#facepalm#
You lied. You are speculating. I'm disappointed.
If I knew this is how you argue on things like this, I wouldn't have bothered.

Willful ignorance? WTF? There is no evidence for ANY theory of what was pre-this universe.

There's a first cause#speculation#
This first cause is present in a supernatural realm#speculation#
Then you assume there is a supernatural realm not subject to space and time. # speculation#
Then you assume a possiblity for a eternal being#speculation#
The first cause cannot be subject to spacetime#speculation#
Then you say this is correct and completely logical#lie#
I claim we cannot know#lie#
Cosmology is what the field is called. Your likes are the one lobbying against it funding. Willful ignorance at work.

I'm disappointed at your method of argument. You haven't prove anything. You merely stated what you think should happen. There's no clearcut evidence for any of these theories. Don't force your speculation as if it is a accurate description of what happened.

vislabraye: To all the atheist in the house. I'll ask you a questio: How did the world come to be? I'm sure u would quote Charles Darwin evolution theory:

If you really want to know whether God exists, you should be a good student of history. The Bible is historically and scientifically acurate.
I'm sure you all know that Jesus came to earth. It was prophesied many thousands of years before h came by prophet Isaiah, Ezekiel and the likes. These prophesies are in the ancient manuscript.
If you still question the existence of God, I'm suppose that you know devil exists.
If you don't, why don't you visit a shrine in Togo or Ijebu and eat the sacrifice.
They say experience is the best teacher. I also advise you to go to a crusade and see live miracles.

You atheists have not seen any of these because all you do is to sit at home and watch BBC. Its laziness on your part. You live in Africa and there are lots of proofs to show that there's supernatural event.
I can narrate to you how I witnessed a supernatural healing. Not once, not twice.

I've experienced several miracles in my short stay on earth.

You said absolutely nothing of value here. It was more or else: christianity is good enough for me therefore it is good enough for everyone else. Then you called us lazy because rather than relying on some text which you acknowledge is ancient we actually get off our butts and try to figure how things work.

To be fair, you show clearly why I avoid discussions with most theists.

wiegraf:


You said absolutely nothing of value here. It was more or else: christianity is good enough for me therefore it is good enough for everyone else. Then you called us lazy because rather than relying on some text which you acknowledge is ancient we actually get off our butts and try to figure how things work.

To be fair, you show clearly why I avoid discussions with most theists.

I'm surprised you bothered.

Avicenna: #facepalm#
You lied. You are speculating. I'm disappointed.
If I knew this is how you argue on things like this, I wouldn't have bothered.

Willful ignorance? WTF? There is no evidence for ANY theory of what was pre-this universe.

There's a first cause#speculation#
This first cause is present in a supernatural realm#speculation#
Then you assume there is a supernatural realm not subject to space and time. # speculation#
Then you assume a possiblity for a eternal being#speculation#
The first cause cannot be subject to spacetime#speculation#
Then you say this is correct and completely logical#lie#
I claim we cannot know#lie#
Cosmology is what the field is called. Your likes are the one lobbying against it funding. Willful ignorance at work.

I'm disappointed at your method of argument. You haven't prove anything. You merely stated what you think should happen. There's no clearcut evidence for any of these theories. Don't force your speculation as if it is a accurate description of what happened.

Are you kidding? It is either you were not paying attention or you are purposely misunderstanding me.

Let me lay down my argument again up to the point that that we have arrived at.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause
The universe, (space, time and matter) began to exist.
Therefore the universe has a cause.

The cause of space and time cannot be subject to space and time
Therefore, the cause of space and time must exist in a spaceless and timeless realm (a realm not subject to space and time)

I believe I have laid down logical deductions. Please point out these "speculations" Show me where I am assuming something or where my logic does not follow.

Evil Brain: I'm not satisfied with your answers to mkmyers45's questions. A president doesn't have the power to prevent his people from committing crimes, god does. He could easily have made a world where people wouldn't want or need to sin and he didn't. Also, saying the earth is many centuries old sounds like a cowardly dodge. Is it billions of years old like science says or 6000 years old like the Christian creationists say?

