Gggg102:


an effect of what?


the magnet caused the throwing.

the throwing is an act of the magnet.

the magnet= cause

the throwing/creating = act

the balls landing in the cup/universe = effect.

Ogbeni please help yourself and stop being ignorant.

To throw is an effect from something else. Once something is thrown it is caused by something else.

Immediately a thing leaves your hand it becomes an effect from a cause. That in turn can be a cause to another effect.

This is simple science

an inanimate first cause/creator makes more sense than an intelligent first cause/creator.

if the first cause was intelligent, it begs the question of what this first cause was doing before he created the universe. was he just hovering about doing nothing or...

if the creator is intelligent, all his work would be perfect. we should be able to witness numerous perfect universes or things like life on majority of planets or things like that. there is 100 percent chance of success.


an unintelligent creator makes more sense since its work is a result of random chance. the probability of success is very low. which a perfect universe is likely to happen once in an extremely large amount of tries. we would also know that it has always been creating for all eternity but an extremely tiny amount of its action resulting in something like our universe since that is the way it works. not just deciding after spending a lot of eternity doing nothing to create the universe.

Butterflyleo:


Ogbeni please help yourself and stop being ignorant.

To throw is an effect from something else. Once something is thrown it is caused by something else.

Immediately a thing leaves your hand it becomes an effect from a cause. That in turn can be a cause to another effect.

This is simple science

are you saying the throwing of the ball is an effect of the magnet throwing the ball?


even so, the 'magnet' is still the uncaused cause/first cause and my point hasn't changed.

Gggg102:


are you saying the throwing of the ball is an effect of the magnet throwing the ball?


even so, the 'magnet' is still the uncaused cause/first cause and my point hasn't changed.

Your argument died the moment you began throwing balls.

Gggg102:
an inanimate first cause/creator makes more sense than an intelligent first cause/creator.

if the first cause was intelligent, it begs the question of what this first cause was doing before he created the universe. was he just hovering about doing nothing or...

if the creator is intelligent, all his work would be perfect. we should be able to witness numerous perfect universes or things like life on majority of planets or things like that. there is 100 percent chance of success.


an unintelligent creator makes more sense since its work is a result of random chance. the probability of success is very low. which a perfect universe is likely to happen once in an extremely large amount of tries. we would also know that it has always been creating for all eternity but an extremely tiny amount of its action resulting in something like our universe since that is the way it works. not just deciding after spending a lot of eternity doing nothing to create the universe.

** face palm*

Butterflyleo:

Your argument died the moment you began throwing balls.

how

Gggg102:


how

The law of cause and effect and proof of movement

[quote author=budaatum post=66718877]

One can justify anything one wants if one tried hard enough. Some people justify blowing up those who don't believe what they believe, for instance, but not many would agree with their justification now, or would we?

justification in this sense is to establish one believes as a real knowledge instead of just some believe, but trying to justify real knowledge is absurd as it violate philosophy and scientific explanation, for example if proposition B justifies A, and proposition C justifies B, and proposition D justifies C, it is possible that this process may not possess a founding proposition that can justify the previous set of propositions and the process of justification will surely go on into infinity and in other not to be wounded, we settle at real knowledge.

The fact is that one's justifications can be based on one's subjective viewpoint, which basically amounts to "because I said so", and which is what butter is attempting to do on here. He is bound to hit against someone else's subjective "because I said so too", as he seems to have done. It is the reason we ask for evidence beyond "because I said sos"!

Even with objectively justification of Global warming, Donald trump subjectively dismissed it.This is an evidence of the parallel we have in our real knowledge. some people will justify the act of bombing those who do not believe what they believe while some people will found it absurd . it is all on the position of real knowledge.

Butterflyleo:


The law of cause and effect and proof of movement

still how?


1. law of cause and effect.

cause - the magnet threw the ball/the magnet acted/created.

effect - the universe exists.

2. proof of movement

the magnet caused all movement.

Gggg102:


still how?


