₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight: I knew beforehand ALL the responses you would give; I did not expect you to understand the subtleties: I only bothered to write all that for the benefit of third parties and not for you.

I will only ask you the following: and please give me short direct unequivocal answers.

Finger Prints.

1. Is it a compositional fallacy to state that all human finger prints are unique?

2. Is it an argument from ignorance to state that all human finger prints are unique?

3. Is it an assumption to state that all human finger prints are unique?

4. Have we observed all human finger prints in existence?

Planets

1. Is it a compositional fallacy to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull?

2. Is it an argument from ignorance to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull ?

3. Is it an assumption to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull?

4. Have we observed all planets in the universe?

Yes or no will do PLEASE. Just assume I am the id.iot and be patient enough to answer these succinctly as a charitable act to my da.ftness.

Thanks.

O, and with reference to the "subtleties" which I refer to you as missing - - - > If you answer "No" to ANY of these questions, then ponder why, and you will get it. In fact, since you are so tiresome, I should say it outright - - - > The reason is - logical inference when same elements are at play. As simple as comparing apples to apples.

Simples.

Regrettably, I know I will have to write an epistle on such a simple statement before you understand it. In fact, after I do that, you will still not, but I will do so anyway for the benefit of third party readers.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Ok let me help you....

To put things in perspective, this is how Exodus 32:14 reads in the NIV.........
Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

This is how you are committing the fallacy of equivocation, while CrazyMan is saying God does not do evil in the sense that God does not sin i.e God does not commit moral evil, you on the other hand are equivocating "God does not commit moral evil" to "God does not bring about disaster".

To make matters worse, the context is one in which God is about to exercise punishment. If we follow your argument squarely, it seems you are in a sense saying that God is wrong to punish evil.

I hope you get what I'm saying now?[/quote]In fact, let me add to this by saying that disasters may even be righteous, positively just, and necessary for spiritual development.

Pastor Kun: Whilst i cannot rule out extra-terrestrial visitation in the past history of Judeo-christian religion, the christian belief system is way beyond that as there is a spiritual angle to it. I don't want to derail the thread now but trust me some of us have had very convincing spiritual experiences which confirms our beliefs.

plaetton: But spiritual experiences are neither unique to the christian religion nor to religion in general.
Everyone has or is open to spiritual experiences of epiphanies.

I have had many epiphanies in my life, so much so that I could have founded my own religion based on the epiphanies I have had.
religion is just one of many ways of interpreting a spiritual experience.
Therefore, a spiritual experience can be used to re-enforce, not validate, an individual's already-accepted religious beliefs, and nothing more.

I agree with the existence of the spiritual. NOTHING can make me cease to believe in its existence - because of my personal experiences. I have often spoken about the pattern of my dreams - but this is evidence of nothing to no one but myself as only I can know what I have experienced. I can tell it to others, but they will eternally be right to assume I am hallucinating or even lying, so long as they have not experienced such themselves. I personally know very well that most future events are already programmed into reality and can be said to be even completely unavoidable no matter what one does. I am tired of seeing future events in my dreams and doing everything possible to stop them but they still play out exactly as dreamt. Let me just stop here before Martian and his ilk break my head and call me delusional.

jayriginal: If you say all fingerprints are unique, you make a claim. Anyone is within their rights to ask how you know this. Your response should be to set out in detail how you acquired this knowledge in such a way that it becomes plain to the reasonable man.

Lol. Did anyone notice this joke? Plain to the reasonable man ? Plain to the reasonable man ? ? Plain to the reasonable man? ? ?

Lol. So Jayriginal, it honestly misses you that this is what I have been screaming myself hoarse about. That these things are self-evidential and plain to the reasonable man. The uniqueness of fingerprints is plain to the reasonable man because no two persons have been seen with the exact same prints, ever. The validity of cause and effect is even more self-evidential and plain to the reasonable man. As such it is not that these very self-evident precepts have to be proved - rather - if anyone questions them, then he needs to disprove them - because they are self evident and plain to the reasonable man.

Oya, go ahead and say that cause and effect is NOT plain to the reasonable man. In fact, that one, I double - dare you.

