Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Esquilax]

fire is greater than burning.

"Burning" isn't a thing, you dolt. It's what we call the effect that the presence of heat has on its environment. You might as well say that when ice heats up, it becomes two things: liquid water, and melting.

the cause always precedes the effect; therefore the effect is dependent on the cause which makes the cause > effect.

You still haven't defined "greater" for the purposes of this conversation, nor given us any reason to give a flying fuck about how you define "greater" for the purposes of this conversation.

[Cyberman]

fire is greater than burning.
the cause always precedes the effect; therefore the effect is dependent on the cause which makes the cause > effect.

Sheesh, Dolphinetics is so irritating! Your original argument was that the cause was greater than the effect. Now you're leaping to the rather lacklustre deepity about effects following causes, which wasn't the reason I posted my response and you know it. What's that bit about bearing false witness, again..?

Regardless, as I understand it (which means I might be wrong) the whole cause and effect thing only really applies to our four-dimensional perception of the Universe. On the quantum scale, that may in fact be what's termed an optional extra.

[snowtracks]

nuclear: E=MC^2 energy converted from matter at light squared results in an explosion.

But the cause of the explosion is just dropping the bomb.

---

See how it is, when you make stupid generalizations based on vaguely defined terms to support mystic woo? All you need is one exception to prove your rule false.

I provided three. Even if I am to accept your comment here, that still leaves you two down. Why is it that christians seem to think that addressing one thing on a list makes the rest of the list disappear?

Hey, a few years back there was a bushfire that started in my area. The cause for that was the sparks from an angle grinder hitting some dry grass, but it ended up destroying several homes and consuming quite a lot of land. Small cause, great effect.

You're fucking wrong.

---

nuclear energy caused the explosion; by the way, a nuclear bomb can detonate without 'dropping'.

[Esquilax]

nuclear energy caused the explosion; by the way, a nuclear bomb can detonate without 'dropping'.

So, like, remember what I said earlier, about christians thinking that if they respond to one thing on a list, the entire list disappears?

And nuclear energy isn't the cause of the explosion, the trigger is: without the bomb being triggered, you get no explosion. According to your own definition of what causes are, that makes that the cause. Just one little button push.

[snowtracks]

fire is greater than burning.
the cause always precedes the effect; therefore the effect is dependent on the cause which makes the cause > effect.

Sheesh, Dolphinetics is so irritating! Your original argument was that the cause was greater than the effect. Now you're leaping to the rather lacklustre deepity about effects following causes, which wasn't the reason I posted my response and you know it. What's that bit about bearing false witness, again..?

Regardless, as I understand it (which means I might be wrong) the whole cause and effect thing only really applies to our four-dimensional perception of the Universe. On the quantum scale, that may in fact be what's termed an optional extra.

it's not a perception, the universe is physically 4 dim's where cause and effect is a scientific principle where no human has ever witness an effect without a cause.

[Esquilax]

it's not a perception, the universe is physically 4 dim's where cause and effect is a scientific principle where no human has ever witness an effect without a cause.

The cause/effect relationship isn't what's in dispute. We're arguing over the two unjustified fiat assertions you made a page or so back, those being that causes are always greater than effects- which we proved demonstrably false almost immediately, causing you to squirm through word games and outright ignoring arguments to get here- and that the mind is greater than matter.

You haven't bothered to argue for either of those assertions, and worse, you haven't even begun by defining what you mean by "greater," nor why any of us should give a shit about what your definition of greater is within the context of this argument. So far, your case just rests on "because I say so," and Snowy, nobody respects your intellectual prowess enough to care about what you say.

Evidence! Do you have any!

Edited to add: Oh, and that's just trying to get you to take responsibility for your own poor argumentation. I haven't even touched on the fact that your response to Stimbo was just yet another fiat dismissal of his argument. Saying "no it isn't," isn't a fucking point, you imbecile.

[snowtracks]

it's not a perception, the universe is physically 4 dim's where cause and effect is a scientific principle where no human has ever witness an effect without a cause.

The cause/effect relationship isn't what's in dispute. We're arguing over the two unjustified fiat assertions you made a page or so back, those being that causes are always greater than effects- which we proved demonstrably false almost immediately, causing you to squirm through word games and outright ignoring arguments to get here- and that the mind is greater than matter.

You haven't bothered to argue for either of those assertions, and worse, you haven't even begun by defining what you mean by "greater," nor why any of us should give a shit about what your definition of greater is within the context of this argument. So far, your case just rests on "because I say so," and Snowy, nobody respects your intellectual prowess enough to care about what you say.

Evidence! Do you have any!

Edited to add: Oh, and that's just trying to get you to take responsibility for your own poor argumentation. I haven't even touched on the fact that your response to Stimbo was just yet another fiat dismissal of his argument. Saying "no it isn't," isn't a fucking point, you imbecile.

not sure why this one all hyperventilating about something.

---

nuclear energy caused the explosion; by the way, a nuclear bomb can detonate without 'dropping'.

---

So, like, remember what I said earlier, about christians thinking that if they respond to one thing on a list, the entire list disappears?

---

And nuclear energy isn't the cause of the explosion, the trigger is: without the bomb being triggered, you get no explosion. According to your own definition of what causes are, that makes that the cause. Just one little button push.

well, I have to admit you might be on to something. you might consider submitting to https://breakthroughprize.org/ as written and tell them all you want is the new theorem named after you.

[Esquilax]

not sure why this one all hyperventilating about something.

And I'm not sure why you seem to think that just pointing out that your shitty argumentation is irritating me counts as a rebuttal of my argument. It's a running theme with you; you make a bad argument, defend it with more bad arguments, and then when someone finally gets fed up and displays even a hint of emotion, you point and say "gee, wonder what got him so upset?" and then drop the argument completely like you've won the point. Each successive round of that is just another reason to get angry with you, you condescending ass.

well, I have to admit you might be on to something. you might consider submitting to https://breakthroughprize.org/ as written and tell them all you want is the new theorem named after you.

Ohh, I see: so now your terrible argument, and the fact that it can easily be dismantled by simple logic, is somehow my fault. It's my fault that your ridiculous claim can be defeated by an equally ridiculous rebuttal. It's my fault that you're working on fucking cartoon logic, and your premises are so bereft of merit.

Your arguments are sloppy, you fucking deal with it.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

not sure why this one all hyperventilating about something.

It's because, thus far, in this entire thread, all you've done is made assertion after assertion and failed to substantiate any of them when called on it. Indeed, you seem to dismiss entire rebuttals with the flick of an imaginary wand and then move onto the next one assertion.

It's a little frustrating when someone says they want to talk about a subject but then doesn't actually engage in a conversation.

[Tonus]

not sure why this one all hyperventilating about something.

No surprise; you've been clueless about pretty much everything else.