Replies

You got no replies to #126 because the "logic" is non-existent. Let's see it in some detail.

To start with, your "givens" are completely irrelevant to the point. They add nothing, they show nothing, nor do you reference them in any meaningful way.

You neglect case "A" in spite of it's philosophical implications. But I'll let this one slide.

You assume that cases "A,B, &C" are exhaustive. They aren't (that means you have not considered all possibilities).

Let us assume B. If the universe has always existed, then stars in the sky have been consuming resources for an amount of time equaling negative infinity.

"If the universe has always existed" DOES NOT imply "then stars in the sky have been consuming resources for an amount of time equaling negative infinity".

So your entire statement so far is an unsupported assertion.

Therefore not only are there no resources presently existing, there are negative infinity resources. We know this is false. Therefore Case B is false.

This is not a formal conclusion but another assertion as your initial premise was flawed. And clearly so. The primary star we know about is the Sun - it's a young star and it has not existed since the beginning of the Universe. Do you know how old our Sun is? Does the evidence of higher atomic number elements (lead, gold, etc) on our planet indicate anything to you?

Let us assume B again, only this time, we will go with the idea that resources will regenerate within stars via some reaction.

Why assume any such thing at all? We know about the life cycle of stars and I've never heard of anyone who suggests that they have been around forever, so you are arguing against a strawman.

So we know that stars have been shining in the direction of earth forever,

Again, this does not follow from the premise. If the universe has existed forever, or has gone through an endless cycle of Big Bang-Big Crunches, it does not mean that that any particular stars have existed forever.

therefore all stars in the universe, not concealed by phenomena such as nebulae, are visible from the Earth.

Even if we are in a steady-state, existing-forever universe with stars that "shine forever", we are still subject to the inverse-square law and atmospheric distortion, so no, they are not all visible from the Earth.

However we know also that a new stars light will occasionally reach earth,

True but irrelevant. Stars fluctuate in brightness due to a variety of causes, including age, mutual interference, and violent explosive deaths.

so Case B is again false.

So, we have bad premises, bad logic/leaps, and wrong (or, at least, totally unsupported) conclusions.

No need to proceed further.

Grade: F

I would hate to think that this represents the level your thought processes or your work in general.

First I'd like to thank you. You have been the absolute first to try to directly rebut my post. The reason I posted this was to refine my argument, and this will serve quite well I think. You must understand, because I am biased that there is a god, and my arguments would be ineffective against my own arguments. So for that thank you.

"You got no replies to #126 because the "logic" is non-existent. Let's see it in some detail.

To start with, your "givens" are completely irrelevant to the point. They add nothing, they show nothing, nor do you reference them in any meaningful way."

Okay this is the equivalent of me telling you that your arguments are stupid, and leaving it like that. But you go on to explain yourself some, so I may be a little off base. I mention every one of my given in the proof.

" You neglect case "A" in spite of it's philosophical implications. But I'll let this one slide."

I neglect case "A" because if it is true, then regardless of any argument we could make against it, everything is meaningless anyway. Not even this argument means anything.

" You assume that cases "A,B, &C" are exhaustive. They aren't (that means you have not considered all possibilities)."

Good argument, but still wrong, either the universe has or has not always been, or it does not exist. there are no other possibilities.

" "If the universe has always existed" DOES NOT imply "then stars in the sky have been consuming resources for an amount of time equaling negative infinity"."

Yes it does, If the universe has existed forever, even if stars die, and others are regenerated, then all of those stars have been consuming resources forever.

"Why assume any such thing at all? We know about the life cycle of stars and I've never heard of anyone who suggests that they have been around forever, so you are arguing against a strawman."

Essentially a proof must have a strawman in it. It is inevitable, and must be allowed. But I never asserted that the stars have always been, merely that stars have been consuming resources forever.

"Again, this does not follow from the premise. If the universe has existed forever, or has gone through an endless cycle of Big Bang-Big Crunches, it does not mean that that any particular stars have existed forever."

Thats kinda cool. The Idea of a race attempting to stop a big crunch would be a good plot for a sci-fi novel. (sorry for the non-sequiter). But anyway,

Okay sure I'll give you the second half of the Universe cannot have always been argument(that is single stars exist forever), but I still have the first(stars always consuming resources), so you're still not proved correct.

"True but irrelevant. Stars fluctuate in brightness due to a variety of causes, including age, mutual interference, and violent explosive deaths."

I know I've already given you this half of the argument, but I still want to argue this. Just because the star's magnitude fluctuates, does not impair the speed of light. The light would still reach Earth, and would be visible with instruments, satellites, or even the naked eye.

" So, we have bad premises, bad logic/leaps, and wrong (or, at least, totally unsupported) conclusions.

No need to proceed further."

Good try, but I still have half the Universe cannot have always existed argument, and all of the Universe was created at some point argument. I have at least an A-.

I would like to introduce a new argument. I hope you don't mind. What can be gained by atheism? I mean, sure, if there is no god, then we're all just worm food, but what if there is? I mean If there is a god, I still have what? a 1:1million chance of going to heaven. But believeing in no god, you believe you're just worm food, but If there is a god you have a 0:1million chance of going to heaven. Where is the logic in that? I picture a T-shirt that says: "I'm an atheist, and I'm right, and all I got was this stupid T-shirt."

I really do appreciate your debating with me, I like deep discussion, and even if you don't agree with the *entire* Bible, it still must be true, that "as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."