Gggg102:






the chaos had an endpoint that determines the path the singularity will follow.

your dice throw has an endpoint that determines the number of moves you make.


the chaos/ dice throw is random but gives a specific result.

the specific result determines what happens to the singularity(universe)/how many moves you make.

vaxx:
.

Butterflyleo:


The yeast already had purpose before it was used. Your chaos had no purpose.

Dice does not know when it arrives at anything. You the thrower knows and decides for the dice based on what suites you and not the dice.

There is no perfect point for a dice. It stops when its spin ends because there is a limit of energy applied to it so it can also have a limit of spin. Our universe is still expanding which means that chaos should still be happening. After all chaos was also there at the beginning of the expansion.

So why did it stop at the point if order despite being mindless. Should mindlessness know when to stop?

Gggg102:





so yeast existed to make bread.


dice does not know it arrives at anything.
the 'magnet' does not know it arrives at anything.
but both of them still arrive at something through a random method.
it's their property.

the result of the random action acts as the cause of the next step in action.

the randomness arrives at a point that determines what happens next.

the yeast does not know it is in bread/ causing the bread to rise. the magnet does not know it does what it does.


1. the magnet causes chaos and randomness.

2. this randomness leads to an endpoint/creation of energy.

3. the nature of energy is dependent on the specific path the randomness follows.

4. the magnets 'throw' this energy out.

from here the work of the magnet is complete.

5. these energies reacts with singularities.
the result of this reaction is dependent on the nature of energy.

6. if the energy has the right properties, it creates a universe. according to how universes are created.(big bang). if the energy is not of the right properties, something else happens.


the magnet's chaos only creates and launches energy. it is the energy that determines what happens to the singularity.

e.g if the energy is immense enough, it causes the singularity to expand... bing bang theory... universe.

the big bang theory starts the story from when the energy interacts with the singularity.

the magnet is the story of the energy.

budaatum:

Are you trying to educate me on objectivity and subjectivity?

1. There is nothing objective about saying "Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria". There is no evidence to support it. It is at best, a subjective lie, as in, one made up by a subject, myself, with no external objective evidence to support it! He may be the president in the future, but my original statement intentionally included the word "current" because I know you have a tendency to shift ground as you did.

2. While the statement, "Buhari is the current evidence of Nigeria", can be, and is a statement that is made by a subject me, hence making it subjective, there is also objective evidence, the Attorney General, to corroborate it. So it is objectively true, currently.

3. I once proposed the further scrutiny of H2O, which you claimed required no further scrutiny, so who are you arguing with about not scrutinising things? Even further scrutiny of gods, be it Yahweh or Olodumare is acceptable to me because what may seem like absolute truth about them may turn out, and usually does turn out not to be true on further scrutiny. But before you go off on one again, I am not advocating an infinite regression of scrutiny! Once the Attorney General confirms who the current president is, there is no point in further seeking for who the current president is unless a different 'current' occurs, like say in the year 2030! And neither am I not advocating no scrutiny at all, of, and most especially where gods are concerned, as I have found they are usually used to fill the gap when people don't really know.

Ps. I ask not that you read my response to yours above, but read your own last response. I propose that while it may make sense to you, try reading it objectively, devoid of your subjective meaning, and tell me what you make of it. Do you think it can be understood as clearly as you may understand it?

Butterflyleo:
I have come again. I did a lot of thinking today and while in this state I decided to put down some very interesting scientific stuff that can be said to prove that there is a creator or a God as it were. I will be very brief so I appeal to you the reader to bear with me. If you are an atheist I would like you to disprove these three proofs of a creator God if you can.

Here are my proofs

Every known proof for the existence of God hangs upon the principle of causality. Thus, if this can be dismantled then my argument would collapse, but the operation of this principle is observed from common every day experiences. It can be stated like this: Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect.

1st proof. Proof from Movement





You want proof of God?

visit here: www.undergroundriseup..com

Nothing more to say

Ase

Love Sango

Movement in its strictest definition is best defined as the gradual process of becoming. For example, the world moves into another place in its orbit, an animal or a person or even a leaf moves from one place to another. This definition applies to any change be it gradual or be it instantaneous.

