From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 9/01/2026 2:44 am, RonO wrote:   
   > 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   
   >   
      
   Maybe it's not a "bogus definition", but an correct encapsulation.   
   Maybe its not "defining away", but an accurate starting point.   
      
   I'm not claiming a proof of this, I'm just thinking out loud:   
      
   1. An uncaused first cause may exist.   
   2. If so, by definition, they are termination point for causality.   
   3. They could then be described as the one and only "brute fact".   
      
   Yes?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)