frank317:



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

What you Just said is like you saying the law of cause and effect does not make any sense.

butterflyleo you claim "the first cause" is an intelligent BEING how come he made a universe that is the way ours is,out of nine planets only one supports life,even the one that does which is earth witnesses so many natural disasters as a result of the imperfection of it design,but yet you claim that it was created by an intelligent being

Butterflyleo:


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

you are ignoring the fact that perfection is a probability in randomness. if you are to create a probability diagram of all the directions the creation of the universe could have taken, there would still be a result where all the right steps were taken. your deliberate calculation is one of the countless results of a random system.


the creation of intelligence in this random code shuffling 'magnet' is a possibility. the same way you can deliberately create a program that produces artificial intelligence.

you assume there is a purpose. there is no purpose in randomness.

Butterflyleo:


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.

See how you talk nonsense when you are intellectually challenged by a superior argument?

Let's proceed with a simple question.

IS THE UNIVERSE'S FUTURE INFINITE? CAN ENERGY IN THE UNIVERSE BE DESTROYED? WILL THERE ALWAYS BE SOMETHING?

vaxx:
just like how infinite regress is a position of ignorance, the hypothetical stand on uncause cause is a knowledge base position.

how do u call assumptions knowledge?

since its knowledge why has butterflylion failed to answer detailed questions based on this knowledge or can u help him out?

so since ur hypothetical stand on uncaused cause, can you tell ur if this uncaused cause is single or multiple? Can you confidently tell me that God (the direct cause of the universe based on this thread) was not caused by the real uncaused cause(s)?

your answer will be very much appreciated

superhumanist:



See how you talk nonsense when you are intellectually challenged by a superior argument?

Let's proceed with a simple question.

IS THE UNIVERSE'S FUTURE INFINITE? CAN ENERGY IN THE UNIVERSE BE DESTROYED? WILL THERE ALWAYS BE SOMETHING?

Did you just say superior argument?

These are the facts which you are obviously blind to (Mr superior argument)

1) Science says our universe has a beginning

2) Science says our universe came from a singularity

3) Our universe was not existing prior to this singularity

4) An immense energy impacted this singularity which caused the big bang and then our universe came about.

5)This energy was alien to our universe and was so immense, we cannot recreate it in our known universe.

Based on this, IS THE UNIVERSE INFINITE?

WAS THE ENERGY THAT IMPACTED THIS SINGULARITY A PART OF OUR UNIVERSE WHEN IT DID OR IT WAS FROM OUTSIDE OUR UNIVERSE.

frank317:


how do u call assumptions knowledge?

since its knowledge why has butterflylion failed to answer detailed questions based on this knowledge or can u help him out?

so since ur hypothetical stand on uncaused cause, can you tell ur if this uncaused cause is single or multiple? Can you confidently tell me that God (the direct cause of the universe based on this thread) was not caused by the real uncaused cause(s)?

your answer will be very much appreciated

it is not an assumption, it is from the position of knowledge. so the knowledge being true or false is base on human subjectivity. i face a similar question like this with a moniker named zahra, go thru the thread and post your question here... https://www.nairaland.com/4115579/why-there-something-rather-than

Gggg102:


you are ignoring the fact that perfection is a probability in randomness. if you are to create a probability diagram of all the directions the creation of the universe could have taken, there would still be a result where all the right steps were taken. your deliberate calculation is one of the countless results of a random system.


the creation of intelligence in this random code shuffling 'magnet' is a possibility. the same way you can deliberately create a program that produces artificial intelligence.

you assume there is a purpose. there is no purpose is randomness.

You are the one talking about randomness and not me. You are justifying it and not me.

Every single aspect of the universe must have been extremely lucky to have given us what we have today if probability could have brought about this perfection.

We are not just talking about rocks. We are talking about gases, the right amount of energy, particles, mass, exact direction, etc.

So you see, the probability of each one getting a perfect result out of randomness which then makes rhem work together in harmony is an impossibility and as such the laws of probability refutes you.

