Termie, Ati We Are Living Inside a Computer Simulated Universe

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Which one?  I have never heard of any argument that says matter is always caused. 

The closest I have seen anyone come to address that question outside theism is the principle of conservation of energy.  Energy is equivalent to matter in the current models.  It is neither created nor destroyed.

Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? 

Yes.  I don't know.

You can find at least one thing out of the trillions of things in this universe that has no cause, if your whole argument is that matter needs no cause.

The closest I have come to seeing the subject discussed is conservation of energy.  Matter is interchangeable with energy.  I have never heard of anyone claiming any of these things are caused outside of theism.  Maybe they are.  Maybe they are not.  But I don't know.

Great. Putting aside who you hang out with, you know nothing that lacks a cause, is the answer to the question, no?

No.  I am saying I don't know the ultimate cause, or if there is necessarily one, of matter. 

[kadame]

Which one?  I have never heard of any argument that says matter is always caused. 

The closest I have seen anyone come to address that question outside theism is the principle of conservation of energy.  Energy is equivalent to matter in the current models.  It is neither created nor destroyed.

Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? 

Yes.  I don't know.

You can find at least one thing out of the trillions of things in this universe that has no cause, if your whole argument is that matter needs no cause.

The closest I have come to seeing the subject discussed is conservation of energy.  Matter is interchangeable with energy.  I have never heard of anyone claiming any of these things are caused outside of theism.  Maybe they are.  Maybe they are not.  But I don't know.

Great. Putting aside who you hang out with, you know nothing that lacks a cause, is the answer to the question, no?

No.  I am saying I don't know the ultimate cause, or if there is necessarily one, of matter.

I did not ask you about the ultimate cause of matter, I asked you if you knew a single thing in this universe that lacks a cause. Since you are saying you did not answer that you don't know anything that has no cause, what is the one thing that you know that lacks a cause in the universe?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? 

Yes.  I don't know.

You can find at least one thing out of the trillions of things in this universe that has no cause, if your whole argument is that matter needs no cause.

The closest I have come to seeing the subject discussed is conservation of energy.  Matter is interchangeable with energy.  I have never heard of anyone claiming any of these things are caused outside of theism.  Maybe they are.  Maybe they are not.  But I don't know.

Great. Putting aside who you hang out with, you know nothing that lacks a cause, is the answer to the question, no?

No.  I am saying I don't know the ultimate cause, or if there is necessarily one, of matter.

I did not ask you about the ultimate cause of matter, I asked you if you knew a single thing in this universe that lacks a cause. Since you are saying you did not answer that you don't know anything that has no cause, what is the one thing that you know that lacks a cause in the universe?

Same meaning.  There no hidden meaning I intend with the use of ultimate.  I don't know if matter has a cause. 

[kadame]

I have rephrased it, to try and focus discussion on the essence of my argument.

The rephrase doesn't change anything. The difference is that the first one expects matter to be consistent and not acquire magical attributes such as self-recreation, just coz we have come done to the very first (or last) instance of matter and can find no other matter besides itself to attribute its cause to; it acknowledges there are no more physical causes to attribute that matter to but the matter remains matter and its cause must necessarily lie outside matter.

The second one requires matter to suddenly not need a cause and to pop out of total nothingness. It simply acts out of faith, not because this expectation makes sense, While the first one simply doesn't expect matter to become something different just because it is the last one of its kind in the chain of causes. Since the first one has not artificially limited existence to matter, he has no need to pretend the first instance of matter was magical.

There's also the difference, that science, which the second one claims to rely on, is on the side of the argument that states mater is not eternal and had a definite absolute beginning.

Looking at the red.  One comes away with the impression that a cause must lie outside the caused entity. 

Supposing that is true.  When does one decide there is no more stuff outside an entity to cause it? 

Put another way, why can't a cause outside the supernatural cause the supernatural?

Put another way, why MUST a cause outside the supernatural cause it? Is it that because if matter needs a cause, everything else must too or its not fair? What says the supernatural entity ever began to exist?

It's just extending the logic on the same premise.  It has been decided, without any justification, that matter needs a cause. 

Why can't it be decided without any justification that the supernatural needs a cause?

It is not extending the logic, it is not even the same logic. matter needing a cause is based on known facts about material things. That entity beginning to exist is based on your need to create an argument not on any known thing about that entity.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I have rephrased it, to try and focus discussion on the essence of my argument.

The rephrase doesn't change anything. The difference is that the first one expects matter to be consistent and not acquire magical attributes such as self-recreation, just coz we have come done to the very first (or last) instance of matter and can find no other matter besides itself to attribute its cause to; it acknowledges there are no more physical causes to attribute that matter to but the matter remains matter and its cause must necessarily lie outside matter.

The second one requires matter to suddenly not need a cause and to pop out of total nothingness. It simply acts out of faith, not because this expectation makes sense, While the first one simply doesn't expect matter to become something different just because it is the last one of its kind in the chain of causes. Since the first one has not artificially limited existence to matter, he has no need to pretend the first instance of matter was magical.