Can anyone say that the law of cause and effect has to be proved and explained to a reasonable man - in that - it is as yet unproven or unexplained ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Is it not the case that it is rather already well proven - and needs to be disproven by anyone who questions it?

In fact, i throw a challenge. I contend that there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER that has ever been as adamantly and repeatedly proven in our reality, as the law of cause and effect. NOTHING WHATSOEVER. NOT ONE SINGLE PHENOMENON AT ALL. Infact, EVERY PROVEN PHENOMENON is proven with reference to, and by the law of cause and effect. Nothing is proven without reference to that basic precept. NOTHING. I challenge Jayriginal to mention ONE such thing. Just ONE.

But watch it: he will not: he will say that he has no need to produce examples! Lol! Unbelievable chap!

I have explained previously to Jayriginal that the entirety of science itself, is an inquiry into causality. I honestly don't know how such a basic fact could elude him in his notions about "cause and effect being a mere assumption." I might re phrase it by equally saying that there would be no such thing as science or scientific inquiry, but for the fact of cause and effect. ALL science rests on cause and effect. ALL.

Cause and effect being proven at cosmic scales is a fact because the cosmos consists of matter: and as such we know that since causality operates in reference to matter, a material universe must operate same. This is the very same way in which we can legitimately and logically infer that all planets must have a gravitational pull, even when we have not seen them all: because we know the properties of planets and the laws necessary to keep them suspended in space.

I honestly cannot believe such nonsense. Especially when packaged with nonsensical and presumptuous arrogance. I am well known as a most unserious person - otherwise I would not be responding to such piffle. More serious minds than mine would simply smile and ignore this trash.

jayriginal: A distraction, but maybe you will get the hint.

Your study refers to the views and management of print impressions and not the specific questions as to actually whether there are people with exactly identical finger prints. An irrelevant distraction indeed.

Especially because it tragically misses the pith of the analogy made, as you surely already know.

I knew beforehand ALL the responses you would give; I did not expect you to understand the subtleties: I only bothered to write all that for the benefit of third parties and not for you.

I will only ask you the following: and please give me short direct unequivocal answers.

Finger Prints.

1. Is it a compositional fallacy to state that all human finger prints are unique?

2. Is it an argument from ignorance to state that all human finger prints are unique?

3. Is it an assumption to state that all human finger prints are unique?

4. Have we observed all human finger prints in existence?

Planets

1. Is it a compositional fallacy to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull?

2. Is it an argument from ignorance to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull ?

3. Is it an assumption to state that all planets in the universe have a gravitational pull?

4. Have we observed all planets in the universe?

Yes or no will do PLEASE. Just assume I am the id.iot and be patient enough to answer these succinctly as a charitable act to my da.ftness.

Thanks.

Honestly, all things considered, be it ancient aliens, pre-history, pyramids all over the place - the Americas, Africa (even giant ones in ancient china, i now learn) - not that these are proof of ancient aliens - but I absolutely insist - and this, I say that anyone who denies must be totally irrational - namely, that there is a massive lacuna in human history somewhere which is yet to be accounted for. The very supposed age of homo sapiens alone does not abide the scenario we now have in history whereby less than 10, 000 years is known of: and worse: even far less consists of recorded civilization. This does not tally. A huge massive giantatic chunk is missing somewhere.

Now another excellent example just occured to me as to why Mr. Jayriginal's position on the issue of "assumptions" and proof for the cause and effect notion, is so horribly horribly wrong.As frighteningly illogical as Jayriginal can be, I will be shocked if even he can deny this very clear example puts his position to death.

The example I wish to give is that of fingerprints. It is accepted scientific knowledge that no two humans have identical finger prints - that fingerprints are all unique. This is completely accepted in science such that fingerprint evidence is used in criminal matters as binding real evidence.

And yet, there has never been a time in history when all the fingerprints of all human beings have ALL been analysed so as to conclude that there are in fact no two identical fingerprints.

