From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 11/19/2025 8:14 AM, jillery wrote:   
      
   > All of the threads where Sticks contributed conflate philosophical   
   > principles and scientific theories wrt origins.  That's what he does.   
   > He argues origins presuming an uncaused cause, a philosophical POV,   
   > while scientific theories make no such presumptions.   
      
   Wow, with my extremely limited participation here, you sure jump to big   
   conclusions.  When I joined this thread, I clearly stated it was a   
   Metaphysical question, but did then note the laws of thermodynamics tell   
   you you can't get something from nothing.  I did the exact opposite of   
   what you claim I do.  First, I looked into the Big Bang theory and the   
   associated inflation theory to help get past some of the problems with   
   it.  I'm a huge fan of Tegmark, and he writes in a way that get you to   
   question everything.   
      
   I had big problems with just how this happened, as so many do today, and   
   the research goes on.  Everywhere I looked for an acceptable answer to   
   where the initial matter, energy, and space came from led to only two   
   choices.  Note that even if future quantum research comes up with a   
   theory on something, the same question remains.  If there was literally   
   nothing, where did the stuff come from, and if there was something that   
   went bang, where did that come from.  Either way the laws of   
   Thermodynamics says it had to come from somewhere.   
      
   Either something unknown created it, or it has always existed.  That is   
   not philosophical, and doesn't get philosophical until you answer what   
   the former unknown might be.  Science tells me it is impossible, and for   
   everything else you would agree.  But on the origins of the stuff that   
   went big bang, you can't and that has to be an unknown.   
      
   If you're like me and can't believe that something has always existed,   
   that doesn't mean you automatically believe in God or something.  It   
   means that you simply have followed the science and think something else   
   might be in play.  This is where you can start asking the why questions   
   and get philosophical.  I have not encountered an unknown, I have gotten   
   to a point where science cannot go any further.  I believe you simply   
   cannot get something from nothing.  Search all you want, and I believe   
   it will only increase the difficulties for materialism.   
      
   By choosing this tactic, like so many in the materialist realm do, you   
   produce straw man arguments, claim false motivations, and by ignoring   
   evidence do the exact thing you accuse others of all in an effort to not   
   have to deal with supernatural talk.  It's like what is done to Behe   
   with the continual lying about what he is claiming with IC.  He gets put   
   off first as a kook because he is said to be claiming things could only   
   have resulted from a supernatural agent.  When of course he has done no   
   such thing.  He repeatedly explains scientifically why things do not   
   appear to be able to arise from Darwinian evolution, because they show   
   all the signs of being designed.  The difference might be nuanced, and   
   yes he believes God did the designing, but that is not what his work   
   claims.  But it is people like you who use these tactics to make him   
   look foolish.  Look in the mirror.   
      
      
   --   
   Science doesn't support Darwin.  Scientists do.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)