There's also the difference, that science, which the second one claims to rely on, is on the side of the argument that states mater is not eternal and had a definite absolute beginning.

Looking at the red.  One comes away with the impression that a cause must lie outside the caused entity. 

Supposing that is true.  When does one decide there is no more stuff outside an entity to cause it? 

Put another way, why can't a cause outside the supernatural cause the supernatural?

Put another way, why MUST a cause outside the supernatural cause it? Is it that because if matter needs a cause, everything else must too or its not fair? What says the supernatural entity ever began to exist?

It's just extending the logic on the same premise.  It has been decided, without any justification, that matter needs a cause. 

Why can't it be decided without any justification that the supernatural needs a cause?

It is not extending the logic, it is not even the same logic. matter needing a cause is based on known facts about material things. That entity beginning to exist is based on your need to create an argument not on any known thing about that entity.

Which facts are these?

[kadame]

Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? 

Yes.  I don't know.

You can find at least one thing out of the trillions of things in this universe that has no cause, if your whole argument is that matter needs no cause.

The closest I have come to seeing the subject discussed is conservation of energy.  Matter is interchangeable with energy.  I have never heard of anyone claiming any of these things are caused outside of theism.  Maybe they are.  Maybe they are not.  But I don't know.

Great. Putting aside who you hang out with, you know nothing that lacks a cause, is the answer to the question, no?

No.  I am saying I don't know the ultimate cause, or if there is necessarily one, of matter.

I did not ask you about the ultimate cause of matter, I asked you if you knew a single thing in this universe that lacks a cause. Since you are saying you did not answer that you don't know anything that has no cause, what is the one thing that you know that lacks a cause in the universe?

Same meaning.  There no hidden meaning I intend with the use of ultimate.  I don't know if matter has a cause.

Again, I am asking about one thing, not "matter".

[kadame]

I have rephrased it, to try and focus discussion on the essence of my argument.

The rephrase doesn't change anything. The difference is that the first one expects matter to be consistent and not acquire magical attributes such as self-recreation, just coz we have come done to the very first (or last) instance of matter and can find no other matter besides itself to attribute its cause to; it acknowledges there are no more physical causes to attribute that matter to but the matter remains matter and its cause must necessarily lie outside matter.

The second one requires matter to suddenly not need a cause and to pop out of total nothingness. It simply acts out of faith, not because this expectation makes sense, While the first one simply doesn't expect matter to become something different just because it is the last one of its kind in the chain of causes. Since the first one has not artificially limited existence to matter, he has no need to pretend the first instance of matter was magical.

There's also the difference, that science, which the second one claims to rely on, is on the side of the argument that states mater is not eternal and had a definite absolute beginning.

Looking at the red.  One comes away with the impression that a cause must lie outside the caused entity. 

Supposing that is true.  When does one decide there is no more stuff outside an entity to cause it? 

Put another way, why can't a cause outside the supernatural cause the supernatural?

Put another way, why MUST a cause outside the supernatural cause it? Is it that because if matter needs a cause, everything else must too or its not fair? What says the supernatural entity ever began to exist?

It's just extending the logic on the same premise.  It has been decided, without any justification, that matter needs a cause. 

Why can't it be decided without any justification that the supernatural needs a cause?

It is not extending the logic, it is not even the same logic. matter needing a cause is based on known facts about material things. That entity beginning to exist is based on your need to create an argument not on any known thing about that entity.

Which facts are these?

The same ones every person not intent on making a point will acknowledge, nothing in the Universe ever happens without something causing it. You should know, not only because its basic observation but because science assumes it every time it sets about investigating anything.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Really? What exactly is causeless in the universe? 

Yes.  I don't know.

You can find at least one thing out of the trillions of things in this universe that has no cause, if your whole argument is that matter needs no cause.

The closest I have come to seeing the subject discussed is conservation of energy.  Matter is interchangeable with energy.  I have never heard of anyone claiming any of these things are caused outside of theism.  Maybe they are.  Maybe they are not.  But I don't know.

Great. Putting aside who you hang out with, you know nothing that lacks a cause, is the answer to the question, no?

No.  I am saying I don't know the ultimate cause, or if there is necessarily one, of matter.

I did not ask you about the ultimate cause of matter, I asked you if you knew a single thing in this universe that lacks a cause. Since you are saying you did not answer that you don't know anything that has no cause, what is the one thing that you know that lacks a cause in the universe?

Same meaning.  There no hidden meaning I intend with the use of ultimate.  I don't know if matter has a cause.

Again, I am asking about one thing, not "matter".

The closest I can find is matter.  Humility demands that I acknowledge my ignorance.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

The rephrase doesn't change anything. The difference is that the first one expects matter to be consistent and not acquire magical attributes such as self-recreation, just coz we have come done to the very first (or last) instance of matter and can find no other matter besides itself to attribute its cause to; it acknowledges there are no more physical causes to attribute that matter to but the matter remains matter and its cause must necessarily lie outside matter.

