darkchild64:


make I hear say too much sense no kill you
oga butterflyleo over 2 you,I'm sure you don't like that phrase " infinite regression'

Infinite regression does nt exist and even science faults this. This is why I said anyone who does not hold any knowledge of science should not comment and here you come breaking the protocol

keentola:
Butterflyleo

Provided you want to throw a stone to hit a lizard, you may keep trying and trying with one stone at a time and yet you will never hit the lizard. But if you take, let say, 35 small stones and throw it all at once, the chance of you hitting the lizard rises.. Big bang supports this, why is there not life on other planets in our solar system but there is life on our own?.

Look at million of objects flowing around in the universe, they simply fail to be that stone to hit the lizard of human life..

I do on think you read the OP. The big bang is not a reality. It is a hypothesis and you cannot throw a hypothesis as a reality when it is unfounded.

What you are referring to is what we call LUCK. Luck cannot produce a synchronized order in such a manner as I stated in the OP. The chances of that happening so perfectly is as good as zero. Or are you going to tell me that somehow the universe got it right at the first try despite all the chaos scientists claimed existed back then?

Martinez19:
Nothing I have said goes contrary to scientific evidence and proof. You lack understanding of gravity. Not all bodies can curve, stretch and distort space to a great extent like sun or the earth. The greater the mass the greater the curvature of spacetime and besides, it takes great matter to distort space significantly. The reason why you don't see objects on earth spinning around some objects is because the earth's gravitational influence far, and I far, surpasses any gravitational influence that any two bodies on earth could have on each other. So, all objects on earth obeys the earth's gravitational influence.

You lack any scientific knowledge and are just saying rubbish. Space does not have a curve. It is simply inhomogeneous. We plot space as a curve but in reality it isn't. Cause and effect still stands.

No gravitational force known to man can trigger the first effect if there was no cause.

superhumanist:
Nonsense

Blockheaded ignoramous. You will never know anything so can never say anything remotely intelligent.

Martinez19:
Butterflyleo don leave we atheists disappear.

I have been busy. I am not as jobless as a lot of you

vaxx:
will any atheist scientifically debunked the argument? i am here to learn

I doubt they can. They are patting themselves on the back despite saying nothing so far and liking each others post despite also saying nothing capable of debunking the OP

Martinez19:
I did refute the first one and someone else refuted the second. I would create a topic very soon because of this topic.

When did you refute anyone. You simply focused on the 3rd and that you did with all levels of scientific ignorance. Yet you claim you refuted? Lmao. Even the person you claimed refuted the second also displayed scientific ignorance.

Is the big bang a scientific fact? Yes or no

Martinez19:
But Mr butterfly said everything has a cause. If so yahweh must have a cause. If infinite regression is impossible and we say our universe is the beginning of that a finite regression, what problem would you have with that?

Dummy I am sure you read from the OP when I said UNCAUSED CAUSE and IMMUTABLE MOVER didn't you?

Butterflyleo:


You lack any scientific knowledge and are just saying rubbish. Space does not have a curve. It is simply inhomogeneous. We plot space as a curve but in reality it isn't. Cause and effect still stands.

No gravitational force known to man can trigger the first effect if there was no cause.

Is it that you don't read or what? I never said space had curve. I said spacet curves, distorts and stretches in the presence of matter and energy and THERE ARE TONS OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND PROOFS TO SUPPORT THIS and this is why Einstein is a big name in science. Remember I told you that it takes massive matter to bend space significantly. This is science and if doubt it, prove me wrong on this theory of general relativity. If you do, I will give my life to christ.

Awww, sorry if I make you faith shake a little. It's discomforting and anxiety causing

Martinez19:
if you say infinite regression is impossible, it means there must be an uncaused cause that either came out of nothing or has been since the beginning. What if I tell you that the universe is that uncaused cause? After all, you conceived that an uncaused cause can exist.

Science faults you again because the universe isn't eternal and has been known to have a beginning. True or false

Butterflyleo:


When did you refute anyone. You simply focused on the 3rd and that you did with all levels of scientific ignorance. Yet you claim you refuted? Lmao. Even the person you claimed refuted the second also displayed scientific ignorance.

Is the big bang a scientific fact? Yes or no

Show me my scientific ignorance and I will give my life to christ. Everything I said is backed up by scientific evidence and proof.

Butterflyleo:


Science faults you again because the universe isn't eternal and has been known to have a beginning. True or false

I know everything started with the big bang.

Butterflyleo:


Blockheaded ignoramous. You will never know anything so can never say anything remotely intelligent.

And your "scientific" proof for God that has no evidence, no repeatable experiment and no testable hypothesis, is intelligent?