Let me expand mkmyers45's first question further: If god is omnipotent and omniscient, why did he put Adam and Eve within reach of the tree of knowledge knowing fully well that his boy Satan would convince them to eat from it. If he made man what he is, and he knew how the devil would end up from the beginning, and put the two of them in the garden with the tree, then sat back and watched man fall; is he not responsible for all the misery that has followed?

all the ideas of garden0o eden is been misunderstood by many including christians thats why you asked that question.

Avicenna:
I'm surprised you bothered.

I have no idea as to what i was thinking . My bad

Edit: i guess i have to be less naive.
i keep falling for trolls as well *smh*

Mr_Anony:

Are you kidding? It is either you were not paying attention or you are purposely misunderstanding me.

Let me lay down my argument again up to the point that that we have arrived at.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause
The universe, (space, time and matter) began to exist.
Therefore the universe has a cause.

The cause of space and time cannot be subject to space and time
Therefore, the cause of space and time must exist in a spaceless and timeless realm (a realm not subject to space and time)

I believe I have laid down logical deductions. Please point out these "speculations" Show me where I am assuming something or where my logic does not follow.

Where is the supernatural realm?#speculation#
Where is the possibility of an eternal being?#speculation#
Where is the first cause?#speculation#
Why did you remove all these from your arguments?
I don't particularly like being made to look foolish by trickery. We were discussing logic. You accepted we were speculating. Then turn around to accuse me of willful ignorance, unfounded bias, not paying attention and purposely misunderstanding you. That's not nice. THAT IS DISHONEST. Next time, I will be very upfront with you. No more discussing speculations. We discuss facts.

Mr_Anony:
perhaps you should read my initial premises again:

"Everything that comes into being has a cause". The premise suggests that it begins to exist.

A first cause by definition does not begin to exist

That is an assumption.
Suppose that time is circular instead of linear.
Suppose that eternity is just time in a circle.
Suppose time and space are just one big circle, and thats why they seem unending and infinite.
In that case the cause can also become the effect, and the effect becomes the cause for another effect, until a full circle, and then it begins anew.
In mystical , religious and alchemical lore, the Uoroboros, the snake that swallows its own tail, has always been used to symbolise eternity and renewability.

wiegraf:

I do not agree with the notion that a supernatural most exist. Uncertainty is mind boggling. Until we fully understand it, believe or not, we cannot say for certain that something cannot come from nothing. Imo existence is a trick of numbers, the only concept that must exist, but this is now pseudo-science.

Lol, you may as well say that we cannot possibly know anything.

Notice in my argument, I am not using "supernatural" as a place holder to explain what I don't know. All I have said is that if spacetime originates from something, then that thing cannot be subject to spacetime. if this is true, then a realm not subject to spacetime must exist. For naming purposes, I have called it "supernatural" if you like, we can call it the anti-spacetime realm since you don't seem to take kindly to the word supernatural.

Next, elements from the parent universe need not be able to influence the child. Simple example, black holes.

What about black holes?

I was using that to explain 'intuition' as well. Casuality still applies on the macroscopic level, yes. But the sequence of events, if you could overcome c and observe from another frame, will not work intuitively. While an event may appear simultaneous in one frame, for an observer on a different reference plane moving at high speeds in relation to the event's frame the event would not actually be simultaneous. That is counter intuitive, as you'd expect the event to be simultaneous to all observers. As for cause and effect, my first paragraph.

Now this is what you may call speculation. If you could overcome c, you wouldn't have simultaneous events in one frame rather you would have fast-forwarded events at best as the value of c tends to infinity. The sequence will still apply. If you eliminate c, then you must define another means of communication else you wouldn't be describing our universe at all and that's where the real speculation begins.

@All the atheist...

Do you believe in life after death?

If yes, please explain.

If no please explain.

