Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Actually it has nothing to do with religious dogma, but militant atheists see dogma hiding behind every bush.You have made no case that any natural phenomenon are prescriptive. That’s mere assertion on your part, totally unsupported and basically, nothing more than a retreat to religious dogma.The physical phenomenon that the laws of nature describe are prescriptive in nature. You don't have a choice in not breaking them.
The case has been made. I wouldn't expect you to agree with it.
Nor does calling them descriptions and not prescriptions even SPEAK to what you just said....You are quibbling with words, GT.Placed?You're going in circles, dude. No matter how you try you can not deny that there are physical phenomenon that exist, that place limitations upon you, that you cannot break. You can play word games all day long. It doesn't change these facts.The limitation being a limitation can have 100 differing reasons......them being 'pre' scribed, i.e. provided by a being ~ being merely an assertion..... shy of proving said prescribor exists.The limitation is the physical phenomenon itself which I am calling the Laws of Nature.Or, describes limitations that simply exist.
Invoking them as constant, i.e. asking me about the speed of light....doesnt speak to prescriptive vs. descriptive...
and you just proved that your damn self
What a waste of time!
The Laws of Physics are used to estimate the numerical representation of the physical phenomenon that exists.
I know its really hard to grasp, cuz youre ding.
No, thats an assertion and implies cognition.
Its not word games, its that your ideas are malformed.
And the limitations arent hinging on whether or not theyre prescribed, or descriptions of what simply is ~ but for some odd reason you assume thats a logical argument.
No matter how you try you can not deny that there are physical phenomenon that exist, that place limitations upon you, that you cannot break. You can play word games all day long. It doesn't change these facts.
You're going in circles, dude. No matter how you try you can not deny that there are physical phenomenon that exist, that prescribe limitations upon you, that you cannot break. You can play word games all day long. It doesn't change these facts.Nor does calling them descriptions and not prescriptions even SPEAK to what you just said....You are quibbling with words, GT.Placed?You're going in circles, dude. No matter how you try you can not deny that there are physical phenomenon that exist, that place limitations upon you, that you cannot break. You can play word games all day long. It doesn't change these facts.The limitation being a limitation can have 100 differing reasons......them being 'pre' scribed, i.e. provided by a being ~ being merely an assertion..... shy of proving said prescribor exists.The limitation is the physical phenomenon itself which I am calling the Laws of Nature.
The Laws of Physics are used to estimate the numerical representation of the physical phenomenon that exists.
I know its really hard to grasp, cuz youre ding.
No, thats an assertion and implies cognition.
Its not word games, its that your ideas are malformed.
And the limitations arent hinging on whether or not theyre prescribed, or descriptions of what simply is ~ but for some odd reason you assume thats a logical argument.
No matter how you try you can not deny that there are physical phenomenon that exist, that place limitations upon you, that you cannot break. You can play word games all day long. It doesn't change these facts.
but Im glad youre now, albeit unwittingly, showing that you never understood the argument to begin with...which is why you invoked them as constants and thought that that was saying something.
prescribe vs describe is not a word game ..it shows that youre incapable of adequate reasoning.You're going in circles, dude. No matter how you try you can not deny that there are physical phenomenon that exist, that prescribe limitations upon you, that you cannot break. You can play word games all day long. It doesn't change these facts.Nor does calling them descriptions and not prescriptions even SPEAK to what you just said....You are quibbling with words, GT.Placed?You're going in circles, dude. No matter how you try you can not deny that there are physical phenomenon that exist, that place limitations upon you, that you cannot break. You can play word games all day long. It doesn't change these facts.The limitation being a limitation can have 100 differing reasons......them being 'pre' scribed, i.e. provided by a being ~ being merely an assertion..... shy of proving said prescribor exists.
I know its really hard to grasp, cuz youre ding.
No, thats an assertion and implies cognition.
Its not word games, its that your ideas are malformed.
And the limitations arent hinging on whether or not theyre prescribed, or descriptions of what simply is ~ but for some odd reason you assume thats a logical argument.
No matter how you try you can not deny that there are physical phenomenon that exist, that place limitations upon you, that you cannot break. You can play word games all day long. It doesn't change these facts.
but Im glad youre now, albeit unwittingly, showing that you never understood the argument to begin with...which is why you invoked them as constants and thought that that was saying something.
.The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that is not possible.I don't think existence can be boiled down to such a simple question. This is a two part thread, we EXIST (part 1) How did we come to exist? (part 2).The first and second sentence dont have any rational connection whatsoever.The physical phenomenon that the laws of nature describe are prescriptive in nature. You don't have a choice in not breaking them.
The 1st is an assertion, the second is an observation.
We exist, things evolve, things change and I don't believe there was an "origin" of the universe. There ever going process that is eternal. And beyond our understanding.
No. Actually it was a rebuttal to post #77. Was GT demanding the laws of physics are prescriptive when he wrote post #77? But just to be clear, feel free to believe whatever you want.Actually, it has everything to do with religious dogma. It was you demanding that natural phenomenon are prescriptive, yet you made no substantiated case for who, or what, prescribed those phenomenon.
