The Wrong God

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Logik
Posts: 1620
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:01 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 9:55 am
The only one triggered here is you. I'm just stating your shortcomings:

- you can't process logic properly
- you can't process circularity
- you are hallucinating that I claimed: "all structure emerges in the mind" (whatever the fuck that means)
- you don't even understand the nature of the argument, since you are talking about an image in the mind
- you automatically put the blame on others
Yes, your ad-hominem has been acknowledged.

We shall let the audience decide whether those are my shortcomings or just a projection of yours.

Atla
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Atla » Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:08 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:01 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 9:55 am
The only one triggered here is you. I'm just stating your shortcomings:

- you can't process logic properly
- you can't process circularity
- you are hallucinating that I claimed: "all structure emerges in the mind" (whatever the fuck that means)
- you don't even understand the nature of the argument, since you are talking about an image in the mind
- you automatically put the blame on others
Yes, your ad-hominem has been acknowledged.

We shall let the audience decide whether those are my shortcomings or just a projection of yours.
Not an ad-hominem, when it's a fact. And grasping the idea of circular time requires at least 130-140 IQ so I wouldn't trust the general audience with that (besides there is no audience here), but such a pathetic appeal to the audience is again: one of your shortcomings, the loser's way out.

Logik
Posts: 1620
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:10 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:08 am
Not an ad-hominem, when it's a fact. And grasping the idea of circular time requires at least 130-140 IQ so I wouldn't trust the general audience with that (besides there is no audience here), but such a pathetic appeal to the audience is again: one of your shortcomings, the loser's way out.
OK, Atla. You are the smartest of us all. Your imagination is right, my imagination is wrong. Your imagination is the most correctest of all the imaginations.

I am sorry that your mom didn't love you like your uncle did.

Atla
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Atla » Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:18 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:10 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:08 am
Not an ad-hominem, when it's a fact. And grasping the idea of circular time requires at least 130-140 IQ so I wouldn't trust the general audience with that (besides there is no audience here), but such a pathetic appeal to the audience is again: one of your shortcomings, the loser's way out.
OK, Atla. You are the smartest of us all. Your imagination is right, my imagination is wrong. Your imagination is the most correctest of all the imaginations.

I am sorry that your mom didn't love you like your uncle did.
You are the one always pretending to be the smartest here even though you are remarkably clueless. So much projection. Guess you are that little boy who was loved by uncle but not mommy, too.

Logik
Posts: 1620
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:19 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:18 am
You are the one always pretending to be the smartest here even though you are remarkably clueless. So much projection. Guess you are that little boy who was loved by uncle but not mommy, too.
How can I pretend to be the smartest when I acknowledged that you are the smartest?

Your psyche is so screwed up you can't even take a compliment.

Atla
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Atla » Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:21 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:19 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:18 am
You are the one always pretending to be the smartest here even though you are remarkably clueless. So much projection. Guess you are that little boy who was loved by uncle but not mommy, too.
How can I pretend to be the smartest when I acknowledged that you are the smartest?

Your psyche is so screwed up you can't even take a compliment.
Maybe you also have short-term memory problems, not remembering your own sarcasm.

Logik
Posts: 1620
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:23 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:21 am
Maybe you also have short-term memory problems, not remembering your own sarcasm.
Shiit, so intelligent he's a mind-reader!

Atla
Posts: 1375
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Atla » Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:26 am

Logik wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:23 am
Atla wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:21 am
Maybe you also have short-term memory problems, not remembering your own sarcasm.
Shiit, so intelligent he's a mind-reader!
Well, since you seem to be addicted to attention, even if it's negative attention (wouldn't be surprised if you didn't get any attention IRL), I'll leave you be. Have fun lurking on the forum all day.

Logik
Posts: 1620
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Sat Feb 02, 2019 11:50 am

Atla wrote:
Sat Feb 02, 2019 10:26 am
Well, since you seem to be addicted to attention, even if it's negative attention (wouldn't be surprised if you didn't get any attention IRL).
10 minutes ago you were talking about The Universe (mind you!), the immense, circular endless and eternal Universe!

Only to have your grandeur interrupted by a mere attention whore such as myself.

Apologies, King Atla. I am sorry for being the p**** who deflated your ego. I will stay out of greatness' way. Scout's honour.

gaffo
Posts: 1636
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by gaffo » Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:52 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:30 am
Before proposing an entirely new paradigm to explain the beginnings of things--things like the physical universe replete with its mathematically definable physics principles and billions of entities professing to exhibit some form of conscious self-awareness but mostly making a poor show of it, one might consider existing paradigms about the beginnings.

