How can you believe in evolution?

[DaWoad]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Why can't everything have a cause?

I'm not saying it can't. I'm just saying that the overwhelming evidence suggests that it doesn't.

Just because humans want to rule divine agents out forever?

Yes, when Dirac formulated the rules of quantum mechanics, he was specifically thinking of how to write them to make them as against god as possible.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

[DaWoad]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Why can't everything have a cause?

I'm not saying it can't. I'm just saying that the overwhelming evidence suggests that it doesn't.

Just because humans want to rule divine agents out forever?

Yes, when Dirac formulated the rules of quantum mechanics, he was specifically thinking of how to write them to make them as against god as possible.

Which means as biased as you can claim creationism to be, quantum mechanics was just another version of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel? And of cause the overwhelming evidence doesn't mean anything if the possibility of a transcendent designer is left open, does it?

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

[DaWoad]

Why can't everything have a cause?

I'm not saying it can't. I'm just saying that the overwhelming evidence suggests that it doesn't.

Just because humans want to rule divine agents out forever?

Yes, when Dirac formulated the rules of quantum mechanics, he was specifically thinking of how to write them to make them as against god as possible.

Which means as biased as you can claim creationism to be, quantum mechanics was just another version of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel?

what?

[DaWoad]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

1- every time "god" has been claimed as a reason in the past it has been proven to be incorrect (or is, by the definition of god's role, impossible to prove or disprove)
2-That being said, nothing in the same way that nothing prevents Camels from being the cause of everything. It just mind bogglingly silly to assume that camels are the cause of everything (and from that you can infer whatever you want to about god).

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

1- every time "god" has been claimed as a reason in the past it has been proven to be incorrect (or is, by the definition of god's role, impossible to prove or disprove)
2-That being said, nothing in the same way that nothing prevents Camels from being the cause of everything. It just mind bogglingly silly to assume that camels are the cause of everything (and from that you can infer whatever you want to about god).

Of course you can assume that camels are the cause if they were at that particular location when something happened. Or do you believe in the transcendent camel?

[DaWoad]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

1- every time "god" has been claimed as a reason in the past it has been proven to be incorrect (or is, by the definition of god's role, impossible to prove or disprove)
2-That being said, nothing in the same way that nothing prevents Camels from being the cause of everything. It just mind bogglingly silly to assume that camels are the cause of everything (and from that you can infer whatever you want to about god).

Of course you can assume that camels are the cause if they were at that particular location when something happened. Or do you believe in the transcendent camel?

why do you keep twisting my words? I very specifically said "camels are the cause of everything" not "camels are the cause". and no I don't believe in a transcendent camel, I'm atheistic in regards to a transcendent camel and in regards to a christian, muslim, Jewish etc. etc. etc. god. What does that have to do with anything???

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

1- every time "god" has been claimed as a reason in the past it has been proven to be incorrect (or is, by the definition of god's role, impossible to prove or disprove)
2-That being said, nothing in the same way that nothing prevents Camels from being the cause of everything. It just mind bogglingly silly to assume that camels are the cause of everything (and from that you can infer whatever you want to about god).

Of course you can assume that camels are the cause if they were at that particular location when something happened. Or do you believe in the transcendent camel?

why do you keep twisting my words? I very specifically said "camels are the cause of everything" not "camels are the cause". and no I don't believe in a transcendent camel, I'm atheistic in regards to a transcendent camel and in regards to a christian, muslim, Jewish etc. etc. etc. god. What does that have to do with anything???

Okay, so camels are the cause of everything. Right. Now tell me your proof, given that camels are not transcendent, I'm sure that'll will be more easily tested than a transcendent being.

[DaWoad]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

1- every time "god" has been claimed as a reason in the past it has been proven to be incorrect (or is, by the definition of god's role, impossible to prove or disprove)
2-That being said, nothing in the same way that nothing prevents Camels from being the cause of everything. It just mind bogglingly silly to assume that camels are the cause of everything (and from that you can infer whatever you want to about god).

Of course you can assume that camels are the cause if they were at that particular location when something happened. Or do you believe in the transcendent camel?

why do you keep twisting my words? I very specifically said "camels are the cause of everything" not "camels are the cause". and no I don't believe in a transcendent camel, I'm atheistic in regards to a transcendent camel and in regards to a christian, muslim, Jewish etc. etc. etc. god. What does that have to do with anything???