From the above definition it becomes rather obvious that the object must either itself possess power of movement or be moved by another or something else. The series of movers cannot be produced into an infinite number and motion cannot create itself. The cause which does move and has created for example the motion of the earth must itself be perfect and changeless or the problem is set up again. This immutable mover is an eternal Being called God,

2nd Proof. Argument from Final Causality

It is obvious in everything without intelligence that there is what architects and industrial designers called the ordering of structure to function. All the planning is the adaptation of a means to an end, the end in unintelligent things being hearing or seeing or being green coloured.
Only an intelligence can use means to gain an end, for the end must be known in the first place and the relationship of the means to the end clearly seen. This order we find in things requires a final ultimate cause or the problem is recreated. This final uncreated, uncaused and unplanned Cause is God.

3rd Proof. Gravity

Gravity according to its definition is the force that attracts a body towards the centre of the earth or towards any other physical body having mass.

We know that all the planets including the sun are said to have gravity which pull on each other in order to maintain an equilibrium and keep their orbits constant. How is this even possible if it came about by chance. For this feat to be possible it would require a lot of deliberate calculations and fine tuning in order for this balance to occur otherwise the earth would fall into the sun or collide with another planet eventually.

The earth is orbiting the sun at a speed of 110,000km an hour which is about 30km per second which is more than enough to break it free from the gravitational pull of the sun and send the earth falling through space due to a force known as centrifugal force.

Now let me do a quick analysis. The sun weighs about 330,000 times the weight of the earth and is about 1,300,000 times the size of the earth so in order for us to get the size of the sun we need 1.3million earths right? Good.

Now a space rocket needs to hit a velocity of about 8km per second which is its orbital velocity in order to break free from the earths gravitational pull and enter space and I believe that for us to get the size of the earth from a space rocket we would be needing billions of space rockets if not more. But something that small easily breaks free from the gravitational pull of the earth at just an orbital velocity speed of 8km per sec.

Why can't the earth which is just 1.3million times smaller than the sun and with an orbital velocity of 30km/sec be able to break free from the gravitational pull of the sun?

There is a huge difference between 30km/sec and 8km/sec. This means that the earth is orbiting the sun at about almost 100 times the speed of sound. This is bone jarring and evaporating speed of which the centripetal force cannot possibly compensate and would cause the centrifugal force to rip the earth loose as the pull would be more outward than the push inward.

All I just did was to show that chance does not have the power to make detailed calculated harmony like this so something or someone else with intention, purpose and a plan, deliberately set things up this way and set them moving.

What I just showed is an example of a deliberate scientific experiment with several elements deliberately brought into play of which none could happen without an external help or external initiation/initiator whom we call God.

The whole universe was a deliberate scientific experiment on a much larger scale than we are used to set in motion by God. Everything we witness in our small scale scientific experiments in the labs and which we deliberately cause and effect, are also seen on a much larger scale in our universe. There is no difference except in size.

There is an uncaused cause known as God who scientifically created this experiment known as our universe same way there is a scientist in a lab who deliberately created his experiment for reasons best known to him.

If you are not scientifically inclined you may not be able to follow my argument. So please those who are not scientifically minded should take several seats and not comment ignorantly.

Cc winner01, emmanystone, felixomor, hopefullandlord, superhumanist aka mumuhumanist, sonofthunder, sciencewatch etc

vaxx:
i must be realistic here, i need to educate on the two concept .... '' objectivity and subjectivity'' if not your perceptive will never change. objectivity falls under the scientific analysis to identify an object, measure, quantify or qualify for various parameters and confirm the result, which is a reality to the given circumstances, place and time while subjectivity falls under one’s personal impressions, feelings, views or opinions, rather than external decision.

vaxx:
It cannot be subjected to scientific analysis or observation and there is no way to confirm affirmatively or refer to any established norm in which we both work with.

vaxx:
I
CONCLUSIONS:-

Objectivity is based on science and Subjectivity is based on philosophical or personal opinion, but both moves towards “Realistic Truth”, subject to time, place & circumstances.

A glass half full is also half empty. The truth here is subject to the viewer. Objective is independent of subject.

Butterflyleo:


This is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long time. Smh

At the bolded who told you that energy plus singularity must birth a universe? Where did you pull that from? You said "according to how universes are created" if this was the case and truly how universes are created why not create one?

The work of this magnet is never complete because it is mindless chaos. It must keep throwing out energy since it does not know when to stop due to its mindlessness.

The reactions also do not know when to stop because they are also mindless chaos so have to keep rattling and popping around mindlessly.

Who or what determined when this chaotic mindlessness stopped at the point of harmonious purpose with our own earth?

The moon is apart from us. The sun is apart from us. They have nothing in common with the earth yet they cooperate with the earth by keeping its seasons constant and its weather temperature regulated and also sustain life on earth.

Why would this happen considering their lack of attachment to each other as mindless bodies? Why would the moon bother or the sun bother?

Why the harmony and the order and the gains to an end from this chaos and confusion?

Why and how did it now when to stop?

Chaotic mindlessness does not make choices
Chaotic mindlessness does not make decisions
Chaotic mindlessness only knows chaotic mindlessness and nothing else

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 the 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.

Butterflyleo:
So no atheist could refute the OP.

Gggg102:


your op is nonsense because it asks for scientific derivation of something before our universe. when science can't go before our universe because science started after the big bang.

Gggg102:



I got it from your explanation of the big bang theory.




I can't create a universe because according to you, this energy can never be recreated by us.


I never said it stopped throwing out energy.

it keeps throwing out energies and these other energies impact other singularities. this result of these other energies and singularities depends on the nature of energy. the energy that impacted our singularity has already caused the big bang that created our universe.
the magnet is still and always create and throw energies.


the reaction to this energy which is the big bang is what we see. and according to science, it hasn't stopped. the universe is still expanding. the reaction is still going on according to the effect of the big bang.

the chaotic mindlessness is the creation and throwing of energies by the magnet.

after that, the energies hit singularities and specific results happens depending on the nature of the energy.

the specific result of the energy that was thrown randomly and hit our singularity by chance, is the big bang and the universe that came after.

the chaotic mindlessness of the magnet does not continue into the universe. the chaotic mindlessness is outside the universe and creates energies. once an energy is created and thrown, the chaotic mindlessness does not have anything to do with the energy again. the energy is now on its own.
this energy impacted our singularity as in your quote and we got this result.

the chaotic mindlessness did not 'stop' when the universe was favourable. it was not involved with what happened after the energy it created hit our singularity. it kept on creating other energies outside our universe that could hit other singularities outside our universe.

the chaotic mindlessness only creates energies.
what those energies do is not influenced by the mindlessness.
after the chaotic mindlessness created the energy that hit our singularity and threw it, the chaotic mindlessness continued creating other energies. it can never stop creating energy. the energy it threw then continued on its path. the mindlessness was not involved in the energy hitting the singularity. it was not involved in the big bang that followed.

again the chaotic mindlessness has not and cannot stop creating energies. whatever happens to those energies/whatever those energies do is not influenced by the Mindlessness since it has thrown them out.


the sun and the moon do what they do because that is the result of the specific energy that impacted our singularity. that is the result of our big bang. they do not bother. if another energy had impacted our singularity, something completely different would have happened.


the harmony and order is because of the specific energy that impacted our singularity.


the chaotic mindlessness has never stopped and it will never stop. the chaotic mindlessness will keep creating and throwing energies outside our universe.

it does not make choices or decisions, it only creates and throws energies for eternity.

again the chaotic mindlessness did not create our universe, it created the energy that created our universe.

Gggg102:


your op is nonsense because it asks for scientific derivation of something before our universe. when science can't go before our universe because science started after the big bang.

Gggg102:


your op is nonsense because it asks for scientific derivation of something before our universe. when science can't go before our universe because science started after the big bang.

Butterflyleo:


My OP did not ask for scientific derivation of anything before the universe but simply used what is scientifically available today to explain how what we see today could not have come by chance and chaotic mindlessness.

If you understood it any other way then it is your fault not mine

Butterflyleo:




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.

Gggg102:



what is scientifically available today shows our universe began in chaos.

