Arguments for God's Existence

[leroy]

The question is: do you grant that the universe had an efficient cause? Yes or no, if not why not.?

The answer is a resounding No. This should have been obvious by what I just stated, the fact that you didn't get that means that you are not equipped for this debate.
And the reason why it is a definite No. It's because the concept of "efficient cause" as you put it is meaningless.

Ok, since you reject the conclusion, please clarify, which of the 2 premises do you find problematic?

It's because the concept of "efficient cause" as you put it is meaningless.

Well why? I am not inventing any new terms, with efficient cause, I mean what everybody means by it.

If you what to argue that efficient causes, necessarily imply a material cause, you would have to justify that assertion with some sort of argument.

 

[leroy]

The question is: do you grant that the universe had an efficient cause? Yes or no, if not why not.?

With "grant" I simply mean that you accept it as being probably true, even if not 100% certain.
With "universe" I mean al space time and everything in it.

The question is: will you address the content of Master_Ghost_Knight's comments? Yes or no, if not why not.?

With "address" I simply mean that you will direct effort and respond to Master_Ghost_Knight's comments, rather than ignore their content.
With "content" I mean the collection of points raised in his comments.

I wonder... very little based on past demonstrations from Leroy. :lol:

So far he is making an “argument” based on his personal incredulity,

I don't know what an efficient cause without a material cause is. There is no example of such a thing anywhere else in the Universe. You won't be able to give me an example.
So you have zero basis to make any inferences about efficient causes. To me the concept isn't even inteligeable. Sure you can say words, like a married bachelor, but the concept is devoided of meaning.

Obviously I think I know what he means, but I´ll rather wraith until he formulates a clear and unambiguous argument, otherwise I would be accused for answering a straw man.

 

[MarsCydonia]

So far he is making an “argument” based on his personal incredulity,

I don't know what an efficient cause without a material cause is. There is no example of such a thing anywhere else in the Universe. You won't be able to give me an example.
So you have zero basis to make any inferences about efficient causes. To me the concept isn't even inteligeable. Sure you can say words, like a married bachelor, but the concept is devoided of meaning.

Obviously I think I know what he means, but I´ll rather wraith until he formulates a clear and unambiguous argument, otherwise I would be accused for answering a straw man.

So the answer is a "No". Not because Leroy does not want to but because Leroy does not understand the content.

 

[leroy]

So the answer is a "No". Not because Leroy does not want to but because Leroy does not understand the content.

Is that a crime? Is it wrong to ask for clarification when I am not 100% sure if I understood the argument?

 

[MarsCydonia]

Is that a crime? Is it wrong to ask for clarification when I am not 100% sure if I understood the argument?

You're not helping yourself Leroy. You didn't ask Master_Ghost_Knight to clarify the content, you asserted he was making an "argument" from personal incredulity.

Let's if we can dumb it down for you Leroy:
It we see a half-eaten cake, can the person that ate the cake be a married bachelor?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Well why? I am not inventing any new terms, with efficient cause, I mean what everybody means by it.
If you what to argue that efficient causes, necessarily imply a material cause, you would have to justify that assertion with some sort of argument.

Nobody who uses it knows what it means.
Can you give me a single example of an efficient cause without a material cause?
And "the Universe" doesn't count, because that is the claim, not the premise.

 

[leroy]

Is that a crime? Is it wrong to ask for clarification when I am not 100% sure if I understood the argument?

You're not helping yourself Leroy. You didn't ask Master_Ghost_Knight to clarify the content, you asserted he was making an "argument" from personal incredulity.

I asked (and still asking) him to clarify and elaborate his position. Is that a crime?

 

[leroy]

Well why? I am not inventing any new terms, with efficient cause, I mean what everybody means by it.
If you what to argue that efficient causes, necessarily imply a material cause, you would have to justify that assertion with some sort of argument.

Nobody who uses it knows what it means.
Can you give me a single example of an efficient cause without a material cause?
And "the Universe" doesn't count, because that is the claim, not the premise.