The second one requires matter to suddenly not need a cause and to pop out of total nothingness. It simply acts out of faith, not because this expectation makes sense, While the first one simply doesn't expect matter to become something different just because it is the last one of its kind in the chain of causes. Since the first one has not artificially limited existence to matter, he has no need to pretend the first instance of matter was magical.

There's also the difference, that science, which the second one claims to rely on, is on the side of the argument that states mater is not eternal and had a definite absolute beginning.

Looking at the red.  One comes away with the impression that a cause must lie outside the caused entity. 

Supposing that is true.  When does one decide there is no more stuff outside an entity to cause it? 

Put another way, why can't a cause outside the supernatural cause the supernatural?

Put another way, why MUST a cause outside the supernatural cause it? Is it that because if matter needs a cause, everything else must too or its not fair? What says the supernatural entity ever began to exist?

It's just extending the logic on the same premise.  It has been decided, without any justification, that matter needs a cause. 

Why can't it be decided without any justification that the supernatural needs a cause?

It is not extending the logic, it is not even the same logic. matter needing a cause is based on known facts about material things. That entity beginning to exist is based on your need to create an argument not on any known thing about that entity.

Which facts are these?

The same ones every person not intent on making a point will acknowledge, nothing in the Universe ever happens without something causing it. You should know, not only because its basic observation but because science assumes it every time it sets about investigating anything.

Now you are talking cause and effect.  As opposed to the arena of these things.  What makes you so sure that you know how everything behaves everywhere in the universe?

[kadame]

Again, I am asking about one thing, not "matter".

The closest I can find is matter.  Humility demands that I acknowledge my ignorance.

Finally! Why that whole merry go round just to avoid admitting the obvious? "Matter" is not your answer, since the fact it "doesn't have a cause" would be your assumption. So nothing ever happens without a cause except when matter begins to exist. My argument is established hereby. The theist reaches his conclusion from observing physical reality, the atheist from an act of faith.

Now you are talking cause and effect.  As opposed to the arena of these things.  What makes you so sure that you know how everything behaves everywhere in the universe?

Yes, it's cause and effect. What did you think "has a cause" meant? Does cause ever go without effect? What did you think "began to exist" meant throughout this thread?

What makes me sure is that NOTHING happens without a cause. And you are relying on faith to tell me to assume otherwise than what observation provides. What makes you think pink unicorns don't just pop up on Mars every now and then?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Again, I am asking about one thing, not "matter".

The closest I can find is matter.  Humility demands that I acknowledge my ignorance.

Finally! Why that whole merry go round just to avoid admitting the obvious? "Matter" is not your answer, since the fact it "doesn't have a cause" would be your assumption. So nothing ever happens without a cause except when matter begins to exist. My argument is established hereby. The theist reaches his conclusion from observing physical reality, the atheist from an act of faith.

Now you are talking cause and effect.  As opposed to the arena of these things.  What makes you so sure that you know how everything behaves everywhere in the universe?

Yes, it's cause and effect. What did you think "has a cause" meant? Does cause ever go without effect? What did you think "began to exist" meant throughout this thread?

What makes me sure is that NOTHING happens without a cause. And you are relying on faith to tell me to assume otherwise than what observation provides. What makes you think pink unicorns don't just pop up on Mars every now and then?

I thought you meant that matter has a cause.  Now I am understanding you to mean that a specific event has a cause.  I sense a slight shift without any resolution on the previous question. 

You'd be right, that most known events appear to have causes.  My focus all this time has been entirely on matter itself.  As opposed to how things behave.

How do you arrive at the emphatic conclusion that nothing happens without a cause?

[kadame]

Again, I am asking about one thing, not "matter".

The closest I can find is matter.  Humility demands that I acknowledge my ignorance.

Finally! Why that whole merry go round just to avoid admitting the obvious? "Matter" is not your answer, since the fact it "doesn't have a cause" would be your assumption. So nothing ever happens without a cause except when matter begins to exist. My argument is established hereby. The theist reaches his conclusion from observing physical reality, the atheist from an act of faith.

Now you are talking cause and effect.  As opposed to the arena of these things.  What makes you so sure that you know how everything behaves everywhere in the universe?

Yes, it's cause and effect. What did you think "has a cause" meant? Does cause ever go without effect? What did you think "began to exist" meant throughout this thread?

What makes me sure is that NOTHING happens without a cause. And you are relying on faith to tell me to assume otherwise than what observation provides. What makes you think pink unicorns don't just pop up on Mars every now and then?

I thought you meant that matter has a cause.  Now I am understanding you to mean that a specific event has a cause.  I sense a slight shift without any resolution on the previous question. 

You'd be right, that most known events appear to have causes.  My focus all this time has been entirely on matter itself.  As opposed to how things behave.

How do you arrive at the emphatic conclusion that nothing happens without a cause?

I sense you have a different understanding of what a "cause" means.

As to a shift. You just presume alot about my arguments. Now, that Matter has a cause is my claim, which i base on the fact that everything does. It is what you denied. And the argument I made in support is that nothing in physical reality is known to be causeless.  I asked you consistently to name just one thing that was causeless and specifically told you I wasn't asking you about "matter".  If I was asking you to just agree with me, considering that matter always having a cause was what we were arguing about in the first place, I might be blonde!!

