Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The universe is “designed” to have galaxies colliding with one another?It's not "chaos." So, if you're proposing a 3rd category between order and chaos, then that's all on you.
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.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.
Actually, yes, at least certain galaxies, if they didn't life as we know it would not exist. This is also true of hurricanes.The universe is “designed” to have galaxies colliding with one another?
Yet these truths can be even without a god. If god isn’t necessary then we can posit that no god exists.Actually, yes, at least certain galaxies, if they didn't life as we know it would not exist. This is also true of hurricanes.
That, or, you were deliberately ignoring the reason I gave.
Ok, I'll bite, what is the difference?
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.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.
Nope. The answer is 42.
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.Nevertheless he did have a definition for an effect as do most dictionaries and they both match what I said.
Sir, you made a claim: "There is no eternal model of naturalism."How precious. Merle's demanding that I prove a negative.
Ah, you are going to just make it up out of thin air that I teach Steady State, then gleefully knock down the strawman.Steady State was in-fact the eternal universe model. There are no "do-overs" in science. I'm afraid you're being terribly regressive.
The universe is “designed” to have galaxies colliding with one another?
Hilarious. So are you deliberately ignoring my challenge to point out the flaw in my proof, or are you unable to do so?
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!
Causality is a rule INSIDE the universe,
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.
. . .make up things I never said,
*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.
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?I predicted as much.
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?It's a negative claim. Please stop with the atheist double-standards!
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.
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.Yet these truths can be even without a god. If god isn’t necessary then we can posit that no god exists.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?