Cause and effect (Just to refresh the topic 2 years ago) - Page 1

Understanding "cause and effect" in scientific terms.

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 evolutionist folks agree 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...

The evolutionist nonverbally says yeah but where did God come from? And that of course illogical question... 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 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 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.

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.

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 or should I say from rock lol just kidding!!!!

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, 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? 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.....

Thank you for reading. Shtal.

BTW no spam please from vk4.

As per usual Shtal, you parrot creationists without understanding exactly what it is that you parrot. Not only that, but you're now populating the board with failure after failure, hoping your previous failures sink to the bottom and you can handily ignore the points on which you lose each and every argument. Here you go Shtal, assuming that you even understand a small fraction of what it is you're spewing from others' lips, but I probably shouldn't'assume anything when it comes to your understanding anything about science.

http://youtu.be/M1c_GlAjvy4

Gsdtravels, I though you promised you will not post propoganda on YouTube....not going to watch spam....sorry.....

Of course you're not going to watch it, it just might refute your bullshit. You brought up Guth, did you not? Well he himself directly answers your misinformation Shtal, so who is it posting propaganda? Besides, you wouldn't't understand the concepts anyway, so it would be a waste of your time. Although, it's sitting here for everyone else to see what a tool you are. How many more posts are you going to start on the same topic? The mods should be here smacking your ass down, guess they have better things to do today.

You need to take a chill pill it will really help you, I promise.

 

Special pleading that everything needs a cause except god.
Asserting god into yr poorly presented crappy argument does not mean a god exists.

According to scripture god is not moral, condones rape, murder, slavery genocide ...so god is not the source of morality.

Shtal please justify how yr evil monster god is moral, omniscient, omnipotent etc one at a time, saying it does not make it true.

Going to take this retarded post of shtals down one paragraph at a time. Let's start at the beginning;


"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. "

Note the in the first sentence "if", yes if there was something as stupid and meaningless as what you say then you might have a point. But there is no such thing. Easy proof, post a paper or quote an author in a peer reviewed science journal that says that. You wont and you can't because there is none.

So already in the opening statement shtal has made up a claim about science that doesn't exist in science - straw man fallacy, starting with an invalid claim in order to refute his own invalid claim, circular and non sequitur. Of course the point is to conclude, therefore God exists. Ie shtals argument in a nutshell - if I make up an invalid strawman to knock down then god exists..... pathetic.

Please address these issues shtal then I will demonstrate the ma y fallacies, dishonesty and invalid reasoning line by line in the rest of your mess of a post.

Perhaps you can't read?

"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 its "cause" and for every "effect" there must be "adequate cause".

Perhaps you have never read any science newer than 200 years old.

Please post your source of this law.

Shtal is pulling things right out of his ass once again. Please cite your references Shtal. vk is absolutely correct, that's some strawman you've built there pal, along with an epic tear down! Do you have more humor you'd like to share? I think that's his feeble attempt at causality, but if it is, he's delving into philosophical casualty, not physical casualty and he obviously doesn't understand the difference. Physics, according to Shtal, ROFLMAO