From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 16:59:13 -0600, sticks    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.    
      
      
   I say yours is an incoherent philosophical POV, because you presume an   
   uncaused cause for your prime mover, but refuse to consider an   
   uncaused cause for a natural original event, because thermodynamics.     
      
   What you don't recognize is that physical laws are summary statements   
   of extant evidence.  In the case of thermodynamics, *we don't know*   
   how to get something from nothing; all extant evidence points to that   
   being impossible, therefore a law.  But since you argue origins, where   
   prior conditions are by definition *undefined*, you can't reasonably   
   apply laws that describes conditions *after* that origin to conditions   
   *before* that origin.  That's what makes your expressed POV an   
   incoherent word game.   
      
      
   > 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.   
      
      
   The above is a good example of exactly what I say you do, and what you   
   say you do is the opposite.  Anybody who knows anything about BBT   
   understands it describes to good accuracy what happened *after* some   
   unknown origin event, to within a few femtoseconds.  Anything that   
   anybody, including Tegmark and you, say about that origin event and   
   before, is by definition pure speculation.  You can't reasonably   
   insist the laws of thermodynamics, which apply to conditions after,   
   even have any *relevance* to it.   
      
      
   >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.   
      
      
   You first.   
      
   --    
   To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)