@lfzadra Hm.. as far as data goes.. there's no data that could prove that you love your mother. You must understand the limits of science before using it to qualify everything. But naturalistically it is impossible for a man to know the future so prophecy recorded in the Bible would be evidence of something supernatural. I doubt you'll consider this seriously as you seem to be more defensive than anything else. Resurrection would also be evidence of the supernatural.

@lfzadra The universe began to exist.. Agreed to by almost everyone.. Therefore something caused it.. also agreed to by pretty much everyone.. I don't know why you would believe the universe is uncaused.. when I can't name one scientific mind, be it theistic or none that would say it is. .. This is becoming pointless.. you're just running from one topic to another... I thought you were an honest inquirer.. i'll answer your final ?tion and be done.

As a moral human being, I find the idea that I am only moral because of the actions of an arguably non-moral deity to be, at the best, senseless, and at the worst, downright offensive to my person.

@rizzumz So, there´s an "spiritual realm" that can guarantee our free will? What´s exactly the properties of this spiritual reality that can show us that this is true? What data do you have, where is the source of your knowledge? Let me guess: there´s a voice in your head that says that our spirit can guarantee us free will. And because voices in your head are self-evidently true, you are right. Brilliant.

@rizzumz Oh! So God can explain itself because it´s uncaused? As far I know, the Universe is uncaused. And because you already said that uncaused things explains itself, there´s no need for useless things like leprechauns, fairies or Gods, that add nothing to our understanding of reality.

@lfzadra nothing can cause itself because it would have to exist before causing itself which would be a contradiction. Noone says God caused himself we say he is uncaused. lol.. whats funny is.. in naturalism there is no way of finding if there is free will.. thats why naturalism isn't lived out by those who ascribe to the belief. I'm sure you love someone. But in naturalism you don't love them, a random sequence of events has caused it you to feel and act like you do.

@rizzumz Please explain to me why the Univers can´t cause itself and God can. Because WLG said it? The existence of free will is something to discuss in another topic. Either way, or free will exist or not, it´s not something that rely on opinions, like beauty. Maybe there´s no such thing like free will, everything is just an illusion of our minds, who knows? And don´t use the Bible to solve this enigma, pleeeease...

@lfzadra The universe can't cause itself.. thats an internally contradictory statement. An event cannot be uncaused because by definition an event has a beginning and an end. You've just explained knowledge not intelligence. There is no such thing as free will in naturalism as there is no mechanism capable of creating free will. Which would lead to determinism by random causes. Thus this convo would be neither here nor there.

@rizzumz Just an addition: Naturalism don´t imply determinism. Reality is not something that you initiate and the final result will be allways the same. Randomness is present allways, we live in a probabilistic world. You have a tendency to keep your opinions based in the past information you acquired, but other random sources can interfere in your opinion and you can change your mind. Call it free will, if you wish. So, I don´t think naturalism implies a meaningless conversation.

@rizzumz If God is uncaused, he still an event, because I can name several things that could have existed uncaused to give birth to the Universe, including the Universe itself. If Einstein were born 10K years ago, he would die finding a better way to lit a fire. His brain is just raw power. Without the massive step-by-step knowledge generated by past science, he would never be to create his work. All this knowledge acumulated don´t occur by chance in one single step. But your god can do it.

@rizzumz If nothing can explain its own existence, how can your God explain itself? You are listening too much Platinga´s bull****. Math and logic are abstract tools used by science to find truth. The both obey their own abstract rules, not natural selection. This is why the scientific method is so important. It overcomes our limitations by providing a way to generate true beliefs that can be verified independently of our faulty common sense or their value for our survival.

@lfzadra I can't give you an instance of a single mind that ocurred by itself. Thats the whole point i've been making. There's nothing that can explain its existence within itself which leads to the belief of an outside influence. If you truly believed that everything is caused by a naturalistic step by step process this conversation is meaningless as the same naturalistic process that makes me believe what I believe makes you believe what you believe but makes none of what we believe true.