At first glance there would appear to be two major paradigms: the religious (an almighty and omnipotent God who made the physical universe, from nothing, and then made man, body and soul, from nothing). This God is an uncaused entity, having always existed.

The "scientific" paradigm declares that way back when, before anything existed, something called a "physical singularity" spontaneously came into existence. (This is an invention of pseudo-scientists. Singularities are mathematical forms that describe various ways to achieve infinity, such as the tangent of 90 degrees, the secant of 0 degrees, or any finite number divided by zero. Infinity, of course, is not a number and therefore cannot be the solution to any numerical problem. The concept of a physical infinity has not been defined, and is therefore a meaningless item of pseudo-scientific bullshit.)

Science's (to be specific, cosmology's) singularity has no cause, no point or time of origin. Any concept about where it first appeared makes no sense because "where" is a concept dependent on space, and possibly upon time (a.k.a. "when") as well. Neither time nor space could have existed at the instant of the singularity's appearance. Whatever, at some unknown time after its inexplicable and uncaused manifestation, the singularity spontaneously (i.e. without cause or reason) exploded into our universe, complete with energy and matter, plus dark energy and dark matter, and a shitload of "particles" that conveniently interacted to form the atoms composing the universe-- then, without cause, stars, planets, galaxies, black holes, etc.

Ultimately, upon looking closely at either the detailed or superficial versions of the entities responsible for the beginnings of things (God vs. Singularity) they are:

1. Illogical bunk.
2. Functionally identical.

Why functionally identical? Neither God nor the singularity can be explained. They are both, at least from our current perspectives, uncaused.

The existence of either one cannot be verified. God is a spirit, defined to be beyond the detection capabilities of any physical scientific spirit. The singularity blew up, so we can do no better than find sorry traces of it.

Any so-called evidence for either God or the singularity is entirely inferential.

Neither offers a credible explanation for abiogenesis, or any reason for the creation of biological life.

Enough. Perhaps we can kick this around, without thread hijacks, please. (Other crackpots will kindly find the integrity to grind their personal theoretical axes (a.k.a. bullshit) on their own threads.)

Then I can move on to propose an alternative theory for the beginnings which is entirely rational and perfectly logical (but absolutely unconventional), and subject to genuine scientific investigation because most of its hypothetical components (the parts participating in the beginnings of things) still exist and can be investigated by appropriately engineered physical instruments.

One of those parts includes whatever passes for the conscious, intelligent, self-aware human mind.

(A summary, added to the original OP:)

An understanding of the beginnings of things is important because all considerations about the current nature of the things in our perceived reality depend upon beliefs about their beginnings, particularly the question: Did a Creator, a God, make the universe? If so, why? If not, what did?

Atheists will likely agree that the traditional God-concept is illogical nonsense, as do I. However, they've overlooked the relationship between their current favorite cosmological substitute, the modern transmogrification of Big Bang theory, and the God-concept. Those ideas are functionally identical-- different statements of the same old concept. Just as religionists believe in an entity that cannot exist, atheists disbelieve in the same entity! Well, good for them, except that they've built their pseudo-scientific nonsense upon the fundamental "all things from one" religious belief, doubling down on their opponents' faulty logic.

The dreadful mistake made by both religionists and atheists is their mutual agreement that a single entity could have possibly created our universe, a cause-effect universe within which two things, or two opposing forces, are required to make something happen.

The point of such discussion is to lay a foundation for a theory of the beginnings that requires at least two things, two opposing yet interactive 'forces. There's no mystery here; the theory already exists in published form. I'll try using this forum to explain it, a little bit at a time, perhaps more effectively expressed.

Put more simply: Current religious beliefs suck. Cosmology is just a variation of King Tut's monotheistic God, and it sucks the more because astronomers are often intelligent. We can do better. But we will not until we can acknowledge that all current theories about the beginnings (except mine, of course) are illogical and non-scientific.

The expected responses to this proposal have already started, in the form of "What you mean 'we,' Kemosaby?

Kindly focus your objections to this OP upon the OP itself. Thank you.

Greylorn Ell
your own thread negates your own post.

which God? YHWH, Vishnu, Thor, Baal????

instead you post about "god" (which Gods?)

and science - which offers no answers about the Big Bang - only .000000000000001 seconds after.

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:19 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:52 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:30 am
Before proposing an entirely new paradigm to explain the beginnings of things--things like the physical universe replete with its mathematically definable physics principles and billions of entities professing to exhibit some form of conscious self-awareness but mostly making a poor show of it, one might consider existing paradigms about the beginnings.

