Uyi Iredia:

The burden of proof can go either way. Note that a negative statement can always be rephrased as a positive one. It is quite asinine to argue that the burden of proof solely rests on one side. that's my 2 cents on the issue.

 



If anyone claims the exixstence of  something invisisible and undetectable, the burden of proof must surely lie on that person. the person must first establish some basic facts about the  claim that can form the basis of debate or refutation of such claim. No such facts have emerged to advance the notion of design ,except, for anectodal conjectures that do not amount to evidence.
"life is beautiful and complex, therefore there is  a designer"
This is anectodal conjecture, not evidence.

plaetton:

   
If anyone claims the exixstence of  something invisisible and undetectable,

God may be invisible, but it is almost disingenuous to say undetectable. Inasmuch as many physical elements are detected only by their effects and not direct observation, it is apt to say that the entire universe is certainly an observed phenomenon which begs for an answer as to its cause - which answer is what the "God Idea" is all about - namely - a pre-existent cause.

This is only commonsensical, and in toe with the laws of motion.

the person must first establish some basic facts about the  claim that can form the basis of debate or refutation of such claim.

A basic fact which we cannot deny is that everything finite has a cause - and the laws of motion give us to know that nothing begins to move without a triggering factor - and the universe did begin to expand from a point. This is a basic fact on which we ground the idea of a prime mover - or pre-existent cause - which is what God is said to be.

No such facts have emerged to advance the notion of design ,

Yes, except the sudden emergence of an entire universe from a dot, right?

As i said prior - so long as something is a default position - as the existence of God has been with every tradition of mankind from time immemorial - he who attacks the default position must bring in his lunch pack some snacks of proof to offer the enzymes of demented belief.

You seen use the words "cause " and "design" interchangably.
They do not mean the same. Cause does not necessarity imply design. Causes can be random or chance events. When the conditions are right, events occur. That is cause. The right conditions of temperature, wind spead and direction, atmospheric pressure and humidity causes or ignites a thunderstorm, therefore no one takes responsibility for igniting a thunderstorm.Design implies ulterior motive or purpose.
Sure, the big ba.ng had a cause, but to say that pre-existent intelligent entity lit the fuse is a stretch of the imaginagion. This is where the burden of proof squarely lies.

Design implies purpose. The champions of design have never agreed on the purpose.Religion is an attempt to find purpose in the midst of the chaos. Unfortunately, for a long time ,humankind has waged war against itself over what this purpose should be. Still, there has been no agreement.

*sighs * You are making the same old errors atheists make

plaetton:

If anyone claims the exixstence of  something invisisible and undetectable, the burden of proof must surely lie on that person.

Characterizing the phenomenon in question with your own presupposition: that all that exists are matter and energy.

plaetton:
the person must first establish some basic facts about the  claim that can form the basis of debate or refutation of such claim.

This has been done already. Whither the debate between theists (especially Christians) and atheists ?

plaetton:

No such facts have emerged to advance the notion of design ,except, for anectodal conjectures that do not amount to evidence.

Another error because the (classical) logical arguments for the notion God & Design have been forwarded by the likes of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, George Berkeley e.t.c

plaetton:

"life is beautiful and complex, therefore there is  a designer"
This is anectodal conjecture, not evidence.

This is not an argument; it is a caricature of theistic arguments.

@ Deep Sight >>> Why I sometimes feel disenchanted with theist-atheist debates is that the arguments are more about presuppositions (not facts per se) since 'facts' are sometimes revised or maligned. Acceptez-vous ?

Uyi Iredia:


This is not an argument; it is a caricature of theistic arguments.

Indeed: a real caricature it is - and very sad that he would do that, because I doubt that Plaetton can claim to be unaware of the very many advanced and articulate arguments for the existence of God put forward by some of the best minds to have graced this planet.

Deep Sight:

Indeed: a real caricature it is - and very sad that he would do that, because I doubt that Plaetton can claim to be unaware of the very many advanced and articulate arguments for the existence of God put forward by some of the best minds to have graced this planet.

I have indeed seen many advanced(?) and articulate argumants for the existence of god, but such are usually based on the same anectodal conjectures. Be honest ,and agree with me ,that the case for a designer is predicated on faith. , which compels theists to articulate arguments that are just not provable. Where is the evidence? It is long overdue. The respected opinions of Aquinas( a churchman) and Aristotle ( a philosopher) are not considered evidence.

