iNow

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

At least you’re consistent with your prolific use of logical fallacies. This time it’s the No True Scotsman fallacy, I see.

Not necessarily. Unless you can very clearly explain that cause, then the underlying cause of radioactive decay is best described as presently unknown. It is that unknown status which immediately renders moot our friends core premise that “everything has a cause.” We’ve highlighted at least one example where that assertion cannot be validated. We can only correctly say that the cause of radioactive decay (and other phenomena like virtual particles) is indeterminate… unless, of course, we’re willing to treat assumptions as facts, but I suspect neither of us are onboard with that… and that indeterminate status strikes directly against the validity of the premise which is central to his entire house of cards. And that’s before we get to the composition fallacy and special pleading and related other logical fallacies he applies to the supernatural.

@exchemist is radioactive decay (or similar vacuum field fluctuations) what you had in mind? Either way, Holmes has suggested it’s impossible for something to lack cause (then with an abundant lack of self-awareness hypocritically asserts next that supernatural explanations don’t require causes), but to prove him wrong we don’t need examples of uncaused events, only a demonstration that they are possible. The possibility alone refutes his specious reasoning.

So, you’re incredulous? Lol

Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy and will only ever be correct by accident. It seems clear you cannot provide examples of paradoxes and are just evading the actual request. Then what produced God? Merely repeating an invalid claim doesn’t magically render it true.

You’ve answered your own question, then:

See post, from me, immediately preceding yours If there is, then it really needs to be called the HiLAWnder Depends on what you mean by exist

TBH, you’ve not offered me any good reasons to care what you think

Correction: YOUR position is that a paradox is created using naturalistic explanations for the origin of the universe. YOUR position is that this paradox is only resolved by invoking supernatural conjectures. MY position is that this resolves nothing. It merely displaces the same question and leaves it equally unanswered, only THIS time with a bunch of pseudo woo woo horseshit in the middle

If you accept that no cause is needed to explain the supernatural, why not remove your fictional narrative (which adds nothing but complexity) and accept that perhaps no cause is needed to explain the natural? I understand you just fine, but you’re making silly and specious arguments that rational thinkers should dismiss as the nonsense they are. False, and ignorant too

You’ve resolved nothing, merely displaced it. You’re now left with the need to explain the origin of the supernatural. It’s turtles all the way down.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Did I stutter?

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You can infer anything you want. It’ll never rise above the specious foundation of being just your opinion, supported by nothing more than personal faith and personal preference.

Why not? Are those not things?