At first glance there would appear to be two major paradigms: the religious (an almighty and omnipotent God who made the physical universe, from nothing, and then made man, body and soul, from nothing). This God is an uncaused entity, having always existed.

The "scientific" paradigm declares that way back when, before anything existed, something called a "physical singularity" spontaneously came into existence. (This is an invention of pseudo-scientists. Singularities are mathematical forms that describe various ways to achieve infinity, such as the tangent of 90 degrees, the secant of 0 degrees, or any finite number divided by zero. Infinity, of course, is not a number and therefore cannot be the solution to any numerical problem. The concept of a physical infinity has not been defined, and is therefore a meaningless item of pseudo-scientific bullshit.)

Science's (to be specific, cosmology's) singularity has no cause, no point or time of origin. Any concept about where it first appeared makes no sense because "where" is a concept dependent on space, and possibly upon time (a.k.a. "when") as well. Neither time nor space could have existed at the instant of the singularity's appearance. Whatever, at some unknown time after its inexplicable and uncaused manifestation, the singularity spontaneously (i.e. without cause or reason) exploded into our universe, complete with energy and matter, plus dark energy and dark matter, and a shitload of "particles" that conveniently interacted to form the atoms composing the universe-- then, without cause, stars, planets, galaxies, black holes, etc.

Ultimately, upon looking closely at either the detailed or superficial versions of the entities responsible for the beginnings of things (God vs. Singularity) they are:

1. Illogical bunk.
2. Functionally identical.

Why functionally identical? Neither God nor the singularity can be explained. They are both, at least from our current perspectives, uncaused.

The existence of either one cannot be verified. God is a spirit, defined to be beyond the detection capabilities of any physical scientific spirit. The singularity blew up, so we can do no better than find sorry traces of it.

Any so-called evidence for either God or the singularity is entirely inferential.

Neither offers a credible explanation for abiogenesis, or any reason for the creation of biological life.

Enough. Perhaps we can kick this around, without thread hijacks, please. (Other crackpots will kindly find the integrity to grind their personal theoretical axes (a.k.a. bullshit) on their own threads.)

Then I can move on to propose an alternative theory for the beginnings which is entirely rational and perfectly logical (but absolutely unconventional), and subject to genuine scientific investigation because most of its hypothetical components (the parts participating in the beginnings of things) still exist and can be investigated by appropriately engineered physical instruments.

One of those parts includes whatever passes for the conscious, intelligent, self-aware human mind.

(A summary, added to the original OP:)

An understanding of the beginnings of things is important because all considerations about the current nature of the things in our perceived reality depend upon beliefs about their beginnings, particularly the question: Did a Creator, a God, make the universe? If so, why? If not, what did?

Atheists will likely agree that the traditional God-concept is illogical nonsense, as do I. However, they've overlooked the relationship between their current favorite cosmological substitute, the modern transmogrification of Big Bang theory, and the God-concept. Those ideas are functionally identical-- different statements of the same old concept. Just as religionists believe in an entity that cannot exist, atheists disbelieve in the same entity! Well, good for them, except that they've built their pseudo-scientific nonsense upon the fundamental "all things from one" religious belief, doubling down on their opponents' faulty logic.

The dreadful mistake made by both religionists and atheists is their mutual agreement that a single entity could have possibly created our universe, a cause-effect universe within which two things, or two opposing forces, are required to make something happen.

The point of such discussion is to lay a foundation for a theory of the beginnings that requires at least two things, two opposing yet interactive 'forces. There's no mystery here; the theory already exists in published form. I'll try using this forum to explain it, a little bit at a time, perhaps more effectively expressed.

Put more simply: Current religious beliefs suck. Cosmology is just a variation of King Tut's monotheistic God, and it sucks the more because astronomers are often intelligent. We can do better. But we will not until we can acknowledge that all current theories about the beginnings (except mine, of course) are illogical and non-scientific.

The expected responses to this proposal have already started, in the form of "What you mean 'we,' Kemosaby?

Kindly focus your objections to this OP upon the OP itself. Thank you.

Greylorn Ell
your own thread negates your own post.

which God? YHWH, Vishnu, Thor, Baal????

instead you post about "god" (which Gods?)

and science - which offers no answers about the Big Bang - only .000000000000001 seconds after.
Gaffo,
I cannot argue with your comments, for I agree with them.

