Evidence of God

[Outrider]

No the word effect unavoidably involves cause. It is totally implicit in the concept of effect.

Yes.  And this is why you want to avoid the use, because it doesn't sit with your arbitrary special pleading.

Not so with the concept of cause. And that is so whether one likes it or not.

It would appear that you've failed to grasp the implications of the concept of cause and effect - each cause is, itself, and effect of prior causes, that's how they system works.  To rely upon the implication that an effect must have a cause, but to then refute the implication that each cause is itself an effect is to fail to understand the notion of cause and effect.

One has to believe that all causes are also effects. All effects are the result of causes.

A cause has to be the effect of a prior cause, otherwise it doesn't exist.

You keep dodging this.

You keep reverting to special pleading.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes.  And this is why you want to avoid the use, because it doesn't sit with your arbitrary special pleading.

It would appear that you've failed to grasp the implications of the concept of cause and effect - each cause is, itself, and effect of prior causes, that's how they system works.  To rely upon the implication that an effect must have a cause, but to then refute the implication that each cause is itself an effect is to fail to understand the notion of cause and effect.

A cause has to be the effect of a prior cause, otherwise it doesn't exist.

You keep reverting to special pleading.

O.

No, it is you who are redefining the word cause to fit science and then trying to gussy up science into philosophical materialism, whereas the concept of cause is clear.That makes you in error three times.
I perfectly understand the notion of cause and effect. You distort words to fit what is unmistakably a belief

[Outrider]

No, it is you who are redefining the word cause to fit science and then trying to gussy up science into philosophical materialism, whereas the concept of cause is clear.

The notion that cause and effect is a chain is not foreign to you, pretending that it is just makes you look petty.

That makes you in error three times.

I'm not sure if it's your maths or your logic, here, but there's definitely an error there.

I perfectly understand the notion of cause and effect. You distort words to fit what is unmistakably a belief.

Wow, there goes an irony meter...

O.

[Andy]

Nice to see you posting.

Thanks. It's been a while, to the point that it feels nostalgic.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I believe Greene and Dawkins discussed this on a video available on you tube.

“I believe” is not a citation, and even if they did discuss the SU conjecture I’m not aware that they tried to rebut anything NdG Tyson et al have actually said.

Why should the scientific journalist and ethnologist Dawkins opinion or lack thereof be taken more
Seriously than that of Bostrom, Greene and Degrasse Tyson.

Erm, you introduced RD here remember, not me. I have no idea why, and nor is there any indication that any of these people have said any of the things you ascribe to them. Apart from that though…

Whether the above scientists consider the nature of the creator to be The uncaused cause or a bored teenager from an advanced civilisation is neither here nor there on the issue of maker as Jeremy P has pointed out.

Wrong again. JerempyP merely observed that a universe creator would appear to be god-like to the casual observer, but he did not suggest that it would also therefore be possessed of the characteristics you think to be necessary for your god (being uncaused for example).
 
Oh, and of course it has everything to do with. You think there to be an “uncaused cause” and you pray in aid proponents of the SU speculation for support. You’re wrong to do that though for the reasons I have explained to you – the SU proponents provide you with no support at all for your unevidenced claim “god”.   

You are merely conflating the questions of maker and what it is like.

Oh the irony. I’m doing no such thing, but that is exactly what you are doing. You’re the one loading this supposed creator with unwarranted characteristics (like being uncaused, let alone the rest of the menu in the Nicene Creed) whereas I’m merely explaining to you that none of these characteristics are necessary for the this “creator” to exist nonetheless. You’re basically the Wylie E. Coyote of this mb, but you’ve yet to look down to realise there’s nothing supporting you.