The universe is proof of god!

[bilby]

How do you know? They are at least as plausible as gods that existed prior to the universe.

Goats and farts are material things that exist in the universe. The universe couldn't have created itself.

'Material things' is synonymous with 'real things'. Non-material things don't do anything, including create universes.

 

[Random Person]

How do you know? They are at least as plausible as gods that existed prior to the universe.

Goats and farts are material things that exist in the universe. The universe couldn't have created itself.

How could you possibly know that the universe couldn't have created itself?

Can you construct a logical argument for anything creating itself?

 

[skepticalbip]

How could you possibly know that the universe couldn't have created itself?

Can you construct a logical argument for anything creating itself?

It isn't a matter of logic but of observation. Quantum level spontanious self creation is an observable phenomenon.

 

[Random Person]

How could you possibly know that the universe couldn't have created itself?

Can you construct a logical argument for anything creating itself?

It isn't a matter of logic but of observation. Quantum level spontanious self creation is an observable phenomenon.

No, It's a matter of logic. A universe that doesn't exist can't create itself.

It couldn't be a matter of observation, because there would be no observer.

 

[Rhea]

"When the man is gone," he says, "I'll go over there and comfort the poor woman, interfering with her free will. I'll tell her that I love her and that I am sorry she's suffering, and I'll remind her that someday men won't rape women ever again, because I'll have decided to interfere with his free will at that point, so she'll have something good, like people not having free will to rape, to look forward to. Later, she'll testify that her belief in the strength of the local police force has helped her recover from such an awful tragedy, and her testimony will inspire others. Won't that be better than me just arresting some idiot? Where's the long-term payoff in that? Also, I'll give him a chance to get to heaven with her, so she can see him every day, but she won't have the free will to be angry about it, so, win-win."

FIFY

 

[skepticalbip]

It isn't a matter of logic but of observation. Quantum level spontanious self creation is an observable phenomenon.

Your question was, "Can you construct a logical argument for anything creating itself?". I answered it.

No, It's a matter of logic. A universe that doesn't exist can't create itself.

You are back to making nothing but an unsupported assertion based on belief, not understanding.

It couldn't be a matter of observation, because there would be no observer.

"Observation" does not necessarily require a human being present at the time of the event. "Observation" in science is not limited to a human "seeing" it.

 

[Random Person]

Your question was, "Can you construct a logical argument for anything creating itself?". I answered it.

No, It's a matter of logic. A universe that doesn't exist can't create itself.

You are back to making nothing but an unsupported assertion based on belief, not understanding.

It couldn't be a matter of observation, because there would be no observer.

"Observation" does not necessarily require a human being present at the time of the event. "Observation" in science is not limited to a human "seeing" it.

Your premise relies on Quantum level spontanious self creation?

In order for observation to occur there would have to be an observer. With no time, space or material, there would be no observer.

You are claiming no understanding without offering an explanation.

 

[Random Person]

How do you know? They are at least as plausible as gods that existed prior to the universe.

Goats and farts are material things that exist in the universe. The universe couldn't have created itself.

'Material things' is synonymous with 'real things'. Non-material things don't do anything, including create universes.

Is information a real thing?

 

[bilby]

'Material things' is synonymous with 'real things'. Non-material things don't do anything, including create universes.

Is information a real thing?

No. It's a property of real things.

 

[skepticalbip]

Your question was, "Can you construct a logical argument for anything creating itself?". I answered it.

You are back to making nothing but an unsupported assertion based on belief, not understanding.

It couldn't be a matter of observation, because there would be no observer.

"Observation" does not necessarily require a human being present at the time of the event. "Observation" in science is not limited to a human "seeing" it.

Your premise relies on Quantum level spontanious self creation?

I have offered no premise. No one knows how the universe began or even if it had a beginning. I am only contending that you don't know either. However, we do know that quantum fluctuations are real but that reference was only a direct answer to your specific question.

In order for observation to occur there would have to be an observer. With no time, space or material, there would be no observer.

You don't understand science's meaning of "observation".

You are claiming no understanding without offering an explanation.

There is no explanation for how something happened (if it did happen) that we don't understand. An explanation necessarily requires an understanding. "We just don't know...yet" is an honest statement much better than fooling ourselves by accepting blind unfounded faith as truth. Blind faith ends any attempts to understand (note lack of probing into natural phenomena during the thousand years of enforced blind faith after the fall of the Roman Empire).

 

[Keith&Co.]

In order for observation to occur there would have to be an observer.

An observer, but not necessarily an eyewitness, .

Crime Scene Investigators make observations after the crime that help figure out what happened during the crime, though they did not directly observe the crime.

Scientific references to 'observations' is not a claim of eyewitness testimony.

 

[James Brown]

Cops Catch Pastor Trying to Rape 12-Year-Old Girl; He Had "No Remorse"

"Well, God wasn't going to do anything, so we decided to step in," one of the arresting police officers didn't say.

 

[Random Person]

In order for observation to occur there would have to be an observer.

An observer, but not necessarily an eyewitness, .

Crime Scene Investigators make observations after the crime that help figure out what happened during the crime, though they did not directly observe the crime.

Scientific references to 'observations' is not a claim of eyewitness testimony.

I am not stipulating "eyewitness". In your example the crime scene investigators are observers. They are physical beings observing physical evidence. Neither one of those things existed before the universe did.

- - - Updated - - -

'Material things' is synonymous with 'real things'. Non-material things don't do anything, including create universes.

Is information a real thing?

No. It's a property of real things.

It's more likely that real things are a property of information.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I am not stipulating "eyewitness". In your example the crime scene investigators are observers. They are physical beings observing physical evidence. Neither one of those things existed before the universe did.

So, you're still stipulating an eyewitness...

 

[Random Person]

I have offered no premise.

You may not know what premise means.

No one knows how the universe began or even if it had a beginning.

May I concluse you are abandoning the farting goat theory?

I am only contending that you don't know either.

You don't need to contend. I don't know. If I did know, I would have at the very least started a new thread.

You don't understand science's meaning of "observation".

It turns out I do.

There is no explanation for how something happened (if it did happen) that we don't understand.

Sure there is. Scientific research is predicated on assuming there are explanations for what we don't understand.

An explanation necessarily requires an understanding.

Now you're coming back down to earth.

"We just don't know...yet" is an honest statement much better than fooling ourselves by accepting blind unfounded faith as truth.

The farting goat thing threw me. Did you think you were being provactive or clever or did you really believe it and have since come to your senses?

Blind faith ends any attempts to understand (note lack of probing into natural phenomena during the thousand years of enforced blind faith after the fall of the Roman Empire).

Thanks for the heads up but none of that has anything to do with me.

 

[Random Person]

I am not stipulating "eyewitness". In your example the crime scene investigators are observers. They are physical beings observing physical evidence. Neither one of those things existed before the universe did.

So, you're still stipulating an eyewitness...

You're still not getting it.

Can non-physical evidence be observed either directly or indirectly?

 

[skepticalbip]

You may not know what premise means.

The rest of my post indicates that I do.

May I concluse you are abandoning the farting goat theory?

I never held the "farting goat theory" as even reasonable, only that it was as reasonable as "goddidit".

I am only contending that you don't know either.

You don't need to contend. I don't know. If I did know, I would have at the very least started a new thread.

You don't understand science's meaning of "observation".

It turns out I do.

There is no evidence of that in your posts or you wouldn't be using "observation" the way you do.

There is no explanation for how something happened (if it did happen) that we don't understand.

Sure there is. Scientific research is predicated on assuming there are explanations for what we don't understand.

That is an asinine assumption of what science is about. If we already know the answer then there is no need for science. Or maybe it is that you don't know what "explanation" means. There can be no explanation until the subject is understood - that is at the end of the study (if then) after we reach an understanding. At that point science into the subject ends and engineering begins.

An explanation necessarily requires an understanding.

Now you're coming back down to earth.

"We just don't know...yet" is an honest statement much better than fooling ourselves by accepting blind unfounded faith as truth.

The farting goat thing threw me. Did you think you were being provactive or clever or did you really believe it and have since come to your senses?

Not at all. It was an example of useless invented "explanations" by comparing one invented "explanation" with another useless invented popular "explanation" of "goddidit".

Blind faith ends any attempts to understand (note lack of probing into natural phenomena during the thousand years of enforced blind faith after the fall of the Roman Empire).

Thanks for the heads up but none of that has anything to do with me.

Well good.

 

[Random Person]

I never held the "farting goat theory" as even reasonable, only that it was as reasonable as "goddidit".

No. It's not reasonable in any context.

If you make claims you don't actually believe then it's going to be difficult to have a conversation.

It seems like you are substituting one thing that's easily argued against for another thing that is difficult to argue against. You add to the confusion by arguing for what is easily argued against as if it is true.

Why not argue against what you don't actually believe?

That is an asinine assumption of what science is about.

It is?

If we already know the answer then there is no need for science.

That's not true either. When we already know the answer we can teach science in schools to kids that don't already know the answer.

I said, "Scientific research is predicated on assuming there are explanations for what we don't understand." I stand by that. Scientific Research grants would be damn near impossible to get if we believed that there is no explanation for what we don't already understand.

Science - scientific research. Two similar but different things. Context and precision.

Or maybe it is that you don't know what "explanation" means.

Nope. It turns out I do.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I am not stipulating "eyewitness". In your example the crime scene investigators are observers. They are physical beings observing physical evidence. Neither one of those things existed before the universe did.

So, you're still stipulating an eyewitness...

You're still not getting it.

You're referring to observations made in the before time. So, yeah, you're stipulating an eyewitness.

 

[skepticalbip]

No. It's not reasonable in any context.

If you make claims you don't actually believe then it's going to be difficult to have a conversation.

It seems like you are substituting one thing that's easily argued against for another thing that is difficult to argue against. You add to the confusion by arguing for what is easily argued against as if it is true.

Why not argue against what you don't actually believe?

I have tried that for years but have yet been unable to find any "believer" capable of understanding that their belief is unfounded - that it is only faith in what they have been told with no evidence. They can easily understand that the "farting goat theory" is unfounded and unevidenced which only leaves having to show that both "theories" are equally unfounded and unevidenced. You are apparently unfamiliar with the ancient technique of demonstrating absurdity by offering absurdity.

It is?

yes.

If we already know the answer then there is no need for science.

That's not true either. When we already know the answer we can teach science in schools to kids that don't already know the answer.

Yet again indicating that you don't understand what science is. Teaching science is education, not science just as teaching journalism is not journalism.

I said, "Scientific research is predicated on assuming there are explanations for what we don't understand." I stand by that. Scientific Research grants would be damn near impossible to get if we believed that there is no explanation for what we don't already understand.

Science - scientific research. Two similar but different things. Context and precision.

Or maybe it is that you don't know what "explanation" means.

Nope. It turns out I do.

Then you should be much more careful in using it in your posts.