The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[KCfromNC]

It's a slow day. And I am curious... how much wrong can someone accumulate?

Einstein had a saying about this. Let's just say we'll be waiting a long time to see the full variety of fail from the OP.

 

[Gadarene]

Einstein had a saying about this. Let's just say we'll be waiting a long time to see the full variety of fail from the OP.

Isn't that the one that makes reference to the universe being finite? I get the point you're trying to make but probably not the best quote to bring up during a KCA discussion

 

[Elioenai26]

Where did I say that?

Do you concede my points?

Does this god of yours run down, and eventually out of power, or does 'he' keep going, without having to get or receive additional power, like a perpetual motion machine?

It's a slow day. And I am curious... how much wrong can someone accumulate?

You had no qualms about derailing the discussion in your speculations. It's only when others respond that you claim it is being derailed.

Einstein had a saying about this. Let's just say we'll be waiting a long time to see the full variety of fail from the OP.

Isn't that the one that makes reference to the universe being finite? I get the point you're trying to make but probably not the best quote to bring up during a KCA discussion

If these posts are any indication of the undercutting defeaters or rebutting defeaters to either of the two premises of the Kalam that the atheist side has to offer, then I make a motion to move to a discussion on a conceptual analysis of this First Cause.

I recommend this course because it is evident that there are no defeaters of any type that can be offered to warrant denying the plausibility of the two premises of the KCA.

As it stands, the thread is at a virtual standstill with no new objections given from the atheist side.

 

[Gadarene]

If these posts are any indication of the undercutting defeaters or rebutting defeaters to either of the two premises of the Kalam that the atheist side has to offer, then I make a motion to move to a discussion on a conceptual analysis of this First Cause.

I recommend this course because it is evident that there are no defeaters of any type that can be offered to warrant denying the plausibility of the two premises of the KCA.

As it stands, the thread is at a virtual standstill with no new objections given from the atheist side.

There have been plenty, it's just apparent that you aren't interested in honest discussion. You've been the entertainment for some time.

 

[Davian]

I find it intellectually dishonest that you have edited my posts to alter their intent in your replies. If you can't or don't want to answer a point, say so. I am sure that someone with 'the truth' and a personal relationship with a deity can come up with some excuses.

You claimed, "For a material thing to come into being without a material cause requires an efficient cause of infinite power."

Where did you establish that scientifically?


That does not address my question. Why 'must' it be 'infinite', particularly to create a cosmos with a net energy level of 'zero'?

Or do you need to say 'infinite' because you are working back from your conclusion that it was your "God"?


What you say and what you have done has not been consistent. From what I have seen it appears more like you presume you are right until you admit that you have been shown otherwise. With an argument that you don't even buy yourself. Tell me, does your faith in this deity of yours depend on this argument?

I don't buy it either.

Try to state your claim in the form a falsifiable hypothesis. Do some science.

No, the question pokes fun at your insistence at telling me of what this 'first cause' isn't.

Do you not claim that this 'first cause' is also your deity? Occam's razor takes them all out.

Care to substantiate this?


Have you not been paying attention to the responses in this thread?



You said, it does not "get" or "receive" anything from anything outside of itself. It has excess power, to do other stuff. So, does this god of yours run down, and eventually out of power, or does 'he' keep going, without having to get or receive additional power, like a perpetual motion machine?

As you say, they do not exist.

If you are not hesitant to maintain that a finite being could create the universe, then that is on you. You just have no good reason to do so, except to avoid the theological implications of an infinite first cause.

Where did I say that?

Do you concede my points?

Does this god of yours run down, and eventually out of power, or does 'he' keep going, without having to get or receive additional power, like a perpetual motion machine?

If these posts are any indication of the undercutting defeaters or rebutting defeaters to either of the two premises of the Kalam that the atheist side has to offer, then I make a motion to move to a discussion on a conceptual analysis of this First Cause.

Make a motion? When did we invoke Robert's rules?

I recommend this course because it is evident that there are no defeaters of any type that can be offered to warrant denying the plausibility of the two premises of the KCA.

Is that an intellectually honest thing to say?

As it stands, the thread is at a virtual standstill with no new objections given from the atheist side.

What is this "atheist side" that you refer to? Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. It is not a position on the KCA.

Tilt at windmills all you want. You have not dealt with the objections raised so far.

Also, do you concede my earlier points?

Does this god of yours run down, and eventually out of power, or does 'he' keep going, without having to get or receive additional power, like a perpetual motion machine?

Will you deal with this in your "conceptual analysis of this First Cause"?

 

[Elioenai26]

Make a motion? When did we invoke Robert's rules?


Is that an intellectually honest thing to say?



What is this "atheist side" that you refer to? Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. It is not a position on the KCA.

Tilt at windmills all you want. You have not dealt with the objections raised so far.

Also, do you concede my earlier points?

Does this god of yours run down, and eventually out of power, or does 'he' keep going, without having to get or receive additional power, like a perpetual motion machine?

Will you deal with this in your "conceptual analysis of this First Cause"?

The atheist side is the side that is opposed to the theistic view of reality.

With regards to the KCA, atheists maintain that there is a better explanation for the origin of the universe besides the one that is inferred from the conclusion of the KCA and that that explanation is of a naturalistic/materialistic stripe.

Thus far, I have seen no points worthy of concession. Research in quantum mechanics does not furnish an exemption to premise (i), and no steady-state cosmological theoretical model has been shown to be able to more accurately account for the data we have than the Standard Big Bang Model of the Universe. This and several other lines of scientific and philosophical evidence all combined, warrant us holding that premise (ii) is true.

*Therefore the conclusion follows.

1. Now, if you want to maintain that the universe "self-created" itself, which someone has already tried to propose, then you can. Just know that you do so despite it being clearly contradictory and absurd.

2. If you want to try and redefine the word "universe" to mean something other than all of space-time, matter, and energy (which is the standard definition of the word), then you do so in an attempt to alleviate the requirement for a transcendant immaterial cause of the universe which is pertinent only to the conclusion of the argument, not to either of the two premises. So this tangent falls by the wayside as a plausible defeater of either (i) or (ii).

3. Most of the more recent posts from you contain questions regarding the nature of the necessary First Cause. These are not defeaters, but questions and therefore, can be dealt with in the appropriate thread on the conceptual analysis of the First Cause which is forthcoming.

ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE

Paul Davies has moved from promoting atheism to conceding that "the laws [of physics] ... seem themselves to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design." (Superforce, p. 243) He further testifies, "[There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all ... it seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature's numbers to make the Universe ... The impression of design is overwhelming." (The Cosmic Blueprint, p. 203)

Paul Davies
Superforce, p. 243
The Cosmic Blueprint, p. 203
​

“The more I examine the universe and the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”

Freeman Dyson
Disturbing the Universe
New York: Harper & Row, 1979, p. 250
​

"The scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation ... His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

Albert Einstein
​

“The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron …. The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”

Stephen Hawking
​

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Sir Fred Hoyle
​

"For the scientist who has lived by faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Robert Jastrow
God and the Astronomers
​

“On Earth, a long sequence of improbable events transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row. Contrary to the prevailing belief, maybe we are special …. It seems prudent to conclude that we are alone in a vast cosmic ocean, that in one important sense, we ourselves are special in that we go against the Copernican grain.”

Robert Naeye
“OK, Where Are They?”
Astronomy, July 1996, p.36
​

"We can't understand the universe in any clear way without the supernatural."

Allan Sandage
​

“Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of Nature is repugnant to me … I should like to find a genuine loophole.”

Arthur Eddington
“The End of the World: From the Standpoint of Mathematical Physics”
Nature, vol. 127 (1931) p. 450
​

Einstein tried to avoid such a beginning by creating and holding onto his cosmological “fudge factor” in his equations until 1931, when Hubble’s astronomical observations caused him to grudgingly accept “the necessity for a beginning.”

A. Vibert Douglas
“Forty Minutes With Einstein”
Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
Vol. 50 (1956), p. 100
Einstein quote cited in
Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, pp. 107-108
​

“The big bang theory requires a recent origin of the Universe that openly invites the concept of creation.”

Fred Hoyle
The Intelligent Universe
New York: Holt, Rinehard, and Winston, 1983), p. 13
​

“If we accept the big bang theory, and most cosmologists now do, then a ‘creation’ of some sort is forced upon us.”

Barry Parker
Creation—the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe
New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, p. 202
​

Compared to the alternative of supposing that matter and energy somehow always existed, British physicist Edmund Whittaker says, “It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo—Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness.”

Edmund Whittaker cited in
Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, pp. 121
​

“We do, of course, have an alternative. We could say that there was no creation, and that the universe has always been here. But this is even more difficult to accept than creation.”

Barry Parker
Creation—the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe
New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, pp. 201-202
​

Einstein later chided himself for introducing his famous fudge factor in order to make his theory fit. He called the addition of his cosmological constant “the greatest blunder of my life.” (cited by Richard Morris, The Fate of the Universe, New York: Playboy Press, 1982, p. 28) He wrote: “The mathematician Friedmann found a way out of the dilemma. His results then found a surprising confirmation by Hubble’s discovery of the expansion (of the universe).” (cited by Barry Parker, Creation—the Story of the Origin and Evolution of the Universe, New York & London: Plenum Press, 1988, pp. 53-54). After this Einstein wrote not only of the necessity for a beginning, but of his desire “to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thought, the rest are details.” (cited by Nick Herbert, Quantum Reality—Beyond the New Physics, Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1985, p. 177).

Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, pp. 135
​

“There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”

George Smoot
​

“Until the late 1910’s humans were as ignorant of cosmic origins as they had ever been. Those who didn’t take Genesis literally had no reason to believe there had been a beginning.”

George Smoot and Keay Davidson
Wrinkles in Time
New York: William Morrow and Company, 1993, p.30

​

“There is no explanation in the Big Bang theory for the seemingly fortuitous fact that the density of matter has just the right value for the evolution of a benign, life supporting universe.”

Robert Jastrow
God and the Astronomers, second edition
New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992, p. 93
​

“The Hubble Law is one of the great discoveries in science; it is one of the main supports of the scientific story of Genesis.”

Robert Jastrow
God and the Astronomers, second edition
New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992, p. 53
​

“Certainly there was something that set it all off. Certainly, if you are religious, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match with Genesis.”

Robert Wilson
An interview with Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, p. 157
​

“If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.”

Milton Rothman
“What Went Before?”
Free Inquiry, vol. 13, no. 1 (Winter, 1992/93), p.12
​

Context: George Smoot commenting on the discovery by the COBE Science Working Group of the expected “ripples” in the microwave background radiation. He called these fluctuations “the fingerprints from the Maker.” Smoot draws attention not only to the fact that his team had provided more evidence for the creation event, but for a “finely orchestrated” creation event. Stephen Hawking was so impressed with this finding that he called it “the most important discovery of the century, if not of all time.”

Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, p. 177
​

“How is it that common elements such as carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen happened to have just the kind of atomic structure that they needed to combine to make the molecules upon which life depends? It is almost as though the universe had been consciously designed…”

Richard Morris
The Fate of the Universe
New York: Playboy Press, 1982, p. 28
​

“In order to make a universe as big and wonderful as it is, lasting as long as it is—we’re talking fifteen billion years and we’re talking huge distances here—in order for it to be that big, you have to make it perfectly. Otherwise, imperfections would mount up and the universe would either collapse on itself or fly apart, and so it’s actually quite a precise job. And I don’t know if you’ve had discussions with people about how critical it is that the density of the universe come out so close to the density that decides whether it’s going to keep expanding forever or collapse back, but we know it’s within one percent.”

George Smoot in an interview with Fred Heeren
Show Me God: What the Message from Space Is Telling Us About God
Day Star Publications, 2000, pp. 168
​

“The big bang, the most cataclysmic event we can imagine, on closer inspection appears finely orchestrated.”

George Smoot and Keay Davidson
Wrinkles in Time
New York: William Morrow and Company, 1993, p.135
​

“The question of ‘the beginning’ is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians.”

George Smoot and Keay Davidson
Wrinkles in Time
New York: William Morrow and Company, 1993, p.189
​

“the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

Robert Jastrow
God and the Astronomers, second edition
New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992, p. 14
​

Theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking mentions the ratio between the masses of the proton and the electron as one of the many fundamental numbers in nature, and comments, “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”

Stephen W. Hawking
A Brief History of Time—From the Big Bang to Black Holes
New York: Bantam Books, 1988, p. 125
​

"Every one of these forces must have just the right strength if there is to be any possibility of life. For example, if electrical forces were much stronger than they are, then no element heavier than hydrogen could form ... But electrical repulsion cannot be too weak. if it were, protons would combine too easily, and the sun ...(assuming that it had somehow managed to exist up to now) would explode like a thermonuclear bomb."

Richard Morris
The Fate of the Universe
New York: Playboy Press, 1982, p. 153
​

"If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, multi-proton nuclei would not hold together. Hydrogen would be the only element in the universe."

Hugh Ross
The Fingerprint of God, second edition
Orange, CA: Promise Publishing Co.
1989, 1991, pp. 121-122
​

"Stronger (nuclear) forces would cause all of the primordial hydrogen -- not just 25% of it -- to be synthesized into helium early in the history of the universe. And without hydrogen, the stars could never begin to shine."

Richard Morris
The Fate of the Universe
New York: Playboy Press, 1982, p. 153
​

“To make sense of this view (design as opposed to accident), one must accept the idea of transcendence: that the Designer exists in a totally different order of reality or being, not restrained within the bounds of the Universe itself.”