This puts paid to Jayriginal's notion that assuming the law of cause and effect on a cosmic scale is a compositional fallacy:-

Because the simple reality is that that which has been observed is that no two people have the same finger prints. Going with Jayriginal's argument, any person can sit back and say that this well known scientfic fact is only an assumption or a compositional fallacy: because the whole of humanity has not been observed - nor can ever be: because even if every person on the planet today has his fingerprints analysed, it will be impossible to analyse the finger prints of the millions of people that have lived and died or the billions more yet to be born. As such, there will NEVER be a time when the whole of humanity will have had their fingerprints analysed so as to ground the fact that no two fingerprints can EVER be the same.

Nonetheless: the simple truth is that in that which we observe as true of human anatomy: no two finger prints have been observed to be the same. We thus have valid grounds for considering it true and correct to say that it is indeed true that finger prints are unique.

Now, here is the core and central point: the issue of proof - if someone were to come along asking questions about the validity of the notion that finger prints are unique - ON WHOM WOULD THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIE TO SHOW THAT FINGER PRINTS ARE OR ARE NOT UNIQUE?

The simple fact is that since in our common observation, finger prints as far as we know are indeed unique to each person, if any person will claim the contrary, or even say that such is a mere assumption, or does not necessarily apply to all humans, or even question the uniqueness of finger prints, then clearly, THAT person will have the burden of proof for shewing the reasons for his doubts - ALL he will have to do is to [b]show just one single example of two humans with the same finger prints, and the matter will be closed forever.

How reasonable would it be for him to refuse to show such an example AND THEN contend that the well known unique nature of finger prints is a mere assumption AND THEN insist that since we have not seen all finger prints, the statement that finger prints are unique is a COMPOSITIONAL FALLACY - and wait for it - on top of all that, when we say to him that "as far as we know, finger prints are unique" - he reverts with saying that since that is only "as far as we know," then the statement that finger prints are unique is an argument from ignorance!

Does this make sense to anybody?

Now this is the terrifying illogic which Jayriginal has repeatedly stated with regard to the applicability of the law of cause and effect for material phenomena. Mind you, in the case of the law of cause and effect, it is far worse because cause and effect is far more intrinsic to material reality than any thing about finger prints. I also gave him an example about whether or not we have observed all the planets in the universe. Both these examples absolutely show the nonsense he is talking when he says that it is a mere assumption that the universe is caused.

More importanly, they show how awfully misplaced his understanding of the terms "argument from ignorance" and "compositional fallacy" are. He does not realize that in the very s.illy way that he reads these terms, they can be applied to say that ANY statement whatsoever, is only an assumption or a compositional fallacy - or an argument from ignorance. To the extent that I have not seen all cats in the world, and no one has, it can also be said to be a mere assumption or compositional fallacy that cats have four legs. Or an argument from ignorance, as he says.

Infact, his good friend Idehn, would by his own arguments, say that a cat with five legs is natural, since it can occur.

Good morning Ladies and Gentlemen. Arise and greet absurdity itself.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]@DeepSight, long time. How you dey?[/quote]I dey o, when shall we attempt a re-take of that conversation. Don't worry, I won't bungle the recording this time.

mkmyers45: What do you think?

Eternity is a tricky topic to handle as i believe time as being perceived hence we could be in an eternal cycle but we perceive it not to be so...

The question is if there is a barrier from which time begins and a barrier at which it ends.\

That is inconceivable.

This means that yes, somethings are indeed uncaused: intangible self-existents such as time.

jayriginal: No, Newtonian is physics on one scale and quantum physics is on another scale.

You see the problem is that there is this sneer inherent in people's words these days when they condescendingly refer to "oh, you are still stuck with archaic old Isaac Newton". . .It irritates me because the principles studied by that great man are still very much fundamental today and forever. It is worse because th "Quantum Physics", which is the new beautiful bride is anything but confirmed or understood as yet, and it in fact presents many illogicalities so far - as advanced by many current physicists. There is just no way it is time yet to begin to discard well known laws (e.g: material cause and effect) in favour of imaginary Quantum voodoo. Not there yet.

