..................................................
Use the word "cause", so we can skip semantics. And again, complexity is relative and irrelevant. Everything is cause and effect. People designed the most complex microprocessors; thus, they caused the existence of said processors. Your biological parents having intercourse caused your birth. This is simply how our universe operates-- at least according to our observations thus far.
Ok fine. Lets accept your assertion that everything that exists can be divided into simpler parts. For these 'simpler states' to combine to form more complex stages requires an action, thus a cause. And this is very simplistic and irrelevant to my argument. For you see, even if modern computers (to use your example) are still evolving, theirs are changes initiated by us humans. Also the first computer was envisioned, design and built by humans-- this is causation or creation.
I see. Tell me Chris, how does Science answer questions regarding "time" or existence before the Big Bang? The answer is almost always that they do not truly know, for their model does not extend before the Big Bang. How does this apply to my example of a cause and effect and your incorrect assertion that my assertion implies an infinite series of causes and effects? Simply, my model does not extend beyond that which created or caused us-- using the very same logic used to explain events preceding the Big Bang. I cannot by definition imply anything before my existence using observational data, except for the moment of my existence. For it is at that critical moment when all the observations that are available for my deductions originate.
Value based arguments are so annoying. If I say the first microprocessor that was created was complex because at its birth, it was a first, and thus, revolutionary, and used the most advanced technology of its time, you will probably insinuate that it was based likewise based on something and that thing based on something and bla bla bla. Either way, I will still assert: the first computer was complex. The toasted egg I had today for breakfast was complex--- the complexity must necessarily lie in the toasting for the assertion to be valid. Just so you do proceed along the path you will most like go, understand that we are talking of a CAUSE. I caused the egg to become toasted-- or at I least I started the processes that lead to a toasted egg. The same principles apply to the first computer.
Look above at the boundaries that are by definition, necessary in physics.
It is most certainly one explanation, but by no means the only one meaningful. Else, why would this debate be going? Or should we all accept your notion of meaningful. Chris, for your own sake, stray from arguments based on subjectivity.
This coming from you is a shocker! Of course you caused many, many effects. You cause sound to emanate from a space where it was originally non-existent. You started or caused a release of heat through friction. You are looking only at the expected effect.
You seem to be trying to extend the notion that energy cannot be created or destroyed, merely transferred. This is not applicable.
Rational possibility? Sorry man, you are confusing probability and possibility. Possibility even implies that which is not probable: throwing two dice and getting a 13.
Why are you even making this absolutely irrelevant statement? Did I assert that Mohammed was anymore enlightened than those you see “on every street corner”? This is what I asserted: .A subsequently prods along and tries to convince those that will listen to his assertions, his belief..
You have to accept by belief that the conclusions based on repeated observations are true. Within the system of sciences, certain conclusions have been shown to be false. Therefore, it is a belief system
Yet again, we go full circle. Both models rely on physical observations. Science relies on repeated or testable predictions based on observations to imply both physical—as in, we can sense with our 5 senses, and the “nonphysical” as in, we cannot sense. The Big Bang is science is an induction. A quark is science is an induction.
LOL. And this is precisely the problem. B believes that his system is the truth and wants A to explain A’s system within B’s context—and this cannot be, as I have already explained. If B “already” knows the “answers”, then why other with A?
This is confusing. My “scenario” presented B, the atheist. B accepts that A is wrong. As for the agnostic, it is really simple, as I have previously explained. The only way, and this is by definition, that B can understand A or see A’s “proof’ is by accepting A’s assertion on faith.
This person, C, is an assuming elitist. So everyone that does not subscribe to his view point is necessarily gullible? Subjectivity drenched arguments really do make me sick.
This is fucking irrelevant! It does not matter who the individual is, which is why I used A. I will not engage in the pathetic back and forths that characterizes a lot of arguments within this sub-forum. If I make an argument, answer it directly or don’t bother!
We are talking of "time", not existence.
This is the whole point. If the model that tries to explain existence explains or attempts to exlains how we came to being, how can it extend before said model?
I do not understand the above statament. The scientific model means using observations to generate and test a model and then predicting that the model will follow future observations. I observe cause and effect in all and this extrapolate that i was also caused, and that the last and first of all we can pereive/observe was caused. I test this model by further observing future cause and effects. The simplicity is stunning,
I also do not understand this. Logic and reason do not apply before. Because they exist within the context of our existence.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. You are asserting that there an infinite amount of cause and effects within the universe? Well, that would be irrelevant; it must be something else. What I am saying is that the model of a creator I present-- and which to answer a punk who obviously does not read my posts correctly-- I do not believe in (I ascribe to no faith), there is no infinite amount of cause and effects, for the model terminates at the immediate cause of this reality or existence or universe.
You appear to have made a mistake. Your comments refer to the author of the article Dr. Koenraad ELST, whose credentials you have apparently accurately quoted, however, the title of the article is “Dr. Somers’ diagnosis of Mohammed”. The diagnosis was made by a qualified Psychologist, i.e. the expert I was referencing.
