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.
Which part am I lying about? You are very quick to state that someone who doesn't agree with you is a liar. I will go to the other thread and address the claims you make about my honesty. I don't want to derail this thread any further.
Regarding your statement about infinite regress in the past because there is no beginning. So, if the universe was eternal, then nothing could be happening at all because there is no beginning? I have already stated that the spacetime we are in may not be the only possible physical existence. The universe may have been in a different physical existence that did not require a "beginning" of events for events to occur. You may claim the this is not possible for a physical entity but you claim it is possible for a supernatural entity without any more logical proof than I have.
My interpretation of the logical proof so far:
1. There is no possible physical manifestation of the universe that can be eternal...ie no eternal physical reality. This claim is based on our own limited understanding of "physical reality".
2. Because of this disbelief in any possible eternal physical reality, a non-physical reality must exist.
3. Also because of this disbelief in any possible eternal physical reality and a belief in a non-physical reality, a non-physical thing must exist that caused the physical reality to come into existence.
4. For some reason, this non-physical thing that caused physical reality to come into existence must be intelligent. Even if I bought into the logical leaps made earlier, I cannot see how this statement must be true. If the non-physical exists then the rules of infinite regress do not apply so the non-phyical thing could be performing events without requiring a beginning and does not have to be intelligent.
My number 4 is not exactly what was claimed in post #1. That post claimed that no non-intelligent events could happen if there were no beginning event due to infinite regress of events. It did not say that the non-physical existence worked by different laws than the physical existence. That information was provided later to answer the concern about infinite regress of intelligent events.