Martinez19:
Is it that you don't read or what? I never said space had curve. I said spacet curves, distorts and stretches in the presence of matter and energy and THERE ARE TONS OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND PROOFS TO SUPPORT THIS and this is why Einstein is a big name in science. Remember I told you that it takes massive matter to bend space significantly. This is science and if doubt it, prove me wrong on this theory of general relativity. If you do, I will give my life to christ.

Awww, sorry if I make you faith shake a little. It's discomforting and anxiety causing

Why do you speak so ignorantly? The simple truth is that space is not a curve. It is so on paper but not in reality. Attached is the image of what you are postulating below.

You are throwing a hypothesis at me as a fact. This is not proven by any scientitist anywhere. Einstein tried but he hit an error and others are trying to correct his error till date. Stop spewing crap.

These are the errors in your spacetime warping nonsense

1. The worst error is that it uses gravity to try to explain gravity. If you accept that this is a demo of what gravity is and how it works, then what makes the space station roll down the curved slope? If you say, gravity, then this doesn’t explain anything, If you don’t say gravity, then what force does make it move on the curved plane?

2. This demo image has a very definite up and down. The down is at the bottom of that gravity well. The up is the opposite direction. But there is no up or down in space and objects can enter the gravity field from any direction. If you say the space station moves “down” the curved space-time plane, what happens if you turn this upside down? Why would the space station move “down” toward the bottom of the funnel shaped curve if it wan’t for gravity or some attractive force at the bottom of that curve?

In reality, shouldn’t the depiction of this image show the space-time plane passing through the center of the earth since that is the “center of gravity”? If the space station didn’t have enough speed to pass up and out of the curved space, it would “fall” toward the center of the earth - not toward the bottom of that distorted space-time plane.

3. If the earth was not rotating and if an object were held stationary above the earth at any distance and then let go, it will fall in a straight line to the earth. No curve, no tilt.

4. If the object is moving at any tangential direction when it is caught in the earth’s gravity, it will try to continue along its path in addition to being attracted toward the earth a combination of two force vectors resulting in a third new direction of movement. This results in a curved path. If it is moving very fast, then it will just curve inward briefly and then continue along a new path the way we use planets to slingshot our space probes. If the gravity is very strong such as from a star, or if the speed of the object is too slow, then the object will spiral down and crash into the star.

Although there is more to it than this, the idea of a depression in the plane of space-time as the explanation of gravity is inaccurate and not necessary. Rather than invoking some complex distortions of space-time, it works perfectly well to assume that two masses have an attractive force called gravity (much the same as two magnets) that can pull on nearby objects. It will alter the path of moving objects (in accordance with Newton’s laws of motion)

These explain my OP perfectly and these are the problems faced by Einstein and which no scientist alive has been able to provide an answer to so what we have is a hypothesis or an assumption and that is what you have been throwing around as fact all this while.

Please go and take several seats.

Martinez19:
I know everything started with the big bang.

Yet Science calls the big bang A HYPOTHESIS . But somehow you know it isn't s a fact

Butterflyleo:


Yet Science calls the big bang A HYPOTHESIS . But somehow you know it isn't s a fact

The big bang is no longer an hypothesis. It's now been proven.

Butterflyleo:


Infinite regression does nt exist and even science faults this. This is why I said anyone who does not hold any knowledge of science should not comment and here you come breaking the protocol

in the post you made which budaatum quoted you claimed that "EVERY" effect has a cause,and then budaatum asked you to apply that to "God" which would of course lead to infinite regression,so the point is that your statement that "EVERY effect has a cause" is untrue,but then if you still claim you are right explain to us how "God" came to being and you would be taken seriously since you say that EVERY effect has a cause

Martinez19:
The big bang is no longer an hypothesis. It's now been proven.

Lmao proven? When? By who?

From what I know, the only evidence we have for what is termed the Big Bang is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation which scientists say showed up around 300,000 years after the hypthesised Big Bang happened.

Apart from this, is there any other evidence you have for the big bang beyond a hypothesised model?

darkchild64:


in the post you made which budaatum quoted you claimed that "EVERY" effect has a cause,and then budaatum asked you to apply that to "God" which would of course lead to infinite regression,so the point is that your statement that "EVERY effect has a cause" is untrue,but then if you still claim you are right explain to us how "God" came to being and you would be taken seriously since you say that EVERY effect has a cause

Why are you always a blockhead. Read my OP again. I am sure if you or budaatum had read my OP you would have seen me describe God as an UNCAUSED CAUSE and IMMUTABLE MOVER.

Which renders your infinite regression talk as nonsensical.

Butterflyleo:


Why are you always a blockhead. Read my OP again. I am sure if you or budaatum had read my OP you would have seen me describe God as an UNCAUSED CAUSE and IMMUTABLE MOVER.

Which renders your infinite regression talk as nonsensical.