George F. R. Ellis
Before the Beginning – Cosmology Explained
London and New York: Boyars/Bowerdean, 1993, 1994, p. 97
​

 

[Davian]

The atheist side is the side that is opposed to the theistic view of reality.

With regards to the KCA, atheists maintain<snip repost>

Did I just not say that you are tilting at windmills? What is with this axe you have to grind with that word?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The atheist side is the side that is opposed to the theistic view of reality.

With regards to the KCA, atheists maintain that there is a better explanation for the origin of the universe besides the one that is inferred from the conclusion of the KCA and that that explanation is of a naturalistic/materialistic stripe.

Thus far, I have seen no points worthy of concession. Research in quantum mechanics does not furnish an exemption to premise (i), and no steady-state cosmological theoretical model has been shown to be able to more accurately account for the data we have than the Standard Big Bang Model of the Universe. This and several other lines of scientific and philosophical evidence all combined, warrant us holding that premise (ii) is true.*Therefore the conclusion follows.

You keep ignoring this point: the notion that the universe had a beginning does not necessarily lead to theism. You seem to be under the impression that the very idea of a beginning commits one to theism, and that the only way atheists can be atheists is by rejecting that idea.

2. If you want to try and redefine the word "universe" to mean something other than all of space-time, matter, and energy (which is the standard definition of the word), then you do so in an attempt to alleviate the requirement for a transcendant immaterial cause of the universe which is pertinent only to the conclusion of the argument, not to either of the two premises. So this tangent falls by the wayside as a plausible defeater of either (i) or (ii).

You have once again introduced dualist assumptions into the argument. Yet if anyone attempts to pick up on this point you will accuse them of derailing the thread. One set of rules for you, another for everyone else?

3. Most of the more recent posts from you contain questions regarding the nature of the necessary First Cause. These are not defeaters, but questions and therefore, can be dealt with in the appropriate thread on the conceptual analysis of the First Cause which is forthcoming.

Apparently it is the appropriate thread for you to speculate about the nature of that cause, but it is not the appropriate thread for us to respond to your wild speculations.

 

[Elioenai26]

Did I just not say that you are tilting at windmills? What is with this axe you have to grind with that word?

So....

Have I been engaged in discussion with theists for 60 plus pages of posts? No I have not. I have been engaged in discussion with atheists, or the godless who do not believe in God.

People who have chosen the term have done so because they want to. I call them what they want to be called. I call them atheists because that is what they want to be called.

Now you on the other hand, I guess you are a seeker. But the majority of people I have been in discussion with have been atheists. No axe to grind, just speaking to my targeted audience.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

So....

Have I been engaged in discussion with theists for 60 plus pages of posts? No I have not. I have been engaged in discussion with atheists, or the godless who do not believe in God.

People who have chosen the term have done so because they want to. I call them what they want to be called. I call them atheists because that is what they want to be called.

Now you on the other hand, I guess you are a seeker. But the majority of people I have been in discussion with have been atheists. No axe to grind, just speaking to my targeted audience.

More like "speaking at". You have not indicated any interest in having an intellectually honest discussion on the topic. You have avoided certain questions because those asking them find certain words meaningless. Apparently they can only discuss the topic with you if they accept your conclusion a priori. You have set up rules for yourself regarding the discussion of dualism, and a different set of rules for others. You have no intention of speaking with atheists; you are speaking at them. What is most irksome about it all, however, is that you see fit to remind everyone else about philosophical decorum.

 

[Davian]

So....

Have I been engaged in discussion with theists for 60 plus pages of posts? No I have not.

No, you have not. You have just been making assertions and prosthelytizing.

I have been engaged in discussion with atheists, or the godless who do not believe in God.

And the scientific, pointing out the weaknesses in your premises. But don't let that hold you back. It never slows WLC down. He would have carried on long ago.

Get on with your cut-and-pasting.

People who have chosen the term have done so because they want to. I call them what they want to be called. I call them atheists because that is what they want to be called.

Now you on the other hand, I guess you are a seeker. But the majority of people I have been in discussion with have been atheists. No axe to grind, just speaking to my targeted audience.

Let's look at this speaking...

...
The atheist side is the side that is opposed to the theistic view of reality.

No, not opposed, neutral. Not accepting. Are you new at this?

With regards to the KCA, atheists maintain that there is a better explanation for the origin of the universe besides the one that is inferred from the conclusion of the KCA and that that explanation is of a naturalistic/materialistic stripe.
...

Show that this applies to all atheists.

 

[Davian]

It's a slow day. And I am curious... how much wrong can someone accumulate?

Einstein had a saying about this. Let's just say we'll be waiting a long time to see the full variety of fail from the OP.

