If this is what you call "moderation" by these so-called "moderators", then I want no part in any discussions in any section of this site.
For you to post
those rules and to allow this ridiculous fool (yes that's you Michael!) to post threads like this (and all his other obvious hate-filled threads) that have NO intellectual content whatsoever, is an absolute discrace to this site, it's owners, it's moderators and mostly its members.
And for you guys to jump in now when it suits you all, is evidence that this site is nothing more than a joke, with jesters like Michael and the puppeteers that moderate the site (or lack thereof). Therefore, I will no longer take part in this facade. You are all a disgrace!
As my final parting words to you all, I will say this:
When you realise your mental deficiencies, due to your lack of knowledge and willingness to learn, you will soon understand that your minds have been diseased and stuck in the anals of those that dwindled before you in the past.
You want logic? You want to know just how stupidly illogical your minds are? Well I will show you!
Michael? (And any other idiot that shares the same values, thoughts and mentallity as him)... I have a syllogism for you all that is pretty much irrefutable evidence of just how stupid you all are. Oh Michael? By the way... look that up will you? That's "S Y L L O G I S M"! Something you lacked in this entire thread to prove your insanely stupid point.
I will begin by asking you all one simple question. Let's see if you can answer it and then appreciate the simplicity in the logic, so as to understand the immense fallacies you possess, and thus, your mental deficiencies I mentioned above.
The question is this:
If by the very definition and understanding of Eternity means the "unbound" and "uncreated" (therefore, uncaused) and you as an Atheist have no qualms an 'Eternal Universe' exists, then how can you have reason to believe in an "infinite chain of causes"?
Why am I asking this question? Because it drills to the very heart of what an Atheist HAS to believe in. Reason being is very simple. Let me elaborate.
I will begin with one simple premise:
Premise ::
Something cannot come from nothing.
- This is accepted as verbatum in the scientific world of academia. It is what many axioms and laws are derived from. From this one very simple premise, one can conclude and derive many things. None moreso than this:
If something cannot come from nothing, then something must have created the Big Bang epoch yes? Otherwise, you believe in nothing before it, which will violate the agreed premise. Now you don't want to go against science do you? Okay. Now we have others;
1. Something cannot come from nothing,
2. Nothing is eternal or uncreated in this universe.
3. This universe then must have been created (caused).
[1] Justified and agreed by the scientific world.
[2] 100% justifiable, since every observed existent to date has been empirically measured scientifically to exist temporally. Everything
in this universe is created, then destroyed.
[3] Since [1] is justified and [2] shows no sign of anything being uncaused, then the universe is not uncaused nor eternal. The Universe even has an age.
Are you paying attention Michael? This is going to hurt you or, enlighten that soiled mind of yours. Either way, I don't care!
Since something exists now, then there must have always been other "somethings" in the past for all eternity, to validate the Atheist's claim of an
Eternal Universe theory.
Since something must always have existed for all eternity, then "nothingness" is illogical and therefore, unacceptable, let alone fathomable.
Now since
something must have existed before the Big Bang, what was it? Well, this is where we say goodbye to science and must use Philosophical and theoretical logic and theories as such, to deduce a plausable solution to this problem. But they must be both logical, and feasible according to the scientific knowledge we have now.
There seems to only be 2 possible solutions to this problem. Therefore, the contention here is that, there either exists:
1. An eternal and uncreated (uncaused) Universe, or
2. There exists an eternal and uncreated God.
Both are scientically unverifiable. The Big Bang is all we have to go back to. But we do know that there MUST have been something before it, since this universe is temporal in every way.
Since we exist this means we are ‘something’ that exists with other ‘something’s’ and perceive some sort of reality (we call the ‘universe’).
We have accepted that we exist and are ‘existents’ as such. We also observe that other existents change relative to us in motion, as well as we do.
Nothing seems static and everything (all existents) seems dynamic.
Everything (all existents) seems to cause and affect something else and we observe this process as
causation.
Every existent seems to exhibit a temporal existence and nothing seems to exist for too long at all, relative to the age of our known universe. Therefore, everything is temporal.
If causation is described as
the process of cause and effect, where the observed event is one temporal period or moment (t1-t2), then it requires a temporal frame of reference to make sense of it. That is, we require knowing what is being caused (affected) and what caused it (created it) in the first place. It is therefore, a process of change and transition from one state to another over some period.
As such, we go back (in time) to the ‘chain of events (causes)’ and see that science observes/measures/calculates a moment called the ‘Big Bang’. This is the furthest moment we can go back to. The rest is up for hypothesis and deductive reasoning.
Now let's see if (1) or (2) is more feasible and thus, more believable (since knowledge entails belief - see levels of Epistemology).
[1]. This is an eternal and uncreated (uncaused) Universe.
This proposition relies on the belief that there is an "eternal chain of causes" and one theory to postulate is the Multi-verse theory. Unfortunately for those that do believe in this theory, you must overcome a few things.
a) The 3 Laws of Thermodynamics.
b) The logical fallacies that this theory causes.
[a]. If there was another Universe that created this one, then that too must have been caused by another and another and so forth, yes? This is illogical as I will elaborate in
. The other theory could be that the Universe goes through an eternal cycle of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. This is also known as an Oscillating Universe. Unfortunately, this theory violates every law in Thermodynamics, so it cannot be oscillating nor circular. Thus, the Multiverse theory is illogical as it stands, according to the knowledge we have of science today. Try to refute it? I dare you!
. There are many logical fallacies that this theory causes. One is the 'fallacy of composition' where one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole. "From Each to All". In other words, it's based on the conclusion of an "infinite chain of causes" (the 'whole') on observations of causes and effects (some 'part') and is glarigly obvious that it is indeed doing just that... committing a fallacy of false composition.
The next one is the 'continuim fallacy', or the 'fallacy of the beard' where two states or conditions can not be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states. According to the fallacy, differences in quality cannot result from differences in quantity.
So our conversation would then go something like this in our case:
Q: Does one event form an infinite quantity?
A: No.
Q: If we add another event to say one hundred events, does that form an infinite quantity?
A: No.
Q: If we add another 10 billion events to 100 billion events, does that make it infinite?
A: Hell No!
Q: When will it ever be infinite then?
A: Never! Infinites are never added to quantifiably as they are completely unbound and absolute already. No matter how many events we add or look back to, it will never be infinite because infinites are unquantifiable (immesurable and innumerable)!
Infinity + 1 = Infinity.
Infinity - 1 = Infinity.
(uncaused & unaffected - ie. causation cannot be infinite, nor make an infinite).
Then there is the 'Fallacy of False Cause' or "Non Sequitur" (Latin for "it does not follow")--incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another.
And finally, the biggest of them all... The 'Circular Logical Fallacy' ('Begging The Question'). Which is 'circular logic'. This is what the infinite chain of causes does exactly. It constantly "begs the question" as to what caused this and then that and then that etc etc. It's totally silly!
...
So... we are now left with one solution to this problem. The solution for it to be eternal lies in the existence of a truly uncaused and eternal existent. What you call this existent is totally up to you. You can call it Thor, Xenu, or whatever you like really. But the solution is that this eternal and uncaused existent is the ONLY plausable solution. Of course, this existent must also logically be conscious and alive to have been able to cause the rest of the chains of causation to begin with and all its laws (programming).
And if you're going to ask what caused this existent? The answer is blindingly obvious. The existent is eternal and uncreated.
...
Michael? Say hello to your, lifeless, dumb, mute and unconscious existents which you believe created all this hey? Oh and say hello to your naked statues!
Selaam!