}
No, I can´t, except for the universe I can’t think of some other example. Perhaps things like free will, love, conscience etc. have at a fundamental level a non-material cause but who knows.

Can you prove that efficient causes necessarily imply a material cause?

What is exactly what you are arguing?

1 That the universe(all space time and everything in it) had both a material and an efficient cause?
2 that the universe came to be with none of these causes?
3 that the universe has always been there (in some form) and therefore never came to be?
4 perhaps another alternative that I haven’t consider…
Please explain and elaborate you argument,

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Look at that, trying to use a non-sequitur to prop up a broken argument. What else would I expect from an apologist?

Again, you went out of your way to say the Universe came into existence out of nothing. Everything we have ever seen being created was created out of existing material. Thus, you cannot use one to draw conclusions about the other. All Craig's talk about efficient cause is nothing but a distraction and does not solve the problem of comparing something from nothing to something from existing material.

Again the argument deals with efficient causes, accepting the conclusion implies that you accept that the universe (all space time and everything in it) had an efficient cause. Whether if it also had a material cause or not is beyond the concerns of the argument.

It is equivocating between two different types of creation. Again, one is creation out of nothing and the other is creation out of existing material. We have only ever seen the latter and we cannot just swamp them in and out. They are different. All this talk of efficient causes is a non-sequitur and trying to distract from the glaring logical fallacy.

Material causes are irrelevant for the concerns of the argument.

Wrong. You are talking about two different creations. Thus, the equivocation and the heart of the argument.

So do you grant that the universe had an efficient cause yes or no? (if not justify your answer)

Remember your answer is independent to whether I you also believe that the universe had a material cause or not

I do not know. No one does. In addition, we cannot draw conclusion from things that were created from existing material to something that was created out of nothing. Again, the equivocation from the Kalam.

You can in theory present a positive argument for atheism by saying something along these lines: “everything has a material cause” and therefore conclude that the “universe had a material cause”. This would be an interesting argument worth of discussion, feel free to formulate the argument properly and open a new thread, I would be happy to participate, but this would be an independent argument.

Why would I do that?

 

[leroy]

It is equivocating between two different types of creation. .

Only your straw man understanding of the argument makes that equivocation. The argument always talks about efficient causes.

Premise 1 doesn’t assert (nor denies) that the cause also has to be material (from preexisting material stuff)

Wrong. You are talking about two different creations. Thus, the equivocation and the heart of the argument

nope,
With cause I mean exactly the same thing both in the conclusion and premise 1

 

[leroy]

[

I do not know. No one does. In addition, we cannot draw conclusion from things that were created from existing material to something that was created out of nothing. Again, the equivocation from the Kalam.

Well obviously nobody knows, but the KCA strongly suggests that probably the universe had an efficient cause. “Something” was the cause of the existence of the universe (all space time and everything in it).

Up to this point there is nothing theological about the conclusion. The KCA doesn’t lead automatically to “God” one can in theory accept the conclusion of the KCA and reject the existence of God.

After accepting the conclusion theist typically provide additional arguments to suggest that God most be the cause, these additional arguments are independent from the KCA

 

[MarsCydonia]

The problem is that it still takes to longer to expose b.s. than it takes to spew it, doesn't it?

You're not helping yourself Leroy. You didn't ask Master_Ghost_Knight to clarify the content, you asserted he was making an "argument" from personal incredulity.

I asked (and still asking) him to clarify and elaborate his position. Is that a crime?

With your history of comments Leroy, do you expect any benefit of the doubt? This is complete b.s., for the reason explained and which you ignored plus the fact that I would dumb down the point by first asking a question... which you also ignored.

You're transparent Leroy.

It is equivocating between two different types of creation.

Only your straw man understanding of the argument makes that equivocation. The argument always talks about efficient causes.

It says a lot more when pressed to support the premises, hence the false equivocation that you repeatedly ignore to address. Read it again Leroy:
"It is equivocating between two different types of creation."

I wonder how you explain to yourself why multiple people come to the conclusion that you're constantly running.

