iNow

Perhaps it’s always been there ≠ Cannot be explained

No. Read again. I said EVEN IF I chose to concede this point, then your conclusion is still nonsequitur. My concession would offer no weight nor value to your conclusion that a supernatural explanation is the only valid one. Doesn’t matter what you call them. Call them Fred for all I care. My point stands independent of the label you choose to apply.

Sigh. I didn’t think this was a hard concept, but I’ll try again. Even if I stipulate that one cannot use material laws to explain their own origin, this adds nothing to the conclusion toward which you’ve leapt, the conclusion that supernatural explanations are the only valid ones. That is a baseless nonsequitur that gains no weight EVEN IF I concede to your line of questioning. EDIT: Lol. I x-posted with studiot who also began with a sigh 😂

And yet I did. Amazing! No, I am not. I am saying that neither the absence of some process nor the absence of possibility for a process are enough to make the logical leap you’re making toward a supernatural explanation. You need. It read anything more into it than that unless you are actively trying to misunderstand me? Perhaps it’s not the answer you’d prefer, but it IS an answer. Please stop with the No True Scotsman fallacy (and related other fallacies you keep ignoring when pointed out). By watching you repeatedly ignore the obvious flaws in your reasoning being pointed out to you. You also stipulated it yourself when saying this: And this: And this: What you have is a preference, one that pleases you psychologically, and that’s okay, but you do not have a valid conclusion based on logic as you keep claiming, and definitely not from logic itself rooted in questionable premises. Hope that helps. Any arguments I make are on the merits and don’t rely on appeals to authority or title.

There are two key factors under consideration here, IMO. One is the way our drive for more (resources, safety, security, food, shelter, convenience, etc.) has been selected evolutionarily. Those who did better proactively obtaining resources tended to reproduce more successfully than those who didn’t. The other is desensitization and how our baseline for what is and is not enough is relative. We get used to what we have, but the drive to obtain more doesn’t exactly go dormant even when we have enough. It takes training and mindfulness and conscious focus to overcome these underlying tendencies which are often operating within us without us even realizing it.

You seem to accept supernatural explanations for reasons of psychological comfort, not for reasons of logic. At least be honest with yourself and us about this.

TBH, I find your question rather moot. You could point to a billion challenges or gaps in the scientific understanding or approach. Not a single one of them would ever allow us to make a valid or logical jump to assuming supernatural cause. That’s nonsequitur, and IMO is a cop-out that should be below a mind as obviously sharp as yours.

If you have such gaps in your thinking about the simple things like this, it's difficult to trust you don't have similar gaps when asserting supernatural causes, themselves reliant on special pleading.

Nope. As should be clear to everyone including you, I was pointing out you were incorrect when describing the thread subject.

Since when are you the OP in this thread? Sloppy sloppy sloppy thinking abounds

Actually, right there in the title: The Schrödinger's cat thought experiment proves there is no God For someone so passionate about arguing on reason and logic, you sure seem to make a lot of remedial reasoning errors and overuse logical fallacies

I wonder if you realize nobody is engaging and this isn’t a blog

Not really. We all travel forward though time at the rate of one second per second within our local frame of reference. We just need our disruptive friend to ask smarter more focused questions.

Do you know what a nonsequiter is? Given the above, I’m assuming No.

Totally agree, now move along

Recommend trash can instead since it’s not really a speculation, but is instead a hijack asking other people their thoughts on time travel

Let me just quote you from earlier in this thread as my response:

Did I stutter again? It means you haven’t vanished the deep problems/questions. You’ve merely displaced them, but they very much still remain contrary to your assertions otherwise.

Right, and if you allow that God can come from nothing, why not the universe itself? Allowing the the universe to benefit from the same special pleading you're here allowing for your god(s) is the much simpler and more refined approach, one which is far less prone to be wrong. At the very least, by doing so you're eliminating the middle man, you're reducing the complexity of your perspective, and you are no longer pinning all of your hopes and attempts at explanation on weak human mythologies to fill the ever shrinking gaps in our understanding.

Neither is suggesting a supernatural agent Except for, where did god come from?

Nobody’s talking about predicting the future. You’re either moving the goal posts, introducing strawmen, or failing to comprehend what others are saying. It’s not “your” thesis. It’s the first cause thesis which has already been shown to be rather lacking. In the grounds that science DOES explain things and your position that the only way to understand the material (the natural) is to introduce a completely unfounded immaterial (supernatural) agent is absurd.

Fascinating that you care so much for rebuttal when you ignored the one already offered a page or 2 ago in the discussion. You assume ALL events MUST have a cause. Others here demonstrated that this assumption is AT BEST indeterminate right now. It cannot be stated as fact, only as supposition... an option... perhaps correct, but also perhaps wrong. Ergo, your entire house of cards has crumbled... But... you ignored it and keep asking for rebuttals so you can ignore those, too. Fascinating.

deleted Why you feel the need to attack such a rhetorical turn of phrase which is intended to convey a bigger point in a stylish way is a sign of our times, suggesting facts no longer matter, only emotions.

And yet, that's pretty clearly NOT what Beecee means. Perhaps you misspelled misinformed?

So, you’re making a judgement about whether or not he’s a scientist based solely on the nonscientific aspects of his career? Lol. Time to adding sampling error and confirmation bias to your list of fallacies. 😂 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Teaching