God the middleman

[Pommer]

It's not "chaos." So, if you're proposing a 3rd category between order and chaos, then that's all on you.

The universe is “designed” to have galaxies colliding with one another?

 

[Pommer]

How many fingers am I holding up as I click the "Post Reply" button?

27?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Aristotle defines a system of classifying four different types of causes, not a system of distinguishing effects from non-effects. As I said before, you can infer causality within the universe all you want, but to apply it to the universe as a whole is to commit the fallacy of composition. We are looping now, so I’ll give you a chance to respond to this differently than last time, and if not this exchange will have run its course.

Nevertheless he did have a definition for an effect as do most dictionaries and they both match what I said. Therefore, I disagree that I have committed the fallacy of composition, since the evidence from science points to the universe having all the characteristics of an effect. But as an atheist I can certainly see why you would want to cover your ears and deny that fact.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The universe is “designed” to have galaxies colliding with one another?

Actually, yes, at least certain galaxies, if they didn't life as we know it would not exist. This is also true of hurricanes.

 

[Pommer]

Actually, yes, at least certain galaxies, if they didn't life as we know it would not exist. This is also true of hurricanes.

Yet these truths can be even without a god. If god isn’t necessary then we can posit that no god exists.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

That, or, you were deliberately ignoring the reason I gave.

Hilarious. So are you deliberately ignoring my challenge to point out the flaw in my proof, or are you unable to do so? I don't see why I need to take up another topic with you if I'm perpetually winning on that topic.

Once again,

Assume "From nothing, nothing comes."

Is there nothing?



Yes → Then nothing exists, so the rule does not exist, so it does not apply.

No → Then the conditions for the rule are not met, so it does not apply.


You go on to point out that if there is nothing, then causality doesn't exist. Well duh! If something comes from nothing - if, say, a tricycle pops into existence - that is an acausal event. Your counterargument is basically the the kids' table complete with a sippy cup, a messy bib, and a highchair. Those of us who read the OP understand that there must be things that exist without being caused, be it your God, the universe, or perhaps the bulk space. Causality is a rule INSIDE the universe, it is not the only game in town, and if there is nothing then there is no universe and hence no causality. You have completely and unequivocally FAILED to demonstrate that the conditions for your ex nihilo rule can possibly be met. I gave a proof, so the burden is now squarely on you to either refute it or show that it is a false dichotomy. When I've presented a proof, the burden of proof falls on you. That's how these things work. God resists the proud, so perhaps be humble and admit that you're unable to refute the airtight argument. Thanks!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ok, I'll bite, what is the difference?

Bite? Like I want to waste time explaining it to you for the 50th time. Lol, no. You do more damage to your own side being an apologist. Stay there. We're fine over here on the atheist side.

 

[disciple Clint]

We don't know what was "before" the Big Bang or even if there was a "before".

Do you know what was before the Big Bang?

Nobody suggested that the forces of nature existed before nature. Get with the program, please.

And we are back to the original answer. It happens all the time. See Something from Nothing? A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light - Scientific American.

looks like I need to repeat myself, as I said before a vacuum is a something, it requires creation, you dont just drive down the street and all of a sudden a vacuum jumps up out of nowhere. I know the big bang had a cause and I know that something had to exist at the time of the BB. Now you still need to explain where that something came from and what caused it to go bang. I am not having any problem keeping up, I find it very easy to keep asking you the same question over and over. I am still waiting for an answer.

 

[Moral Orel]

27?

Nope. The answer is 42.

 

[gaara4158]

Nevertheless he did have a definition for an effect as do most dictionaries and they both match what I said.

No, they do not. You said an effect is something that has a beginning and has some sort of motion or change. Aristotle and most dictionaries define an effect as something that is brought about in part by at least one cause. Therefore to consider the universe an effect it must first be determined to have a cause, not the other way around. I repeat myself, so this will be my final response.

 

[doubtingmerle]

How precious. Merle's demanding that I prove a negative.

Sir, you made a claim: "There is no eternal model of naturalism."

I take it from your response that you have no evidence to support your claim.

If somebody was to say, "There is no oxygen in the atmosphere", would you say that this negative statement should be accepted as truth with no evidence?

Sorry, but you can't simply make things up and weasel out of giving evidence. Got any?

Steady State was in-fact the eternal universe model. There are no "do-overs" in science. I'm afraid you're being terribly regressive.

Ah, you are going to just make it up out of thin air that I teach Steady State, then gleefully knock down the strawman.

I explained my opinion on the origin of our universe in detail in post #323. I specifically stated that I do not teach Steady State. But you simply ignore that, make up things I never said, and declare victory?

Huh?

 

[Paulomycin]

The universe is “designed” to have galaxies colliding with one another?

Why not?

 

[Paulomycin]

Hilarious. So are you deliberately ignoring my challenge to point out the flaw in my proof, or are you unable to do so?

Now you're not even following the thread.

Once again,

Assume "From nothing, nothing comes."

Is there nothing?



Yes → Then nothing exists, so the rule does not exist, so it does not apply.

No → Then the conditions for the rule are not met, so it does not apply.


You go on to point out that if there is nothing, then causality doesn't exist. Well duh!

^ Then you agree with Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit. It's taking you time to realize this, I get it.

Please, don't make me rub your nose in it. --> "No" is the result of "Yes."

Causality is a rule INSIDE the universe,

You can't prove that your dogmatic materialism actually contains the rule.

 

[Paulomycin]

Sir, you made a claim: "There is no eternal model of naturalism."

Yes. I'm a hard skeptic on that claim. Problem?

I take it from your response that you have no evidence to support your claim.

It's a negative claim. Please stop with the atheist double-standards!

. . .make up things I never said,

I predicted as much.

*sputtering* "I--I never said any such thing!"

- If you didn't make a positive claim, then there's no point in defending it as-if you did.

You really gotta stop skimming my posts. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I predicted as much.

Wait, what? You make up things I never said, and I responded by telling you I never said that. Your response? You predicted I would say that?

 

[BigDaddy4]

It sounds like you're saying God doesn't need a reason to exist, He just does. Is that correct?

Yes.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes.

Same could be said of reality.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's a negative claim. Please stop with the atheist double-standards!

I get it. You've fantasized that someone around here has made the claim "There is no God" and then they refused to prove it because you also fantasized that person also claimed "You can't prove a negative", but none of that happened. So you made a thread showing that you can prove a negative and then proceeded to make negative claims while refusing to prove your negative claims... and we have the double standard?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Now you're not even following the thread.



^ Then you agree with Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit. It's taking you time to realize this, I get it.

Please, don't make me rub your nose in it. --> "No" is the result of "Yes."



You can't prove that your dogmatic materialism actually contains the rule.

Causality is the process by which a system transitions from one state to another state. It requires physical forces. These are all elements of the universe. I suppose you think gravity also applies outside of the universe? Also I love your "No is the result of yes" nonsense and of course you wouldn't be you without redacting large portions of text and cherry picking what to respond to.

I ask for you to prove me wrong and "no is the new yes" is all you've got. Absolutely hilarious.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Yet these truths can be even without a god. If god isn’t necessary then we can posit that no god exists.

Not really, the probabilities are too low for all these things to be just coincidences and controlled by natural laws. As Einstein said, laws imply a Lawgiver. The laws of physics are designed just right for these things to occur with only certain galaxies and only on possibly only one planet that contains intelligent life.