An uncaused cause

[Phil]

Since our resident "confused" yet deconverted poster was asked a direct question about beta decay yet chose to claim I never asked yet assumed he or she was a Christian I am writing this post to eliminate all doubt that the Kallam Cosmological Argument has an idiotic premise and therefore is invalid.

...

Questions usually use question marks ("?"). Here's what you wrote:

Nothing is an impossibility as one poster pointed out because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. Not because of electrons as he said but because of two other complimentary values. Those are the energy density and the rate of change of the energy density. If one is known as we know the energy density to be zero (in nothing), the rate of change of the energy density must be non-zero (not nothing).

BTW, the OP asked about the Kaalam Cosmological Argument. Truth be told, the KCA is faulty because of it's premise. No need to examine it any further than that. The KCA says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Instead of showing how that premise is faulty, just tell me what causes Beta decay.

I see now that one might take your last sentence to be a question, but I at first took it as a prompt to a hypothetical theist arguing the Kaalam argument. Even if I recognized it as a question, I would have assumed it was a rhetorical one directed at nobody in particular. And why would I take it as directed towards me specifically? I'm not a theist, and I only mentioned the Kaalam argument in passing in that thread since it uses creation ex nihilo. And I cannot even answer your question anyway because I do not have a science background.

So please, before you start calling people "idiots" for not answering a question, please at least make sure what you asked is clearly understandable as direct question to the person you had in mind.

You were called a fucking idiot because you assumed I thought you were a Christian/theist. Now I am going to call you a fucking asshole that just asked to be put on ignore.