Kalam Cosmological Argument: Modern Science confirms an Ancient Christian Truth.

[brewerb]

1. The trans issue: "U.K. Study Criticizes Puberty Blockers for Gender Dysphoria in Minors Four-year study says there is no good evidence for giving transitioning drugs, adding to growing caution in U.S. and Europe ... LONDON—The underlying medical evidence for gender treatments for adolescents is “remarkably weak,” according to a landmark review commissioned by the U.K.’s National Health Service" https://www.wsj.com/world/uk/uk-study-cr...s-703c2ad7 So, you have numerous European countries, UK, Sweden etc, for secular reasons, banning trans surgeries for minors. That's because they deemed them harmful. Even Elon Musk recently said he was tricked into giving Puberty Blockers to his son Xavier, basically sterilization drugs, which he regrets. We Christians believe adults can make their own decisions. But there is often regret after these surgeries, and the damage done to one's genitals etc is largely irreversible. If children need to wait till 18 to get a driver's license, it is reasonable that they need to wait for adulthood to make these decision.

Bigotry means you have some unreasonable dislike or hatred of some people. Christians are forbidden by Christ to hate anyone. We don't hate anyone. We love everyone. We tell people certain procedures like trans surgeries for minors may be harmful. That's all. Whether they choose to do it or not, we love them just as Christ loved us, as He commanded.

I can tell from this that you're still in the closet. That's so sad, it must be horrible for you.

Thoughts and prayers.

Edit: Now I understand your avatar, makes perfect sense.

[SYZ]

... Christ, unlike the Pharisees, taught love of all, even enemies.

[...]

... Christianity is informed by that choice the Lord Jesus Christ made
to love everyone without exception.

Apparently not so.

From Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both
of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to
death; their blood is upon them."

The Bible considers homosexuality to be an abomination, an immoral
perversion of God’s created order.  The purity of God’s people in the
promised land was vitally important, as was the continuance of bloodlines
- which is why God demanded the death penalty for those who engaged
in homosexual intercourse.

Romans 1:26–27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be "shameful"
and "unnatural". First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are "wrongdoers"
who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since homosexuality is condemned
in the Bible, it follows that homosexuals marrying - same sex marriage - is
not God’s will and is therefore sinful.  Every mention of marriage in the Bible
refers solely to the union of a male and a female.

To sanction gay marriage/same-sex marriage is to approve of the homosexual
lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently labels as sinful. Christians
should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage/same-sex marriage.

 —Excerpted from Got Questions Ministries, 4 January 2022.

[pattylt]

Children do not undergo trans surgeries. Hormone blockers are completely reversible and you’re conflating the two. The only gender reassignment surgeries performed on children are usually due to ambiguous genitalia or extreme reasons to correct extreme conditions. You might insist that you “love” them but your kind of love is harmful and not wanted. Why not condemn surgical removal of cancerous tumors as god gave it to them?

You need to quit with BGV and WLC as they aren’t answering our questions. You are just as able to say, “I don’t know” as we are. There is zero evidence our universe was once nothing. You have to assume conditions to have an argument and we don’t accept your conditions since…WE DON’t KNOW.

There are lots of articles explaining why WLC is wrong and the problems with Kalam. Read them, understand them and get back to us when you do. We aren’t here to help you polish another’s arguments.

[SaxonX]

Some counters 

1. The trans issue: "U.K. Study Criticizes Puberty Blockers for Gender Dysphoria in Minors Four-year study says there is no good evidence for giving transitioning drugs, adding to growing caution in U.S. and Europe ... LONDON—The underlying medical evidence for gender treatments for adolescents is “remarkably weak,” according to a landmark review commissioned by the U.K.’s National Health Service" https://www.wsj.com/world/uk/uk-study-cr...s-703c2ad7 So, you have numerous European countries, UK, Sweden etc, for secular reasons, banning trans surgeries for minors. That's because they deemed them harmful. Even Elon Musk recently said he was tricked into giving Puberty Blockers to his son Xavier, basically sterilization drugs, which he regrets. We Christians believe adults can make their own decisions. But there is often regret after these surgeries, and the damage done to one's genitals etc is largely irreversible. If children need to wait till 18 to get a driver's license, it is reasonable that they need to wait for adulthood to make these decision.

The Cass report is a biased study that intentionally left out evidence using a completely inconsistent standard and has been condemned by various  medical organisations including the British Medical Associations and many of it contributors have a history or links to transphobic organisations or persons. Sweden has not banned surgeries it's put a hold on them after its medical association was attacked by right wing loons ironically pushing an ideological agenda and they recently passed a law that lowers the age of transition from 18 to 16 . Elon Musk has been condemned by his own trans daughter and has a long history of transphobic commentary, and he's a proven liar. Trans regret is rare and is overwhelmingly about how they are treated by bigots like you rather than the actual decision to transition. You can get a driver license at 16 you can also have sex at 16 the idea people should have to wait till 18 is not reasonable and comes with risks in regard to gender dysphoria. Maybe stop listening to right wing extremist sources and learn some actual facts.

