(June 6, 2016 at 9:50 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(June 6, 2016 at 4:58 pm)madog Wrote: Its not a problem until you rely on that evidence for important issues.

That may be, but to you I ask if this observation of mine is valid regardless of what demonstration gets built upon it?

Its valid for you, but has no evidential strength against others interpretation of the same observations and even less against empirical evidence ...

So, madog, you agree with the observation that only actual things can cause change?

(June 6, 2016 at 11:41 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: So, madog, you agree with the observation that only actual things can cause change?

Things always change given time humans as well. Like people who were hillary voters until evidence came around hillary isn't that trust worthy 
so they changed their minds. Then there is also things that don't change like pro hillary news stations.

(June 6, 2016 at 11:41 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: So, madog, you agree with the observation that only actual things can cause change?

Are you trying to play a word game with me? I have been very clear with you .... "only" implies it can't be something else .... I never state something is not possible only that there are varying degrees of likelihood.

If something is trivial, trivial evidence is usually sufficient, but when something has important consequences the evidence must be more substantial.

I agree with the term "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ....

I just thought I'd bring up again about the different types of causes: material and efficient.

Material is what something comes from (essentially some form of energy, most likely); and efficient is the agency by which it happens.

So something can (logically) have four combinations of causes:

1) Efficient and material
2) Just efficient
3) Just material
4) Neither efficient nor material

It's my understanding that science so far suggests that 1 and 3 can happen. No observation of 2 or 4 have been encountered as far as I know; but that doesn't make them impossible. Their discovery may well impact current theory.

Creation from nothing, God style, seems to mostly be type 2.

From a philosophical viewpoint, I'd say that it's impossible to prove an event has no efficient cause, or no material cause for that matter. But science isn't about proof, it's about accurate models.

Science dudes please slap me if I'm mistaken.

I think Rozkek and Robvalue have about covered it, but below is the way I like to consider something from nothing without the need for the supernatural "God/s" fairies etc .....

We know that particles pop in and out of existence, we think that the universe may have just popped into existence and maybe even multiple universes also, which sounds supernatural. But note lightening appeared as the supernatural until we understood it was an electrostatic discharge.

If you consider you are in a room and you know nothing exists outside the room you would consider anything that pops inside or outside of the room as popping in and out of existence. Until you know about the garden, the upstairs bedroom, the cellar, the kitchen, etc it is pointless to guess where an object popped in from or out too ... but that doesn't mean we should assume the supernatural or a "God/s".

Dog.

(June 2, 2016 at 1:03 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Let me try to explain from my perspective. If you're actually interested in hearing it, and not just interested in criticizing us Christians for what you think we all believe in, regardless. 

Personally my belief is that Hell isn't a physical place, it's a state of being. It's when a person has fully and consciously rejected God after they die, which at that point means they have rejected love and goodness, since they learn at that point that God IS love and goodness. This is a self punishment because we are creatures of love, made for love, and we need it to be happy. So when we are so filled with hate and pride and greed that we reject love and goodness, we are only making ourselves miserable and empty. That is Hell.   

Hope that helps clear it up.

Deb, if that's your interpretation, you're not even religious!

There's way too much fairy floss and cream puffs in that explanation, I feel like I'm in OZ.
Who in their right mind would consciously reject "anybody" after they've died?

I would be the first to acknowledge that I was wrong (due to insufficient information.) and go from there! woot!

(June 7, 2016 at 1:26 am)madog Wrote:

(June 6, 2016 at 11:41 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: So, madog, you agree with the observation that only actual things can cause change?

Are you trying to play a word game with me? I have been very clear with you .... "only" implies it can't be something else .... I never state something is not possible only that there are varying degrees of likelihood.

If something is trivial, trivial evidence is usually sufficient, but when something has important consequences the evidence must be more substantial.

I agree with the term "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ....

Absent any demonsration I can understand considering the initial observation trivial. And yet it is the obviousness of it that gives its power. It puzzles me that something so readily apparent meets with such resistance. Quibbling over the exclusionary qualifier, only, is just a diversion since out of 4 possible options, two are irrelevant and the one remaining is incoherent:

Something that actually exists can cause change and does.(the observation)
Something that actually exists could cause change but does not. (Irrelevant)
Something that doesnt actually exist could cause change but does not (irrelevant)
Something that doesn't actually exist can cause change and does (incoherent).

If all possibilities are logically exhausted then my use of 'only' is justified. There really isn't any way to weasel out of it. Not even quantum mechanics will save you. Nothing does not exist.

(June 7, 2016 at 8:24 am)ChadWooters Wrote:
"that only actual things can cause change?"

 

No the lack of "actual things can cause change" .... the lack of any heat in the universe can cause the universe to cool .... the lack of gravity can cause curved light to travel in a straight line .... The lack of a glass can make liquid spread across a surface ... etc, etc, etc .....