A simple question.

[Czernobog]

I notice that, in spite of all the name calling, and screams that I'm wrong, not a single person has attempted to demonstrate how an a-causal event can occur in a causal system, while still maintaining that causal system.

You haven't demonstrated how you are correct, either. How long before you realize you are incapable of doing so?

Actually I have. I demonstrated the nature of causal systems. It is a given that causal systems are incompatible with a-causal events. Denying this is simply denying science.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay, Marion Morrison , let us see if we cannot, at last, come to at least, an agreed upon understanding of the nature of the universe. Would you agree that this:

is an accurate, if overly simplified diagram of the nature of the universe, with each event following a chain of events, eventually reaching back to the Big Bang? Would you agree that this is how reality works, and how the universe functions?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Okay, Marion Morrison , let us see if we cannot, at last, come to at least, an agreed upon understanding of the nature of the universe. Would you agree that this:

is an accurate, if overly simplified diagram of the nature of the universe, with each event following a chain of events, eventually reaching back to the Big Bang? Would you agree that this is how reality works, and how the universe functions?

No, let me know when you're mired in reality and not theories and conjecture.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay, Marion Morrison , let us see if we cannot, at last, come to at least, an agreed upon understanding of the nature of the universe. Would you agree that this:

is an accurate, if overly simplified diagram of the nature of the universe, with each event following a chain of events, eventually reaching back to the Big Bang? Would you agree that this is how reality works, and how the universe functions?

No, let me know when you're mired in reality and not theories and conjecture.

Really? So you do not accept that we live in a causal universe? Really?!?! Well, that explains a lot. You do not even understand the very nature of reality. So, how do you explain the function of the laws of physics, Marion Morrison ? Every one of them is based on the principle of causality.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Okay, Marion Morrison , let us see if we cannot, at last, come to at least, an agreed upon understanding of the nature of the universe. Would you agree that this:

is an accurate, if overly simplified diagram of the nature of the universe, with each event following a chain of events, eventually reaching back to the Big Bang? Would you agree that this is how reality works, and how the universe functions?

No, let me know when you're mired in reality and not theories and conjecture.

Really? So you do not accept that we live in a causal universe? Really?!?! Well, that explains a lot. You do not even understand the very nature of reality. So, how do you explain the function of the laws of physics, Marion Morrison ? Every one of them is based on the principle of causality.

I understand physics quite well. Physics is something that can be demonstrably be repeated over and over again. As for what you're claiming? Notsomuch.

What you're lacking is proof, mister.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay, Marion Morrison , let us see if we cannot, at last, come to at least, an agreed upon understanding of the nature of the universe. Would you agree that this:

is an accurate, if overly simplified diagram of the nature of the universe, with each event following a chain of events, eventually reaching back to the Big Bang? Would you agree that this is how reality works, and how the universe functions?

No, let me know when you're mired in reality and not theories and conjecture.

Really? So you do not accept that we live in a causal universe? Really?!?! Well, that explains a lot. You do not even understand the very nature of reality. So, how do you explain the function of the laws of physics, Marion Morrison ? Every one of them is based on the principle of causality.

I understand physics quite well. Physics is something that can be demonstrably be repeated over and over again. As for what you're claiming? Notsomuch.

What you're lacking is proof, mister.

Oh. Okay. Then forget what I just said. The universe just happened. Fuck your god. You seem to forget that you guys use the very first axiom of causality in order to argue your God - "Nothing takes place without a cause," So, if you are now arguing against a causal universe, then you just removed your most ardent argument for your god. Thanks. bye.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Okay, Marion Morrison , let us see if we cannot, at last, come to at least, an agreed upon understanding of the nature of the universe. Would you agree that this:

is an accurate, if overly simplified diagram of the nature of the universe, with each event following a chain of events, eventually reaching back to the Big Bang? Would you agree that this is how reality works, and how the universe functions?

No, let me know when you're mired in reality and not theories and conjecture.

Really? So you do not accept that we live in a causal universe? Really?!?! Well, that explains a lot. You do not even understand the very nature of reality. So, how do you explain the function of the laws of physics, Marion Morrison ? Every one of them is based on the principle of causality.

I understand physics quite well. Physics is something that can be demonstrably be repeated over and over again. As for what you're claiming? Notsomuch.

What you're lacking is proof, mister.

Oh. Okay. Then forget what I just said. The universe just happened. Fuck your god. You seem to forget that you guys use the very first axiom of causality in order to argue your God - "Nothing takes place without a cause," So, if you are now arguing against a causal universe, then you just removed your most ardent argument for your god. Thanks. bye.