2. The vicarious Redemption: Gandhi said about Jesus: "A man who was completely innocent, offered himself as a sacrifice for the good of others, including his enemies, and became the ransom of the world. It was a perfect act." In the Old Testament, after nearly 500 years of their slavery under Pharoah, God powerfully delivered His people from pharoah's hand. But from Heaven. Then in the New Testament, God delivered/redeemed us at the cost of an enormous Sacrifice. If a Father gives up His Life to save His Children from bandits, would it be reasonable to say, "Meh! Who cares". The Kalam Argument shows a Monotheistic Creator God exists and thus narrows down the number of possibly true religions to just 3, Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Further arguments, like the historical evidence for Jesus, Messianic prophecies like Isaiah 53, and the evidence for the Resurrection, show the Truth of Christianity, as we will see in other threads. For now, God distinguishes Himself from other gods by being the Savior of His People. Only a God who sacrifices and suffers is worthy of being called a Savior. Jesus is.

Again there is nothing heroic or noble about an immortal all powerful being sacrificing himself to get out of a rule he himself made, again human examples don't have the benefit of knowing they are immortal Jesus did. Also, the historic evidence for any religion is weak as hell and prophecies are so vague you can always find a way to make them work, and lastly the Kalam Argument does not show in any way shape or form a god.

(ii) "Laws apply only within the Universe": The laws of science and physics, and contingent truths like that, granted. But the laws of logic and mathematics, which are necessary truths that always hold, denied. Why would we think that a logical Truth like a temporal effect always requiring a prior cause depends on particular laws within the Universe? It is basic logic that a cause must precede its effect. It appears to be a fundamental Truth independent of physical laws. At the least, the premise is more reasonable than its denial.

These are all baseless assertion based again based on assumption within the universe that you have no basis for claiming. Sorry you don't just get assert things you need to actually show the hold in the conditions were discussing.Calling more reasonable doesn't make it so.

[Szuchow]

There are lots of articles explaining why WLC is wrong and the problems with Kalam.  Read them, understand them and get back to us when you do.  We aren’t here to help you polish another’s arguments.

If he would be capable of understanding anything he wouldn't be trolling here.

[AutisticWill]

Ok.

1. The trans issue: "U.K. Study Criticizes Puberty Blockers for Gender Dysphoria in Minors Four-year study says there is no good evidence for giving transitioning drugs, adding to growing caution in U.S. and Europe ... LONDON—The underlying medical evidence for gender treatments for adolescents is “remarkably weak,” according to a landmark review commissioned by the U.K.’s National Health Service" https://www.wsj.com/world/uk/uk-study-cr...s-703c2ad7 So, you have numerous European countries, UK, Sweden etc, for secular reasons, banning trans surgeries for minors. That's because they deemed them harmful. Even Elon Musk recently said he was tricked into giving Puberty Blockers to his son Xavier, basically sterilization drugs, which he regrets. We Christians believe adults can make their own decisions. But there is often regret after these surgeries, [UNTRUE!!!!!!] and the damage done to one's genitals etc is largely irreversible. If children need to wait till 18 to get a driver's license, it is reasonable that they need to wait for adulthood to make these decision.

Bigotry means you have some unreasonable dislike or hatred of some people. Christians are forbidden by Christ to hate anyone. We don't hate anyone. We love everyone. We tell people certain procedures like trans surgeries for minors may be harmful. That's all. Whether they choose to do it or not, we love them just as Christ loved us, as He commanded*.

1) *YOU CANNOT LOVE SOMEONE BECOUSE YOU WERE TOLD TO DO SO -- otherwise homosexuals could be told to love straight-wise, and they could and would! Not only could they, but peer pressure would MAKE them give in and convert. IF 'LOVE OR ELSE' worked, you could cure depression by ordering the patient to love himself, AND HE WOULD!

2) "We Christians believe adults can make their own decisions" -- BULLSHIT, MOTHERFUCKER!
Why else are christians doing their best to legislate morality? BECOUSE YOU DON'T TRUST ADULTS -- YOU ONLY TRUST THE BIBLE!!

And hey, here's a radical thought for you: Trust Kids to make their own decisions!

Do you let little Bobby chose to dress himself? He's wearing boy's clothes? You say 'Good job' -- he puts a pink ribbon around his wrist in addition to his boy clothes? PUNISHMENT TIME -- EVERY TIME; just ask any child of christian parents. The christian parents of my nieces FORCE one niece to wear a dress -- she's apparently 'normo-gendered,' so what's the problem? SHE FUCKING HATES IT -- THAT'S THE PROBLEM! They ARE FORCING THEMSELVES onto an UNWILLING AGENT!!!!!!! Can you imagine the problems that girl is going to have becouse they don't love her enough to spare her unnecessary stress and anxiety? Like: Rejecting jesus, becouse he's an authority figure, and she has an irrational fear of authority figures -- tell your girl, 'Say hi to hell -- enjoy the dress by the way.'

My niece is not trans. She is not a boy in a girls body, or a girl in a boys body -- she is normal, as you would define the word 'normal.' But she isn't even allowed to dress herself in normal everyday girls clothing. FUCK YOU PEOPLE -- IT'S NO WONDER YOU WANT TO FORCE 10 YEAR OLD GIRLS TO BIRTH RAPE-BABIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Forcing children to read bibles and censoring what little else they might want to read: YOU. FUCKING PEOPLE.

