DEBATE: In Light of Contemporary Physics, Does Physical Reality Have a Cause or Beginning?

[@bigsofo410]

Wow a respectful debate with two people disagreeing. Not arguing and screaming, insulting each other. Who would have known

[@goldwhitedragon]

Because there is a non-Westerner debating.

[@williammcenaney1331]

As my friend Dr. Alexander Pruss shows, the principle of sufficient reason must be true for anyone to find an event's probability. Nobody can assign a probability to an uncaused event.

[@RealAtheology]

Great exchange. Thank you to Cameron for hosting this, but I think like Dr. Oppy's exchange with Dr. Craig on the applicability of mathematics and Theism, this is another discussion that is going to require an "Explain Like I'm Five" for the audience. I think one of the main takeaways from an exchange like this was that both Dr. Linford and Dr. Loke agreed that contemporary physics *itself* says nothing about whether physical reality has a cause or beginning and any further support for that assertation is going involve philosophical argumentation.

[@adammeade2300]

Always been the case, right? Science…PROPER science…is quite plain. The relevant issue is that our culture has been leaning on the philosophical musings of physicists, not philosophers or theologians, for a very long time.

[@VACatholic]

The first and more manifest way is taken from the side of motion. It is certain and evident to sense that something is moved in the world. Now, whatever is moved is moved by another; for nothing moves unless it is potency to that to which it is moved and something moves insofar as it is in act. To move then is nothing more than to bring something from potency to act, and nothing can be reduced from potency to act unless by something that is in act, just as the hot in act, for example fire, makes the wood, that is hot in potency, to be actually hot, and in doing so moves and alters it. It is not possible that the same thing can at once be in act and in potency in the same respect, but only according to diverse respects. So what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot, but it is potentially cold. It is impossible then that in the same respect and mode something is mover and moved, or that it moves itself. Therefore, whatever is moved must be moved by another. If therefore that by which a thing is moved is itself moved, the latter must be moved by another, and that by another. This cannot proceed to infinity, for then there would be no primary mover, and consequently no other mover; for secondary movers do not move unless they are moved by a primary, just as the stick does not move unless moved by the hand. It is therefore necessary to come upon some primary mover that is moved by nothing, and this all understand to be God.

[@LogosTheos]

Linford said philosophy can't show it either

[@MrGustavier]

@@VACatholic *-" It is not possible that the same thing can at once be in act and in potency in the same respect, but only according to diverse respects. So what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot"* Can you defend this ? This seems obviously false ?

[@zsoltnagy5654]

​​@@VACatholicAccording to the first law of motion (Newton's first axiom) if the total force on an object is zero, then its state of motion (velocity) is a *constant* (either zero or not). So then how do you _"intuitively"_ know exactly, that any nonzero motion with a nonzero velocity including motion of objects in a vacuum requires a _"prime or prior mover",_ when according to the first law of motion that state of motion of such a moving object in a vacuum is a constant, which can be extended indefinitely into the past as into the future, if the total force on it is zero, has always been zero and will always be zero?!?

[@jameswright2355]

What i learned from this is that I know nothing about metaphysics.

[@SaiaRose]

This was a very gracious debate ! Thank you both and God Bless !

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

Most things Mr. Loke said here didn't make any sense to me. The only part that made sense was when he argued that the "timeless" states of quantum gravity theories weren't really timeless because they undergo "interferences" or something like that. Dr. Linford just denied his assertion but unfortunately he did not engage with this point in particular.

[@Insane_ForJesus]

He made perfect sense to me, but that is because I have read his work. Maybe you haven't and don't understand the arguments

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

@@Insane_ForJesus I read parts of it.

[@Insane_ForJesus]

They made perfect sense to me, but to be fair I already have familiarity with Andrew Loke's and Daniel Linford's work, so I know what they are trying to argue. They debate was pretty technical and one could get lost easy. I recommend reading Linford's relevant papers and Andrew Loke's work, "Kalam and Teleological Arguments Revisited"

[@Sit-bc9uw]

Loke is intelligent but I find his narrative abit jumpy. I think if he took time on speaking courses, it would help clarify his points better. Daniel for example is a great speaker, similar like William Lane Craig. His voice has cadence and poise to it.

[@les2997]

Smooth talking guy can fool you. Just remember, self-created Universe is a logical fallacy and from nothing, nothing comes. If the Universe loops in a cycle as an endlessly playing opera, someone still had to write it.

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

Indeed! I couldn't get most of his "arguments." They didn't make sense the way Loke phrased them.

[@pika_speed]

@@les2997 LMAO. "Smooth talking guy". He has a PhD in Philosophy of Science.

[@jezah8142]

This was an exciting discussion, even though i only understood 40% of what was discussed !

[@TomCollinsRocks]

C.C. is a Calvinist believing group. Calvinism is a "circle of Confusion" which has NEVER taught the Bible but only The Doctrines of Men which is forbidden in the Bible. Read and study the Bible and forget about the worries of this world or you will not be saved.

[@CapturingChristianity]

40%?! That's a lot!

[@jezah8142]

@@CapturingChristianity forgot the decimal point .40% 🤣🤣

[@MrGustavier]

42:44 _"And therefore my teleological argument is relevant, it shows that there is a designer cause of reality as we see it now"_ But that's not the topic of the debate. He is completely off topic. The topic of the debate is not whether _"reality as we see it now"_ has a cause or beginning, the topic is : _"In Light of Contemporary Physics, Does Physical Reality Have a Cause or Beginning?"_

[@MrGustavier]

20:55 _"12. [...] It is (initially) changeless. ('Initial' refers to the first in the series of states ordered causally, not first the series of changes/events/temporal series)."_ 21:17 _"13.1 The capacity to be the originator of the even in a way that is un-determined by prior event, since the first cause is the first"_ 21:33 _"13.1 and 13.2 jointly imply that the first cause has libertarian freedom."_ Does that imply that humans don't have libertarian freedom then ? We are not the first cause. We are not exempt from being _"determined by prior events"._ We are not _"initially changeless"..._

[@zacksmith4509]

No, we are self determined just like God is closed is his eternal essence, we are open(infinite and finite) so we have free will, God has libertarian free will.. So, we inherit the choice of life much like we chose to keep living each day, God does so as well. Quite a deep subject, but basically God, waits for you to choose, and doesn't inhibit your will, and well since we are also free we also mess up a lot 😅 we do however get guidance despite the suffering we face we still gotta help each other out..

[@MrGustavier]

@@zacksmith4509 Right... So you agree with me : no _"libertarian freedom"_ for humans.

[@Jamric-gr8gr]

No. It just implies that the first cause has more complete form of it.

