Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you firmly believe, as TotN does, that "CAUSE ALWAYS PRECEDES EFFECT", then it's not logically possible to just have an infinite series of causes. There would have to an uncaused (eternal?) cause that starts everything off? If your argument is then to say "maybe everything always was" then you're making a claim that has dramatically less authoritative support behind it. Once you get into infinity and eternal, we're already in the realm of the supernatural.
I don't firmly believe anything and I'm not making any claims whatsoever. I am only questioning how the claim that 'An infinite series of causes is impossible' is arrived at. You have given me your answer. That's all I asked for.
Quote:
You concede that you don't have information to know if the quote is accurate, yet the fact that this person isn't an astrophysicist was enough reason for you to doubt it?? Do you recognize that there is something motivating you to look unfavorably on any information that might open the door to the possibility that God might exist, even before researching the claim? That 'something' is not reason or logic.
I still don't know whether this person actually made the statement quoted. Does it actually matter? Yes, the fact that this person isn't an astrophysicist is indeed enough reason for me to doubt what he claims about astronomy.
It's the not the claim itself I have a problem with but rather how this determination was made. We know he did not put his claim to the test since we are still here (as I said before - big bangs tend to be somewhat intense). What we don't know is whether he is a closet theoretical physicist who can do the heavy math with which to make such an extraordinary claim. What data does he have? Has he spent much time at the CERN Large Hadron Collider?
Good old Mystic. Instead of looking at the reasons why this non -science argument is flawed -in fact i'd say damn' near disprovable - you play the bias -card. It rather shows that you have no better refutation.
I recall that these matters have come up before and i don't know whether you pinched you Synthesis from him to back up your beliefs or it's two independent hypotheses coinciding. It happened with one Bible critic who agrees with me that Jesus and Barabbas was the same person and we didn't pinch from each other
But Mystic, mate, wile Chophra in the mix doesn't bode well (a nuclear physicist told him to his face that he needed to learn about it) it isn't the reason why there are flaws in the hypothesis.
At the end, the 'waterfall' analogy reminds me of what I have posted before "Whatever quantum is doing, the essential reality remains broadly predictable."
Instead of going to those who seek to debunk him, why not just read the original material for yourself? I assure you we have each reached our theories separately. I was pleased to see someone other than me with similar ideas though we do differ in some areas. Why poison your mind with a biased source first? That indicates an extreme unwillingness to give it a fair hearing. I am very disappointed in you, Arq. Your intransigence borders on OCD.
Good old Mystic. 'Instead of looking at a debunk, just read One side of it. Mystic i have heard this stuff from you (though you claim it wasn't borrowed) and found the same flaws that the video found, and accusing either the video or me of bias, intransigence or unwilingness to give a fair hearing instead of showing where either the video's or my debunks were wrong, you discredit yourself by playing the bias card. Not to mention trying to shame me by your disappointment (you can suffer at my hands a lot more than that and it won't keep me awake at night) at me not being bamboozled by your wagging Lanza's really irrelevant credentials in an unrelated field at me in hopes to overawe me into swallowing this hypothesis uncritically.
Good old Mystic. 'Instead of looking at a debunk, just read One side of it. Mystic i have heard this stuff from you (though you claim it wasn't borrowed) and found the same flaws that the video found, and accusing either the video or me of bias, intransigence or unwilingness to give a fair hearing instead of showing where either the video's or my debunks were wrong, you discredit yourself by playing the bias card.
Do you honestly think that a source dedicated to debunking is going to present the arguments fairly? What do you fear from seeing the arguments in their purest and strongest forms? You discredit yourself by such cowardice and priming the pump against the material.
Do you honestly think that a source dedicated to debunking is going to present the arguments fairly? What do you fear from seeing the arguments in their purest and strongest forms? You discredit yourself by such cowardice and priming the pump against the material.
Mystic you are hilarious. If you think the arguments are wrong then show them wrong and you have made a case. If you try to dismiss them using the 'bias' card, you only show that you have nothing better. You also discredit yourself by repeating the trick of asking me to look at only one side of the argument. Look mate, I already saw that the double slit experiment was misunderstood when it was presented in favour of an argument of this kind (maybe you, maybe not) but do you think that wouldn't be the case after reading a couple of chapters of Lanza's argument based on such a misunderstanding? Did you really think that this putrid trick was going to work?
Rather you should look at the videos and either show where the science debunks the debunk or accept that the debunk stands, Lanza has nothing valid and like Chophra, Behe and you do not know have a valid hypothesis.
Mystic you are hilarious. If you think the arguments are wrong then show them wrong and you have made a case. If you try to dismiss them using the 'bias' card, you only show that you have nothing better. You also discredit yourself by repeating the trick of asking me to look at only one side of the argument. Look mate, I already saw that the double slit experiment was misunderstood when it was presented in favour of an argument of this kind (maybe you, maybe not) but do you think that wouldn't be the case after reading a couple of chapters of Lanza's argument based on such a misunderstanding? Did you really think that this putrid trick was going to work?
Rather you should look at the videos and either show where the science debunks the debunk or accept that the debunk stands, Lanza has nothing valid and like Chophra, Behe and you do not know have a valid hypothesis.
You are the epitome of the adage "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." You DID choose to look at only ONE side of the arguments. You presume that they have correctly interpreted the arguments on the other side and have more knowledge and intellect than you to debunk them. But presenting straw man versions of opposing sides and debunking the weak (misrepresented) arguments is standard practice for immunizing audiences against opposing views. You are so egregiously biased against the views it probably wasn't necessary in your case but it does reinforce your biases. Sad. You actually pretend to be open to other ideas but are afraid to confront them without someone else's help in debunking them. Your pretense at objectivity is completely blown, Arq. You are an intransigent fraud.
"Ideas which were derived entirely from the imagination are make believe!"
Yes, if someone just makes something up "entirely from the imagination", that's make believe.
That's not what we're discussing, though.
I think we would agree that the Big Bang theory was not "derived entirely from someone's imagination" but instead it is a theory that's supported by a variety of observable evidences.
The Big Bang theory is the most probable theory as to how the universe expanded, but we have no idea what existed prior to the Big Bang. This theory suggests that our universe had a beginning and is finite. Because effect is always preceded by cause, we can conclude the Big Bang had a 'cause'. This cause would necessarily "exist" outside of time and space in order to "create" time and space.
To suggest that "No FIRST CAUSE is what the evidence at hand suggests", or that "infinite regression is one possibility" are not determinations that are supported by observable evidences. They are simply your conjectures. In fact, these suggestions of yours seem to fit the definition of supernatural, since they are not explained by natural laws.
Q: Don't you agree that you accept as true some things that are considered supernatural (big bang, black holes, quantum entanglement, etc)?
When I asked you this question previously, you qualified your answer by giving your own definition of supernatural: "If "supernatural" is defined as existing only as an exercise of the imagination, but having no actual physical existence, then I suppose there may be a correlation. "
Are you willing to agree to the question, without the qualifier, and go with the standard definition of supernatural?...
-----
What we (humans) have discovered, and are still in the process of discovering, is that upon a deeper examination the reality of the universe that we live in often turns out to be very different than the reality we assumed. The whole subject of "origins" is just one example. It once seemed obvious that there must be a "first cause" when it was an accepted fact that beginnings were a part of our everyday reality. But a deeper examination has established that no discrete "beginnings" are actually to be observed at all. Every effect is actually a continuation of of an earlier cause. So the logic of assuming a necessary "first cause" has had the basis for that assumption pulled out from under it.
The problem, of course, is that the old assumptions about the reality that we live in are thoroughly enmeshed with centuries of religious assumptions that give emotional succor to billions. The question before us is, do we wish to know and accept the truth of what we find at face value, or would we prefer to live in the make believe world of the centuries of baseless assumptions that provide emotional comfort?
One of the most prominent of Christian claims is that we will never die, and that mere belief is the ticket to an eternity in paradise. Who would want to deny that? I am 71 years old, so old age and death are no longer just theoretical. But I am not a child either. It is observed that all living things die. Make believe has no power to change the facts of life.
So you can cling to your warm and fuzzy beliefs until the day you die if that is what you choose. But those beliefs can not be maintained in a head to head comparison with empirical observation. If you choose to provoke a confrontation between the outdated warm and fuzzy assumptions of the past and the cold hard empirical observations of the present, prepare to be dismayed and disillusioned.
The choice is between discovering what is true and accepting what is discovered at face value, or cloaking oneself in in a comforting make believe.
Bringing one's ancient make believe into a head to head comparison with modern empirical observation is not going to result in sustaining one's emotional needs, I am afraid.
I purposely included only one question to you in my comment and yet, once again, you manage to avoid answering it. Why is that so hard for you??
Here's my question again. Please just answer with a simple 'yes' or 'no'...
Using the standard definition of supernatural (not substituting your own definition)... Q: Don't you agree that you accept as true some things that are considered supernatural (big bang, black holes, quantum entanglement, etc)?
[Definition of Supernatural] The concept of the supernatural encompasses anything that is inexplicable by scientific understanding of the laws of nature. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
What we (humans) have discovered, and are still in the process of discovering, is that upon a deeper examination the reality of the universe that we live in often turns out to be very different than the reality we assumed. The whole subject of "origins" is just one example. It once seemed obvious that there must be a "first cause" when it was an accepted fact that beginnings were a part of our everyday reality. But a deeper examination has established that no discrete "beginnings" are actually to be observed at all. Every effect is actually a continuation of of an earlier cause. So the logic of assuming a necessary "first cause" has had the basis for that assumption pulled out from under it.
The problem, of course, is that the old assumptions about the reality that we live in are thoroughly enmeshed with centuries of religious assumptions that give emotional succor to billions. The question before us is, do we wish to know and accept the truth of what we find at face value, or would we prefer to live in the make believe world of the centuries of baseless assumptions that provide emotional comfort?
One of the most prominent of Christian claims is that we will never die, and that mere belief is the ticket to an eternity in paradise. Who would want to deny that? I am 71 years old, so old age and death are no longer just theoretical. But I am not a child either. It is observed that all living things die. Make believe has no power to change the facts of life.
So you can cling to your warm and fuzzy beliefs until the day you die if that is what you choose. But those beliefs can not be maintained in a head to head comparison with empirical observation. If you choose to provoke a confrontation between the outdated warm and fuzzy assumptions of the past and the cold hard empirical observations of the present, prepare to be dismayed and disillusioned.
The choice is between discovering what is true and accepting what is discovered at face value, or cloaking oneself in in a comforting make believe.
Bringing one's ancient make believe into a head to head comparison with modern empirical observation is not going to result in sustaining one's emotional needs, I am afraid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
'Instead of looking at a debunk, just read One side of it. Mystic i have heard this stuff from you (though you claim it wasn't borrowed) and found the same flaws that the video found, and accusing either the video or me of bias, intransigence or unwilingness to give a fair hearing instead of showing where either the video's or my debunks were wrong, you discredit yourself by playing the bias card. Not to mention trying to shame me by your disappointment (you can suffer at my hands a lot more than that and it won't keep me awake at night) at me not being bamboozled by your wagging Lanza's really irrelevant credentials in an unrelated field at me in hopes to overawe me into swallowing this hypothesis uncritically.