And before you say, 'Well what about school?' FORCING CHILDREN TO LEARN MATH HAS DONE LESS HARM THAN FORCING THEM TO BECOME CHRISTIAN. -- What's the square root of 7, by the way? See how it didn't even stick? [answer is: 7 is prime, {by the way}] What's the fate of you if you don't love jesus? ETERNAL TOOOOOORTUUUUUUUUUUURE! fucking asshole...........

3) But there is often regret after these surgeries
https://web.archive.org/web/202401091741...445VO7I3U/

In other words, you're more likely to regret knee surgery.

4) You know what your problem is? jesus. That has led you to become an ignorance-monger. And that has done humanity more harm than all the stds and unwanted pregnancies caused by whore-mongering: YOU ARE WORSE THAN A PIMP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SaxonX]

Regret is a thing for all kinds of surgeries and the regret among Trans people is minuscule by contrast to other regrets and again it's overwhelming because of the reaction of other people to their transition rather then the transition itself.

[Dānu]

2. The BGV Theorem: The BGV Theorem states that any Universe that has on average been expanding in the past cannot be actually infinite in the past but must have had a definite space time beginning. "The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin (BGV) theorem is a theorem in physical cosmology which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary.[1] It is named after the authors Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin, who developed its mathematical formulation in 2003.[2][3] The BGV theorem is also popular outside physics, especially in religious and philosophical debates.[3][4][5]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde%E2%8...in_theorem

The BGV theorem assumes that classical spacetime accurately describes things. We know this assumption is false at the big bang. Thus BGV can't be used as Vilenkin wants to use it.

Sean M. Carroll argues that the theorem only applies to classical spacetime, and may not hold under consideration of a complete theory of quantum gravity. He added that Alan Guth, one of the co-authors of the theorem, disagrees with Vilenkin and believes that the universe had no beginning.

Wikipedia || Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem

Stop cherry-picking fucking Wikipedia articles.

[Astreja]

In the Old Testament, after nearly 500 years of their slavery under Pharoah, God powerfully delivered His people from pharoah's hand.

The Exodus is mythical.  It's a liberation fable that was written while the Jewish people were in Babylon.

If a Father gives up His Life to save His Children from bandits, would it be reasonable to say, "Meh! Who cares".

In the case of the Biblical mythos, the "father" hired the fucking bandits by setting Adam and Eve up to fail - punishing them for something they did before they had knowledge of good and evil.

"Meh! Who cares?" is too mild a reaction when dealing with a manipulative and insane god.  If it actually existed, the smart thing to do would be to lure it into a black hole and leave it there till the heat death of the universe.

[Reltzik]

Radioactive decay was given as an attempted counterexample. But radioactive decay is not caused by nothing, it is caused by unstable nuclei that lacks the optimal neutron to proton ratio: "If a nucleus is not stable and has not the optimal neutron to proton ratio (1:1 for light nuclei and > 1.5:1 for heavy nuclei), the nucleus undergoes radioactive decay. Various types of radiation and examples of decay are shown below."

You have it subtly wrong there.  An unstable nucleus is not the CAUSE of radioactive decay.  It is simply a CONTINGENCY required for radioactive decay.  If it was the cause of the decay, then the nucleus would radiate the particle as soon as the instability was there to cause the decay.  Instead, radioactive isotopes can have half-life measured in the billions of years; there are some that have been in that state of having an unstable nucleus for longer than the Earth has existed.   It's like having a glass placed at the edge of a table that then falls and smashes on the floor.  Yes, the glass being elevated several feet over the floor where a slight displacement will send it to the floor IS required for that series of events.  But it's a contingency, not a cause.  You still need something to cause that displacement, like a cat knocking it over.  The cat is the cause of the glass falling, not the fact that it was on the table in the first place.  That was just a contingency.  Radioactive decay might (or might not) have a "cat", but we can't see whether the cat's there or not.  Maybe it found a box to crawl into or something?

1.2 Denying Premise 1 would be worse than Magic: If something can begin to exist without a cause, then why would Magic be impossible? At least with claimed magic, where the magician attempts to pull a rabbit out of a hat, you have the magician and the hat. Yet, we know it is impossible, because we know rabbits and other such things don't just pop into being without a cause.

Next, if things can just begin to exist without a cause, why only universes? Why not horses to houses to planets to plants to everything else? Why is nothing so discriminatory? Why does it produce only some objects but not others. Clearly, this is false.

I'm not saying "only universes".  (Hello?  Radioactive particles?  You just acknowledged that this was being talked about?)  But if you're suggesting that not regularly seeing acausal events bringing objects into existence is grounds for inferring that wasn't the cause of the universe, and if we don't regularly see divine creation bringing objects into existence, then by the same logic we should also infer that divine creation must be the cause of the universe!  ... yes, that' the same logic!  Apparently!  Because reasons!

