Pathetic, I am simply asking if you accept a premise before I present the next premise, but as you wish, rational arguments often do upset atheists.
Rational arguments, fucking hilarious.
3 Likes
It’s meant to, that’s what happens when you are asked a question that you really don’t want to answer.
No, it’s not especially as I didn’t actually claim there was no cause; I said, you couldn’t use other explanations that did have causes to insist that the universe had one too.
Yes, “universe” does mean that but is typically used to mean our universe rather than the multiverse. Being brutally honest, I don’t care whether you don’t like the name or not, I don’t like the way Christians refer to their god as “God” as if it’s somehow greater than all the other gods invented by humans but hey, it’s an imperfect world.
No, that isn’t the multiverse, it’s a term used by relevant scientists (cosmologists or theoretical physicists, I assume) to encompass the idea that beyond our observable universe, there are other universes.
And again that brings us back to you trying to use other explanations that did have causes to insist that the universe had one too.
I’m not and neither are those scientists working in the relevant fields.
The conditions existing at or shortly after the big bang would be very different from those existing in our universe now. If the multiverse exists, it would be different yet again and may well contain other universes governed by completely different physical laws to our own.
UK Atheist
1 Like
Well I never did insist that you could. If you’re prepared to say things can begin to exist uncaused then I don’t see how that differs from attributing the universe to magic I don’t see how that’s more explanatory than attributing it to an agency that has will and intent.
Postulating more unexplained “universes” hardly serves to explain the presence of the one we see.
Once again, I didn’t claim that. Now read this again word for word and very, very carefully (emphasis mine):
“I said, YOU couldn’t use OTHER EXPLANATIONS that DID HAVE CAUSES to INSIST THAT THE UNIVERSE HAD ONE TOO.”
Do you understand what I said yet and why I never made a specific claim?
Why? If true, I would have thought that it would very much shed light on the beginnings of our universe and how our universe happened to form the way it did.
UK Atheist
1 Like
Right, but does that simply mean one should not attempt to do that or that I attempted to do that and should not have?
1 Like
Of course, one of the problems arising with the matter of any purported “evidence” for a god type entity of any sort, centres upon the fact that we have no proper, rigorous test to distinguish between either [1] testable natural processes operating in an unexpected manner, or [2] the action of a sufficiently advanced technology being deployed, and magic. Indeed, Arthur C. Clarke taught us about [2], and much of the modern technology we take for granted would seem like magic to members of a Bronze Age civilisation.
As an example of [1], let’s take the case of an individual diagnosed with end stage pancreatic cancer. The prognosis for which is never good - it’s usually invariably fatal. Note the word ‘usually’, before the usual apologetic fabrications are wheeled in on castors in a pretence that they’re alive.
Now, we may find ourselves presented with a situation, in which that individual is suddenly found to be in complete remission. All traces of the cancer have disappeared. All too often, mythology fanboys, in such circumstances, jump to the conclusion “It’s a miracle! Magic Man did it!”. Except that there are other possibilities. The individual’s immune system could have developed the ability to kill off the cancer cells, and indeed, if I were a doctor,this is the first possibility I would check for.
Not least because the knowledge obtained from detailed investigation of this possibility could prove immensely valuable, and provide a tool for dealing with other end stage cancers. Indeed, finding genetic markers on cancer cells, allowing them to be selectively targeted either by the patient’s own immune system, or by such means as monoclonal antibodies, is an approach that the pharmaceutical industry is currently spending large sums of money pursuing.
As an example of [2], let’s take the possibility that we’re taken by surprise one day, when a major city is filmed by television news crews, ligting off above the ground and hovering at some altitude in the air. This one takes me immediately to a set of four science fiction novels by James Blish, the Cities in Flight novels. In those novels, Blish formulated a scenario in which a working antigravity engine was constructed. One of his major insights being that the moment antigravity becomes an engineering reality, we would no longer need to build aircraft - or spaceships - pared of every last gram of surplus mass. A working antigravity engine would allow us to lift the most massive objects imaginable with ease. Whole cities could be lofted into space and sent on interplanetary or even interstellar voyages.
