(November 20, 2018 at 12:45 pm)Everena Wrote: Logical fallacy. Strawman argument. The question is not how but why. The options are that either you think we just got lucky to have a planet full of delicious, nutritious, energy providing food for 8.7 million different species of life as well as being lucky by having healing herbs and plants to derive medicines from OR you think it's clear that higher intelligence was involved. There are no other options.

(November 21, 2018 at 10:36 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: A strawman argument is one in which your argument is misrepresented in order to make it easier to defeat.

Everena: A Strawman argument is when you avoid the question that was asked and deflect by answering a different question. That is exactly what you did and you are now doing it again.

I was responding to your question, not an argument. The strawman fallacy does not apply. The 'how' is the 'why'.
Everena: Nope, the question is why, and the how is NOT the why. Fail.

Life will explore every available niche that it is able to because that is the nature of the evolutionary process.
Everena: Life that came about how? Niches that came about how?

We evolved to be able to eat the food that is available because we would have gone extinct if we hadn't.
Everena: We could not have evolved to eat the food; the food had to be there the entire time or we would have died.

It would be bizarre if out of all the plants in the world, none of them had medicinal properties.

Everena: What would be bizarre is if medicinal plants just magically appeared on the planet with us, without a designer.

If there were only medicinal non-food plants or only poisonous non-food plants, that might be an indication of a designer. A mix is what would be expected if there is no one directing the evolutionary process, that it wasn't all designed for our betterment or detriment.

Everena: We are not the only life on this planet eating food. Many of the plants are for the other species of life here. And nothing would be expected to be here if no one were directing the evolutionary process.

---

(November 21, 2018 at 12:54 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(November 21, 2018 at 12:38 pm)Everena Wrote:

---

Nothing had to create God or our true selves. We have always been, alive and well in a far better place.

Then there is no first cause.  It would be super helpful if you ever knew wtf you were talking about....about anything.

There is a first cause of this universe and this planet and everything in it.

Quote:And nothing would be expected to be here if no one were directing the evolutionary process.

Actually no one is directing anything, or what we observe would not be so "flawed".
Children get cancer. Woops
It appears you never heard about Chaos Theory. Of course you haven't. Order, and eventually all kinds of things arise in this universe spontaneously.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Woo Princess is suffering from this well known disorder : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2...ger_effect

(November 21, 2018 at 1:00 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 21, 2018 at 1:17 am)Everena Wrote: How the frick should I know if science doesn't even know?

(November 21, 2018 at 11:54 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: It was a question about what you believe, not an epistemological query.  Do you believe that my and everybody's favorite, fluffy ball of energy exists in the same space-time continuum as we do, or is he part of some other thing, as yet undefined?  It makes a difference what you are claiming as the germanity of my response and Krauss' response depends on exactly what it is you are claiming.  And if you are claiming that it is impossible to know if either case is true, then it becomes impossible to say that Krauss' solution is not the correct one, which would make your claim that, necessarily, according to what you know to be true, God is required, an untrue claim.

You really don't logic, do you?

(November 21, 2018 at 1:17 am)Everena Wrote: Everena:
Krauss was already proven wrong. I did that a few pages back. Sorry you missed it

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2...f-nothing/

 As Krauss elegantly argues in A Universe From Nothing, the accelerating expansion, indeed the whole existence of the cosmos, is most likely powered by “nothing”. Krauss is an exemplary interpreter of tough science, and the central part of the book, where he discusses what we know about the history of the universe – and how we know it – is perfectly judged. It is detailed but lucid, thorough but not stodgy.
It is remarkable to think that, a century ago, quantum theory was barely formed, general relativity was a work in progress and only a few scientists believed there was a beginning to the universe. We have come a long, long way since then by developing scientific tools that have proved themselves both reliable and remarkably fruitful. As Krauss’s insightful book shows, these days we really can talk with scientific rigour about the history and even the prehistoric origins of our universe.

Yet despite its clear strengths, A Universe From Nothing is not quite, as Richard Dawkins hopefully declares in the afterword, a “knockout blow” for the idea that a deity must have kicked the universe into being.

Krauss does want to deliver that blow: towards the end of the book, he promises that we really can have something from nothing – “even the laws of physics may not be necessary or required”. Ultimately, though, he has to perform a little sleight of hand. Space and time can indeed come from nothing; nothing, as Krauss explains beautifully, being an extremely unstable state from which the production of “something” is pretty much inevitable.