1.3 Denying Premise 1 denies Science and Logic: When Sir Isaac Newton was hit on the head with the proverbial apple, he reflected, "this couldn't just have happened without a cause". Had he not done so, he would not have discovered the Law of Gravity. He knew that temporal effects have their own proper cause, whether that be Agent Causation or Event Causation or so on: "Agent causation, or Agent causality, is an idea in philosophy which states that a being who is not an event—namely an agent—can cause events (particularly the agent's own actions). Agent causation contrasts with event causation, which occurs when an event causes another event." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_causation

Even if it was the case that the universe had a cause (and, again, I lean towards the idea that it did... I just think the arguments with which you're attempting to prove it are terrible), you don't seem to be offering any reason to think it was agent causation specifically.

1. The Big Bang Theory: It was objected that the Big Bang Theory does not prove the Universe began. Let me ask those objectors, What, according to you, existed 100 BN years ago?

No idea.  The furthest we can look back using telescopes is the Big Bang, which, wasn't necessarily the beginning of the universe (thanks Comrade Cat, I let myself get a bit imprecise in my language there).  We can't look back any further because the CBR from the Big Bang is there drowning out anything from before we might try to see.  We can't extrapolate any further back because our current understanding of physics don't work in the sort of super-dense state represented at the Big Bang.  Trying to do so just gives us what is in effect a divide-by-zero error (aka a singularity).  A theory of quantum gravity might help with this extrapolation business, but we don't have a working one yet.  Bottom line, we don't know what (if anything) existed before the Big Bang.  The universe might have begun at the start of the Big Bang, or it might not.  We don't yet have the means to find out.[/quote]

If the Universe is of finite age, that means the Universe began at a finite time ago in the past,

... yes, that is what finite age would mean...

i.e. the universe is not eternal,

so far so good...

i.e. the universe was created.

Two ways I can interpret that.

Interpretation 1, where you mean that the universe came into existence at some point:   The existence of time would need to be infinite for that to be a logical conclusion.  If time is finite, we can have a Universe of finite age that still existed for all of history.  Otherwise we could have a universe of finite age, and also there would never have been a moment in time when the universe didn't exist.  And since universe seems to include all of space, and space and time are linked, it's not all that implausible that without the universe's space existing time wouldn't exist either.

Interpretation 2, where by 'created' you are specifically invoking agent causation:  No.  Bad Xerxes.  No equivocating!

2. The BGV Theorem: The BGV Theorem states that any Universe that has on average been expanding in the past cannot be actually infinite in the past but must have had a definite space time beginning. "The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin (BGV) theorem is a theorem in physical cosmology which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary.

And if prior to the expansion phase of the Big Bang there had been an infinitely dense singularity that had just been sitting there for eternity, the average expansion rate over eternity would have been 0.

Same for a cycling Big-Bang Big-Crunch model.

Or we could have a finite universe starting at (or slightly before) the Big Bang that didn't have a divine creator.

3. The impossibility of an infinite series formed by successive addition: Again, the impossibility of traversing an actual infinite of past moments can be mathematically demonstrated. (1) a series formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite. (2) the temporal series of past moments is a series formed by successive addition (3) therefore, such a series cannot be actually infinite. Which leads to the same conclusion, that the universe is of finite age, and therefore had a temporal beginning a finite time ago.

This is an argument I've never bought into, at least when it comes to arguing for a finite history.

The most basic infinite series we have are the whole numbers.  The are formed by successive addition and are, I repeat, infinite.

Also, the universe is not a series.

But if it was, it could be a potential infinity and still not be finite.

Do you understand the difference in definitions between potential and actual infinity?

If so, which would you classify the natural numbers count as?

If not, who are you quoting and why did they do so bad a job of getting you to understand what the phrase "actual infinity", at the core of this alleged argument, actually meant?  And also, why are you rushing into a debate with a hostile audience wielding an argument you don't understand, not to mention one hinging on rarefied, abstract philosophical and mathematical concepts that you're not prepared to explain to those audience members who, like you, don't understand?

[Xavier]

Stop moving goalposts. You said "trans ideology". Now, to be clear: Do trans people exist? Are they what they identify as? Or do they do have "issues", and, of course, you love them, their "issues" notwithstanding

Yes, trans people exist. Yes, we believe they have issues, as we don't believe biological men can become women. They can try, however, if they want to, as adults. It used to be called GID: "Gender dysphoria (GD), according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 5), is defined as a "marked incongruence between their experienced or expressed gender and the one they were assigned at birth." It was previously termed "gender identity disorder." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532313/ Do you believe biological men, now trans women, can play in women's sports, punch women in the face etc as happened in the boxing Olympics recently? I'm not going deep into this here, but I will just say even many Atheists, Liberals etc have reservations about that.

But my own view is that the theorem does not tell us anything about the existence of God.

Yes, Vilenkin said that, he's an agnostic, that's well known. Dr. Craig, and I, cited the BGV Theorem only to establish Premise 2. We're not claiming Vilenkin agrees with us on Premise 1. We know he doesn't.

And even if the total energy of the entire universe is equal to zero, did the split into positive energy and negative energy just happen by itself? Again, nothing has no power to effect anything, not even a re-ordering of existing energy.