1. law of cause and effect.

cause- the magnet threw the ball/the magnet acted/created.

effect- the universe exists.

2. movement

the magnet caused all movement.

Throwing the ball. THROW the effect from a cause which is motion.

This effect stipulates time . your argument for a metaphorical magnet is dead.

Butterflyleo:


Throwing the ball. THROW the effect from a cause which is motion.

This effect stipulates time . your argument for a metaphorical magnet is dead.

the ball is not an effect.

Gggg102:



the ball is not an effect.

THROWING of the ball is the effect

Butterflyleo:


THROWING of the ball is the effect

what exactly are you getting to?

if throwing the ball is an effect, the magnet caused it and still remains the first cause/uncaused cause. and the throwing of the balls led to the birth of the universe when the throw was accurate.

budaatum:

I do get your analogy vaxx, it just doesn't make sense.

You say I need permission from another driver who in turn needs permission from another driver till infinity. If that is the case, then we'd just have to keep asking permission from another driver till we give up and just find another means of getting to where we want to get to. And that will apply as long as we continue to need the permission of another driver.

If however, at some point of asking another driver, I can get tired of asking another driver and just jump in the car and drive it, then I mustn't have needed the permission in the first place and shouldn't have bothered with the rule to begin with.

So which is it, do I need any permissions to drive the car or could I just say "to hell with it", jump in the car and drive off?





What I'm saying is, write clearly so you can be understood!

Saying it does not make sense is a position of subjectivity which i agree, i my self found the analogy matured and logical. supposing we change the character of a car driver in that scenario to a solder in the military who depends on another commandant to fire or shoot, and this commandant also depend on another commandant till it goes to infinity, when we the solder shoot? in a hierarchical format, you cannot take decision on your own. you depend on another authority to give you a go ahead. but it will get to a stage where the authority in that position do not depend on any command, but assuming it is loose. how will that be possible?

in an organised settings, for example a bus terminal, the bus coach has an instruction to follow, the time she must live and when she must arrive, the speed at which she can move, the numbers of time she must stop on the way, the places she must stop for rest before reaching the main destination and likewise the weight of the overall luggage she must carry. etc. so she is under rules and instruction. so no coach can just jump into the bus and move when instructions is yet to be given.


ok i hope this one is clear enough, but if not, please let me know .

Gggg102:


what exactly are you getting to?

if throwing the ball is an effect, the magnet caused it and still remains the first cause/uncaused cause. and the throwing of the balls led to the birth of the universe when the throw was accurate.

You are clearly confused.

First you say the thrown balls were the cause and now you are saying they are the effect.

I originally told you that the THROWING of the ball was the effect which itself was a cause to another effect but since infinite regress is nullified we know there was a first uncaused cause.

You are actually now speaking in support of my original position.

However, the origin of the universe has never been said to have occurred after repeated attempts out of which one got it right. That is a talk meant for evolution and not the origin of life. Science postulates that life began from A SINGULARITY.

I just finished reading this thread again and I must say that the intellectual pounding that butterflyleo received at the hands of Gggg102 is impressive.



I don't know who this Gggg102 is but he/she deserves a cold bottle of origin for the calmness in dealing with Butterflyleo's sophistry.

superhumanist:
I just finished reading this thread again and I must say that the intellectual pounding that butterflyleo received at the hands of Gggg102 is impressive.



I don't know who this Gggg102 is but he/she deserves a cold bottle of origin for the calmness in dealing with Butterflyleo's sophistry.

Lmao you mean your confused friend?

Intellectual indeed. Only a mumu like you can see this "intellectual pounding" despite his many confusions and my corrections.

Can you list out this "intellectual pounding"?

Butterflyleo:


You are clearly confused.

First you say the thrown balls were the cause and now you are saying they are the effect.

I originally told you that the THROWING of the ball was the effect which itself was a cause to another effect but since infinite regress is nullified we know there was a first uncaused cause.

You are actually now speaking in support of my original position.

However, the origin of the universe has never been said to have occurred after repeated attempts out of which one got it right. That is a talk meant for evolution and not the origin of life. Science postulates that life began from A SINGULARITY.

Bro, infinite regress might even be the right answer. You are just giving a solution to a problem that might already have an answer.


We are in our universe. There is something in the universe. There will always be something in the universe. We could even say that the future f the universe is infinite.

Why cant the past be infinite?

There is also a proposed theory of cyclic universe that depicts the idea that universe undergoes endless cycles of expansion and cooling, each beginning with a “big bang” and ending in a “big crunch.

Butterflyleo:


You are clearly confused.

First you say the thrown balls were the cause and now you are saying they are the effect.

I originally told you that the THROWING of the ball was the effect which itself was a cause to another effect but since infinite regress is nullified we know there was a first uncaused cause.

You are actually now speaking in support of my original position.

However, the origin of the universe has never been said to have occurred after repeated attempts out of which one got it right. That is a talk meant for evolution and not the origin of life. Science postulates that life began from A SINGULARITY.

your word in bold was my original position.

I wasn't looking at the throwing of the ball relative to the magnet, I put the throwing of the ball and the magnet together as the cause of the universe which is the effect this topic is about. the magnet and the balls thrown caused an effect which is the universe. the only effect I was pointing towards was the universe. you were the one who split the magnet and the ball throwing.

how would you know if it took a singular attempt. that singularity could be one of many singularities that could have been in a different universe that could have been.

superhumanist:



Bro, infinite regress might even be the right answer. You are just giving a solution to a problem that might already have an answer.


We are in our universe. There is something in the universe. There will always be something in the universe. We could even say that the future f the universe is infinite.

Why cant the past be infinite?

There is also a proposed theory of cyclic universe that depicts the idea that universe undergoes endless cycles of expansion and cooling, each beginning with a “big bang” and ending in a “big crunch.

What manner of ancient scientific knowledge do you possess? Scientists using the knowing of the
Cosmic Microwave Background radiation have been able to deduce that the universe has a beginning and here you are still talking about AN ETERNAL UNIVERSE despite how many times I have told you that your nonsense was debunked 50+ years ago.

What manner of nonsense is this?

Gggg102:



your word in bold was my original position.

I wasn't looking at the throwing of the ball relative to the magnet, I put the throwing of the ball and the magnet together as the cause of the universe which is the effect this topic is about. the magnet and the balls thrown caused an effect which is the universe. the only effect I was pointing towards was the universe. you were the one who split the magnet and the ball throwing.

how would you know if it took a singular attempt. that singularity could be one of many singularities that could have been in a different universe that could have been.

You cannot put them together. The moment THROWING came into play it became an effect from a cause.

Butterflyleo:


You cannot put them together. The moment THROWING came into play it became an effect from a cause.

which is a cause of the effect we are discussing, the universe.

Gggg102:



which is a cause of the effect we are discussing, the universe.

Then that supports my position of an uncaused cause behind this effect since infinite regress isn't plausible

Butterflyleo:


Then that supports my position of an uncaused cause behind this effect since infinite regress isn't plausible

that's what I've been saying!!!

the 'outside universe magnet' is the uncaused cause.

Gggg102:



that's what I've been saying!!!

the 'outside universe magnet' is the uncaused cause.

And from the intelligent effect we can infer that the cause was intelligent.

Butterflyleo:


There is no such thing as an infinite regression because there are no infinite gods as it were and we all know that not all gods lay claim to creation. So where does infinite regression come into play?

Very disappointing reply

Butterflyleo:


And from the intelligent effect we can infer that the cause was intelligent.

nope.

1. simple observations like the common magnet, formation of snow flakes, arrangement of ions in a crystal lattice shows non-intelligent things can cause a form of order.

2. every living thing including the ones possessing intelligence is basically made of the same unintelligent building blocks. so intelligence can come from non intelligence.