Okay, so camels are the cause of everything. Right. Now tell me your proof, given that camels are not transcendent, I'm sure that'll will be more easily tested than a transcendent being.

oh no proof, this is about belief Give me your proof that Camels aren't the cause for everything.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

1- every time "god" has been claimed as a reason in the past it has been proven to be incorrect (or is, by the definition of god's role, impossible to prove or disprove)
2-That being said, nothing in the same way that nothing prevents Camels from being the cause of everything. It just mind bogglingly silly to assume that camels are the cause of everything (and from that you can infer whatever you want to about god).

Of course you can assume that camels are the cause if they were at that particular location when something happened. Or do you believe in the transcendent camel?

why do you keep twisting my words? I very specifically said "camels are the cause of everything" not "camels are the cause". and no I don't believe in a transcendent camel, I'm atheistic in regards to a transcendent camel and in regards to a christian, muslim, Jewish etc. etc. etc. god. What does that have to do with anything???

Okay, so camels are the cause of everything. Right. Now tell me your proof, given that camels are not transcendent, I'm sure that'll will be more easily tested than a transcendent being.

oh no proof, this is about belief Give me your proof that Camels aren't the cause for everything.

Camels are not rumoured to exist before the universe came into existence.

[DaWoad]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

1- every time "god" has been claimed as a reason in the past it has been proven to be incorrect (or is, by the definition of god's role, impossible to prove or disprove)
2-That being said, nothing in the same way that nothing prevents Camels from being the cause of everything. It just mind bogglingly silly to assume that camels are the cause of everything (and from that you can infer whatever you want to about god).

Of course you can assume that camels are the cause if they were at that particular location when something happened. Or do you believe in the transcendent camel?

why do you keep twisting my words? I very specifically said "camels are the cause of everything" not "camels are the cause". and no I don't believe in a transcendent camel, I'm atheistic in regards to a transcendent camel and in regards to a christian, muslim, Jewish etc. etc. etc. god. What does that have to do with anything???

Okay, so camels are the cause of everything. Right. Now tell me your proof, given that camels are not transcendent, I'm sure that'll will be more easily tested than a transcendent being.

oh no proof, this is about belief Give me your proof that Camels aren't the cause for everything.

Camels are not rumoured to exist before the universe came into existence.

wow what a massive threadjack. This has nada to do with the OP.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

1- every time "god" has been claimed as a reason in the past it has been proven to be incorrect (or is, by the definition of god's role, impossible to prove or disprove)
2-That being said, nothing in the same way that nothing prevents Camels from being the cause of everything. It just mind bogglingly silly to assume that camels are the cause of everything (and from that you can infer whatever you want to about god).

Of course you can assume that camels are the cause if they were at that particular location when something happened. Or do you believe in the transcendent camel?

why do you keep twisting my words? I very specifically said "camels are the cause of everything" not "camels are the cause". and no I don't believe in a transcendent camel, I'm atheistic in regards to a transcendent camel and in regards to a christian, muslim, Jewish etc. etc. etc. god. What does that have to do with anything???

Okay, so camels are the cause of everything. Right. Now tell me your proof, given that camels are not transcendent, I'm sure that'll will be more easily tested than a transcendent being.

oh no proof, this is about belief Give me your proof that Camels aren't the cause for everything.

Camels are not rumoured to exist before the universe came into existence.

wow what a massive threadjack. This has nada to do with the OP.

Well, it has something to do with the energy and matter thingy brought up by goodness knows who.

[DaWoad]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

1- every time "god" has been claimed as a reason in the past it has been proven to be incorrect (or is, by the definition of god's role, impossible to prove or disprove)
2-That being said, nothing in the same way that nothing prevents Camels from being the cause of everything. It just mind bogglingly silly to assume that camels are the cause of everything (and from that you can infer whatever you want to about god).

Of course you can assume that camels are the cause if they were at that particular location when something happened. Or do you believe in the transcendent camel?

why do you keep twisting my words? I very specifically said "camels are the cause of everything" not "camels are the cause". and no I don't believe in a transcendent camel, I'm atheistic in regards to a transcendent camel and in regards to a christian, muslim, Jewish etc. etc. etc. god. What does that have to do with anything???

Okay, so camels are the cause of everything. Right. Now tell me your proof, given that camels are not transcendent, I'm sure that'll will be more easily tested than a transcendent being.

oh no proof, this is about belief Give me your proof that Camels aren't the cause for everything.

Camels are not rumoured to exist before the universe came into existence.

wow what a massive threadjack. This has nada to do with the OP.