No one said it did and I'll use whatever words I want. You worry about yourself. Fair enough?The term “natural phenomenon” clearly does not allude to a supernatural entity, otherwise we would use the term “supernatural phenomenon”.
Supernatural phenomenon are extant in the universe? When did I make that claim?If you are suggesting that supernatural phenomenon are extant in the universe, make your case for the prescriber of that super-naturalism.
Like which ones?.The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that is not possible.I don't think existence can be boiled down to such a simple question. This is a two part thread, we EXIST (part 1) How did we come to exist? (part 2).The first and second sentence dont have any rational connection whatsoever.The physical phenomenon that the laws of nature describe are prescriptive in nature. You don't have a choice in not breaking them.
The 1st is an assertion, the second is an observation.
We exist, things evolve, things change and I don't believe there was an "origin" of the universe. There ever going process that is eternal. And beyond our understanding.
Well, laws of physics are being redefined all the time.
The question implies the answer. that is: there wasn't a "beginning". I think it's that simple.All states of being have cause.
What caused the initial state of existence?
All states of being have cause.
What caused the initial state of existence?
The only logical answer is a Creator. But those who reject God believe the big lie so that they can sleep at night, because they know that they have rejected God, and they know the price that they must pay.All states of being have cause.
What caused the initial state of existence?
The question implies the answer. that is: there wasn't a "beginning". I think it's that simple.All states of being have cause.
What caused the initial state of existence?
No logic supports that.
Ding, this has NOTHING to do with being an atheist. Your basic assertions simply aren't logical.Actually it has nothing to do with religious dogma, but militant atheists see dogma hiding behind every bush.You have made no case that any natural phenomenon are prescriptive. That’s mere assertion on your part, totally unsupported and basically, nothing more than a retreat to religious dogma.The physical phenomenon that the laws of nature describe are prescriptive in nature. You don't have a choice in not breaking them.
The case has been made. I wouldn't expect you to agree with it.
The question implies the answer. that is: there wasn't a "beginning". I think it's that simple.All states of being have cause.
What caused the initial state of existence?
No logic supports that.
"No logic supports that."
I think I'll chalk this up to lack of effort on your part, as one can craft an argument by contradiction that there was no beginning:
The universe is deterministic, with unchanging laws.
Therefore, every event has a cause.
Therefore, there could not have been a "first event", as a first event would violate determinism.
............
Therefore, the universe had no beginning.
The question implies the answer. that is: there wasn't a "beginning". I think it's that simple.All states of being have cause.
What caused the initial state of existence?
No logic supports that.
"No logic supports that."
I think I'll chalk this up to lack of effort on your part, as one can craft an argument by contradiction that there was no beginning:
The universe is deterministic, with unchanging laws.
Therefore, every event has a cause.
Therefore, there could not have been a "first event", as a first event would violate determinism.
............
Therefore, the universe had no beginning.
My question did not concern a beginning for the universe. My question asks why does the state of existence exist?
The question implies the answer. that is: there wasn't a "beginning". I think it's that simple.All states of being have cause.
What caused the initial state of existence?
No logic supports that.
"No logic supports that."
I think I'll chalk this up to lack of effort on your part, as one can craft an argument by contradiction that there was no beginning:
The universe is deterministic, with unchanging laws.
Therefore, every event has a cause.
Therefore, there could not have been a "first event", as a first event would violate determinism.
............
Therefore, the universe had no beginning.
My question did not concern a beginning for the universe. My question asks why does the state of existence exist?
You said, "no logic supports that" in response to, "There wasnt a beginning". I think I demonstrated quite neatly that you were incorrect to say this.
And you are being dishonest. Your question did NOT ask "why" existence exists, but rather what caused the beginning of existence.
Clearly the argument that it had no beginning is relevant to this discussion.
The question implies the answer. that is: there wasn't a "beginning". I think it's that simple.
No logic supports that.
"No logic supports that."
I think I'll chalk this up to lack of effort on your part, as one can craft an argument by contradiction that there was no beginning:
The universe is deterministic, with unchanging laws.
Therefore, every event has a cause.
Therefore, there could not have been a "first event", as a first event would violate determinism.
............
Therefore, the universe had no beginning.
My question did not concern a beginning for the universe. My question asks why does the state of existence exist?
You said, "no logic supports that" in response to, "There wasnt a beginning". I think I demonstrated quite neatly that you were incorrect to say this.
Nope. The response was to Meryl's claim that there was no beginning to the state of existence.
And you are being dishonest. Your question did NOT ask "why" existence exists, but rather what caused the beginning of existence.
Nope. I see no difference between "What caused the initial state of existence? and "Why does existence exist?"
If you do, explain.
Clearly the argument that it had no beginning is relevant to this discussion.
I agree, but logic indicates that to have a beginning, there must be a state prior to that beginning.