I'm experimenting, trying to introduce a wide-ranging and complex set of ideas in piecemeal form. Two books which explained them in detail failed because people have attention spans tuned to sound bytes, commercials, and simple points. As you might see from the nitwits who've been using this thread as their personal squabble site, few are capable of grasping anything with which they do not already agree.

So to answer your questions..

Which God? Every silly one of them. Gods are created by priests and their equivalents as a method of controlling populaces whose average IQ is 100 on a good test day, when they're not drunk or stoned.

I hope to introduce the notion that some parts of our universe were engineered by intelligent entities, in a manner similar to human technological development. However, the notion that any kind of omnipotent or super-powerful being who knows everything was responsible for creation is, IMO, nonsense.

The greater nonsense is that humans were totally created by the same entity (or group of entities) who might have participated in the assembly of earlier biological life forms. (No, I'm not a dumbfuck "ancient alien theorist" and I rarely say "yes.")

The stinkiest religious bullshit of all is the absurd notion that any entity who might have participated in human engineering might give a shit about me, you, or any other individual human.

As for science's story about the beginnings, I regard both the notion of a Big Bang and the first picosecond of activity thereafter with about the same high regard and esteem as a long dead otter. That crap is less "scientific" than Darwinism and abiogenesis theories, each easily shown to be nonsensical.

Greylorn

Age
Posts: 1038
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Age » Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:28 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:19 am

I'm experimenting, trying to introduce a wide-ranging and complex set of ideas in piecemeal form.
Instead of just "trying to" introduce a set of ideas, why not just introduce them?

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:19 am
I hope to introduce the notion that some parts of our universe were engineered by intelligent entities, in a manner similar to human technological development.
Instead of "hoping to" introduce the notion, why not just do it?

Ah look, you have ALREADY 'introduced the notion' that some parts of "our" Universe were engineered by intelligent entities, in a manner similar to human technological development. So now that that notion has been introduced would you now care to just expand on this a bit further?

Greylorn Ell
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2014 9:13 pm
Location: SE Arizona

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Greylorn Ell » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:14 am

Age wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:28 am
Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:19 am

I'm experimenting, trying to introduce a wide-ranging and complex set of ideas in piecemeal form.
Instead of just "trying to" introduce a set of ideas, why not just introduce them?

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:19 am
I hope to introduce the notion that some parts of our universe were engineered by intelligent entities, in a manner similar to human technological development.
Instead of "hoping to" introduce the notion, why not just do it?

Ah look, you have ALREADY 'introduced the notion' that some parts of "our" Universe were engineered by intelligent entities, in a manner similar to human technological development. So now that that notion has been introduced would you now care to just expand on this a bit further?
It might be time for that. A couple of nitwits had been sandbagging this thread by using it to poop at each other. No point trying to have a useful idea exchange amid a bullshit storm.

I call the theory Natural Creation. That term might seem internally contradictory, but as perhaps you will see, it is not.

N.C. depends on several ideas and principles. Let's get them down first, by way of pouring a sound foundation.

We appear to live in a cause-effect universe. At the Newtonian level this is obvious-- pool balls will sit on a pool table forever unless acted upon by an outside force-- ideally by a skimpily dressed young lady poking one of them with a pool stick-- but any outside forces from barfing drunks to earthquakes will do the job of simply moving them.

In this universe two things manifesting interactive but opposing forces are required to make something happen.

Quantum physicists will claim otherwise, that events can happen without cause. I propose that they are incorrect, and have merely mistaken the effect of a force they do not understand for a spontaneous event. I'll deal with that later in the context of an alternative perspective. In the interim, kindly adopt the assumption that two opposing yet interactive forces are required to make something happen, and see where that takes us.

Applying that principle to the beginnings of things, it is apparent that neither creation by an Almighty God nor the uncaused explosion of a spontaneously appearing (a.k.a. magical) micropea/singularity/whatever can have gotten our universe fired up, because they are single things. Would it not be more consistent with observed reality to hypothesize the existence of two opposing forces coming together and interacting so as to jump-start the universe?

Conventional thinkers will invoke Occam's Razor and whine that two things at the beginning is more complex than a single thing, so is not a righteous principle. Well, poo-- that's why I preceded this thread with one devoted to invalidating O's Razor as a principle applicable to understanding the universe, and proposed to apply Russell's principle of simplicity in its place. This thread will apply Russell's principle as a standard for idea-evaluation. Anyone wanting to quibble with that can do so on the O. Razor thread, but not here, please.

This Theory of Natural Creation (N.C.) hypothesizes the pre-universe existence of two distinct spaces which I will label as Dark Energy Space and Aeon space, contained within a larger space that can allow them to interact. Each of the two spaces has three fundamental and simple properties:

1. Existence. This means that each has always existed, without cause, and will continue to exist even if changed in form.