"Uncaused cause" is a meaningless contradiction. God created himself from nothing abi?

but then butterflyleo "God" does not mean anything until you specify what his characteristics and nature is,if your evidence for "God" is that the universe and the forces of nature had a source which is him then I would say you need a rethink,what if this "God" created the universe but does not exist anymore,what if this "God" is not omnipotent but has other beings higher than him,what if this "God" is not a being to start with,maybe something we can not comprehend as humans,what if this "God" is abstract,what if this "God" is simply the universe !!!
You making claim for the existence of "God" using the cliché "Nothing comes out of nothing" will only lead you to infinite regression, whether you agree or not,there is such a thing as infinite regression,just like budaatum said subtract 1 from a number keep doing same and tell us when you arrive at a final result
So what am I trying to say,if you want to prove the existence of "God" you should have a "God" which you are referring to,the word "God" can mean anything

Butterflyleo:


Why are you always a blockhead. Read my OP again. I am sure if you or budaatum had read my OP you would have seen me describe God as an UNCAUSED CAUSE and IMMUTABLE MOVER.

Which renders your infinite regression talk as nonsensical.

UNCAUSED CAUSE

is that supposed to be an oxymoron or something,who dash you that poetic license

Butterflyleo:


Why are you always a blockhead. Read my OP again. I am sure if you or budaatum had read my OP you would have seen me describe God as an UNCAUSED CAUSE and IMMUTABLE MOVER.

Which renders your infinite regression talk as nonsensical.

well if that be the case then your statement that "EVERY effect has a cause" is wrong

but of course I know you wouldn't admit to that

darkchild64:


well if that be the case then your statement that "EVERY effect has a cause" is wrong

but of course I know you wouldn't admit to that

My statement is correct because I have eliminated God from what the statement covers when I said God is the uncaused cause and the immutable mover. Its simple english

Butterflyleo:


Lmao proven? When? By who?

From what I know, the only evidence we have for what is termed the Big Bang is the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation which scientists say showed up around 300,000 years after the hypthesised Big Bang happened.

Apart from this, is there any other evidence you have for the big bang beyond a hypothesised model?

SMH.

superhumanist:


"Uncaused cause" is a meaningless contradiction. God created himself from nothing abi?

And who said God created himself? Do you lack the simplest understanding of what the term UNCAUSED CAUSE AND IMMUTABLE MOVER Means? I wouldn't be shocked if you actually do not know what it means.

Butterflyleo:


My statement is correct because I have eliminated God from what the statement covers when I said God is the uncaused cause and the immutable mover. Its simple english

Then, I too can claim that the celestial teapot is another uncaused cause without any evidence.

darkchild64:
but then butterflyleo "God" does not mean anything until you specify what his characteristics and nature is,if your evidence for "God" is that the universe and the forces of nature had a source which is him then I would say you need a rethink,what if this "God" created the universe but does not exist anymore,what if this "God" is not omnipotent but has other beings higher than him,what if this "God" is not a being to start with,maybe something we can not comprehend as humans,what if this "God" is abstract,what if this "God" is simply the universe !!!
You making claim for the existence of "God" using the cliché "Nothing comes out of nothing" will only lead you to infinite regression, whether you agree or not,there is such a thing as infinite regression,just like budaatum said subtract 1 from a number keep doing same and tell us when you arrive at a final result
So what am I trying to say,if you want to prove the existence of "God" you should have a "God" which you are referring to,the word "God" can mean anything

You and budaatum are speaking about an abstract known in mathematics. My OP is not dealing with abstracts but reality of the universe. Or is the universe you know abstract?

I am not going to define God to you. My OP is not about Yahweh or Allah but about GOD.

Butterflyleo:


And who said God created himself? Do you lack the simplest understanding of what the term UNCAUSED CAUSR AND IMMUTABLR MOVER Means? I wouldn't be shocked if you actually do not know what it means.

If God is uncaused, then, nothing caused him. He literally came from nothing. God just exists. He created himself

Martinez19:
SMH.

You do not even realise how intellectually dishonest you have been with your arguments. With me you talk about a big bang which in itself talks about a beginning of the universe. With vaxx you talk about an eternal universe. Why not stand on one ground instead of jumping back and forth like a confused human.

If you say the big bang has been proven then explain why other scientists are still pushing for the eternal universe hypothesis aka the multiverse hypothesis?

Shouldn't the entire scientific world agree that this has been proven?

Butterflyleo:


My statement is correct because I have eliminated God from what the statement covers when I said God is the uncaused cause and the immutable mover. Its simple english

so you want us to walk down this path
alright,if that be the case I equally choose to eliminate the universe from what your statement covers,
"the universe and the laws that govern it are the UNCAUSED CAUSE that cannot be CAUSED"

hence the need for a creator becomes unnecessary

superhumanist:


Then, I too can claim that the celestial teapot is another uncaused cause without any evidence.

That would make you profoundly stupid and guarantee you a spot in the most stupid person alive platform.