David Paszkiewicz should be fired

[Guest Guest]

Apparently "Guest" isn't prepared to so much as bat an eyelash that the Court advocated a breach of the First Amendment in its ruling ("Congress"--expanded via the 14th Amendment, passing a law restricting freedoms of speech and religion).

The other difference is that Peloza had a policy with the force of law bearing on his specific actions while Paszkiewicz did not.

Thus we have an outcry from defenders of the Constitution who are eagerly trashing an explicit right in the Constitution in favor of an implicit (and dubious) right in the Constitution.

In the end, it's not about the Constitution.  It's about ideology (the LaClairs wanting to bend the community to their ideology).

... points up the Court's difficulty in defining "religion" on a consistent basis ...

That the action of the local authorities constitutes a restriction on the teacher's First Amendment right of free speech.

And they'd probably have to agree that the local authorities in Kearny placed no such restrictions on teachers.

And as an aside, it's pretty funny how Ninth Circuit dodged its opportunity to find that secular humanism is a religion for purposes of the Establishment Clause.  Though counsel for Mr. Peloza may be at least partly to blame for that.

As such, the case provides yet more evidence of an agenda-driven court system that undercuts the foundations of democracy.

Good job of coming up with a case that reasonably ties in as a precedent, by the way.  The only thing missing is a local policy that Paszkiewicz crossed (a policy that would necessarily violate the First Amendment but for the self-contradictory stance of the Court).

72490[/snapback]

Bryan, you asked for a precedent, and there it is. We know you don't like it, but there's no question that the Peloza case accurately states the law.

And you don't need a local policy to violate the law. There wasn't one in Peloza either. All you need is a state actor: Peloza in his case, and Paszkiewicz in the case at hand.

[Guest Guest]

I'm a theist.  Where did you find the above in my logic, ever?

Quite true.  Why would insensible and in-stasis nature  do otherwise (go non-stasis and sensible at least in places)?

You failed to understand the argument.  Nobody argues, as far as I can tell, that the eye was the first entity complex enough to create further complex entities, and once you accept the existence of a first cause (personal or not) the issue is not whether the first cause was in turn created by something else but whether or not the first cause is personal.

Either way you're blowing smoke.

72551[/snapback]

There's no basis for accepting a first cause. You're using linear logic to try to figure out a non-linear universe.

You're on the horns of a dilemma. If there's no first cause, you have the problem of incomprehensible infinity. But if there is a first cause, you have the problem that nothing can exist without a cause. It's really a revealing and simple proof, via the simplest of syllogisms:

1. All thiings that exist have a cause.

2. God (or the hypothetical first cause) has no cause.

3. Therefore, God (or the hypothetical first cause) does not exist.

See how simple that is: an airtight proof of atheism. Now are you sure you want to insist on linear logic all the way?

Either way, you have an absurdity according to the usual rules of logic and causation. So why not just admit that there might be something about the universe, or reality itself, that you don't understand? Why is that so hard and equally important, why isn't it obvious to you?

Choosing one of the horns isn't an answer. All that reflects is your biases.

[Bryan]

There is a whole world of arguments to be had out there.  So come on, let's just drop the God in the classroom thing.

I wasn't the one who threatened the original suit, nor am I the one who suggested firing Mr. Paszkiewicz (see current thread title).

It's played out and increasingly incessant.

Stops even less than it used to?

I mean, it is really incredible how sometimes I can read your posts and think "wow, he makes a great point.  I never saw it that way"  Really... It's most amazing because I'VE HEARD THE TAPES.  WE ALL HAVE.  PASKASDJIOFH IS A DIRTY, LYING SONOFABITCH.

The tapes do not support that conclusion once context is considered.

Mr. P knew he was wrong.  He lied about what he said in class during a tape-recorded conference with the principal present.

The tapes do not support that conclusion once context is considered.

So all the legal-bs aside, the man dishonest and wrong and denied the things he said, because he knew he was wrong.  Drop it.  Please.

I don't think it's right to sit idly by while people unjustly attempt to trash somebody else's reputation. I won't drop it until they do.

Nobody here is on the supreme court, so you're not goign to redefine the laws and conditions of the seperation of church and state.

Maybe I'll get a few people to see the issue in a new light.

Good luck though if you really think this shitty forum is going to do you any good in the real world.  And if it's just for leisure then you're also gay.  F**K all of you.

72730[/snapback]

So are you asking me out or what?