[@TheFranchfry]

I think the debate was lively, and I think it strayed from the intended topic of whether the physical universe had a beginning. A good portion of the debate was spent discussing what caused the universe which is a separate debate. It seemed like there was a lot of confusion when defining terms and not enough clarification as to what the intended model of the beginning was. The premises were argued extensively, but it seemed like most of the talk was going past one another. I’d be interested to hear a part 2 targeted on one of the contentions from this debate.

[@ttecnotut]

Lingord is right. Just because one can rejects the idea that every event has a cause, that doesn’t mean when there is causal link, then that does mean the causal link is subject to random change.

[@MrGustavier]

2:08:13 _"premise 1.1 is not symmetrical"_ 18:08 _"1.1 If x begins uncaused, this means that there would not be any causally antecedent condition which make it the case that only x rather than y begin uncaused"_ My attempts at symmetrizing 1.1 : 1.1' If x begins without a material cause, this means that there would not be any antecedent matter which makes it the case that only x's matter rather than y's matter begin without a material cause. 1.1' If x begins without a material cause, this means that there would not be any antecedent matter which makes it the case that only x rather than y begin without a material cause. 1:48:37 _"Hence in the absence of the causal principle pre-existing physical stuff would provide an antecedent condition that would make it the case that only X rather than y begins to exist"_

[@Jamric-gr8gr]

I think Linford's objections were sufficiently rebutted by Loke, making his deductively coherent arguments spotless. I would agree that God exists.

[@cogitoergosum3433]

Arguments are not sufficient to allow a controversial conclusion, especially as Longford was careful to show Loke’s assertions we’re at best questionable. He also showed why god is only one of many plausible explanations. Why is a being claimed? And why is this being a lot like a human being? Oppy successfully shows that all that Loke is doing is trying to claim a necessary condition needs to be explained. It doesn’t. Had the argument concluded god was the necessary condition Loke would not question the conclusion. This begs the question as to why he wants to question necessity when it does not conclude with god.

[@SweetSeeress]

For debates like this it would be fascinating to have a 'debator's commentary' version where each of the philosophers gets to go through clips and state as simply as they can what they are talking about, what their opponent is referring to, etc. This video had so many references to other papers, physicists, etc that made it hard to follow. They are debating each other at a really high level, which is great. But I need an 'explain to the audience' version, too. From what I could tell, Dr. Linford was arguing that there might be something called "Quantum Gravity" which would not have a dimension in time or space, and it would not have a beginning, but it is the grounds of all change. If that is the case, it sounds a lot like God? Dr. Linford objected to it not being personal, but at a certain point the argument seems to be surrounding how to define the universe. Is the Uncaused Cause contained in the set we call the Universe, or is it not contained in the set we call The Universe? If it is contained in the set we call the Universe, then the Universe has no beginning, if it is not contained in the set then the Universe did have a cause.

[@alejandromartin8347]

One issue for me that limits my ability to watch is their distance of understanding from the typical viewer. I don't know what they are referencing to a lot of the time. So it might be a good debate for people in those fields who understand those specific concepts but not watchable to anyone outside the field. Although this is supposed to be a debate the point being convincing the audience of a particular view. However that cannot happen if the audience doesn't understand what it is they are discussing. Not sure how to resolve this without stepping in an explaining what the concepts they are presenting mean.

[@zsoltnagy5654]

This debate about _"In Light of Contemporary Physics_ (by itself currently), _Does Physical Reality Have a Cause or Beginning?"_ (video title) or about _"In light of contemporary physics_ (by itself currently), _we should not accept that the totality of physical reality had a cause or a beginning."_ (appearently in the discription of the video) could ended right at 16:43, Loke: _"1. Contemporary physics (by itself) does not provide a complete description of reality_ [currently] _and is not able to rule out a cause or a beginning_ [currently as it is also not capable of confirming a cause or a beginning of the universe currently] _."_ I really do not know, why they had to discuss that any further than that.🤷‍♀

[@RealAtheology]

That's how I felt about this as well.

[@MrGustavier]

1:28:25 _"My point is that if y is an event that is grounded by x, ummm, then x itself..., if y is something that emerge out of x, or is grounded by x, then this itself would also involve the ground in the event too"_ The moment Andrew Loke realizes that what he is saying can be used to deduce that his god is an event... The moment where the masterful Daniel Linford watches as Andrew disintegrates in front of our eyes. The moment Andrew Lokes's position is reduced to nothing more than : I decided to define physical as something that cannot ground events, therefore the ground of events is not physical... Which is nothing more than a dogmatic assertion.

[@zacksmith4509]

informational processing of relational events is what he Is getting at he chose some poor wording..

[@LogosTheos]

No, Andrew Loke was trying to get Daniel Linford to understand his argument but Daniel Linford kept talking past him. Loke has stated this point in his published work for example: No his point was that such claims (e.g. made by Barbour, whom Linford cites) take the form of claiming emergence of one aspect of concrete physical reality from another i.e. claiming that time/event (y) emerge from timeless aspect (x). He objects that this would involve x in the event as well, which means that x would not be timeless after all. Also X being involved in an event does not imply that X is equivalent to the event.

[@zacksmith4509]

@@LogosTheos interesting thanks more readin to do!

[@MrGustavier]

@@LogosTheos *-"If you think this is a "dogmatic assertion" then you can read, "Fundamental Causation: Physics, Metaphysics, and the Deep Structure of the World" by philosopher of physics Christopher Gregory Weaver"* Honestly... I really have no idea how anyone can claim that this : _"Causation is multigrade, asymmetric (although not always temporally asymmetric), transitive, irreflexive and a dependence relation: ‘when event x causes event y, y depends for its existence and contingent content on x.’"_ Can be anything *ELSE* than dogmatic... When I write a mathematics paper, I start by defining mathematical objects and relations. I write things like : Let R be an asymmetric transitive, irreflexive relation, R={(ai, bi)|ai∈A,bi∈B} When I write this, this is quite pointless for anyone to then say something like : "no it isn't true, R is not transitive"... Because I just defined R as transitive... And it is also quite pointless to then say that R is not dogmatic... Since R is nothing more than the pure product of my creative mind. R is transitive because I dogmatically defined it that way... I guess what needs to be done then, is to pretend that causality or _"causation"_ is something *REAL...* Which is nothing more than the _"transcendental illusion"_ (see Kant, the refutation of metaphysics).

[@MrGustavier]

@@LogosTheos *-"No his point was that such claims (e.g. made by Barbour, whom Linford cites) take the form of claiming emergence of one aspect of concrete physical reality from another i.e. claiming that time/event (y) emerge from timeless aspect (x). He objects that this would involve x in the event as well, which means that x would not be timeless after all. "* Ok, how can this not be used for god ? Why wouldn't that make god *"not timeless after all"* ?

[@dominiks5068]

I'm an agnostic, but Loke won this debate by a country mile. Unfortunately Loke is a very bad rhetorician, so it's not that obvious how dominant he was in that debate.