In my own view, I have always maintained that the burden of proof should be shouldered by the one who claims that the universe was uncaused, uncreated, or has always existed; and hence requiring no creator.

This is not a question of proving the negative but rather a question of proving an unsubstantiated assertion.

One who says that the universe was uncaused, was not created and etc, ascribes a quality or an ability to the universe. He should shoulder the burden of proving that the universe has this quality or ability. Hence the burden of proof lies with that atheists and not the theist. Since the existence of something is already enough proof to conclude that that thing was created, formed or placed there by a process or an outside force.

I have already said this in another thread where I engaged with thehomer.

One who enters a city immediately begins to wonder who built the city, who formed the city and etc. No sane person would enter a city and entertain the idea that the city has always existed, and hence uncaused or uncreated. The same is applicable to a house, mountain, desert, rivers and etc. The process of their formation or creation can be observed and logically explained.

It is this basic idea of everything being caused by a process or an external force that drives science into great discoveries. Science believes in a cause of everything, a logical explanation of a process through which everything came into being. A scientist looks at a rock and tries to find out the processes that lead to the formation of the rock. And in all natural process there is always an external force, without which there can be no movement.

This is the very basic difference between a shaman and a scientist. A shaman sees a mountain and believes that the mountain is a supernatural phenomenon that defies the laws of nature, an unexplainable phenomenon, or a god that has always existed. He may even start worshipping the mountain, and will discard any attempt to logically explain the origin of the mountain as sacrilegious.

One who says the universe is uncaused by an external force has ascribed a quality to the universe; the quality of not requiring a causer, a quality that has not been observed anywhere in the universe. The burden of proof should be on such a person, he has to prove that the universe possess the quality or the ability of not requiring a creator, a process of creation or formation by an external force.

One who believes that the universe is caused or created carries fewer burdens of proof, because everything in the universe has been observed to have a cause, a formation, a process of creation through natural forces which always act as external forces during the formation or creation of the thing in question.

The way I see it, it is not a question of shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof has always remained with the atheist, who ascribes unnatural quality or ability to the universe.
Thanks.

Deep Sight:

To simplify the premises -

Let's use Richard Dawkins' position to illustrate the point.

Argument One -

Premise One -
~ Burden of Proof properly shifts to the party advancing a notion that appears improbable

Premise Two -
~ Richard Dawkins accedes to the improbability of complex life forms arising from chance

Conclusion --->
Given that Dawkins admits the improbability of the complexity of living forms, the Burden of Proof for showing that they did arise through a non-guided process is thus properly shifted to him.

Actually, the other party too bears a burden of proof which is to also show that the process was guided.

Deep Sight:

__________________________________

I realize that it may be said that Dawkins refers to natural selection and not pure chance per se. However, this is a frivolous and thoughless point to make, because  -

1. Natural Selection at all events is inchoate as a theory regarding the development of species given that it does not account for the origin of species - here again in the very oirigin of species, chance is relied upon.

What do you mean when you say that natural selection doesn't account for the origin of species? What you need to understand is that natural selection acts with random mutation and other processes.

Deep Sight:

2. Dawkins himself argues for chance by speaking of "lucky mutations" (See his comments on the development of the eye)

Chance is a part of the process not the entire process which is why natural selection is called natural selection.

Deep Sight:

3. Natural Selection involves many elements of chance

Given the foregoing, the argument from natural selection cannot escape the question of chance. It only attempts to build a scenario within which chance may appear to be more probable.

The elements of chance act at various levels. One at the level of the gene, another at the level of the environment.

Deep Sight:

Thus, when we then consider that Dawkins had himself stated chance to be an improbable factor in light of the complexity of living forms and further given that the burden of proof shifts to he who advances an improbability, then it logically follows that the burden of proof shifts to Dawkings.

This is quite a simple process of thought development.

Dawkins met his burden of proof and this is why we have the theory of evolution.

justcool:

In my own view, I have always maintained that the burden of proof should be shouldered by the one who claims that the universe was uncaused, uncreated, or has always existed; and hence requiring no creator.

This is not a question of proving the negative but rather a question of proving an unsubstantiated assertion.

Actually, the one who says that their particular God created the universe from nothing while being a free floating mind out there also has a burden of proof. I'll even say that such an idea is incoherent.

justcool:

One who says that the universe was uncaused, was not created and etc, ascribes a quality or an ability to the universe. He should shoulder the burden of proving that the universe has this quality or ability. Hence the burden of proof lies with that atheists and not the theist. Since the existence of something is already enough proof to conclude that that thing was created, formed or placed there by a process or an outside force.

No, given what we know about the universe, we can rightly claim that while some processes happen, we cannot say that they are caused.

justcool:

I have already said this in another thread where I engaged with thehomer.

One who enters a city immediately begins to wonder who built the city, who formed the city and etc. No sane person would enter a city and entertain the idea that the city has always existed, and hence uncaused or uncreated. The same is applicable to a house, mountain, desert, rivers and etc. The process of their formation or creation can be observed and logically explained.

And I hope I laid this to rest by pointing out that this is a bad analogy because the universe is in no way like a city. Here's an alternative analogy. If you saw a pebble on a beach, would you say it was created? If you saw a stalactite in a cave, would you say it was created?

justcool:

It is this basic idea of everything being caused by a process or an external force that drives science into great discoveries. Science believes in a cause of everything, a logical explanation of a process through which everything came into being. A scientist looks at a rock and tries to find out the processes that lead to the formation of the rock. And in all natural process there is always an external force, without which there can be no movement.

If we said that this creator was a very complex machine, would you be satisfied?

justcool:

This is the very basic difference between a shaman and a scientist. A shaman sees a mountain and believes that the mountain is a supernatural phenomenon that defies the laws of nature, an unexplainable phenomenon, or a god that has always existed. He may even start worshipping the mountain, and will discard any attempt to logically explain the origin of the mountain as sacrilegious.

Yes, shamans, our primitive priests/healers.

justcool:

One who says the universe is uncaused by an external force has ascribed a quality to the universe; the quality of not requiring a causer, a quality that has not been observed anywhere in the universe. The burden of proof should be on such a person, he has to prove that the universe possess the quality or the ability of not requiring a creator, a process of creation or formation by an external force.

One who believes that the universe is caused or created carries fewer burdens of proof, because everything in the universe has been observed to have a cause, a formation, a process of creation through natural forces which always act as external forces during the formation or creation of the thing in question.

No, this actually isn't correct. There are certain objects in the universe that have no known creators or causes.

justcool:

The way I see it, it is not a question of shifting the burden of proof. The burden of proof has always remained with the atheist, who ascribes unnatural quality or ability to the universe.
Thanks.

Both parties bear a burden of proof but the burden is more on the theist and even heavier on the Christian.

thehomer:

Actually, the other party too bears a burden of proof which is to also show that the process was guided.

Agreed

thehomer:
What do you mean when you say that natural selection doesn't account for the origin of species? What you need to understand is that natural selection acts with random mutation and other processes.

Please, mention the other processes. Also, please explain how natural selection acting with random mutation and other processes produces species.

thehomer:
Chance is a part of the process not the entire process which is why natural selection is called natural selection.

so what/who does the selecting ? You also have to state other elements of the process aside from chance.

thehomer:
The elements of chance act at various levels. One at the level of the gene, another at the level of the environment.

so what ?

thehomer:
Dawkins met his burden of proof and this is why we have the theory of evolution.

This statement implies that Prof. Dawkins formulated the theory of evolution to meet his burden of proof. Not so. Furthermore, the theory has not solved the problem of the origin of life. All that exists are hypothesis and consensus on what occurred.

thehomer:

Actually, the one who says that their particular God created the universe from nothing while being a free floating mind out there also has a burden of proof. I'll even say that such an idea is incoherent.

Okay

thehomer:
No, given what we know about the universe, we can rightly claim that while some processes happen, we cannot say that they are caused.

That's unscientific. Of course, science is all about finding cause.

thehomer:
And I hope I laid this to rest by pointing out that this is a bad analogy because the universe is in no way like a city. Here's an alternative analogy. If you saw a pebble on a beach, would you say it was created? If you saw a stalactite in a cave, would you say it was created?

They were created of through natural means that have been expatiated by geologists. Of course, both the city and the universe share a commonality: They exist in space and time.

thehomer:
If we said that this creator was a very complex machine, would you be satisfied?

Yes.

thehomer:
No, this actually isn't correct. There are certain objects in the universe that have no known creators or causes.

