A logical, simple truth with profound meaning

[dblack]

The infinite regression stops at the laws of nature.

What does that even mean? You said infinite regression was illogical. How?

I just showed you how there can be no infinite regression because the laws of nature are eternal.

No. You just made that claim. No logic involved.

Infinite regression is illogical because every effect did not have a cause because there is no first cause. It’s turtles all the way down.

Turtles. Got it.

 

[ding]

The infinite regression stops at the laws of nature.

What does that even mean? You said infinite regression was illogical. How?

I just showed you how there can be no infinite regression because the laws of nature are eternal.

No. You just made that claim. No logic involved.

Infinite regression is illogical because every effect did not have a cause because there is no first cause. It’s turtles all the way down.

Turtles. Got it.

No. Science makes that claim.

The turtles all the way down is a reference to A Brief History of Time. It’s classic.

 

[ding]

Tell it to CERN.

They call it a theory. You think it’s fact.

I think you can't explain red shift and cosmic background radiation without the universe being created out of nothing 14 billion years ago.

I know what they are and have nothing to do with what we can't yet see.

If you know what they are then how do you explain what they tell us?

They tell us that right now, the universe is expanding. And the background radiation shows that our universe began with an explosive event, or so the theory goes. But neither say what the initial moment was, we can't yet see back that far.

Yes, they tell us that the universe was created.

 

[Taz]

They call it a theory. You think it’s fact.

I think you can't explain red shift and cosmic background radiation without the universe being created out of nothing 14 billion years ago.

I know what they are and have nothing to do with what we can't yet see.

If you know what they are then how do you explain what they tell us?

They tell us that right now, the universe is expanding. And the background radiation shows that our universe began with an explosive event, or so the theory goes. But neither say what the initial moment was, we can't yet see back that far.

Yes, they tell us that the universe was created.

Not by an invisible being they don’t.

 

[dblack]

The infinite regression stops at the laws of nature.

What does that even mean? You said infinite regression was illogical. How?

I just showed you how there can be no infinite regression because the laws of nature are eternal.

No. You just made that claim. No logic involved.

Infinite regression is illogical because every effect did not have a cause because there is no first cause. It’s turtles all the way down.

Turtles. Got it.

No. Science makes that claim.

Do you have confirmed quote from "Science" on the matter? I've never heard such a claim.

Regardless, you said it was illogical. Remember that? What about it is illogical?

 

[ding]

The infinite regression stops at the laws of nature.

What does that even mean? You said infinite regression was illogical. How?

I just showed you how there can be no infinite regression because the laws of nature are eternal.

No. You just made that claim. No logic involved.

Infinite regression is illogical because every effect did not have a cause because there is no first cause. It’s turtles all the way down.

Turtles. Got it.

No. Science makes that claim.

Do you have confirmed quote from "Science" on the matter? I've never heard such a claim.

Regardless, you said it was illogical. Remember that? What about it is illogical?

Yes, it’s called inflation theory.

Infinite regression is illogical because not every effect had a cause. There is no first cause. What about this did you not understand? Now let me flip it around, how is infinite regression logical?

 

[ding]

I think you can't explain red shift and cosmic background radiation without the universe being created out of nothing 14 billion years ago.

I know what they are and have nothing to do with what we can't yet see.

If you know what they are then how do you explain what they tell us?

They tell us that right now, the universe is expanding. And the background radiation shows that our universe began with an explosive event, or so the theory goes. But neither say what the initial moment was, we can't yet see back that far.

Yes, they tell us that the universe was created.

Not by an invisible being they don’t.

You don’t know that. You are agnostic.

 

[dblack]

What does that even mean? You said infinite regression was illogical. How?

I just showed you how there can be no infinite regression because the laws of nature are eternal.

No. You just made that claim. No logic involved.

Infinite regression is illogical because every effect did not have a cause because there is no first cause. It’s turtles all the way down.

Turtles. Got it.

No. Science makes that claim.

Do you have confirmed quote from "Science" on the matter? I've never heard such a claim.

Regardless, you said it was illogical. Remember that? What about it is illogical?

Yes, it’s called inflation theory.

Infinite regression is illogical because not every effect had a cause. There is no first cause. What about this did you not understand? Now let me flip it around, how is infinite regression logical?

It's not a question of logic. That's what I'm pointing out. It's just a claim. Infinite regression is certainly counter-intuitive, and difficult to conceive of, but then so is an uncaused cause. Neither is illogical though.

 

[ding]

I just showed you how there can be no infinite regression because the laws of nature are eternal.

No. You just made that claim. No logic involved.

Infinite regression is illogical because every effect did not have a cause because there is no first cause. It’s turtles all the way down.

Turtles. Got it.

No. Science makes that claim.

Do you have confirmed quote from "Science" on the matter? I've never heard such a claim.

Regardless, you said it was illogical. Remember that? What about it is illogical?

Yes, it’s called inflation theory.

Infinite regression is illogical because not every effect had a cause. There is no first cause. What about this did you not understand? Now let me flip it around, how is infinite regression logical?

It's not a question of logic. That's what I pointing out. It's just a claim. Infinite regression is certainly counter-intuitive, and difficult to conceive of, but then so is an uncaused cause. Neither is illogical though.