A. This is reflected in Dark Energy Space by the First Principle of Thermodynamics (derived from studies on the normal energy forms known to
basic physics and currently thought to comprise 4.7% of the known universe).

2. Manifestation of a single, simple and inherently fundamental force.

A. In Dark Energy space I call this Entropic Force. It is reflected in the 2nd Principle of Thermodynamics, the natural tendency of all energy
forms in our universe to lose their ability to exchange force, meaning that the universe will eventually cool down to a a temperature at which
nothing will happen.

B. Aeon Space manifests a counterforce to Entropic Force, and has an innate tendency to disrupt the state of Dark (and normal) Energy. It can
be an organizing force. In other words, any component of Aeon Space can freely violate the "2nd Law of Thermodynamics."

3. A boundary condition.

A. Dark Energy's boundary condition is a state below which it cannot go. By example, in terms of our normal energy space, the boundary
condition is a temperature of 0 degrees Kelvin, a.k.a. "absolute zero," which according to the 3rd Principle of Thermodynamics cannot be
reached. In this state, energy of any form can do nothing on its own. It is stuck at an state of absolute Entropy 1-- perfect disorder.

B. Aeon Space's boundary condition is the opposite. I do not know how to define it mathematically like the principles of thermodynamics
but regard it as an opposite of energy's boundary condition. It is as ordered, organized, and as perfect as it can be, and therefore cannot
change. It's reached a state of Entropy 0-- perfect order.

______________

Enough for now. Lunch is hot and the stupid Superbowl is on, its outcome determined by the amount of money that team owners will contribute beneath the table to the NFL Officials' Widows and Orphans Fund.

Kick these ideas around and please think them over before responding. And kindly do some homework, as needed. If you are ignorant of the Laws of Thermodynamics, learn from as many sources as Wikipedia can provide before asking me to elucidate. Many Wiki articles and referenced material will be inaccurate, but you can sneak up on the core reality of such concepts by crawling between the bushes of nonsense. I will respond to thoughtful questions on the subject, but not to questions coming from unrequited ignorance. Anyone actually wanting to understand such things can read either Richard Feynman or my book. (Feynman is way better, but my exposition of thermodynamics is specific to the ideas I'm pitching.)

From here I'll explain how a collision between Dark Energy and Aeon Spaces led to creation of other aspects of the universe, and as a last-ditch attempt to recover from a disastrous miscalculation, the creation of human beings.

Greylorn Ell

Logik
Posts: 1620
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: The Wrong God

Post by Logik » Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:40 am

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Mon Feb 04, 2019 1:14 am
We appear to live in a cause-effect universe. At the Newtonian level this is obvious-- pool balls will sit on a pool table forever unless acted upon by an outside force-- ideally by a skimpily dressed young lady poking one of them with a pool stick-- but any outside forces from barfing drunks to earthquakes will do the job of simply moving them.

In this universe two things manifesting interactive but opposing forces are required to make something happen.

Quantum physicists will claim otherwise, that events can happen without cause. I propose that they are incorrect, and have merely mistaken the effect of a force they do not understand for a spontaneous event. I'll deal with that later in the context of an alternative perspective. In the interim, kindly adopt the assumption that two opposing yet interactive forces are required to make something happen, and see where that takes us.
The mis-understanding between QM and classicists is that of "cause-end-effect".

Take 75 steps back and observe yourself typing! Text flows left to right. You interpret it from left-to-right. That's the arrow of time!

Do you think the meaning of "cause-and-effect" changes if I were to type it out as "effect-and-cause" ?

That every effect has a cause is a mandatory pre-supposition of the human mind, for the "if ... then" construct is deeply embedded in our reasoning.
If we had to give up "if...then" we have to give up all logic and the hopes of finding any meaningful structure in reality.

What our minds do not grasp is that time needs not be a vector and time needs not be in the direction we ASSUME it to flow in.

For all we know the Big Bang is the future. For all we know time is a tensor and the "arrow" we experience is just an illusion given our physical forms.

Try and conceptualise "tensor time" and see how soon you will need a psychiatrist...
cef.png
cef.png (14.38 KiB) Viewed 119 times
Last edited by Logik on Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

surreptitious57
Posts: 2419
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: The Wrong God

Post by surreptitious57 » Mon Feb 04, 2019 2:09 am

The law of cause and effect is based on observation not on presupposition
There is no evidence that effects precede causes or that time is reversible

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests