, but their conscious mind shooting down everything they hear that offers something other than utter and complete nihilism. If nihilism isn't correct, then we have a moral code and can be held accountable... and we know where that slippery slope ends. The skeptic doesn't want to be held accountable, morally, for anything so their conscious mind will KILL anything that suggests such a thing. And on and on.

Oh yeah, the skeptics will claim none of this is true--they are just intelligent thinkers that see no reason to believe in anything. That's all great but my contention is if that were true, they wouldn't be obsessively and compulsively hanging out in spiritual forums.

Originally posted by sumydid
No one has absolute proof either way, Wolfgang. You know that.

These things are a matter of faith and belief.

Which again is why we Christians collectively scratch our heads at the skeptics' unceasing attempts to destroy our beliefs and mock us. If the skeptic is worth his or her salt, then he/she already knows there is no way to disprove our beliefs ...[text shortened]... were true, they wouldn't be obsessively and compulsively hanging out in spiritual forums.

I find the Spirituality Forum interesting and comical.

I do not ridicule beliefs.

I do ridicule false logic, false evidence and "proof" of god.

I also argue against some (not all) morals based on religion.

This forum caused me to read the bible and do a little research, I think I have
as much right to be here as anyone.

Originally posted by sumydid
No one has absolute proof either way, Wolfgang. You know that.

These things are a matter of faith and belief.

Which again is why we Christians collectively scratch our heads at the skeptics' unceasing attempts to destroy our beliefs and mock us. If the skeptic is worth his or her salt, then he/she already knows there is no way to disprove our beliefs ...[text shortened]... were true, they wouldn't be obsessively and compulsively hanging out in spiritual forums.

The skeptics just choose to believe a lie rather than the truth.

Originally posted by sumydid
Oh yeah, the skeptics will claim none of this is true--

Do you see yourself as a skeptic seeking answer and avoiding something? Or does this psychology only apply to others?

Originally posted by sumydid
If the skeptic is worth his or her salt, then he/she already knows there is no way to disprove our beliefs.

That depends very much on what your beliefs are. If you believe 2+2=5, then I could disprove it rather quickly. We frequently successfully disprove peoples beliefs on this forum. What is usually impossible is convincing someone that his beliefs have been disproved. Witness sonship, who believes that the argument presented by JP Moreland is a valid one, and can't admit a single problem with it despite having them pointed out.
You apparently believe that you have a witness account for how the world was created, yet a tiny bit of scrutiny would reveal that you have no such thing.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you see yourself as a skeptic seeking answer and avoiding something? Or does this psychology only apply to others?

A "skeptic" in the obvious context, is someone who doesn't believe in God. A believer or Christian, is someone who DOES believe in God.

Also, as you seem to be the only one who doesn't now, the skeptic/Atheist has no answer for the idea of God, other than disbelief and criticism. The believer/Christian on the other hand, is not seeking any answers from skeptics and isn't avoiding anything.

Again, you (being the skeptic) are the one that has waltzed into a spirituality forum, with the subject being spirituality, having nothing to add apart from disbelief and criticism. My contention is, you would have to have a reason for doing so and I think it's because you seek answers. If you had all the answers, then surely you wouldn't be spending your time in a forum that discusses something you don't believe in. Right?

Christians often question what the motivation of skeptics is, to hang out in spiritual forums, with nothing of relevance to add. Can you help us understand better what your motivation is? Surely it's not because you feel so sorry for us that you're spending your precious personal time trying to set us straight and improve our lives? (knowing full well that you will not succeed anyway)

Originally posted by sumydid
A "skeptic" in the obvious context, is someone who doesn't believe in God. A believer or Christian, is someone who DOES believe in God.

Why not just say atheist, rather than confusing us by redefining 'skeptic'?

Also, as you seem to be the only one who doesn't now, the skeptic/Atheist has no answer for the idea of God, other than disbelief and criticism. The believer/Christian on the other hand, is not seeking any answers from skeptics and isn't avoiding anything.
They are avoiding the fact that there is no God. But yes, you do not seek answers from atheists any more than I seek answers from theists.

Again, you (being the skeptic) are the one that has waltzed into a spirituality forum, with the subject being spirituality, having nothing to add apart from disbelief and criticism.
You clearly don't know that this is largely a spirituality debates forum and disbelief and criticism is standard fare here.

My contention is, you would have to have a reason for doing so and I think it's because you seek answers.
You would be wrong. I do have reasons for being here but not what you think they are.

If you had all the answers, then surely you wouldn't be spending your time in a forum that discusses something you don't believe in. Right?
Wrong.

Can you help us understand better what your motivation is? Surely it's not because you feel so sorry for us that you're spending your precious personal time trying to set us straight and improve our lives? (knowing full well that you will not succeed anyway)
Yes I can try to help you understand, though I suspect you won't believe me.
1. I do feel sorry for you.
2. I feel that religion is generally a bad thing.
3. I do think that I might succeed in setting you straight on some points.
4. I enjoy debate.

Next you'll be telling us that all the democrats over in the debates forum are closet republicans just seeking the truth.

Originally posted by sumydid
A "skeptic" in the obvious context, is someone who doesn't believe in God. A believer or Christian, is someone who DOES believe in God.

According to you are Hindus or Budhists skeptics?

Originally posted by OdBod
It is of course possible that nothing never was.

Which is like saying something/someone always was.
Kelly