[Guest Guest]

Based on the apparent impossibility of an infinite regress (if an endless series of events precedes the present, then we could never have reached the present because crossing an actual infinity by successive addition is an apparent impossibility).

That's why.

The reasonable person should consider a person first cause more likely than an impersonal first cause because impersonal entities are notoriously poor self-starters (having something to do with an absence of self, I suppose).

On what basis do you demand empirical evidence in order to resolve this question?  Provide the empirical proof that your momma is conscious (or ever was conscious).

If I just had a penny for every time an atheist had tried a cheesy argument like that, I could pay for all of Hillary's proposed government spending.

Let me put it this way:  Give me the empirical proof that an empirical proof is properly required.

72668[/snapback]

In other words, you don't have any proof. I know. You also don't have a frame of reference. Which means you don't know a thing about any of this.

QUOTE(Guest @ Nov 7 2007, 02:38 PM)

On what basis must a reasonable person conclude that there was a first cause?

(Bryan) Based on the apparent impossibility of an infinite regress (if an endless series of events precedes the present, then we could never have reached the present because crossing an actual infinity by successive addition is an apparent impossibility).

OK, so now explain how a thing can exist uncaused. You want to argue that all things have a cause except for the hypothetical god you want to offer up as an exception to the rule of causation. On what basis?

QUOTE

On what basis must a reasonable person conclude that consciousness preceded matter?

(Bryan) The reasonable person should consider a person first cause more likely than an impersonal first cause because impersonal entities are notoriously poor self-starters (having something to do with an absence of self, I suppose).

And there's no "precedent" at all (no evidence) that consciousness has ever created matter. You're not answering anything. You're just picking the non-solution you want to believe in. Who do you think you're kidding?

[Guest Guest]

Forgiveness only matters if there is remorse. Paszkiewicz has no remorse for what he did at all.

Regardless, what "dogs" are you referring to, exactly?

72607[/snapback]

As they say "if the shoe fits" or in your case, the paw socks.

[mnodonnell]

Based on the apparent impossibility of an infinite regress (if an endless series of events precedes the present, then we could never have reached the present because crossing an actual infinity by successive addition is an apparent impossibility).

That's why.

Time is simply another dimension, just like space. The past is not necessary to reach "now" the same way that distance is not necessary to reach "here". More accurately, time is indefinite as opposed to infinite.

Regardless, I think this debate sprung up as a counter to the appropriateness of teaching evolution in schools without presenting alternatives. This is not evolution, however, this is a discussion on abiogenesis.

There is no definitive consensus in the scientific community regarding abiogenesis, so it is not something that should be taught as a scientific "fact".

[Bryan]

There's no basis for accepting a first cause. You're using linear logic to try to figure out a non-linear universe.

What logic did you use to figure out that the universe is non-linear.

You're on the horns of a dilemma.

No, I'm not. But thanks for the forthcoming amusement.

If there's no first cause, you have the problem of incomprehensible infinity. But if there is a first cause, you have the problem that nothing can exist without a cause. It's really a revealing and simple proof, via the simplest of syllogisms:

1. All thiings that exist have a cause.

2. God (or the hypothetical first cause) has no cause.

3. Therefore, God (or the hypothetical first cause) does not exist.

See how simple that is: an airtight proof of atheism. Now are you sure you want to insist on linear logic all the way?

What is the basis for the first premise (not counting the recurring "i")?

See, I can offer an argument for the premise that an infinite regress should not be accepted. What argument can you offer for all things, without exception, requiring a cause? Particularly in light of the findings of scientists, who call the formation of quantum particles "uncaused"? Are the scientists mistaken? How will you explain their error?

Either way, you have an absurdity according to the usual rules of logic and causation.

In reality, we have a fallacy of the false dilemma created by yet another in a string of clueless anonymous guests.

So why not just admit that there might be something about the universe, or reality itself, that you don't understand? Why is that so hard and equally important, why isn't it obvious to you?

Choosing one of the horns isn't an answer. All that reflects is your biases.

72887[/snapback]

Right.

Get back to me when you've figured how to to account for the random generation of quantum particles in terms of your airtight argument.

Aren't you glad you're anonymous?

[Bryan]

Let me put it this way:  Give me the empirical proof that an empirical proof is properly required.

In other words, you don't have any proof.

Sure I do. I already gave it, but some clueless "Guest" (I'm sure it wasn't you--you can't be that stupid) thinks he can just arbitrarily demand not just any proof but an empirical proof. I simply pointed out to the idiot (again, I'm sure it wasn't you--you're far above that) that he can't empirically prove the need for an empirical proof.

