Quote:

---

Both models assume an eternal space existing before, beside, and after the universe. As you or someone else here went to great lenght to explain, eternal things need no cause.

---

Quote:

---

You are, as to my knowledge, still brooding over an answer on the debunking of the "appendix purpose" weeks ago.

---

Quote:

---

The same goes for the science proof for things without cause - we've already discussed Bell's theorem and radioactive decay of single atoms here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bells_Theorem

It's a little annoying to refute all creationist arguments just to see them repeated some time later. I think we should make a rule "When something is refuted, it must not be used as an argument anymore". Otherwise we'll never make progress in this discussion.

---

Ok, so you either don't know how they prove something has no cause, and you're hoping I'll find out by reading the literatature, or...You do know and you're just not saying because you don't feel like it and you're hoping I'll find out by reading the papers.

Frankly, the sources are so lengthy, and non layman friendly that it really isn't going to help much. What I'm saying is I don't quite get it, and after getting halfway, most of the way, or all the way through something about Bell's Theorem and not seeing any real discussion of uncaused events, I tend to get bored.

I don't really know what I'm supposed to get from reading those sources. I mean, I see what you're talking about, but your sources certainly don't entertain a question like mine. They just seem to assume I'll agree that these events for sure have no cause. That's kind of one sided, and is hardly satisfying my curiosities about the theorem. Certainly I'm not saying Bell's Theorem is false as a whole. I think the idea that we can say with certainty that there is an event for which there is for certain no cause is shaky ground to be on.

Quote:

---

I think we should make a rule "When something is refuted, it must not be used as an argument anymore". Otherwise we'll never make progress in this discussion.

---

Quote:

---

Prove to me that there even is something like 'supernatural'

---

Quote:

---

prove to me there is even something bigger than the universe for that matter and maybe you could indeed convince me that my reasoning is faulthy ...

---

You assume automatically that the default position is your position; namely that it makes more sense that an 'infinite' nothingness created the universe than an 'infinite' something. You're trying to control the argument by making me assume you're right and thus forcing me to argue against your position.

I could point out that the majority of the world believes in some kind of creator, play that card, and try and 'control' the argument, but I think we're both better off sticking to specific logic on this one.

If you have a problem with the logic used so far, feel free to cite a specific example. If you feel you have irrefutable logic that there doesn't need to be a creator, please give it and I'll show you why you're wrong. But you need to be specific, and keep it on a level playing field because I'm not going to have you forcing me to chase you all over the debate.