I'm not at all sure how that's at all relevant to any topic we've been discussing.

N_J

The 'first cause' nonsense has been roundly refuted as fallacious.

See https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_first_cause

As to your assertion:

>God is not now physical nor has He ever been physical.<

I find myself firmly in Jefferson's camp on this score:

"when once we quit the basis of sensation all is in the wind. to talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. to say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, & Stewart. at what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism this masked atheism crept in, I do not know. but a heresy it certainly is." (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/98-01-02-1458)

"God is spirit", says the Gospel of John, and spirits are imaginary, therefor God is imaginary.

Simple logic.

N_J

>There are only 2 options for origins.  Either it came from nothing or it was caused to be here.<

what nonsense!

The typical fallacy of the excluded middle!

What if 'reality' has ALWAYS been around?  What if there was never 'nothing' such that 'something' had to be created?

Where is your evidence that there was ever 'nothing' such that energy/matter/time and everything else we now see had to be 'created'?

>even physics has concluded that this reality was not always here<

Simply false.

Do not attempt to bs physics here.  You will be corrected by people with degrees in physics.  People who TEACH physics.

No, physics has never "concluded" that there was ever a time when reality did not exist.  Where do you people GET this stuff?

N_J

YoungGandalf said...

I like the irony though that you state that in English one can say this directly (disagree) when the point of the debate is that the American English speakers, in general, psychologically cannot do such a thing :-}

I am a native American English speaker.  Even worse, American English is my only language.  When I post I write as if there is one and only one way to express an idea and that is in American English.  Of course this this is ridiculous.  It is even embarrassing for me to admit to it.  But intellectually I know full well that it is true.  

Usually there is no problem.  I post to other native American English speakers and although we may well disagree the language itself is not a problem.  You know full well the absurdity of my position and you do not hesitate to embarrass me because of it.  That makes me squirm; I would not call it painful but it does make me very aware of my own cultural limits.  It also makes me aware that you, although correct, are in a small minority here and I use that as well as I am able to.  I enjoy using it.  But the truth of the matter is that despite embarrassment I enjoy having you use it against me.  I'm not sure why but I do.  

NETIZEN_J said...

The thought of a tree is a conception of a physical thing.

I thought a conception was a fetus.  At least that is what happened in my case.  As the poet writes, "The night my father got me / His mind was not on me."