Free will, freedom from what?

[Immanuel Can]

What will you do now?

I will ignore those who can't keep up, intellectually. Obviously, they aren't capable of understanding it anyway.

[Atla]

What will you do now?

I will ignore those who can't keep up, intellectually. Obviously, they aren't capable of understanding it anyway.

Well, thanks for not ignoring me I guess

[bahman]

The universe had a beginning. That however does not mean that it has a necessary cause. The physical stuff just was there!

You've just contradicted yourself. If the "stuff was just there," then there has to be a cause of "the stuff."

No, there is no need. You have to try to imagine a situation in which there was physical stuff at the beginning of time.

Whatever that is, IT is the First Cause, by definition.

That does not follow.

Moreover, since physical stuff is entropic, we know it hasn't always existed.

That is correct.

We can watch it dissolving. There's only so long dissolution can go on, until there's nothing left.

Dissolving!? Physical stuff does not dissolve but evolves to a state of maximum entropy, so-called heat death.

[Immanuel Can]

What will you do now?

I will ignore those who can't keep up, intellectually. Obviously, they aren't capable of understanding it anyway.

Well, thanks for not ignoring me I guess

We'll see. If you can at least show a basic understanding of the argument, great.

You don't even have to agree. You only have to agree not to misrepresent, and to keep doing your best to understand what's being offered, and operate by logic. If you can do those things, no problem. If you can't...no time.

[Atla]

We can watch it dissolving. There's only so long dissolution can go on, until there's nothing left.

Dissolving!? Physical stuff does not dissolve but evolves to a state of maximum entropy, so-called heat death.

"dissolving" lmao

[Immanuel Can]

The universe had a beginning. That however does not mean that it has a necessary cause. The physical stuff just was there!

You've just contradicted yourself. If the "stuff was just there," then there has to be a cause of "the stuff."

No, there is no need. You have to try to imagine a situation in which there was physical stuff at the beginning of time.

"Stuff" is material. Materials are entropic.

A proper account would be for you to explain what created the "stuff."

Whatever that is, IT is the First Cause, by definition.

That does not follow.

Actually, it does. You can't go beyond the First Cause.

Moreover, since physical stuff is entropic, we know it hasn't always existed.

That is correct.

Which contradicts your first claim. So you're going to have to "pick a horse and ride it," because those claims are opposite: the "stuff" can't be both entropic, and hence not always existed, and also be the First Cause.

[Immanuel Can]

We can watch it dissolving. There's only so long dissolution can go on, until there's nothing left.

Dissolving!? Physical stuff does not dissolve but evolves to a state of maximum entropy, so-called heat death.

"dissolving" lmao

Dissolving is a word that simply means, "moving from a state of higher concentration to one of lower concentration." Matter decaying is a moving from a state of higher concentration to one of equal distribution of energy.

Sad that you don't know that. But my expectations of your wit and knowledge have taken a serious hit today.

[Atla]

Dissolving!? Physical stuff does not dissolve but evolves to a state of maximum entropy, so-called heat death.

"dissolving" lmao

Dissolving is a word that simply means, "moving from a state of higher concentration to one of lower concentration." Matter decaying is a moving from a state of higher concentration to one of equal distribution of energy.

Sad that you don't know that. But my expectations of your wit and knowledge have taken a serious hit today.

"concentration"

Your expectations? You don't even have a clue what the two links you gave me are about. You fail to understand your own argument, and the other two I mentioned flew way over your head.

You're just a miserable religious idiot who thinks he can score points with God by acting smart on a philosophy forum, but fails miserably.

[Immanuel Can]

You're just a...

Aaaaand...there it is! Right on cue. The ad hominem. The first refuge of the defeated.

Well, I'm not going to waste my time.

[Atla]

You're just a...

Aaaaand...there it is! Right on cue. The ad hominem. The first refuge of the defeated.

Well, I'm not going to waste my time.

Ah so that's why you ad hommed me like 5 times now, instead of making a real argument.

[bahman]

You've just contradicted yourself. If the "stuff was just there," then there has to be a cause of "the stuff."

No, there is no need. You have to try to imagine a situation in which there was physical stuff at the beginning of time.

"Stuff" is material. Materials are entropic.

A proper account would be for you to explain what created the "stuff."

There is no need for the creation if the stuff existed at the beginning of time.

Whatever that is, IT is the First Cause, by definition.

That does not follow.

Actually, it does. You can't go beyond the First Cause.

No, there is no need for the first cause.

Moreover, since physical stuff is entropic, we know it hasn't always existed.

That is correct.

Which contradicts your first claim. So you're going to have to "pick a horse and ride it," because those claims are opposite: the "stuff" can't be both entropic, and hence not always existed, and also be the First Cause.

I agree with the fact that things cannot have always existed. There was a beginning. There were things, material stuff, at the beginning.

[Flannel Jesus]

You're just a...

Aaaaand...there it is! Right on cue. The ad hominem. The first refuge of the defeated.

Well, I'm not going to waste my time.

Ah so that's why you ad hommed me like 5 times now, instead of making a real argument.

He really isn't great at self-reflection in these conversations. I guess most of us aren't, but seeing the irony front and center is entertaining.

[Atla]

Aaaaand...there it is! Right on cue. The ad hominem. The first refuge of the defeated.

Well, I'm not going to waste my time.

Ah so that's why you ad hommed me like 5 times now, instead of making a real argument.

He really isn't great at self-reflection in these conversations. I guess most of us aren't, but seeing the irony front and center is entertaining.

I don't think he cares, he's just trying to score points with God no matter what.

[Gary Childress]

That's not quite what the third premise entails. And it isn't quite what it says, either.

What the third premise means is very simply, "We have no reasonable candidates for a non-intelligent thing that creates."

So are you saying that water flowing in a river softens the edges of rocks because of the water's volition?

Are you supposing that water erosion is "creation"? It rather seems the opposite, does it not? It seems yet another case of entropy.

Fair enough. Would you say that the argument that you presented was a "deductive" one or an inductive one?

[Gary Childress]

Ah so that's why you ad hommed me like 5 times now, instead of making a real argument.

He really isn't great at self-reflection in these conversations. I guess most of us aren't, but seeing the irony front and center is entertaining.

I don't think he cares, he's just trying to score points with God no matter what.

He doesn't need to score points with God, he's a Christian. God forgives those who follow Jesus no matter what they do and sends the rest of us to hell even if we regularly help little old ladies cross the street. He gets a get out of jail free card according to his Bible.