What makes you think you are right about belief?

Dan0813 said:
That content of that document seems credible, but I've never personally seen this alleged place "Oregon", so I'm inclined to regard its existence as an unverified hypothesis for the time being.
Click to expand...

Seems healthy!
 
Shibolet said:
Not so fast! Circular reasoning according to Hatshepsut. It does not mean it is a fact.
Click to expand...

According to Hat and me, too! It would be of great interest to find out where you learned your version of logic. Cause there is nothing logical about it. Plus you continue to simply ignore anything you don't want to hear. Like the definition of what a 'scientific theory' is.

Shibolet said:
The fact is that there is nothing caused without a cause.
Click to expand...

Who says so? On what do you base that claim? Support it with something. Saying there must have been a primal cause is pure speculation. Where did this primal cause come from? What is your proof of a primal cause. Give me a proof!
 
Dan0813 said:
That content of that document seems credible, but I've never personally seen this alleged place "Oregon", so I'm inclined to regard its existence as an unverified hypothesis for the time being.
Click to expand...
I have been to this place called "Oregon", rode the Columbia river, ate the Tillamook Cheese curds, gambled in K-falls and seen the Land of the Port. I've dredged and panned the rivers and can confirm while it is rare and hard to get, the ore is not gone.
 
A Cup Of Tea said:
Look at the quote again, please. 'Guess' is ONE of the synonyms of 'Theory', but 'Theory' in a SCIENTIFIC discussion implies more.

And please, before you make statements of scientific principles, read later texts then Einstein and Carl Sagan, you're arguing with the past.
Click to expand...

Theories remain guesses. Nothing has changed with the future.
 
Gordian Knot said:
According to Hat and me, too! It would be of great interest to find out where you learned your version of logic. Cause there is nothing logical about it. Plus you continue to simply ignore anything you don't want to hear. Like the definition of what a 'scientific theory' is.

Who says so? On what do you base that claim? Support it with something. Saying there must have been a primal cause is pure speculation. Where did this primal cause come from? What is your proof of a primal cause. Give me a proof!
Click to expand...

If it is not so, give me an example of some thing caused without a cause. It is much more called for than to criticize without an option to replace what you deny.
 
Shibolet said:
The same thing that the Cup of Tea is doing without having a Bible at home.
Click to expand...

So either you're thoughts on the matter of science is irrelevant, or my thoughts on theology are relevant. That was sort of his jab at you.
 
Shibolet said:
Not so fast! Circular reasoning according to Hatshepsut. It does not mean it is a fact. The fact is that there is nothing caused without a cause. Would you want to share with me an example? If not directly caused by, it is related to the cause. Things don't come right out of the hat of the magician, so to speak aka "ex nihilo."
Click to expand...

wil said:
What caused G!d?
Click to expand...

Shibolet said:
He would not be the Primal Cause if He had been caused.
Click to expand...

Trying to follow your logic... So...G!d came out of a magician's hat?
 
wil said:
Trying to follow your logic... So...G!d came out of a magician's hat?
Click to expand...

Magicians could not have preceded the Primal Cause. Therefore, your question is not related to Logic based on Causality.
 
Some fundamental flaws in the arguments, if I may be so bold in my first post!

Stating that there must be a Primal Cause pre-accepts that causality is universal. Most everything we understand about how this version of reality works is that it is based on a causality based system. But only to a point.

What we do not know is if causality breaks down when we are discussing the very beginning of this version of reality. To suggest that because causality works for everything we understand should mean that causality must also work for what we do not understand is a leap of logic that is spurious.

If we do not know what is related to the Beginning, then we can not know whether causality had anything to do with it. Or not.

If we can not know whether causality is relevant to creation, we can not postulate a Primal Cause. A PC can only exist in a reality where everything is indeed based on causality. And no one can say this is so because no one knows!
 
Devils' Advocate, that's a good point.

I think there's a basic problem in trying to apply our science and logic to a situation that could lie outside of our experience.
 
Yes, and most things concerning modern findes in physics are in micro or macro cosmos and thus outside our experience.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
Some fundamental flaws in the arguments, if I may be so bold in my first post!

Stating that there must be a Primal Cause pre-accepts that causality is universal. Most everything we understand about how this version of reality works is that it is based on a causality based system. But only to a point.

What we do not know is if causality breaks down when we are discussing the very beginning of this version of reality. To suggest that because causality works for everything we understand should mean that causality must also work for what we do not understand is a leap of logic that is spurious.

If we do not know what is related to the Beginning, then we can not know whether causality had anything to do with it. Or not.

If we can not know whether causality is relevant to creation, we can not postulate a Primal Cause. A PC can only exist in a reality where everything is indeed based on causality. And no one can say this is so because no one knows!
Click to expand...

All right DA, to give you the benefit of the doubt, let us assume that the Primal Cause does not exist and Causality is irrelevant, I am all ears to your explanation if the universe caused itself to exist or that it had a beginning with the big bang which is a theory almost unanimously embraced by all cosmologists. To make it easier on you, I already know that the universe could not have caused itself to exist. It means that it was caused. That's Logic in action. And if it has always existed, the idea implies only that all our cosmologists are all morons for adopting the big bang as the beginning of the universe. What do you say
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top