I know. You also don't have a frame of reference. Which means you don't know a thing about any of this.

Based on the apparent impossibility of an infinite regress (if an endless series of events precedes the present, then we could never have reached the present because crossing an actual infinity by successive addition is an apparent impossibility).

OK, so now explain how a thing can exist uncaused.

Because logic demands it if an infinite regress is impossible. Were you paying attention at all?

There are no other options.

You want to argue that all things have a cause except for the hypothetical god you want to offer up as an exception to the rule of causation. On what basis?

What rule of causation? If I want to offer it up as an exception to the rule of causation then I have a right to know what that rule supposedly is.

The reasonable person should consider a person first cause more likely than an impersonal first cause because impersonal entities are notoriously poor self-starters (having something to do with an absence of self, I suppose).

And there's no "precedent" at all (no evidence) that consciousness has ever created matter. You're not answering anything. You're just picking the non-solution you want to believe in. Who do you think you're kidding?

72889[/snapback]

My argument presupposes some intelligence on the part of the one reading the argument.

[Bryan]

Time is simply another dimension, just like space.  The past is not necessary to reach "now" the same way that distance is not necessary to reach "here".  More accurately, time is indefinite as opposed to infinite.

If you reach here without an infinite regress then you got "here" with at least one instance of "uncaused." Trying to use "time" like a magician's drape will not remove the dilemma. Your would-be solution simply put you squarely in the camp that countenances an entity with no antecedent cause.

Regardless, I think this debate sprung up as a counter to the appropriateness of teaching evolution in schools without presenting alternatives.  This is not evolution, however, this is a discussion on abiogenesis.

No, it's not a discussion about abiogenesis. It's a discussion on cosmology and it began pretty close to here:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=72138

There is no definitive consensus in the scientific community regarding abiogenesis, so it is not something that should be taught as a scientific "fact".

72897[/snapback]

The consensus of the scientific community should be immediately suspect in the case of cosmology, since scientists tend on operate in terms of naturalistic presuppositions.

Start with naturalistic presuppositions and the conclusion will necessarily be naturalistic.

[Guest Guest]

If you reach here without an infinite regress then you got "here" with at least one instance of "uncaused."  Trying to use "time" like a magician's drape will not remove the dilemma.  Your would-be solution simply put you squarely in the camp that countenances an entity with no antecedent cause.

No, it's not a discussion about abiogenesis.  It's a discussion on cosmology and it began pretty close to here:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=72138

The consensus of the scientific community should be immediately suspect in the case of cosmology, since scientists tend on operate in terms of naturalistic presuppositions.

Start with naturalistic presuppositions and the conclusion will necessarily be naturalistic.

72941[/snapback]

And if you start with bullshit . . .

Does this bubblehead really think he's saying something?

[mnodonnell]

If you reach here without an infinite regress then you got "here" with at least one instance of "uncaused."  Trying to use "time" like a magician's drape will not remove the dilemma.  Your would-be solution simply put you squarely in the camp that countenances an entity with no antecedent cause.

I'm not treating time as a magic trick (or as an Aristotlean argument) -- I'm explaining it as it actually exists.

[Strife767]

And if you start with bullshit . . .

Does this bubblehead really think he's saying something?

72963[/snapback]

Hahaha, "Start with naturalistic presuppositions" indeed.

Bryan's too lost in his own world to realize that "nature" is all we know, and all we can perceive; it is literally synonymous with "reality" as far as we are concerned. Even entertaining any supernatural concept leads us straight into a dead end, because we can't do anything or learn anything with assumptions like that.

Leaps like this are why I have him on ignore (I can still see what he writes if someone else quotes it, though, which explains this post).

[Bryan]

I'm not treating time as a magic trick (or as an Aristotlean argument) -- I'm explaining it as it actually exists.

73001[/snapback]

Then you apparently reject the notion of an infinite regress in favor of the other alternative (you accept the argument I offered to that extent).

[Guest Guest]

Particularly in light of the findings of scientists, who call the formation of quantum particles "uncaused"? 

72939[/snapback]

Then there's no need for a first cause. Either way, Bryan, your argument is unsubstantiated mush.

[Bryan]

Then there's no need for a first cause. Either way, Bryan, your argument is unsubstantiated mush.

73051[/snapback]

The argument of "Guest" takes a terminal hit if "Guest" wants to keep science on his side. My argument takes no hit because science cannot know whether or not the quantum particle was caused. It is the assumption of the scientist that ultimately takes the hit from random quantum particles.