3. if I know how to create an Android capable of intelligence and I want to mass produce this Androids, I could build a factory and create machines with a program of every step involved in the making of the androids. these machines would be unintelligent, but the androids they produce would be intelligent. the machines in the factory do not know what they are doing, they are only carrying out a program. they are not conscious.

the 'outside universe magnet' is a form of this factory, only that it has various random programs that combine and recombine randomly. it already has this program in it to create or try to create. it throws the balls in various angles and different forces. if it eventually acquires the perfect combination of programs, (perfect angle and force to throw the ball), it would act like the factory in 3 and create a perfect universe(the ball enters the cup). the 'magnet' doesn't know it is mixing and shuffling programs, it doesn't know it is trying to create, it isn't conscious but it keeps doing it because that is its nature, that's what it does.

Butterflyleo:


What manner of ancient scientific knowledge do you possess? Scientists using the knowing of the
Cosmic Microwave Background radiation have been able to deduce that the universe has a beginning and here you are still talking about AN ETERNAL UNIVERSE despite how many times I have told you that your nonsense was debunked 50+ years ago.

What manner of nonsense is this?

The energy in our universe is eternal. It will never be destroyed. An eternal universe is a fact.

You are just too dishonest to consider that the past of the universe too is endless.


Furthermore, the universe has no true beginning. What proof does anyone have that the cause of the big bang isn't part of our universe?

The cyclical universe theory points out a flaw in thinking that the universe just started with the big bang.

Butterflyleo:


I only saw one thing in all you wrote and that has also been scientifically nullified. That is that you assume the universe is eternal. This was why I told you that your position is 50yrs old and has been nullified 50yrs ago also.

The universe is not eternal. An uncaused cause is what is said to be eternal and the universe has a beginning.

Awwww... this makes no sense bro... I wish u actually responded to my questions in detail.

Gggg102:


nope.

1. simple observations like the common magnet, formation of snow flakes, arrangement of ions in a crystal lattice shows non-intelligent things can cause a form of order.

2. every living thing including the ones possessing intelligence is basically made of the same unintelligent building blocks. so intelligence can come from non intelligence.

3. if I know how to create an Android capable of intelligence and I want to mass produce this Androids, I could build a factory and create machines with a program of every step involved in the making of the androids. these machines would be unintelligent, but the androids they produce would be intelligent. the machines in the factory do not know what they are doing, they are only carrying out a program. they are not conscious.

the 'outside universe magnet' is a form of this factory, only that it has various random programs that combine and recombine randomly. it already has this program in it to create or try to create. it throws the balls in various angles and different forces. if it eventually acquires the perfect combination of programs, (perfect angle and force to throw the ball), it would act like the factory in 3 and create a perfect universe(the ball enters the cup). the 'magnet' doesn't know it is mixing and shuffling programs, it doesn't know it is trying to create, it isn't conscious but it keeps doing it because that is its nature, that's what it does.

You are confusing yourself. You are making a supposition. The law of cause and effect still refutes you.

We are talking about the origin of life and not snowflakes which came as a result of another cause which itself was caused.

There is no perfection in randomness. Perfection only comes through a deliberate calculation.

If unibtelligence is ignorant of its actions it can never create intelligence as an end product and then have this intelligence to become conscious of itself to arrive at purpose and a continuous intelligent drift in same purposeful direction.

Your argument refutes itself

NPComplete:


Very disappointing reply

Very disappointing intelligence

superhumanist:



The energy in our universe is eternal. It will never be destroyed. An eternal universe is a fact.

You are just too dishonest to consider that the past of the universe too is endless.


Furthermore, the universe has no true beginning. What proof does anyone have that the cause of the big bang isn't part of our universe?

The cyclical universe theory points out a flaw in thinking that the universe just started with the big bang.

An eternal universe is not a fact. Where you are spewing this nonsense from is best known to you.

The big bang began when intense energy which is unknown to man and not ever seen in our known universe was impacted on this singularity. Thus the big bang was done and this was THE BEGINNING as science clearly stipulated regarding the origin of the universe.

This energy can never be recreated by us so is regarded as alien to us.