Understanding "cause and effect" in scientific terms.

I would like to share some information on the subject what is scientific? And so with my introduction what is basically classic scientific “cause and effect” reasoning. If ever there was scientific law, is law of cause and effect - which states for the every effect there must be adequate cause and that no effect can be greater than its cause and effect maybe lesser than its cause and but never can effect be greater than it’s cause and for every effect there must be adequate cause. All of science is based on that single axiomatic law being true; if cause and effect relationship and this law - is not true then there is no such thing as science, the scientific method would be impossible to employ. If you don’t believe in cause and effect relationship – how could you ever run an experiment? It is accepted as axiomatically this is true scientifically - because if it isn’t then there is any science talk about, it’s that fundamental. So using scientific law of cause and effect we can go through logical syllogism here, first point universe including time itself be shown would have had a beginning! Even in evolutionist group, yep, it had a beginning.
 
Secondly, it is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause. The Universe therefore requires a cause; nothing illogical so far in my thread.
 
The evolutionist nonverbally says yeah but where did God come from? And that of course illogical question, already talked about before in other thread. When anybody asks that question like that they don’t understand the definition of words they are using. God the creator by the definition is an infinite eternal spirit without beginning, without end, NOT bound by time, creator of time, therefore transcending any need for beginning. So God as creator of time is outside of time, since therefore he has no beginning in time. Remember dear readers ONLY something that has a beginning requires a cause to explain its existence. God by the definition had no beginning, will have no end; is eternal, and it’s nothing illogical for something being eternal. It is illogical thou for something have a beginning like a Universe and NOT have an adequate cause…they “evolutionist” can say something else was eternal that caused it, but let see what there other eternal God is they like to invoked. But since he had no beginning in time – he always existed so he does not need a cause to explain his origin, he had no origin – therefore no causes required.
 
Now that doesn’t sit well with my evolutionist on this forum lol, I think Christian’s folks already figured that out what we looked at.  
 
But let’s take a look at some classic cause and effect reasoning what we actually observed in the universe!
 
The First Cause of limitless space………………..Must be Infinite
The First Cause of endless Time…………............Must be eternal
The First Cause of boundless Energy…………….Must be omnipotent
The First Cause of universal interrelationships…..Must be omnipresent
The First Cause of supreme Complexity…………Must be omniscient (or all knowing)
The First Cause of Moral Values…………………Must be moral
The First Cause of Spiritual Values………………Must be spiritual
The First Cause of Human Responsibility………..Must be volitional (or having free will)
The First Cause of Human Integrity………………Must be truthful
The First Cause of Human Love………………….Must be loving
The First Cause of Life……………………………Must be living
 
Because no effect can be greater than its cause and every effect must have adequate cause. The conclusion is that the cause of all these phenomena we see in this universe must be a living, loving, truthful, volitional, spiritual, moral, omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, eternal, infinite being. Is that sound familiar to anybody on this forum? Yeah! His written a book – it’s called the Bible; his love letter to man. And science shows this…that a God such the God revealed in the Bible must exist based on real science cause and effect relationships.
 
Now unfortunately for those who say we cannot allow divine foot in the door? Cause and effect goes out of window, the axiomatic, basic, pillar truth of science is thrown out because by all means we cannot allow divine foot into the door. And so nothing to them is preferable to God, nothing; you think I am kidding on this forum?
 
Alan H Guth & Paul K Steinhardt couple of this evolutionist they say this?
It is tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.
 
You got to ask the question? Why is that so tempting? What is tempting about it? If everything came from nothing then what is it mean when asks the questions? Who are we? Why are we here? Where are we going? Where we came from? Nothing, I guess (we) worth nothing and we are not going to nothing; nothing is the answer, an all jeopardy questions, nothing…but it is tempting not because of science, not because of cause and effect law - but because of philosophical presumption of naturalism.
 
Edward Tryon said that our Universe had its physical origin as a quantum fluctuation of some pre-existing true vacuum or state of nothingness.
 
Wow, that almost sounds eloquent; it’s not very logical thou because when you look up the definition of nothing, in an ecology dictionary, it reads something like this? That which does not exist…..so all of this allocution has told us that we all came from that which never existed and if you told believe that? Well then you are stupid and unscientific by the definition. Nobody would really accept that, what we have to point it out in reductio out of sort fashion to point out that there conclusion is logical absurd. From nothing comes nothing, from that - which does not exist, you can’t get everything that does exist, talk about inadequate cause for the effect, that which doesn’t exist creates everything that does exist because they wanted to be so…and similar like VK4, and they define it as science.
 
And with little research I have a quote from Paul Davies evolutionist he says?
This “quantum cosmology” provides a loophole for the universe to, so to speak, spring into existence from nothing, without violating any laws of physics.
 
Well, I guess you know my dear readers, I guess that would be the case, how can nothing violate anything since it doesn’t exist…I wouldn’t worry about laws of physics, you know I may not worry about anything, will all came from nothing, don’t worry it’s not worth it…it’s nothing.
 
Now I quote again the Paul Davies, the man that I just quote it; notice what he admits thou when he is pin to the wall. He says no theory can rule out divine creation. Scientific theories are simply proposals for how the world is, to be tested by observation. There is no logical impediment to God creating the universe five minutes ago in its present state, complete with human memories. In the end a theory stands or falls on whether human beings consider it reasonable.
 
I hope I pounded this issue home tonight in this thread, why is it such a battle over the word rational, reasonable and scientific; because ultimately what human beings consider to be rational, reasonable and scientific is what accepted as science, is it that interesting? My dear readers, if they “evolutionists” control the definition of what is reasonable and rational, they win. And that’s where the battle has been fought in recent years and on this forum as well. Thank you for reading. Shtal.
 

GSD Admin or whoever could be why changing my thread title name?

I had as Understanding "cause and effect" in scientific terms.

Whatever shtals cause is it has no effect so that kind of ends that. furthermore reducto the serpent bwahahaha, go ahead edit that out. god revealed his love letter when he drowned the earth and killed millions of innocent men women and children and gave all women period pain and invented dysentry.

Er. how would you prove nothing can come from nothing, seriously what is yr evidence?

Why do you make a special case for god not being created but everything else is.....evidence, why does it even have to be a christian god that was uncreated and eternal, every god in history fits that description, why does the the god of bronze age goat herders get special pleading at the expense of the tens of thousands. of other gods.....give me one good reason.



btw you given up on thermodynamic arguments, math get the better of you?


you should try some non equilibrium statistical mechanics if you get past middle school science i will give you a complete description of a timeless physics that is both sufficient and necessary to explain the physical world, cause and effect are experimentally interchangeable. it does not negate science, science demands it.


you are so homeschool you make me zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzxzzzzzzzz.



:-)

At least you like to participate in my threads

Mebbe god changed the title cos he wants you to stop telling lies and embarrasing him.

Thing is i actually give you honest answers, you avoid all questions and make up new ones that you already have an answer to from yr ttinity of unholy sources;

Sye, answersingenesis and hovind, not one has any shred of scientific credibility .


i participate in the same way i would help any cripple or retard.

Spelling fixed, my grammar word input by typing correction software.

"error fixed"


btw VK4,

Shtal.

No wonder admins talks of losing the ot when yr response is always the same zzzz, if you are not open to discussion why post on a discussion board, why not make yr own web page and just fill it with yr own answers and own questions to them instead of using oli's bandwidth provided for free you free loading preacher wannabe professor .

Shtal, I think you have to have a grasp of Collapse Theories, to address your dilemma. I am just guessing about this. I have to re-read the whole thing myself, but I think this is the argument needed to address your post.

I need ... you know who .. to see if I am poking around in the right direction... 

 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-collapse/

 

Collapse Theories

First published Thu Mar 7, 2002; substantive revision Tue Nov 8, 2011
Quantum mechanics, with its revolutionary implications, has posed innumerable problems to philosophers of science. In particular, it has suggested reconsidering basic concepts such as the existence of a world that is, at least to some extent, independent of the observer, the possibility of getting reliable and objective knowledge about it, and the possibility of taking (under appropriate circumstances) certain properties to be objectively possessed by physical systems.

...........

Two specifications are necessary in order to make clear from the beginning what are the limitations and the merits of the program. The only satisfactory explicit models of this type (which are essentially variations and refinements of the one proposed in the references Ghirardi, Rimini, and Weber (1985, 1986), and usually referred to as the GRW theory) are phenomenological attempts to solve a foundational problem. At present, they involve phenomenological parameters which, if the theory is taken seriously, acquire the status of new constants of nature. Moreover, the problem of building satisfactory relativistic generalizations of these models has encountered serious mathematical difficulties due to the appearance of intractable divergences. Only very recently, some important steps we will discuss in what follows have led to the first satisfactory formulations of genuinely relativistically invariant theories inducing reductions. More important, the debate raised by these attempts and by claims that the desired generalization is impossible to achieve have elucidated some crucial points and have made clear that there is no reason of principle preventing to reach this goal.

.........
 

Summary

We hope to have succeeded in giving a clear picture of the ideas, the implications, the achievements and the problems of the DRP. We conclude by stressing once more our position with respect to the Collapse Theories. Their interest derives entirely from the fact that they have given some hints about a possible way out from the difficulties characterizing standard quantum mechanics, by proving that explicit and precise models can be worked out which agree with all known predictions of the theory and nevertheless allow, on the basis of a universal dynamics governing all natural processes, to overcome in a mathematically clean and precise way the basic problems of the standard theory. In particular, the Collapse Models show how one can work out a theory that makes perfectly legitimate to take a macrorealistic position about natural processes, without contradicting any of the experimentally tested predictions of standard quantum mechanics. Finally, they might give precise hints about where to look in order to put into evidence, experimentally, possible violations of the superposition principle.

 

Screw experimentally verfiable facts answersingenesis will have none of it. this calls for sye and craig to equivicate words away so that you have doubt on if you can know anything at all even yr own existence.



carry on.