Your three criteria are simply declared as timeless, spaceless and omnipotent. I will agree with the first two because of the causality problem.
1. When did you become an all-knowing physicist?
2. I thought you were learning to be a biochemist.
3. What is it about the beginning of the universe that you know such that you can declare all of these things require omnipotence to have them come about?
4. You have no idea what timeless, spaceless existence is or the limitations placed on any "thing" that is in that existence.
5. You can't declare what abilities are necessary for something that is timeless, and spaceless just because those abilities fit your version of a God.
6. However, mindless things change all the time in our reality. Electromagnetic radiation changes in intensity and direction of motion as it propagates from one place to another. Heat moves from hot objects to cold ones changing the temperature of both.
7. Why would mindless things be unable to change if they were spaceless, and timeless?
8. Why is choice necessary if a mindless thing can change and timeless, spaceless mindless things are at least as plausible as timeless spaceless intelligent things?
9. Mindless things change in our realithy all the time so I am not claiming something that defies what we see. Keeping within its parameters does not prevent the mindless thing from causing a change in something outside itself.
10. No decision is necessary for a hot object to change the temperature of a cold object next to it. Again, you don't get to decide what the limitations of a timeless existence are.
11. The thing is timeless...that means there is no anticedent and there is no logical reason for us to determine that an anticedent is necessary for change to occur in a timeless existence.
12. You have not been using logical lines of inference because you continually infer that a timeless spaceless existence should follow the rules that govern the reality that we live in. That is an assumption that you cannot logically support and the rest of your argument hinges on that assumption.
13. Support your assumption that the timeless spaceless existence that brought about our reality was required to follow the physics that governs our reality. If you can't do that then you can't support your argument logically.
1. Did I ever say that? Please demonstrate a quote... As I said it was pretty self-explanatory... I don't need to be all-knowing to know something that is self-explanatory
2. No, a Biotechnologist however its close.
3. This has already been explained over and over and over.. Intelligence is required as a casual factor as well as being able to choose to defy the anticedent operating procedures that a mindless cause would be limited by.
4. I never said I knew about those things, what I have been TRYING to drive home to you is the limitations you put on the cause by calling it mindless.
5. Care to read the entire thread again, since everyone here has given more than just what they think God should be.... Ergo you're just being difficult for the sake of being so.
6. Sigh you need to learn to READ my posts... Since this was already covered in the bulk of it... which you "replied" to... Here it is again...
"3. Sigh... Already been done via my recent posts but I guess you prefer to just ignore their implications. From post #147 just above
"I have staked my claim in the logic that a mindless thing cannot choose to operate beyond what it is / set to do. A (mindless) clock doesn't suddenly turn its hands into legs and walk around does it? A (mindless) computer doesn't choose to turn itself on and do things without input? No.. It follows its parameters... This is observed all over in reality so if you wish to claim something different to what we see in reality you're going to need evidence.... Rather than just a statement based on opinion."
4. See point 3 since its the same thing... Since choice comes from intelligence, meaning no mindless cause.
5. See point 3, as I said, a mindless thing following its parameters is what we see in reality, you have no evidence to state otherwise, hence if you wish to claim something that defies what we see in reality you are going to need evidence... (Lest atheism be based on a personal want rather than logic).
6. That is part of its parameters..... You've mistaken change within what the mindless thing is capable of, a clocks hands change position, (because that is what it is set to do), with change that occurs from making a choice which defies the anticedent conditions prior to the choice.. For example the same clock cannot "decide" to become a ballet dancer.
7. Again change is not the issue here, and your attempt to "change" it, indicates a sleight of hand being played, (though this is obvious by your attempt to bring up points that have already been debunked, by myself and others). What is the issue is the anticedent conditions of the thing, a mindless timeless cause cannot choose to create a temporal event."
Me- post #152
7. Again already dealt with this... Continuing to ask questions after they have been dealt with looks a tad foolish...
"Again change is not the issue here, and your attempt to "change" it, indicates a sleight of hand being played, (though this is obvious by your attempt to bring up points that have already been debunked, by myself and others). What is the issue is the anticedent conditions of the thing, a mindless timeless cause cannot choose to create a temporal event."
8. Did you read my post at all? I assumed you did since you are "replying" to it... However you keep on asking the same question which I have already shown to be, a slight of hand / your confusion on what we are discussing. We are not talking about mere change, we are discussing the anticedent conditions of something. A timeless immaterial cause which is mindless cannot choose to do anything or create anything that is not timeless or immaterial since it is mindless and therefore doesn't "know" any different.
However another point I made earlier was that intelligence is required as a matter of creativity.. How could a mindless thing CREATE anything, let alone the information rich DNA code.... (Since based on our current evidence, information only ever comes from intelligence). Ergo more evidence of an intelligent cause...
9. That is the point!! I'm not saying it cannot create a universe, I am saying that within its parameters the universe it creates would be timeless and immaterial since they are the parameters the mindless cause would operate to since that is what it is... Unless you claim that somehow the parameters were different etc... However doing so would invoke Okkams razor as you'd be increasing assumptions unnecessarily... Meaning God IS the logical choice.
10. Sigh.. Point 6, 7 and 8
11. There are anticedent conditions, as per the parameters the cause would need to operate by... It is YOU who is imposing limitations here since you claim the cause to be mindless. An intelligent cause would have no limitations whatsoever since its intelligent and thus can use its power in anyway possible. A mindless cause is limited to what it is and that is it, as I said where in reality have you ever seen a mindless thing operate outside of its parameters? ie- computer turning itself on and playing chess against itself, the clock that uses its hands as legs...etc etc etc.
12. No absolutely not true I have been saying that a MINDLESS cause is limited in its operation since it cannot "know" anything outside of its own existence, ie- timelessness and spacelessness... Ergo it cannot create something outside of those parameters.
13. I never said that, so your strawman isn't going to fly... I have been talking about a MINDLESS cause, and the limitations imposed from its mindlessness. If you cannot see that then I suggest you re-read my posts over and over till you do.