Infinite regression is eternal. The only thing that can exist forever is something which is unchanging. So it cannot be matter and energy. Matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time. The existence of matter and energy creates space and time. So the only thing that can be eternal is no thing. Laws of nature are no thing. So laws of nature can exist outside of space and time. Laws and rules are signs of intelligence. It is illogical to argue of infinite causes because infinite causes points to something eternal. So rather than pointing to infinite eternal causes there is only one infinite eternal cause.

 

[Taz]

I know what they are and have nothing to do with what we can't yet see.

If you know what they are then how do you explain what they tell us?

They tell us that right now, the universe is expanding. And the background radiation shows that our universe began with an explosive event, or so the theory goes. But neither say what the initial moment was, we can't yet see back that far.

Yes, they tell us that the universe was created.

Not by an invisible being they don’t.

You don’t know that. You are agnostic.

Red shift and background radiation don’t point to an invisible being. I’m sure of that.

 

[ding]

If you know what they are then how do you explain what they tell us?

They tell us that right now, the universe is expanding. And the background radiation shows that our universe began with an explosive event, or so the theory goes. But neither say what the initial moment was, we can't yet see back that far.

Yes, they tell us that the universe was created.

Not by an invisible being they don’t.

You don’t know that. You are agnostic.

Red shift and background radiation don’t point to an invisible being. I’m sure of that.

But you don’t know that there isn’t a consciousness without form that is responsible for creating space and time.

 

[ding]

If you know what they are then how do you explain what they tell us?

They tell us that right now, the universe is expanding. And the background radiation shows that our universe began with an explosive event, or so the theory goes. But neither say what the initial moment was, we can't yet see back that far.

Yes, they tell us that the universe was created.

Not by an invisible being they don’t.

You don’t know that. You are agnostic.

Red shift and background radiation don’t point to an invisible being. I’m sure of that.

Red shift and cosmic background radiation is proof the universe was created.

 

[Taz]

They tell us that right now, the universe is expanding. And the background radiation shows that our universe began with an explosive event, or so the theory goes. But neither say what the initial moment was, we can't yet see back that far.

Yes, they tell us that the universe was created.

Not by an invisible being they don’t.

You don’t know that. You are agnostic.

Red shift and background radiation don’t point to an invisible being. I’m sure of that.

But you don’t know that there isn’t a consciousness without form that is responsible for creating space and time.

Those 2 things don’t point towards your invisible friend

 

[ding]

Yes, they tell us that the universe was created.

Not by an invisible being they don’t.

You don’t know that. You are agnostic.

Red shift and background radiation don’t point to an invisible being. I’m sure of that.

But you don’t know that there isn’t a consciousness without form that is responsible for creating space and time.

Those 2 things don’t point towards your invisible friend

But being agnostic you don’t know they don’t because red shift and cosmic background radiation proves the universe was created from nothing.

 

[Taz]

They tell us that right now, the universe is expanding. And the background radiation shows that our universe began with an explosive event, or so the theory goes. But neither say what the initial moment was, we can't yet see back that far.

Yes, they tell us that the universe was created.

Not by an invisible being they don’t.

You don’t know that. You are agnostic.

Red shift and background radiation don’t point to an invisible being. I’m sure of that.

Red shift and cosmic background radiation is proof the universe was created.

No it’s not. It’s only proof of expansion and an explosive start.

 

[Taz]

Not by an invisible being they don’t.

You don’t know that. You are agnostic.

Red shift and background radiation don’t point to an invisible being. I’m sure of that.

But you don’t know that there isn’t a consciousness without form that is responsible for creating space and time.

Those 2 things don’t point towards your invisible friend

But being agnostic you don’t know they don’t because red shift and cosmic background radiation proves the universe was created from nothing.

No it doesn’t prove that. There’s no link between them being created from nothing.

 

[ding]

Yes, they tell us that the universe was created.

Not by an invisible being they don’t.

You don’t know that. You are agnostic.

Red shift and background radiation don’t point to an invisible being. I’m sure of that.

Red shift and cosmic background radiation is proof the universe was created.

No it’s not. It’s only proof of expansion and an explosive start.

That’s where the SLoT dynamics come in.

Together all three tell us the universe was created from nothing.

 

[ding]

You don’t know that. You are agnostic.

Red shift and background radiation don’t point to an invisible being. I’m sure of that.

But you don’t know that there isn’t a consciousness without form that is responsible for creating space and time.

Those 2 things don’t point towards your invisible friend

But being agnostic you don’t know they don’t because red shift and cosmic background radiation proves the universe was created from nothing.

No it doesn’t prove that. There’s no link between them being created from nothing.

Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

This we do not see. So, the universe was created from nothing.

 

[Taz]

Not by an invisible being they don’t.

You don’t know that. You are agnostic.

Red shift and background radiation don’t point to an invisible being. I’m sure of that.

Red shift and cosmic background radiation is proof the universe was created.

No it’s not. It’s only proof of expansion and an explosive start.

That’s where the SLoT dynamics come in.

Together all three tell us the universe was created from nothing.

No they don’t. You seem dumber than usual lately, are you ok?

 

[Taz]

Red shift and background radiation don’t point to an invisible being. I’m sure of that.

But you don’t know that there isn’t a consciousness without form that is responsible for creating space and time.

Those 2 things don’t point towards your invisible friend

But being agnostic you don’t know they don’t because red shift and cosmic background radiation proves the universe was created from nothing.

No it doesn’t prove that. There’s no link between them being created from nothing.

Matter and energy cannot exist forever without reaching thermal equilibrium.

This we do not see. So, the universe was created from nothing.

That makes no sense.