Sorry for interrupting the debate

I just need your candid opinion on that issue

Avicenna:

Where is the supernatural realm?#speculation#
Where is the possibility of an eternal being?#speculation#
Where is the first cause?#speculation#
Why did you remove all these from your arguments?
I don't particularly like being made to look foolish by trickery. We were discussing logic. You accepted we were speculating. Then turn around to accuse me of willful ignorance, unfounded bias, not paying attention and purposely misunderstanding you. That's not nice. THAT IS DISHONEST. Next time, I will be very upfront with you. No more discussing speculations. We discuss facts.

I haven't changed anything in my argument at all.
If I recall correctly I only said let us call a spaceless/timeless realm "supernatural" you may give it another name if you like. I even asked that you should not associate it with some preconceived notion. "First cause" wasn't even used in my argument with you. I was telling mkmyers45 why a first cause must exist. The possibility of an eternal being simply fits in the logic as I don't see why an eternal(timeless) being won't exist in a realm of timelessness.

I have not been dishonest with you neither have I tried to make you look foolish (I apologize if that's what it looks like). My argument has been the same. The problem is that you got hung on the words I was using and not the logic of the argument itself.

I see you have problems with the terms "supernatural realm", "eternal being" and "first cause" so I have removed the words you don't like but I have retained the argument so that you can fault the logic and not the words.

Now if you would please, could you show me the parts where my logic so far does not follow.

plaetton:

That is an assumption.
Suppose that time is circular instead of linear.
Suppose that eternity is just time in a circle.
Suppose time and space are just one big circle, and thats why they seem unending and infinite.
In that case the cause can also become the effect, and the effect becomes the cause for another effect, until a full circle, and then it begins anew.
In mystical , religious and alchemical lore, the Uoroboros, the snake that swallows its own tail, has always been used to symbolise eternity and renewability.

You are funny. First you accuse me of making an assumption, next to refute my "assumption", you proceed by making three assumptions of your own in quick succession. . . . . .

Mr_Anony:
Lol, you may as well say that we cannot possibly know anything.

I do actually But my 'practical' philosophy has me accepting some initial, or foundational if you will, parameters on a variety of issues.

Mr_Anony:
Notice in my argument, I am not using "supernatural" as a place holder to explain what I don't know. All I have said is that if spacetime originates from something, then that thing cannot be subject to spacetime. if this is true, then a realm not subject to spacetime must exist. For naming purposes, I have called it "supernatural" if you like, we can call it the anti-spacetime realm since you don't seem to take kindly to the word supernatural.

I get how you use supernatural, I can accept the word though it could give many the wrong impression. Let's go back to something originating from nothing. With uncertainty, there are truly random values that show up. What determines the exact value of these numbers? For the most part from what I understand, nothing. It's not about the particle has to exist first before you can start to measure these numbers, it's that nothing determines these numbers exactly. They just more or else arbitrarily show up. Luckily the odds of particles showing up on the moon from say here are astronomical. The whole wave thing implies that reality is more or else constantly fine-tuning itself as well, but maybe that has nothing to do with 'something originating from nothing". So, unless my understanding of my topic is flawed (which is possible), we cannot conclusively say something must come from nothing. Again, I am no physicist though.

Mr_Anony:
What about black holes?

You mentioned the parent realm (let's bolt into fantasy at full speed) can influence the child realm. That is not necessarily true. Black holes demonstrate this to a degree. Parent realm could also have been annihilated as well, etc

Mr_Anony:
Now this is what you may call speculation. If you could overcome c, you wouldn't have simultaneous events in one frame rather you would have fast-forwarded events at best as the value of c tends to infinity. The sequence will still apply. If you eliminate c, then you must define another means of communication else you wouldn't be describing our universe at all and that's where the real speculation begins.

Cause and effect would apply, true, however, and I just culled this, maybe I get a better example soon:

"The example tells the story of two presidents of warring nations, traveling on a train. None of them want's to sign the peace treaty before the other, so they set up a light bulb, in the center of a table. During this signing, they are on a train. When the light bulb flashes, each president signs the treaty. Everyone on the train sees that the photons of light took an equal amount of time to reach both presidents, therefore, the light reached them simultaneously, which is good, because both president's signed at the same time.

However, stationary observers on a platform observe that the president facing the direction that the train is moving received the light beams before the president facing away from the direction of the train. I can understand that this is a result of the constant velocity of the speed of light.

Notice the conflicting viewpoints. Those on the train say that the presidents received the light at the exact same time. However, those on the platform say that the president facing the direction of the train's motion received the light before the other president facing the opposite direction."

(And I thought they'd observe whichever frame had more mass in slow motion? Dunno honestly. Irrelevant anyways)

And this is just an example of things not working 'intuitively'. Just as you'd expect one could accelerate past c where it not for physics showing otherwise, or that matter and energy were not related, etc. Cause and effect need not be intuitive in another universe if indeed there were others ie. I'm not even sure they do in this universe...

CrazyMan: @All the atheist...

Do you believe in life after death?

If yes, please explain.

If no please explain.

No they don't.
Don't worry yourself about it

CrazyMan: @All the atheist...

Do you believe in life after death?

If yes, please explain.

If no please explain.

No. There's no conclusive evidence for such. Though some people look at reincarnation I believe. Or some sort of dream (like those from the movie 'inception'), among many other options.

Random: I sort of subscribe to the belief that being conscious at any point in time makes you immortal in a way. But that's just me, and it's not supposed to make sense.

How could you interrupt your debate? Though I'm not sure of etiquette here.

wiegraf:

No. There's no conclusive evidence for such. Though some people look at reincarnation I believe. Or some sort of dream (like those from the movie 'inception'), among many other options.

Random: I sort of subscribe to the belief that being conscious at any point in time makes you immortal in a way. But that's just me, and it's not supposed to make sense.

How could you interrupt your debate? Though I'm not sure of etiquette here.

Lol, na true sef. Crazyman, why so polite? It's your party, If we misbehave, you can kick us out of your thread.

@wiegraf and @anony, you should be ashamed of yourselves, you crashed CrazyMan's party.

Actually wiegraf (being an atheist) was invited, in short anony is the real gatecrasher here. Throw him out!

Mr_Anony:
You are funny. First you accuse me of making an assumption, next to refute my "assumption", you proceed by making three assumptions of your own in quick succession. . . . . .

There is a big difference in making a statement on assumption and making a supposition.
I was not pretending to be stating facts. Suppose in this case, means "what if ".
I am asking, what if so and so?
Surely you understood that.


At least we know from observation, that the universe is spiral(circular) in shape.
Also,quantum physicists are beginning to consider that time may not be linear in the way we understand it.

plaetton:

There is a big difference in making a statement on assumption and making a supposition.
I was not pretending to be stating facts. Suppose in this case, means "what if ".
I am asking, what if so and so?
Surely you understood that.

last I checked "what if" was another way of saying "assuming"

Anyway, to show me that my "assumption" is wrong, you must show an entity that begins to exist but has no cause. No "supposes" please.

Mr_Anony:
last I checked "what if" was another way of saying "assuming"

Anyway, to show me that my "assumption" is wrong, you must show an entity that begins to exist but has no cause. No "supposes" please.

Dont ask me.lol
ask Deepsight.
He calls it the uncaused cause.

Wait, I remember.
First lesson in secondary school science.
Matter.

Yes. matter can neither be CREATED nor destroyed.

Gbam gbam!

plaetton:

Dont ask me.lol
ask Deepsight.
He calls it the uncaused cause.

Wait, I remember.
First lesson in secondary school science.
Matter.

Yes. matter can neither be CREATED nor destroyed.

Gbam gbam!

Are you sure you don't mean energy?

Mr_Anony:
Are you sure you don't mean energy?

Matter.

Energy and Matter are interconvertible.
E=MC2

plaetton:

Matter.

Energy and Matter are interconvertible.
E=MC2

That does not make them the same thing and you know it

Mr_Anony:
That does not make them the same thing and you know it

I really dont know what else you want me to say.
Light has wavelike and particle like characteristics.
E=mc2 is the best we have so far, until you can come up with a better scientific paradigm.

wiegraf:

No. There's no conclusive evidence for such. Though some people look at reincarnation I believe. Or some sort of dream (like those from the movie 'inception'), among many other options.