Well, it has something to do with the energy and matter thingy brought up by goodness knows who.

we're talking about camels as the prime mover. . . This doesn't have anything to do with anything :\. So either we start another thread or *cough* move on.

[Wikkiwallana]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

1- every time "god" has been claimed as a reason in the past it has been proven to be incorrect (or is, by the definition of god's role, impossible to prove or disprove)
2-That being said, nothing in the same way that nothing prevents Camels from being the cause of everything. It just mind bogglingly silly to assume that camels are the cause of everything (and from that you can infer whatever you want to about god).

Of course you can assume that camels are the cause if they were at that particular location when something happened. Or do you believe in the transcendent camel?

why do you keep twisting my words? I very specifically said "camels are the cause of everything" not "camels are the cause". and no I don't believe in a transcendent camel, I'm atheistic in regards to a transcendent camel and in regards to a christian, muslim, Jewish etc. etc. etc. god. What does that have to do with anything???

Okay, so camels are the cause of everything. Right. Now tell me your proof, given that camels are not transcendent, I'm sure that'll will be more easily tested than a transcendent being.

oh no proof, this is about belief Give me your proof that Camels aren't the cause for everything.

Camels are not rumoured to exist before the universe came into existence.

Rumors aren't scientific evidence. And you don't seem to grasp the concept of an analogy.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

1- every time "god" has been claimed as a reason in the past it has been proven to be incorrect (or is, by the definition of god's role, impossible to prove or disprove)
2-That being said, nothing in the same way that nothing prevents Camels from being the cause of everything. It just mind bogglingly silly to assume that camels are the cause of everything (and from that you can infer whatever you want to about god).

Of course you can assume that camels are the cause if they were at that particular location when something happened. Or do you believe in the transcendent camel?

why do you keep twisting my words? I very specifically said "camels are the cause of everything" not "camels are the cause". and no I don't believe in a transcendent camel, I'm atheistic in regards to a transcendent camel and in regards to a christian, muslim, Jewish etc. etc. etc. god. What does that have to do with anything???

Okay, so camels are the cause of everything. Right. Now tell me your proof, given that camels are not transcendent, I'm sure that'll will be more easily tested than a transcendent being.

oh no proof, this is about belief Give me your proof that Camels aren't the cause for everything.

Camels are not rumoured to exist before the universe came into existence.

wow what a massive threadjack. This has nada to do with the OP.

Well, it has something to do with the energy and matter thingy brought up by goodness knows who.

we're talking about camels as the prime mover. . . This doesn't have anything to do with anything :\. So either we start another thread or *cough* move on.

I believe this was started by something about the start of the universe, which could in turn be traced back to something about destroying matter?

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

1- every time "god" has been claimed as a reason in the past it has been proven to be incorrect (or is, by the definition of god's role, impossible to prove or disprove)
2-That being said, nothing in the same way that nothing prevents Camels from being the cause of everything. It just mind bogglingly silly to assume that camels are the cause of everything (and from that you can infer whatever you want to about god).

Of course you can assume that camels are the cause if they were at that particular location when something happened. Or do you believe in the transcendent camel?

why do you keep twisting my words? I very specifically said "camels are the cause of everything" not "camels are the cause". and no I don't believe in a transcendent camel, I'm atheistic in regards to a transcendent camel and in regards to a christian, muslim, Jewish etc. etc. etc. god. What does that have to do with anything???

Okay, so camels are the cause of everything. Right. Now tell me your proof, given that camels are not transcendent, I'm sure that'll will be more easily tested than a transcendent being.

oh no proof, this is about belief Give me your proof that Camels aren't the cause for everything.

Camels are not rumoured to exist before the universe came into existence.

Rumors aren't scientific evidence. And you don't seem to grasp the concept of an analogy.

The theory that something can happen without a cause is as scientific as a transcendent being too. Both are as possible, and the case for a deity stronger, since every action has an equal reaction, it would be safe then to suggest that reactions are caused by actions.At least in most cases, this is the explanation. So if a transcendent being comes in, energy coming into existence and vice-versa will be unified with other cases(it was caused by something).

[DaWoad]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

1- every time "god" has been claimed as a reason in the past it has been proven to be incorrect (or is, by the definition of god's role, impossible to prove or disprove)
2-That being said, nothing in the same way that nothing prevents Camels from being the cause of everything. It just mind bogglingly silly to assume that camels are the cause of everything (and from that you can infer whatever you want to about god).

