First Cause

[James_S_Saint]

String theory is not a universally accepted scientific theory, Hence why i said** “general consensus”**.

Can you see electrons?

“Instrumentality”

The now disproven Uncertainty Principle (although still taught in science classes) is based entirely on the idea that if one attempts to measure a particle, he inherently interferes with the particle and thus cannot know the real state of the particle. By measuring one aspect, another aspect becomes unknown. Entanglement was finally used to know the state without actually interfering with the particle and thus defeated the principle. But the principle was entirely an issue of what can be witnessed and from the thought that it cannot be witnessed, many proposals from the “scientific community” arose involving very imaginative and superstitious fantasies about what is really going on. The Quantum Magi revel in inventing undisprovable theories in the name of Science. Yet religion’s undisprovable theories are considered false mythology.

If you want to argue, show me the “science consensus” reports that can be used to verify what “they” believe or do not. Else your claim that anything is or is not “science consensus” is merely your opinion.

 

[AlbertBall]

If you want to argue, show me the “science consensus” reports that can be used to verify what “they” believe or do not. Else your claim that anything is or is not “science consensus” is merely your opinion.

Who said i wanted to argue, i was specifically taking issue with the false statement that science claims “can’t see anything before that point,** THEREFORE nothing existed.”**, or as you claimed on another thread “What scientists cannot see does not exist”.

When the truth is science has nothing to say on such matters.

 

[Zerilos]

Hi all,

First I want to apologize if this thread violates the ban regarding atheism and such. Please don’t ban me if that’s the case!

Ok, in a nut shell, this is the First Cause Argument (for God’s existence):

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The Universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

And a link to a good article on this:
peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

(please read it all)

So, if anyone has objections to this argument, please say so. I want to hear it

And if this does violate the ban, let me know and this thread can be left to die until the ban is lifted.

Thank you,
coolduude

The cause of the universe might simply be another natural process. At some point, something has to have existed without a cause; however IMO there is no compelling reason to believe that the uncaused-cause is an intelligent entity.

 

[coolduude]

How could something not intelligent create the universe? It’s just not possible.

 

[AlbertBall]

How could something not intelligent create the universe? It’s just not possible.

 

[coolduude]

How can something unintelligent (eg a plant or something else not self aware) create the universe? How? I just don’t see how something unintelligent could create everything. It’s just not possible.

 

[AlbertBall]

How can something unintelligent (eg a plant or something else not self aware) create the universe? How? I just don’t see how something unintelligent could create everything. It’s just not possible.

Well self replicating molecules created plants, and us, are they intelligent?

 

[coolduude]

No, they are not.

 

[AlbertBall]

No, they are not.

Well there is a perfect example on non intelligent agents creating intelligent life.

 

[tonyrey]

Well there is a perfect example on non intelligent agents creating intelligent life.

Did you see it happen? Where is the empirical evidence?

 

[AlbertBall]

Did you see it happen? Where is the empirical evidence?

Whats has seeing it got to do with anything?

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Well self replicating molecules created plants, and us, are they intelligent?

Not neccesarily, and whichever way you look at it, they did not create the process by which that intelligent life was formed, assuming you assume the whole evolutionary theory is true (which I happen to know you do )

It’s like saying a brick creates a house

 

[AlbertBall]

Not neccesarily, and whichever way you look at it, they did not create the process by which that intelligent life was formed, assuming you assume the whole evolutionary theory is true (which I happen to know you do )

It’s like saying a brick creates a house

Evolution?

 

[tonyrey]

Whats has seeing it got to do with anything?

Empirical evidence! Or at least some other form of observation…

 

[tonyrey]

Did you see it happen? Where is the empirical evidence?

Empirical evidence! Is there any?

 

[AlbertBall]

Empirical evidence! Is there any?

What does being there to see the thing happen have to do with empirical evidence?

 

[sean1i0]

Ok, so if you’ve read any of my other posts, you know that I am a Catholic and I love the Thomist view of philosophy from what I’ve seen categorized “Thomist,” but, strictly speaking, I do not know what Thomism claims. So, I have something that I’ve been ruminating on this morning in response to reading this thread and I feel as if there is a way to prove this scenario false, but I can’t quite put my finger on it. Here it is: Let’s say that there was nothing first. Then, for no reason, out of the nothing there is something. Our hypothesis will be that such a thing can happen, because there is no reason that it cannot happen if there is nothing. I suppose my next step in the RAA proof feels like it should be to state that in such a case the nothing was actually something, because it allowed change/something to occur/some other way of stating what happened, but I do not yet feel convinced that I can conclude that quite yet. What do you think? Are there steps missing there?

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Evolution?

Exactly

 

[Mystic_Banana]

What does being there to see the thing happen have to do with empirical evidence?

Oh dear… you are confused!

““empiricism” is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge arises from sense experience” - handy quote from Wikipedia

Shows exactly how far Scientism is drifting away from this rather essential factor, if one of it’s biggest fans doesn’t realise there’s even supposed a relationship!

 

[AlbertBall]

Oh dear… you are confused!

““empiricism” is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge arises from sense experience” - handy quote from Wikipedia

Shows exactly how far Scientism is drifting away from this rather essential factor, if one of it’s biggest fans doesn’t realise there’s even supposed a relationship!

LOL I’m confused?

Firstly what i said has nothing to do with evolution, but abiogenesis. Secondly go back to wiki and read the next paragraph. Empiricism in philosophy is not the same as empirical evidence, and lastly one does not need to observe an event to view empirical evidence.

To save you going to wiki “In the philosophy of science, empiricism emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely** related to evidence**, especially as discovered in experiments”

/ END LESSON]