Charlemagne wrote:

I was wondering, what would be a thorough (or rather, your thorough) objection/rebuttal/reply to the said website?

With all respect, you've got to be kidding. Do you seriously expect anyone to post a "thorough rebuttal" to that entire site?

Why don't you pick out a couple of points of interest to you and focus on those? There's plenty of literature devoted to each one and I don't see anything especially difficult to answer, but the whole website is a lot to tackle all at once.

Last edited by Scott (9/30/2015 11:23 am)

Charlemagne wrote:

 Based on our experience, the materials in the universe continued to exist, in various forms. We can therefore suppose the materials have always existed, perhaps in different forms or in unknown forms.

The argument here is supposedly that there are base structures of the material world that can be metaphysically necessary, and thus not require God. How do you argue against this?

First, if "structure of the material world" means what it seems to mean, then it refers, and can only refer, to a composite of form and matter, and no composite substance can be metaphysically necessary in the requisite sense.

Second, and more fundamentally, the presumption of "existential inertia" is wrong. It's not the case that the continued existence of a material structure (or anything else) requires no explanation or (logically, not temporally) prior cause.

That should be enough to get you started.

Hi Charlemagne,

Charlemagne wrote:

The argument here is supposedly that there are base structures of the material world that can be metaphysically necessary, and thus not require God. How do you argue against this?

There was some discussion relevant to this question here.