"If you can find one that absolutely had no cause whatsoever, we'll go from there."

I don't know how many times I can ask that you read up on the example we have given you. You seem hellbent on ignoring it. You also don't seem to understand that you're only putting forth a generalization and not EVIDENCE. Were going in circles here because the premise of the cosmological argument ISN'T supportable except via generalization about an event on a scale where we KNOW all our normal observations absolutely go to hell.

As for your claim that EVERYTHING has a cause ill reiterate the same counterargument I made last time which you ignored - you have data on EVERY event? Present it please.

Even on a macro level and even if we had been collecting data on 100% of everything our scopes could pick up, over 99% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy. How are you collecting data on it?

quote:

---

you have data on EVERY event? Present it please.

---

And again with that you're using the EXACT same logic you criticize when creationists use it. So tell me, is it an ok logic or isn't it? Or is it only ok when it's your last resort, but not ok for your opponents to use?

As for your other "evidence," ok, let's pretend for a second you have presented something of value. Can you then show scientifically how those things even remotely relate to creation of the universe? If so, I'm all ears. Though I'm not exactly expecting anything...

"And again with that you're using the EXACT same logic you criticize when creationists use it."

Can you explain how I'm incorrect when I pointed out how this is not the case?

And what do you mean how does that relate to the big bang?

The premise of the cosmological argument is that ALL events have a cause. If any event is shown not to then the premise is incorrect thus invalidating the argument!

You aren't going to read that article are you?

Your link doesn't work. At least not when I tried to click it.

Your argument is indeed using the exact same logic you criticize. You failing to admit that doesn't mean it isn't true.

When it gets down to it, again, the problem the atheist has is the problem of origin. You can't explain away the big bang. We know it happened, and the fact of the matter is, there is no natural explanation for it. That leaves two choices. Supernatural explanation, or the position of "well, maybe it just magically happened for no reason whatsoever, even though we have absolutely no proof of how that's possible nor do we have any way to test or verify it nor do we have any other things that even point to that being a possibility." The singularity cannot be even remotely explained, which is why it is so unique. So I'm curious. You claim to be an "I don't know" atheist rather than a "I know there's no God" atheist, yet you spend all your time declaring that there's no God. So with the issue of the origin of the universe, do you admit that it's possible that God might have done it? Very simple question for you. I look forward to your answer. Is it possible that a supernatural being created the universe?

where have I ONCE in eleven years of posting declared there isn't a god watty? You are once again using strawmen.

And could you actually address my point instead of dismissing it yet again?


You said I'm using the same logic. I explained why it was different. You reiterate that its the same but don't say ANYTHING about the explanation?!

And of course its possible. I'm not the one making declarations about it, you are.

I read your article, NoACDamnit.

I don't even remotely begin to understand most of it. Afraid I will be of no use in having an intellectual discussion about it.

NoAC,

I'm afraid that this post has gotten out of hand, but I want to mention that Quentin Smith, the author of the piece you linked on Infidel, is a good philosopher. I'll have to read the article when I get a chance.

Its some pretty interesting stuff. Einstein (along with two other physicists) theorized a lot of the behavior of quantum physics but einstein thought it was bunk. That may be partially because it stands relativity on its head but I think its mostly that it flies in the face of how we view EVERYTHING in our daily lives. The concept that you can alter a particle on the other side of the universe without transmitting information is nearly impossible for us to get our heads around because we just don't experience reality like that.

And yet it moves.

quote:

---

And of course its possible

---

At least you finally admit it.

I've never said otherwise. You're making assumptions about what I believe. You always have.

And ill take that as a "no, I'm not going to address what you've said."

watty,

I don't agree with many of things NoAC says about religion. But, NoAC is generally polite and is willing to discuss ideas. It is sad when another thread is ruined as you follow and mock him.

And take the last "." out of the linked to url that he provided. It isn't too hard to figure out. Smith is worth reading. I read half of it during lunch, and plan on picking it back up later. He appears to be giving a circular argument, but I haven't finished it yet so maybe he explains more later on.

I talk to NoAC exactly like he talks to me. I've addressed all of his points. He has an arguing style that relies on misdirection and misrepresentation and diversion. I simply point that out.