Premise 1 doesn’t assert (nor denies) that the cause also has to be material (from preexisting material stuff)

The apologist's "justification" for premise 1 is an appeal to our experience with ex materia creation. Yet the conclusion is drawn about ex nihilo creation based on that appeal. It isn't that difficult to understand.

And it would be disingenuous, blatantly dishonest in fact, to deny this is what the first premise rests upon. Especially since you make the same type of appeal when it comes to the origin of life in another thread. Remove that appeal as its support and the first premise is just a blatant assertion.

Did I mention how transparent you are?

So, how many pages of Leroy being (I suspect wilfully so) incapable of understanding and therefore addressing the faults in the Kalam?

 

[leroy]

It says a lot more when pressed to support the premises, hence the false equivocation that you repeatedly ignore to address.

Again it is a straw man argument, the argument talks about efficient causes. Why should I address a strawman?

With respect to Master_Ghost_Knight, I am not running away I am simply waiting for him to elaborate his argument and his position. I don’t grant the assertion that efficient causes necessarily imply a material cause, I am simply waiting for Master_Ghost_Knight to support his assertion and I answer accordingly.

Again there is nothing wrong in refusing to answer until I understand the objection.
After having a few conversations with you, I learned that I have to wait and remain silent until the atheist elaborates his argument clearly and unambiguously, otherwise they will change their position over and over again.

Leroy:
"It is equivocating between two different types of creation."

The KCA by itself does not affirm nor denies any specific “type” of creation.
Creation ex nihilo is justified by additional arguments that are inpendent of the KCA, you can in theory accept the KCA and reject those additional arguments, and therefore reject creation ex nihilo.

the apologist's "justification" for premise 1 is an appeal to our experience with ex materia creation

No it isn’t, it is an appeal to different arguments, including our experience about efficient cause, we may (or may not) have the same experience with “exmateria” the argument is salient on that regard.

et the conclusion is drawn about ex nihilo creation

No, the conclusion is drawn on “efficient cause” the KCA does not say anything about creation ex nihlo nor any other type of creation.

Especially since you make the same type of appeal when it comes to the origin of life in another thread.

Sure but if you provide a solid argument for natural abiogenesis I would accept it, despite our direct observations.

This appeal is valid, but it doesn’t provide absolute proof for anything.

Remove that appeal as its support and the first premise is just a blatant assertion

not true,

Premise 1 was supported by 3 arguments, remove the appeal and we would still have 2 arguments. + The absence of an argument against premise 1


In his publish work, WLC provides arguments against the assertion that everything has a “material cause” and he provides justification for why the principle should only apply to efficient causes. Are you familiar with his work? Do you find his justification convincing? if not, why not?

Do you affirm that efficient causes necessarily imply material causes? Just kidding I know that I won’t get a direct answer from you.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Again it is a straw man argument, the argument talks about efficient causes. Why should I address a strawman?

Except, just for the hell of it, I will point out that "efficient" appears nowhere in the premises.

Disagree with me? Of course, you're Leroy, committed to the your misunderstanding of the argument! You won't listen to anyone here but perhaps you'll listen to William Lane Craig himself?

... The causal premiss of the kalam cosmological argument namely... 'Everything that begins to exist has a cause'... leaves it an open question whether that cause is efficient or material...

So where do you get this "the argument talks about efficient causes" from Leroy? We've seen above that "efficient" is not in the argument itself, so where is it?

I suspect that you Leroy, use the talking points from William Lane Craig but ignore as you often do the issues we raise with them. His talking points where he does not only talk about efficient causes but also about material causes .
Just because he, like you, love to pretend otherwise, that doesn't make it so. And it's when the apologists talk "also about material causes" and then switch to "only efficient cause" that there is a false equivocation in the arguments supporting the premises. That's the problem when you pick and choose from the experiences you appeal to to justify your premiss.