And in the end, an uncaused entity as the origin of all fits with the first cause scenario in terms of cosmology. It should be obvious that a universe that came literally from nothing has no infinite past in terms of antecedent causes.

[Bryan]

"I have not seen one post from Mr. Paszkiewicz on this forum." How would you know?

The truth is, the media wouldn't have paid us any attention, and the Kearny Board of Education wouldn't have had much to worry about if Matthew hadn't had recordings. So when you argue that people are basing their opinions on our statements, that's just not true. They've heard the recordings or seen excerpts from them, and have judged for themselves. You don't have to hear much to know that Mr. Paszkiewicz was far out of line.

There's no excuse for any media source to use paraphrases matching those of your camp if they had bothered to listen to the recordings.

They weren't reporting the news, generally speaking. They were joining the movement.

Yesterday the judge on our case approved the settlement ...

72838[/snapback]

Your reports have no credibility.

[Bryan]

Hahaha, "Start with naturalistic presuppositions" indeed.

Bryan's too lost in his own world to realize that "nature" is all we know, and all we can perceive; it is literally synonymous with "reality" as far as we are concerned. Even entertaining any supernatural concept leads us straight into a dead end, because we can't do anything or learn anything with assumptions like that.

Leaps like this are why I have him on ignore (I can still see what he writes if someone else quotes it, though, which explains this post).

73023[/snapback]

If Strife didn't have me on ignore (and read my posts) then he'd realize that I don't draw any sort of artificial distinction between "natural" and "supernatural." The distinction makes no sense given descriptive laws of science.

Thankfully his ignorance gave birth to yet another ignorant post from his account.

[Guest Guest]

There's no excuse for any media source to use paraphrases matching those of your camp if they had bothered to listen to the recordings.

They weren't reporting the news, generally speaking.  They were joining the movement.

Your reports have no credibility.

73200[/snapback]

Hmm, let's see. It's Paul's case. Presumably he has first-hand knowledge of what went on.

Bryan has no knowledge at all about the matter, and routinely denies everything he doesn't wish to believe.

Who has no credibility?

[Guest Guest]

The argument of "Guest" takes a terminal hit if "Guest" wants to keep science on his side.  My argument takes no hit because science cannot know whether or not the quantum particle was caused.  It is the assumption of the scientist that ultimately takes the hit from random quantum particles.

And in the end, an uncaused entity as the origin of all fits with the first cause scenario in terms of cosmology.  It should be obvious that a universe that came literally from nothing has no infinite past in terms of antecedent causes.

73199[/snapback]

Catholic theology (the original Christian theology) teaches that God is without beginning and without end. Is that theology correct or incorrect, and how do you know?

Yet again Bryan turns truth upside down and inside out, because that's the only way he can argue the meaningless points he's trying to make. Science makes no final statements. All its truths are provisional. For example, scientists formerly assumed that light consisted either of waves or of particles, until the double slit experiment proved that light behaved as both. Newton's view of gravity has been replaced by a conception of gravity as a warp in the fabric of the universe. Nothing that has ever been observed violates the fundamental assumption of science that all scientific theories are subject to revision based on new information. That includes the behavior of sub-atomic particles. Maybe they are uncaused, or maybe there are parts of reality we haven't yet discovered. Maybe there's a fifth dimension to the universe, and a sixth and a seventh. Maybe knowledge of those dimensions would completely change our view of time, space and the concept of infinity. Science plays with competing hypotheses, is open to all possibilities, and for all its uncertainty continues to advance. It's not just the answers it comes up with that matter, but also the way it goes about formulating questions, arriving at answers and always leaving room open for new and different answers. It wouldn't matter so much if it was just hypothetical, but it's not. Science has completely changed the shape (and span) of human life, and continues to do so.

None of that can be said of theology. Humility and openness to new data and new fundamental theories are not the methods of dogmatic theology, which put forth the doctrine of a first cause, supposedly as an undeniable proof that a god exists. But it's not a proof at all, just a lot of guesswork. Its premise is that nothing could exist unless something else caused it. So "there must have been" a first cause, completely ignoring the fact that the conclusion was contrary to the premise. (Never mind that there's no frame of reference for the argument.) This hasn't done one thing to improve our lives, and the argument (weak and speculative as it is) really hasn't changed much in the many centuries since a theologian first stated it.