I'll give that link a look.


[This message has been edited by watty (edited 1/3/2011 12:40p).]

Lol there's a point right here on THIS page you haven't addressed. And misdirection? You've been asked several times to read on quantum mechanics. You have wholly ignored it. You have been asked to provide evidence for the premise of the cosmological argument instead of a generalization. You've done everything but.

And where have I mocked you watty? Where have I dismissed your arguments without explanation as you have done repeatedly?

You should pay attention to cyprian, he's smarter than both of us.

watty,

Being a fellow theist, I would like to side with you if I could have my selfish ways. But, I honestly can't see that equal treatment going on. Take from what you will from my observations.

And, after telling you how to find the article, I embarressingly have to take back what I said here:

quote:

---

I read half of it during lunch, and plan on picking it back up later. He appears to be giving a circular argument, but I haven't finished it yet so maybe he explains more later on.

---

I went to the link and noticed that it failed due to the "." at the end, but it brought me to their page. I went up to the page where all of his articles are archived, and ended up reading half of the "self-caused universe" article. That bit is circular from what I read so far, & not the one NoAC linked.

[This message has been edited by Cyprian (edited 1/3/2011 12:53p).]

Mobile site auto converts links. Damn my proper punctuation.

OK I read that article. It is pure speculation! It all comes out when he admits that points 1-3 admittedly have a gap to them, and then in point 4, he admits that his theory requires a new theory of gravity which doesn't even exist!

watty,

As an outside observer I find nothing objectionable in the way in which you've conducted yourself. Take it for what it's worth...

It's clear that the author of that article spent a lot of time desperately looking for a scientific sounding reason to declare that the big bang happened for no reason at all. Unfortunately, he came up short. The whole thing came off like he's just trying to convince himself.

As for mocking, sorry you take it that way. I point out ridiculous ideas when they are not backed up. I called NoAC out when he resorted to the same tactics he criticizes in others. He has repeatedly dismissed things I've said over the years without backing them up. He repeatedly then tries to move the discussion to something else, and when I point out the problem there, he does it again. Not sure what the problem is with what I've said. I've addressed everything he's asked me, now including this article that was supposed to be so impressive.

No you HAVEN'T addressed everything. You said I was using the same logic as creationists watty. I explained why I did not feel that was the case. You have COMPLETELY ignored that response so far.

We can delve more into virtual particles if you'd like but id prefer to get back to not having any evidence other than generalization for the premise of the cosmological argument. Even whistling phrased it as a matter of probable not certain.

And if you'd be so kind as to what I've said that wasn't backed up or requires further explanation ill happily expound on it if you agree to actually respond.

As for your first point, I don't know what to say. You are clearly doing the exact same thing that you criticize others for. EXACT same thing. Agree to disagree, I guess, but I will still point it out when I notice it.

As for point two, also not sure what to say. I responded to what you wanted me to, and you're still saying the same thing. That's your right to do so, but I think it's been shown that you're forced to grasp at straws when you take the position you're taking. Fact of the matter is that we weren't there so we don't know, but I feel that logic and reason are clearly on the side of a creator in regards to the question of origin. At least you admitted that it's a possibility. You may have said that elsewhere but I'd never seen it. Not that you care to take advice from me, but I'd say you'd be wise to keep that possibility in mind- even if it's in the back of your mind- as you continue to think about and discuss these issues.

This is what I'm talking about watty. You say its the exact same thing.

I respond why I don't think that's the case.

Instead of addressing that you reiterate that its the exact same thing totally ignoring my response!

As for not admitting a deity may be responsible you're again stereotyping and misunderstanding atheism as most do and you always have.

Are we continuing with uncaused quantum events and support for the cosmological arguments premise or is the conversation over?

quote:

---

My point with entaglement wasn't about causality but rather the mistake in taking what we commonly observe on a large level and applying it to EVERYTHING. One of the coolest effects of entaglement is that you can take a particle and split it in two, then send them in opposite directions.

Anything you do to one of them will happen to the other instantaneously regardless of distance.

Think about that for a moment.