SYZ: yes, we believe homosexual activity is sinful. Homosexuals, especially if they are Christian, can accept it or not as they want to, but we have the right to say it. Do you think homosexuality is genetic? We don't think so. And if homosexuality were at some time in the past genetic, natural selection would most likely have phased it out, as homosexuals usually do not reproduce. Anyway, whether people agree with us or not about it not being genetic, but a choice, we reject all expressions of hate toward anyone. Have you heard Michael Glatze, former founder of "Young Gay America"? After he rejected homosexuality, and married a woman, he got hate from some in the gay community. Hope you will agree that's wrong too. Here's Wiki about him: "Michael Elliot Glatze (/ɡlæts/; born 1975)[1] was the co-founder of Young Gay America and a former advocate for gay rights. He subsequently renounced homosexuality and became a non-denominational Christian pastor ... In 2005, Glatze was quoted by Time magazine saying "I don't think the gay movement understands the extent to which the next generation just wants to be normal kids. The people who are getting that are the Christian right."[6] ...He has received media coverage in other publications and in the book 16 Amazing Stories of Divine Intervention as well as several blogs.[11] In 2011, he began studying at a Bible college in Wyoming where he met Rebekah. He married her in 2013. [12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Glatze And again, while we don't believe the urge to commit sodomy is innate or genetic, those who want to do so in private as consenting adults can do so. Only, when some choose to renounce that lifestyle, like ex-gay and now Pastor Michael Glatze, let them be accorded the same freedom.

Hormone blockers are completely reversible and you’re conflating the two

[/size]


Ok, so are you ok with secular Sweden's decisions, based on scientific evidence and medical reasons, to ban trans treatments for minors? "Sweden puts brakes on treatments for trans minors Stockholm (AFP) – Sweden, the first country to introduce legal gender reassignment, has begun restricting gender reassignment hormone treatments for minors, as it, like many Western countries, grapples with the highly-sensitive issue ... the National Board of Health and Welfare said mastectomies for teenage girls wanting to transition should be limited to a research setting." https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20...ans-minors

Also, pls see this: "Biden Officials Pushed to Remove Age Limits for Trans Surgery, Documents Show ... The draft guidelines, released in late 2021, recommended lowering the age minimums to 14 for hormonal treatments, 15 for mastectomies, 16 for breast augmentation or facial surgeries, and 17 for genital surgeries or hysterectomies." https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/healt...eries.html


Will get back to the others' responses later. God Bless.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Children do not undergo trans surgeries.  Hormone blockers are completely reversible and you’re conflating the two.  The only gender reassignment surgeries performed on children are usually due to ambiguous genitalia or extreme reasons to correct extreme conditions.  You might insist that you “love” them but your kind of love is harmful and not wanted. Why not condemn surgical removal of cancerous tumors as god gave it to them?  

You need to quit with BGV and WLC as they aren’t answering our questions.  You are just as able to say, “I don’t know” as we are.  There is zero evidence our universe was once nothing.  You have to assume conditions to have an argument and we don’t accept your conditions since…WE DON’t KNOW.

There are lots of articles explaining why WLC is wrong and the problems with Kalam.  Read them, understand them and get back to us when you do.  We aren’t here to help you polish another’s arguments.

Patty, he simply doesn't want to understand, and even if he desired to, I'm not sure he could.

Much as I agree with you, I honestly think it's a matter of pearls before swine. I've read many of his posts over the years; he simply isn't equipped for listening.

[SaxonX]

Let's refute this nonesense shall we

Yes, trans people exist. Yes, we believe they have issues, as we don't believe biological men can become women.

Gender and sex are distinct so yes they are women and they didn't become women they always were women  and they don't have issues people like you do. 

They can try, however, if they want to, as adults. It used to be called GID: "Gender dysphoria (GD), according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 5), is defined as a "marked incongruence between their experienced or expressed gender and the one they were assigned at birth." It was previously termed "gender identity disorder." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532313/ 

Being Trans is not the same as having Gender dysphoria there is a difference thus being Transgender is not a mental disorder. Nice try 

Do you believe biological men, now trans women, can play in women's sports, punch women in the face etc as happened in the boxing Olympics recently? I'm not going deep into this here, but I will just say even many Atheists, Liberals etc have reservations about that.

Imane Khelif is not Transgender so don't spread lies and no one forces biological woman to fight Trans People. Bigots regardless of their title remain bigots.

[SaxonX]

Ok, so are you ok with secular Sweden's decisions, based on scientific evidence and medical reasons, to ban trans treatments for minors? "Sweden puts brakes on treatments for trans minors Stockholm (AFP) – Sweden, the first country to introduce legal gender reassignment, has begun restricting gender reassignment hormone treatments for minors, as it, like many Western countries, grapples with the highly-sensitive issue ... the National Board of Health and Welfare said mastectomies for teenage girls wanting to transition should be limited to a research setting." https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20...ans-minors

I wasn't science based it was political based and they already have to U turn on it slowly like recent laws in Sweden to reduce the age transition from 18 to 16 and it doesn't matter if Sweden is secular or not that doesn't change anything

Also, pls see this: "Biden Officials Pushed to Remove Age Limits for Trans Surgery, Documents Show ... The draft guidelines, released in late 2021, recommended lowering the age minimums to 14 for hormonal treatments, 15 for mastectomies, 16 for breast augmentation or facial surgeries, and 17 for genital surgeries or hysterectomies." https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/healt...eries.html

That change never came about so this point is moot because the Biden administration faced resistance from medical experts on changing the pervious policy. Also pick a source that doesn't require subscription if you intend for people to read your source.