In Hollie's case it absolutely does.Ding, this has NOTHING to do with being an atheist. Your basic assertions simply aren't logical.Actually it has nothing to do with religious dogma, but militant atheists see dogma hiding behind every bush.You have made no case that any natural phenomenon are prescriptive. That’s mere assertion on your part, totally unsupported and basically, nothing more than a retreat to religious dogma.The physical phenomenon that the laws of nature describe are prescriptive in nature. You don't have a choice in not breaking them.
The case has been made. I wouldn't expect you to agree with it.
As for the Big Bang being the outcome of a black hole, who knows where I heard it. I asked you to explain if I was wrong. But I probably wouldn't understand it anyway.
No logic supports that.
"No logic supports that."
I think I'll chalk this up to lack of effort on your part, as one can craft an argument by contradiction that there was no beginning:
The universe is deterministic, with unchanging laws.
Therefore, every event has a cause.
Therefore, there could not have been a "first event", as a first event would violate determinism.
............
Therefore, the universe had no beginning.
My question did not concern a beginning for the universe. My question asks why does the state of existence exist?
You said, "no logic supports that" in response to, "There wasnt a beginning". I think I demonstrated quite neatly that you were incorrect to say this.
Nope. The response was to Meryl's claim that there was no beginning to the state of existence.
And you are being dishonest. Your question did NOT ask "why" existence exists, but rather what caused the beginning of existence.
Nope. I see no difference between "What caused the initial state of existence? and "Why does existence exist?"
If you do, explain.
Clearly the argument that it had no beginning is relevant to this discussion.
I agree, but logic indicates that to have a beginning, there must be a state prior to that beginning.
"The response was to Meryl's claim that there was no beginning to the state of existence."
Yes, I know. You said no logic supported that, which was incorrect.
"I see no difference between "What caused the initial state of existence? and "Why does existence exist?""
Then that is an error on your part. Unless you would like to now declare that the "how" always IS the "why", which would remove the error, and in which case I might not disagree.
"I agree, but logic indicates that to have a beginning, there must be a state prior to that beginning."
That is precisely the opposite of what logic would dictate, by the definition of "beginning". Who was winning the race, before it began? In this case, the race is "eberything there is".
"No logic supports that."
I think I'll chalk this up to lack of effort on your part, as one can craft an argument by contradiction that there was no beginning:
The universe is deterministic, with unchanging laws.
Therefore, every event has a cause.
Therefore, there could not have been a "first event", as a first event would violate determinism.
............
Therefore, the universe had no beginning.
My question did not concern a beginning for the universe. My question asks why does the state of existence exist?
You said, "no logic supports that" in response to, "There wasnt a beginning". I think I demonstrated quite neatly that you were incorrect to say this.
Nope. The response was to Meryl's claim that there was no beginning to the state of existence.
And you are being dishonest. Your question did NOT ask "why" existence exists, but rather what caused the beginning of existence.
Nope. I see no difference between "What caused the initial state of existence? and "Why does existence exist?"
If you do, explain.
Clearly the argument that it had no beginning is relevant to this discussion.
I agree, but logic indicates that to have a beginning, there must be a state prior to that beginning.
"The response was to Meryl's claim that there was no beginning to the state of existence."
Yes, I know. You said no logic supported that, which was incorrect.
"I see no difference between "What caused the initial state of existence? and "Why does existence exist?""
Then that is an error on your part. Unless you would like to now declare that the "how" always IS the "why", which would remove the error, and in which case I might not disagree.
"I agree, but logic indicates that to have a beginning, there must be a state prior to that beginning."
That is precisely the opposite of what logic would dictate, by the definition of "beginning". Who was winning the race, before it began? In this case, the race is "eberything there is".
I will reply, but first please format your response in the traditional manner. Too many unassigned statements make it unclear to others who the speakers are.
My question did not concern a beginning for the universe. My question asks why does the state of existence exist?
You said, "no logic supports that" in response to, "There wasnt a beginning". I think I demonstrated quite neatly that you were incorrect to say this.
Nope. The response was to Meryl's claim that there was no beginning to the state of existence.
And you are being dishonest. Your question did NOT ask "why" existence exists, but rather what caused the beginning of existence.
Nope. I see no difference between "What caused the initial state of existence? and "Why does existence exist?"
If you do, explain.
Clearly the argument that it had no beginning is relevant to this discussion.
I agree, but logic indicates that to have a beginning, there must be a state prior to that beginning.
"The response was to Meryl's claim that there was no beginning to the state of existence."
Yes, I know. You said no logic supported that, which was incorrect.
"I see no difference between "What caused the initial state of existence? and "Why does existence exist?""
Then that is an error on your part. Unless you would like to now declare that the "how" always IS the "why", which would remove the error, and in which case I might not disagree.
"I agree, but logic indicates that to have a beginning, there must be a state prior to that beginning."
That is precisely the opposite of what logic would dictate, by the definition of "beginning". Who was winning the race, before it began? In this case, the race is "eberything there is".
I will reply, but first please format your response in the traditional manner. Too many unassigned statements make it unclear to others who the speakers are.
Not sure what you are asking there, but those are all your statements. "traditional manner"...?