Random: I sort of subscribe to the belief that being conscious at any point in time makes you immortal in a way. But that's just me, and it's not supposed to make sense.

How could you interrupt your debate? Though I'm not sure of etiquette here.

You atheists on this forum should know that It’s hard to move forward when you don’t know where you’re headed or why.

Your answer to my question simply shows that you people (atheist) are even more confused than most christians.

If you follow the believe of some people including you like I bolded here some people look at reincarnation I believe. Or some sort of dream (like those from the movie 'inception'), among many other options.

Then it shows clearly that you're heading towards nowhere.

Allow me to further more stress that God’s plan gives us (his children) the answers to life’s most basic questions like, Where did I come from? What’s my purpose here? And, What happens when I die?

Knowing the answers gives us hope and helps us find peace and joy. You should also know that your life didn’t begin at birth and it won’t end at death. Before you came to earth, your spirit lived with your Heavenly Father who created you. You knew Him, and He knew and loved you. It was a happy time during which you were taught God’s plan of happiness and the path to true joy.

But just as most of us leave our home and parents when we grow up, God knew you needed to do the same. He knew you couldn’t progress unless you left for a while. So he allowed you to come to earth to experience the joy—as well as pain—of a physical body.

One thing that makes this life so hard sometimes is that we’re out of God’s physical presence. Not only that, but we can’t remember our pre-earth life which means we have to operate by faith rather than sight. God didn’t say it would be easy, but He promised His spirit would be there when we needed Him. Even though it feels like it sometimes, we’re not alone in our journey.

At least we christians have a strong believe on that matter. You atheists don't. If I sit ten different atheists and ask them this question, I strongly believe that they would give me ten different answers.

To be honest, I'd rather believe in the biblical definition than some reincarnation Or some sort of dream like those from the movie. Such believe sounds ridiculous.

Thus I come to a final conclusion by saying you guys are all confused...if not, prove me otherwise.

wiegraf:
I do actually But my 'practical' philosophy has me accepting some initial, or foundational if you will, parameters on a variety of issues.

Ok, but you do realize that if you really hold that we can know nothing, then we really cannot learn anything and knowledge becomes flawed.

I get how you use supernatural, I can accept the word though it could give many the wrong impression. Let's go back to something originating from nothing. With uncertainty, there are truly random values that show up. What determines the exact value of these numbers? For the most part from what I understand, nothing. It's not about the particle has to exist first before you can start to measure these numbers, it's that nothing determines these numbers exactly. They just more or else arbitrarily show up. Luckily the odds of particles showing up on the moon from say here are astronomical. The whole wave thing implies that reality is more or else constantly fine-tuning itself as well, but maybe that has nothing to do with 'something originating from nothing". So, unless my understanding of my topic is flawed (which is possible), we cannot conclusively say something must come from nothing. Again, I am no physicist though.

Erhm.......I think you've messed up the uncertainty principle a bit if that's what you were talking about.
The uncertainty principle as I understand it is not that particles act 'weird' but that certain attributes of a particle can't be measured to precision i.e. the more certain you are about an attribute of the particle, the more uncertain you are about it's other attributes. e.g. If trying to measure the position of a particle, the mere act of observing it makes it's momentum uncertain - by observing the particle, photons of light hit it hence displacing it therefore the better your observation, the more uncertain your readings. However, I still don't see how your post explains "something out of nothing".

You mentioned the parent realm (let's bolt into fantasy at full speed) can influence the child realm. That is not necessarily true. Black holes demonstrate this to a degree. Parent realm could also have been annihilated as well, etc

Here I'm afraid you are losing me.

Cause and effect would apply, true, however, and I just culled this, maybe I get a better example soon:

"The example tells the story of two presidents of warring nations, traveling on a train. None of them want's to sign the peace treaty before the other, so they set up a light bulb, in the center of a table. During this signing, they are on a train. When the light bulb flashes, each president signs the treaty. Everyone on the train sees that the photons of light took an equal amount of time to reach both presidents, therefore, the light reached them simultaneously, which is good, because both president's signed at the same time.