However, the laws of physics can’t be conjured from nothing. In the end, the best answer is that they arise from our existence within a multiverse, where all the universes have their own laws – ours being just so for no particular reason.

Krauss contends that the multiverse makes the question of what determined our laws of nature “less significant”. Truthfully, it just puts the question beyond science – for now, at least. That (together with the frustratingly opaque origins of a multiverse) means Krauss can’t quite knock out those who think there must ultimately be a prime mover. Not that this matters too much: the juvenile asides that litter the first third of the book (for example, “I am tempted to retort here that theologians are expert at nothing”) mean that, by the time we get to the fascinating core of his argument, Krauss will be preaching only to the converted.

How is your repaste in any way an answer to my question? I noted this when you originally posted it as well as noting that it was not relevant and so yet another case of ignoratio elenchi. Are you going to answer the question as to what you believe or are you simply too chicken shit and dishonest?

(November 21, 2018 at 11:54 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: It was a question about what you believe, not an epistemological query.  
Do you believe that my and everybody's favorite, fluffy ball of energy exists in the same space-time continuum as we do, or is he part of some other thing, as yet undefined?  

(November 21, 2018 at 1:17 am)Everena Wrote: I do not have any personal beliefs that are based on scientists' theories about the space time continuum. 
However, these are the prevailing arguments for multiverses and regarding space time. I left out number 3 because I do not believe in parallel universes.

1. Infinite universes. We don't know what the shape of space-time is exactly. One prominent theory is that it is flat and goes on forever. This would present the possibility of many universes being out there. But with that topic in mind, it's possible that universes can start repeating themselves. That's because particles can only be put together in so many ways. 
2. Bubble Universes

In addition to the multiple universes created by infinitely extending space-time, other universes could arise from a theory called "eternal inflation." Inflation is the notion that the universe expanded rapidly after the Big Bang, in effect inflating like a balloon. Eternal inflation, first proposed by Tufts University cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, suggests that some pockets of space stop inflating, while other regions continue to inflate, thus giving rise to many isolated "bubble universes."

Thus, our own universe, where inflation has ended, allowing stars and galaxies to form, is but a small bubble in a vast sea of space, some of which is still inflating, that contains many other bubbles like ours. And in some of these bubble universes, the laws of physics and fundamental constants might be different than in ours, making some universes strange places indeed.
4. Daughter Universes

The theory of quantum mechanics, which reigns over the tiny world of subatomic particles, suggests another way multiple universes might arise. Quantum mechanics describes the world in terms of probabilities, rather than definite outcomes. And the mathematics of this theory might suggest that all possible outcomes of a situation do occur — in their own separate universes. For example, if you reach a crossroads where you can go right or left,  gives rise to two daughter universes: one in which you go right, and one in which you go left.

"And in each universe, there's a copy of you witnessing one or the other outcome, thinking — incorrectly — that your reality is the only reality," Greene wrote in "The Hidden Reality."

5. Mathematical Universes
Scientists have debated whether mathematics is simply a useful tool for describing the universe, or whether math itself is the fundamental reality, and our observations of the universe are just imperfect perceptions of its true mathematical nature. If the latter is the case, then perhaps the particular mathematical structure that makes up our universe isn't the only option, and in fact all possible mathematical structures exist as their own separate universes.

"A mathematical structure is something that you can describe in a way that's completely independent of human baggage," said Max Tegmark of MIT, who proposed this brain-twisting idea. "I really believe that there is this universe out there that can exist independently of me that would continue to exist even if there were no humans."  https://www.space.com/18811-multiple-uni...ories.html

(November 21, 2018 at 1:18 pm)Everena Wrote:

---

(November 21, 2018 at 12:54 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: Then there is no first cause.  It would be super helpful if you ever knew wtf you were talking about....about anything.

There is a first cause of this universe and this planet and everything in it.

You just keep waffling back and forth on this.  The meat fairy you've described is no more a first cause than I am.  I get that you don't realize that you have incoherent beliefs...but that's because you don't seem to know anything..about anything.