Bye, Felicia.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay, Marion Morrison , let us see if we cannot, at last, come to at least, an agreed upon understanding of the nature of the universe. Would you agree that this:

is an accurate, if overly simplified diagram of the nature of the universe, with each event following a chain of events, eventually reaching back to the Big Bang? Would you agree that this is how reality works, and how the universe functions?

No, let me know when you're mired in reality and not theories and conjecture.

Really? So you do not accept that we live in a causal universe? Really?!?! Well, that explains a lot. You do not even understand the very nature of reality. So, how do you explain the function of the laws of physics, Marion Morrison ? Every one of them is based on the principle of causality.

I understand physics quite well. Physics is something that can be demonstrably be repeated over and over again. As for what you're claiming? Notsomuch.

What you're lacking is proof, mister.

Oh. Okay. Then forget what I just said. The universe just happened. Fuck your god. You seem to forget that you guys use the very first axiom of causality in order to argue your God - "Nothing takes place without a cause," So, if you are now arguing against a causal universe, then you just removed your most ardent argument for your god. Thanks. bye.

Bye, Felicia.

You get that you just defeated your position of the necessity of God for existence, right Cupcake?

 

[Marion Morrison]

No, let me know when you're mired in reality and not theories and conjecture.

Really? So you do not accept that we live in a causal universe? Really?!?! Well, that explains a lot. You do not even understand the very nature of reality. So, how do you explain the function of the laws of physics, Marion Morrison ? Every one of them is based on the principle of causality.

I understand physics quite well. Physics is something that can be demonstrably be repeated over and over again. As for what you're claiming? Notsomuch.

What you're lacking is proof, mister.

Oh. Okay. Then forget what I just said. The universe just happened. Fuck your god. You seem to forget that you guys use the very first axiom of causality in order to argue your God - "Nothing takes place without a cause," So, if you are now arguing against a causal universe, then you just removed your most ardent argument for your god. Thanks. bye.

Bye, Felicia.

You get that you just defeated your position of the necessity of God for existence, right Cupcake?

I get that you're a moron that conflate theories with proven experiments, Academia with the real world, and are desperate to self-justify whatever depravity it is you have.

Just don't do it in a manner that defies reality, k? Because I'll be there.

 

[Czernobog]

Really? So you do not accept that we live in a causal universe? Really?!?! Well, that explains a lot. You do not even understand the very nature of reality. So, how do you explain the function of the laws of physics, Marion Morrison ? Every one of them is based on the principle of causality.

I understand physics quite well. Physics is something that can be demonstrably be repeated over and over again. As for what you're claiming? Notsomuch.

What you're lacking is proof, mister.

Oh. Okay. Then forget what I just said. The universe just happened. Fuck your god. You seem to forget that you guys use the very first axiom of causality in order to argue your God - "Nothing takes place without a cause," So, if you are now arguing against a causal universe, then you just removed your most ardent argument for your god. Thanks. bye.

Bye, Felicia.

You get that you just defeated your position of the necessity of God for existence, right Cupcake?

I get that you're a moron that conflate theories with proven experiments, Academia with the real world, and are desperate to self-justify whatever depravity it is you have.

Just don't do it in a manner that defies reality, k?

I get that you're a moron, who is contrarian, and wants to assert accepted scientific theories, and laws of physics when they are comfortable, and ignore them when they're not. The axioms of causality are just that - axioms. They are foundational. They don't require proving, because they have already been established. In order to reject them, you need to disprove them. Go ahead, disprove the axioms of causality:

1. Nothing takes place without a cause
2. The magnitude of an effect is proportional to the magnitude of its cause
3. To every action there is an equal and opposed reaction.

We'll wait...

 

[Czernobog]

Really? So you do not accept that we live in a causal universe? Really?!?! Well, that explains a lot. You do not even understand the very nature of reality. So, how do you explain the function of the laws of physics, Marion Morrison ? Every one of them is based on the principle of causality.

I understand physics quite well. Physics is something that can be demonstrably be repeated over and over again. As for what you're claiming? Notsomuch.

What you're lacking is proof, mister.

Oh. Okay. Then forget what I just said. The universe just happened. Fuck your god. You seem to forget that you guys use the very first axiom of causality in order to argue your God - "Nothing takes place without a cause," So, if you are now arguing against a causal universe, then you just removed your most ardent argument for your god. Thanks. bye.

Bye, Felicia.

You get that you just defeated your position of the necessity of God for existence, right Cupcake?

I get that you're a moron that conflate theories with proven experiments, Academia with the real world, and are desperate to self-justify whatever depravity it is you have.

Just don't do it in a manner that defies reality, k? Because I'll be there.

Defies reality? Causality is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics. The only one defying reality is you, Cupcake. Which is understandable, because it is the only way you can maintain your belief in your imaginary god.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I understand physics quite well. Physics is something that can be demonstrably be repeated over and over again. As for what you're claiming? Notsomuch.