Now that basic facts have been admitted, lets go on: Saying "matter itself" makes no difference and is frankly meaningless, because a cause is necessarily "eventful". Hence "matter has a cause" is the same claim as saying "something made matter exist" or even "something makes matter exist"

[kadame]

How do you arrive at the emphatic conclusion that nothing happens without a cause?

Funny you should say that, seeing all that stuff you said about "predictions". When you find me the dent in the wall or the footprint in the snow that "just appeared" causeless, I will be more flexible. It's like you said, a "theory" is based on actual facts, not stuff we think up in our minds. If you are consistent, why do you expect that somewhere else in the universe where it is "untestable" (pun intended ) footprints do show up without any cause whatsoever?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

Again, I am asking about one thing, not "matter".

The closest I can find is matter.  Humility demands that I acknowledge my ignorance.

Finally! Why that whole merry go round just to avoid admitting the obvious? "Matter" is not your answer, since the fact it "doesn't have a cause" would be your assumption. So nothing ever happens without a cause except when matter begins to exist. My argument is established hereby. The theist reaches his conclusion from observing physical reality, the atheist from an act of faith.

Now you are talking cause and effect.  As opposed to the arena of these things.  What makes you so sure that you know how everything behaves everywhere in the universe?

Yes, it's cause and effect. What did you think "has a cause" meant? Does cause ever go without effect? What did you think "began to exist" meant throughout this thread?

What makes me sure is that NOTHING happens without a cause. And you are relying on faith to tell me to assume otherwise than what observation provides. What makes you think pink unicorns don't just pop up on Mars every now and then?

I thought you meant that matter has a cause.  Now I am understanding you to mean that a specific event has a cause.  I sense a slight shift without any resolution on the previous question. 

You'd be right, that most known events appear to have causes.  My focus all this time has been entirely on matter itself.  As opposed to how things behave.

How do you arrive at the emphatic conclusion that nothing happens without a cause?

I sense you have a different understanding of what a "cause" means.

As to a shift. You just presume alot about my arguments. Now, that Matter has a cause is my claim, which i base on the fact that everything does. It is what you denied. And the argument I made in support is that nothing in physical reality is known to be causeless.  I asked you consistently to name just one thing that was causeless and specifically told you I wasn't asking you about "matter".  If I was asking you to just agree with me, considering that matter always having a cause was what we were arguing about in the first place, I might be blonde!!

Now that basic facts have been admitted, lets go on: Saying "matter itself" makes no difference and is frankly meaningless, because a cause is necessarily "eventful". Hence "matter has a cause" is the same claim as saying "something made matter exist" or even "something makes matter exist"

You will notice that I acknowledge my ignorance on the question.  I don't know.  That is not the same thing as saying nothing ever happens without a cause.  That would mean that in fact I know,  Which is the opposite of what I am saying.  That should take care of whatever point it is you derive from a contrary answer.   

I will be the first to reiterate my mantra that everything we know is purely on the basis of faith.  That includes conclusions from observations.  The difference between science and religion, a matter of incorporation and reaction to feedback in the one, and an abhorrence of the same in the other.

You could be right.  I can't make any assumptions on what is on your mind.

I genuinely thought you were discussing physical universe as opposed to interactions and behaviors within it.  What logic says everything has a cause?  What makes you so sure that is the case?

When I say matter itself, I mean its essence.  As opposed to what happens to/with it.  What logic says something made matter exist?  Why can't it just exist like a certain entity, whose very existence is contentious.

[kadame]

You will notice that I acknowledge my ignorance on the question.  I don't know.  That is not the same thing as saying nothing ever happens without a cause.  That would mean that in fact I know,  Which is the opposite of what I am saying.  That should take care of whatever point it is you derive from a contrary answer.   

This is like saying you don't know if evolution is true. Why doesn't it stop you from accepting it? It doesm't take care of my "point", it highlights it. Your claim that observations are your basis in objectivity only apply depending on what conclusions you are willing to accept, not because the principle itself supposedly works. I used observation because this was your stated basis for "objectivity" and "predictions".

I will be the first to reiterate my mantra that everything we know is purely on the basis of faith.  That includes conclusions from observations.

So then, what makes your "faith" more justifiable than the conclusion that the EVENT of matter coming to existence, is caused like everything else known about matter?

The difference between science and religion, a matter of incorporation and reaction to feedback in the one, and an abhorrence of the same in the other.

You could be right.  I can't make any assumptions on what is on your mind.

It is atheism that is antithetical to "incorporation and reaction to feedback" if that feedback happens to point in an uncomfortable direction. While at it, show me the "facts" that theism supposedly abhors.

I genuinely thought you were discussing physical universe as opposed to interactions and behaviors within it.  What logic says everything has a cause?  What makes you so sure that is the case?

Same difference, existing is something matter did, and does just like it does everything else, move, explode, divide, what-have-you. This artificial distinction essentially comes down to "matter can do nothing else by itself, except exist". OR "everything we know about matter shows that it does nothing without a cause, but we can assume that existing and coming to exist is the one thing it did without a cause". Theism expects matter is the same stuff, doesn't change and become capable of doing stuff by itself just when it comes to existing.

When I say matter itself, I mean its essence.  As opposed to what happens to/with it.  What logic says something made matter exist?  Why can't it just exist like a certain entity, whose very existence is contentious.

Same difference. The distinction is artificial. What happens "with/to" matter is a description of matter "doing" something and includes actually existing. Matter began to exist; that this is not the only thing matter supposedly did by itself, is theism. Atheism is that it is the one thing it did by itself.

Nothingness is absolute nothingness. It is not even potential. Not matter. Not anything at all. Nothing does...nothing. Because it is nothing. If it does something, it is not nothing. The claim here is that either:

a) Nothingness "did" something...made something exist.

or

b) Matter "did" something by itself, without any cause.

Please just take 5 seconds and ask yourself if any of those sentences make any sense at all.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

This is like saying you don't know if evolution is true. Why doesn't it stop you from accepting it? It doesm't take care of my "point", it highlights it. Your claim that observations are your basis in objectivity only apply depending on what conclusions you are willing to accept, not because the principle itself supposedly works. I used observation because this was your stated basis for "objectivity" and "predictions".

I don't know if  matter has a cause.  I know, or I am confident that some things that happen to it have apparent causes.  And I could be utterly mistaken.  What is your point?

So then, what makes your "faith" more justifiable than the conclusion that the EVENT of matter coming to existence, is caused like everything else known about matter?

What is everything that is known about matter?  I don't feel like we know much about matter. 

Scientific faith is not necessarily more justifiable.  It is dependent on feedback.  Under this principle religious faith can be more correct than scientific faith.  But it is dogmatic. 

While at it, show me the "facts" that theism supposedly abhors.

An immediate example that comes to mind is the assertion that Adam was at the tail end of the evolution of man.  And that his parents were not people.

Same difference, existing is something matter did, and does just like it does everything else, move, explode, divide, what-have-you. This artificial distinction essentially comes down do "matter can do nothing else by itself, except exist". SO "everything we know about matter shows that it does nothing without a cause, but we can assume that existing and coming to exist is without a cause". Theism expects matter is the same matter, doesn't change and become capable of doing stuff by itself just when it comes to existing.

There is this question in the subject you are responding to what logic says everything has a cause?  What makes you so sure that is the case?

It has been asked a couple of times now.  Saying everything has a cause is a confident assertion.   There must be confident basis for this claim.  What is it?

When I say matter itself, I mean its essence.  As opposed to what happens to/with it.  What logic says something made matter exist?  Why can't it just exist like a certain entity, whose very existence is contentious.

Same difference. The distinction is artificial. What happens "with/to" matter is a description of matter "doing" and includes actually existing. Matter began to exist, this is not the only thing matter supposedly did by itself. This is theism. Atheism is that it is the one thing it did by itself.

Nothingness is absolute nothingness. It is not even potential. Not matter. Not anything at all. Nothing does...nothing. Because it is nothing. If it does something, it is not nothing. The claim here is that either:

a) Nothingness "did" something...made something exist.

or

b) Matter "did" something by itself, without any cause.

c) An entity that we merely insist exists without any justification "did" something by itself, without any cause.

Please just take 5 seconds and ask yourself if any of those sentences make any sense at all.

What happens with matter is not the same as what is matter.  A bouncing ball is not the same thing as bouncing. 

Atheism does not concern itself with the issue of whether matter began to exist or exists eternally.  It's about an absence of belief in a deity.

Science on the other hand says something about the nature of the matter.  The closest it comes to addressing the state of its existence is the principle of conservation of energy.  It says it can neither be created nor destroyed.

I have added a third sentence.  None of them makes any sense.  The third one makes the least sense.

[kadame]

I don't know if  matter has a cause.  I know, or I am confident that some things that happen to it have apparent causes.  And I could be utterly mistaken.  What is your point?

My point is that you are capitulating on your so-called "O-lets-be-obejective and objective-is-predictability". I guess that was just a line, though.

What is everything that is known about matter?  I don't feel like we know much about matter.

Here we go again, who accused you of knowing everything about matter? And since when did that become an obstacle to forming logical deductions about what we DO know? Science can dump theories and stick to collecting data then, and you can quit going on about the "scientific method" being the only "objective" way to know anything about reality.

Scientific faith is not necessarily more justifiable.  It is dependent on feedback.  Under this principle religious faith can be more correct than scientific faith.  But it is dogmatic.

Irrelevant. We can start a debate on another thread about who is meaner than who, but on this thread and countless others, you have made claims that God is illogical. On the same basis, so is your science. If you are admitting that then hats off to you.    

While at it, show me the "facts" that theism supposedly abhors.

An immediate example that comes to mind is the assertion that Adam was at the tail end of the evolution of man.  And that his parents were not people.

Excellent. First of all, that has nothing to do with "theism", which knows no Adam and Eve. Secondly, as soon as you show the "facts" this supposedly contradicts, you should be about ready to actually answer the question.