[@LogosTheos]

One has to be familiar with the work of Loke and Linford to really understand which points are forceful. Only people that have read Loke and Linford's published work can get the most out of this debate

[@KKND_Xtreme]

@@LogosTheos, have you read both the works of A. Loke and the works of D. Linford? And if so, how do you evaluate the past debates in light of what you have read?

[@LogosTheos]

@@KKND_Xtreme Yup, but what do you mean by past debates? Between who?

[@KKND_Xtreme]

@@LogosTheos, debate between Andrew Loke and Deniel Linford.

[@RealAtheology]

Why did you feel Loke had the edge? I almost thought the opposite, where it felt like Linford was truly staying within the confines of the debate topic, and Loke kept on pointing out his Modus Tollens argument and even referencing his teleological argument at one point despite the latter having little to do with the exchange overall.

[@belialord]

What I learned: Locke's argument is deductive and it's premises are true, therefore *it must be true!*

[@zsoltnagy5654]

_"If an argument is deductively valid and its premises are true, then then the conclusion of that argument is true",_ IF AND ONLY IF *if the conclusion of an argument is false, then that argument is not deductively valid or at least one of its premises are false.* (by contraposition "If A, then B, IF AND ONLY IF if not B, then not A.")

[@TheFranchfry]

This only makes it “sound” not necessarily “valid” and both are required for truth.

[@skmcee7863]

@@TheFranchfryyou have 0 clue what you’re talking about lol

[@MrGustavier]

48:16 _"If something begins without pre existing material cause or not from transformation, it doesn't mean other things would also begin as such, why ? Because that's something which begins without material cause could still have a efficient cause which determines that it came about in that way, so it doesn't mean that there's no cause at all, so it doesn't mean that anything goes. So there is still a cause that that event happens"_ This is not breaking the symmetry : If something begins without pre existing efficient cause, it doesn't mean other things would also begin as such, why ? Because that's something which begins without efficient cause could still have a material cause which determines that it came about in that way, so it doesn't mean that there's no cause at all, so it doesn't mean that anything goes. So there is still a cause that that event happens

[@jackplumbridge2704]

"This is not breaking the symmetry : If something begins without pre existing efficient cause, it doesn't mean other things would also begin as such, why ? Because that's something which begins without efficient cause could still have a material cause which determines that it came about in that way, so it doesn't mean that there's no cause at all, so it doesn't mean that anything goes. So there is still a cause that that event happens" - You seem confused. I don't think you understand what an efficient cause is, or what a material cause is. An efficient cause is something that is sufficient to produce the effect in question. A material cause is the stuff a thing was made from. To say something has a material cause but no efficient cause just IS to say that there is no explanation for why it came to be. For example, a block of wood that randomly for no reason at all re-arranges into a chair. There would be a material cause of the chair, namely the block of wood, but there would be no efficient cause. There would be no explanation as to why the chair began to exist. It just did. For no reason. Conversely, something that has an efficient cause, but no material cause, DOES have an explanation for why it began to exist. It is simply the case that it wasn't made out of some pre-existing matter. So yes, the symmetry is broken.

[@MrGustavier]

@@jackplumbridge2704 *-"I don't think you understand what an efficient cause is, or what a material cause is. An efficient cause is something that is sufficient to produce the effect in question. A material cause is the stuff a thing was made from."* No, that would be a "sufficient cause"... _"Efficient cause"_ relates to Aristotle's _"physics"_ in which he derives four causes, the efficient, the formal, the final and the material. None of those is *"sufficient to produce the effect in question".* *-"To say something has a material cause but no efficient cause just IS to say that there is no explanation for why it came to be. For example, a block of wood that randomly for no reason at all re-arranges into a chair. There would be a material cause of the chair, namely the block of wood, but there would be no efficient cause. There would be no explanation as to why the chair began to exist. It just did. For no reason."* To say something has an efficient cause but no material cause just IS to say that there is no explanation for why it came to be. For example, a universe that comes into existence from no pre-existing matter at all. There could be an efficient cause of the universe, namely its creator, but there would be no material cause. There would be no explanation as to from which matter the chair began to exist. It just did. For no reason. *-"Conversely, something that has an efficient cause, but no material cause, DOES have an explanation for why it began to exist. It is simply the case that it wasn't made out of some pre-existing matter."* Conversely, something that has a material cause, but no efficient cause, DOES have an explanation for from which matter it began to exist. It is simply the case that it wasn't made out of an efficient cause. *-"So yes, the symmetry is broken."* 🤣

[@jackplumbridge2704]

@@MrGustavier "No, that would be a "sufficient cause"..." - No, it wouldn't. To say something has a material cause to simply say that the thing was made from some pre-existing matter. A material cause is not an efficient cause. "None of those is "sufficient to produce the effect in question"." - I don't know why you are appealing to Aristotle. You do realise that philosophy has moved on since then? And that some terms have changed their meanings? An efficient cause is something other than the effect being produced which is sufficient to produce the effect. "To say something has an efficient cause but no material cause just IS to say that there is no explanation for why it came to be." - But it isn't lol. I have no idea why you think repeating a comment but changing some of the words is a coherent response. "For example, a universe that comes into existence from no pre-existing matter at all. There could be an efficient cause of the universe, namely its creator, but there would be no material cause. There would be no explanation as to from which matter the chair began to exist. It just did. For no reason." - You just contradicted yourself. Firstly, you bizarrely switch from talking about the universe to a chair for some reason, so ill stick to talking about the universe. Secondly, you acknowledge that the universe has no material cause, but then immediately claim that the universe came from some pre-existing matter. Here you claim there is no material cause: "For example, a universe that comes into existence from no pre-existing matter at all." And here you claim there is a material cause: "There would be no explanation as to from which matter the chair began to exist. It just did. For no reason." Your responses are getting more and more incoherent. "Conversely, something that has a material cause, but no efficient cause, DOES have an explanation for from which matter it began to exist. It is simply the case that it wasn't made out of an efficient cause." - Another perfect example of your incoherent ramblings. The question isn't "is there some matter from which a thing was made". The question is "Is there an explanation for why X began to exist". In the case of a thing having an efficient cause but no material cause, there is an explanation. In the case of a thing having a material cause but no efficient cause, there is no explanation. If you are incapable of reasoning logically, which so far you have demonstrated that you are, then I don't see any point in wasting my time responding to your incoherent ramblings.

[@MrGustavier]

@@jackplumbridge2704 *-"No, it wouldn't. To say something has a material cause to simply say that the thing was made from some pre-existing matter. A material cause is not an efficient cause."* You said *"An efficient cause is something that is sufficient to produce the effect in question."* That is incorrect, a cause *"that is sufficient to produce the effect in question"* is a _"sufficient cause"._ The efficient cause is something else. *-" don't know why you are appealing to Aristotle. You do realise that philosophy has moved on since then?"* Duly noted. *-"An efficient cause is something other than the effect being produced which is sufficient to produce the effect."* Ok... So that's your personal, proprietary, dogmatic definition right ? *-"But it isn't lol. I have no idea why you think repeating a comment but changing some of the words is a coherent response."* This is what it means to demonstrate that there is a symmetry in philosophy. I take the same arguments, and show that they work against their author by exchanging the words... (see also : parody arguments) *-"Your responses are getting more and more incoherent."* I think you're having problems following the arguments (which is strange since they are yours...). Let me try again : you say : *"To say something has a material cause but no efficient cause just IS to say that there is no explanation for why it came to be. For example, a block of wood that randomly for no reason at all re-arranges into a chair. There would be a material cause of the chair, namely the block of wood, but there would be no efficient cause. There would be no explanation as to why the chair began to exist. It just did. For no reason.Conversely, something that has an efficient cause, but no material cause, DOES have an explanation for why it began to exist. It is simply the case that it wasn't made out of some pre-existing matter."* I say : To say something has an efficient cause but no material cause just IS to say that there is no explanation for why it came to be. For example, a universe that comes into existence from no pre-existing matter at all. There could be an efficient cause of the universe, namely its creator, but there would be no material cause. There would be no explanation as to from which matter the universe came to exist. It just did. For no reason. Conversely, something that has a material cause, but no efficient cause, DOES have an explanation for from which matter it began to exist. It is simply the case that it wasn't made out of an efficient cause. You understand right ? The absence of an efficient cause doesn't prevent something from having any cause at all (which was Andrew Loke's claim which is obviously false), therefore once I have stipulated that something lacks an efficient cause, I haven't said that _"anything goes"_ (48:16). Therefore Loke's attempt to break the symmetry obviously fails. *-"Another perfect example of your incoherent ramblings. The question isn't "is there some matter from which a thing was made". The question is "Is there an explanation for why X began to exist".* Look what I am about to do once again, I will demonstrate the symmetry : Another perfect example of your incoherent ramblings. The question isn't "Is there an explanation for why X began to exist". The question is "is there some matter from which a thing was made". ... You get it ? *-"If you are incapable of reasoning logically, which so far you have demonstrated that you are, then I don't see any point in wasting my time responding to your incoherent ramblings."* Ah yes... I think I remember a certain "jack plumbridge". Whom was completely demolished by someone in a comment thread a while back, and who behaved like a kid, calling names, resorting to ad hominems for no reason, and reverting to infancy blaming his interlocutor for his own shortcomings ,completely failing to actually address his interlocutor's points... I think I got the right guy...

[@jackplumbridge2704]

@@MrGustavier "This is what it means to demonstrate that there is a symmetry in philosophy. I take the same arguments, and show that they work against their author by exchanging the words..." - But it doesn't work, as i already pointed out. Loke's whole point is that if something begins to exist there must be an explanation for why it began to exist. You have not refuted his position by illogically jumbling up some words. "You understand right ? The absence of an efficient cause doesn't prevent something from having any cause at all (which was Andrew Loke's claim which is obviously false)," - No, that wasn't his claim lol. As I have told you multiple times already, the problem deals with why something began to exist. The claim is that there needs to be an explanation for why something began to exist. If something only has a material cause then there would be no explanation for why it began to exist. Again, there is no symmetry. "The question isn't "Is there an explanation for why X began to exist". The question is "is there some matter from which a thing was made"." - But that isn't the question lol. At this point you are simply strawmanning Loke's position. And to answer the question "is there some matter from which the universe was made" is easy. No. Loke's whole point is that in order for something to begin to exist there has to be an explanation for why it began to exist. Something cannot begin to exist for no reason. In the case of X having a sufficient cause but no material cause, you have an explanation for why X began to exist. In the case of X having a material cause but no sufficient cause, you do not have an explanation for why X began to exist. I don't know why you struggle to understand such a simple concept. So yet again you fail to respond with any kind of logical coherence. I'll give you one last chance to respond with something of substance, something that is logically coherent. Otherwise I won't waste any more time with you. I'll even spell it out as clearly as possible for you so that even you can understand it! i) If something begins to exist then there must be an explanation for why it began to exist. (this is Loke's position) ii) In the case of a sufficient cause of X without a material cause of X, there is an explanation for why X began to exist. Hence, sufficient causation without material causation is possible. iii) In the cause of a material cause of X without a sufficient cause of X, there is no explanation for why X began to exist. Hence, material causation without sufficient causation is impossible.

[@1001011011010]

The title being on whether there was a cause or beginning bothers me as these are two distinct questions, as cause is not always concerned with temporality but rather only cause and effect. For instance, a beginningless boot in the beginningless sand is still the cause of the resulting bootprint which wouldn't exist if the boot weren't creating a bootprint. This makes the side defending beginninglessness or causelessness much more difficult than just defending a single proposition only and it feels almost sorta smuggled in. Not to say it was, I am fairly confident they both agreed to the title/subject.

[@Philibuster92]

The only correct answer is that existence is a necessary apriori ontological given. Observe the following syllogism. Nothing comes from nothing. There is something. Therefore there was never only nothing. Yeah there’s debatable details about how the spacetime expansion from a singularity happened happened and whether something like that has occurred ‘before’ or will ‘again’. But it seems self evident that existence (I can’t specify what form existence takes, just existence proper) is a self evident given. This can be true regardless of your metaphysical and theological leanings. Any critiques?

[@zacksmith4509]

none! but to add onto that, intelligible relation results in a process of informational processing which in all intense and purposes is "cognitive" which gets you to a mind, since there was always "something" that something has to tell that other stuff what to "do" based upon some other relation and so on (so reality,something,God) makes more of itself, from itself to properly identify and recognize existence (to exist within itself)

[@heresa_notion_6831]

Not really a critique, but I prefer: "Something from nothing is impossible" to "Nothing comes from nothing" although I understand the two premises to mean the same thing. Or am I wrong about that? "Impossible" is a hard word to logically parse. What theologians have to prove, imo, is that "mind" cannot exist without "mind" existing a priori. And the comment above mine doesn't explicitly do that, although it significantly "gestures" to it. Or am I wrong about that?