However, stationary observers on a platform observe that the president facing the direction that the train is moving received the light beams before the president facing away from the direction of the train. I can understand that this is a result of the constant velocity of the speed of light.

Notice the conflicting viewpoints. Those on the train say that the presidents received the light at the exact same time. However, those on the platform say that the president facing the direction of the train's motion received the light before the other president facing the opposite direction."

(And I thought they'd observe whichever frame had more mass in slow motion? Dunno honestly. Irrelevant anyways)

And this is just an example of things not working 'intuitively'. Just as you'd expect one could accelerate past c where it not for physics showing otherwise, or that matter and energy were not related, etc. Cause and effect need not be intuitive in another universe if indeed there were others ie. I'm not even sure they do in this universe...

I understand your analogy, however you are missing something here. The only way that two events can be simultaneous is if they are not in a causal relationship. To say that A caused B means that B could never have existed before A. It can happen faster or slower depending on intuition/point of view but never simultaneous. As your analogy shows, the two presidents are independently signing documents and not one causing the other to sign.
For the sequence to change, time has to flow in the opposite direction. Unfortunately for you, it doesn't. At least not in our universe.

plaetton:

I really dont know what else you want me to say.
Light has wavelike and particle like characteristics.
E=mc2 is the best we have so far, until you can come up with a better scientific paradigm.

Wow! how wrong you are. What you have just said is like if I said mass is the same as force because f=mg or velocity is the same as distance since v=m/s
Anyway I'll leave you with that. . . .but then even if I allow matter to neither be created nor destroyed, you have still failed to show me something that begins to exist but has no cause.
If you define something as "cannot be created nor destroyed" you have essentially said that it cannot begin to exist or cease to exist therefore it is silly to now say that something causes it to begin to exist after saying it cannot begin to exist.

Mr_Anony:
Wow! how wrong you are. What you have just said is like if I said mass is the same as force because f=mg or velocity is the same as distance since v=m/s
Anyway I'll leave you with that. . . .but then even if I allow matter to neither be created nor destroyed, you have still failed to show me something that begins to exist but has no cause.
If you define something as "cannot be created nor destroyed" you have essentially said that it cannot begin to exist or cease to exist therefore it is silly to now say that something causes it to begin to exist after saying it cannot begin to exist.

Plaetton is making reference to wave-particle paradox which is perfectly interchangeable in physics...and you of course there's an energy/matter balance.... matter is destroyable cause The Sun "destroys" 4 and a quarter tonnes of mass every second, in order to produce 385,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts of power but creation of matter/energy is the tricky part...but matter was actually condensed out from energy due to temperature cooling...

CrazyMan:
You atheists on this forum should know that It’s hard to move forward when you don’t know where you’re headed or why.

Your answer to my question simply shows that you people (atheist) are even more confused than most christians.

If you follow the believe of some people including you like I bolded here some people look at reincarnation I believe. Or some sort of dream (like those from the movie 'inception'), among many other options.

Then it shows clearly that you're heading towards nowhere.

Allow me to further more stress that God’s plan gives us (his children) the answers to life’s most basic questions like, Where did I come from? What’s my purpose here? And, What happens when I die?

Knowing the answers gives us hope and helps us find peace and joy. You should also know that your life didn’t begin at birth and it won’t end at death. Before you came to earth, your spirit lived with your Heavenly Father who created you. You knew Him, and He knew and loved you. It was a happy time during which you were taught God’s plan of happiness and the path to true joy.

But just as most of us leave our home and parents when we grow up, God knew you needed to do the same. He knew you couldn’t progress unless you left for a while. So he allowed you to come to earth to experience the joy—as well as pain—of a physical body.

One thing that makes this life so hard sometimes is that we’re out of God’s physical presence. Not only that, but we can’t remember our pre-earth life which means we have to operate by faith rather than sight. God didn’t say it would be easy, but He promised His spirit would be there when we needed Him. Even though it feels like it sometimes, we’re not alone in our journey.

At least we christians have a strong believe on that matter. You atheists don't. If I sit ten different atheists and ask them this question, I strongly believe that they would give me ten different answers.

