[anthonyjfuchs]

selliedjoup wrote

The “it” is something I consider to be possible , which can account for something which is potentially unknowable

So, in summary, an undefined thing that may or may not be a thing may or may not exist in order to explain something that may or may not be the case, but we do not know and may never know whether it is or is not the case, and thus we may never know whether or not this undefined non/thing is even necessary?

You're right. That's not bullshit. It's utterly meaninglessness.

selliedjoup wrote

You choose to dismiss the why on a whim...

No, I choose to dismiss your claim that a why is required because you have not shown me evidence that a why is required.

selliedjoup wrote

...yet it has not been scientifically proven that a why is not required...

The fact that I was able to suggest a scenario in which a why is not required shows that a why is not required.

Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that your undefined thing that may or may not be a thing actually is required.

selliedjoup wrote

You’ve voluntarily cornered your conclusion by accepting only answering the how’s as it’s meet occam’s razor.

I've answered only the questions that have been shown to exist. The universe exists, so a "how" is, in fact, required, since the universe reached its current state by some kind of mechanism.

I have also demonstrate that a why is not required, and thus I feel no need to provide an answer to a question that does not necessarily exist.

selliedjoup wrote

John baked a cake, but then John has died.

Your analogy presupposes your conclusion.

You have deliberately chosen an analog to represent the universe (in this case, a "cake") which we know to require a creator (in this case, "John"). But the universe is unlike a cake in that you haven't shown that the universe requires a creator. At best, you've proposed an undefined "it" that you admit you have no evidence to support.

[quote=selliedjoup]So why did John bake the cake? Your position would state there is no why, as here is the cake.[/color]
My position is more aptly described as:

There is a crater on the moon. The planet from which the meteorite originated was destroyed in a supernova. Why did the planet send the meteorite to form the crater?

You surely must agree that there is no "why." Neither the planet nor the meteorite were intelligent agents capable of doing anything within intention.

The crater, like the universe, has an entirely naturalistic explanation that requires no "why."

selliedjoup wrote

Provide full proof of the cause of the universe...

Again: I've provided an scenario that demonstrates a universe without a "cause." The universe never began. It always was.

selliedjoup wrote

Until then, your position will only be an alternative.

But it will remain a more plausible, likely, and reasonable alternative than yours.

And, unlike yours, it enjoys the benefit of being defined.

selliedjoup wrote

One can choose to use science as the only means if one is only seeking an answer to the how’s.

Not necessarily.

Scientific methodology can be applied to "whys," but the only "whys" that to be found regard the motivations behind behaviors carried out by intelligent beings acting with purpose.

If you are proposing that your undefined "it" is an answer to a "why" question, then you are further defining "it." "It," along with being male (and, therefore, having a penis) must now also be an intelligent entity that acts for a purpose.

You see, despite insisting that you make no claims about your potential undefined "it," the things you say around "it" require certain attributes about it.

selliedjoup wrote

You, of course, realise for something to be complete would require time?

Perhaps in the physics of the known universe.

But you can't make statements about what a process occurring within the unknown physics of a gravitational singularity, since they are "beyond our current comprehension."

selliedjoup wrote

Given the alternative does not answer the question, I wouldn’t call it valid.

The fact that my alternative does not require your intelligent male "it" does not mean that it doesn't answer the question.

Given that it explains the origin of the universe, it is as valid as your proposal, and more parsimonious to boot.

selliedjoup wrote

And how do you know this?

Do you understand "hows" and "whys" differently?

selliedjoup wrote

No because I make no claims about it.

But you do. It is male, since you call it a "he." It is intelligent, since you propose it as an answer to a "why" question, implying that it acts with purpose.

You may believe that you make no claims, but your words tell another story.

selliedjoup wrote

You choose to work on the assumption all we know, entails all of what exists.

So when I said that I would guess that we don't know all there is to know, you assumed that I meant that I thought we did know all there is to know?

How did you draw the opposite conclusion from my words?

selliedjoup wrote

Yes but you don’t know it. So it only becomes an alternative for a point where the universe may have ‘begun’.

I guess I have to say this again.

I described a scenario in which the universe did not "begin" at all. It always existed.

selliedjoup wrote

...it eventually requires an uncaused cause.

Unless the universe did not begin, in which case it requires no cause at all.

selliedjoup wrote

I will define nmm as potentially an uncaused cause.

That's odd, since you said in post #221 of this thread that:

"I can't reconcile an uncaused cause"

Can you reconcile an uncaused cause, or not? Or can you only reconcile one if it lacks any definition, except that it is male, intelligent, and uncaused?

[quote=selliedjoup]Are you proposing that once we understand the singularity that all will be understood?[/color]
I'm proposing that it might be.

Prove that it won't be.

selliedjoup wrote

So if the universe has always existed it’s existed for an infinite number of cyclical rebirths. How did we get to the point of now, if infinity has been before us?

Are you proposing that time cannot progress on an infinite scale?

selliedjoup wrote

The full picture won’t be in our lifetime...

Is this something you know, or something you dreamed up?

selliedjoup wrote

...so I would prefer to view it as the glass is half full.

Half full of what? Undefined male intelligent uncaused "its"?

Why make assumptions with incomplete information. Given that we don't know how much we don't know, the likelihood that your assumption is incorrect approaches absolute certainty.

selliedjoup wrote

The difference is I assume there could be a why.

Precisely. You assume one.

Wishful thinking defined.

selliedjoup wrote

to be continued...

Not to be impolite, but don't bother.

We're just going to keep going `round and `round on this infinitely regressive carousel that might or might not exist.