[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] Tactics

paulm50 said:

If there's no evidence, why was there a cause?

Could of been an accidental collision of an asteroid carrying the right chemical elements.

As you say there's absolutely no evidence. Well actually there is some that may have been the start. This is why science trumps religious belief. Science isn't afraid to keep looking.

Asteroids are hitting Earth, they carry all sorts of elements, some we are just discovering. Did a god aim it at Earth, or was it an accident? We are still looking into it.

Click to expand...

Do you understand the concept of first cause? I don't think you do.

justlookinla said:

Right, there's absolutely no evidence that nothing produced something from nothing. As far as what produced life on earth, we can only recognize the fact that there was a first cause, a causeless cause, from which everything else proceeded.

Click to expand...

How is a causeless cause a fact? It seems that you are saying that something can exist without a cause while saying that something needs a cause to exist.

Skaloop said:

How is a causeless cause a fact? It seems that you are saying that something can exist without a cause while saying that something needs a cause to exist.

Click to expand...

There must be a first cause which was causeless. From that first cause, a prime mover, everything else proceeded. A contrary argument that there was not a first cause, a prime mover, certainly has it's problems also.

justlookinla said:

There must be a first cause which was causeless. From that first cause, a prime mover, everything else proceeded. A contrary argument that there was not a first cause, a prime mover, certainly has it's problems also.

Click to expand...

What caused the first cause, a prime mover?

paulm50 said:

What caused the first cause, a prime mover?

Click to expand...

That's the thing, the first cause, the prime mover is eternal. There was no cause for the first cause, thus the term 'first cause'.

justlookinla said:

That's the thing, the first cause, the prime mover is eternal. There was no cause for the first cause, thus the term 'first cause'.

Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that's correct please?

paulm50 said:

What evidence do you have correct please?

Click to expand...

This is where special pleading comes in handy.

justlookinla said:

There must be a first cause which was causeless. From that first cause, a prime mover, everything else proceeded. A contrary argument that there was not a first cause, a prime mover, certainly has it's problems also.

Click to expand...

Why must there be a prime mover, a first cause, which is causeless? And how can you honestly argue that everything needs a cause, therefore there is a causeless cause?

Skaloop said:

Why must there be a prime mover, a first cause, which is causeless? And how can you honestly argue that everything needs a cause, therefore there is a causeless cause?

Click to expand...

Because the theology requires this?

paulm50 said:

What evidence do you have that's correct please?

Click to expand...

Existence itself.

Skaloop said:

Why must there be a prime mover, a first cause, which is causeless? And how can you honestly argue that everything needs a cause, therefore there is a causeless cause?

Click to expand...

Everything but the first cause needs a cause. We have no evidence or example of anything existing without a cause other than the first cause.

bhsmte said:

Because the theology requires this?

Click to expand...

Doesn't necessarily have anything to do with theology.

justlookinla said:

Everything but the first cause needs a cause.

Click to expand...

Does it, though? On what do you base that assertion? And why would the first cause not need a cause?

We have no evidence or example of anything existing without a cause other than the first cause.

Click to expand...

We also have no evidence of that first cause existing.

Skaloop said:

Does it, though? On what do you base that assertion? And why would the first cause not need a cause?

Click to expand...

I base the assertion that every effect we observe had cause.....except for the first cause. For example, give an effect which doesn't have a cause.

We also have no evidence of that first cause existing.

Click to expand...

Either the first cause existed or nothing existed. Back to the view that nothing created something out of nothing.

justlookinla said:

I base the assertion that every effect we observe had cause.....except for the first cause. For example, give an effect which doesn't have a cause.

Click to expand...

The prime mover, the first cause that you mentioned.

Either the first cause existed or nothing existed. Back to the view that nothing created something out of nothing.

Click to expand...

Based on what logic? Even if a first cause were required for anything to exist, what is that uncaused first cause? And how can it exist if a cause is required for something to exist?

justlookinla said:

Existence itself.

Click to expand...

That's the thing, the first cause, the prime mover is eternal. There was no cause for the first cause, thus the term 'first cause'.

Click to expand...

That's a good point. What first kicked off life on Earth, could still be out there, in the same or similar forms. We just don't know so we have to stay open to the possibility.

Could be a, an asteroid, or a cloud of gas that we passed through, more intelligent species. That we would think of as gods. Just not anything anyone here on Earth has a clue about.

Now, what evidence do you have that something, we know about, produced something from nothing? Assuming that's your position.

Skaloop said:

The prime mover, the first cause that you mentioned.

Click to expand...

That's the exception, the meaning of first cause/prime mover. The first cause is the only causeless cause.

Based on what logic? Even if a first cause were required for anything to exist, what is that uncaused first cause? And how can it exist if a cause is required for something to exist?

Click to expand...

Based on the fact that we cannot point to a single example of an effect not having a cause, other than the first cause. Again, either nothing created something or something created something. If nothing created something, then nothing becomes the cause. If the first cause/prime mover is eternal, i.e. uncaused, then something (first cause) created something.

paulm50 said:

That's a good point. What first kicked off life on Earth, could still be out there, in the same or similar forms. We just don't know so we have to stay open to the possibility.

Click to expand...

You're right, something was the cause of first life on earth.

Could be a, an asteroid, or a cloud of gas that we passed through, more intelligent species. That we would think of as gods. Just not anything anyone here on Earth has a clue about.

Click to expand...

Yep, lots of guesses and suppositions.

Now, what evidence do you have that something, we know about, produced something from nothing? Assuming that's your position.

Click to expand...

Our existence is evidence that something produced us for we cannot find a cause without an associated effect.....except for first cause/prime mover.

paulm50 said:

What created the Big Bang, was there a Big Bang?

Click to expand...

Various guesses and suppositions have the view there was a big bang. If there was, nothing didn't produce the effect, something produced the effect.

This is where Atheist have the upper hand. We can survive without knowing/

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has suggested that one can survive without knowing. It does shape one's worldview though, with the atheist position eventually promoting the relatively worthless sack of chemical existence.

A lot of believers have to have the answer given, it was a god, and stick to it.

Click to expand...

Why do a lot of believers have to believe that?

Then try to prove it was, when science itself can't. So they say it was an invisible god doing illogical, to us, deeds.

Click to expand...

It's illogical that one's existence is based, ultimately, on nothing being their creator.

paulm50 said:

I'm no scientist, so all I can do is point you to the papers scientists have published.

Click to expand...

i don't mean any disrespect, but i don't need you to point me to any papers that scientists have published.
i have an evolution folder on my hard drive that contains over 170 megabytes of papers and articles

. . . , so accept we are still learning how life originally started n Earth.

Click to expand...

yes, they are still learning.
the fact of the matter is that science hasn't even got a PLAUSIBLE scenario for how it could have happened.
every single hypothesis associated with the origin of life has some kind of insurmountable problem.
keep in mind that science has the final functioning product to back engineer from.

As I always maintain, it won't bear any resemblance to Genesis. Most of which has been disproved.

Click to expand...

the god concept might be ludicrous, ridiculous, and irrational, but it hasn't been disproved.
you would be very hard pressed to disprove the placebo effect in the face of faith.

What evidence do you have that something produced something from nothing? Assuming that's your position.

Click to expand...

there is no evidence whatsoever ANYWHERE that says such a thing.
BTW, what "position" are you assuming i have?