In fact, this part of your post is what prompted my reply and is what I will focus on should I forego the other aspects. Could you list this objects that have no known creators or causes ? This is what I mean by cause: a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result. Note the bolded part.

thehomer:
Both parties bear a burden of proof but the burden is more on the theist and even heavier on the Christian.

True

@justcool:


Again, Cause and Deisgn are not one and the same. To say that everything has a Cause or beginning is NOT the same as saying that it was Designed..
The argument here, I believe , is about design, not cause.
Correcton.Only thiests and religious people have acsribed qualities to the universe other than what we gleam from scientific studies.
Scientists have been trying to understandl the many mysteries of the[b] universe, especially, its origin and cause. It has already been implied that there was a [/b] cause.
The only burden they have is to try to understand more.
On the ohter hand, you have people who make the claim, with certitude, that the universe was designed  ,why shouldn't they have the burden to at least show the design formula , a universal algorithm or a predictive  mathematical equation that can explain the complexities of the design?
The notion for  design is mostly predicated on faith.
The belief in juju is quite similar to the belief in a designer. Quite a number of people believe in juju and to them, the existence of juju is just commonsensical . They see the invisible hand of juju(intelligent design?) in every phenomena and in every event, much like the apostles of intelligent design. If you live in the same community(as a minority) with these people, would you be expected to carry the burden of proof that juju does not exists, or, is it the proponents of juju that should demonstrate to you that juju is real?

Uyi Iredia:

Okay

That's unscientific. Of course, science is all about finding cause.

Correction: Science is about looking for answers. Unlike religious faith, science is self- correcting, therefore, it is not unscientific to say we do not know the cause of something.

Uyi Iredia:

Agreed

Please, mention the other processes. Also, please explain how natural selection acting with random mutation and other processes produces species.

The processes I gave are sufficient to demonstrate my point.
That is explained by the theory of evolution. Simply look it up. While you're at it, look up the concept of species.

Uyi Iredia:

so what/who does the selecting ? You also have to state other elements of the process aside from chance.

Nature does the selection. Natural selection. Those two are more than sufficient to make my point in this lay discussion.

Uyi Iredia:

so what ?

What do you mean by so what? That tells you that the elements of chance act on multiple levels.

Uyi Iredia:

This statement implies that Prof. Dawkins formulated the theory of evolution to meet his burden of proof. Not so. Furthermore, the theory has not solved the problem of the origin of life. All that exists are hypothesis and consensus on what occurred.

What is the burden of proof that the theory of evolution in principle is supposed to meet but hasn't met?
Is is supposed to solve the problem of life's origin?
Actually, what we have is a scientific theory.

Uyi Iredia:

Okay

You agree? Excellent.

Uyi Iredia:

That's unscientific. Of course, science is all about finding cause.

Once again, you're wrong. Science applies to much more than simply looking for a cause. Also, if something is uncaused, it is uncaused whether or not you like it.

Uyi Iredia:

They were created of through natural means that have been expatiated by geologists. Of course, both the city and the universe share a commonality: They exist in space and time.

In other words, those structures weren't designed by any intelligent mind. What makes you think the universe was designed by an intelligent mind?
The fact that they share some irrelevant similarity isn't what is useful in an analogy.

Uyi Iredia:

Yes.

Oh you would. Would you accept that the universe arose naturally?

Uyi Iredia:

In fact, this part of your post is what prompted my reply and is what I will focus on should I forego the other aspects. Could you list this objects that have no known creators or causes ? This is what I mean by cause: a person or thing that acts, happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing happens as a result. Note the bolded part.

Virtual particles, gravity, radioactive decay among many other things.

Uyi Iredia:

True

In that case, the Christian needs to meet his burden of proof.

thehomer:

You agree? Excellent.

I agree with the first half of that statement only.

thehomer:
Once again, you're wrong. Science applies to much more than simply looking for a cause. Also, if something is uncaused, it is uncaused whether or not you like it.

If it is uncaused, how does it exist ? What else does science apply to aside from looking for causes ?

thehomer:
In other words, those structures weren't designed by any intelligent mind. What makes you think the universe was designed by an intelligent mind?
The fact that they share some irrelevant similarity isn't what is useful in an analogy.

While their dissimilarity is useful to your point that the universe isn't designed. A clear case of double-standards.

thehomer:
Oh you would. Would you accept that the universe arose naturally?

No.

thehomer:
Virtual particles, gravity, radioactive decay among many other things.

