From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/8/2026 4:36 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   > On 8/01/2026 6:23 am, RonO wrote:   
   >> On 1/7/2026 5:15 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>> On 7/01/2026 8:24 am, RonO wrote:   
   >>>> Here is the strongest argument for the ID scam.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> https://scienceandculture.com/2026/01/the-strongest-argument-for-   
   >>>> intelligent-design-is-also-the-simplest/   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You just have to have no knowledge of physics, chemistry nor how   
   >>>> biological evolution works to think that it is any valid argument at   
   >>>> all.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Ron Okimoto   
   >>>   
   >>> Off topic, but I'm curious to know your view on the first-cause/   
   >>> cosmological argument?   
   >>   
   >> You are having this discussion with another creationist, just one more   
   >> honest than the ones that you associate with.  You should know that   
   >> creationists have no solution to the first-cause argument.  You can   
   >> think that God existed before the Big Bang, but that doesn't solve the   
   >> ultimate first-cause issue.  Something likely existed before the Big   
   >> Bang, but we don't know what that could be.  The pure energy or quark-   
   >> gluon plasma that existed at the start of the Big Bang would have come   
   >> from somewhere.  All we have to look at is our little piece of the   
   >> cosmos, and we don't know what exists out side of the Big Bang's   
   >> influence.   
   >>   
   >>>   
   >>> I find Roger Penrose's position revealing. He recognises that this   
   >>> argument has weight, and attempts to avoid an absolute space/time   
   >>> beginning (and thus a “first cause”) without invoking a multiverse or   
   >>> speculative quantum creation from nothing with his Conformal Cyclic   
   >>> Cosmology (CCC).   
   >>>   
   >>> Thanks Roger for confirming that (i) the first-cause problem is real;   
   >>> (ii) current materialist hypotheses are doubtful at best; and (iii)   
   >>> materialists are willing to try any amount of mathematical gymnastics   
   >>> (e.g. CCC) to avoid the God hypothesis.   
   >>   
   >> The first cause issue is real for everyone including creationists.   
   >> What caused some god to exist?  This god would have to be able to   
   >> interact with his creation in order to make you happy.  This god would   
   >> have had to be able to manipulate things in our universe so that 8   
   >> billion years of dying stars would produce a dust and gas cloud with   
   >> the right mix of elements to make life possible in our star poor   
   >> region of the milky way galaxy 4.5 billion years ago.   
   >>   
   >> Nyikos was a creationist that became an IDiot early in the beginning   
   >> of the ID scam when it came to TO in the late 1990's.  Nyikos is the   
   >> type of creationist IDiot that no one should want to be like.  Nyikos   
   >> was not anti evolution, but was always dishonest about why he   
   >> supported the ID scam, and he had his space alien fantasy to lie about   
   >> ID being scientific. Nyikos claimed that he regularly attended   
   >> Catholic Mass, but that, that didn't mean that he supported the ID   
   >> scam for religious reasons.  Pathetically, Nyikos was the type of   
   >> Biblical creationist that believed in a god that you could lie to and   
   >> expect to get what you wanted.  I think that Nyikos was the only   
   >> creationist on TO that ever supported Pascal's wager as something that   
   >> was viable.  You have to have a pretty pathetic view of your god to   
   >> think that claiming to believe in that god would be enough ass kissing   
   >> to get your just reward.   
   >>   
   >> Ron Okimoto   
   >>   
   >   
   > The short answer for creationists is that God is, by definition,   
   > uncaused. An objection to this is that it explains nothing. My counter   
   > would be that God is the ultimate - and only - brute fact. The one   
   > exception to causality. Of course this is open to any amount of   
   > philosophical and theological debate.   
      
   A bogus definition of god doesn't solve your problem.  No matter what   
   your definition is the problem still exists.  Why would anyone believe   
   that you could define away a problem when there is no justification for   
   the definition?   
      
   >   
   > The causality question comes into focus with energy and entropy.   
   > Penrose's CCC attempts to solve the fundamental problem of increasing   
   > entropy and successive universe cycles.   
      
   Just define it away.   
      
   Ron Okimoto   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)