One of the more hilarious inconsistencies I see being peddled by the mythology fanboys, is the assertion that their cartoon magic men are purportedly “beyond” the remit of empirical science, followed not too long afterwards by the assertion that their cartoon magic men intervene in the physical universe in a manner that is observable, and therefore by definition within the remit of empirical science.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA …
What in the fuck are you on about ??? Can you demonstrate you are not part of an infinite regress currently? Do you even know what an infinite regress is? Perhaps you can tell us how all of this stuff becomes non-existent? We know for a fact that all this stuff is here. If it was not always here, where in the fuck did it come from and how do you know?
Please demonstrate this “Obvious inability to exist in an infinite regress.” What a moronic statement!
But you are a believer?
I used the term 'Abrahamic god ’ because it covers Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Each of the three traces its origin to the Prophet Abraham,and each worships the same one god; YHWH/ God the father/ Allah.
Are you perhaps not a follower of any , but simply a person who calls him/her self ‘spiritual’ ?
Such people tend to tie themselves into knots, because they tend not to have actually decided exactly what it is they believe. They also tend to have only a vague understanding of the sacred texts they claim to believe, if any…
With respect to the American Declaration Of Independence,I’ve never come across an obvious or self evident metaphysical truth. Come to think of it, I cant remember having come across any metaphysical truths. As far I as I can tell, claims about anything metaphysical tend to be unfalsifiable.
Obviously Fairy GodMother ♂ “popped” into existence to be the “first cause” of everything.
Fairy Godmother doesn’t need proof beyond the garden and everything you see - I mean, how else did everything “get” here?
Do you think “Nothing” can exist when all this “Something” is looking at you square in the face? Where in the fuck do you imagine all the “Something” goes so that “Nothing” can be created?
Do you even realize that you are making a completely unfounded inane assertion?
I didn’t claim in this post that i have a god, yet ! i was just interacting, so the burden is on all of us to discover where we came from, since everything i see has a cause of existance then it’s on the ones who come with the exception to prove it.
Nyarlathotep how can you say that something can pop out of existance and you don’t even know it, if you’re not going to prove it at least tell me what is it.
if any body think that there is some particals that can pop into existance, then before that you have to tell me who created the existance meaning where the partical go to, did existance pop it self to existance ? it doesn’t mean anything because the existance doesn’t exist yet, does anybody know what i’m saying here ? the problem of infinite regress, you’re allways stuck in a loop of defining what are things you’re talking about come from unless you start from something that doesn’t belong to the infinite regress, something doesn’t need a cause of existance, a first cause.
where thing or nothing meaning come form ? the language start to be unsufficient to discribe what i want to say. (i don’t need anybody to rate my english plz ok ? you know what i mean)
Black Swan Fallacy you tard! And then a woeful attempt at shifting the burden. You just aren’t very good at this logic shit are you?
- Quantum foam.
No one has to explain to you “WHO” did anything. The fact that you do not know how to ask an intelligent question is not our fault. Or are you actually trying to smuggle in a “Who” intentionally. You also do not get to assert a “CAUSE.”
Are you completely and ignorantly unaware of the fact that the law of causality breaks down at Planck time? (Another one of those NEVER CHANGING LAWS you were talking about.) Are you actually as dense as you pretend to be?
What god? And how do you know it exists, and that it cannot be measured?
Don’t forget all non existent things can’t be measured, so this bare claim is something of an own goal.
That is a known fallacy in informal logic called argumentum ad ignorantiam.
This is the claim in your sentence.
“who created” - ??? Nope. No one has to explain this. You first have to establish the “who” and the “create” part of your claim.
Mutorc_S_yriah said that some partical can pop into existance, i was ask him to tell me, you said no one has to explain, well this is the one.
no it’s not a black swan fallacy, who has the bigger burden of proof here, someone who claim black swan or some one who claim white swan, since i’m with the white swan here, cause i have only seen things that have cause of existance, that’s what i mean.
read again my comment carefully, and understand what i mean, and then judge.
You don’t understand, try to read again. yes that’s the infinite regress, i will not talk since everything has to be explained even the explanation has to be explained, even the explenation of the explaination of the explaination …, come on man try to understand first what i mean.
Perhaps there is some form of language barrier???
Something comes from something - as far as I know “nothing” has yet to be even established.
As Afar as tracing “back” through the cosmos/“time/space” science can get to a certain point. BEFORE that, we (humans) do not know. We have no evidence for anything.
In the most basic language, science describes. A description of “particles” popping in and out of “existence” (Link to Cogs quantum foam) is a description…
How many of those causes are not natural material causes, and how many of those causes occurred outside of the temporal physical universe we now observe?
Only if you’re going to try and create a rule, it is irrational to apply it in a subjective ad hoc fashion.
What caused the deity that caused the universe? Again if you’re going to insist everything must have a cause, then it is a special pleading fallacy to exempt a deity without any objective evidence.
Lastly, even assuming you are correct and the universe needed a (first) cause, what objective evidence have you this was a deity? We know natural phenomena are possible after all, so how is it rational to posit a supernatural cause when you cannot even show objectively that it is possible?
If infinite regress is impossible how does that not apply to god claims?
If a deity needn’t have a beginning then why does the universe? Just because the current physical universe we observe has a point of origin doesn’t mean it couldn’t have existed in a different state, how are you ruling that out in your argument for a deity.
What explanatory powers do your god and creation claim have, and what objective evidence can you demonstrate for them?
I have explained this i think in other comments, but i say there is two kind of ( i don’t know what to call them by lets say worlds, it doesn’t mean that they are worlds it’s just names for explenation perposes) worlds, a world where everthing created and a world where nothing means nothing even nothing means nothing.
world 1 : our world.
world 2 : the other world (just for explenation perposes)
There is a lot of things that are for explenation perposes so bear with me.
outside and inside are irrelevant in world2, it’s not my rule, outside world1 mean absolutly nothing. for the same reason the causality can be applyed only on and inside world1 which means what caused god is irrelevant, the infinity is irrelevant in world2.
Tell me what has to be proven here, but plz read carefully.
You can’t make assumptions in an argument about the very thing you’re arguing for, this is called a begging the question fallacy.
I’m sorry but all I read was a string of unevidenced assertions. In your previous post you asserted everything has a cause, the implications being the universe required a cause, but the causes we observe are a) all natural phenomena, and b) all occur in the temporal material universe. So what objective evidence can you demonstrate that indicates this clsim would have applied prior to the big bang? Here is my question again.
The answer of course is none. This the assumption in first cause arguments is exposed.
I asked several other questions as well.
Cause is created by god how can he have a cause if he is who created it ?
Before he creted cause did he had a cause of existance that’s irrelevent !
Bare assed assertion with NO EVIDENCE!!!
This “other world” is imagination. It can be anything you imagine it to be - just like your god. They only exist in your head - not in demonstrable reality.
Why do we need “demonstrable reality” because this “other world” could easily be the world/civilization that “created” our simulation universe.
It’s not a rule at all, it’s just hypothetical as far as I can see. I’m not sure how this explains why a deity is needed, or how a deity created everything either.
On the contrary, it means the premise of a first cause from outside of a temporal material universe cannot be deduced rationally from cause and effect, precisely because we have only observed this inside a temporal material universe.
Postulates for the cause of a deity are only relevant to illustrate that first cause arguments are rationally inconsistent when they create a rule, apply it outside of the conditions we always observe it operating in, and then immediately break it to exempt their god claim from it.