Butterflyleo:


You can go ahead and argue with

1) the law of cause and effect,

2) Argument from causality

3) Law of gravity.

These 3 arguments you have been unable to circumvent. Till you do, I will then pay attention to what you have to say.

Gggg102:


from motion .
the 'magnet' can cause movement as a result of its properties. just like actual magnets cause motion in ferrous metals.



1.) law of cause and effect.

the magnet caused the energy that started the big bang.


2.) from causality.
the 'magnet' is the first cause. it needs no cause because we can't have a problem of infinite regression.

3.) law of gravity.
you assume that existence of gravity is a deliberate act.
I say that the existence of gravity is a result of the nature of energy that caused the big bang. this energy was not created deliberately, it is one of countless energies of different natures created by the magnet.

if a different natured energy had impacted our singularity, there might have been no gravity.

that specific energy just happened to hit our singularity while other energies hit other singularities causing different effects.

Butterflyleo:


You call my OP nonsense because you obviously could not find a way around my 3 points and only based your arguments on assumptions and probabilities which my OP clearly refutes from which ever angle you came from.

Butterflyleo:


We are done here please. You are clutching at straws now.

There was never a metaphorical magnet or a real magnet in the beginning. All we know is that immense energy impacted a "singularity". This singularity scientists do not even know what it was or how it came about or what it contained.

Another huge assumption.

Please I advice that you stop being close minded and go and read and think along with your reading.

If you wish to keep bumping the thread by posting then feel free.

Gggg102:


I did not go round any point.

I put my own definition of a first cause that fits your argument.


the first cause causes motion,
a magnet can cause motion.

causality/cause and effect.

this magnet is the first cause.

the universe is an effect of one of the energies created by the magnet.

gravity.

the specific laws of gravity that is in our universe is a result of the specific energy that impacted our singularity.

if another energy had impacted it, everything would be different.

I showed the magnet can be the first cause.

Butterflyleo:


Please this discussion is over. You obviously do not know your science.

The mindlessness has stopped and the universe is cooling and not throwing out the immense energy which the first energy caused the singularity to produce as it inflated.

For billions of years there has been no new energy surge to indicate anything similar to the big bang has occurred.

Also the universe is slowing down. Why did it not continue to accelerate in mindlessness?

Let me explain something to you and this is the last thing I will say on this.

NO SCIENTIST KNOWS HOW THIS SINGULARITY BROUGHT ABOUT OUR UNIVERSE AFTER IT WAS IMPACTED BY ENERGY.

All they can say is that there was an inflation and then chaos.

Because they do not understand it they call it chaos.

This supposed chaos was controlled same way we have a controlled environment in the lab.

It did not go haywire but arrived at form, order, harmony and gains from an end. It did not continue in chaos but stopped at the point of order and has remained so for billions of years according to science.

It should be strange to you that for billions of years there has been no chaos in our universe bit simply order. Can chaos maintain this degree of calm in its mindlessness?

The sun and the moon could not have arrived at purpose which supports the purpose of the earth despite being independent of each other. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE.

3 drivers who are not told why they are driving and where they are driving to and yet given the whole universe as a space to drive in cannot arrive at purpose beneficial to each other considering rhw vastness of space. Its like 3 grains of sand discovering purpose for each other in the midst of chaos everywhere and they also trapped in this chaos and maintaining it yet they are all mindless and not alive.

If 3 grains of sand cannot achieve this then 3 planets which are also equivalent to grains of sand when put against the universe cannot achieve this also.

Thanks for your time. All you have been doing has been probabilities, assumptions, a lot of ifs and when you put all of that together against what we have today in our universe based on order, harmony, gains to an end, cooperation and purpose despite not being alive and independent of each other then it shows that you are not thinking far but wish to probably doggedly feed yourself a lie despite the overwhelming odds stacked against you.

I am done.

Gggg102:


you are the biggest assumption maker in this thread!!!
and a pretty good strawman builder too.

since when I started, I stated that the mindlessness that caused the big bang existed OUTSIDE the universe. hint; 'OUTSIDE UNIVERSE MAGNET'.


you kept attacking me saying mindlessness cannot stop even when I kept repeating the mindlessness never stopped. it goes on for eternity OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSE.
here you are now, claiming mindlessness has stopped.

again outside the universe. the energies are outside the universe. so there could be other bangs and stuff outside the universe.


'no scientist knows the source of the energy' then you assume an intelligent first cause.
now I equally assume my unintelligent first cause and you show me that. why don't you show it to yourself anytime you assume your intelligent first cause

'All they can say is that there was an inflation and then chaos.

Because they do not understand it they call it chaos.

This supposed chaos was controlled same way we have a controlled environment in the lab.'

biggest ASSUMPTION. all they can say is that there was chaos. and you butterflyleo knows better.

this supposed chaos was controlled. assssssuuuuuummmmmppppptttiioonnn

this has gigantic assumption written all over it. what makes you think it was controlled.
science shows it was chaos, but you know better right?
by assuming it was controlled, you are committing a snowman's fallacy to try to show chaos can't lead to order.

you: chaos can't lead to order.

science :the universe began from chaos and that led to the order we have today.

you: it wasn't really chaos, it was controlled.


it did not go haywire because it led to order.

which shows chaos led to order.

yes it can. our universe shows this.


the sun and the moon DID NOT arrive at purpose. they arrived at where they were. they could have arrived at any other point but by chance they arrived at this one. they did not arrive because of purpose, they do not have any purpose as they are now, you are assuming purpose for them based on your humancentric nature. same way you say the purpose of yeast is to make dough rise.
that's why all purpose you assume are those purpose that benefit you.

there are countless things going on in all parts of the universe. what are their purpose?

what is the purpose of volcanoes on other planets?

what is the purpose of other planets?
what is the purpose of distant lifeless galaxies?...

you keep assuming purpose. you are assume the whole universe exist just so there would be life on one negligible part of the universe.
if an intelligent first cause purpose was you, why is there a vast expanse of wasted universe?

since you are the purpose, why are there other things in existence that are no way related to you?

what then is the purpose of the majority of the universe?

but three drivers driving in space can still meet at a point by chance. they do not need to have a purpose of meeting before they meet.

still you assume purpose.


all you have done is to make assumption of purpose and intelligence behind our universe.

Butterflyleo:


You do not have to be dishonest in order to drive a point.

Your original position was that the balls was the cause and I corrected you that THROWING itself shows an effect as the balls did not throw themselves but you kept arguing. And I told you that the magnet itself did the throwing so was the cause of the balls and here you are now claiming YOU SHOWED the magnet to be the first cause.

Wow just wow.

The very foundation of your argument is flawed and broken.

1)The initial singularity was a singularity of seemingly infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and space-time of the Universe before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe.

That statement in bold shows uncertainty and lack of knowledge. If the singularity WAS THOUGHT to have contained INFINITE density, HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? IS THERE ANYTHING KNOWN TO MAN WHICH CAN CONTAIN INFINITE DENSITY?

The composition of the singularity is unknown but just guess work.

If this were to be a scientific experiment, we would need to first of all understand the element and its ability or component before we can draw a conclusion or be able to say what the outcome of the experiment would be.

2) The kind of energy that impacted this singularity is also unknown to scientists so how can they speculate based on both premises being flawed? Energy type UNKNOWN. Composition of singularity UNKNOWN yet they speak of outcome when they essentially do not even have any scientific working tool to refer to?

Any argument about our universe coming from a singularity is flawed from the start because the very beginning is an assumption so every other thing would be an assumption as well since there is no original definite data to support these assumptions with.

If I am wrong, can you tell me the definite composition of this singularity and also the kind of energy that impacted this singularity.

I want to learn.

Butterflyleo:


Ogbeni stop confusing yourself. The balls being thrown is the effect and as far as science is concerned, this effect has a beginning. Your balls are a time frame.

The cause is the metaphorical magnet who just goes around throwing balls as you claimed.

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

Butterflyleo:


The law of cause and effect and proof of movement

Butterflyleo:


THROWING of the ball is the effect

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.

Gggg102:



you are a BIG DISHONEST LIAR.

when did I say the ball was the cause.
my original position was that the magnet was the cause.

