An infinite series of finite causes.

[element771]

It's a snide and unjustified attribution of false motives, that's how.

Correct me if I am wrong but don't you do the same to theists on quite a regular basis?

[shunyadragon]

How can you ever actually tell that energy is past eternal? How could you ever demonstrate that it didn't have a beginning somewhere in the far distant past?

How can you demonstrate that natural energy is either eternal or not?

The answer is plain and simple you cannot make that determination in science. There is absolutely no evidence for an absolute beginning of anything at any time in the past.

[seer]

How can you demonstrate that natural energy is either eternal or not?

That is not the point, there is no evidence that energy is past eternal, and no way to prove it, like I said.

The answer is plain and simple you cannot make that determination in science. There is absolutely no evidence for an absolute beginning of anything at any time in the past.

Yes there is - there is evidence that this universe is finite with a beginning at the hot big bang. There is zero evidence of energy existing before that event. And the fact that the universe is expanding and running out of usable energy.

[shunyadragon]

That is not the point, there is no evidence that energy is past eternal, and no way to prove it, like I said.

Like I said, there is absolutely no evidence either way. Your opinion does not count. You need to cite physicists and/or cosmologists that propose the beginning of our universe is an absolute beginning.

Yes there is - there is evidence that this universe is finite with a beginning at the hot big bang. There is zero evidence of energy existing before that event. And the fact that the universe is expanding and running out of usable energy.

No there is no evidence that this is the absolute beginning of anything, this is your 'belief' based on a religious agenda, and very few if no physicists nor cosmologists propose that the singularity is the beginning without a prior existence from which the singularity formed. Your view of entropy is archaic and science does not believe anything runs out of energy it just changes form. Can you provide a physicist or cosmologist that holds your view of entropy that leads to the necessity of an absolute beginning or ending.

As cited some physicists consider the evidence supports a cyclic universe and therefore reject your notion of entropy.

Example:

Source: http://www.iastro.pt/research/conferences/azores17/slides/10.pdf

Multiverse with constant entropy

To avoid the problem of decreasing entropy in cyclic universe (2nd law of
thermodynamics) we may assume that the entropy of the multiverse being a sum of
entropies of individual universes is constant.

© Copyright Original Source

[element771]

Your view of entropy is archaic and science does not believe anything runs out of energy it just changes form.

As someone who has published several papers on entropy, I only have one thing to say.

[seer]

No there is no evidence that this is the absolute beginning of anything, this is your 'belief' based on a religious agenda, and very few if no physicists nor cosmologists propose that the singularity is the beginning without a prior existence from which the singularity formed.

Stop lying Shuny and admit that your religious agenda requires eternal matter or energy since according to your beliefs matter is co-eternal with God.

Your view of entropy is archaic and science does not believe anything runs out of energy it just changes form. Can you provide a physicist or cosmologist that holds your view of entropy that leads to the necessity of an absolute beginning or ending.

I said usable energy, one day Shuny every star will die...

As cited some physicists consider the evidence supports a cyclic universe and therefore reject your notion of entropy.

But there is no actual evidence for this mythical cyclical universe, and even if it did exist there is no way to prove it was eternal into the past.

[shunyadragon]

As someone who has published several papers on entropy, I only have one thing to say.

PHFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT! PLOP! Dribble . . . Dribble . . . Dribble

If you disagree present something constructive.

[rogue06]

PHFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT! PLOP! Dribble . . . Dribble . . . Dribble

Modern medicine can do wonders with incontinence.

Just sayin'

[mattbballman31]

The bottom line dear boy, is that a misleading emphasis has been placed on the problem of demarcation to the extent that it results in getting bogged down in arguments over definitions rather than evidence.

If there's been any emphasis, it's been made by YOU, telling us over and over again what is and isn't science. My bringing up the demarcation problem was in response to you doing the demarcating yourself! When you obsess over telling everyone what is or isn't science, that's you shoving down my throat an instance of demarcation. So, either shut your face about what is or isn't science and deal with the methodologies of philosophy and metaphysics, or harp on what is or isn't science while lecturing everyone else that harping on what is or isn't science is symptomatic of scientism. Either way, you're a moron of the highest order, and you can't tell that the stick you're attempting to poke others with is poking yourself in your eyeball.

And you are a supreme example of this "getting bogged down" by demanding exact definitions and word meanings and never actually getting around to dealing with the issues.

I'm RESPONDING to WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, dingbat. You don't get to make pronouncements about what is or isn't science, and then silence all attempts at getting clear on what the demarcation problem is and what it implies regarding your pronouncements. It doesn't work that way. And you don't get to pontificate about the dos and don'ts of philosophy and science without defining your terms. That's a coward's way out because all you have to do is say whatever you want, however you want, and you define away any opposition to your view by mere stipulation and straightjacket any possible response to play by the rules you've arbitrary and narrowly set up. You tie a guy to a chair and then scream and yell at him for not standing up. You put tape over a guy's mouth and scream and yell at him to speak without taking the tape off. IOW, you're a psychotic dumb-butt.

Presumably because you can't! Despite your endless pontifications you still have not at any stage shown how a conclusion to a metaphysical argument can be shown to be true, when there is no way to arrive at a demonstrably true premise.

Sure I can, and yes I have! Mere denial is another one of your cowardly tactics. It's easy to just deny and repeat, deny and repeat. Do it until you're blue in the face. It doesn't and can't change any of the facts I've painstakingly presented for your slow mind, facts that are easily digestible if you'd just take the time to read them. I've given crystal clear examples of how to arrive at true premises via the kind of demonstrations available to a particular domain of inquiry, multiple times, ten different ways from Sunday. All you can do is deny and repeat. Because all that's left in the gas tank of your skull are the fumes of desperation. You've run out of new crap to say because your bag of tricks has only baseless accusations, needless repetitions, and the pink pacifier of scientism that you wrap your crusty lips around. Stay in your intellectual crib, you little baby.

Now is your cue to demand what is meant by "show" and "true" and "demonstrable" etc.

Now that I know you're a petulant little toddler with nothing to say, I think what I've already said speaks for itself.

Go change your diaper and clean the upchuck off your undersized t-shirt, you little sore loser who won't amount to anything in life.

What's your biggest academic accomplishment, bigshot? Do you strive for anything in life or do you just troll people that steamroll over you like the little stupid worm you are? Doesn't it suck that with each passing day, you waste another 86,400 seconds that could have been used to actually learn something profitable? It must really suck to be you, loser.

[mattbballman31]

Modern medicine can do wonders with incontinence.

Just sayin'

Shunya is so freaking stupid. It's like he thinks it's witty or something to say, "Dribble, dribble, splat . . ."

He's said it to me a couple times already. It's so darn cringe. I think he's too far gone to notice how much of dork he looks like.

It's like he has 4 phases:

1: Say something that makes sense that's irrelevant to the topic.
2. Say something that doesn't make sense that's irrelevant to the topic.
3. Make cringe-worthy come-backs that are so stupid and idiotic, they'd probably be the inspiration for a kind of drinking-game.
4. Post HUGE block-quotes (because he's never reasoned through anything himself passed the surface) that are almost completely irrelevant to the topic.

Bonus: Hit the 'amen' button every time Tass posts something. Why? Well, because Tass said it, of course!

If you can think of any more, add some!

[Tassman]

That is not the point, there is no evidence that energy is past eternal, and no way to prove it, like I said.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...llel-universes

Yes there is - there is evidence that this universe is finite with a beginning at the hot big bang. There is zero evidence of energy existing before that event. And the fact that the universe is expanding and running out of usable energy.

You will clearly believe what you want to believe based upon your own religious agenda. You have no interest in facts and research, merely how science can reinforce your own agenda. This is the antithesis of research.

That still is irrational, even if some gods are merely social constructs, it still does not follow that all gods are merely social constructs with no independent reality.

OK! So all you need to do is show which gods are not social constructs and why they are not social constructs.

[Tassman]

I've given crystal clear examples of how to arrive at true premises via the kind of demonstrations available to a particular domain of inquiry, multiple times, ten different ways from Sunday.

[element771]

PHFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT! PLOP! Dribble . . . Dribble . . . Dribble

If you disagree present something constructive.

I have wasted enough time trying to inform you on matters that you don't understand.

I can present a very robust case from the primary literature and you will simply respond with a mountain of text from a website that you don't understand .

No thanks.

[element771]

Correct me if I am wrong but don't you do the same to theists on quite a regular basis?

Did you miss my post?

[element771]

You will clearly believe what you want to believe based upon your own religious agenda. You have no interest in facts and research, merely how science can reinforce your own agenda. This is the antithesis of research.

Isn't this an example of what you accused me of doing?