Destroying "nothing causing something" AKA Quantum Mechanics of The Gaps

[SavedByChrist94]

In other words.

Strawman

What strawman? there are 2 types of causes, if it isn't one then it's the other, In Reality things are caused accidentally or on purpose, if not one then the other, it is Impossible for The First Uncaused Cause to have caused Accidentally as that would require a prior cause, which is an Impossible, The First Uncaused Cause has no cause, therefore caused on Purpose as a Cause with Intent requires no prior cause.

---

As I destroyed here, http://www.christianforums.com/t7695364-8/#post61720995

I really don't give a flying fuck about you but that site is simply nauseating with its fucking "blessings."

Why don't you assholes grow up? It's the 21st century and your goat herders doctrines are seriously out of date.

Stop trolling, you made it obvious with the pointless cursing.

[Tea Earl Grey Hot]

...
therefore with Creation Ex Nihilo, The Cause has the properties needed to create the universe, yet The Cause is Immaterial since not material, and not nothing, and The Cause caused the universe out of nothing. and The Cause is God(The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit), there's no escaping it. [emphasis tegh's]
...

This is where this argument always falls apart. How'd "The Cause" suddenly turn into "God"? (especially the Christian God!?)

What you think "the cause" is is just whatever you want it to be.

You know what, I think an ice cream sundae is cooler than God. An ice cream sundae created the universe. Refute that!

[Gilgamesh]

Instead of mocking one for supposedly being wrong, one should point out how one is wrong. Thing is, nobody here cares enough to read through loads of content which we already believe to be bullshit - then mentally untangle the errors in logic - then, finally, type out the rebuttal. It's just not worth it.

I apologise. You can claim victory.

[Something completely different]

In other words.

Strawman

What strawman? there are 2 types of causes, if it isn't one then it's the other, In Reality things are caused accidentally or on purpose, if not one then the other, it is Impossible for The First Uncaused Cause to have caused Accidentally as that would require a prior cause, which is an Impossible, The First Uncaused Cause has no cause, therefore caused on Purpose as a Cause with Intent requires no prior cause.

If you are disengenious enought to leave out the explaination to where I point out your strawman, why should one waste his or her time with you?

You said "some atheists claim things started from nothing"

If you cant show these "atheists" and back your claim up with proof, it is a strawman argument?

Do you understand that, or must I paint you a picture?

[Dee Dee Ramone]

Dear German,

Spare your time, he's not worth it.

Yours sincerly,

Dee Dee

[Brian37]

As I destroyed here, http://www.christianforums.com/t7695364-8/#post61720995

Nothing has no property, something has a property. in order for nothing to cause something, then nothing would need a property in which something has.

Something has property(properties) and nothing has no properties or at least the properties of nothingness.

How then can nothing cause something?

It cannot as if nothing caused something, it would need the property of it's creation, it has none.

also if nothing caused something then it would need an eternal sort of property to do so, which means that it's something instead of nothing.

nothing therefore causes, nothing. in order for you to prove that nothing can cause something you need to prove that it has the properties to do so, that it's own properties of nothingness is something, however nothing is not something and a property is something, therefore nothing wouldn't really be nothing.

Nothing can only cause, nothing. The Cause of the universe therefore cannot be nothing as that is now an Impossibility. The Cause of the universe is not material, nor is it nothing.

therefore with Creation Ex Nihilo, The Cause has the properties needed to create the universe, yet The Cause is Immaterial since not material, and not nothing, and The Cause caused the universe out of nothing. and The Cause is God(The Trinity of The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit), there's no escaping it.

your whole thread has been destroyed, don't ever in a debate bring up "nothing causing nothing".



That's only a taste of my destruction of "atheism", The Holy Spirit is with me and you will not win.

So your evidence is a link to an apologist's website? Ok. So if a Muslim posts a link to a picture of a Red Nebula and quotes the Koran that makes Allah the one true god?

Stephen Hawkins has said EITHER WAY a finite or infinite universe STILL DOS NOT NEED A COGNITION TO RUN IT OR MAKE IT.

QM is not magic like your fictional sky daddy. It is basically nothing but deep severe number crunching.

QM does not postulate magic babies, like your comic book does. QM isn't postulating dead men becoming zombie gods. QM is not a comic book, like your comic book.

AND you are not the only religion that trys to attack science because it doesn't like where the evidence is leading.

You, like Muslims and Jews and lots of superstitious people around the world cant stand that invisible friends BY ANY LABLE are not a requirement for the natural universe or the life on this planet.

Quoting an apologist is like claiming Harry Potter is real by quoting a president of a Harry Potter fan club.

[downbeatplumb]

Saved by christ 94

In order to show that A did something you first have to prove that A exists.
You are also making the old mistake of asserting, without any kind of evidence, that all effects require a cause...oh except god.
You are just pushing the problem back a stage not solving it

Your attempts at logic are flawed, old hat and a bit boring.

[Brian37]

Saved by christ 94

In order to show that A did something you first have to prove that A exists.
You are also making the old mistake of asserting, without any kind of evidence, that all effects require a cause...oh except god.
You are just pushing the problem back a stage not solving it

Your attempts at logic are flawed, old hat and a bit boring.

You are soooooooo picky. If I want to claim a pink unicorn started all this why should you expect me to prove that pink unicorns exist? You are such a party pooper. Next thing you are going to tell me is Santa doesn't exist.

[downbeatplumb]

Saved by christ 94

In order to show that A did something you first have to prove that A exists.
You are also making the old mistake of asserting, without any kind of evidence, that all effects require a cause...oh except god.
You are just pushing the problem back a stage not solving it

Your attempts at logic are flawed, old hat and a bit boring.

You are soooooooo picky. If I want to claim a pink unicorn started all this why should you expect me to prove that pink unicorns exist? You are such a party pooper. Next thing you are going to tell me is Santa doesn't exist.

I wouldn't say that.
Where would all the presents under the tree come from and who would eat those biscuits late at night?
See Santa is real.

[Brian37]

You are soooooooo picky. If I want to claim a pink unicorn started all this why should you expect me to prove that pink unicorns exist? You are such a party pooper. Next thing you are going to tell me is Santa doesn't exist.

I wouldn't say that.
Where would all the presents under the tree come from and who would eat those biscuits late at night?
See Santa is real.

AH HA! Got you! It's cookies and milk dude, not biscuits. You want to debate the existence of pink unicorns which is a fact, and you cant even get your own Santa myth right. Tisk Tisk Tisk.