The Theory of Evolution.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

[Your personality and Luftwaffle's post are two answers you fled from. Why do you need more to run away from?

Do you really believe that I, and my personality, would exist without previously existing matter/energy?

Can you think without eating food?

You've got to be kidding.

No, I am dead serious. Could you exist without pre-existing matter/energy?

Yes, or course (and if you think that's hard to imagine then you never really were a Christian, right?), I've already shown you the exercise about the difference between the mind and the brain anyways.

But, beyond that, there are two obvious reasons why this point is fallacious:

The first is that establishing a dependency among two things does not mean those two things are the same thing. Many viruses can only survive inside of a living cell; does that make them the cell?

And second, if you could establish that personalities could not exist without pre-existing matter/energy it does no injury whatsoever to the fact that we've establshed that those minds created something new.

You asked us to list things that came into being. We pointed out two things (effects) that were caused by a mind (the cause). Then you attacked the assertion by suggesting the mind (the cause) couldn't have existed without pre-existing energy, but it was what the mind caused (the effects) that was what we submitted were caused. This is a bait and switch fallacy, attempting to swap out the cause for the effect.

The compounding levels of fallacy here is why I assumed you weren't serious. Viole, this is bad. Does this kind of thing make sense in your head because you just don't think it through? You can see how this is totally fallacious on multiple levels can't you?

[twinc]

Yes, but I am looking for something more quantitative than qualitative. For instance, are you aware of something that begins

to exist without using a finite amount of already available mass/energy?

That's exactly the point Viole.

Since it doesn't happen yet it must have then there was a cause, and since there wasn't any mass/energy by necessity since mass and energy were created then it was an immaterial cause.

You're proving the point you're seeking to reject.

So, the answer to my question is ...?

Do you have evidence of something "beginning to exist" which does not require pre-existing mass energy?

Apart from the universe itself, of course

How many times do you need us to answer the question?

Your personality and Luftwaffle's post are two answers you fled from. Why do you need more from which to run away?

Further, the whole point that the only instances we can cite are the results of immaterial minds calling things into existance since material things are not popping into being out of nothing proves the point.

We've established that from nothing, nothing comes, we've established that from the agency of consciousness things begin to exist, and it's established that the material universe is finite because of entropy and the laws of motion (otherwise you have an infinite regression of past events), and you're establishing that matter and energy don't just pop into being from nothing (which you don't seem to realize is cutting off the branch you're sitting on) therefore matter and energy had to come into existance from an immaterial consciousness.

What you think is a defeater for this argument is actually continuing to lend support to the arguement.

1. Matter and energy don't just pop into being uncaused out of nothing.

2. Anything that doesn't just pop into being uncaused out of nothing came caused out of something.

3. Therefore matter and energy had a cause from something.

You're attempts at including qualified defeaters are logically incoherent and you continue to prove yourself wrong.

[Guest]

Do you have evidence of something "beginning to exist" which does not require pre-existing mass energy?

Apart from the universe itself, of course

Before

And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5

Now

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Genesis 2:1-3

And Later

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. Revelation 21:1-3

Do You See

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:1-3

Yet

For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Matthew 24:27

____________

_________

______

___

Believe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

And Be Blessed Beloved

For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. 1 Corinthians 6:20

Be Very Blessed

Bless the LORD, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name. Psalms 103:1

Love, Joe

[nebula]

So, I am still waiting for a clear-cut example of something that comes to existence without usage of any energy.

I've forgotten what the whole point of this is. But even this idea isn't Biblical, which states that all things were initially created with God's spoken word, which is a transference of energy.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

You keep on dodging the question.

No, I already pointed out twice that we've answered the question twice. Do you want us to doubly redouble our rebuttals?

Forget the cause/effect, I am not speaking of this now.

I think you've been forgetting cause and effect much too readily in your attempt to pretend God doesn't need to exist, but what I was pointing out - if you'd bother to read my response - was that you were pretending that we didn't answer the question with a bait-and-switch fallacy.

Your personality and Luft's posts are two examples, and you're just opting out of all of the other points I made about your fallacious reasons for asking, are you?

I just would like to see an example of something that began to exist without an intake of some pre-existing mass or energy.

That we don't see mass and energy popping into being is still the point. It will continue to be the point no matter how many times you bring it up. Restating it doesn't somehow miraculously make your self-defeating reasoning sound.

Creating ideas, dreaming, or more generally thinking, implies the burning of some calories;

Wow, this is a massive concession on your part. So you concur that things come to exist and that they are caused.

The question wasn't what is required to create something, it is whether or not something can come uncaused out of nothing, so by this concession you've utterly abandon your case.

All that's left to you now is that if we follow your line of reasoning, then what we have is that within space-time causes require matter/energy in order to cause something to come into being. We can't testify the same of immaterial causes so what we have left over by necessity is that things don't come uncaused out of nothing (and if you want to include the totally irrelevant qualifier that material causes require physical matter/energy to be a cause that's as fine as it is pointless).

no to speak about the actual communication or implementation of these ideas.

It is best not to speak of these things since they're totally irrelevant.

Have you ever seen somebody having a nice idea without nutrients present in the brain?

I may just have.

So, I am still waiting for a clear-cut example of something that comes to existence without usage of any energy.

We're under no obligation to indulge the additional and totally irrelevant qualifier that you've attached, namely - 'without usage of any energy'.