[@zacksmith4509]

@@heresa_notion_6831 *non mind states do not exist* only a "something" of object and relation(information) happens to "recognize" existence itself, so yes mind is necessary for existence. Think of John 1:1-4 words come from a mind (information) and we ourselves recognize the "words of reality itself" which we either accept or disagree with.. (note this isn't a dogmatic stance as this God is logically amenable to other religious concepts of God, so think of it as at bare minimum a "proof", now it becomes. how does this mind effect reality? and how much does it explain? etc.. etc.. Now "made in God's image" starts to make a bit more sense.. (please note this is bare minimum, there is a lot more to of course learn)

[@HiddenOP]

The only criticism would be the first premise “nothing comes from nothing” it’s a metaphysical claim yet we have no empirical evidence of what a “nothing” actually is. There is a something, so it’s possible that if a nothing preceded the something it could actually have the probability of making a something. However this only works in concept because by attributing properties to a nothing, you’ve made it into a something again. So as long as you could define that by saying nothing you mean a true nothing and not a Lawrence Kraus nothing, then yes. Nothing comes from nothing. If someone was to agree with this, which everyone should, it doesn’t get you any further to deducing anything more from it. This runs into Carl Sagans critique of the Kalam Cosmological argument that if the God is eternal, why not state that the universe is eternal? The universe in this context is not the Big Bang cosmology, but the pre-existent quantum field that can bring forth the singularity such as what Penrose suggest.

[@zacksmith4509]

@@HiddenOP uni verse being eternal, would still be "one being which created you" which is a creator "impersonal" God instead of a personally active mind.. Well objects and relations are information and any process (energy) that is processed at the smallest of scales would in effect be a cognitive process of awareness. So, the impersonal God, while there are aspects to an impersonal God that makes sense doesn't fit the totality of God's intelligible language (reality itself) which would be a process from a *mind source* hope that helps (at bare minimum) carefully read John 1:1-4

[@MrGustavier]

18:34 _"2. It is not the case that y begins uncaused (e.g. we don't experience sudden increasing in strength of electric field begin uncaused and killing us)"_ His second premise (2.) almost seems like begging the question. What is the difference between : _"2. It is not the case that y begins uncaused"_ And _"3. It is not the case that something begins uncaused"_ "y" is an unknown right ? How is "y" differente from "something" ?

[@les2997]

If God could create the universe from nothing, then the material principle ceases to be universally applicable. God's creative act transcends the limitations of pre-existing materials, establishing a new reality outside the confines of the principle. If an omnipotent being exists, it would be able to create from nothing if it so chooses. Omnipotence implies the ability to do anything logically possible. Creating something from nothing is logically possible, as there is no contradiction in the concept. Therefore, an omnipotent being could perform such an act.

[@zacharyshort384]

" Creating something from nothing is logically possible, as there is no contradiction in the concept." Could you elaborate on that. I'm not following how it's logically possible or even what you mean by no contradiction in the concept.

[@les2997]

@@zacharyshort384 The principle "ex nihilo nihil fit" is indeed more aligned with metaphysical impossibility rather than a strict logical impossibility. In a metaphysical sense, it asserts that, as a matter of fundamental reality or existence, something cannot come from nothing. In contrast, a strict logical impossibility would involve a direct contradiction within the statement itself, violating the laws of logic. The distinction is important. From a logical perspective, the question may involve whether the concept itself contains a contradiction. If the concept of creating something from nothing is logically coherent, it might be considered logically possible, even though it might face metaphysical challenges.

[@zacharyshort384]

@@les2997 That 'might' seems *mighty* big from my attempt at a logical perspective.

[@les2997]

@@zacharyshort384 University of San Diego Logical Possibility "To say that a state of affairs is ‘logically possible’ is to say that it is possible in the weakest, most minimal sense: it is to say that it is ‘conceivable’ or, alternatively, that it does not involve any ‘contradiction’. If something can be imagined, even though it may be physically impossible, it is logically possible."" God can do anything logically possible, and therefore the material principle alluded to by Linford does not apply.

[@ragnarokfps]

Andrew (like Craig) is trying to create a model that requires Aristotle's causation, but completely ignores one of the requirements - the material cause. All 4 criteria must be met in order to satisfy Aristotle's notion of causation. Positing a god with a mind (and other stuff like Lib Free Will) doesn't meet and will not ever meet Aristotle's criteria, so why do they even do this stuff? They can explain some idea of causation using god, but the consequence of the way folks like Andrew do it, is that Aristotle's rules of causation cannot and will not ever be met. So why do they even bother with Aristotle at all here? They can't meet the criteria for causation full stop. For Andrew to just say in response "well it's not a contradiction to lack the material cause" is to completely butcher the entire concept of Aristotle's causation in the first place. According to Aristotle, causation can *only* occur if all 4 criteria are met, failing to meet any or all of it's criteria is to fail to produce a cause. So why use it at all? Why not just stick to the laws of logic, kalaam or teleological arguments, and leave Aristotelian Causation out of it. I'm sure he would be having none of it if he were alive today and could hear this. To use Aristotle's causation and just flat out DROP one of the rules that must be met is to cheat on the test. It's just silly.

[@LogosTheos]

(1) Aristotle's own metaphysics leads to God as medieval scholastic Christian, Jewish and Islamic thinkers showed throughout the centuries such as Thomas Aquinas, Moses Maimonides, Ibn Sina, Ibn Rushd, etc. It doesn't matter if the universe is eternal. (2) You can have efficient causation without material causation. There is no contradiction in supposing this (3) You are strawmanning Loke's argument as his argument doesn't rely on creation ex nihilio. As he states in his published work for example: _"My argument does not require beginning to exist from nothing; it only requires that an infinite regress of dependant events/changes is not the case, and therefore there is a first change brought about by an initially changeless and independently existing First Cause"_ (Loke, "The Teleological and Kalam Arguments Revisited", [Palgrave Macmillan] pp. 233)

[@MarcosSouza-wu6ms]

You definitely didn't understand what material cause means.

[@ragnarokfps]

@@LogosTheos Well, there's a few problems with that. First of all, Aristotle doesn't employ his idea of causation (the 4 causes) in his explanation of what he thinks God is. He also didn't ascribe things like love, mercy, or compassion to his god, like Christians (Aquinas) do. The way Aristotle gets to god is very different from the way Andrew does here. Aristotle knew he couldn't employ the 4 causes for god, and he wouldn't even need to, so he came up with another conception, the Prime Mover, which does not rely in any way on the 4 causes. It can't and doesn't do that. He thought the universe was eternal and didn't require an explanation for it's existence. He thought the motion of the universe and it's eternal aspect required an explanation, these are very different things than what Andrew does here. For Andrew, an efficient cause is required, for Aristotle, it is not, because it is eternal according to him. Aristotle would have denied the universe had a beginning, would've denied the start of the book of Genesis outright, denied Andrew's (and Aquinas) teleological and kalaam arguments about god creating the universe. For Christians, god is the creator of the universe and this violates Aristotle's notion of causation. For Aristotle, god does not create the universe, and therefore does not violate his own principle of causation. He doesn't even need to apply it because the universe is not a created thing. The universe isn't a created thing and doesn't require a cause. It's not an object like chair or a person. Aristotle isn't cheating on his own test. Aristotle's god is not the Christian god by the way. God doesn't have love or providence. God isn't worthy of worship. God isn't a being that can or should be prayed to. God is not personal. And god is certainly not a Creator. That's all stuff that Christians (Aquinas) add. No, Aristotle would reject Andrew's argument for several reasons, I think I've made it clear why. I will not be commenting further, there is nothing else to say.

[@LogosTheos]

@@ragnarokfps So your whole reply was about what Aristotle thought and you made no actual argument against my points (2) and (3) nor did you show against (1) why Thomas Aquinas and other medieval scholastics, who developed Aristotelianism beyond Aristotle, were wrong by arguing his metaphysics entailed God. Also the fact that you accused Aquinas of making a "Kalam" argument shows me you have absolutely no familiarity with scholastic metaphysics or thinkers to even know that they are doing what Aristotelian metaphysics. Thomas Aquinas did not develop the Kalam cosmological argument. That was Ibn Al Ghazali utilizing the Kalam theological tradition in Islam. Thomas Aquinas thought that although one could not show that the Universe had a beginning using Aristotle's metaphysics the Universe had a purely actual that sustains the Universe, so even if the Universe was eternal God exists and that all the attributes of God can be derived through the metaphysics of actuality and potentiality. See the below link for a modern articulation of Aquinas' argument from motion: www.academia.edu/35810662/The_Argument_from_Motion_Revisited_

[@racsooj456]

If thoughts are immaterial perhaps they push back on the material principle..one thought can cause another

[@MrGustavier]

There's something I simply don't understand around 1:40:00. Loke's argument seems to conclude that an impersonal beginningless, changeless entity would be _"unstable"_ and would be _"unable to hold itself back"._ Let's agree for the sake of argument that this is true. What is it supposed to show ? Sure, the universe comes from a beginningless, changeless, non metric _"unstable"_ physical entity... And ... ? Is that supposed to be a problem ?

[@MrGustavier]

19:54 _"There cannot be an infinite regress or a closed loop of dependent relations. For example if I have no money and depend on Daniel to give me money, but Daniel has no money and depends on Cameron. If everyone is like this no one will ever be able to have money. What is required is somebody who is the first source of the money"_ This presupposes a transitivity of the _"dependence"_ relation. But this needs not be presupposed. I can say that Andrew received money from Daniel (is dependent on Daniel for money) without enquiring on whether Daniel has money or not, or whether Daniel is himself dependent on someone for his money or not. Because even if Daniel is indeed dependent on Cameron for his money, doesn't necessarily mean that Andrew is dependent on Cameron for his money. So there is no need for _"somebody who is the first source of the money"_ because the source of money for Andrew is Daniel... The source of money for Daniel is Cameron... And that is it... There is no need for a _"series"_ at all.

[@LogosTheos]

This sort of response has numerous problems. In fact it is a circular non answer and compatible with such a loop not existing at all. Alexander Pruss and Josh Rasmussen in _"Necessary Existence"_ [Oxford University Press] have a response to this sort of reasoning I find quite persuasive: _"Suppose we encounter a snake and learn somehow-don’t ask how-that it has grown by undergoing an infinite number of stages of development. The growth process has occurred as follows: the front half of the snake was caused by events within an adjacent quarter section of it, which in turn was caused by events within an adjacent eighth section, which in turn was caused by events within the preceding sixteenth section, and so on, so that each section was produced by events within an adjacent section half its size. In this scenario, each part of the snake was caused by events within another part, ad infinitum. We make no assumptions. about how long this production has been going on: maybe the snake has been growing from eternity past. Let us put aside for a moment the question of whether or not this situation is genuinely possible. Ask yourself: if this situation were to obtain, would the causal connections between the snake’s parts constitute an explanation of the existence of the snake itself? It may seem that the“internal explanation” doesn’t suffice in this case. After all, it makes perfectly good sense to wonder why there is this snake, rather than a different one or none at all. The fact that its parts are causally connected to each other is beside the point. The causal connectedness of the snake doesn’t seem to explain why the snake exists in the first place. The snake example suggests that an adequate explanation of the existence of some xs doesn’t automatically arise from the supposition that each x has a cause. Each snake part has a cause in terms of another snake part, yet one may still wonder why those very snake parts all exist at all"_ (pg. 50-51)

[@pattonpatterns]

@@LogosTheos The loop composite **doesn't** exist. Its concretes do, though. We made up the composite to talk about the concretes as a group. It's important to remember that the loop is not a concrete, or else a new "phantom need" spawns, asking for a "bonus" concrete explanation for the "set itself." This bug drives many, if not most, CAs.

[@MrGustavier]

@@LogosTheos Thank you very much for sharing. Unfortunately it seems that it is off topic. I was responding Loke's money argument, in which he concludes : _"If everyone is like this no one will ever be able to have money. What is required is somebody who is the first source of the money"_ (19:54) This conclusion requires two presuppositions (missing premises). The first one is that Andrew has money. This is never assumed in the argument but I will grant it happily, since the argument is supposed to refer to the premise of a cosmological argument in which the existing world is taken as a given. The second one is a presupposition that the dependence relation is transitive. But it need not be so. So to answer the question : _"does Andrew have money?"._ Given that Andrew is dependent on Daniel for money, I only need to inquire whether Daniel has given Andrew money. I don't need to go any further. For example, I don't need to ask whether Cameron has given money to Daniel, because even if this were the case, this would not mean that Cameron has given money to Andrew (if the dependence relation is intransitive). And if Cameron does not give money to Andrew, then whether Cameron has given money to Daniel or not is irrelevant to the question at hand, which is : _"does Andrew have money?"_ Just as a reminder. A transitive relation is a relation such that aRb ∧ bRc → aRc aRb means "a is in relation with b" a can be Andrew b can be Daniel, and c can be Cameron. R here can be taken as our money dependence relation. So aRb would be "Andrew is dependent on Daniel for money" bRc would be "Daniel is dependent on Cameron for money", and aRc would be "Andrew is dependent on Cameron for money" I hope you understand that this transitivity HAS to be postulated, otherwise the conclusion is simply a non sequitur. If the relation isn't transitive, then Andrew can never be dependent on anything else than Daniel for money, and there is no _"series"_ at all, and daniel needs not be the _"first source of money"._ Now on to the excerpt from Rasmussen and Pruss : _"if this situation were to obtain, would the causal connections between the snake’s parts constitute an explanation of the existence of the snake itself?"_ No one is talking _"an explanation"_ about the existence of the snake itself here. That would be like asking about _"an explanation"_ for the existence of the "money dependence" relation and its members (Andrew, Daniel, Cameron etc...). The "money dependence" relation exists for the simple reason that Loke has mentioned it in this video. _"After all, it makes perfectly good sense to wonder why there is this snake, rather than a different one or none at all."_ Sure. This is also quite irrelevant since this has to do with the philosophy of modality. An antirealist about modality would simply mention that any consideration about something being _"different",_ or _"alternative"_ is nothing more than the application of a capacity of our minds. When such an anti-realist ask himself : "can I conceive of a world without Cameron ?" Any answer to that question would be an assertion about his capacity to *conceive* of alternatives (see WL Craig's answer to the last audience question in his debate with Sean Carroll). If that anti-realist then ask himself : "can Cameron have failed to exist *in reality* ?" Then the anti-realist will just say that the question makes no sense, since modality isn't something real. A skeptic could simply ask how it is proposed we elucidate this type of questions. Which method can we apply to decide of the *reality* of modality (of alternatives) ? _"The fact that its parts are causally connected to each other is beside the point. The causal connectedness of the snake doesn’t seem to explain why the snake exists in the first place."_ Which is not the question at hand, and possibly a really simple question if nothing else unites all the parts of the snake appart from the mind of the observer who decided to unite them in a single entity. In which case the answer to the question _"what explains why the snake exists in the first place"_ could simply be : the free will of the observer who decided to call it that. Or to point at the cognitive structures of the observer who decided to call it that. _"The snake example suggests that an adequate explanation of the existence of some xs doesn’t automatically arise from the supposition that each x has a cause. Each snake part has a cause in terms of another snake part, yet one may still wonder why those very snake parts all exist at all"_ My rebuttal to Loke's argument about money was precisely to show that there needs not be a series at all... Which means there needs not be a _"snake"_ at all... (see mereological nihilism).

[@LogosTheos]

@@MrGustavier So this completely misses the point that _Daniel_ also _did not have money to begin with_ and that Cameron, who Daniel is dependent on, also did not have money to begin with. So the relation is indeed transitive since Andrew having money is dependent on someone in the series having money originally without depending on others. So I don't think your objection is successful. It also has PSR issues (another area we can dive in) which is why I cited Pruss and Rassumusen. Person X cannot explain why there are people (x, y) that have money; that is, X does not have the explanation within itself to explain why people have money (x, y). If there is someone W that had money prior to X, then W can explain why people (x, y) have money, but the problem is that person W also cannot explain why he himself has money . Thus, person W cannot explain why there are people (w, x, y) which have money, and relies on there being a prior person V which also cannot explain why people (v, w, x, y) have money if person V himself originally had no money. Regarding modal anti-realism as a reply to Pruss and Rassumusen. You can go this route. But it's a big bullet to bite. There are several areas that make modal anti-realism implausible since it has difficulty accounting for things such as (1) Intuition (2) scientific practice (3) our counter-factual reasoning (4) nature of metaphysical explanations (5) modal knowledge (6) linguistic adequacy and (7) nature of reductive explanations Another issue is an empirical scientific issue. We know that the physical world exists in a superposition of probable states. So, modal realism seems to be proven by experiment (young double slit). An electron can be both a particle and a wave. The Everett Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is held by many physicists, supports the idea of realistic modality over anti-realistic modality.

[@zsoltnagy5654]

​@@LogosTheos Pruss once explained to me, that "it is incoherent to suggest, that if I am attending a party, then he is attending that party AND if he is attending that party, then am attending that party, since that represents a *"vicious circle"* and therefore can nor explain and answer the question _"Why and how I or he would attend that party?"."_ Well, that's just a *biconditional.* If I am attending a party, then he is attending that party AND if he is attending that party, then am attending that party - well then I am attending a party, IF AND ONLY IF he is attending that party (as I am not attending that party, IF AND ONLY IF he is not attending that party as he is attending that party, IF AND ONLY IF I am attending that party and as he is not attending that party, IF AND ONLY IF I am not attending that party). So then what's the problem with that explanation or description?!? Likewise if X, then Y AND If Y, then X - well then X, IF AND ONLY IF Y. Likewise if A explains B AND if B explains A - well then A and B are explained by themselves (A and B) as not A and not B are explained by themselves (not A and not B).

[@SpotterVideo]

Conservation of Spatial Curvature: Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .-----------------

[@watchman2866]

This exchange is more honest about what scientists actually know and publish rather than anti-atheists like Lawrence Krauss who would have us believe he could create it himself.

[@MrGustavier]

18:14 _"1.2 The properties of x and the properties of y which differentiate between them would be had by them only when they had already begun to exist"_ He seems to be presupposing that not existing things don't have properties. Which is problematic. Because that would mean that we couldn't differentiate any non existing thing from any other non existing thing (postulating the identity of indiscernables). But we can differentiate ronald mcdonald from a unicorn, and yet neither of them exist (arguably).

[@aydentrevaskis8390]

I would hold that concepts make a huge difference here. Not existing in reality is different from not existing physically, if that makes sense. Like abstracts, which I think is a relatively good example, since theirs a wide variety of them; logic for example, on a platonic account, exists in reality, even if we don’t perceive it, but not physically

[@jackplumbridge2704]

"He seems to be presupposing that not existing things don't have properties. Which is problematic. Because that would mean that we couldn't differentiate any non existing thing from any other non existing thing (postulating the identity of indiscernables)." - This is a massively confused response. Firstly, it is necessarily true that non-existing things have no properties. Anything that has properties must exist, since properties are not nothing, they are something. Secondly, when we speak of of things that don't exist having properties, we are speaking of them hypothetically. We are essentially saying "If X were to exist, it would have property Y".

[@MrGustavier]

@@aydentrevaskis8390 *-"I would hold that concepts make a huge difference here. Not existing in reality is different from not existing physically, if that makes sense. Like abstracts, which I think is a relatively good example, since theirs a wide variety of them; logic for example, on a platonic account, exists in reality, even if we don’t perceive it, but not physically"* Ok. Do you think that something can go from *"existing not physically"* to *"existing physically"* ?

[@MrGustavier]

@@jackplumbridge2704 *-"This is a massively confused response. Firstly, it is necessarily true that non-existing things have no properties. Anything that has properties must exist, since properties are not nothing, they are something."* Ok. So unicorns and ronald mcdonald exist. *"Secondly, when we speak of of things that don't exist having properties, we are speaking of them hypothetically. We are essentially saying "If X were to exist, it would have property Y"."* Very well, remember what Andrew Loke says : 18:14 _"1.2 The properties of x and the properties of y which differentiate between them would be had by them only when they had already begun to exist"_ Does your conditional account (if X were to exist...) applies in this context ?

[@jackplumbridge2704]

@@MrGustavier "Ok. So unicorns and ronald mcdonald exist." - I can't tell if you are being serious or if you are just acting like a clown for the sake of trolling. For the sake of your intelligence and reasoning capacity, I really hope it is the latter. "Does your conditional account (if X were to exist...) applies in this context ?" - Yes, obviously. Loke is saying exactly what I am saying.

