iNow

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?

Don't worry. It's nothing

And because it depends, I cannot answer your question. It is far from a simple question no matter how forcefully you assert otherwise.

NDE ≠ Death. I know it makes some fragile people uncomfortable, but death is not something from which people “heal” … in any manner and by definition. I guess it’s always easier to dodge the obvious than to answer it, isn't it?

More information needed. Mandatory for whom? Who’s mandating them? Under what conditions does the mandate apply? Are there exceptions? If so, who approves and confirms qualification for exception? What are the penalties for noncompliance? Which vaccine is being mandated? Who pays for them? Is a single does sufficient, or are booster shots mandatory, too?

If it’s nonexistent, there is no quantity. Like I said, absurd

Philosophy annoys me, at least the type of pseudo philosophy we generally see here at SFN. We’re too close to absurdism already for my taste. Define what you mean by “nothing” then work from that. Until then, we’ll spin endlessly in circles, especially since in a physics sense there’s ALWAYS something in that box, even if just probabilistically.

Temperature is a measure of movement. If there’s nothing in the box, then nothing is moving, and if nothing is moving there is no temperature by definition.

I reject the premise. Science is the ONLY process for accurately peeling away the layers of ignorance about our cosmos and it’s origins and we DO have explanatory hypotheses and even conclusions about these subjects. We don’t YET have answers to every question, but with each passing day our knowledge increases, gaps in understanding get filled, and the darkness gets better illuminated with realistic well founded insights, ones which thankfully crowd out the constant stream of inaccurate and amateurish human myths and fictions.

Always enjoy Sean Carroll.

No, there’s air. And subatomic particles. And vacuum fluctuations. Stop thinking of nothing in a philosophical sense and start realizing there’s ALWAYS something in your box. The thought experiment is more useful when realistic.