Sure, if you accept Bryan's quasi-Newtonian conception of the universe, his argument sounds plausible as long as you don't think about it too hard. When you do think about it carefully, and employ all we've learned about the universe and about science since Newton, you realize the truth of one thing that is fundamental to this dialogue:

In the end, Bryan has no idea what he's talking about.

[Bryan]

Hmm, let's see. It's Paul's case. Presumably he has first-hand knowledge of what went on.

Yeah, presumably he knows what's going on. Based on his track record, though, we have no reason to think he'll tell the truth about it.

Bryan has no knowledge at all about the matter, and routinely denies everything he doesn't wish to believe.

For example?

Who has no credibility?

73486[/snapback]

Paul and anonymous "Guest" have no credibility.

[Bryan]

Catholic theology (the original Christian theology) teaches that God is without beginning and without end. Is that theology correct or incorrect, and how do you know?

I already presented the argument showing that a first cause (which certainly could be an eternal creator) is the most likely cosmological option.

For a number of reasons the first cause is likely personal and eternal. For one thing, having a first cause arises without cause fulfills no explanatory need. Rather, it posits a needless complication.

Yet again Bryan turns truth upside down and inside out, because that's the only way he can argue the meaningless points he's trying to make.

Is it that you don't understand that an eternal creator need not be understood as a causal chain? Or do you know you don't have an argument so you're consciously launching a senseless attack in hopes that some are so steeped in skepticism that the they won't notice that you make no sense?

Science makes no final statements.

Obviously that's not a scientific statement.

All its truths are provisional.

Obviously that particular truth is not a scientific truth (unless it's provisional? ).

<snip explanation of science that I don't need and which doesn't help Guest's argument>

None of that can be said of theology.

Why should we need to? You're already speaking in terms of metaphysics when you make final statements like none of the truths of science is final. You can't make that final statement based on science. It refutes itself. You can't be that stupid, can you?

Humility and openness to new data and new fundamental theories are not the methods of dogmatic theology, which put forth the doctrine of a first cause, supposedly as an undeniable proof that a god exists.

You're free to try to deny it--but you're left with an infinite regress. Have fun with that.

But it's not a proof at all, just a lot of guesswork.

It's a proof in terms of logic; the same type of final truth that serves as the only firm underpinning of science.

Guest is apparently another product of a school system that paid too little attention to teaching the philosophy of science.

Its premise is that nothing could exist unless something else caused it.

Actually the premise is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Look it up. Or you can keep right on with the straw man fallacy while I laugh at you.

So "there must have been" a first cause, completely ignoring the fact that the conclusion was contrary to the premise.

(Never mind that there's no frame of reference for the argument.)

Sure there is. There's a compelling dilemma. We're stuck with an infinite regress or a first cause unless you can dream up a coherent third option (I'm not putting any money on you).

This hasn't done one thing to improve our lives, and the argument (weak and speculative as it is) really hasn't changed much in the many centuries since a theologian first stated it.

It doesn't need to change much, because the problem of an infinite regress remains just as problematic as it was centuries ago. Maybe you should dodge that topic?

Sure, if you accept Bryan's quasi-Newtonian conception of the universe, his argument sounds plausible as long as you don't think about it too hard. When you do think about it carefully, and employ all we've learned about the universe and about science since Newton, you realize the truth of one thing that is fundamental to this dialogue:

In the end, Bryan has no idea what he's talking about.

73491[/snapback]

He'll huff and he'll puff, but where's the third option that escapes the dilemma?

You must have Faith in Guest, skeptical brethren! If you look hard enough at the smoke he's blowing there's a great argument in there somewhere. No, really!

Edited November 21, 2007 by Bryan

[Strife767]

Catholic theology (the original Christian theology) teaches that God is without beginning and without end. Is that theology correct or incorrect, and how do you know?

Yet again Bryan turns truth upside down and inside out, because that's the only way he can argue the meaningless points he's trying to make. Science makes no final statements. All its truths are provisional. For example, scientists formerly assumed that light consisted either of waves or of particles, until the double slit experiment proved that light behaved as both. Newton's view of gravity has been replaced by a conception of gravity as a warp in the fabric of the universe. Nothing that has ever been observed violates the fundamental assumption of science that all scientific theories are subject to revision based on new information. That includes the behavior of sub-atomic particles. Maybe they are uncaused, or maybe there are parts of reality we haven't yet discovered. Maybe there's a fifth dimension to the universe, and a sixth and a seventh. Maybe knowledge of those dimensions would completely change our view of time, space and the concept of infinity. Science plays with competing hypotheses, is open to all possibilities, and for all its uncertainty continues to advance. It's not just the answers it comes up with that matter, but also the way it goes about formulating questions, arriving at answers and always leaving room open for new and different answers. It wouldn't matter so much if it was just hypothetical, but it's not. Science has completely changed the shape (and span) of human life, and continues to do so.