With respect to Master_Ghost_Knight, I am not running away I am simply waiting for him to elaborate his argument and his position. I don’t grant the assertion that efficient causes necessarily imply a material cause, I am simply waiting for Master_Ghost_Knight to support his assertion and I answer accordingly.

Again there is nothing wrong in refusing to answer until I understand the objection.

If you want to understand Master_Ghost_Knight, I'll help you: first you need to realize that this isn't his objection.

You're really way off about what his objection his. I'm sure it would be a tremendous help if you ceased your commitment to not understanding it.

After having a few conversations with you, I learned that I have to wait and remain silent until the atheist elaborates his argument clearly and unambiguously, otherwise they will change their position over and over again.

:lol:

Thankfully, we're talking about the Kalam and not Leroy's ever-changing definition of choice/freedom/will/free will/libertarian free will/etc.

The KCA by itself does not affirm nor denies any specific “type” of creation.
Creation ex nihilo is justified by additional arguments that are inpendent of the KCA, you can in theory accept the KCA and reject those additional arguments, and therefore reject creation ex nihilo.

:facepalm:
1. Have you missed where I wrote "It says a lot more when pressed to support the premises"? Do you understand that as I explained the KCA does not outright mention a type of creation until the premises are pressed for justification?
That you basically just repeated what I wrote?
and
2. That's because the argument does not offer a definition of "universe" but as I said, if you press for justification, the apologist, like yourself did Leroy, will define the universe as something like "all space-time and everything in it". So if that isn't a from an ex nihilo beginning, do you have anything to propose as what the universe began ex materia from?

I'll be waiting... and waiting... and waiting... and waiting...

No it isn’t, it is an appeal to different arguments, including our experience about efficient cause, we may (or may not) have the same experience with “exmateria” the argument is salient on that regard.

Well, I'll take you up on that Leroy:
Which efficient but non-materia cause can you demonstrate?

Oh wait, Master_Ghost_Knight already asked you about this and he's still waiting... and waiting... and waiting... and waiting...

No, the conclusion is drawn on “efficient cause” the KCA does not say anything about creation ex nihlo nor any other type of creation.

You're wrong on both counts:
For the "efficient cause" part, I'll refer you again to William Lane Craig
For creation "Ex Nihilo" part, I'll refer you again to Leroy

Sure but if you provide a solid argument for natural abiogenesis I would accept it, despite our direct observations.

This appeal is valid, but it doesn’t provide absolute proof for anything.

:lol: It isn't.

not true,

Premise 1 was supported by 3 arguments, remove the appeal and we would still have 2 arguments. + The absence of an argument against premise 1

In his publish work, WLC provides arguments against the assertion that everything has a “material cause” and he provides justification for why the principle should only apply to efficient causes. Are you familiar with his work? Do you find his justification convincing? if not, why not?

:facepalm:
1. I imagine you regurgitated William Lane Craig's 3 "argument" and since you're committed to the argument, you do not understand when the flaws are pointed out to you...
Have you seen that somewhere in these two last pages someone pointed out that "argument 1" and "argument 3" are basically the same?
You must because you defended that criticism with... Oh right, absolutely nothing.
I'm not recalling "argument 2" at this moment but I would love for you to demonstrate the soundness of premise 1 with it.

2. It's been explained to you a million times you committed-to-logical-fallacies-theist that premises rest on their justification, not on the absence of arguments against them.
They must be demonstrated to be true, they don't have to be demonstrated to be not true.

Do you affirm that efficient causes necessarily imply material causes? Just kidding I know that I won’t get a direct answer from you.

Do you believe that the half-eaten cake could have been eaten by a married bachelor?
Just kidding, I know you'll mock pretend people won't directly answer your questions because you lack the capacity to understand their answer while you'll keep on running and running from the questions asked to you.

So do you believe that the half-eaten cake could have been eaten by a married bachelor?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Can you give me a single example of an efficient cause without a material cause?
And "the Universe" doesn't count, because that is the claim, not the premise.

No, I can´t, except for the universe I can’t think of some other example.