If this were true why didn’t ancient Egyptians build computers? Modern microprocessors are the result of a long evolutionary trail that probably began with the abacus. The role of people was that of a catalyst that used intelligence to step from one stage to another slightly more complex.
Which was just one step in a long chain where each step helped feed into something more complex – this is evolution. The first computer evolved from simpler mechanical machines, etc.
I understand how many do confuse the two, as you have done, but my analogy is quite precise.
I agree they do not truly know but there are many models that extend beyond the big bang, which is now a somewhat old theory.
In effect you are trying to place an arbitrary limit on your speculation that everything has a cause because you want a god creator to be the first cause. That is not logical and is quite disingenuous. Either everything has a cause, which leads to an impossible infinite series or you need to adopt a different but honest model.
But these explanations result in the universe being infinite, in which case it can never have been created, i.e. there is no need of a creator.
Only if you want to rely solely on your own personal observations, however, we are a species and we can easily share and pass on observations from others.
My current limitted understanding is that quantum theory says that everything is possible but not probable.
By such logic then the abacus follows an evolutionary trial that begins with what? And that thing is an evolutionary trial that begins with what? The universe since it encompasses everything within this existence therefore must represent the most complex stage. This would imply that the evolutionary trial has an end at any given moment, and therefore the trial is not infinite. What then caused the start of the most fundamental stage?
Even if I accept your assertion, then as catalysts, they are also initiating evolutionary processes every time these ‘components’ take something less complex and make it more complex.
Yes. But the set of possible outcomes but be finite for probability theory to apply.
Correct..
Yes, in probability theory, the outcome 13 is impossible. But this impossibility exists only within the limited context of probability theory itself.
The above again ask that I prove an assertion within the context of science when the original assertion (a God) by definition cannot exist within science. Either way, no, it is certainly not analogous. For in the case of the dice, you defined all the 36 outcomes. Thus by definition, there cannot be a 37th possibility within the context you are using. However, within the context of the universe, you, by definition of your system accept an infinite space. An infinite space necessarily means an infinite amount of possibilities.
But an accepted theory within science nevertheless.
I do not see the relevance, sorry.
I do not see how the size of the universe implies that it could not have been caused.
Ok then Cris, test my observations that everything has a cause or a ‘catalyst’, or a modifier, etc. within the context of the observable universe.
It means that logic is based on observations (rules) of the nature of its context—the universe. It by definition cannot explain anything outside this context. If for example there were parallel universes, the logic of this will not necessarily apply.
Are you insane? I dare not try. Which would necessarily imply either an infinite time or a lack thereof of time. If you accept science, then you know that this universe is aged. Therefore, simply ‘IS’ would be nonsense.
You cannot imply anything about the nature of the cause using that train of thought. You can merely suggest that there was a cause for the first effect and leave it at that.
Explain to me the reasoning.
Little punk, learn how to read.
I am going to lie: No I have never misread.
Nerd.
Moron. **chuckle**
Any assertion regarding a deity is only nonsense if and only if you accept that it is nonsense to challenge his claim—as neither of you can make any claims as to a deity—within a common context.
Yes. Every member of society is mentally ill.
Wrong. The modern observations leading to the assertion has not changed from past observations. This would for example apply to the aged old knowledge that intercourse can result in birth. Minimal observations, but the same and correct conclusion. To use “ANY” is bullshit.
Well then you can throw away your subjective take on reason and simply lick a bucket dry.
Whatever came before.
No that is a non-sequitur. You are assuming that everything that changes results in something more complex. Many evolutionary trails do not do that or survive; in fact it seems most trails do not survive. There is a distinct and real possibility that the human race could destroy itself in a nuclear war. Many species of insect and animal have become extinct. Increased complexity and survivability is not necessarily the result of an evolutionary change. The evolution of the computer and that of biological life are for the moment examples where complexity is increasing. However, there is also the possibility that another mutation of a deadly virus could appear and destroy all human life.
No as explained above. Things simply change, for good or worse.
No, it just has to be present at the right time, with the appropriate other components. Just like everything else that evolves.
Catalysts can only operate when the conditions are right. Take for example a marriage broker who brings two people together. All three have to be willing and active participants.
Thus, leading eventaully to what?
Your argument asserted stages--stages which can be broken down into simpler stages. This implies that the previous stage, before it was disected was more complex.
Now this non-sequitur. The state changes must be initiated. Outside that, the manner of the change is irrrelevant.
No it does not, for you see, these changes are not arbitary nor do they simply happen by themselves.
You did not address the post this was intended to address. Nevertheless, the changes are not arbitrary or self initiating. Also make sure to distinct between 'artificial' and 'natural' evolution.
Fine, let's follow this train of thought. If the right conditions necessitate change, then there had to be a first right condition.
The condition is irrelevant for the catalyst nevertheless precipitates the change.
lol. what do you think the whole notion of cause and effect is? Why unsatisfcatory?