(November 21, 2018 at 1:36 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: How is your repaste in any way an answer to my question?  I noted this when you originally posted it as well as noting that it was not relevant and so yet another case of ignoratio elenchi.  Are you going to answer the question as to what you believe or are you simply too chicken shit and dishonest?

Answer to what question? I answered both your questions,you just don't like the answers because they once again disprove atheist propaganda. Krauss is wrong (shocking) and no one yet knows which theory is the correct one regarding multiverses and the space time continuum.

(November 21, 2018 at 1:46 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 21, 2018 at 11:54 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: It was a question about what you believe, not an epistemological query.  
Do you believe that my and everybody's favorite, fluffy ball of energy exists in the same space-time continuum as we do, or is he part of some other thing, as yet undefined?  

(November 21, 2018 at 1:17 am)Everena Wrote: I do not have any personal beliefs that are based on scientists' theories about the space time continuum. 
However, these are the prevailing arguments for multiverses and regarding space time. I left out number 3 because I do not believe in parallel universes.

1. Infinite universes. We don't know what the shape of space-time is exactly. One prominent theory is that it is flat and goes on forever. This would present the possibility of many universes being out there. But with that topic in mind, it's possible that universes can start repeating themselves. That's because particles can only be put together in so many ways. 
2. Bubble Universes

In addition to the multiple universes created by infinitely extending space-time, other universes could arise from a theory called "eternal inflation." Inflation is the notion that the universe expanded rapidly after the Big Bang, in effect inflating like a balloon. Eternal inflation, first proposed by Tufts University cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, suggests that some pockets of space stop inflating, while other regions continue to inflate, thus giving rise to many isolated "bubble universes."

Thus, our own universe, where inflation has ended, allowing stars and galaxies to form, is but a small bubble in a vast sea of space, some of which is still inflating, that contains many other bubbles like ours. And in some of these bubble universes, the laws of physics and fundamental constants might be different than in ours, making some universes strange places indeed.
4. Daughter Universes

The theory of quantum mechanics, which reigns over the tiny world of subatomic particles, suggests another way multiple universes might arise. Quantum mechanics describes the world in terms of probabilities, rather than definite outcomes. And the mathematics of this theory might suggest that all possible outcomes of a situation do occur — in their own separate universes. For example, if you reach a crossroads where you can go right or left,  gives rise to two daughter universes: one in which you go right, and one in which you go left.

"And in each universe, there's a copy of you witnessing one or the other outcome, thinking — incorrectly — that your reality is the only reality," Greene wrote in "The Hidden Reality."

5. Mathematical Universes
Scientists have debated whether mathematics is simply a useful tool for describing the universe, or whether math itself is the fundamental reality, and our observations of the universe are just imperfect perceptions of its true mathematical nature. If the latter is the case, then perhaps the particular mathematical structure that makes up our universe isn't the only option, and in fact all possible mathematical structures exist as their own separate universes.

"A mathematical structure is something that you can describe in a way that's completely independent of human baggage," said Max Tegmark of MIT, who proposed this brain-twisting idea. "I really believe that there is this universe out there that can exist independently of me that would continue to exist even if there were no humans."  https://www.space.com/18811-multiple-uni...ories.html

I didn't ask for beliefs based upon scientific theories but rather what are your beliefs independent of any justification otherwise. Stop being a chicken shit and stop with the meaningless reposts. I assure you, I have been paying attention. Either answer the fucking question or don't. These tedious repeats are simply a dishonest way of avoiding the question.

Normally theists of even the most disagreeable kind gather a rep or two by their hundredth post, whether those were motivated by irony, pity, politeness, general practice of social promotion, or desperation of their fellow theists.

But Everena’s aura of repugnance is apparently so powerful and all encompassing that it has repulsed all reps for 500 posts.

If something always existed, then it was never caused, and there is no "first" anything.
Her god apparently is not the cause of us. LOL
It's really very simple. A 3rd Grader can get that.

(November 21, 2018 at 1:46 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote:

(November 21, 2018 at 1:18 pm)Everena Wrote:

---

There is a first cause of this universe and this planet and everything in it.

You just keep waffling back and forth on this.  The meat fairy you've described is no more a first cause than I am.  I get that you don't realize that you have incoherent beliefs...but that's because you don't seem to know anything..about anything.

My beliefs are very coherent. You just need to work on your reading comprehension skills.