Of course you can assume that camels are the cause if they were at that particular location when something happened. Or do you believe in the transcendent camel?

why do you keep twisting my words? I very specifically said "camels are the cause of everything" not "camels are the cause". and no I don't believe in a transcendent camel, I'm atheistic in regards to a transcendent camel and in regards to a christian, muslim, Jewish etc. etc. etc. god. What does that have to do with anything???

Okay, so camels are the cause of everything. Right. Now tell me your proof, given that camels are not transcendent, I'm sure that'll will be more easily tested than a transcendent being.

oh no proof, this is about belief Give me your proof that Camels aren't the cause for everything.

Camels are not rumoured to exist before the universe came into existence.

Rumors aren't scientific evidence. And you don't seem to grasp the concept of an analogy.

The theory that something can happen without a cause is as scientific as a transcendent being too. Both are as possible, and the case for a deity stronger, since every action has an equal reaction, it would be safe then to suggest that reactions are caused by actions.At least in most cases, this is the explanation. So if a transcendent being comes in, energy coming into existence and vice-versa will be unified with other cases(it was caused by something).

Except that there is real proof for a reaction with no cause that we can discern whereas there is utterly no proof for a prime mover and I already covered ALL the other issues with this argument before. Worse putting in a god to cover the gap in our knowledge simply dissuades people from finding out what the real mechanic is and delays progress as religion has done for bloody centuries.

[Harmless Ducklings]

Forty-nine pages is a bit too much to expect anyone to read before posting. I read about seven pages and just threw up my hands (or...wings, since I am a duckling.)

This isn't directly about evolution or why people believe that it explains the evidence. It is off topic.

Philosophers and scientists and religious folks all have different ways of explaining the weirdest thing possible... existence itself. It is a deep and mysterious subject and one that I think no one has ever come up with an explanation for that holds water. I'm not talking about the big bang or evolution here, just the fact of existence itself. It is so bizarre that when I think about it my mind boggles. How does anything exist? There was "nothing" and then "something"? Both seem impossible, but hey, it sure feels real.

Look, even if you died and found yourself in an afterlife and got to meet "God", how could you be sure that what you were experiencing wasn't an illusion made to keep you from ever knowing the final secrets of reality? That "God" wasn't a way to keep you from advancing farther down the road to understanding existence? I say that there is no final certainty for any concious being and there just can't be. That's part of the wierdness of existence.

It's a hard concept to live with and so most people find a simpler and less taxing way of explaining the unexplainable. Generally, most people rely on their conception of a 'creator being' who somehow existed before the universe(s) even though that really begs the question "where did that being come from?" and is a circular argument. It's a way of avoiding saying "nobody knows the truth of existence so believe THIS and shut up". The Big Bang Theory goes a long way toward explaining the physical universe we see but really doesn't address where the first example of existence came from. It relies on infinity to explain the never-ending aspect of time. It can't tell us where the spark came from originally. Infinity is not comprehendable by finite minds, I think.

Learning to live with the lack of certainty is hard. Believing what you are told without convincing evidence isn't a true solution. Still, I think it is more realistic to say that our existence is beyond understanding and shouldn't be the subject of argument. Try defining "nothing". Now try to explain that turning into something. Apparently it happened, but damn if I see how it is possible.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

1- every time "god" has been claimed as a reason in the past it has been proven to be incorrect (or is, by the definition of god's role, impossible to prove or disprove)
2-That being said, nothing in the same way that nothing prevents Camels from being the cause of everything. It just mind bogglingly silly to assume that camels are the cause of everything (and from that you can infer whatever you want to about god).

Of course you can assume that camels are the cause if they were at that particular location when something happened. Or do you believe in the transcendent camel?

why do you keep twisting my words? I very specifically said "camels are the cause of everything" not "camels are the cause". and no I don't believe in a transcendent camel, I'm atheistic in regards to a transcendent camel and in regards to a christian, muslim, Jewish etc. etc. etc. god. What does that have to do with anything???

Okay, so camels are the cause of everything. Right. Now tell me your proof, given that camels are not transcendent, I'm sure that'll will be more easily tested than a transcendent being.

oh no proof, this is about belief Give me your proof that Camels aren't the cause for everything.

Camels are not rumoured to exist before the universe came into existence.

Rumors aren't scientific evidence. And you don't seem to grasp the concept of an analogy.

The theory that something can happen without a cause is as scientific as a transcendent being too. Both are as possible, and the case for a deity stronger, since every action has an equal reaction, it would be safe then to suggest that reactions are caused by actions.At least in most cases, this is the explanation. So if a transcendent being comes in, energy coming into existence and vice-versa will be unified with other cases(it was caused by something).