You can't because it doesn't exist. Because your concept of "eficiente cause" is meaningless.
You can give an example, you can't define it. Do you even know what it is, can you describe it?

Can you prove that efficient causes necessarily imply a material cause?

I don't have to! The concept of "efficient cause" has no meaning.
The same way you don't have to justify, "that all fubles are necessarily oranges", it is a meaningless proposition.
The fact that you are struggling with this basic concept is just another indication of what I just said, you are not equipped for this debate.
I have sent you TBS's video that goes into great lengths about this. Stop being lazy and just go watch it as I have told you to. Once you do that, then we can discuss.


And for the record my position is that the "Universe" is acausal, and that it must necessarily be so.

 

[leroy]

No, I can´t, except for the universe I can’t think of some other example.

--------------------
You can't because it doesn't exist. Because your concept of "eficiente cause" is meaningless.

You can give an example, you can't define it. Do you even know what it is, can you describe it?.

Yes I can (and already did) define the concept of efficient cause

The efficient cause is what did that. If a ball broke a window, then the ball is the efficient cause of the window breaking. Every change is caused by an efficient cause. If your eye sees, then it sees because light from the object strikes your eyes and causes you to see what is there. Efficient causes answer the what did that question, but do not answer how it was done.
https://simplyphilosophy.org/study/aris ... ur-causes/

I have sent you TBS's video that goes into great lengths about this. Stop being lazy and just go watch it as I have told you to. Once you do that, then we can discuss.

I am not being lazy; all I am asking you is to elaborate your argument. I what to know that your argument is, I what to know and understand your premises, your conclusions and your evidence for them.
TBS s main point seems to be that efficient causes necessarily imply a material cause, if you agree with that point, I would like you to provide evidence for it.

If you are not making that argument, then I would appreciate if you start from zero and elaborate an argument against the KCA

And for the record my position is that the "Universe" is acausal, and that it must necessarily be so.

TBS claims that the universe began to exist without a cause, (a causally) so unless you clarify otherwise, I will simply assume that you also hold that position.
]

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

TBS point is not that efficient causes must necessarily imply a material cause, but that efficient causes without a material cause is an incoherent statement and that there are only material causes.

When we say that A caused B the following is implied:
0. That there is an A that exists, then there is a B that exists.
1. There is an implicit state C prior to B, and C isn't B.
2. From 1, there is a transition from state C to B. i.e. you have 2 mutually exclusive states with a natural ordering. I.e. It implies the existence of time.
3. 2 also implies a transition function X from C to B.
4. A is an event, which itself is also subject to 1, 2, and 3.
5. A stands in a particular relationship to B. In particular that there is an implicit entity D that A interacts with making the transition function named in 3 to map to B.

This is a very peculiar relationship that only makes sense within the context of things that exist in our Univere. I.e. material things.
So let's try to apply this to the Universe, i.e. the begging of time and space and everything which exists.
So if you have no time then 2 has already failed. If you have no state prior this will not only fail 1 but it will also fail 4 even harder. And if you have no stuff you will not only fail 5, most damaging of all it fails the first part of 0.

So what the hell does it mean that A caused the Universe?
What's the meaning of the words "efficient cause" without a "material cause"?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

It is equivocating between two different types of creation. .

Only your straw man understanding of the argument makes that equivocation. The argument always talks about efficient causes.

How is it a straw man? Because you disagree? Beyond that, I pointed out the equivocation fallacy. You are drawing conclusions from things created out of existing material to the Universe, which you admit came from nothing. That is an equivocation as plain as day.

Premise 1 doesn’t assert (nor denies) that the cause also has to be material (from preexisting material stuff)

It does not have too. It is making claims about things that we observe. The only things that we observe are things coming into existence from preexisting material. The only one difference is the Universe, yet you are trying to use things that came about from preexisting material to draw a conclusion about the Universe. Hence the equivocation.

Wrong. You are talking about two different creations. Thus, the equivocation and the heart of the argument

nope,
With cause I mean exactly the same thing both in the conclusion and premise 1

Right, Premise 1, when properly formulated is, "Whatever begins to exist from existing material has a cause". We cannot draw any conclusion about the Universe from that premise, hence the equivocation.

[

I do not know. No one does. In addition, we cannot draw conclusion from things that were created from existing material to something that was created out of nothing. Again, the equivocation from the Kalam.

Well obviously nobody knows, but the KCA strongly suggests that probably the universe had an efficient cause. “Something” was the cause of the existence of the universe (all space time and everything in it).

No it does not. The Kalam makes an equivocation between things created out of existing material and something created out of nothing. It cannot make any suggestion on things created out of nothing since it is only basing itself off of creation out of existing materials. For all we know, things that come about out of nothing have no cause. There is no way to demonstrate it either way.

Up to this point there is nothing theological about the conclusion. The KCA doesn’t lead automatically to “God” one can in theory accept the conclusion of the KCA and reject the existence of God.

Right. However, why would one want to accept a logically flawed argument?

After accepting the conclusion theist typically provide additional arguments to suggest that God most be the cause, these additional arguments are independent from the KCA

Why bother with the Kalam? If you have something to support Jesus, why not present that instead of beating around the bush with something you readily admit does not get us anywhere?

 

[leroy]

TBS point is not that efficient causes must necessarily imply a material cause, but that efficient causes without a material cause is an incoherent statement and that there are only material causes.

When we say that A caused B the following is implied:
0. That there is an A that exists, then there is a B that exists.
1. There is an implicit state C prior to B, and C isn't B.
2. From 1, there is a transition from state C to B. i.e. you have 2 mutually exclusive states with a natural ordering. I.e. It implies the existence of time.
3. 2 also implies a transition function X from C to B.
4. A is an event, which itself is also subject to 1, 2, and 3.
5. A stands in a particular relationship to B. In particular that there is an implicit entity D that A interacts with making the transition function named in 3 to map to B.

This is a very peculiar relationship that only makes sense within the context of things that exist in our Univere. I.e. material things.
So let's try to apply this to the Universe, i.e. the begging of time and space and everything which exists.
So if you have no time then 2 has already failed. If you have no state prior this will not only fail 1 but it will also fail 4 even harder. And if you have no stuff you will not only fail 5, most damaging of all it fails the first part of 0.

?"

1 is not granted, and since everything seems to follow from 1 your whole argument collapses. "A" can cause "B" without C.

for example an object gets wet because it touches water,

"A" would be touching water (cause)
"B" would be getting wet.

it is also true that A and B are simultaneous, which means that you don't need time to go from A to B

What's the meaning of the words "efficient cause" without a "material cause"?

Well think about the diameter of a sphere, or the orbit of the earth, or the expansion of the cosmos, these things obviously had an efficient cause, but it is not clear if they also had a material cause.

It would help if you define efficient cause, material cause, and then explain why one can’t exist without the other

 

[leroy]

Again it is a straw man argument, the argument talks about efficient causes. Why should I address a strawman?

Except, just for the hell of it, I will point out that "efficient" appears nowhere in the premises.

Disagree with me? Of course, you're Leroy, committed to the your misunderstanding of the argument! You won't listen to anyone here but perhaps you'll listen to William Lane Craig himself?

... The causal premiss of the kalam cosmological argument namely... 'Everything that begins to exist has a cause'... leaves it an open question whether that cause is efficient or material...

So where do you get this "the argument talks about efficient causes" from Leroy? We've seen above that "efficient" is not in the argument itself, so where is it?

I suspect that you Leroy, use the talking points from William Lane Craig but ignore as you often do the issues we raise with them. His talking points where he does not only talk about efficient causes but also about material causes .
Just because he, like you, love to pretend otherwise, that doesn't make it so. And it's when the apologists talk "also about material causes" and then switch to "only efficient cause" that there is a false equivocation in the arguments supporting the premises. That's the problem when you pick and choose from the experiences you appeal to to justify your premiss.

