Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk You should get some sleep. Maybe the question will make more sense to you when you are refreshed.
I'm not intersted in you or your persistent trolling of this forum with your increasingly lame statements and questions. You have been consigned to the lower echelons of forum credibility several weeks ago. I now regard you as at best, a plaything to help pass FMF's boredom.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk The universe couldn't have been expanding for ever. It must have had a beginning and requires a cause.
The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
1. There are alternatives to 'expanding forever' that do not require a beginning.
2. As Deepthought already told you (and you apparently ignored), not everything that has a beginning is known to require a cause. Merely repeating the claim doesn't make it true.
Originally posted by divegeester I'm not intersted in you or your persistent trolling of this forum with your increasingly lame statements and questions. You have been consigned to the lower echelons of forum credibility several weeks ago. I now regard you as at best, a plaything to help pass FMF's boredom.
FMF has groomed you well and educated you on how to avoid questions. He must be pleased.
Originally posted by twhitehead The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
1. There are alternatives to 'expanding forever' that do not require a beginning.
2. As Deepthought already told you (and you apparently ignored), not everything that has a beginning is known to require a cause. Merely repeating the claim doesn't make it true.
What is known to have a beginning and doesn't require a cause?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk The correct answer is C. If you only had partial knowledge there could possibly be gold on earth that you don't know about.
Not so. As I have already said, we have had this discussion before, and I explained why B is the answer. Why are you pretending that you have forgotten? Or is your memory really that short?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk What is known to have a beginning and doesn't require a cause?
Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. I never said that anything is known to have a beginning and not require a cause. I said that it is not known that everything that has a beginning requires a cause.
Depending on how you define 'beginning', nothing is known to have a beginning and thus nothing that has a beginning is known to require a cause. For other definitions of beginning for which known instances exist, there are examples that are not known to have causes (and Deepthought gave an example).
Certainly by the known laws of physics, events are not caused - only constrained.
Originally posted by twhitehead Not so. As I have already said, we have had this discussion before, and I explained why B is the answer. Why are you pretending that you have forgotten? Or is your memory really that short?
With only partial knowledge of the earth it means there is knowledge that you don't have. That knowledge could contain the whereabouts of gold, that may have formed through a process unknown to you. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this just proves that you are stubborn or have ego issues. Or both.
Originally posted by twhitehead Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. I never said that anything is known to have a beginning and not require a cause. I said that it is not known that everything that has a beginning requires a cause.
Depending on how you define 'beginning', nothing is known to have a beginning and thus nothing that has a beginning is known to require a ...[text shortened]... n example).
Certainly by the known laws of physics, events are not caused - only constrained.
All you need to do is give me is one example of something that is known to have a beginning and is known not to have a cause, and then you have proven my assumption wrong. Feel free to do so if you can.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk With only partial knowledge of the earth it means there is knowledge that you don't have. That knowledge could contain the whereabouts of gold,
Not necessarily. I could for example know the type and position of every single atom in China, but not know where the neutrinos are. I would have partial knowledge, but still know that there was no Gold.
The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this just proves that you are stubborn or have ego issues. Or both. No, it only proves that I am smarter than you, and that you have a terrible memory given that I explained this to you before.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk All you need to do is give me is one example of something that is known to have a beginning and is known not to have a cause, and then you have proven my assumption wrong. Feel free to do so if you can.
But I don't need to prove your assumption wrong. It is just an unfounded assumption. It is up to you to prove it right.
I can equally assume that nothing has a cause. You cannot prove me wrong.
Originally posted by twhitehead Not necessarily. I could for example know the type and position of every single atom in China, but not know where the neutrinos are. I would have partial knowledge, but still know that there was no Gold.
[b]The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this just proves that you are stubborn or have ego issues. Or both. No, it only proves that I am smarter than you, and that you have a terrible memory given that I explained this to you before.[/b]
Knowing the type and position of every single type of atom in China is tantamount to absolute knowledge. No one with the partial knowledge possessed by humans knows that.
Originally posted by twhitehead But I don't need to prove your assumption wrong. It is just an unfounded assumption. It is up to you to prove it right.
I can equally assume that nothing has a cause. You cannot prove me wrong.
All I have to do to prove you wrong is give you one example of something that has a cause. There are many examples of those.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk Knowing the type and position of every single type of atom in China is tantamount to absolute knowledge.
No, it isn't.
No one with the partial knowledge possessed by humans knows that. It is irrelevant whether or not an actual human is possessed of such knowledge. There is, after all, gold in China and we are only talking hypotheticals. It remains that case that only partial knowledge is necessary and the correct answer is B.
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk All I have to do to prove you wrong is give you one example of something that has a cause. There are many examples of those.
The existence of God
21 Sep '16 12:50
Back to Top