>things have causes>we find those causes by observing and testing>we always only keep finding physical causes >all historical explanations that didn't converge on physical causes ended up being wrong>additional information in an explanation that has no effect on the thing it explains is pointless >therefore all nonphysical explanations are and will most likely be wrong
>>18546571>things have causesNot under your ideology that states everything just came into being for no reason. Try again.
>>18546571>solve philosophyPhilosophy is not a problem to be solved, philosophy is the process of looking for problems that can't be solved.
>>18546595>Not under your ideology that states everything just came into being for no reasonMy ideology states no such things, it posits how everything came into being (or whether it always existed) as an unknown.>process of looking for problems that can't be solvedAre philosophers retarded?
>>18546618>t. delusional
>>18546619Delusional about what?
>>18546622Delusional about how your retarded ideology being in line with modern physics and cosmology.
>>18546624How is it not in line? Should be easy to prove me wrong since you're so confident
>>18546629What caused the big bang? What causes quantum fluctuations? What causes reality to be in a particular state instead of remaining in a superposition? Things happening without any determinable cause is bread and butter of modern physics.
>>18546635>What caused the big bang? We don't know>What causes quantum fluctuations? The boring answer is that it just is the value spread defined by uncertainty. Think of it as a ground state with a nonzero value. If you want to get at why this exists in the first place, it's identical to the first or third question. >What causes reality to be in a particular state instead of remaining in a superposition?We don't know. Congrats, you have stated a bunch of current unknowns at the border of physics. What now? None of these things dispute any existing physics and observations we've made. You're confusing the frontier with the mass. >Things happening without any determinable cause is bread and butter of modern physics.*seemingly indeterminable *subset of modern physics, and theoretical physics mostly at that
>>18546644>We don't knowWhy not just assert that Allah did it?
>>18546644>w-w-w-we don't knowThe standard scientific position is that nothing causes any of those things. "We don't know" carries zero information. We don't "know" anything. Try again.
>>18546730>The standard scientific position is that nothing causes any of those things.No, it's that we don't know but have a bunch of theories. >"We don't know" carries zero information. It carries the information that we don't have enough knowledge to make definitive statements about this aspect of reality yet.
>science
>>things have causesProof for this claim?
>>18546571DMC4 Nero arm?
>>18546827>NoScientific denialism is not an argument. >have a bunch of theoriesWhat "scientific" theory explains how something can "physically cause" anything before time is even a thing?
>>18546571>physical testing>keep finding physical causes>"did we just solve philosophy?"You did.And I'll do you one better, I'll solve materialism:>vibe testing>keep finding vibes as causesAdditional information has no effect, sorry.
>>18546831>Proof for this claim?No uncaused things have been observed For some things we don't know yet what caused them, but we know that they were caused (like the big bang)>>18546874>scientific denialismExplain this term, tf is a scientific denialism>What "scientific" theory explains how something can "physically cause" anything before time is even a thing?Look up Pre–Big Bang cosmology. But we are not advanced enough as a species to prove any of these theories >keep finding vibes as causesOnly if you use a definition for "vibes" that doesn't match the current definition of the word whatsoever
>>18546925>>keep finding vibes as causes>Only if you use a definition for "vibes" that doesn't match the current definition of the word whatsoeverI take it you tried to tag me (>>18546899) ? No, I use the current definition exactly. Vibeeees, man. That's all I look for and - miraculously -that's all I find... hence I'm apparently allowed to dismiss everything else.
>>18546925I don't need to look anything up. You need to explain what "physical causality" even means in a situation where there's no before or after.
>>18546730There is no scientific consensus about the cause of the big bang
>>18546956Just like there is no scientific consensus on what dlslfksak the djajd erioeie. See >>18546946
>>18546960There is no consensus that time started at the big bang. It could have been caused by previous events and there are speculative scientific models of such things.
The cause of the big bang is a Moabite god of coper smelting whose son incarnated as a Judahite carpenter in ancient Levant, duh.
>>18546969Talking about anything before the big bang is nonsense within GR and GR is the current scientific consensus. Your argument degenerates into "what about muh unspecified future physics...", the answer to which is that it may very well dispose of causality altogether.
>>18546978There is a pretty large scientific consensus that general relativity is only applicable a few instants after time zero, because GR is based on assumptions which will fail to hold at earlier times.
>>18546990>There is a pretty large scientific consensus that general relativity is only applicable a few instants after time zeroThere is no alternate model supported by empirical evidence. See: >>18546978>. Your argument degenerates into "what about muh unspecified future physics...", the answer to which is that it may very well dispose of causality altogether.