[SaxonX]

Lastly 

 yes, we believe homosexual activity is sinful. Homosexuals, especially if they are Christian, can accept it or not as they want to, but we have the right to say it. 

Yup we have the right to call you disgusting bigots 

Do you think homosexuality is genetic? 

There is most certainly genetic factors to homosexuality  it's observed in numerous species aside humans.

We don't think so. And if homosexuality were at some time in the past genetic, natural selection would most likely have phased it out, as homosexuals usually do not reproduce.

1. Homosexuals are perfectly capable of reproducing 

2. Evolution in no way requires every member of a species to have children 

3. Evolution can be neutral

4. Adaptions can benefit a group rather then an induvidual

 Anyway, whether people agree with us or not about it not being genetic, but a choice, we reject all expressions of hate toward anyone.

Nope not accepting  Homosexuality is by default hate .Nope there is no agreement or disagreement it's innate and not a choice 

Have you heard Michael Glatze, former founder of "Young Gay America"? After he rejected homosexuality, and married a woman, he got hate from some in the gay community. Hope you will agree that's wrong too. Here's Wiki about him: "Michael Elliot Glatze (/ɡlæts/; born 1975)[1] was the co-founder of Young Gay America and a former advocate for gay rights. He subsequently renounced homosexuality and became a non-denominational Christian pastor ... In 2005, Glatze was quoted by Time magazine saying "I don't think the gay movement understands the extent to which the next generation just wants to be normal kids. The people who are getting that are the Christian right."[6] ...He has received media coverage in other publications and in the book 16 Amazing Stories of Divine Intervention as well as several blogs.[11] In 2011, he began studying at a Bible college in Wyoming where he met Rebekah. He married her in 2013. [12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Glatze And again, while we don't believe the urge to commit sodomy is innate or genetic, those who want to do so in private as consenting adults can do so. Only, when some choose to renounce that lifestyle, like ex-gay and now Pastor Michael Glatze, let them be accorded the same freedom.

Have you seen Alan Chambers or John Paulk or Günter Baum or Ben Gresham or John Smid or Peterson Toscano or Anthony Venn-Brown or Randy Thomas ? Guys who spread the lie you can reject being gay and then woke up and acknowledged hey were pushing a lie that's all Michael Glatze is doing pushing a lie and living one. He received justified criticism for spread that lie you can't quite being gay you can only lie to yourself that's all EX Gays are doing. Also gays kids are already normal it's homophobes and gays who pretend to not be gay that are abnormal.

[Deesse23]

We don't think so. And if homosexuality were at some time in the past genetic, natural selection would most likely have phased it out, as homosexuals usually do not reproduce.

Its well established that across many species up to 10% of the population are homosexual. it is quite possible that it has its evolutionary advantages (especially of social species) to have an amount of homosexuals, as they could play the role of "aunt" and "uncle" taking additonal care of the offspring.

You are an incredibly ignorant buffoon. A simpelton, who thinks "homosexuals dont reproduce, therefor its an *ideology* (and a sin anyway).

But why are you bothering us with this Kalam nonsense, refuted so many times in so many ways, i lost count? Kalam is not the reason you have bought into Christianity, is it? You are expecting us to be convinced by reasons that didnt convince you? Why is that? Is it because you know that the reasons that convinced you of Christianity are not good enough for most other people? What are the Reasons that made you a christian, a catholic christian? if you dont bother to tell us, they must be real bad.

[Dānu]

But my own view is that the theorem does not tell us anything about the existence of God.

Yes, Vilenkin said that, he's an agnostic, that's well known. Dr. Craig, and I, cited the BGV Theorem only to establish Premise 2. We're not claiming Vilenkin agrees with us on Premise 1. We know he doesn't.

You don't get to cherry-pick which of your authority's statements to accept. If he is an authority on one then he is an authority on both. Cherry picking is fallacious.

[brewerb]

Stop moving goalposts. You said "trans ideology". Now, to be clear: Do trans people exist? Are they what they identify as? Or do they do have "issues", and, of course, you love them, their "issues" notwithstanding

Yes, trans people exist. Yes, we believe they have issues, as we don't believe biological men can become women. They can try, however, if they want to, as adults. It used to be called GID: "Gender dysphoria (GD), according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 5), is defined as a "marked incongruence between their experienced or expressed gender and the one they were assigned at birth." It was previously termed "gender identity disorder." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532313/ Do you believe biological men, now trans women, can play in women's sports, punch women in the face etc as happened in the boxing Olympics recently? I'm not going deep into this here, but I will just say even many Atheists, Liberals etc have reservations about that.