@lfzadra If you postulate God as an event then you would have to ask what caused him. This is why noone with half a brain postulates him thus. Your question still confuses knowledge with intelligence. You're espousing that intelligence can be cultivated when it can't. If einstein were born now he would know more because of cultural advances but would still possess the same intelligence to comprehend.

@rizzumz Show me one single mind that ocurred in the world that can operate without step by step knowledge aquisition. If Einstein, soon after his birth, was locked in a vat, at age of 40 he would be as intelligent as a watermellon. Intelligence is an emergent property of hardware (your brain) and the software (our culture). And these two occur step-by-step, you can´t assume they are just there, just by pure chance. But your God, of course, can. Weird assumption, and self-contradictory.

@rizzumz Life spontaneously happening and the folowing evolutionary process is a discovering of science. If will undermine this assumption with "at best", in fact you are attacking the whole scientific endeavour, and this is another topic. God is an event. We can postulate a variety of necessary things that can start the Universe. Your God is one event among all possible ocurrences.

@lfzadra And as I said before we have no example of anything in this universe that has the explanation of its own existence within itself. With your example I think you misunderstand intelligence as well and are confusing it with knowledge. Real life ex: two people can be equally intelligent and 1 cannot know logarithms and the other one can. That alone shows your confusion b/w knowledge and intelligence.. Again.. why does intelligence have to occur or be step by step?

@lfzadra God isn't an event.. noone ever states that. You've just explained understanding as a process not intelligence. Noone ever said everything that is complex needs a designer. lol.. Life spontaneously happening is at best the view of a pure naturalist.. and if you're a pure naturalist then the conclusion of this has another ending. I don't think you understand spontaneity as spontaneity through process can have no outside influence.

@rizzumz And yes, complexity spontaneously occur, but only in step by step processes, every step small enough to make its ocurrence by pure chance acceptable. The statement "everything that is complex needs a designer" is false, we know at least one exception: life. Even if this is false, the question remains: you can´t explain complexity by postulating more complexity, because complexity is the thing that you said is impossible to occur naturally in the first place.

@rizzumz To understand logarithms you must first understand power of numbers, and powers of numbers implies the knowledge of multiplication first. It´s a step by step process. By your own reasoning, God is impossible, because he is an spontaneously event that explains itself. If you can make exceptions in your reasoning to allow the existence of a deity, why you can´t accept that is the Universe, inf fact, that is the exception? This will show you why the Kalam argument fails.

@lfzadra I don't understand.. What makes you believe intelligence is a step by step process? Complexity doesn't spontaneously occur. Simplicity doesn't spontaneously occur. Nothing spontaneously occurs to the point where it is able to explain its own existence.

@rizzumz The next logical step is to conclude that the first cause was not intelligent, because intelligence is a byproduct of step by step processes. If you wanna raise an exception for God, I can raise an exception for "laws of nature", something existing in immaterial form in a timeless fashion, with no choice except to "big bang" the Universe as it is, so it doesn´t need to be personal or have the intention to do it. It was just there, no further explanations needed, just like your god.

@rizzumz The old watchmaker argument. I can´t believe somebody can use this stuff with a straight face in our century. The universe and the things that exists in it are not arrow heads. Complexity is something that can occur spontaneously by natural proceesses, without design. We have both logical and empirical evidence to support this assertion, so the proposition "every thing that looks designed needs a designer" is false.

@rizzumz How can you say that "every intelligence must have a cause" is not a valid assertion? If you can say this about this premise, then a I can say the same about "every thing that begins must have a cause" and dismiss the Kalam argument. Intelligence is a result of step by step causal processes, and we have no empirical evidence for just one single exception.

@lfzadra I thought maybe you still wouldn't understand and would continue asserting so i decided to add one little more thing. You seem to believe that 'intelligence' must have a cause.. and there must be proof of this in the first cause.. I agree the first cause must have intelligence though not in the way you do. But your assertion 'intelligence must have a cause" is not a valid one.

@lfzadra I'll give you an example. If you found an arrow head you would assume there was some people from some time ago with the intelligence to make it.