PhysicsQED: You seem to have misread me. What I was saying by "if there was no existence, there would not need to be time" is simply that the idea of time being necessary independent of the singularity's existence doesn't make sense to me; as I have already stated repeatedly, I don't believe in that absolute external Newtonian timeline that you believe in. I thought that the meaning would be clear from the context in which I made the statement. Our positions on time seem irreconcilable so, once again, later.

^^^ And let me add to that that the word "timeline" which we often use, suggests that there is some progression of time. . . . I have said before that there is no such thing. Time is just still. It is events and phenomena that occur within it, objects that move. Time itself does not commence, progress or end.

PhysicsQED: You seem to have misread me. What I was saying by "if there was no existence, there would not need to be time" is simply that the idea of time being necessary independent of the singularity's existence doesn't make sense to me; as I have already stated repeatedly, I don't believe in that absolute external Newtonian timeline that you believe in. I thought that the meaning would be clear from the context in which I made the statement. Our positions on time seem irreconcilable so, once again, later.

I should also say how sad I find it that some people imagine that "Newtonian" is now a term for archaic or false or disproved laws or science.

And this, when the Quantum Physics in question is and remains, so far, at best sketchy speculation around ill-understood precepts.

nuclearboy: Please deepsight:

lets know asap the details of your discussion

I should inform the house that Mr. Anony and myself infact had this telephone conversation: we recorded it: regrettably the recording was bad and as such most of it was lost and could not be posted. I will try to reach Mr. Anony for a re-do.

Pretty sad as he made some profound arguments in that session.

jayriginal: Interesting. The whole "laws of nature" issue persuades some to insist that there must be a "law giver".

Leads to some pretty flawed reasoning.

Let's say. . . .a rationale for laws of nature. . .you and I would call it an existential grundnorm, if you catch my drift. . . .

mkmyers45: I have question Deep Sight....

The term 'the uncaused' cause how plausible is it? Is such a cause's existence immemorial?

Does eternity exist? What caused it?

Callotti: We as Super-Americans are planning to capture that his FAKE YESHUARIC azzzze, and extract his DNA.
Now, you know why he DARES not come down to Earth!
Watch out!

PLEASE WORSHIP HIM WHILE YOU CAN.

When will you tire of id.iocy? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Jesus was just a man. That's the simple answer to your question. In history, humans always deify spiritual leaders. That is what they did to Jesus. They turned him to God. Its asinine.

See more biblical quotes in the OP here -

https://www.nairaland.com/344297/dr-david-sheds-some-light

Only id.iots believe that ridiculous middle-eastern fable.

jayriginal: Because planets have mass, they should have gravity. That is a reasonable statement to make, but one should be wary when making exclusive statements. While it is unlikely that one will find a planet without any gravitational pull, strange things have been known to happen in science.

As regards Cause and effect, I honestly don't know where to start with you. Everything you have written about solid water speaks NOTHING. Solid water will be caused under a variety of causes. Cold could be one, pressure could be another, there could be others. All of these simply disclose causes and causality for phenomena. It just beats me silly that anyone can dare to question causality in material phenomena. It is the most ridiculous notion ever: far more ridiculous than any religious supposition: and as far as I am concerned it emanates from a pathetic desire to ape scientific Joneses. A desire to seem to be on the side of modern nonsensicalities.

Cause and effect is far too intrinsic to reality for the sort of notions you have been bandying about to be taken seriously. Sometimes I wonder if you really understand the implications of what you are advancing. That things may just exist - - - > magically, without cause - when these things are material finite things. I honestly cannot see how u want me to argue against such nonsense. I sit back and wonder if you are really contemplating what you are saying carefully.

Overall: this statement: you are yet to contemplate: "Anything that BEGINS to exist has a cause".

My friend; something that begins must be triggered. This is so obvious i actually feel sick having to say it.

Enjoy.

Deep Sight: Just answer this question: Do phenomena occur to non existent things?

It appears our very logical friends are unable to answer this question!

PhysicsQED: I simply don't see why if there was no existence, there would need to be time.

Just for the record, this was never the crux of the matter. Talking about the existence of the singularity is not talking about no existence: because a singularity is not nothing - it is something. Something material in fact - and material things do not exist outside time, do they?