But my own view is that the theorem does not tell us anything about the existence of God.

Yes, Vilenkin said that, he's an agnostic, that's well known. Dr. Craig, and I, cited the BGV Theorem only to establish Premise 2. We're not claiming Vilenkin agrees with us on Premise 1. We know he doesn't.

And even if the total energy of the entire universe is equal to zero, did the split into positive energy and negative energy just happen by itself? Again, nothing has no power to effect anything, not even a re-ordering of existing energy.

SYZ: yes, we believe homosexual activity is sinful. Homosexuals, especially if they are Christian, can accept it or not as they want to, but we have the right to say it. Do you think homosexuality is genetic? We don't think so. And if homosexuality were at some time in the past genetic, natural selection would most likely have phased it out, as homosexuals usually do not reproduce. Anyway, whether people agree with us or not about it not being genetic, but a choice, we reject all expressions of hate toward anyone. Have you heard Michael Glatze, former founder of "Young Gay America"? After he rejected homosexuality, and married a woman, he got hate from some in the gay community. Hope you will agree that's wrong too. Here's Wiki about him: "Michael Elliot Glatze (/ɡlæts/; born 1975)[1] was the co-founder of Young Gay America and a former advocate for gay rights. He subsequently renounced homosexuality and became a non-denominational Christian pastor ... In 2005, Glatze was quoted by Time magazine saying "I don't think the gay movement understands the extent to which the next generation just wants to be normal kids. The people who are getting that are the Christian right."[6] ...He has received media coverage in other publications and in the book 16 Amazing Stories of Divine Intervention as well as several blogs.[11] In 2011, he began studying at a Bible college in Wyoming where he met Rebekah. He married her in 2013. [12] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Glatze And again, while we don't believe the urge to commit sodomy is innate or genetic, those who want to do so in private as consenting adults can do so. Only, when some choose to renounce that lifestyle, like ex-gay and now Pastor Michael Glatze, let them be accorded the same freedom.

Hormone blockers are completely reversible and you’re conflating the two

Ok, so are you ok with secular Sweden's decisions, based on scientific evidence and medical reasons, to ban trans treatments for minors? "Sweden puts brakes on treatments for trans minors Stockholm (AFP) – Sweden, the first country to introduce legal gender reassignment, has begun restricting gender reassignment hormone treatments for minors, as it, like many Western countries, grapples with the highly-sensitive issue ... the National Board of Health and Welfare said mastectomies for teenage girls wanting to transition should be limited to a research setting." https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20...ans-minors

Also, pls see this: "Biden Officials Pushed to Remove Age Limits for Trans Surgery, Documents Show ... The draft guidelines, released in late 2021, recommended lowering the age minimums to 14 for hormonal treatments, 15 for mastectomies, 16 for breast augmentation or facial surgeries, and 17 for genital surgeries or hysterectomies." https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/25/healt...eries.html


Will get back to the others' responses later. God Bless.[/size]

Good for you, you've learned all the right things to say to stay closeted. I'd be interested to know if you've acquired a beard, have you?

[Charladele]

If your original theory is true, what do we need with Jesus?

[SYZ]

SYZ: yes, we believe homosexual activity is sinful...

What an insular and offensive, bigoted and discriminatory belief!

Sin is defined as "a moral evil as considered from a religious
standpoint.  It's regarded in Judaism and Christianity as the
deliberate and purposeful violation of the will of God".  The
problem with this is of course that nobody has ever provided
any empirical existence for the supernatural entities named God
or as gods.    And you can't even define your own god LOL.

You should be ashamed of your attitude mate.    

[Deesse23]

SYZ: yes, we believe homosexual activity is sinful...

All these wolves, dolphins, sheep, cows, apes....all of them are going to hell?

[Minimalist]

SYZ: yes, we believe homosexual activity is sinful...

All these altar-boy raping pervert priests must be a major problem for you, huh?

[pattylt]

Children do not undergo trans surgeries.  Hormone blockers are completely reversible and you’re conflating the two.  The only gender reassignment surgeries performed on children are usually due to ambiguous genitalia or extreme reasons to correct extreme conditions.  You might insist that you “love” them but your kind of love is harmful and not wanted. Why not condemn surgical removal of cancerous tumors as god gave it to them?  

You need to quit with BGV and WLC as they aren’t answering our questions.  You are just as able to say, “I don’t know” as we are.  There is zero evidence our universe was once nothing.  You have to assume conditions to have an argument and we don’t accept your conditions since…WE DON’t KNOW.

There are lots of articles explaining why WLC is wrong and the problems with Kalam.  Read them, understand them and get back to us when you do.  We aren’t here to help you polish another’s arguments.

Patty, he simply doesn't want to understand, and even if he desired to, I'm not sure he could.

Much as I agree with you, I honestly think it's a matter of pearls before swine. I've read many of his posts over the years; he simply isn't equipped for listening.

Yep, I’m done.  He’s not here for discussion.  He’s here to push his religion and try to score god points for it.  Homey don’t play that game.

