Aliens

[PopeyesPappy]

Got any evidence for anything you have been saying on this forum other than it makes you feel good?

The problem with you Gracie is that you start with a conclusion and select the possible explanation that best fits your conclusion. You totally ignore the fact that many of these things are really unknowns, and other explanations that do not fit your conclusion are possible. Many of these alternatives fit the current observations better than your chosen reality.

[wolf39us]

The second half of your paragraph is what we would call an assumption.

You also start out with "If" which is a variable and means nothing until this state you describe includes evidence.

[gracedwithlife]

Got any evidence for anything you have been saying on this forum other than it makes you feel good?

The problem with you Gracie is that you start with a conclusion and select the possible explanation that best fits your conclusion. You totally ignore the fact that many of these things are really unknowns, and other explanations that do not fit your conclusion are possible. Many of these alternatives fit the current observations better than your chosen reality.

You haven't countered the proof...

If there was this alleged infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

[wolf39us]

Got any evidence for anything you have been saying on this forum other than it makes you feel good?

The problem with you Gracie is that you start with a conclusion and select the possible explanation that best fits your conclusion. You totally ignore the fact that many of these things are really unknowns, and other explanations that do not fit your conclusion are possible. Many of these alternatives fit the current observations better than your chosen reality.

You haven't countered the proof...

If there was this alleged infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

You make an assumption and then say "it's true unless you prove me wrong".  This is a logical fallacy!

[gracedwithlife]

You make an assumption and then say "it's true unless you prove me wrong".  This is a logical fallacy!

I made no assumption nor did you show any. Glad to see you couldn't find fault with the proof...

If there was this atheist infinite regress of cause and effects, you would have had an eternity to come into being before now, so you should have already happened. Therefore, nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

[wolf39us]

You made the assumption God exists and picked a scenario to fit it

[gracedwithlife]

You made the assumption God exists and picked a scenario to fit it

Observe the evidence...

If there was an infinite regress of cause and effects in nature, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

[stromboli]

You made the assumption God exists and picked a scenario to fit it

Observe the evidence...

If there was an infinite regress of cause and effects in nature, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

Your argument begins with "if". that negates your entire argument.

[gracedwithlife]

You made the assumption God exists and picked a scenario to fit it

Observe the evidence...

If there was an infinite regress of cause and effects in nature, you would have happened already, having had an eternity to do so, so nature needs a cause outside itself, outside of time and space, being uncreated.

Your argument begins with "if". that negates your entire argument.

Why's that?

[wolf39us]

Because proof doesn't start with "if"

[gracedwithlife]

Because proof doesn't start with "if"

Sure it does.

[stromboli]

if is an assumption. Your entire argument is an assumption based on other assumptions.

[gracedwithlife]

if is an assumption. Your entire argument is an assumption based on other assumptions.

It's not my assumption, it's the atheist's assumption shown to be false.

[wolf39us]

Are you assuming that Atheists make an assumption inherently because they are Atheists?

[SGOS]

This is high school physics so you should be able to understand it.

No, this is homeschool physics...

:rollin: