|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
 Posted - 03/04/2006 : 01:15:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The universe was violently regurgitated by the Eternal Skink after foolishly devouring the Eternal Dingleberry. The vengeful Berry cursed the Skink, dooming it to roam forever with it's tongue painted berry blue as a signal to all of it's sin and it's greed. It left the universe behind it in the form of an expanding puddle of variegated puke.
The probability of Bill realizing that the probability of this scenario being as probable as his one is probably low.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 02:49:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hawks
quote:
The universe was violently regurgitated by the Eternal Skink after foolishly devouring the Eternal Dingleberry. The vengeful Berry cursed the Skink, dooming it to roam forever with it's tongue painted berry blue as a signal to all of it's sin and it's greed. It left the universe behind it in the form of an expanding puddle of variegated puke.
The probability of Bill realizing that the probability of this scenario being as probable as his one is probably low.
Heh, it's just a shade better'n Bill's, I think. After all, we have evidence -- real, honest to Einstein, undeniable freakin' evidence! -- in it's support, namely: the Blue-Tongued Skink and the Common Dingleberry; hypothetically, the final reminants of the Creation process. Bill can't even come up with a talking snake to support his'n. 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 09:00:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
This is a continuation of this thread.
Thanks Dave. First I must say you guys run a nice forom here, and most of the memebers I find to be very nice and genuine. Thanks for the chance to be innvolved as I am fairly new to the forum.
(bill) Let me remind you that from day one I held the notion that the debate boiled down to an eternal first cause, or eternal existence of matter, for the explanation of the universe. And of coarse the atheist must/will defend the existence of eternal matter, or at least the possibility of it, to the bitter end.
I also agree that no one has a magic pair of glasses where they can see before the dawn of time, which began at the creation of the universe, to see definitively what was before that. What we can do is look at the known (our universe) and build our best case from there.
That is why I believe cause and effect theory is justified in being applied to the first cause of the universe. Cause and effect theory is an observed phenomenon in our universe.
The atheist will then chide the creationist as “childish” for applying cause and effect theory (which is observed) to the search for the cause of the known universe.
They will chide them on the bases that the creationist did not take into consideration their infinite universe and/or dimensions hypothesis, which they fully admit is nothing more then pure speculation, when they were applying cause and effect theory (observed) to the cause of the universe debate. Of coarse the creationist will want to know how an observed theory is trumped by a hypothetical speculative story about infinite dimension and universes, where in the haze of infinite the atheist can proclaim that anything is possible including the non eternal first cause of matter creating itself, and that may cause our universe and created life it very self? So now the atheist, who supposedly only accepts that which is factual, has now insisted he trumped the creationist, who is using cause and effect theory, which is observed in our universe, with fully admitted atheistic speculation and philosophy, which is completely untestable. This in spite the fact that they claim to be the great scientists who only deal in factual and dismiss philosophy. *sigh*
quote:
All options are equally likely, including the option that a hyperintelligent shade of blue created the universe we inhabit.
(bill) Which this would fall in as “one of infinite possibilities” on the “materialistic only side” for the creation of the universe debate.
quote:
No, I give a higher probability to there being no God now because I see no evidence for God whatsoever.
(bill) But yet you will sweep away the need for a eternal first cause for the finite universe, which is based off of observe of cause and effect theory, with a sweep of your philosophical hand, in favor of infinite universes and dimensions where anything can happen, which is admitted pure speculation and based off nothing, as no can one truly know? *sigh*
quote:
What may or may not have existed prior to the Big Bang is anybody's guess.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 09:52:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
This is a continuation of this thread.
The universe had a beginning. Observed cause and effect theory proves the first cause of the universe would be eternal, or it would not be the first cause. Atheist will dismiss eternal first cause required with infinite universes and dimensions hypothesis, and then use this same hypothesis to used build a case for eternal matter as a possible candidate for the first cause the universe, even though they admit this is all pure speculation and not science. But yet they used it anyway to justify how they can brush aside cause and effect theory, even though they claim to be scientist and not philosophers. Oh my…. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 11:16:53 [Permalink]
|
Bill, you keep on insisting that the law of cause and effect applies to the creation of the universe, even though you have been shown that on a quantum level, cause and effect does not necessarily apply. It is also obvious (common sense) that cause and effect require the existence of time. Cause happens before effect. Time and space are inextricably linked. However before the big bang, there was no space, therefore no time, as we know it, hence the terms "cause" and "effect" are meaningless.
But let's, for the sake of argument, conveniently forget all those facts and assume that your contention is correct. Everything had a cause, and the law of "cause and effect" always applies. So when your god caused the universe to happen, it also set in motion an inexorable chain of cause and effect events which continue to this day. Since cause and effect always apply, what you are in effect saying is that the current state of the universe is the only possible state that could exist. That the evolution of life on this planet was pre-ordained. That everything we say or do is because of cause and effect. We have no free will. It means that your god has sent uncounted souls to an eternity of unimaginable suffering for the sin of, well, for no sin at all actually. Your god sent them to hell because it was pre-ordained that they would wind up there, simply due to the laws of cause and effect set into motion when your god created the universe. Who knows, Bill, maybe even you are destined to spend eternity with a pitchfork up your butt, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it, because common sense tells us that the laws of cause and effect always apply.
And what about prayer, Bill? If the common sense laws of cause an effect always apply, why bother praying? Your god won't change anything, because we all know about cause and effect, laws that can't be broken. Sick dying kid? Cancer got you down? Too bad, that was god's plan, set into motion at the instant of creation and brought to fruition by the inviolable laws of cause and effect, and you can pray until you keel over, god's not listening. In fact, your god is completely and utterly ineffective, rendered so by your precious laws of cause and effect.
So be careful what you argue for Bill. I'm not sure you really want to live in that universe you insist upon. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 12:23:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The universe had a beginning. Observed cause and effect theory proves the first cause of the universe would be eternal, or it would not be the first cause.
Aaaaarggghhh!!! If the universe had a first cause it would NOT have to be eternal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 12:49:13 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: quote:
from day one I held the notion that the debate boiled down to an eternal first cause, or eternal existence of matter, for the explanation of the universe. And of coarse the atheist must/will defend the existence of eternal matter, or at least the possibility of it, to the bitter end.
No, most of us are arguing that the whole question of the "first cause" has been made irrelevent by the fact that time itself is part of nature, and therefore nothing is really "eternal". quote:
That is why I believe cause and effect theory is justified in being applied to the first cause of the universe. Cause and effect theory is an observed phenomenon in our universe.
But, Bill, on the molecular level, we've observed the principle (it's not a scientific law and never was) of causality being broken! And that observation was first predited by mathmatical theories. So we know that the principle of causality is not a universal principle.
Bill, please, for the love of Pete, why have you not responded to people repeatedly telling you that that "the law of cause and effect" is not a law, and in fact, even as a princple we have observed it being broken. How do you respond to that??? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 12:51:05 [Permalink]
|
R.Wreck, don't forget the convenience of defining god that is outside of reality and therefore can do whatever it wants regardless of cause and effect. Your argument is logical, but the counter-response is always that the god in question can change the rules whenever. That term is "miracle".
So, there is always a "way" for the theist here since they define god as able to do anything, including changing the rules it created and not being bound by them.
This is why these discussion are futile. It is a no-win scenario. When someone believes that the irrational is possible (and probable), then anything is open.
If everyone just said "god did it", there would be no search for knowledge. What a happy world we would then have!
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 03/04/2006 12:52:00 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 12:57:30 [Permalink]
|
R. Wreck wrote: quote:
But let's, for the sake of argument, conveniently forget all those facts and assume that your contention is correct. Everything had a cause, and the law of "cause and effect" always applies. So when your god caused the universe to happen, it also set in motion an inexorable chain of cause and effect events which continue to this day. Since cause and effect always apply, what you are in effect saying is that the current state of the universe is the only possible state that could exist. That the evolution of life on this planet was pre-ordained. That everything we say or do is because of cause and effect. We have no free will. It means that your god has sent uncounted souls to an eternity of unimaginable suffering for the sin of, well, for no sin at all actually. Your god sent them to hell because it was pre-ordained that they would wind up there, simply due to the laws of cause and effect set into motion when your god created the universe.
I question whether it is wise to go here. If Bill already thinks he's proven the existence of a supernatural creator, then he's going to believe that supernatural creator can interfer with the universe after he creates it. So I'm guessing that according to Bill's wordview, one of God's interferences is to give human beings "souls", which are also supernatural, and thus, not chained to the "law of Cause and Effect". So he can slip out of the whole determinism trap. Better to keep pointing out that his very premise about "Cause and Effect" and the "First Cause" has already been proven useless. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/04/2006 12:59:58 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 13:06:08 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: quote:
The universe had a beginning. Observed cause and effect theory proves the first cause of the universe would be eternal, or it would not be the first cause. Atheist will dismiss eternal first cause required with infinite universes and dimensions hypothesis, and then use this same hypothesis to used build a case for eternal matter as a possible candidate for the first cause the universe, even though they admit this is all pure speculation and not science. But yet they used it anyway to justify how they can brush aside cause and effect theory, even though they claim to be scientist and not philosophers. Oh my….
Liar. Nobody here has done this. You are either a giant moron because you can't understand what has been explained to you about the "atheist stance", or (more likely in my opinion) you are so blinded by your own beliefs and so needy for scientific proof of them because your faith is pathetically weak, that you just can't accept that science has destroyed your "First Cause" premise. Which it has. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 13:29:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
pleco wrote:
R.Wreck, don't forget the convenience of defining god that is outside of reality and therefore can do whatever it wants regardless of cause and effect. Your argument is logical, but the counter-response is always that the god in question can change the rules whenever. That term is "miracle".
So, there is always a "way" for the theist here since they define god as able to do anything, including changing the rules it created and not being bound by them.
This is why these discussion are futile. It is a no-win scenario. When someone believes that the irrational is possible (and probable), then anything is open.
If everyone just said "god did it", there would be no search for knowledge. What a happy world we would then have!
quote:
marfknox wrote:
I question whether it is wise to go here. If Bill already thinks he's proven the existence of a supernatural creator, then he's going to believe that supernatural creator can interfer with the universe after he creates it. So I'm guessing that according to Bill's wordview, one of God's interferences is to give human beings "souls", which are also supernatural, and thus, not chained to the "law of Cause and Effect". So he can slip out of the whole determinism trap. Better to keep pointing out that his very premise about "Cause and Effect" and the "First Cause" has already been proven useless.
I don't see Bill admitting that his "first cause" argument is dead in the water. I think his head would explode if he did.
I also fully expect, if he even responds, some sort of lame crap about the diety by definition having the power to transcend natural laws, even the ones created by said diety. And maybe some goofball apologetics about free will. Actually, I'm rather looking forward to it, because the whole first cause thing became rather repetitive about, oh, twelve pages ago. I don't think Bill can prove himself anymore clueless in that area (c'mon Billy-boy, prove me wrong), so I'd like to give him the chance to embarrass himself in a new area, in that way that only Bill can. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 13:46:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by DaveW
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
...is vanishingly small...
Beat me by five minutes!
But, but, but 17 hours earlier
quote:
Originally posted by moakley
So "If all options are equally likely" we are not talking about just two options, as you are. Since we don't know there could be a infinite number of possible options. With all options being equal that would put the probability of your god being responsible very very low, indeed. If you want to improve the probability of your god explanation. Simply show some evidence.
That means that not only is bill not reading my post, but DaveW is not reading my posts either.
pout, sulk, pout |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 13:54:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
moakley whined:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by DaveW
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R.Wreck
...is vanishingly small...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beat me by five minutes!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But, but, but 17 hours earlier
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by moakley
So "If all options are equally likely" we are not talking about just two options, as you are. Since we don't know there could be a infinite number of possible options. With all options being equal that would put the probability of your god being responsible very very low, indeed. If you want to improve the probability of your god explanation. Simply show some evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That means that not only is bill not reading my post, but DaveW is not reading my posts either.
pout, sulk, pout
There there, moakley, I think we're all a little woozey from beating our heads against this wall Bill. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 15:34:02 [Permalink]
|
Just for the hell of it, I'm posting TO's new FAQ on the Big Bang: quote:
0) Introduction
a) Purpose of this FAQ
According to the welcome page of this archive, the talk.origins newsgroup is intended for debate about "biological and physical origins", and the archive exists to provide "mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup". Many current FAQs deal with questions about biological and geological origins here on Earth. This page will take a broader view, focusing on the the universe itself.
Before beginning the examination of the evidence surrounding current cosmology, it is important to understand what Big Bang Theory (BBT) is and is not. Contrary to the common perception, BBT is not a theory about the origin of the universe. Rather, it describes the development of the universe over time. This process is often called "cosmic evolution" or "cosmological evolution"; while the terms are used by those both inside and outside the astronomical community, it is important to bear in mind that BBT is completely independent of biological evolution. Over the last several decades the basic picture of cosmology given by BBT has been generally accepted by astronomers, physicists and the wider scientific community. However, no similar consensus has been reached on ideas about the ultimate origin of the universe. This remains an area of active research and some of idea current ideas are discussed below. That said, BBT is nevertheless about origins -- the origin of matter, the origin of the elements, the origin of large scale structure, the origin of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, etc. All of this will be discussed in detail below.
Dunno how much this will aid the discussion, it being what it is, but it's an enlightening read.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/04/2006 : 15:43:48 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
quote:
Liar. Nobody here has done this. You are either a giant moron because you can't understand what has been explained to you about the "atheist stance", or (more likely in my opinion) you are so blinded by your own beliefs and so needy for scientific proof of them because your faith is pathetically weak, that you just can't accept that science has destroyed your "First Cause" premise. Which it has.
Bwahahahahahahaha!
..... oh, the irony!
hahahahahahahaha!
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