Do you know what Reducto ad absurdum means? It means to take something to its inescapable and absurd (if false) conclusion. Give your arguments a run through with this to see their natural and logical consequences before you pitch them. This will help you identify the problems before hand, and will help us all save time.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

So, I am still waiting for a clear-cut example of something that comes to existence without usage of any energy.

I've forgotten what the whole point of this is. But even this idea isn't Biblical, which states that all things were initially created with God's spoken word, which is a transference of energy.

Actually Neb, this is exactly the whole point of this. Somehow viole thinks that's some kind of contradiction, though how she comes to this conclusion is logically incoherent to date.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

That we don't see mass and energy popping into being is still the point. It will continue to be the point no matter how many times you bring it up.

So, do you agree that the following sentence:

- Everything that begins to exist is the the consequence of the transformation of some pre-existing mass/energy into another form of mass/energy

is correct?

Obviously no. That may be the restriction we observe for material causes but there's no observed nor logical reason to suppose such is the case for immaterial causes.

This is another case of us looking at the wall and talking about what colour to paint it, and you're holding bucket of red paint and insisting it must be red, I'm holding blue paint and saying it must be blue to match everything else in the house, and you insisting that that couldn't work because if you mix red and blue it makes purple.

Forget the red Viole. Try to understand the point without presupposing your assumptions.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Ah the good old immaterial world, the big cop out.

Cop out?

You don't even believe in the immaterial and yet logic, numbers and empiricism are immaterial concepts.

You still haven't addressed that, so you're still borrowing from my worldview to make sense of yours and you've never even tried to account for that.

That you'd be so bold as to accuse me of the cop out is simply sad.

So close to the invisible to be very close to the non-existent

Sometimes I have the suspicion that the immaterial is used to escape conclusions we do not like; nobody can see it

so we can invent any theory based on it.

Anyways, let us suppose that this mysterious invisible world exists:

I assert that my statement still holds also for the immaterial world.

It doesn't

Let us call it V:

No, let's not.

V: Everything that begins to exist is the consequence of a transformation of some pre-existing mass/energy into another form of mass/energy

That's an unsubstantiated assumption.

Prove that such is the case.

If you do not agree: can you provide a counterexample of V?

Concepts are not the transformation of pre-existing mass/energy, because they themselves are not mass or energy. Something can't be the rearrangement of something it's not.

I'm going to explain this one last time, and you can take it or leave it, but it's going to be clear to everyone else:

There needed to be a cause of mass and energy outside of mass and energy in order to account for said mass and energy, because we call all see from simple observation, from entropy and from the laws of motion that mass and energy are not eternal.

All of our abilities to measure within mass and energy are restricted to measuring within mass and energy, and therefore cannot empirically measure that which transcends mass and energy, so to require empirical proof of something that by definition must transcend empirical measurement is simply foolish.

So, it's foolish to deny that mass and energy needed a cause that came from outside of mass and energy, and since all empirical proof is provided from measuring the observable and repeatable scope of mass and energy then that cause must not be subject to empirical measurement.

It's necessarily the case and necessarily beyond the reach of physical measurement (having created the physical and necessarily being transcendent thereof), so to arbitrarily impose an methodological bias to rule out all possibilities that are not empirically measured is to arbitrarily rule out the possibility of the necessary reality of an immaterial cause... simply to enjoy the fallacy of circular reasoning.

If V is wrong for the immaterial, what makes you feel that other properties might be right?

Since this is, by definition not observable (unless the immaterial emits photons), what rationale do you use to assess the following

alternatives (for general properties P valid in the natural world):

- Property P is valid in the natural world but not necessarily in the immaterial one

- Property P is valid in both

This is gibberish.

Where are you reading this 'V' and 'P' nonsense? Maybe just quote directly from whatever source that

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

All of our abilities to measure within mass and energy are restricted to measuring within mass and energy, and therefore cannot empirically measure that which transcends mass and energy, so to require empirical proof of something that by definition must transcend empirical measurement is simply foolish.

All of our abilities to assess causality are restricted to assessing it in a universe where it happens and therefore cannot empirically measure that which transcends causality, so to require empirical proof of something that by definition must transcend empirical measurement is simply foolish.

viole, the whole principle of cause and effect is immaterial. The laws that govern cause and effect are immaterial. Syllogisms of if A then B are the immaterial, and demonstrate the absolute necessity of causality comes from and applies to the immaterial.

Why does math work? It's because of the concrete cause and effect nature of immaterial concepts. 1+1=2. Why? Because of the absolute necessity of the immaterial cause of 1 plus 1 equalling 2.

It is the absolute consequences of the immaterial that must determine cause and effect (the principle itself being immaterial).

Notice how you're still not dealing with the fact that you employ the immaterial, while at the same time denying its existence.

Inconsistency is the sign of a failed arguement (Dr. James White).

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

There needed to be a cause of mass and energy outside of mass and energy in order to account for said mass and energy, because we call all see from simple observation, from entropy and from the laws of motion that mass and energy are not eternal.

No there must not be.

What simple observation from entropy and the laws of motions makes you believe that mass/energy are not eternal?

Actually, latest measurements of mass/energy in the univers give a grand total of zero. Why does zero energy need to be created?

Entropy because usable energy is winding down, and if that had been happening for an eternity it would have finished an eternity ago, and motion because otherwise you get an infinite regression of past events.

For both cases infinity has no actual application in the physical world, and I've cited numerous secular scientific sources that disconfirm your assertion.

And from zero energy would need to be created for the simple reason that it can't be created by material means.

Anyone could figure that out viole. That you're struggling with it demonstrates only a willing blindness to the truth.