---

So if I understand this correctly, if I have a particle sitting in Houston at my desk, but have another particle that's in India eating curry, the part of me that's in Houston will still get indigestion?

DAMMIT! Some of my particles really piss me off sometimes.

quote:

---

Whaaaaaaa? Its not even remotely the same. Saying that an apple is going to fall tomorrow isn't even remotely near saying since bees and explosions have causes that the universe did too. You are making assumptions and generalizations about an event we know very little about and comparing it to events we know a great deal about.

---

OK NoAC, since you seem determined to make me has this out for you (another example of you attempting to divert the argument and confuse the issue, but that's beside the point).

We know a great deal about causality. We know that 99.999999% (at least) of the things we know of had to have a cause. Cars don't form themselves into cars. Something has to cause the parts to come together. This is true with all events and creations that we have observed. Or, to satisfy you, it is true of all except for a few theoretical things that sound really dreamy but aren't exactly solid theories yet. You are using as your argument the idea that, well, we haven't observed EVERYTHING in the universe, so maybe it's possible the this or that (in this case, the creation of the universe) doesn't follow the rules that we have observed everywhere else.

Meanwhile, young earth creationists for example take that same argument when talking about how maybe the earth isn't really that old, or maybe this or that really did happen but it just doesn't appear that way to us. You, the atheist, say to them "well there's no science to support you! Apples always fall down and certain things always hold true!" The YEC then says, "how do you know? We haven't observed EVERYTHING."

You are both taking the "how do you know? since we haven't observed EVERYTHING, anything is possible" stance.

It is EXACTLY the same thing.

Now that I have satisfied your desire to respond to that, I hope you are pleased.

quote:

---

Are we continuing with uncaused quantum events and support for the cosmological arguments premise or is the conversation over?

---

That's up to you. I don't have anything new to say at this point, but if you do, I'm all ears.

Why was it so difficult to actually reply to what I said?

It is completely NOT the same thing though. We are talking about knowns vs unknowns. We know how sediment layers are put down. Creationists reject this because it does not fit their argument. We know how old the earth is. Creationists reject this as it does not fit their argument.

We do NOT know all events must have a cause. If we did you could show a proof as such! Given that what we have observed is less than one percent of the universe and given that we KNOW on a quantum level things don't behave even remotely like they do on a macro level it makes no logical sense to say a quantum event MUST behave as we see on a macro level.

Now if there was some evidence that causality holds on a quantum level let's see it! Until then I don't see how you can possibly say I'm making the same argument as a creationist.

quote:

---

Why was it so difficult to actually reply to what I said?

---

Because I felt it was so self-evident, I figured you knew what I was saying. You're a smart guy. I think that's one of the things you do in debates. You try to get people stuck on one issue and demand that they spell out every single thing in hopes that maybe they'll trip up. All it does, in my opinion, is muddy the conversation. Plus then I feel like it really wasted my time, having to spell that out, because I think you knew already what I was spelling out. So in a weird way, I'm complimenting you, saying I think you're smart enough often times to know what someone means without it being spelled out.

That being said, I still enjoy talking with you, oddly enough. It's obvious you're really smart. I just think you are constantly testing others and hoping they'll fall on themselves rather than standing firm on your own beliefs.

So as for the "your argument/creationist argument" thing, you still say they're different things. Like I said, agree to disagree I guess. Speaking generally, I appreciate that you bring a lot of different things up, as it shows us just how much we don't know. For me as a Christian, it just serves to remind me how smart God is to have made all that. For you as a nonbeliever, I'd imagine it must give a similar sense of excitement, even if it's not directed at a creator.

What's weird to me is that I offered a rebuttal as to why I disagreed with your statement and the reason you didn't respond is you felt your statement (which I explained why I disagreed with) was self evident?

That doesn't make any sense.

Seemed pretty clear to me, seeing as how they're exactly the same.

Right I got that part. What's perplexing is you not addressing my rebuttal whatsoever while saying I don't back up my statements. (Which I also asked you to point out. You haven't)

I completely addressed it. Not sure what you're talking about. You accuse me of this quite a bit, when my posts are clear to see.

You addressed it AFTER being asked to several times.

Because as I said, it is pretty obvious that they are the same thing.