Except that there is real proof for a reaction with no cause that we can discern whereas there is utterly no proof for a prime mover and I already covered ALL the other issues with this argument before. Worse putting in a god to cover the gap in our knowledge simply dissuades people from finding out what the real mechanic is and delays progress as religion has done for bloody centuries.

Well, I think some people want a "nothing" of the gaps. They want a "antitheism" of the gaps. They want evolution of the gaps.

[Karsol]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

1- every time "god" has been claimed as a reason in the past it has been proven to be incorrect (or is, by the definition of god's role, impossible to prove or disprove)
2-That being said, nothing in the same way that nothing prevents Camels from being the cause of everything. It just mind bogglingly silly to assume that camels are the cause of everything (and from that you can infer whatever you want to about god).

Of course you can assume that camels are the cause if they were at that particular location when something happened. Or do you believe in the transcendent camel?

why do you keep twisting my words? I very specifically said "camels are the cause of everything" not "camels are the cause". and no I don't believe in a transcendent camel, I'm atheistic in regards to a transcendent camel and in regards to a christian, muslim, Jewish etc. etc. etc. god. What does that have to do with anything???

Okay, so camels are the cause of everything. Right. Now tell me your proof, given that camels are not transcendent, I'm sure that'll will be more easily tested than a transcendent being.

oh no proof, this is about belief Give me your proof that Camels aren't the cause for everything.

Camels are not rumoured to exist before the universe came into existence.

Rumors aren't scientific evidence. And you don't seem to grasp the concept of an analogy.

The theory that something can happen without a cause is as scientific as a transcendent being too. Both are as possible, and the case for a deity stronger, since every action has an equal reaction, it would be safe then to suggest that reactions are caused by actions.At least in most cases, this is the explanation. So if a transcendent being comes in, energy coming into existence and vice-versa will be unified with other cases(it was caused by something).

Except that there is real proof for a reaction with no cause that we can discern whereas there is utterly no proof for a prime mover and I already covered ALL the other issues with this argument before. Worse putting in a god to cover the gap in our knowledge simply dissuades people from finding out what the real mechanic is and delays progress as religion has done for bloody centuries.

Well, I think some people want a "nothing" of the gaps. They want a "antitheism" of the gaps. They want evolution of the gaps.

Which is kinda hard, having tangible proof of the latter.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

1- every time "god" has been claimed as a reason in the past it has been proven to be incorrect (or is, by the definition of god's role, impossible to prove or disprove)
2-That being said, nothing in the same way that nothing prevents Camels from being the cause of everything. It just mind bogglingly silly to assume that camels are the cause of everything (and from that you can infer whatever you want to about god).

Of course you can assume that camels are the cause if they were at that particular location when something happened. Or do you believe in the transcendent camel?

why do you keep twisting my words? I very specifically said "camels are the cause of everything" not "camels are the cause". and no I don't believe in a transcendent camel, I'm atheistic in regards to a transcendent camel and in regards to a christian, muslim, Jewish etc. etc. etc. god. What does that have to do with anything???

Okay, so camels are the cause of everything. Right. Now tell me your proof, given that camels are not transcendent, I'm sure that'll will be more easily tested than a transcendent being.

oh no proof, this is about belief Give me your proof that Camels aren't the cause for everything.

Camels are not rumoured to exist before the universe came into existence.

Rumors aren't scientific evidence. And you don't seem to grasp the concept of an analogy.

The theory that something can happen without a cause is as scientific as a transcendent being too. Both are as possible, and the case for a deity stronger, since every action has an equal reaction, it would be safe then to suggest that reactions are caused by actions.At least in most cases, this is the explanation. So if a transcendent being comes in, energy coming into existence and vice-versa will be unified with other cases(it was caused by something).

Except that there is real proof for a reaction with no cause that we can discern whereas there is utterly no proof for a prime mover and I already covered ALL the other issues with this argument before. Worse putting in a god to cover the gap in our knowledge simply dissuades people from finding out what the real mechanic is and delays progress as religion has done for bloody centuries.

Well, I think some people want a "nothing" of the gaps. They want a "antitheism" of the gaps. They want evolution of the gaps.

Which is kinda hard, having tangible proof of the latter.

Oh, really? So you're saying that we came from a plant, and somehow managed to mutate into such complex systems, which are so developed for survival. Or that without a creator, atoms managed to come together, and proteins started developing into DNA.

[Karsol]

And if you ask me, it is not strange with a transcendent designer.

I just don't see the need, but oh well.