Obviously, we don’t have working antigravity engines at the moment, so an event of this sort would stand out as being extremely unusual, but, who is to say that an advanced spacefaring civilisation didn’t set that event in motion, say, as an exercise in power projection? Any advanced civilisation succeeding in building an antigravity engine of this sort, would also know that they wouldn’t need to resort to anything as primitive as weapons to let us know they had arrived, and had abilities beyond our wildest dreams.
An exercise of this sort would actually constitute an ideal means for such a civilisation to announce both its arrival and peaceful intent. A civilisation intent upon military conquest would simply reach for the antimatter bombs and beam weapons upon arrival. Those intent on military conquest have a habit of choosing the most primitive options, and there are plenty of precedents in the history of our own species demonstrating this principle in action.
Indeed, precedent tells us again that “Magic Man did it” is the first port of call for simple minds, because it’s an easy, convenient pretence for an “explanation” that requires zero intellectual effort, and one that has been given far too much privilege with respect to uncritical acceptance for far too long. The corrosive effects of the “Magic Man did it” assertion are, of course, all too readily observable, not least here. It encourages intellectual indolence, wilful ignorance and rampant duplicity, all displayed whenever the fetishists for this mantra reach for their keyboards.
I’ve already covered examples of where “Magic Man did it” was swept aside in favour of genuine explanations involving testable natural processes - lightning being a particularly hilarious instance, established to be nothing more than large scale static electricity the moment Benjamin Franklin thought it was a good idea to fly a kite in a thunderstorm. Not an exercise I recommend repeating for reasons that should be obvious even to the uneducated, but which served to teach us an important lesson.
Likewise, the abundance, efficacy and prevalence of testable natural processes, which pervade every corner of the universe, has been established so conclusively by scientific research, that no one possessing even an elementary education seriously doubts this, let alone anyone whose regular reading matter is provided by the likes of Nature or Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B.
Given that scientists are able, for example, to detect amino acids in interstellar gas or ice clouds via spectroscopic analysis, have been able to render the question of how far away the SN1987A supernova remnant is from Earth to a simple trigonometry problem, and have been able to confirm the predictions of major physical theories to 15 decimal places of accuracy, “Magic Man did it” is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. That scientists are able to solve problems and alight upon testable, verifiable and genuine explanations for vast classes of entities and interactions, while treating cartoon magic men from pre-scientific mythologies as irrelevant, should be telling us all something important, and has already taught this lesson to those of us who paid attention in class.
No doubt I shall see once again, the totally different responses from those who actually read my posts with honest intent, and those who skim through said posts in order to peddle more ex recto apologetic fabrications.
2 Likes
let me guess…
- Can’t be bothered to respond because (pick a made up generic excuse)
- No one is obliged to answer questions (unless @Sherlock-Holmes is asking)
- Don’t understand the above excuse…
- Misrepresent what has been said to avoid addressing your special pleading fallacy.
- God did it, you’re all just biased
- God is the best explanation, is the best explanation,
q) Please explain how a deity did it?
a) God created heaven and earth,
Please, no lectures, no essays, try to be more concise.
Drop the fucking duplicity.
If I simply stated barely that there existed reasons to treat the relevant issue with caution, without stating those reasons, you would be the FIRST to accuse me of “presumption”.
But when I provide detailed explanation of the reasons in question, you resort to fake tone policing.
Shove your duplicity where the sun doesn’t shine.
4 Likes
Too many words…try again.
2 Likes
Your post was 982 words and doesn’t even refer to anyone else post, that’s ridiculous. I’d likely fall asleep before I got to the end, don’t ever try your hand at standup comedy, the audience will have gone home by the time you reach the punchline.
Not enough bare unsupported rhetoric for you? Maybe he can add a few sweeping unevidenced assertions to make you feel more included?
Stand up comedy is dead with you posting, trust me.