The causes of gravity and decay are well-known. The first due to attraction between bodies, the latter due to the instability of certain kinds of isotopes. I do not know much about virtual particles. However a more fundamental question has already been asked: If something is uncaused how does it exist.

thehomer:
In that case, the Christian needs to meet his burden of proof.

Hence the debate between atheists and theists.

thehomer:

The processes I gave are sufficient to demonstrate my point.
That is explained by the theory of evolution. Simply look it up. While you're at it, look up the concept of species.

Then I'll assume you had no processes to mention. I'll need a layman explanation from you. Do not shift the burden on me.

thehomer:
Nature does the selection. Natural selection. Those two are more than sufficient to make my point in this lay discussion.

Nature does not have cognitive capacities. I could likewise (as you've done) state that chance does the selection. kapish ?

thehomer:
What do you mean by so what? That tells you that the elements of chance act on multiple levels.

how does your point counter what Deep Sight said in that part.

thehomer:
What is the burden of proof that the theory of evolution in principle is supposed to meet but hasn't met?
Is is supposed to solve the problem of life's origin?
Actually, what we have is a scientific theory.

Proof on how life originated. If the origin of life can't be proven within the framework of the evolutionary theory then it has no basis since that is its core aspect.

Uyi Iredia:

I agree with the first half of that statement only.

And have you met that burden of proof?

Uyi Iredia:

If it is uncaused, how does it exist? What else does science apply to aside from looking for causes ?

It could exist as a brute fact. Science also helps us know what happened in the past and enables us make predictions among other things.

Uyi Iredia:

While their dissimilarity is useful to your point that the universe isn't designed. A clear case of double-standards.

You need to learn how to use analogies. The point of an analogy is to show the relevant similarities. If this fails, then the analogy is flawed.

Uyi Iredia:

No.

Why not?

Uyi Iredia:

The causes of gravity and decay are well-known. The first due to attraction between bodies, the latter due to the instability of certain kinds of isotopes. I do not know much about virtual particles. However a more fundamental question has already been asked: If something is uncaused how does it exist.

No, the attraction of bodies in the Newtonian model is called gravity. If 16 atoms are unstable today, why is it that on the period of the half life, 8 of them will decay while the other 8 wouldn't?
Answered above.

Uyi Iredia:

Hence the debate between atheists and theists.

With the theists shirking their burden of proof.

Uyi Iredia:

Then I'll assume you had no processes to mention. I'll need a layman explanation from you. Do not shift the burden on me.

Assume whatever you want. Like I said, the processes given are enough for me to demonstrate what I want to demonstrate in this context. I'm not here to teach you the theory of evolution. You're free to look it up while you're online. I've not shifted anything to you, I'm simply saying that you need to acquire the necessary background knowledge to help you ask relevant questions.

Uyi Iredia:

Nature does not have cognitive capacities. I could likewise (as you've done) state that chance does the selection. kapish ?

Nature doesn't need it for natural selection to take place. Sure you could say that but that would kick your God out of the equation.

Uyi Iredia:

how does your point counter what Deep Sight said in that part.

Who says it was supposed to counter Deep Sight's point?

Uyi Iredia:

Proof on how life originated. If the origin of life can't be proven within the framework of the evolutionary theory then it has no basis since that is its core aspect.

This is why you need to first educate yourself on what the theory of evolution is. The theory isn't supposed to show how life originated. Oh and the origin of life isn't core to the theory of evolution. Take the time to look it up.

thehomer:

And have you met that burden of proof?

A rhetorical question. However, my answer is yes.

thehomer:
It could exist as a brute fact. Science also helps us know what happened in the past and enables us make predictions among other things.

Your reply is redundant (and hence wrong) because by definition facts exist. Knowing past events and making predictions cannot be done without knowledge of cause (and effect) ergo it all boils down to looking for causes. Note that predictions can't be made without inductive reasoning based on past knowledge of events and, especially, their causes

thehomer:
You need to learn how to use analogies. The point of an analogy is to show the relevant similarities. If this fails, then the analogy is flawed.

So what ? The relevance of the similarities are the bone of contention. You ignored the similarity I pointed out in justcool's case.

thehomer:
Why not?

because it implies the universe created itself. That's absurd.

thehomer:
No, the attraction of bodies in the Newtonian model is called gravity. If 16 atoms are unstable today, why is it that on the period of the half life, 8 of them will decay while the other 8 wouldn't?
Answered above.

Wrong, the attraction between the bodies causes a force between them which is called gravity. This occurs due to decomposition of atomic structure (arising from instability) at constant rate. Given enough time the other 8 will decay. I have shown that your answer is wrong.

thehomer:
With the theists shirking their burden of proof.

If this truly happened there would have been no debate.

thehomer:

Assume whatever you want. Like I said, the processes given are enough for me to demonstrate what I want to demonstrate in this context. I'm not here to teach you the theory of evolution. You're free to look it up while you're online. I've not shifted anything to you, I'm simply saying that you need to acquire the necessary background knowledge to help you ask relevant questions.

My assumption: thehomer had no processes to mention, hence, his/her reply to Deep Sight lacks basis. The other part of your reply shows your naivete given the fact that knowledge involves asking questions.

thehomer:
Nature doesn't need it for natural selection to take place. Sure you could say that but that would kick your God out of the equation.

How can/does 'Nature' select ? I hope you know Nature is just a word.

thehomer:
Who says it was supposed to counter Deep Sight's point?

Nobody . . . now what was the purpose of the point ? (interrogative, narrative e.t.c)

thehomer:
This is why you need to first educate yourself on what the theory of evolution is. The theory isn't supposed to show how life originated. Oh and the origin of life isn't core to the theory of evolution. Take the time to look it up.

It is actually hence the piece On The Origin Of The Species. BTW if your assertions are true, the evolutionists should have little or no problems with creationists. Both accept the notion of natural selection and mutations. I have looked it up and seen nonsense such as panspermia, directed panspermia, primordial soup, clay world e.t.c

@Uyi Iredia , God is just a word too
Do not be scared by terms like panspermia, just take your time and your will understand. If not, you can ask here, we would be happy to hold your hand into the world of knowledge.

Uyi Iredia:


because it implies the universe created itself. That's absurd.

Absurd? Yeah, it kinda sounds so, But, the notion of an invisible, unknown, self-created (??) entity creating the universe from nothing is Even More Absurd..
Don't you agree?

Uyi Iredia:




It is actually hence the piece On The Origin Of The Species. BTW if your assertions are true, the evolutionists should have little or no problems with creationists. Both accept the notion of natural selection and mutations. I have looked it up and seen nonsense such as panspermia, directed panspermia, primordial soup, clay world e.t.c

Paspermia,directed panspermia,primordial soup. these words always seem to frighten thiests.
Yeah, we know where you are coming from.

Uyi Iredia:

A rhetorical question. However, my answer is yes.

That isn't a rhetorical question. I rarely use those in serious discussions. Please can you show me where you did this?

Uyi Iredia:

Your reply is redundant (and hence wrong) because by definition facts exist. Knowing past events and making predictions cannot be done without knowledge of cause (and effect) ergo it all boils down to looking for causes. Note that predictions can't be made without inductive reasoning based on past knowledge of events and, especially, their causes

Telling you what happened in the past or what is expected to happen isn't simply looking for causes, but is following a chain of reasoning and evidence.

Uyi Iredia:

So what ? The relevance of the similarities are the bone of contention. You ignored the similarity I pointed out in justcool's case.

I ignored it because it was irrelevant to the point being made.

Uyi Iredia:

because it implies the universe created itself. That's absurd.

No that isn't necessarily the implication. It also implies that we may not know the cause in the sense that you're using cause, or that the cause is a brute fact of how nature operates at that level or something else.

Uyi Iredia:

Wrong, the attraction between the bodies causes a force between them which is called gravity.

Take a look at the definitions available. What I'm referring to is the one in bold.

wiktionary:
Noun

gravity (countable and uncountable; plural gravities)

    Resultant force on Earth's surface, of the attraction by the Earth's masses, and the centrifugal pseudo-force caused by the Earth's rotation.
    Gravitation, universal force exercised by two bodies onto each other
    (In casual discussion, gravity and gravitation are often used interchangeably).
    The state or condition of having weight; weight; heaviness.
    Specific gravity.
    The state or condition of being grave (graveness).

The attraction doesn't cause a force, the attraction is the force of gravity.

Uyi Iredia:

This occurs due to decomposition of atomic structure (arising from instability) at constant rate. Given enough time the other 8 will decay. I have shown that your answer is wrong.

No you haven't show this. Why don't they all decay at the same time? Aren't they all unstable?

Uyi Iredia:

If this truly happened there would have been no debate.

Which is why there doesn't seem to be one. A lot of what we have is demonstration of ignorance on scientific issues.

Uyi Iredia:

My assumption: thehomer had no processes to mention, hence, his/her reply to Deep Sight lacks basis. The other part of your reply shows your naivete given the fact that knowledge involves asking questions.

I mentioned two processes that demonstrate my point. Yet you assert I mentioned none. I know that knowledge involves asking questions but the questions you're asking are so malformed and misinformed that answering them without you understanding the basics of what your questions are on wouldn't be helpful to you.

Uyi Iredia:

How can/does 'Nature' select ? I hope you know Nature is just a word.

You've committed the use-mention fallacy. I'm not referring to the word "nature" but to the concept of nature.

Uyi Iredia:

Nobody . . . now what was the purpose of the point ? (interrogative, narrative e.t.c)

Clarification.

Uyi Iredia:

It is actually hence the piece On The Origin Of The Species. BTW if your assertions are true, the evolutionists should have little or no problems with creationists. Both accept the notion of natural selection and mutations. I have looked it up and seen nonsense such as panspermia, directed panspermia, primordial soup, clay world e.t.c

How does the book tell you the origin of life? Who says it was supposed to do that when from the title, once comes away with the idea that what is being spoken about is the origin of species.
You're deeply mistaken. Creationists do not accept the notion of natural selection. They claim God does the selection.
What does panspermia, clay world and primordial soup have to do with the theory of evolution? Again, the ignorance and stubbornness you're demonstrating does you no favours. Take the time to look up the theory of evolution.

I do not think that I need to reply the response I got from my post, I humbly refrain in other to avoid unhealthy back-and-forth argument. Besides I think the objections raised were treated already in my post and elsewhere in this thread.

One thing that nobody has ever been able to prove is the illogical conclusion that the universe created itself. The religious view of an invisible God apart; the conclusion that the universe created itself is unsound scientifically. Ridiculing the religious view of an invisible God does not make the illogical view that the universe created itself right. If this illogical conclusion holds any water, then proponents would not need to revert to ridiculing God to defend their view. They should defend it scientifically, especially when they claim to be disciples of science.

One thing that is scientifically valid is that nothing creates itself, evolves, or comes in existence without an external force. One must be able to admit that whatever caused the universe must be an external force, a force whose origin is not within the universe.

Whatever one decides to call this force is the person’s choice.

@justcool
illogical conclusion that the universe created itself

and it continues to expand before our very eyes. what do you mean, .illogical.
what is logical to you?
Is it a god mating with a human to produce himself? I fail to see how you can make such an outlandish statement.
The back and forth, is not because we have not repeated told you and explained to you, what would otherwise being obvious, and is, for some many people who decide to commit their brains, but because you adamantly refuse to get it.
Yet, that very science clothes you now, feeds you and treats you, and is what has made this forum of discussion possible. It is not basic on irrational dogma, it is designed along the same principles you choose to discredit now.

No we dont ridicule god, we just say it as it is. animals cant fit in the ark, they cant fit. do you want us to collude with you in this very elementary departure from logic.

If you say that you don't believe in the big bang because there is no adequate evidence, how can you possible believe in Abrahams God how can you possible be so picky when it comes to science, yet with religion you just take everything as is.

You cannot force a reason. thats how witchcraft thrives. We cannot make claims without evidence.
Even without the big bang, then we have nothing. We cannot possible claim that there is a force. We have 0 evidence to back that. And it cannot just exist because we feel it is right. We are not talking about feelings here.

^^^^^
Sir, I try not to respond to posts like the above but my love for science would not let me keep quiet now. Stop using science to promote your very unscientific views. Science makes it clear that nothing creates itself. Such would be a violation of the law of thermodynamics.

Why don't we keep to science Why bring in Abrahamic God, Noah's ark and etc What has these things got to do with the topic at hand Does proving that all animals won't fit into an ark proves that the universe created itself

We are not here, in this thread, to validate or annul the validity, of the Abrahamic God; we are to to determine who should shoulder the burden of proof, concerning the issue of creation of the universe. Who should shoulder this burden of proof; the one who asserts the well known principle of something being created by another thing, or the one who asserts the never seen, never observed, and illogical idea of something creating itself?

Give me scientific laws that validate the illogical and very unscientific conclusion that the universe created itself. Or show me an example where a single substance expands or changes state without and external force or impetus from the outside. Or give me an example where science have observed something creating itself.

Please don't put words into the mouth of science. When it comes to the origin of the universe, as in creation of the elements that make up the universe, science still does not know. Science has not up till date conclusively validate or authenticate any of the various speculations by scientists.

Thanks.

For those who use the big slam theory to defend their illogical view of the universe creating itself. The big slam theory does not imply the universe creating itself out of nothing. The big slam is only a stage in the development or evolution of the elements that make up the universe.

Prior to the big slam the universe or the elements that make up the universe existed in an extremely hot and dense state.

The big slam theory only explains the development of the universe or the elements that make up the universe and not the origin of these elements. It can be likened to change of state. Just as a block of ice when heated will change from the state of being solid to liquid; the solid ice will expand to liquid. A further heating will change it from a liquid to a gaseous state, which is tantamount to a further expansion. Each change of state does not imply a creation of a new element. Water remains water, whether as a compact ice(solid) or and expanding vapour(gas).

There big slam theory does not support the illogical conclusion that the universe created itself. When scientists refer to the big bag as the origin of the universe, they mean the origin of the current state of the universe, and not the creation of the fundamental elements of the universe. These elements existed as a singularity prior to the big slam. The origin of these elements remains unkown by science which can only observe them change state.

gotizsata:

@justcool
illogical conclusion that the universe created itself

and it continues to expand before our very eyes. what do you mean,  .illogical.
what is logical to you?
Is it a god mating with a human to produce himself? I fail to see how you can make such an outlandish statement.
The back and forth, is not because we have not repeated told you and explained to you,  what would otherwise being obvious, and is, for some many people who decide to commit their brains, but because you adamantly refuse to get it.
Yet, that very science clothes you now, feeds you and treats you, and is what has made this forum of discussion possible. It is not basic on irrational dogma, it is designed along the same principles you choose to discredit now.

No we dont ridicule god, we just say it as it is. animals cant fit in the ark, they cant fit. do you want us to collude with you in this very elementary departure from logic.

If you say that you don't believe in the big slam because there is no adequate evidence, how can you possible believe in Abrahams God how can you possible be so picky when it comes to science, yet with religion you just take everything as is.

You cannot force a reason. thats how witchcraft thrives. We cannot make claims without evidence.
Even without the big slam, then we have nothing. We cannot possible claim that there is a force. We have 0 evidence to back that. And it cannot just exist because we feel it is right. We are not talking about feelings here.

Sharrap ! That's technology not science. Stop conflating the two.

plaetton:

Absurd? Yeah, it kinda sounds so, But, the notion of an invisible, unknown, self-created (??) entity creating the universe from nothing is Even More Absurd..
Don't you agree?

No. However, your comment reveals what I note in theist-atheist debates. It's like we are arguing who comes first - Nature or God.

plaetton:
Paspermia,directed panspermia,primordial soup. these words always seem to frighten thiests.
Yeah, we know where you are coming from.

They don't frighten me. You had better tell me what you mean by: "Yeah, we know where you are coming from."

thehomer:

I mentioned two processes that demonstrate my point. Yet you assert I mentioned none. I know that knowledge involves asking questions but the questions you're asking are so malformed and misinformed that answering them without you understanding the basics of what your questions are on wouldn't be helpful to you.

I know that. However, you refuse to mention other processes for no just cause, hence, my assumption. BTW, I did not assert you mentioned none. I assumed you had no other processess (aside from the ones given) to mention.  Read properly.

thehomer:
You've committed the use-mention fallacy. I'm not referring to the word "nature" but to the concept of nature.

so what ? Whether it's a word or a concept tell me how Nature selects ?

thehomer:
How does the book tell you the origin of life? Who says it was supposed to do that when from the title, once comes away with the idea that what is being spoken about is the origin of species.
You're deeply mistaken. Creationists do not accept the notion of natural selection. They claim God does the selection.
What does panspermia, clay world and primordial soup have to do with the theory of evolution? Again, the ignorance and stubbornness you're demonstrating does you no favours. Take the time to look up the theory of evolution.

All species are lifeforms. The bolded is another ignorant comment because they do. Read this and this. Oh, so they have nothing to do with the theory. So what is the section on abiogenesis doing in Wikipedia's Evolution page ? It seems your knowledge of evolution is based on Wikipedia and hearsay instead of reliable texts.