Isn't that the one that makes reference to the universe being finite? I get the point you're trying to make but probably not the best quote to bring up during a KCA discussion

I recall the quote , but this cartoon also came to mind:

 

[KCfromNC]

Isn't that the one that makes reference to the universe being finite? I get the point you're trying to make but probably not the best quote to bring up during a KCA discussion

Yeah, that was intentional.

 

[KCfromNC]

So....

Have I been engaged in discussion with theists for 60 plus pages of posts?

No, because you haven't been engaged in discussion at all. Mostly it's just been you ignoring what other people write, which is hardly a discussion.

No I have not. I have been engaged in discussion with atheists, or the godless who do not believe in God.

You're forgetting the Christians who have rejected your ideas as well. But stay on message and pretend those don't exist and maybe you'll sneak it by.

 

[KCfromNC]

If these posts are any indication

Blah, blah blah. Are you already breaking your promise not to respond to my posts? Dang, that didn't take long. I guess the nagging doubts really are getting stronger and stronger the more you try to ignore them.

 

[Elioenai26]

Still no arguments, no objections, no undercutting or rebutting defeaters to the KCA.

Only rhetoric, cynicism, and sarcasm.

Very telling... very telling.

 

[Gadarene]

Still no arguments, no objections, no undercutting or rebutting defeaters to the KCA.

Only rhetoric, cynicism, and sarcasm.

Very telling... very telling.

Says the dishonest evader

 

[The Engineer]

Still no arguments, no objections, no undercutting or rebutting defeaters to the KCA.

Only rhetoric, cynicism, and sarcasm.

Very telling... very telling.

The last time I refuted your arguments, you just laughed at me as if I was joking. Because you had no idea that the conclusions of your premises don't have to be supported by evidence; the premises have to be supported, the conclusions don't.

You're incapable of having a logical discussion.

 

[Elioenai26]

The last time I refuted your arguments, you just laughed at me as if I was joking. Because you had no idea that the conclusions of your premises don't have to be supported by evidence; the premises have to be supported, the conclusions don't.

You're incapable of having a logical discussion.

Somewhere along the way, you and several others have misconstrued what a question is and what a refutation is. Don't confuse the two, they are not synonymous.

A handful of people here have offered the run of the mill objections to premises (I) and (ii) , they have all been dealt with and shown why they are neither undercutting defeaters or rebutting defeaters to the premises.

Most recently, many questions have been asked, specifically with regards to the conclusion of the argument. These in no way whatsoever should be seen as "refutations". They are questions regarding the conceptual analysis of the first cause, which will be dealt with in a forthcoming thread.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Somewhere along the way, you and several others have misconstrued what a question is and what a refutation is. Don't confuse the two, they are not synonymous.

A handful of people here have offered the run of the mill objections to premises (I) and (ii) , they have all been dealt with and shown why they are neither undercutting defeaters or rebutting defeaters to the premises.

Most recently, many questions have been asked, specifically with regards to the conclusion of the argument. These in no way whatsoever should be seen as "refutations". They are questions regarding the conceptual analysis of the first cause, which will be dealt with in a forthcoming thread.

Most recently? You started speculating about the nature of the cause on the first page of this thread and you haven't stopped since, except to remind us that we aren't allowed to deal with that segment of your argument. Now in your "most recently" comment you are framing it as though we are trying to derail the thread when all we are doing is responding to your claims!

Furthermore, the two premises and the conclusion have been dealt with multiple times. As I keep pointing out, you are wrongfully assuming that the idea of a beginning implies theism and that the only way to maintain atheism is to deny that the universe had a beginning some finite time ago. Several objections have been raised to your use of the word "cause" in the argument. For one, you have taken the word out of its familiar context and applied it to some entity that is radically unlike any other known cause and that possesses none of the properties that would mark it as an entity that is able to cause anything. You've leveraged the meaning of the word, but ignored the context in which finds its meaning for the sake of your argument. In other words, you are assuming that the causal principle applies to things that are unlike any of the things it actually does apply to.

Another objection is that your argument suffers from the fallacy of composition. You are assuming that the properties of the parts must apply to the whole. However, there is some asymmetry to your assumption. You assume the property of causality applies to the whole, but not the properties of materiality or occupying a particular space in a particular time. This is where you invoke dualism to rip reality into two unequal spheres with an unspecified mode of interaction. This division of existence began on the first page of this thread, and has been an ongoing discussion ever since. For a while you were even confident that dualism saved and strengthened your argument. But ever since The Engineer and Davian responded to this, your confidence has markedly diminished, and you now demand that we no longer address one of the most fundamental assumptions of your argument.