Does God exist ? (part 2)

Looks like we are both online at the same time so are getting though this quicker than normal. --- Pro might be trying to shift the burden --- I already agreed, that I have to show why your arguments should not be accepted. You also agreed that my first contention that just because things are possible doesn't make them actual was well as agreeing that there are more things that could exist but don't, than do exist, and by more we mean over 99% that are possible to exist, but don't exist. Previously I asked you a question, and you just avoided it so I am going to ask directly and I expect a direct answer. My question is in relation to where you say " After all, he was the one that insisted both sides have burden of proof. So, where is his proof? I simply reminded the readers so he wouldn't get away with leaving us empty handed, which he has so far done. " Are you saying I have to prove Gods non existence ? I am looking for a direct yes or no answer here. --- So what is a universe anyway ? --- According to Pro ". Note that, by universe, I simply mean some unit of existence" I am not too sure why I find this amusing, I just do. --- Countering that the first cause must be personal --- Pro claims that "All eternal causes of temporal effects must be personal. " In order to justify a personal eternal cause Pro has sought to prove that a eternal non personal cause is impossible. I don't think he has done so. Take for instance where Pro says "Therefore, timeless existence that is mechanical (like a perpetual universe creating machine) would consist of an actual infinite number of causes and effects, which is impossible. " If its true that there can't be an actual infinite of effects, this just means that an eternal non personal cause can create a finite amount things, or a potential infinite of things. (Yes I said potential infinite for those who understand the difference between actual infinities and potential infinities) Well if you have a timeless cause that can produces finite effects, so can I. A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black and white thinking or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options. [1] Pro is committing a false dilemma because Pros argument is. .. .. .. 1) The eternal cause is either a non personal cause producing an infinite amount (Pros eternal universe factory) or a personal eternal cause that produces a finite amount (Pros Personal God) 2) The eternal cause is not a non personal cause producing an infinite amount 3) Therefore the eternal cause is personal But what about a non personal cause that produces a finite amount or a potential infinite amount ? Why can't an eternal cause produce a finite amount of things ? I don't see any valid reason for rejecting this, thus its still an option on the table. This refutes the claim that an eternal cause MUST be personal. Pro says " If, on the other hand, a mechanical universe does not change, it is dead. It does nothing" I don't understand this repeated it is dead claim, It sounds like Pro is arguing that if something is dead, that is to say it is not a personal cause, it can't produce any effect. .. .. .. .I think gravity may beg to differ. --- Does God have a cause ? --- Pro says "If an existence has causes and effects, it is not eternal because--as I already stated--you cannot have an actual infinite of things. " Pro argues that existence is made up of an timeless personal cause, who creates finite things (eg our universe). --- The argument that God is not eternal --- 1) God exists and thus is part of existence (Pro is arguing that God exists after all) 2) If existence has causes and effects, its not eternal (According to Pro) 4) God is a cause 3) Therefore God is not eternal --- The argument that God does not create anything--- 1) God does not change (According to Pro) 2) Things that do not change, do not produce anything (This is one of the reasons Pro gives for rejecting a non personal eternal cause) 3) Therefore God does not produce anything --- Causation/time and timeless causes --- Claiming that a timeless personal God is problematic for so many reasons, here is one of them. As Pro says "Time is, by definition, a series of cause/effects" God can't be a timeless cause argument. .. .. . 1) Time is, by definition, a series of cause/effects (According to Pro) 2) God is part of a series of cause/effect (Claimed by Pro, as the universe is the effect and God is the cause) 3) Therefore God is in time 4) Therefore God is not timeless --- Countering the bible is historically accurate --- Pro takes offense to my questions are the claims in the bible historically accurate, in thiscase genesis. I asked about claims in Genesis cause that is the first book, don't worry there are 65 more books to ask about various historical claims too. Yet pro was the one who claims the bible is historically accurate. I am no historian, but in order for something to be historically accurate doesn't the event that is claimed to have happened actually has to have happened ? Pro got of this topic real quick, accuse me of attacking genesis, then changes his argument. Well now he is arguing that some new testament claims are historically accurate. Remember pro you said the bible is historically accurate. Which brings me to my charge that Pro is committing a logically fallacy, if one thing in a book is true or some things in a book is true then that means ITS ALL TRUE. Even if it is confirmed that there was some guy named Pontus Pilate, and Jerusalem exists, does this prove Jesus was the son of God, rose from the dead, confirmed all the claims in genesis, cast out demons, healed amputees, and produced his own home improvement show, including episodes such as, working with wood, and how not to get nailed to it (Hey if people can make various claims about Jesus, so can I). No, no it doesn't. Pro says "The question then becomes, were these people deluded or lying about what they saw". Yes people lie, also this leaves out another option, that a person never made the claim, but some one else either lied or mistakenly attributed the claims too them. As far as Jesus confirming Genesis, Genesis has ALOT of claims in it, even if Jesus confirmed one claim doesn't mean he is confirming all claims of Genesis, I guess we can ask him what his position is. .. .. .. .. .. .oh wait, we can't. Pro says "Unfortunately, it requires many more assumptions to argue that the resurrection was faked or fabricated than it does to accept that the event was real. " Your kidding right ? you mean all the assumptions that are needed to support the claims of an eternal personal God, raising Jesus from the dead, as opposed to people being mistaken and making stuff up ? --- Countering the Logical Argument for God's Existence --- The argument says, that logic can only exist if God exists. Well if an assertion is that all is needed then I can assert logic can exist even if God does not exist. --- Reminder --- I remind Pro of the question I asked at the start which is, are you saying I have to prove Gods non existence ? I am looking for a direct yes or no answer here. I look forward to Pros response.