Almost as if scientific rigour and stand up comedy are two very different mediums that are not remotely seeking the same result. Not equivalent then, so comparing them like this is a false equivalence, oh like a false equivalence fallacy, to run away from facts and evidence you don’t want to adress…
Numpty…
1 Like
Please explain HOW in detail, you believe your deity created the universe? If you can’t do this, then please stop disingenuously labelling it as an explanation.
Also can science play any part at all in any explanation of the origins of the universe?
1 Like
So what? you’re now trying to state that diligence in presenting concepts constitutes some sort of discoursive offence?
Your ex recto apologetic fabrications are becoming more palsied with each passing day.
What part of “I didn’t need to refer to anyone else’s post to present the requisite concepts” are you too stupid to understand?
Your admission of indolence is duly noted.
I leave stand up comedy to those who are better equipped to deliver it. As opposed to pretending that I know something I don’t, as mythology fanboys frequently do.
1 Like
No, I’m saying that a 980 word essay would take you seven or eight minutes to speak if spoken aloud, that’s rather self indulgent I think. The post is specious waffle ranging over science fiction, pancreatic cancer, interstellar space travel, aliens, Benjamin Franklin, antigravity, weapons, magic, anti-matter, supernovae, cartoons, I mean what a load of claptrap.
I could just as easily post a thousand word essay, but buddy nobody’s going to read that claptrap, nobody cares about your diatribe and hatred for theism.
Just be concise for God’s sake, that’s really not much to ask.
Let me try to explain to you a little about how science works since you clearly don’t get it.
The reasoning behind science is inductive rather than deductive which means that it relies on the accumulated weight of evidence to support explanations. This has two major consequences:
- First: no matter how much evidence supports a given explanation it takes only ONE validated observation to force the dismissal of a theory or a change in the explanation.
- Second: although it may sometimes seem otherwise, it means that no scientific explanation is held to be absolute and beyond challenge.
While every explanation in science is related to every other, it means that one cannot expect every explanation to definitively affect every other future explanation because the reasons for those phenomena have yet to be established. This is also true of general philosophies or whatever one might call “cause and effect”… just because every other explanation appears bound by it is no reason to say definitively that every future one will be. So yes, while it is likely (arguably extremely) that the universe has a cause of some description, it is not certain. It remains a possibility that the universe (or multiverse is uncaused or have always existed. Until we establish that either/both were caused it remains uncertain and even when we do establish it, there will always be a degree of uncertainty because, as I said earlier, nothing in science is held to be so absolute it is beyond challenge.
So, while it is entirely possible there is/was some cause and effect in play, I am correct when I say that we do not know if the universe/multiverse were caused. Maybe we never will do.
Now, I’ve answered enough of your questions, so I think it’s time to switch the conversation around.
Clearly you believe your god is the creator of the universe, the cosmic all or whatever. Using your own logic, what caused your god?
UK Atheist
1 Like
And the duplicity continues …
So what? Some concepts do not lend themselves to 5 second soundbites. Particularly not concepts that are presented rigorously, a term that is obviously alien to you.
The only self-indulgence on display here is the assertion that you think.
Bullshit. Oh wait, what part of “presenting relevant concepts” are you incapable of understanding?
Which was apposite to my example of an event involving suspension of gravity. Once again, do you have trouble with elementary concepts?
Again, presented as an example of one of the concepts I was discussing. Once again, do you have trouble with elementary concepts?
All of which honest readers of my post, as opposed to pedlars of duplicitous ex recto apologetic fabrications, would recognise as apposite in the post in question.
The only ~“claptrap” on display here is your ex recto apologetics and tiresome tone policing.
Because in your case it would be claptrap, as your posting history demonstrates.
Projection time again … yawn.
The only “diatribes” I see here are yours. As for “hatred”, your manifest hatred of anything that involves testable natural processes instead of magic, drips from your sordid little posts.
Translation: “spoon feed me with soundbites”. Which if I do, will result in yet more duplicitous and fake accusations of discoursive misconduct from you.
Hypocrite.
2 Likes