[Paleophyte]

1. The trans issue: "U.K. Study Criticizes Puberty Blockers for Gender Dysphoria in Minors Four-year study says there is no good evidence for giving transitioning drugs, adding to growing caution in U.S. and Europe ... LONDON—The underlying medical evidence for gender treatments for adolescents is “remarkably weak,” according to a landmark review commissioned by the U.K.’s National Health Service" https://www.wsj.com/world/uk/uk-study-cr...s-703c2ad7

News Flash! WSJ misrepresents NHS Study! Ironically the report states:

"The strengths and weaknesses of the evidence base on the care of children and young people are often misrepresented and overstated, both in scientific publications and social debate."

(i) Nothing produces nothing:  Paleophyte wrote: "And yet that's precisely what you're talking about. A universe created from nothing." Yes, but not BY NOTHING. Either, "nothing created everything", or "nothing produces nothing, therefore some Being pre-exists the Material Universe". If nothing ever existed, then even today nothing would exist.

Created from nothing. This is a process that has never been observed, yet the entire foundation of the KCA is that it's no different from making lumber into furniture. The instant that you admit that Creatio ex Nihilo is fundamentally different from the causality that you're used to KCA comes unraveled.

(ii) "Laws apply only within the Universe": The laws of science and physics, and contingent truths like that, granted. But the laws of logic and mathematics, which are necessary truths that always hold, denied. Why would we think that a logical Truth like a temporal effect always requiring a prior cause depends on particular laws within the Universe? It is basic logic that a cause must precede its effect. It appears to be a fundamental Truth independent of physical laws. At the least, the premise is more reasonable than its denial.

Then I assume that you can explain how causality is possible with neither space nor time nor causal agents. Best of luck with that.

The "laws" of logic and mathematics are derived from observation of the universe. We have created other logical systems which, while internally valid, are utterly inconsistent with the reality in which we live. The "laws" of logic are simply a facet of this universe.

(iii) Newton's Apple etc: Was Newton correct in deducing that the event of the apple falling on his head required a prior cause, or not? It is true that this is a Scientific Law, but he was unaware of any such law when he deduced it. He simply applied a logical principle, "every temporal effect must have a prior cause". That is basically Premise 1 of the Kalam.

No idea what you're talking about. Please learn how to use the quote function so that you can reply in context.

Code:

[quote]It works like this.[/quote]

4. Dr. Craig and Alexander Villenkin:

Irrelevant. It's simply one of many possible models of cosmogenesis. Holding it up as if it were the One Truth is dishonest.

[SaxonX]

1. The trans issue: "U.K. Study Criticizes Puberty Blockers for Gender Dysphoria in Minors Four-year study says there is no good evidence for giving transitioning drugs, adding to growing caution in U.S. and Europe ... LONDON—The underlying medical evidence for gender treatments for adolescents is “remarkably weak,” according to a landmark review commissioned by the U.K.’s National Health Service" https://www.wsj.com/world/uk/uk-study-cr...s-703c2ad7

News Flash! WSJ misrepresents NHS Study! Ironically the report states:

"The strengths and weaknesses of the evidence base on the care of children and young people are often misrepresented and overstated, both in scientific publications and social debate."

(i) Nothing produces nothing:  Paleophyte wrote: "And yet that's precisely what you're talking about. A universe created from nothing." Yes, but not BY NOTHING. Either, "nothing created everything", or "nothing produces nothing, therefore some Being pre-exists the Material Universe". If nothing ever existed, then even today nothing would exist.

Created from nothing. This is a process that has never been observed, yet the entire foundation of the KCA is that it's no different from making lumber into furniture. The instant that you admit that Creatio ex Nihilo is fundamentally different from the causality that you're used to KCA comes unraveled.

(ii) "Laws apply only within the Universe": The laws of science and physics, and contingent truths like that, granted. But the laws of logic and mathematics, which are necessary truths that always hold, denied. Why would we think that a logical Truth like a temporal effect always requiring a prior cause depends on particular laws within the Universe? It is basic logic that a cause must precede its effect. It appears to be a fundamental Truth independent of physical laws. At the least, the premise is more reasonable than its denial.

Then I assume that you can explain how causality is possible with neither space nor time nor causal agents. Best of luck with that.

The "laws" of logic and mathematics are derived from observation of the universe. We have created other logical systems which, while internally valid, are utterly inconsistent with the reality in which we live. The "laws" of logic are simply a facet of this universe.

(iii) Newton's Apple etc: Was Newton correct in deducing that the event of the apple falling on his head required a prior cause, or not? It is true that this is a Scientific Law, but he was unaware of any such law when he deduced it. He simply applied a logical principle, "every temporal effect must have a prior cause". That is basically Premise 1 of the Kalam.

No idea what you're talking about. Please learn how to use the quote function so that you can reply in context.

Code:

[quote]It works like this.[/quote]

4. Dr. Craig and Alexander Villenkin:

Irrelevant. It's simply one of many possible models of cosmogenesis. Holding it up as if it were the One Truth is dishonest.

He uses the Cass report a biased cherrypicked study written by people with links to transphobic  organizations and persons including people who advocate for conversation therapy and a study that has been condemned by various health organizations