I thought everyone ought to know that every reaction needs to have an action first.

every reaction doesn't need an action first.

The wall will fall down even if everything else in existence had not been moving?

if nothing in existence was moving there would be no wall just a very tiny pile of particles.

now the "prime mover" argument is a poor one for three simple reasons
1- Quantum physics suggests that energy can come into existence where there was nothing before
2- One must either grant that a "prime mover" would have to have "always existed" (how does that work BTW? I mean god just always existed exactly the way he/she/it/w/e is right now? man he/she/it w/e must be Really bored) which leads (logically) to the assumption that anything can exists in perpetuity in which case no prime mover is needed.
3-Lack of evidence. There is evidence for the big bang occurring and a variety of scientific theories as to how that happened what there isn't is any evidence for a prime mover anywhere in the works.

Perhaps the very fact that you cannot find the cause of "energy appearing and disappearing" through the means of science and reason would be evidence, or at least could be interpreted as, the existence of a transcendent being who/which is not bound by the laws of nature in this world.

switching to god of the gaps? that's just weak. Yes I mean I could decide that because we have no understanding of the *coughs* mechanics of Quantum mechanics we could just say "it's god!" and leave it at that. Thing is it almost positively isn't. Just because we don't have an explanation for something right now doesn't suggest that there isn't one or that a "supernatural influence" is required . . .it just suggests that we don't have one right now. We (scientists not me personally . . .not my field) will keep working at it until we get one . . .which we almost certainly will. . . and then we'll move on to another of the gaps that you would like us to fill with God.

It sounds far better than "not everything needs a cause" of the gaps.

annnnd strawman. wonderful . . .didn't see that coming at all.
1) I never said "not everything needs a cause" I said "we don't know the mechanism for everything but we're working on it". I'm not suggesting we stop looking for causes, quite the reverse, I'm saying we need to keep looking for causes instead of shrugging and claiming *god did it*
2)no . . .no it doesn't. Any time in history that god has been used to fill a gap in knowledge it has taken a bloody age to get the church to admit they're wrong and has often slowed human progress drastically.

Pish posh, so there is a cause, is there not? Which means somebody's argument may be invalid in the near future(nothing to do with you).

*facepalm* no I very specifically said mechanism and only used cause after I'd specified (through the use of the word) that I was talking about cause in the sense of a "reason for which" rather than "God!"

What prevents God from being a reason?

1- every time "god" has been claimed as a reason in the past it has been proven to be incorrect (or is, by the definition of god's role, impossible to prove or disprove)
2-That being said, nothing in the same way that nothing prevents Camels from being the cause of everything. It just mind bogglingly silly to assume that camels are the cause of everything (and from that you can infer whatever you want to about god).

Of course you can assume that camels are the cause if they were at that particular location when something happened. Or do you believe in the transcendent camel?

why do you keep twisting my words? I very specifically said "camels are the cause of everything" not "camels are the cause". and no I don't believe in a transcendent camel, I'm atheistic in regards to a transcendent camel and in regards to a christian, muslim, Jewish etc. etc. etc. god. What does that have to do with anything???

Okay, so camels are the cause of everything. Right. Now tell me your proof, given that camels are not transcendent, I'm sure that'll will be more easily tested than a transcendent being.

oh no proof, this is about belief Give me your proof that Camels aren't the cause for everything.

Camels are not rumoured to exist before the universe came into existence.

Rumors aren't scientific evidence. And you don't seem to grasp the concept of an analogy.

The theory that something can happen without a cause is as scientific as a transcendent being too. Both are as possible, and the case for a deity stronger, since every action has an equal reaction, it would be safe then to suggest that reactions are caused by actions.At least in most cases, this is the explanation. So if a transcendent being comes in, energy coming into existence and vice-versa will be unified with other cases(it was caused by something).

Except that there is real proof for a reaction with no cause that we can discern whereas there is utterly no proof for a prime mover and I already covered ALL the other issues with this argument before. Worse putting in a god to cover the gap in our knowledge simply dissuades people from finding out what the real mechanic is and delays progress as religion has done for bloody centuries.

Well, I think some people want a "nothing" of the gaps. They want a "antitheism" of the gaps. They want evolution of the gaps.

Which is kinda hard, having tangible proof of the latter.

Oh, really? So you're saying that we came from a plant, and somehow managed to mutate into such complex systems, which are so developed for survival. Or that without a creator, atoms managed to come together, and proteins started developing into DNA.

There is no need to add further complexity, it is not logical.