• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

P implies P

i understand. You are badly loosing this argument and to cover over your loss you try to change the subject. Again another example of how bad you debate with tricks that are so obvious. Nothing i have said is an ad hom. Pointing out your dishonesty when you are in fact being dishonest is not an ad hom.

Your thread is a fail. And the best you can do is pretend that it is just ad homs instead of legitimate points of your inability to make a case.

I have nothing more to discuss with you then, I'm putting you on my ignore list from here on, it really is for the best.
 
Last edited:
On the contrary it is you who is assuming, you're assuming it's possible for something material exist that is not evidence of anything, there's no reason for that given that science teaches us that every time we seek explanations we discover causes, reasons why we observe what we observe.
I’m not assuming anything. To be evidence, the observation must either be a clear indication of something else or adds to and supports an existing hypothesis. There has to be a relationship between the observation to lead to a conclusion. If an observation could indicate multiple things or is consistent with multiple hypotheses, then it is not evidence of anything (other than its own existence).
 
I’m not assuming anything.

Very well, lets see if that's true.

To be evidence, the observation must either be a clear indication of something else or adds to and supports an existing hypothesis.

Lets take some dictionary:

Collins said:
Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.

So since science teaches us that we live in a world of cause and effect, then anything we observe will have a cause and is evidence of a cause even if we haven't fully identified the cause.

So I agree with you, except you seem to think that we must know what it is evidence of before we can call it evidence and I don't share that view.

There has to be a relationship between the observation to lead to a conclusion. If an observation could indicate multiple things or is consistent with multiple hypotheses, then it is not evidence of anything (other than its own existence).

I disagree, it is evidence of something whether you can define that something or not, how could it be otherwise?

John: "Look Rachel, that shattered window is evidence that something happened here, let's find out what".

Rachel: "Not it is not evidence, since you don't know what it is evidence of you cannot call it evidence, it is not evidence".

John: "In which case on what grounds should we investigate this? if it isn't evidence then why investigate?"

So please give me an example of an observation that is not evidence of something.
 
Very well, lets see if that's true.



Lets take some dictionary:



So since science teaches us that we live in a world of cause and effect, then anything we observe will have a cause and is evidence of a cause even if we haven't fully identified the cause.

So I agree with you, except you seem to think that we must know what it is evidence of before we can call it evidence and I don't share that view.



I disagree, it is evidence of something whether you can define that something or not, how could it be otherwise?

John: "Look Rachel, that shattered window is evidence that something happened here, let's find out what".

Rachel: "Not it is not evidence, since you don't know what it is evidence of you cannot call it evidence, it is not evidence".

John: "In which case on what grounds should we investigate this? if it isn't evidence then why investigate?"

So please give me an example of an observation that is not evidence of something.


Strawman. He said no such thing.
 
I disagree, it is evidence of something whether you can define that something or not, how could it be otherwise?

John: "Look Rachel, that shattered window is evidence that something happened here, let's find out what".

Rachel: "Not it is not evidence, since you don't know what it is evidence of you cannot call it evidence, it is not evidence".

John: "In which case on what grounds should we investigate this? if it isn't evidence then why investigate?"

So please give me an example of an observation that is not evidence of something.

I know i am on ignore but what the ****.

This rachel is a bit of a dick. John just said it is evidence of something happened not that it is evidence of who did it.

Much in the same way sherlock cannot say the universe is evidence of god who did it.

When in fact the universe is nothing more than evidence that there is a universe in the same sense as a broken window is evidence that something happened.
 
I know i am on ignore but what the ****.


These dudes and dudettes are all over the internet. They always do some ad hom first and then blame the other chatter instead of taking responsibility for their own actions. The other chatter still has the free speech right to respond as they wish. It just makes you wonder why people come to a debate room and then hide from it. What’s the deal?
 
Time is a human construct to make sense of change. "First" is only a regressive theory that may or may not exist.

Time is a human construct to make sense of change just as mathematics is a human construct to make sense of change. We can postulate that they aren't real, but to do this we must ignore the fact that they are useful tools that enable us to predict change. Theory or not, cause and effect is the only way the human mind can understand the universe. We can assume a notion of infinity, but it ultimately carries no information.

Either the universe was caused or it wasn't. I would argue that assuming the universe itself is the "first cause" and was not caused by something else is no different than assuming it is infinite. Taking infinity "one step higher" and applying it to something else that caused a finite universe without evidence is an unwarranted multiplication of entities and provides no useful information.
 
It's not meaningful in itself, but something has to be uncaused. Whatever it is that you think was not caused by something else and was just always there is going to be defined by itself and be a meaningless statement that carries no information. The universe could be the first cause. Or we could groundlessly postulate some other thing that caused the universe and call that thing the first cause. In either case, we have the same problem, and since the universe exists and we have no evidence for anything that caused the universe, Occam's Razor would suggest that we should assume that the universe is itself the first cause.
The universe is everything. Everything is everything. It defines itself. The class of all classes. There is nothing else but the universe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lwf
The universe is everything. Everything is everything. It defines itself. The class of all classes. There is nothing else but the universe.

Yet this notion of 'everything' includes entropy, meaning that there used to be more available thermal energy in the universe than there is now. If this thermal energy had a beginning as seems to be required, what caused this beginning? Did time "start" at this beginning, or was there something before where there was no entropy? What happens when there is zero energy remaining in the universe and entropy is no longer possible? Does time "stop," or is there something after?
 
Yet this notion of 'everything' includes entropy, meaning that there used to be more available thermal energy in the universe than there is now. If this thermal energy had a beginning as seems to be required, what caused this beginning? Did time "start" at this beginning, or was there something before where there was no entropy? What happens when there is zero energy remaining in the universe and entropy is no longer possible? Does time "stop," or is there something after?
When the universe runs down and and all matter has been turned to energy at the same level with no potential, time will end. This is the singularity that begins the next cycle.
 
The universe is everything. Everything is everything. It defines itself. The class of all classes. There is nothing else but the universe.
See post above yours
 
When the universe runs down and and all matter has been turned to energy at the same level with no potential, time will end. This is the singularity that begins the next cycle.

What causes the next cycle to begin?
 
What causes the next cycle to begin?
Gravity is the only force that remains. Since time as in space-time has gone to 0. Space folds in on itself and big bang.
 
Gravity is the only force that remains. Since time as in space-time has gone to 0. Space folds in on itself and big bang.

How can gravity exist without mass?
 
Last edited:
Gravity is a property of time-space.

But without mass, there is no meaningful difference in gravity. What would cause space and time to fold in on itself? Mass is what causes differences in gravity. Without mass, space and time would be maximally stable. What could cause gravity to shift in this scenario?
 
But without mass, there is no meaningful difference in gravity. What would cause space and time to fold in on itself? Mass is what causes differences in gravity. Without mass, space and time would be maximally stable. What could cause gravity to shift in this scenario?
Gravity is the warping property of space-time. When time goes to zero. Space warps in on itself (folds/collapses) and the singularity occurs.
A singularity occurs when any of space, time or mass reach a limit (zero or infinity). That is where the equation that balances those three breaks down.
 
Last edited:
Gravity is the warping property of space-time. When time goes to zero. Space warps in on itself (folds/collapses) and the singularity occurs.
A singularity occurs when any of space, time or mass reach a limit (zero or infinity). That is where the equation that balances those three breaks down.

Then what causes it to go back to non-zero?
 
Then what causes it to go back to non-zero?
The big bang (singularity) collapse all the energy back into matter. The laws of thermal dynamics apply again. Gravity compresses the matter changing some to energy. And there we go again. Time is no longer zero and space expands again.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom