A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Loving the lol I got reading that!


*edit
To clarify I pretty much agree

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: peter vlar
oh yes, agitate those emotions. It's working so well. You can also describe it as deflection away from my questions and points that I'm bringing up in relation to the topic of cause and effect as it applies to topics such as the universe or the biomolecular machinery and technology in lifeforms. As well as stories about such things as walking whales and related behaviour and ways of reasoning and arguing.

Should I turn a blind eye to the ways of arguing by those who don't spell out "walking whales" in their storyline that is the same except for that terminology or the claim that "whales had feet and actually walked on land" as claimed by Dr. Annalisa Berta* in the video promoting supposed evidence for the "evolution of whales" from terrestrial animals, the same supposed evidence used by Kenneth Miller who is famous for his youtube video about the Chromosome #2 fusion myth and erronuous postdiction that he describes as a prediction while knowing better?

*: referred to as "a biology professor at San Diego State University"

synonyms for "actually": absolutely/really/literally/as a matter of fact/in fact/in truth/in reality

You haven't given any comprehensible rationale for cause and effect. You seem to be fixated on walking whales for some odd reason. How about dumping the whales for a while and describe your position SUCCINCTLY. Not loaded with YouTubes and other crap. Thanks.

a reply to: Phantom423

I do...but if I were to 'go there' I would admittedly only be speculating that quantum particles are essentially 'ideas.'

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: TerryDon79
The universe is "god/s/", therefore, since "god/s/" always has been, so has the universe.

cyclical universe

First you need to demonstrate "god/s/" exist, then you need to demonstrate that they "always has been," along with the universe. And even if you could demonstrate "god/s/" exist, it will still be useless information concerning the how.

That's kind of the point.

1, you (and I) can't prove god/s/ exist.
2, you (and I) can't prove the universe is infinitely cyclical.

You (and I) also can't prove the counter, that neither of them do and are.

All this thread is is another religious thread trying to prove "god" in a way that doesn't.

Point taken.. Thanks for the clarification.

a reply to: edmc^2

What caused God then? Or THE Gods, or the holy pasta?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

What caused God then? Or THE Gods, or the holy pasta?

Obviously, the Flour, Eggs, and Holy Water combined to cause the Holy Pasta. R'amen.

I asked pages ago what a God(s) is made of. I didn't get an answer.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Loving the lol I got reading that!

*edit
To clarify I pretty much agree

Ha...well, I am glad it at least made sense to someone! The person I addressed it to hasn't said, one way or the other, if it made sense to him/her.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

What caused God then? Or THE Gods, or the holy pasta?

Obviously, the Flour, Eggs, and Holy Water combined to cause the Holy Pasta. R'amen.

I asked pages ago what a God(s) is made of. I didn't get an answer.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: luthier
Effect A cannot be the cause of effect A. (and please don't try to twist that by talking about types of effects, grouping things together, that's not what the A stands for).

Because effect A did not exist yet to cause effect A if effect A is proposed to be the cause of effect A's emergence ('gives rise to') and nothing else caused effect A's emergence or beginning.

Which again, is what the argument from luthier, Stephen Hawking and others boils down to.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Phantom423

I do...but if I were to 'go there' I would admittedly only be speculating that quantum particles are essentially 'ideas.'

Ok. Well watch the first video I posted above. It may clarify what virtual particles are - they're not ideas - they're real physical phenomena.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: luthier
Effect A cannot be the cause of effect A. (and please don't try to twist that by talking about types of effects, grouping things together, that's not what the A stands for).

Because effect A did not exist yet to cause effect A if effect A is proposed to be the cause of effect A's emergence ('gives rise to') and nothing else caused effect A's emergence or beginning.

Which again, is what the argument from luthier, Stephen Hawking and others boils down to.

And what exactly did Hawking say that you don't agree with???

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Phantom423

I do...but if I were to 'go there' I would admittedly only be speculating that quantum particles are essentially 'ideas.'

Ok. Well watch the first video I posted above. It may clarify what virtual particles are - they're not ideas - they're real physical phenomena.

"Real physical phenomena" ARE ideas. Ideas can be real and/or realized, not realized...they can be absurd and only in minds.

But, I will watch it because it's the kind of stuff I find interesting.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

What caused God then? Or THE Gods, or the holy pasta?

God(s) are like imaginary numbers - it may be useful to think about it but it has no tangible value. In other words, if you need a God(s), you make one up and use it at will. It's utilitarian. But it has no reality that can be accessed. Square root of a negative number - meaningless.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Phantom423

Ah, but I never said there was a 'state of Nothing.' I said there is an 'idea of Nothing.' You quoted me saying that.

The 'Idea of Nothing' is whatever the 'State of Everything' is not.

And it is entangled with both the state and idea of Everything. (Technically the 'State of Everything' is the 'Idea of Everything'.)

'Everything' would include its own cause....because it includes everything.

ETA: Also, I said the Universe could be a part of the 'State of Everything,' or maybe it is the 'State of Everything.'

Very reminiscent of something:

a reply to: whereislogic

How so?

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Phantom423

I do...but if I were to 'go there' I would admittedly only be speculating that quantum particles are essentially 'ideas.'

Ok. Well watch the first video I posted above. It may clarify what virtual particles are - they're not ideas - they're real physical phenomena.

"Real physical phenomena" ARE ideas. Ideas can be real and/or realized, not realized...they can be absurd and only in minds.

But, I will watch it because it's the kind of stuff I find interesting.

Yes. You can certainly be a theoretician. No problem with that. But some theories have hard evidence to back them up - like virtual particles. That's where the rubber meets the turf - any theoretical physicist will tell you that all the conclusions drawn on the blackboard are not verified in the real world until hard evidence i.e. spectroscopic data, data from the LHC (Large Hadron Collider), whatever is presented and confirmed. That's just part of how science is done.

In the second video I posted, Leonard Susskind is exactly that - a theoretical physicist - he doesn't do "lab". Einstein's theory of relativity wasn't proven until the '50s (I think). Einstein proposed gravity waves also which were just observed for the first time last year at the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO).

Anyway, I think those videos and others which are freely available are important to understanding how science works - and doesn't work.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Ghost147

Yes I mind because you don't really respond to what I'm talking about. And your questions are red herrings away from what I'm bringing up or asking you.

All I've seen you talk about is how I'm somehow manipulating your words. What is it that you're talking about or asking me?

a reply to: Phantom423

That the universe can and will create itself (when it didn't even exist yet to do anything). Among other logical implications of what he was arguing in favor for without having to spell it out or spell out that he's arguing in favor for it, teaching it, promoting it, etc. As well as other things he said about the word "nothing" (his misleading and warping usage of that word).

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: edmc^2

What caused God then? Or THE Gods, or the holy pasta?

Obviously, the Flour, Eggs, and Holy Water combined to cause the Holy Pasta. R'amen.

I asked pages ago what a God(s) is made of. I didn't get an answer.

Since God (and whatever He is made of) precedes the universe and is not bound by its laws, God cannot be defined by any standards we can perceive.

It would be like a video game character trying to define the game programmer. Everything about the programmer is outside the comprehension of the game character. So while God must be made of something, we have no way to describe what that something is.

a reply to: Phantom423

What I will counter with is that even absurd ideas -- which only fleetingly existed in a 'moment' within a 'mind' -- actually exist in the 'State of Everything' because 'the 'State of Everything' includes every idea, realized or not.

A man has the idea of an automobile, he builds it. It doesn't cease to be an idea because the idea was realized. In fact, the automobile that was built is a very specific and defined idea. And if the inventor never built it, the idea would still exist -- if only in the inventor's mind and fleetingly in Time.

Moreover, someone could set up a mathematical equation that would take 10 billion years to solve. It still has an answer, now and forever -- regardless of the linear time it takes for 'minds' to solve it.

Likewise, the 'State of Everything' will always be 'Everything' regardless of whether 'minds' can discern what it's made of or not (not, because many things only exist in the future in the linear timeline through which we travel).