In the middle ages they thought an object, when sensed, was actually in the soul of the subject

Most mathematicians think that infinities are logically consistent. I don't think they know much about the, but the contradictions can be resolved. Contra William Craig

If life and basic conscious-ness can come from matter, who knows what else it can do. Nature is inscrutable to normal cognition. You think you know matter fully to say motion and/or matter needs something spiritual. Whatever power you give to the spiritual being or "whatever it is" (John Lennon), can be given to matter within the realm of possibility

Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.
— Albert Einstein

To leap to panpsychism or deism is to assert you understand matter completely. Matter maybe be able to do what an intelligence can do. Who knows!

Theists don't just say that God allows evil. God sustains the world. So God is right their sustaining the murderer, the rapist, and sexual sinner as they do their acts. I consider this a refutation of classical theism

How would a thomist answer how God sustains ugly things in existence? A clear answer please gmbaa.

Rude, false, ignorant

I too thought the moderators should send your post back to you with the reason why it was deleted. But it is not our forum

Devans99, I've answered those objections with discrete segment prime movers and pointing out that our physics don't apply at all to a meta-universe. Maybe your 5 steps refute continuous infinite motion. But that's a minor point. Gooood bye

Final thoughts:

If we see the eternal series as staccato/discrete, each segment/set would have its own prime mover. If the motion of the eternal universe is continuous, some of us think there may still be an eternal motion of orbit, which could have given motion and thus life to the eternal series. Union of different moving parts gives variety, and the form of matter (and emptiness) gives the brain life. There is the old Chinese parable that the hole makes the cup. So perhaps with the brain and its trillions of internal shapes.

"We can no longer know of nature whether what seems to have being per se is not in fact a chance accident. What bears the imprint of a confused or immature feeble structure, barely evolving from the stage of elementary indeterminateness, cannot even claim to be described." Hegel

When dealing with how the mover of our universe can be, science fiction is more helpful than Wikipedia

Descartes was smart and he thought an infinite regress possible as he says in the Replies. I want to watch the Craig -Carroll debate

There can be an infinity of material prime movers within nature going into the past

The OP seems to believe in absolute time. But absolute space is infinitely divisible, so he will have to reject that

The first motion was just that of gravity. There is no space and time before it. Unless there are an infinite set of these motions going into the past. The infinity of the sets is not the prime mover. Each set has its own prime mover: gravity

If someone rejects absolute space and time, general relativity says how the world works

I don't care what the Bible says

Why does the first cause have to be a substance? Buddhism speaks of thoughts without a thinker and action with an actor

Throwing this out there, if particles and antiparticles annihilate each other, this is ontologically different from something arising from nothing. I think something can only arise from nothing if the Void is spiritual. But Einstein had a self enclosed system with regard to time, so by science we don't need the spiritual right?

if absolute time is given up why does there have to be anything like God before the big bang

Christianity, and indeed all religions, sounds like something a sinner would make up. Everyone i see around has done something crappy. Aquinas mentions in the Summa theologica that some have said only one person in history would get to heaven. Maybe the rest of us miss out. Saying God died so he can take away punishment and turn bad people into good people sounds like the sorrowful conscience of a theologian talking.

If photons have a time perspective, then there is a noise even if nobody hears it

Innocent animals have to feel pain this shows an imperfection in god's nature which the universe reflects

Wittgenstein said he could never understand a !ion. But could Hercules understand us?

So myth goes, Adam, before Eve was made, lay on the grass at night and watched as the revolving heavens (infinity plus infinity, or times) molded logic and rationality into his brain

Nothingness has no content whatsoever, but can still be spiritual. "Emptiness is empty" says the Heart Sutra and the Diamond Sutra

Aquinas's argument is that an "essential" infinite series (into the past) is impossible because every cause would be intermediate and there would be nothing behind the scenes. God, for him, could have made an eternal universe ("accidental series"), but one cannot stand on its own ("essential series"). My position is that the series would still be all intermediate even with God holding it up. It's less intellectually satisfying, but Aquinas's point is not enough for me to believe in God

My last observation: if you were to do the Turing test on the best computer physically possible in any physical world, you would not be able to prove it wasn't human. So with the laws of the universe, which could be more like a computer than we assume

It's about imagination and reasoning, not just the latter. It's about what possibly a world could do without God. I don't see how modern science is relevant to the God question

"I don’t think there’s any one experiment that you can create to prove or disprove the existence of God"

Exactly. General physics laws can be used to show how a meta-universe might work. They are speculation, but show an alternative to theism or deism

Those who truly understand the material (energy included) would see with hawking that there is no time for a timeless being to create

Those who try to prove the existence of God are weak in faith. Edward feser comes to mind

I think my marble example applies to a meta universe and the Hawking stuff doesnt. There is also string theory. Michio kaku says you can't prove from the universe there is a god

As I see it,this universe can be inside another one. There are no intelligent design arguments that would convince me

The marble is the series. The infinite slide is the gravity.

Like I say the first term is gravity, which is outside the series

In the summa theologica Aquinas refuted th kalam cosmological argument but goes out on Aristotle's limb and says the eternal series needs a spiritual being to be there along with the series, parallel. I would like to see him debate modern physicists.

Aquinas, as Bertrand Russell pointed out, never tired of writing arguments for every aspects of his Catholic God, no matter how weak

For Christians God knew the damned would go to hell in the end and created them anyway

Of you believe in prophecy you have two roads to choose: molinism or compatabilism

He often says a truth is negated, and makes truth a movement. I've read his first book twice and the philosophy of mind