To be honest, I'd rather believe in the biblical definition than some reincarnation Or some sort of dream like those from the movie. Such believe sounds ridiculous.

Thus I come to a final conclusion by saying you guys are all confused...if not, prove me otherwise.

I see. You are chickening out. Don't worry, you are not the first, you will surely not be the last.

One more thing,
Why do you like attacking something completely irrelevant in a post? Wiegraf made sure to point out the irrelevant part of his post yet that's the only thing you can refute? Does this mean you cannot mount a decent rebuttal? You have wasted my time.

I'm not confused. Far from it. I'm just not deluded. But if you can't function without a belief in an afterlife, by all means, stay in your bubble.

Peace.

Mr_Anony:
I haven't changed anything in my argument at all.
If I recall correctly I only said let us call a spaceless/timeless realm "supernatural" you may give it another name if you like. I even asked that you should not associate it with some preconceived notion. "First cause" wasn't even used in my argument with you. I was telling mkmyers45 why a first cause must exist. The possibility of an eternal being simply fits in the logic as I don't see why an eternal(timeless) being won't exist in a realm of timelessness.

I have not been dishonest with you neither have I tried to make you look foolish (I apologize if that's what it looks like). My argument has been the same. The problem is that you got hung on the words I was using and not the logic of the argument itself.

I see you have problems with the terms "supernatural realm", "eternal being" and "first cause" so I have removed the words you don't like but I have retained the argument so that you can fault the logic and not the words.

Now if you would please, could you show me the parts where my logic so far does not follow.

Your argument in red is correct logically to an extent. From there, you started your speculations. I agreed to go along because I sincerely thought you knew we were speculating what MAY, not what IS.

The correct theory can only be proven by experiment. The type currently being planned in cosmology.
I have no interest in speculating with you again. We discuss facts only. When I want to speculate, I will actually find someone that knows exactly what we are doing.

It seems to me, a lot of people don't understand the concept behind God(Gods actually) The unnecessary debate on whether the God of the bible is real or not is completely out of the point. Why not say who were the GODS of the bible who genetically created the race of people called the Adam and Eve?

Planet earth as we all know it has been around for billions of year.It has been destroyed several times by natural and biological catastrophes. Look around you,including the Television and other informative media,it is obvious that Atomic weapon is a toy humans and planet earth is very familiar with. The Bible accounts were written by primitive people who did not know how to describe these sophisticated weapons and machines.

Before i go more into the weapons and machines,i would like to shed more light on the Gods which include Yahweh and Elohim. The term Elohim is a reference to a race of advanced extra-terrestrial,you might as well call them the Annunaki(those who from heaven came) They were (according to the Sumerian tablets) to mine golds and as time went on,they genetically altered humans to do the dirty jobs for them. As time went on, they gave us their DNA and we became like them. DNA includes the genes and characters of the Annunakis. Ever since,we became as curious and intelligent as they were. They evolve and we evolved too.

The tower of babel does explain the fear of the Gods when we wanted to be like them. Man decided to build a tower that will reach the heaven(star gate from where the passage to other universes are) Thus they destroyed the tower and made sure they made us fight each other so we would never be united. It is therefore not in the Gods best interest if we were united.

Man now create atomic weapons and fly in the sky just like the Gods. Are we not Gods yet? Not quite,but we are getting there.

The earth has on many occasions suffered pole shifts of which one was responsible for the so called Noah's Flood. The story wasn't true because thousands of people we save and it was only a part of the planet that got affected.

If the United States Of America can possess a bomb that can destroy our planet 5 times,the scientist now genetically cross breed a goat and a monkey etc Are we not exhibiting the traits of our creators? Are we not already visiting other planets? What if we found a primitive civilization on another planet? Are we not going to colonize them and be their Gods? Look at what the Europeans did to Africans,We almost worship them when we saw them with guns. Are we not looking up to them today? Dont we all dream of visiting the UK,Spain,U.S,France etc?

Christians should open their eyes and see reality.No God is going to save man except ourselves.

No point debating the God of the bible.....He only exists in the primitive minds.