What you're lacking is proof, mister.

Oh. Okay. Then forget what I just said. The universe just happened. Fuck your god. You seem to forget that you guys use the very first axiom of causality in order to argue your God - "Nothing takes place without a cause," So, if you are now arguing against a causal universe, then you just removed your most ardent argument for your god. Thanks. bye.

Bye, Felicia.

You get that you just defeated your position of the necessity of God for existence, right Cupcake?

I get that you're a moron that conflate theories with proven experiments, Academia with the real world, and are desperate to self-justify whatever depravity it is you have.

Just don't do it in a manner that defies reality, k?

I get that you're a moron, who is contrarian, and wants to assert accepted scientific theories, and laws of physics when they are comfortable, and ignore them when they're not. The axioms of causality are just that - axioms. They are foundational. They don't require proving, because they have already been established. In order to reject them, you need to disprove them. Go ahead, disprove the axioms of causality:

1. Nothing takes place without a cause
2. The magnitude of an effect is proportional to the magnitude of its cause
3. To every action there is an equal and opposed reaction.

We'll wait...

And from that you get this "big bang theory" how? The 2 have nothing in common.

 

[Czernobog]

Oh. Okay. Then forget what I just said. The universe just happened. Fuck your god. You seem to forget that you guys use the very first axiom of causality in order to argue your God - "Nothing takes place without a cause," So, if you are now arguing against a causal universe, then you just removed your most ardent argument for your god. Thanks. bye.

Bye, Felicia.

You get that you just defeated your position of the necessity of God for existence, right Cupcake?

I get that you're a moron that conflate theories with proven experiments, Academia with the real world, and are desperate to self-justify whatever depravity it is you have.

Just don't do it in a manner that defies reality, k?

I get that you're a moron, who is contrarian, and wants to assert accepted scientific theories, and laws of physics when they are comfortable, and ignore them when they're not. The axioms of causality are just that - axioms. They are foundational. They don't require proving, because they have already been established. In order to reject them, you need to disprove them. Go ahead, disprove the axioms of causality:

1. Nothing takes place without a cause
2. The magnitude of an effect is proportional to the magnitude of its cause
3. To every action there is an equal and opposed reaction.

We'll wait...

And from that you get this "big bang theory" how? The 2 have nothing in common.

Oh. It's the Big Bang you deny. Sooo...God just "boinged' everything into existence? Really? First, never mind the the fact that we can observe the Big Bang's afterglow in the night sky. Two problems.

First, it doesn't matter how long ago, or by what mechanism, the universe sprang into being, everything from that point is still subject to indeterminacy, and causality, including your existence. Second, the Big Bang is part of a coherent interdependent body of knowledge. You can't cherry-pick the parts you like, and deny the rest. If you use your GPS you accept that there was a Big Bang. GPS ---> Relativity.

 

[Czernobog]

Nothing, Marion Morrison ?

 

[Czernobog]

See, denial of the Big Bang is a slippery slope to full-on science denial. For example, evolution requires the timescales that the Big bang provides. No Big Bang, no evolution, which is why Young Earth creationists, who think the Earth is only 6,000 years old have to dismiss fossil records as being faked, or some such shit.

Deny evolution, and, ultimately, you have to deny all mathematics, because science is a pyramid of connected blocks all of which is necessary for any of it to work. Modern medicine, for example relies on evolution theory.

It's all interdependent.

 

[Czernobog]

Which leads back to my original premise. This breaks the universe:

 

[Marion Morrison]

What's broken is your logic.

 

[BulletProof]

Deny evolution, and, ultimately, you have to deny all mathematics, because science is a pyramid of connected blocks all of which is necessary for any of it to work. Modern medicine, for example relies on evolution theory.

It's all interdependent.

Hey Dumbshit, do people keep sticking signs on your back that read "DUMBSHIT!" I mean, I mean, someone has to be a dumbshit to think all of science stems from an alleged prehistorical event. But, you've already established yourself as a full-on retard. LOL!!!!

 

[Czernobog]

What's broken is your logic.

WE HAVE A FLAG ON THE PLAY:

​

 

[Czernobog]

Deny evolution, and, ultimately, you have to deny all mathematics, because science is a pyramid of connected blocks all of which is necessary for any of it to work. Modern medicine, for example relies on evolution theory.

It's all interdependent.

Hey Dumbshit, do people keep sticking signs on your back that read "DUMBSHIT!" I mean, I mean, someone has to be a dumbshit to think all of science stems from an alleged prehistorical event. But, you've already established yourself as a full-on retard. LOL!!!!

Interconnected, not stems from. But, I don't expect you to understand the distinction. You have already demonstrated you are incapable of comprehending anything more complicated than "See spot run."