None of that can be said of theology. Humility and openness to new data and new fundamental theories are not the methods of dogmatic theology, which put forth the doctrine of a first cause, supposedly as an undeniable proof that a god exists. But it's not a proof at all, just a lot of guesswork. Its premise is that nothing could exist unless something else caused it. So "there must have been" a first cause, completely ignoring the fact that the conclusion was contrary to the premise. (Never mind that there's no frame of reference for the argument.) This hasn't done one thing to improve our lives, and the argument (weak and speculative as it is) really hasn't changed much in the many centuries since a theologian first stated it.

Sure, if you accept Bryan's quasi-Newtonian conception of the universe, his argument sounds plausible as long as you don't think about it too hard. When you do think about it carefully, and employ all we've learned about the universe and about science since Newton, you realize the truth of one thing that is fundamental to this dialogue:

In the end, Bryan has no idea what he's talking about.

73491[/snapback]

"Science may not have all the answers, but every answer we've got, came from science." --paraphrased from memory, and I forgot who said it, d'oh. Good quote, though.

[Guest Guest]

For a number of reasons the first cause is likely personal and eternal.  For one thing, having a first cause arises without cause fulfills no explanatory need. 

74443[/snapback]

And in like fashion, ad nauseam. ". .. having a first cause arises without cause fulfills no explanatory need." OK, maybe he meant ". .. having a first cause arise without cause fulfills no explanatory need." Explanatory need? What the hell is that, and what does it have to do with the nature of reality? And how does anyone know? The amazing thing is, Bryan thinks he's actually saying something.

". .. having a first cause arises without cause fulfills no explanatory need." Yeah. No doubt that'll be on the front page of all leading newspapers tomorrow as the latest cosmological breakthrough.

[Guest Guest]

I already presented the argument showing that a first cause (which certainly could be an eternal creator) is the most likely cosmological option.

For a number of reasons the first cause is likely personal and eternal.  For one thing, having a first cause arises without cause fulfills no explanatory need.  Rather, it posits a needless complication.

Is it that you don't understand that an eternal creator need not be understood as a causal chain?  Or do you know you don't have an argument so you're consciously launching a senseless attack in hopes that some are so steeped in skepticism that the they won't notice that you make no sense?

Obviously that's not a scientific statement.

Obviously that particular truth is not a scientific truth (unless it's provisional?  ).

<snip explanation of science that I don't need and which doesn't help Guest's argument>

Why should we need to?  You're already speaking in terms of metaphysics when you make final statements like none of the truths of science is final.  You can't make that final statement based on science.  It refutes itself.  You can't be that stupid, can you?

You're free to try to deny it--but you're left with an infinite regress.  Have fun with that.

It's a proof in terms of logic; the same type of final truth that serves as the only firm underpinning of science.

Guest is apparently another product of a school system that paid too little attention to teaching the philosophy of science.

Actually the premise is that everything that begins to exist has a cause.  Look it up.  Or you can keep right on with the straw man fallacy while I laugh at you.

Sure there is.  There's a compelling dilemma.  We're stuck with an infinite regress or a first cause unless you can dream up a coherent third option (I'm not putting any money on you).

This hasn't done one thing to improve our lives, and the argument (weak and speculative as it is) really hasn't changed much in the many centuries since a theologian first stated it.

It doesn't need to change much, because the problem of an infinite regress remains just as problematic as it was centuries ago.  Maybe you should dodge that topic?

Sure, if you accept Bryan's quasi-Newtonian conception of the universe, his argument sounds plausible as long as you don't think about it too hard. When you do think about it carefully, and employ all we've learned about the universe and about science since Newton, you realize the truth of one thing that is fundamental to this dialogue:

In the end, Bryan has no idea what he's talking about.

73491[/snapback]

He'll huff and he'll puff, but where's the third option that escapes the dilemma?

You must have Faith in Guest, skeptical brethren!  If you look hard enough at the smoke he's blowing there's a great argument in there somewhere.  No, really!

74443[/snapback]

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mame raths outgrabe.

[Strife767]

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mame raths outgrabe.

74615[/snapback]

Jabberwocky! Haven't read that in a long time.