The Law of Cause and Effect.

[shunyadragon]

So, for example, time itself does not 'come into existence'. There is no time when time doesn't exist and a later time when it does.

Now, your assumption is that there was a time when matter and energy did not exist. That is almost certainly wrong. Even those physical theories that have the universe coming out of 'nothing' actually have a 'vacuum' state with energy. That energy is conserved in the development of the universe, but energy existed whenever time did.

A little incomplete, misleading, and needs clarification. Time did not necessarily always exist when energy existed, In the scientific view of the Quantum World, Quantum zero point energy is essentially timeless. In what we presently know of the the origins of our universe, the common hypothesis is time began with the expansion of the singularity and the formation of our universe as we know it. There is a relationship between time, energy and matter in this concept of the origins of our universe,

 

[Polymath257]

This discussion has become circular, thus meaningless. I enjoyed it but now it is a waste of time. You have a + day.

So, you are going to run away from the core question of causality? What does it *mean* to say that something 'comes into existence'? How is my criterion NOT a valid way to read that phrase?

 

[Willamena]

That's not a relationship, but a categorization.

Just so.

 

[Skwim]

Just so.

????

.

 

[Thief]

This is an outdated assumption, and not verifiable by objective evidence. The Quantum World is not linear.

There is no objective verifiable evidence that 'anything' is required for motion to take hold, Maybe in the distant past of the Newtonian physics they believed this, but in today's science.

how about we deal with that part of the universe ......we have to deal with?

motion is linear

so are you

 

[Thief]

Too simplistic to reflect anything close to the research, theories and hypothesis of the science of abiogenesis over the past 50+ years.

Simple 'hand waves' do not represent a coherent argument.

and God created Man by a wave of His hand?

the garden event is displayed as a science experiment

 

[gnostic]

and God created Man by a wave of His hand?

the garden event is displayed as a science experiment

That's based solely on your assumptions and belief.

And you have no evidences that god existing, nor that he has a "hand" to wave with, to create man.

And you have no evidences that Eden existing in the real world.

With no evidences for any of your claims in that reply, so what does lead you to?

For me, it say that Genesis is nothing more than a myth...and the waving of hand is just your contribution to a myth.

 

[Thief]

That's based solely on your assumptions and belief.

And you have no evidences that god existing, nor that he has a "hand" to wave with, to create man.

And you have no evidences that Eden existing in the real world.

With no evidences for any of your claims in that reply, so what does lead you to?

For me, it say that Genesis is nothing more than a myth...and the waving of hand is just your contribution to a myth.

you can't seem to read any of my posts with your mind engaged

go back and try again
Genesis and the garden event is written as display of an experiment

 

[shunyadragon]

and God created Man by a wave of His hand?

Fortunately your not God

the garden event is displayed as a science experiment

The Garden event is a Babylonian myth compiled into Genesis at some time after 600 BCE, along with many literature, stories and myths from Babylonian, Ugarit, and Canaanite literature. There is no known Old Testament literature older than the Dead Sea scrolls, except the silver scroll dated 600 BCE.

The Hebrew language as it appears in the Torah

 

[gnostic]

you can't seem to read any of my posts with your mind engaged

go back and try again
Genesis and the garden event is written as display of an experiment

But you don't understand science, nor do you comprehend why scientists do science experiments.

Experiments are used to determine if the given statement (eg in a hypothesis or theory) is true or false. The conclusion are only if number of experiments have been done, tallying up which were "success" and which were "failure". These are test results are evidences for the experiments done. Even does tests that failed, in itself, are evidences that the given statement is wrong.

Creation of living adult male human from dust, is impossible, unless you think supernatural magic is possible. That's not experiment and is not "natural", but it is a belief in superstition.

You still can't seem to grasp that magic, miracle and divine creation are all supernatural, meaning "not natural".

You have said it yourself, he created man with "wave of His hand", so Man just poof into existence with some hand waving. I wouldn't call that an experiment.

 

[shunyadragon]

you can't seem to read any of my posts with your mind engaged

go back and try again
Genesis and the garden event is written as display of an experiment

To add, your one liners are "hand waves." not definitely equated with God, are not meaningful nor a coherent argument beyond simple assertions of belief, and definitely not based on any objective evidence that would have constructive value in a discussion. .

 

[omega2xx]

It is of limited value and only convincing to those that agree with the fallible human presupposition,


Pasture prove is a very simple way that spontaneous generation---life from death is not possible. Miller Urey proed that man can't produce life even using organic material tha had the element so life.

Neither is true. Please cite actual academic sources that support and describe these assumptions independently of your imagination.[/QUOTE]

This discussion has become circular, thus meaningless. I enjoyed it but now it is a waste of time. You have a + day.

Too simplistic to reflect anything close to the research, theories and hypothesis of the science of abiogenesis over the past 50+ years.

Simple 'hand waves' do not represent a coherent argument.

No one is simply waving their hands. They are pointing out that man is not capable of creating life and he gets to start with the elements God gave us.

 

[omega2xx]

So, you are going to run away from the core question of causality? What does it *mean* to say that something 'comes into existence'? How is my criterion NOT a valid way to read that phrase?

Post some evidence instead of the usual evo rhetoric and I will return.

 

[shunyadragon]

No one is simply waving their hands. They are pointing out that man is not capable of creating life and he gets to start with the elements God gave us.

The issue has never been whether humans can create life.

I still and will always object to the misrepresentation and misuse of the work of scientists like Pasture, and Miller Urey for a religious anti-science agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

Post some evidence instead of the usual evo rhetoric and I will return.

You need a basic freshman college level course in Geology. There are volumes of research and evidence that consistently support the science of evolution. Your antiquated religious agenda based on ancient mythology has no basis in science.

 

[Polymath257]

Post some evidence instead of the usual evo rhetoric and I will return.

Once again, the issue isn't yet evidence. It is simple definition of terminology. What does it *mean* to say that something 'comes into existence'?

What it means *to me* is that there is one time when the thing does not exist and a later time when it does.

Do you agree with this?

 

[Thief]

Fortunately your not God


The Garden event is a Babylonian myth compiled into Genesis at some time after 600 BCE, along with many literature, stories and myths from Babylonian, Ugarit, and Canaanite literature. There is no known Old Testament literature older than the Dead Sea scrolls, except the silver scroll dated 600 BCE.

The Hebrew language as it appears in the Torah

i see nothing here of value to.....cause and effect

 

[Thief]

To add, your one liners are "hand waves." not definitely equated with God, are not meaningful nor a coherent argument beyond simple assertions of belief, and definitely not based on any objective evidence that would have constructive value in a discussion. .

and this does not take Go out of the picture

the universe is the effect

God is the Cause

btw.....the motion we see in stellar observation had a starting point
and the expansion would have been a simple and singular percussion wave
an expanding sphere of energy....hollow for the most part

but it would be the pinch and snap of God's fingers to have set the rotation
BEFORE the expansion begins

 

[Thief]

But you don't understand science, nor do you comprehend why scientists do science experiments.

.

incorrect assumption

and God can tweak His creation whenever He wants to
with a wave of His hand

 

[Polymath257]

OK, let's work with a specific example, the decay of a radioactive atom.

Let's be very specific and consider the decay of tritium (hydrogen-3). Tritium has a half-life of 12.32 years. That means that whatever macroscopic sample you start with, half of it will decay in 12.32 years. In another 12.32 years, half of what remains will decay (leaving 1/4 of the original). This process happens indefinitely (well, until the last atom decays).

Now, we ask if the decay of a specific tritium atom is caused. What does that mean?

Here is what we know:
1. All tritium atoms are essentially identical: there is nothing that distinguishes those atoms that decay now, versus those that decay in 12 years, or those that decay in 100 years.

This is true both observationally and theoretically.

2. Each atom has a probability of decay in any given time period. So, for a time period of 12.32 years, the probability is .5 (which is why half of a macroscopic same will decay in that time). The probability of decay in 24.64 years (two half lives) is .75. The probability of decay in one year is .0547.

Again, the probability is a well-defined thing for tritium atoms and depends on the composition of the nucleus of that atom (one proton and two neutrons).

So, from this, is the decay of a tritium atom 'caused'? If we cannot determine by any method when it will decay, if there is no difference between the atoms that decay now and those that decay in 100 years, in what sense is the decay 'caused'? Clearly the time of the decay event is not caused.

Discuss.