You seem to be confusing the issues.

Just answer this question: Do phenomena occur to non existent things?

Anyway, the discussion we had was interesting. Later.

Likewise.

[quote author=Tudór6]Wow thanks for the info. The colours are really shouting right at my eyes. I guess it's been awhile, almost 2 years now. Did you change your ID from something before? I just arrived Naija, for the past few days trying to log on, couldn't remember my password. All my old Id's surprisingly have been unbanned. This place hasn't changed much, different sects still fighting day and night. LOL.

Wonder how davidylan, noetic, jesoul, Huxley, krayola, deepsight, mavenbox Abi na inesqor , viaro, kay17, Pastor AIO, tonte-T, banom, nuclearboy, myjoe, nwankwo/justcool, alethia, Abuzola, babs747, olabowale, mazaje, manmustwac etc. See most are gone, hope they are all doing well wherever they are. Those guys really made my days back then. Haha
I'm fine on my brother, thanks for asking. Been okay for awhile now, just getting my stuff together. Decided to give myself a tour of the world mehn, we only live once oo. Try to enjoy the good things of life as much as you can before you kick the bucket or before some fool knacks the bucket on your head.

I might be visiting here from time to time if I have the chance. I would love the discuss NDE's with you folks here sometime, have some amazing experiences to share. Would be nice to hear varying perspectives.[/quote]Whoa. Did any NDE's change your perspectives on spirituality/ the existence of God/ THE spiritual?

jayriginal: When you ask me if I observe something, and I do, I say yes. If you then take it to mean that such a thing extends to what I cannot observe and what I know you could not have possibly observed, then I must ask you how you acquired your knowledge.

As far as cause and effect and a material universe is concerned, there are things to consider.

Much like the early man would have been reasonable to suppose gravity is a universal law, we know better now. So also your precious cause and effect. Theres nothing currently to show that it applies Universally. That is as I say, a compositional fallacy, wherein you infer the whole from a part.

Can you tell me if it is an assumption or a compositional fallacy to state that all planets in the universe will have some gravitational pull about them.

Can you tell me whether we have observed all planets in the universe.

If I say to you that planets have a gravitational pull about them - is that an assumption, or is it a valid statement arising from what we have seen about planets?

You must then show that at the singularity from whence the Universe was said to commence in present form, and the same point when physicists agree that our laws of physics as we know it were broken down/did not apply, at this very point, you have to show that this natural law of cause and effect was applicable then.

Following from the example of planets and gravity above, so long as the singularity is matter, we can draw the same valid statements regarding causality. Remember I have explained severally how matter can not ever be said to be self existent as well. This also shows why the singularity cannot be self existent and as such is subject to cause and effect.

Particularly, the event of the expansion underlines this fact.

All, before you show that it was god that did it.

A daunting task, I think.

Not so really. Recall we have also discussed this. I have said to you and others severally that matter, necessarily not being self existent must be caused. Nothing is its own cause and as such matter cannot be caused by matter and thus it must be caused by an immaterial element. Which is what God is described as.

The desciption of GOD is key here. We are not talking Santa Claus, Zeus or Yahweh. We are talking an element we describe as the compound of necessary self-existent components.

jayriginal: Cheers. Good ribbing.

Glad! Later!

^ ^ ^ Abeg, real or fake, they are not uncaused. That is the fact.

Have to be off now. Hope you enjoyed our banter as much as I did, and don't take my melodrama seriously o.

Later pal.

jayriginal: The way it went was
Man X, gravity applies across the Universe
Man Y, How do you know ?

The succeeding answer would be that it is intrinsic in the material universe. Cause and effect is more intrinsic. As such, I repeat: if any person wishes to cast doubt on its applicability else where in the universe, he will have to show why.

This is axactly what some dolts have been laboring unsuccessfully to do with virtual particles, radioactive decay, etc.

If they succeed, fine. They have not, simple.

We can know that Cause and Effect applies across the universe SO LONG AS WE ARE DEALING WITH MATTER: because we have seen that material phenomena need causes AND WE KNOW THAT THE UNIVERSE IS MATERIAL.