It has been asked a couple of times now.  Saying everything has a cause is a confident assertion[/color].   There must be confident basis for this claim.  What is it?

Indeed, there must. It's called simple basic logic, consistently proven in universal human experience. What is your justification for you "skepticism"? Why doesn't it kick in---this God-specific skepticism---when you are looking at scientific theories or any other area in your life, for that matter?

What happens with matter is not the same as what is matter.  A bouncing ball is not the same thing as bouncing. 

What is matter is not a relevant fact to how/why matter does anything. Existing is one of those things it does. If you like, did.

Atheism does not concern itself with the issue of whether matter began to exist or exists eternally.  It's about an absence of belief in a deity.

Indeed. If anyone rationally considered that question, being an atheist would be out of the question.

Science on the other hand says something about the nature of the matter.  The closest it comes to addressing the state of its existence is the principle of conservation of energy.  It says it can neither be created nor destroyed.

And yet it WAS created. You call it the big bang, remember? Now, do you need science to give you permission to observe the universe, including what science discovers about it, and "notice" if something is consistent or not?

I have added a third sentence.  None of them makes any sense.  The third one makes the least sense.

First of all, this is false. The existence of this entity is an inference deductively drawn using the most consistently proven principle of rational thought: causality. On what basis did you to decide that something can come from nothing is a viable proposition? You are right that the two statements don't make sense, yet...excuse me, haven't you been making those arguments for 7 pages?

Now Something coming from nothing;  it is admitted that this is senseless, yet the continued assertion that it being senseless must be proved. I am being asked to establish the self-evident. Nothingness is non-existence. It can do nothing...its just "not there", period! I being asked, "prove why non-existence cannot dance". In other words. "Prove that non-existence is non-existence". Non-existence is non-existence. It is not emptyness, or a vacuum...it AINT there. Now the demand that "prove what aint there can't do A, B, C, D..." Apparently this needs more proof than itself. Wonders never cease.

That we have something and not nothing, can only mean there was never a true non-existence.  Matter could do nothing either, before it was there itself. Yet, something happened, for sure! Not only that, our own common experience tells us matter does nothing by itself, without a cause. So if we are about the so-called "objectivity", why decide with no facts to the contrary, that non-causality is the thing that went down? If someone is being consistent, shouldn't they assume causality until he has facts that give him justification to presume otherwise? Shouldn't this be presumed for the same reason any other theory is presumed?

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I don't know if  matter has a cause.  I know, or I am confident that some things that happen to it have apparent causes.  And I could be utterly mistaken.  What is your point?

My point is that you are capitulating on your so-called "O-lets-be-obejective and objective-is-predictability". I guess that was just a line, though.

What is the basis for this new conclusion?  It's not another one of those that is self-evident.  No?

What is everything that is known about matter?  I don't feel like we know much about matter.

Here we go again, who accused you of knowing everything about matter? And since when did that become an obstacle to forming logical deductions about what we DO know? Science can dump theories and stick to collecting data then, and you can quit going on about the "scientific method" being the only "objective" way to know anything about reality.

The question is asked in the context of the following line

then, what makes your "faith" more justifiable than the conclusion that the EVENT of matter coming to existence, is caused like everything else known about matter?

The idea that everything else known about matter known is caused.  What is the basis for that confident assertion that there is an event of matter coming into existence? Why can't it just be there like this other supposed entity whose very being there is itself contentious?  If this supposed entity is in fact a being, why won't it enjoy the same privileges of coming into existence assumed for others without justification?

Scientific faith is not necessarily more justifiable.  It is dependent on feedback.  Under this principle religious faith can be more correct than scientific faith.  But it is dogmatic.

Irrelevant. We can start a debate on another thread about who is meaner than who, but on this thread and countless others, you have made claims that God is illogical. On the same basis, so is your science. If you are admitting that then hats off to you.

It's irrelevant.  It is a response to an irrelevant question.  See the quote on the previous answer.

While at it, show me the "facts" that theism supposedly abhors.

An immediate example that comes to mind is the assertion that Adam was at the tail end of the evolution of man.  And that his parents were not people.

Excellent. First of all, that has nothing to do with "theism", which knows no Adam and Eve. Secondly, as soon as you show the "facts" this supposedly contradicts, you should be about ready to actually answer the question.

This was pulled from a debate on theistic evolution.  It has plenty to do with theism. 

The claim is that Adam was a human.  And his parents were not.  The idea that his parents were humans is abhorrent to a certain view point.  If there are contradictions in there, no one but yourself raise the question.  It's of no interest to me.

It has been asked a couple of times now.  Saying everything has a cause is a confident assertion.   There must be confident basis for this claim.  What is it?

Indeed, there must. It's called simple basic logic, consistently proven in universal human experience. What is your justification for you "skepticism"? Why doesn't it kick in---this God-specific skepticism---when you are looking at scientific theories or any other area in your life, for that matter?

That would be cogent.  Especially if everything is known about matter.  Is everything known about matter? 

My skepticism kicks in all the time.  It can be tampered by feedback.  That is why I lack confidence that I know everything has a cause.

What happens with matter is not the same as what is matter.  A bouncing ball is not the same thing as bouncing. 

What is matter is not a relevant fact to how/why matter does anything. Existing is one of those things it does. If you like, did.

What is the basis of the notion that it has not been doing what it does or existing for eternity?  Why should the attribute of eternity be, without hesitation, be attributed to an entity whose mere existence is not even established?

Atheism does not concern itself with the issue of whether matter began to exist or exists eternally.  It's about an absence of belief in a deity.

Indeed. If anyone rationally considered that question, being an atheist would be out of the question.

I have considered it.  What about existence demands a deity?

Science on the other hand says something about the nature of the matter.  The closest it comes to addressing the state of its existence is the principle of conservation of energy.  It says it can neither be created nor destroyed.

And yet it WAS created. You call it the big bang, remember? Now, do you need science to give you permission to observe the universe, including what science discovers about it, and "notice" if something is consistent or not?

Someone should claim a Nobel Prize in physics if the big bang violates the law of conservation of energy.  It shouldn't be that difficult.

I have added a third sentence.  None of them makes any sense.  The third one makes the least sense.

First of all, this is false. The existence of this entity is an inference deductively drawn using the most consistently proven principle of rational thought: causality. On what basis did you to decide that something can come from nothing is a viable proposition? You are right that the two statements don't make sense, yet...excuse me, haven't you been making those arguments for 7 pages?

Now Something coming from nothing;  it is admitted that this is senseless, yet the continued assertion that it being senseless must be proved. I am being asked to establish the self-evident. Nothingness is non-existence. It can do nothing...its just "not there", period! I being asked, "prove why non-existence cannot dance". In other words. "Prove that non-existence is non-existence". Non-existence is non-existence. It is not emptyness, or a vacuum...it AINT there. Now the demand that "prove what aint there can't do A, B, C, D..." Apparently this needs more proof than itself. Wonders never cease.

That we have something and not nothing, can only mean there was never a true non-existence.  Matter could do nothing either, before it was there itself. Yet, something happened, for sure! Not only that, our own common experience tells us matter does nothing by itself, without a cause. So if we are about the so-called "objectivity", why decide with no facts to the contrary, that non-causality is the thing that went down? If someone is being consistent, shouldn't they assume causality until he has facts that give him justification to presume otherwise? Shouldn't this be presumed for the same reason any other theory is presumed?

That is the mental gymnastics that I mention earlier on the thread.  One conjures up premises whose existence is purely in their mind. and says since it sounds logical it must also be true.  But it is only true in that mental exercise.  The best evidence for the entity turns out to be nothing but a figment of the imagination.

What is there to stop one from creating premises that grant matter similar attributes to this entity?

[kadame]

I am going to sleep, before then a few things:

1) You admitted causality is what you know, couldn't find a single example of stuff happening without causes. That's the "basis" for my assertion that your claim about "predictability" being the reason "sciencitifc method" is the only way you objectively know things is bunk. If it was true, causality would be your default, until you found facts that contradict it.

2)

What is the basis for that confident assertion that there is an event of matter coming into existence?

I thought the fact of the universe beginning absolutely with its time, matter and space and everything, is what the Word's best science has told us, to date. This is in contention too?

3)

It's irrelevant.  It is a response to an irrelevant question.  See the quote on the previous answer.

You started by introducing religion "abhorring facts". That quote was my response to your irrelevant assertions.

4)

This was pulled from a debate on theistic evolution.  It has plenty to do with theism. 

The claim is that Adam was a human.  And his parents were not.  The idea that his parents were humans is abhorrent to a certain view point.  If there are contradictions in there, no one but yourself raise the question.  It's of no interest to me.

Wherever you pulled it form is irrelevant. Theism is not identical to catholicism. An theistic evolutionism is not catholicism either. Adam and Eve are beliefs of specific religious traditions, last I checked.

How it answers the question is a puzzle. The question was about facts that contradict theism. This example you came up with, doesn't even meet the test. What do you care what one religions calls "human"? Don't your beliefs reject souls? Now, again...when you can find "FACTS" that contradict theism, feel free to post them.

5)

That would be cogent.  Especially if everything is known about matter.  Is everything known about matter? 

My skepticism kicks in all the time.  It can be tampered by feedback.  That is why I lack confidence that I know everything has a cause.

HA! There it is. "We don't know everything there is to know about matter." You don't say! "Therefor we can draw no conclusions about matter from what we know". So what the hell you going on about Evolution for? Do you know everything there is to know about matter?

6) I thought science says the universe began completely from nothing, with its time, matter, everything. You are telling me, that it says that energy was the only thing that was there before time, matter and space. You don't say! I should look up the BVG theorem again, the stuff that had Hawkings performing magic with gravity. All these scientists are wrong? They don't know that energy preexisted matter?

7)

That is the mental gymnastics that I mention earlier on the thread.  One conjures up premises whose existence is purely in their mind. and says since it sounds logical it must also be true.  But it is only true in that mental exercise.  The best evidence for the entity turns out to be nothing but a figment of the imagination.

What is there to stop one from creating premises that grant matter similar attributes to this entity?

Conjures is such a strong word. What premises are conjured? That non-existence is non-existence? You've been making so many fatwas on this thread. apparently you think you don't need to demonstrate your own assertions besides mere claim. Calling a logical principle "imagination" is rich. Why on earth do you bother thinking at all? Just observe. That way you will be safe from figments of imagination.

What stops one from attributing immateriality, timelessness, self-causation to the material, temporal universe that came from nothing? Why, logic of course! You know, that "figment of the imagination".

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

I am going to sleep, before then a few things:

1) You admitted causality is what you know, couldn't find a single example of stuff happening without causes. That's the "basis" for my assertion that your claim about "predictability" being the reason "sciencitifc method" is the only way you objectively know things is bunk. If it was true, causality would be your default, until you found facts that contradict it.

Do you have a link to the source of this claim?  You might want to share that so that I can treat this confident assertion with a little more respect.

2)

What is the basis for that confident assertion that there is an event of matter coming into existence?

I thought the fact of the universe beginning absolutely with its time, matter and space and everything, is what the Word's best science has told us, to date. This is in contention too?

The big bang is generally considered the beginning of space-time.  There is plenty of speculation what happens prior that event.  Including the suggestion that there was nothing. Science is not religion.  Contention does not and should not spur the same level of controversy it would in religion.

3)

It's irrelevant.  It is a response to an irrelevant question.  See the quote on the previous answer.

You started by introducing religion "abhorring facts". That quote was my response to your irrelevant assertions.

You made a baseless claim that I said scientific faith is more justified than religious faith.  That irrelevant assertion corrects your baseless claim.

4)

This was pulled from a debate on theistic evolution.  It has plenty to do with theism. 

The claim is that Adam was a human.  And his parents were not.  The idea that his parents were humans is abhorrent to a certain view point.  If there are contradictions in there, no one but yourself raise the question.  It's of no interest to me.

Wherever you pulled it form is irrelevant. Theism is not identical to catholicism. An theistic evolutionism is not catholicism either. Adam and Eve are beliefs of specific religious traditions, last I checked.

How it answers the question is a puzzle. The question was about facts that contradict theism. This example you came up with, doesn't even meet the test. What do you care what one religions calls "human"? Don't your beliefs reject souls? Now, again...when you can find "FACTS" that contradict theism, feel free to post them.

It is relevant.  It has plenty to do with theism.  Because it tries to tie in the theory of evolution with a deity.  In fact, it talks of guided evolution by the same deity. 

It ends up with Adam probably being sired and born by beasts(for lack of a better term).

5)

That would be cogent.  Especially if everything is known about matter.  Is everything known about matter? 

My skepticism kicks in all the time.  It can be tampered by feedback.  That is why I lack confidence that I know everything has a cause.

HA! There it is. "We don't know everything there is to know about matter." You don't say! "Therefor we can draw no conclusions about matter from what we know". So what the hell you going on about Evolution for? Do you know everything there is to know about matter?

We can draw conclusions where it is justified.  You want to record that I mention that a lot of events have fairly well known causes.  I do this at least once.  Maybe more.

Is there anything to justify the assertion that matter is created?  If anything there is a scientific principle that forbids that.  The law of conservation of energy.  Evolution is an interesting if irrelevant topic on this particular question.

6) I thought science says the universe began completely from nothing, with its time, matter, everything. You are telling me, that it says that energy was the only thing that was there before time, matter and space. You don't say! I should look up the BVG theorem again, the stuff that had Hawkings performing magic with gravity. All these scientists are wrong? They don't know that energy preexisted matter?

What's the evidence for that claim?  That said, there are plenty  of scientific theories on everything.  I would not put much stock in the fact that I have never heard of BVG.  Maybe they have the answer.  But I don't know it.  It's the nature of the discipline. 

An uncomfortable terrain.  If one craves authority.

7)

That is the mental gymnastics that I mention earlier on the thread.  One conjures up premises whose existence is purely in their mind. and says since it sounds logical it must also be true.  But it is only true in that mental exercise.  The best evidence for the entity turns out to be nothing but a figment of the imagination.

What is there to stop one from creating premises that grant matter similar attributes to this entity?

Conjures is such a strong word. What premises are conjured? That non-existence is non-existence? You've been making so many fatwas on this thread. apparently you think you don't need to demonstrate your own assertions besides mere claim. Calling a logical principle "imagination" is rich. Why on earth do you bother thinking at all? Just observe. That way you will be safe from figments of imagination.

What stops one from attributing immateriality, timelessness, self-causation to the material, temporal universe that came from nothing? Why, logic of course! You know, that "figment of the imagination".

It is imagination.  Especially the premises.

The basic point I am making is I am sure the premises are chosen to support the conclusions.  The entity rests on the logical construct created by the premises.  Themselves insulated from the intrusion of any other information not in the premise.

The only thing that stops one from attributing those things you attribute to a supernatural to material is personal disinclination. It just can't be.  Why not?