From: rokimoto557@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/10/2026 5:22 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Demonstrate that it is 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.   
      
   But it would be counter intuitive to think that the uncaused first cause   
   had sagacious god-like abilities.   
      
   > 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?   
      
   We do not know what existed before the big bang.  We don't know how   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)