Funny you should mention this

How? I cannot ask you to prove to me why something like grravity is NOT an assumption, can I? By the way, less gravity is not no gravity, in reference to your reference. Would you say that it will be am assumption to say that other planets have some gravitational pull as well about them? Would this be an assumption, or a correct inference from what we know? How do we know such then? Again, be honest here.

Now on to Martians link. I have been aware of that since before we debated but I am not entirely satisfied. Maybe I will if I pursue the subject vigorously, but I wonder if I can borrow a leaf from my mentor Deep Sight and label the Prof as "i[i]d[/i]iotic", illiterate and such like terms of endearment.

Dawkins is a dolt. Don't sweat that one.

jayriginal: The way it went was
Man X, gravity applies across the Universe
Man Y, How do you know ?

The succeeding answer would be that it is intrinsic in the material universe. Cause and effect is more intrinsic. As such, I repeat: if any person wishes to cast doubt on its applicability else where in the universe, he will have to show why.

This is axactly what some dolts have been laboring unsuccessfully to do with virtual particles, radioactive decay, etc.

If they succeed, fine. They have not, simple.

We can know that Cause and Effect applies across the universe SO LONG AS WE ARE DEALING WITH MATTER: because we have seen that material phenomena need causes AND WE KNOW THAT THE UNIVERSE IS MATERIAL.

Funny you should mention this

How? I cannot ask you to prove to me why something like grravity is NOT an assumption, can I? By the way, less gravity is not no gravity, in reference to your reference. Would you say that it will be am assumption to say that other planets have some gravitational pull as well about them? Would this be an assumption, or a correct inference from what we know? How do we know such then? Again, be honest here.

Now on to Martians link. I have been aware of that since before we debated but I am not entirely satisfied. Maybe I will if I pursue the subject vigorously, but I wonder if I can borrow a leaf from my mentor Deep Sight and label the Prof as "i[i]d[/i]iotic", illiterate and such like terms of endearment.

Dawkins is a dolt. Don't sweat that one.

Martian: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/

The term “virtual particle” is an endlessly confusing and confused subject for the layperson, and even for the non-expert scientist. I have read many books for laypeople (yes, I was a layperson once myself, and I remember, at the age of 16, reading about this stuff) and all of them talk about virtual particles and not one of them has ever made any sense to me. So I am going to try a different approach in explaining it to you.

The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

Analogy time (and a very close one mathematically); think about a child’s swing. If you give it a shove and let it go, it will swing back and forth with a time period that is always the same, no matter how hard was the initial shove you gave it. This is the natural motion of the swing. Now compare that regular, smooth, constant back-and-forth motion to what would happen if you started giving the swing a shove many times during each of its back and forth swings. Well, the swing would start jiggling around all over the place, in a very unnatural motion, and it would not swing smoothly at all. The poor child on the swing would be furious at you, as you’d be making his or her ride very uncomfortable. This unpleasant jiggling motion — this disturbance of the swing — is different from the swing’s natural and preferred back-and-forth regular motion just as a “virtual particle” disturbance is different from a real particle. If something makes a real particle, that particle can go off on its own across space. If something makes a disturbance, that disturbance will die away, or break apart, once its cause is gone. So it’s not like a particle at all, and I wish we didn’t call it that.

Thanks for this.

Jayriginal, please note that all of this beautifully and emphatically discloses causality.

Can't run way from it. Read th ebold in particular.

jayriginal: Ehya.

Believe you me, i'm yet to live that one down.

No. There is a difference between our container and outside our container. Even our container is vastly unknown. It is not out of place then to ask you if a local law has scope outside our immediate vicinity. Thats simple enough.

Yes: and with reference to the example I gave about gravity, who would you say would have the burden of proof if it is said that gravity does not apply at the stage of the early universe. Given that we observe gravity in all aspects of the universe [your favorite term - "as far as we know"] - then if these statements are made -

Man X - Gravity applies across the universe

Man Y - Gravity is only an assumption as far as we know

- - - > Which man has the burden of proof? Be honest here.