((("

the magnet throwing the ball is the cause.

the ball landing in the cup or wherever is the effect.

there is no time frame. the magnet always is throwing balls for eternity. no beginning and no end."
)))

((("

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."
)))

then you said my argument died immediately the magnet started throwing the ball then I asked how and this happened.

((("

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.)))






this was my original position. I told you the ball throwing was an ACT of the cause. but you kept claiming it was an effect. you made it an intermediate effect that acted as a cause for the big bang.

I never saw the balls as a cause/effect.

my original position = magnet throwing the ball as cause
bigbang as effect.
I was the one that kept insisting that magnet was cause and universe was effect.

you were transferring effect to the ball throwing. when I put magnet and ball together. if you have amnesia, go back to page five and six.



1.this whole topic is based on this scientific 'guesswork'. which even though it is unbeatable, works accurately enough for our universe. this 'guesswork' has come a long way and is still standing. it wasn't something someone just woke up and proposed.


now you are rejecting the big bang theory but will still run to it to show science says the universe had a beginning.

your entire 'universe certainly had a beginning' is based on big bang theory.

so the universe also having a beginning is an assumption.


also you can't play this card because I already claimed before that science only knows what happened AFTER the big bang because that's when science started.

they don't claim to know what exactly happened in the singularity and before.

2. again I already said that any claim outside science (about the big bang and the energy and everything else) is speculations.

this includes your intelligent first cause and my unintelligent first cause. they are both equally valid assumptions.

Gggg102(m): 10:15am On Apr 15


the ball is not an effect

Butterflyleo: 10:17am On Apr 15


throwing of the ball is the effect

Butterflyleo: 10:31am On April 15

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

Gggg102(m): 10:46am On Apr 15



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

Butterflyleo


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

Gggg102(m): 10:54am On Apr 15


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

Butterflyleo:


When an experiment is falsifiable what does it tell you?

Can you show me another universe which chaos caused to result into its present form from a singularity?

If you cannot then the biggest assumption bandit is you because

1 You do not know the source or kind of energy that impacted the singularity

2 You do not even know the composition of this singularity

3. You do not even know for sure if it was a singularity but they just threw it in since IT BEST suite the cause and not that it was what they actually have evidence for.

You cannot draw assumptions from a baseless speculation devoid o do you no longer believe in evidence?

I on the other hand have not said anything based on speculation. I presented my facts from the OP and you would do well to read it again.


From the start you said chaos preceded the big bang and I corrected you that it came AFTER and you have on 3 ocassions here posted my correction. WHY ARE YOU DEPOSIT DISHONEST?

You claimed chaos came before the big bang and I set you straight by showing you from www.space.com that it came AFTER the big bang. You were the one who drew me to what could have happened before the big bang. I originally never went there. Now you are dishonestly saying I was the one who did this?

Please this discussion is done. You can keep being close minded and dishonest.

Butterflyleo:


I do not wish to engage with a dishonest liar such as you so you can stop now.

I said


You said



And I said



Then I said





To which you answered and said

.

To which I said



You finally answered




You said the throwing of the balls was the cause and I insisted it was an effect from another cause which itself hand another cause.

Like I said I do not need this level of dishonesty and lies.

Your premise is faulty so your entire argument falls flat.

Butterflyleo:
Is there nobody who can refute the OP?

Gggg102:


your op is nonsense because it asks for scientific derivation of something before our universe. when science can't go before our universe because science started after the big bang.

Butterflyleo:
I

Every known proof for the existence of God hangs upon the principle of causality. Thus, if this can be dismantled then my argument would collapse, but the operation of this principle is observed from common every day experiences. It can be stated like this: Every effect has a cause and every cause has an effect.

1st proof. Proof from Movement

Movement in its strictest definition is best defined as the gradual process of becoming. For example, the world moves into another place in its orbit, an animal or a person or even a leaf moves from one place to another. This definition applies to any change be it gradual or be it instantaneous.

From the above definition it becomes rather obvious that the object must either itself possess power of movement or be moved by another or something else. The series of movers cannot be produced into an infinite number and motion cannot create itself. The cause which does move and has created for example the motion of the earth must itself be perfect and changeless or the problem is set up again. This immutable mover is an eternal Being called God,