God the middleman

[Ed1wolf]

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.

Read Aristotle: Selections edited by W.D. Ross.

effect
[əˈfekt]
NOUN

1. a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

I definitely dont remember you explaining it 50 times! I think you are making this up.

 

[Paulomycin]

Same could be said of reality.

Your ontological reality is finite (a.), and you can't account for it (b.).

Seriously, you really can't. Just look it up.

 

[Paulomycin]

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?

No, you're just not reading the thread (as usual), and neither did @plugh or @Nihilist Virus who pinned a medal on you.

All three of you gambled on what you didn't read and lost. Wow. How embarrassing!

Pay attention: I stated, "There is no eternal model of naturalism." Merle wants me to prove that negative claim. I refuse to prove it, because I made a negative claim. I know how you people work.

 

[Paulomycin]

Causality is the process by which a system transitions from one state to another state.

It's also a rule of logic that was never altered.

It requires physical forces.

Because you asserted it? Why can't you provide any citations for your (cough) "rules?"

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.

Please don't be mad.

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

Please, no horse laugh fallacies either. You refuse to acknowledge the process; I get that.

 

[Moral Orel]

I refuse to prove it, because I made a negative claim. I know how you people work.

Yeah, I stand by my post. This is just further proof I'm right. Merle, nor anyone else, made a negative claim and then refused to prove it. Only you did that, chum.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

Ah, the chances of a galaxy having life might be close to 1/infinity.

And the total number of galaxies might be infinity.

So the total number of inhabited planets would be (1/ infinity * infinity), which is undefined, but could well be many of thousands.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Pay attention: I stated, "There is no eternal model of naturalism." Merle wants me to prove that negative claim. I refuse to prove it, because I made a negative claim. I know how you people work.

Pay attention: I am hereby stating "There are no credible arguments for Paulomycin's position." Paulomycin would wants me to prove that negative claim. Apparently I don't need to prove it, because I made a negative claim. Apparently that is how it works.

So can those of us that are on my side now declare victory and go home?

 

[gaara4158]

Read Aristotle: Selections edited by W.D. Ross.

effect
[əˈfekt]
NOUN

1. a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

Emphasis mine.

 

[HitchSlap]

Your ontological reality is finite (a.), and you can't account for it (b.).

Seriously, you really can't. Just look it up.

We don't know if it's finite (personally, I think it's always existed), and fabricating imaginary accounts is the height of arrogance.

 

[Lion IRC]

If the uni/multi/mega/omniverse has always existed, why haven't we invented time machines yet?

Why haven't Marty McFly and The Doc Emmett shown up yet.

Dear Science...I want my hoverboard. TIA

 

[Paulomycin]

Yeah, I stand by my post. This is just further proof I'm right. Merle, nor anyone else, made a negative claim and then refused to prove it. Only you did that, chum.

But the thread speaks for itself. So, no point in trying to save face. We know you messed up.

 

[Paulomycin]

Pay attention: I am hereby stating "There are no credible arguments for Paulomycin's position." Paulomycin would wants me to prove that negative claim. Apparently I don't need to prove it, because I made a negative claim. Apparently that is how it works.

Wow. Suddenly you're making a complete break with atheists' generally perceived rules on burden of proof. Does this mean you people finally agree with my position on burden of proof?

Regardless, you made the positive claim of an eternal naturalistic model of the universe. I typically choose to take the side that the positive claim carries the burden of proof.

All I'm asking for is a little commitment.

 

[Moral Orel]

But the thread speaks for itself.

It sure does. If only it said what you wished it did, lol.

Suddenly you're making a complete break with atheists' generally perceived rules on burden of proof.

What rule is that and what atheist around here has cited it?

I typically choose to take the side that the positive claim carries the burden of proof.

Whoever makes a claim carries the burden for that claim. Or we can just play Calvinball if you want.

 

[Pommer]

Nope. The answer is 42.

Ah, yes, the answer is always 2A!

 

[Paulomycin]

We don't know if it's finite (personally, I think it's always existed), and fabricating imaginary accounts is the height of arrogance.

"We don't know" is never a determinate conclusion. You can't spin "we don't know" as an ontological finality.

It's like you people suddenly hate science whenever it falsifies something you don't want. Like in the case where the Big Bang falsified Steady State. Sorry, there are no "do overs" in a scientific paradigm. And there are serious problems with the "No Boundary" proposal.

Biographer and science writer Kitty Ferguson said the no-boundary proposal is less accepted than Hawking radiation. "To this day there are many people in physics who don't accept it as something in physics that can be used as part of other theories -- you can't use it as a starting off point to go somewhere else," Ferguson said.

 

[Paulomycin]

If the uni/multi/mega/omniverse has always existed, why haven't we invented time machines yet?

Why haven't Marty McFly and The Doc Emmett shown up yet.

Dear Science...I want my hoverboard. TIA

Because time-travel itself is a paradox, and creates far more problems than our initial assumptions about spacetime try to solve.

This is my favorite video on that: Time Traveling The Multiverse - YouTube

 

[Paulomycin]

It sure does. If only it said what you wished it did, lol.

You're not bringing up any specific statements, so I can only conclude you're faking it.

What rule is that and what atheist around here has cited it?

You stated it yourself. . .

Whoever makes a claim carries the burden for that claim.

. . .right here.

Or we can just play Calvinball if you want.

Which is evidently what Merle is doing. He's claiming "eternal naturalism." I'm saying he carries the burden for that claim (as per your rules that you just stated here).

 

[Moral Orel]

Which is evidently what Merle is doing. He's claiming "eternal naturalism." I'm saying he carries the burden for that claim (as per your rules that you just stated here).

He only claimed it's possible. He didn't claim it's true. You didn't ask him to support his claim. You made the counter claim:

There is no eternal model of naturalism.

So that burden is on you. Yet you refused because it's a negative claim here:

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

And here:

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

Just like you said in the thread you started, there's nothing wrong with proving a negative, so get to it.

 

[Moral Orel]

"We don't know" is never a determinate conclusion. You can't spin "we don't know" as an ontological finality.

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