I repeat: any person stating that which is contrary to common observation must bear the burden of proof.

The universe is material and we see cause and effect in all things material. Cause and Effect is thus intrinsic to matreial reality "as far as we know". As such, any person who asserts the contrary will have to show why. Just as Galileo had to - even when right. Just as Corpenicus had to - even when right.

Simple.

You keep going on about perfect vacuums. I havent asked that. My question is "what is the cause of virtual particles" ?

Its perfectly ok to say you dont know, even if you think they must be caused somewhat.

Go ahead and asnwer.

Yes of course, I do not know. What I do know for certain is that anything that emerges out of something else cannot be said to be uncaused. That is logical. Or do you deny this as well?

jayriginal: Not till he registers on nairaland.

He has already. Enigma caught him, and I had to ask him not to re appear.

I think its a major cause of the hot air in you.

No amigo: it is an indication of my personal quest for knowledge. For Deeper sight. Simples.

NO, you were the one asserting. I was questioning. You sought to convince me. You dont ask your opponent to prove his case until you have proven yours.
No case submission !

I gave you Galileo: I showed you that EVEN WHERE RIGHT, any person questioning accepted scientific laws such as cause and effect, will have to adduce proof and examples validating his doubt.

I would not say, for example, that the law of gravity is an " assumption " - and then insist that the world should be the one to prove same to me. Evidence of gravity is all around us in the same way as evidence of cause and effect is all around us. If I wish to deny or question the law of gravity on any level - even at the level of the early universe - I will have to show my reasons for questioning that which is commonly observed.

This is what you failed to do, and I tire of explaining this fact to you. Once you question a commonly observed law, you must show WHY.

Your stance is just like me questioning the law of gravity and then asking you to show me the evidence for gravity. Its absurd, accept that.

I didnt bring that up, you did and I refused to be distracted. I have asked you what causes virtual particles. You still havent told me.

Virtual particles have been made an issue by people who seek to prove that something may emerge from nothing. That is the exact point: virtual particles do not emerge from nothing, because the vacuums referred to are not nothing: they contained low gaseous pressure and as such are not nothing. In science, there has never been a perfect vacuum observed anywhere.

Nah, that wont be original. Its too obvious (and you dont hide it either )

Lol.

jayriginal: Dude, you are sliding into dementia. Me stalk you ke ?

Nobody takes you seriously mate. You're good for comic relief. Thats all.

Jesus mate, at least my Dog does. And nah, he is somebody.

You dont need to tell me no one takes me seriously, thats ok. I'm not here for that. I call myself jayriginal, you call yourself Deep Sight. Go figure!

I have advised you before to stop obsessing. Weitin consine u inside my username nah?

And oh, about the scientific examples did I say I couldnt give or I didnt see the necessity ? Not sure.

Six and half a dozen. YOU made the contentions contrary to known science and so YOU had to give examples. Over several pitiful pages you absconded that duty. One single example of an uncaused material thing that you know of would have done.

Either way, I didnt want to derail stuff back then but the argument you claimed to have taken delight in shooting down was a strawman. You may wish to tell us now the cause of virtual particles instead of telling us that they dont emerge from nothing.

Lol, after running away from virtual particles, you are back here? Anthing that emerges from somethingness is not uncaused. FACT. As such, since it is proven that there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, then virtual particles are not uncaused. Period.

Deep Sight = Acute Myopia

U won't be the first mate. The moniker itself screams for mockery, and it gets it. They even say "Deep Sh.it"

No matter.

jayriginal: Funny what inferiority complex can do to a man.

Someone with poor comprehension skills and zero grasp of logic haughtily abuses his superiors.

He will tell us he went to Kings College and read all the encyclopedias in the library.

Somme people need learning.

How tragic

Yawn.

I cannot account for your lapses in logic. As far as I know, if there is a ghost of inferiority hanging around here anywhere, you reek of it.

Stop stalking me. What the he.ll does my secondary school have to do with your issues? ? ?

Mr. "I-like-science-but-I-cannot-give-scientific-examples-for-my-nonsensical-postulations"

OLODO! WAKA JOOR!