>>18546996GR just doesn't apply very close to time zero. That's the consensus. So using GR to argue about that what happens before time zero is meaningless is just scientifically invalid.
>>18546999> GR to argue about that what happens before time zero is meaningless is just scientifically invalid.I agree, you turbo-brainlet. But this is what time, as a rigorous physical concept, is currently based on. See >>18546978>Your argument degenerates into "what about muh unspecified future physics...", the answer to which is that it may very well dispose of causality altogether.
>>18547004Time isn't based on GR.
>>18547005>Time isn't based on GR.It is in mainstream modern physics (see: spacetime). Scientific denialism is not a refutation.
>>18547009>see: spacetimeThat has nothing to do with your claim that time is based on GR. Your popsci understanding is really out of its depth here. What happened near the big bang is very much a scientifically open question and denying that is the real denialism.
>>18546828>The Skoptsy were a Spiritual Christian sect of Eastern Orthodoxy. They were best known for practicing the emasculation of men, the mastectomy and the female genital mutilation of women in accordance with their teachings against sexual lust.Christbros.......
>>18546721God of the gaps is not a real argument and every case for it in the past was proven wrong
>>18546635>>18546644>>18546730>>18546827FYI most scientists are now moving back towards an eternalist model, concluding that the Big Bang was not the absolute beginning of time and space, but rather a cycle preceded by other cycles. The Big Bang for us was the heat death of a previous universe and the heat death of our universe will be the Big Bang of a future universe.Pagans were right, atheists and Christians are wrong. The universe is cyclical not linear. Cope
>>18547041>That has nothing to do with your claim that time is based on GRYour scientific denialism is not an argument.
>>18547072No argument, coomer
>>18546571Congratulations, you repeated a famous philosophical mistake.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
>>18546571You have not.This has been said thousands of time for centuries.You're just another underage midwit spamming this board with worthless garbageYou've never had an original thought in your life.Thanks for helping to ruin this board you useless retard.Do you feel smart?
>You don't believe in my desert god? You obviously want to cut your dick off. My religion is the only bulwark against men cutting their dicks off, since our god commands us to only slice off a tiny piece of our dicksChristians on /his/ are embarrassing
>>18547174>our god commands us to only slice off a tiny piece of our dicksOnly true if you are Jewish
>>18547176Foreskin = no covenant with god. Enjoy burning!
>>18546571You must rise above both or forever wallow in your own shit.
>when science proves that this reality is a simulation then you have your creator or creators if you will. i sure hope he doesn't get crucified between two thieves.
>>18546571What was the physical cause of me having dreams of things weeks before they happened?
>>18547183a mind flayer plants the dream in your head and then acts it out a few weeks later.
>>18547177The new covenant doesn't require circumcision, only the old covenant which applied only to Jews.
>>18546571Suppose something happened that is a either a one time exception to the way things usually work or that is inherently untestable.Under your framework, even if it really did happen, you would have no way of accepting that it did because it is impossible to test it in any way that is repeatable.You are precluding these entire classes of potentially useful information.
>>18547195Magic is not real. Grow up.
>>18547205My point is, even if magic were real, you'd have completely cut yourself off from accepting that it is.Magic is far from the only domain you've precluded yourself from though.
>>18547149>muh problem of inductionBegging the question>>18547195>Under your framework, even if it really did happen, you would have no way of accepting that it did because it is impossible to test it in any way that is repeatable>you are precluding these classes of potentially useful informationNo you're not, literally the big bang itself is one of such thingsAs long as it's observable it's all good. If just one person saying trust me bro has seen it then sure but then that information is not useful correct >>18547236>if magic were realGood thing it's not, otherwise I'd be wrong. But I'm not heh
>>18546925>No uncaused things have been observedProof any caused things have been observed?I think I’m really getting it now. Atheists are midwits experiencing Dunning-Kruger with philosophy who just declare everything they believe “has been observed” or “has evidence”, and everything they don’t like “has no evidence”, and because they’re stupid they believe this declaration establishes the truth of their worldview
>>18548464>Proof any caused things have been observed?What we mean conventionally when we say causation is regularities, state-evolutions, and the results of interventions.Where it had been observed: your own eyes, experiments, other observations by people >everything they don’t like “has no evidence”Because it literally doesn't. Feel free to show otherwise
>>18547072>The Skoptsy were a Spiritual Christian sect of Eastern Orthodoxy>sect it doesn't mean anything
