1. I was not trying to relegate God to mere physical law.
2. I was pointing out that it was quite convenient that this logical exercise imbued the God with properties that made It immune to the limits placed on an eternal mindless universe. That would be called special pleading.
3. Are you saying that infinite regress of events is an impossibility? Why is it impossible? Is eternity impossible? If eternity is possible, then is it possible that events can occur throughout eternity? If not, then how is it you plan on worshiping God in heaven throughout eternity. Isn't worshiping an event?
4. In regard to the other thread, I didn't claim that reactions occur when the reactants are not close together. In fact, in an earlier post in that thread, I said that reactions occur spontaneously if the reactants are close together. Y
5. You stated that spontaneous reactions don't occur in nature. In the post that you questioned,
6. I asked you to define spontaneous reaction
7. and sarcastically stated that you probably believed that spontaneous chemical reactions were ones that occurred without the chemical reactants close together.
8. Your reply to that post made me realize that we are not communicating effectively and it would be best if I tried to figure out how to write a post that you could understand. When I do figure it out, I will reply to that post.
1. Ummmm yes you were....
2. You've just supported my point 1.... Additionally its not special pleading since that is what God is. God is supernatural hence you literally cannot attempt to conform God to the standards that are required by natural laws, conversely your claims ARE required to conform to natural laws since you are stating a natural cause, nature conforms to natural law (thus it is limited in its action), God is supernatural and is therefore unlimited in his potential action. This is not special pleading, this is merely understanding what God is and what natural uncaused things are, they are totaly different things so it really is stupid to try and make one fit the others rules.
3. An infinite regress in the past IS logically impossible since there is no begining, did you not READ my post? (yet again I ask you to read and comprehend my post before replying). Eternity in the future is totally different since the future has yet to come to pass, meaning that it can indeed go on (since we do not know of a end point (thus far), whereas in relation to the past there is indeed and end point, that being the creation of the universe (which has been verfied by science!!!). If there was a begining then its not an INFINITE regress. So you can comprehend my point here
- Infinite regress in the past implies no start point since its infinite
- Infinite regress to the future is possible since the future is yet to occur, additionally its not a REGRESS since a regress is a past tense action.
- Science has verified that the universe did have a begining
- Therefore there is no infinite regress since there is a begining point meaning the regress in the past is not infinite... It does end.
- Therefore you're attempts here defy logic and the established scientific evidence, I challenge you to find scientific evidence that refutes that of a begining of the universe, as well as supports there being an eternal past.
4. Absolute lies! I stated that the concentration of reactants was not enough due to the ocean being vast, you stated that perhaps the reactions occured where the reactants were not required to be in close proximity, (to which I pointed out was not what a reaction is since it requires physical contact with enough velocity to account for the activation energy required of the reaction).
Considering that you have yet to reply to this in the thread, with a quote, suggests that you are indeed making things up here. If it was this simple why avoid replying?
5. Actually I said the opposite, hence why I stated "Absolute lies". Spontanteous reactions occur however they do so to increase the chaos of the system, that is why they are spontaneous in that they fit within the 2nd law dealing with entropy. I was saying that a reaction that reverses entropy is not spontaneous, not that spontaneous reactions do not happen, again this is yet another instance where you need to read and comprehend my post....
6. As I said I use the definition of spontaneous as per any other person.
7. Convienient that you state this now, AFTER I demonstrated the absolute idiocy of the claim and how it defies how reactions work in nature. Why not reply to this in the thread? In fact you never stated that I believed in this, I stated that the concentration of reactants was not enough due to the ocean being vast, you stated that perhaps the reactions occured where the reactants were not required to be in close proximity, (to which I pointed out was not what a reaction is since it requires physical contact with enough velocity to account for the activation energy required of the reaction)... There was no mention of me believing in this, nor any mention of sarcasm, (except after the fact... aka covering ones tracks)
8. Really.... Sounds like a lame excuse to me. SInce if you felt as such you wouldn't be replying now..... Kinda defies the point eh.
Yes it would be best if we continued this on the thread since you can actually QUOTE me rather than make claims which are either misrepresentations or outright lies.