With respect to Master_Ghost_Knight, I am not running away I am simply waiting for him to elaborate his argument and his position. I don’t grant the assertion that efficient causes necessarily imply a material cause, I am simply waiting for Master_Ghost_Knight to support his assertion and I answer accordingly.

Again there is nothing wrong in refusing to answer until I understand the objection.

If you want to understand Master_Ghost_Knight, I'll help you: first you need to realize that this isn't his objection.

You're really way off about what his objection his. I'm sure it would be a tremendous help if you ceased your commitment to not understanding it.

After having a few conversations with you, I learned that I have to wait and remain silent until the atheist elaborates his argument clearly and unambiguously, otherwise they will change their position over and over again.

:lol:

Thankfully, we're talking about the Kalam and not Leroy's ever-changing definition of choice/freedom/will/free will/libertarian free will/etc.

The KCA by itself does not affirm nor denies any specific “type” of creation.
Creation ex nihilo is justified by additional arguments that are inpendent of the KCA, you can in theory accept the KCA and reject those additional arguments, and therefore reject creation ex nihilo.

:facepalm:
1. Have you missed where I wrote "It says a lot more when pressed to support the premises"? Do you understand that as I explained the KCA does not outright mention a type of creation until the premises are pressed for justification?
That you basically just repeated what I wrote?
and
2. That's because the argument does not offer a definition of "universe" but as I said, if you press for justification, the apologist, like yourself did Leroy, will define the universe as something like "all space-time and everything in it". So if that isn't a from an ex nihilo beginning, do you have anything to propose as what the universe began ex materia from?

I'll be waiting... and waiting... and waiting... and waiting...

No it isn’t, it is an appeal to different arguments, including our experience about efficient cause, we may (or may not) have the same experience with “exmateria” the argument is salient on that regard.

Well, I'll take you up on that Leroy:
Which efficient but non-materia cause can you demonstrate?

Oh wait, Master_Ghost_Knight already asked you about this and he's still waiting... and waiting... and waiting... and waiting...

No, the conclusion is drawn on “efficient cause” the KCA does not say anything about creation ex nihlo nor any other type of creation.

You're wrong on both counts:
For the "efficient cause" part, I'll refer you again to William Lane Craig
For creation "Ex Nihilo" part, I'll refer you again to Leroy

Sure but if you provide a solid argument for natural abiogenesis I would accept it, despite our direct observations.

This appeal is valid, but it doesn’t provide absolute proof for anything.

:lol: It isn't.

not true,

Premise 1 was supported by 3 arguments, remove the appeal and we would still have 2 arguments. + The absence of an argument against premise 1

In his publish work, WLC provides arguments against the assertion that everything has a “material cause” and he provides justification for why the principle should only apply to efficient causes. Are you familiar with his work? Do you find his justification convincing? if not, why not?

:facepalm:
1. I imagine you regurgitated William Lane Craig's 3 "argument" and since you're committed to the argument, you do not understand when the flaws are pointed out to you...
Have you seen that somewhere in these two last pages someone pointed out that "argument 1" and "argument 3" are basically the same?
You must because you defended that criticism with... Oh right, absolutely nothing.
I'm not recalling "argument 2" at this moment but I would love for you to demonstrate the soundness of premise 1 with it.

2. It's been explained to you a million times you committed-to-logical-fallacies-theist that premises rest on their justification, not on the absence of arguments against them.
They must be demonstrated to be true, they don't have to be demonstrated to be not true.

Do you affirm that efficient causes necessarily imply material causes? Just kidding I know that I won’t get a direct answer from you.

Do you believe that the half-eaten cake could have been eaten by a married bachelor?
Just kidding, I know you'll mock pretend people won't directly answer your questions because you lack the capacity to understand their answer while you'll keep on running and running from the questions asked to you.

So do you believe that the half-eaten cake could have been eaten by a married bachelor?

I already addressed every single of those points (multiple times in some cases) if you think there is a specific point that you think I haven’t address please let me know and I will answer. If there are many points that you think I haven’t address, select your favorite one.