Butterflyleo:


You are the one talking about randomness and not me. You are justifying it and not me.

Every single aspect of the universe must have been extremely lucky to have given us what we have today if probability could have brought about this perfection.

We are not just talking about rocks. We are talking about gases, the right amount of energy, particles, mass, exact direction, etc.

So you see, the probability of each one getting a perfect result out of randomness which then makes rhem work together in harmony is an impossibility and as such the laws of probability refutes you.

yes extremely lucky.


it is not an impossibility. it is a probability although very negligible . still if given enough tries, it is realizable. the 'magnet' has all eternity to mix and match code. one of this codes would give rise to our universe eventually. others would create failed systems where each of these systems fail in their unique ways. (the probability of two systems failing at the exact point will be very negligible). there could also be other systems that succeed. these systems would also succeed in different ways(the probability of two systems succeeding the same way is also very negligible).

Gggg102:



yes extremely lucky.


it is not an impossibility. it is a probability although very negligible . still if given enough tries, it is realizable. the 'magnet' has all eternity to mix and match code. one of this codes would give rise to our universe eventually. others would create failed systems where each of these systems fail in their unique ways. (the probability of two systems failing at the exact point will be very negligible). there could also be other systems that succeed. these systems would also succeed in different ways(the probability of two systems succeeding the same way is also very negligible).

Like I said, the laws of probability refutes you. This is a simple law being applied by lotto outfits which ensure randomness can only generate randomness and not perfection. You cannot have 10billion unintelligent and random numbers all acting randomly and expect them to generate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 in perfect order. This is an impossibility as declared by the laws of probability .

The systems you claim succeed do not remain static in order to enable others catch up. They keep on with their random acts

I think we are done with this argument

Butterflyleo:


Like I said, the laws of probability refutes you. This is a simple law being applied by lotto outfits which ensure randomness can only generate randomness and not perfection. You cannot have 10billion unintelligent and random numbers all acting randomly and expect them to generate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 in perfect order. This is an impossibility as declared by the laws of probability .

The systems you claim succeed do not remain static in order to enable others catch up. They keep on with their random acts

I think we are done with this argument

if I had 10 billion random numbers and I pick 10 random numbers and I tell you that those numbers I picked where picked in the exact order I predicted. (by shooting first and calling whatever I hit the target). would you say it was impossible for someone who actually predicted before picking to be able to get this numbers.

Gggg102:



if I had 10 billion random numbers and I pick 10 random numbers and I tell you that those numbers I picked where picked in the exact order I predicted. (by shooting first and calling whatever I hit the target). would you say it was impossible for someone who actually predicted before picking to be able to get this numbers.

Now you are talking about a totally different thing. We are talking about unintelligence in this your randomness are we not?

How can you predict first when you are unintelligent and random?

Who picked the numbers? Unintelligence? Inanimate objects? Where and how did choice come Into play and how would an Inanimate object understand choice or the purpose behind it or even consider it?

Like I said, 10 billion unintelligent, random numbers cannot bring about perfection.

(In borrowing from a previous post, I might have modified the original in error!)



Are you just failing to recognise rules set by you? In either scenario, if permission is required, driver or soldier has no choice but to seek it. And if it means no shooting or driving is done, so be it. The stupidity of such as system where permission is sought ad infinitum is the sole reason we don't set things up that way and set a limit on how many permissions would be required.

However, op has set up such a system with his statement
"Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect", but which he wants to get out of by claiming, "except god". And the only evidence he has for such a claim is his say so! And this he calls scientific! Does he not understand that therefore means
some, and not the every that he claims? Oh, I guess his argument falls apart if he admits that!

Seriously, on that basis, I wonder why one should bother claiming god done it. He might as well claim he is the first permission, except we'd probably all say he's mad, has a demon in him, and crucify his black ass!

vaxx:
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 .

Butterflyleo:


Please stick to the OP or risk a ban for derailing. I am talking about scientific laws and arguments which support an intelligent purposeful origin or creator of the effect we see today and call our universe.

Ban me please. It would be much better than the torture you must be going through justifying this thread!

@butterflyleo

this happened to me some years back when I was in secondary school.

first I want to point out that I don't read the Bible to that extent I would know the number of chapters in each book. till now I am not good in arranging the books of the Bible in order talkless of knowing the number of chapters or verses in each book.

so, when I was in secondary school there was a teacher who came to ask my class to give him the part of the Bible that says 'now there shall therefore be no condemnation'.

the whole class got in a frantic search for the place where this statement appeared. I had never heard of the phrase beforehand. but I joined in the search because the person who found it would win money.

after searching without finding, I decided to make a shot at guessing so that I might get the money. I went to the teacher and told him romans 8:1. when he checked the Bible, I was correct.

now what is the probability that of all the verses in the new testament specifically from acts and the epistles that I mentioned the correct book, chapter and verse. add this to the possibility of me mentioning a chapter/verse that does not exist in the Bible. out of all the possibilities, I picked the correct one at first guess. what is the probability of that. it sounds impossible and yet it happened. I could have said something like colosians 5:4 only to find out it doesn't exist. how come it happened

budaatum:
(In borrowing from a previous post, I might have modified the original in error!)



Are you just failing to recognise rules set by you? In either scenario, if permission is required, driver or soldier has no choice but to seek it. And if it means no shooting or driving is done, so be it. The stupidity of such as system where permission is sought ad infinitum is the sole reason we don't set things up that way and set a limit on how many permissions would be required.

However, op has set up such a system with his statement
"Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect", but which he wants to get out of by claiming, "except god". And the only evidence he has for such a claim is his say so! And this he calls scientific! Does he not understand that therefore means
some, and not the every that he claims? Oh, I guess his argument falls apart if he admits that!

Seriously, on that basis, I wonder why one should bother claiming god done it. He might as well claim he is the first permission, except we'd probably all say he's mad, has a demon in him, and crucify his black ass!

o lawwd. you still cannot get it after simplifying it to the lowest minimum . i give up

Gggg102:
@butterflyleo

this happened to me some years back when I was in secondary school.

first I want to point out that I don't read the Bible to that extent I would know the number of chapters in each book. till now I am not good in arranging the books of the Bible in order talkless of knowing the number of chapters or verses in each book.

so, when I was in secondary school there was a teacher who came to ask my class to give him the part of the Bible that says 'now there shall therefore be no condemnation'.

the whole class got in a frantic search for the place where this statement appeared. I had never heard of the phrase beforehand. but I joined in the search because the person who found it would win money.

after searching without finding, I decided to make a shot at guessing so that I might get the money. I went to the teacher and told him romans 8:1. when he checked the Bible, I was correct.

now what is the probability that of all the verses in the new testament specifically from acts and the epistles that I mentioned the correct book, chapter and verse. add this to the possibility of me mentioning a chapter/verse that does not exist in the Bible. out of all the possibilities, I picked the correct one at first guess. what is the probability of that. it sounds impossible and yet it happened. I could have said something like colosians 5:4 only to find out it doesn't exist. how come it happened

Listen carefully so you do not lose your argument again as you are always doing .

Randomness in this context regarding the origin of the universe is not static. It never stopped at a point of usefulness for another random act to catch up to it when it found its own point of usefulness. They NEVER STOPPED being random and that is what we are talking about.

The universe according to you was as a result of billions of random acts all arriving at some purposeful point despite still acting randomly and independent of each other.

This is what the law of probability refutes.

You can only get something right if one probable act stops at the point of purpose and waits for another to catch up and that also waits for a third to catch up and so on. But per the origins of the universe which was UNENDING CHAOS this probability of success is null and void because who would determine purpose or function and cause a stop to the randomness in an unintelligent, random, inanimate environment? Is it the unintelligent, random and inanimate objects that would do this?

budaatum:

Ban me please. It would be much better than the torture you must be going through justifying this thread!

Its obvious you are struggling. No point struggling over something above your intelligence. You can also learn a lot by being quiet and reading

Butterflyleo:


Now you are talking about a totally different thing. We are talking about unintelligence in this your randomness are we not?

How can you predict first when you are unintelligent and random?

Who picked the numbers? Unintelligence? Inanimate objects? Where and how did choice come Into play and how would an Inanimate object understand choice or the purpose behind it or even consider it?

Like I said, 10 billion unintelligent, random numbers cannot bring about perfection.

the numbers came together randomly.

if out of ten billion numbers, 10 numbers are randomly strung together, the probability of the numbers being in perfect 1 to 10 sequence is the same as the probability of those numbers to be in any specific sequence that randomly arises.
e. g. the probability of getting 1 to 10 in the order 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8=9,10.
is1/1000000000)*(1/999999999)*(1/999999998)*(1/999999997)*(1/999999996)*(1/999999995)*(1/999999994)*(1/999999993)*(1/999999992)*(1/999999991).

after random combination, we could get the string of 53, 63244874, 8851476, 25, 621, 3215, 1004, 6213, 6332654, 842607. in this particular order. what is the probability of this particular string being formed by 10 random numbers? if you do the calculation, you get1/1000000000)*(1/999999999)*(1/999999998)*(1/999999997)*(1/999999996)*(1/999999995)*(1/999999994)*(1/999999993)*(1/999999992)*(1/999999991).

these numbers are random but the probability of getting this particular string of random numbers is the same as the probability of getting 1 to 10 in that particular order.

so we can actually get a perfect string of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. the same way we can get any specific random Strings that occurs since the probability is the same.

Gggg102:


the numbers came together randomly.

if out of ten billion numbers, 10 numbers are randomly strung together, the probability of the numbers being in perfect 1 to 10 sequence is the same as the probability of those numbers to be in any specific sequence that randomly arises.
e. g. the probability of getting 1 to 10 in the order 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8=9,10.
is1/1000000000)*(1/999999999)*(1/999999998)*(1/999999997)*(1/999999996)*(1/999999995)*(1/999999994)*(1/999999993)*(1/999999992)*(1/999999991).

after random combination, we could get the string of 53, 63244874, 8851476, 25, 621, 3215, 1004, 6213, 6332654, 842607. in this particular order. what is the probability of this particular string being formed by 10 random numbers? if you do the calculation, you get1/1000000000)*(1/999999999)*(1/999999998)*(1/999999997)*(1/999999996)*(1/999999995)*(1/999999994)*(1/999999993)*(1/999999992)*(1/999999991).

these numbers are random but the probability of getting this particular string of random numbers is the same as the probability of getting 1 to 10 in that particular order.

so we can actually get a perfect string of 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. the same way we can get any specific random Strings that occurs since the probability is the same.

I doubt you realise what perfection which you claimed is all about.

No random order could have caused our universe to exist. It took a perfection in a sequential order for this to occur. We are not talking about every random figure but a specific , chemical numerical order per reaction.


Again I believe we are done here

Gggg102 one thing you keep leaving out which nullifies your entire premise is that these random acts NEVER STOPPED FOR ANOTHER RANDOM ACT TO CATCH UP TO IT WHEN PURPOSE WAS CLEARLY DEFINED.

This is so because there was no intelligence IN YOUR RANDOMNESS and YOUR RANDOMNESS WAS INANIMATE and based on this, there was no way to determine direction, purpose, function, etc.

Like I said your entire argument refutes itself

Butterflyleo:


Listen carefully so you do not lose your argument again as you are always doing .

Randomness in this context regarding the origin of the universe is not static. It never stopped at a point of usefulness for another random act to catch up to it when it found its own point of usefulness. They NEVER STOPPED being random and that is what we are talking about.

The universe according to you was as a result of billions of random acts all arriving at some purposeful point despite still acting randomly and independent of each other.

This is what the law of probability refutes.

You can only get something right if one probable act stops at the point of purpose and waits for another to catch up and that also waits for a third to catch up and so on. But per the origins of the universe which was UNENDING CHAOS this probability of success is null and void because who would determine purpose or function and cause a stop to the randomness in an unintelligent, random, inanimate environment? Is it the unintelligent, random and inanimate objects that would do this?

when did I say anything about a random act stopping it's randomness at the perfect point so another random act would catch up?

nobody determined anything. the randomness became the universe by chance.

you say that each act has a point of purpose for it to be successful so there is a probability of each act to meet that point of purpose. when two acts meet, a point of the first act would meet a point in the second act.
the point of purpose in the first act could meet a useless point in the second, a point of purpose in the second act could meet a useless point in the first, a useless point in the first act could meet a useless point in the second, or a point of purpose in the first act could meet a point of purpose in the second act. the probability of all different points meeting are still there. it goes on and on for each random act.

there was a probability of this randomness coming together at just the right points and it happened giving rise to our universe.

a point of purpose did not stop it's randomness/wait for other points of purpose, they just met by chance. if they hadn't met, they would have continued their randomness and everything would have gone differently.

Gggg102:


when did I say anything about a random act stopping it's randomness at the perfect point so another random act would catch up?

nobody determined anything. the randomness became the universe by chance.

you say that each act has a point of purpose for it to be successful so there is a probability of each act to meet that point of purpose. when two acts meet, a point of the first act would meet a point in the second act.
the point of purpose in the first act could meet a useless point in the second, a point of purpose in the second act could meet a useless point in the first, a useless point in the first act could meet a useless point in the second, or a point of purpose in the first act could meet a point of purpose in the second act. the probability of all different points meeting are still there. it goes on and on for each random act.

there was a probability of this randomness coming together at just the right points and it happened giving rise to our universe.

a point of purpose did not stop it's randomness/wait for other points of purpose, they just met by chance. if they hadn't met, they would have continued their randomness and everything would have gone differently.

I really don't think we need to continue this your futile argument.

This is an extract from www.space.com

The universe was in chaos after the Big Bang kick-started the cosmos, a new study suggests.

While one might expect the explosion that began the universe to wreak some havoc, scientists mean something very specific when they refer to chaos. In a chaotic system, small changes can cause large-scale effects. A commonly cited example is the "butterfly effect" ? the idea that a butterfly beating its wing in Brazil can bring about a tornado in Texas.

While past studies have suggested chaos reigned during the infancy of our universe, the new research offers what scientists say is iron-clad argument for the case.

"The general result of this paper is that, contrary to what some previous studies have suggested, different observers would still agree about the chaotic nature of the universe," study leader Adilson Motter told SPACE.com. "Now we establish once and for all that it is chaotic."

As you can see CHAOS DID NOT BEGIN THE BIG BANG. CHAOS BEGAN AFTER THE BIG BANG and it never stopped.

What you are postulating is only possible if this chaotic randomness stopped for others to catch up to it.

I am done with you.

Butterflyleo:
Gggg102 one thing you keep leaving out which nullifies your entire premise is that these random acts NEVER STOPPED FOR ANOTHER RANDOM ACT TO CATCH UP TO IT WHEN PURPOSE WAS CLEARLY DEFINED.

This is so because there was no intelligence IN YOUR RANDOMNESS and YOUR RANDOMNESS WAS INANIMATE and based on this, there was no way to determine direction, purpose, function, etc.

Like I said your entire argument refutes itself

you love building strawmen.

where did I claim a random act stopped for another random act to catch up to it?

again the random acts just happened to meet each other at the points that would give rise to the universe as we know it. if they had not met, everything would have gone differently.

you are refuting your strawman.

like I said, the 'outside earth magnet' throws balls randomly, many of these randomly thrown balls land on the ground(their points of purpose do not meet) but eventually, a ball lands inside the cup on the ground(points of purpose meet) giving rise to our big bang and causing the universe.

Gggg102:


you love building strawmen.

where did I claim a random act stopped for another random act to catch up to it?

again the random acts just happened to meet each other at the points that would give rise to the universe as we know it. if they had not met, everything would have gone differently.

you are refuting your strawman.

like I said, the 'outside earth magnet' throws balls randomly, many of these randomly thrown balls land on the ground(their points of purpose do not meet) but eventually, a ball lands inside the cup on the ground(points of purpose meet) giving rise to our big bang and causing the universe.

Why do you like arguing ignorantly? I am trying to correct you and you keep being dense.

I already told you that the origin of the universe according to science came FROM A SINGULARITY and was not chaotic. Chaos only began AFTER the big bang.

Your throwing balls metaphorical jargon is focused on how the big bang occurred and this is what I have been telling you that wasn't chaotic but became so AFTER the big bang.

Why is this hard to understand?

Butterflyleo:


Why do you like arguing ignorantly? I am trying to correct you and you keep being dense.

I already told you that the origin of the universe according to science came FROM A SINGULARITY and was not chaotic. Chaos only began AFTER the big bang.

Your throwing balls metaphorical jargon is focused on how the big bang occurred and this is what I have been telling you that wasn't chaotic but became so AFTER the big bang.

Why is this hard to understand?

so what caused that singularity.

Gggg102:




so what caused that singularity.

Your eye is clear now abi?

That's the question you should be asking? Why would that alleged singularity bring about our universe and why did the immense energy needed to cause this singularity to react with a bang even impact it with just the right amount of energy needed for this to occur.

This energy source was not from our known universe since our universe was not existing as at then.

Butterflyleo:


I really don't think we need to continue this your futile argument.

This is an extract from www.space.com



As you can see CHAOS DID NOT BEGIN THE BIG BANG. CHAOS BEGAN AFTER THE BIG BANG and it never stopped.

What you are postulating is only possible if this chaotic randomness stopped for others to catch up to it.

I am done with you.

that's because scientist don't investigate before the big bang. time began with the big bang. the 'outside universe magnet' exists outside time and is before the big bang. it created singularities/threw balls (some successful(landed in the cup), most probably failed)

Gggg102:


that's because scientist don't investigate before the big bang. time began with the big bang. the 'outside universe magnet' exists outside time and is before the big bang. it created singularities/threw balls (some successful(landed in the cup), most probably failed)

Now you have crossed into the realm of science fiction. My OP does not deal with science fiction but is strictly on pure verifiable science.

You are now assuming!

Science clearly says that our universe began from a singularity which was impacted by an extraodinary amount of energy which is unknown and never seen before or after it. FULL STOP.

No randomness involved in this singularity and the energy which impacted it.

You are now desperately shooting blanks.

Butterflyleo:


Your eye is clear now abi?

That's the question you should be asking? Why would that alleged singularity bring about our universe and why did the immense energy needed to cause this singularity to react with a bang even impact it with just the right amount of energy needed for this to occur.

This energy source was not from our known universe since our universe was not existing as at then.

did the universe always exist in form of a singularity?

was this singularity&energy always existing?

if so does it mean that the universe always existed but in a different form. that would mean the universe is self existent but changes form.

Gggg102:


did the universe always exist in form of a singularity?

was this singularity&energy always existing?

if so does it mean that the universe always existed but in a different form. that would mean the universe is self existent but changes form.

The singularity was not the universe. The universe came from the singularity which did not act on its own but was impacted upon by an immense amount of energy.

Our known universe has not always existed. It has a beginning which you and all of the scientific community are aware of.

Once something is different then it is not the same thing. Its like saying a car engine has always existed but as a piece of iron.

Butterflyleo:


What you Just said is like you saying the law of cause and effect does not make any sense.

What has law of cause and effect got ro do with a causless cause that u have never tested no can u answer other detailed questions on?