[@Reason_plus_Faith]

Dr. Loke did provide quite a compelling philosophical argument that Dr. Linford did not respond to in this debate. You can watch a detailed analysis of this debate from Dr. Loke himself here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eJLGqo2ljbOVb5o

[@watchman2866]

Does Physical Reality Have a Cause or Beginning? This should not be confused with concepts and ideas that don't apply to something physical in the universe. It seemed like they were both concluding that the universe a irriducably designed.

[@winstonbarquez9538]

The nature of material reality, which is dependent and transient, gives us a reasonable basis for believing in the existence of a non-material reality, which is essential and eternal, from which the whole of material reality came into being at the beginning.

[@MrGustavier]

Why does it need to be *"non-material"* ? Don't you think it is much more parsimonious to postulate that the cause and the effect be of the same substance ?

[@winstonbarquez9538]

@@MrGustavier but then material reality is by nature contingent so it cannot be the ultimate reason for the existence of everything in the beginning.

[@MrGustavier]

@@winstonbarquez9538 *-"but then material reality is by nature contingent so it cannot be the ultimate reason for the existence of everything in the beginning."* And what makes you think that *"material reality is by nature contingent"* ? What if your interlocutor disagrees with that ?

[@winstonbarquez9538]

@@MrGustavier you can disagree all you want but you would have to define for me your concept of contingency and why do you say that material reality is not so.

[@MrGustavier]

@@winstonbarquez9538 *-"you can disagree all you want but you would have to define for me your concept of contingency and why do you say that material reality is not so."* Yes, this is precisely what Linford does in this debate, at 1:29:25, his says : _"If there's ANY part of physical reality that couldn't have a beginning in virtue of being Timeless for example then physical reality as a whole didn't have a beginning"_ In that case contingency is linked with _"having a beginning"_ (they don't really speak of contingency in the debate) and he shows that, in certain current scientific cosmological theories, physical reality doesn't have a beginning, therefore is not contingent. I also notice that you didn't answer my initial question : Don't you think it is much more parsimonious to postulate that the cause and the effect be of the same substance ?

[@hanstwilight3218]

Yeah that whole time argument by Dan at the beginning is kind of a poor suggestion, just to try and get around a physical beginning … “ if i count time in some different way” then we dont have a beginning!! Lol i mean, you can decide not to ever count down to one1 and instead put an infinity amount of other intermediate time measurements in between 1&2 , but this is just begging the question, your actively NOT COUNTING 1 in oder to avoid the reality of a beginning and just because you can imagine an infinite amount of time or space between 1 & 2 doesn’t negate the fact that one 1 still exists.

[@pattonpatterns]

Dan says we don't know enough to say. He is 100% right. This sort of argumentation from public data doesn't get us to a Creator because we do not know enough about how these things work.

[@hanstwilight3218]

@@pattonpatterns is the life span of certain isotopes ( decay rate) i.e everything is decaying at a rate that doesn’t allow hard matter to exist infinitely into the past. if it were the case and we had an infinite past, with the decay rate at witch its at … literally everything in existence, would be long gone by now… And then we have edwin hubbles discovery in red shifted light that showed every object that is out in space is actually moving away from every other object that is also in space……….( witch means space or the universe is expanding ) and if you reverse that process you land logically at a beginning. Is this not enough knowledge/science for you to conclude a beginning to our universe ?

[@nebojsadraksimovic]

​@@hanstwilight3218No.

[@pattonpatterns]

@@hanstwilight3218 Our familiar thermodynamic cosmos had a beginning. But our familiar thermodynamic cosmos is not the end-all-be-all of reality. We have no clue whether the broader reality is just more impersonal, yet more exotic, stuff.

[@hanstwilight3218]

@@pattonpatterns are you suggesting a metaphysical reality as a foundation for physical reality…. Because if you are then i as a theist would agree… Accept im not going to run into an infinite regress of causes because i end that “buck” with God.

[@wilkielai]

per RT Mullins, nobody really understand what "time" is. Of course, if we get rid of time, we get rid of beginnings (even the beginning of the material world). It seems like Dr. Linford wants to argue about time. And Dr. Loke just want to say that there's a God that caused physical reality as we know it. Whether the physical reality had a "beginning" is interesting, but I can't help but feel that there's some talking past each other. Or maybe the line should be drawn elsewhere, such as, what they mean by "cause". I think maybe Dr. Loke is loading too much into that word. Cause without time is "ground"? Can we just avoid the argument by using a different word? Perhaps the theist should just concede here and say that current physics does put into question the causal principle. At the same time, Dr. Linkford's theory does not exclude God from "causing" the material reality. It just proposes a different explanation. We've always known that it's going to either bottom out at God or the material totality.

[@TBOTSS]

Daniel Linford getting quieter and quieter as the debate goes on.

[@gregorsamsa5251]

First time ive seen Linford in a straight up debate setting but, man, he's a ice cold rhetorical terminator

[@br.m]

It's hard for me to think about how to debate an atheist. With God all things are possible. So what have I to say? Anything he says I can just say "With God all things are possible". Even if an atheist thought they prove God does not exist. With God all things are possible. With God, it is even possible for an atheist to prove God does not exist. That's probably why I would rather debate cultists, like catholics, adventists, JW's I am one of those people who will talk to a Jehovah's Witness until they tire themselves out and make excuses to leave.

[@cogitoergosum3433]

It looks awfully like Loke cannot defend his claim that electric fields come into existence using the known laws of physics as the laws define the constraints. Indeed it’s not even that the laws define the behaviour as this is how the universe actually is and not what Loke wants to support his assertions. Loke is not justified to bend the laws he claims are created by god. At another level, it is faintly absurd that a grown man is using this argument to argue the existence of the biblical god. Does this entity expend energy thinking? Surely one thought to the next would have to occur in time?

[@anthonycostello6055]

It seems to me, the more I hear newer and newer variations of the old arguments and newer and newer variations of their rebuttals, that this all boils down not to whether or not there was a cause of the universe, but really whether or not whatever was first was personal or impersonal. The point of divergence seems to be between "personal and agentive" versus "impersonal and mechanical." Dan's argument, or so it seemed to me, was that there could equally be a timeless, i.e., eternal, but non-personal ground of being as opposed to a timeless, i.e., eternal, personal ground of being. God on that view would be basically a kind of mysterious physical state that is impersonal and that winds up becoming what we see today as the universe. At least so it seems to me. Dan's view almost seems like it could lead to a form of pantheism.

[@zacksmith4509]

sure, but let's not forget any internal state being processed would be "cognitive" and any relation between objects would be "information" So it becomes interesting as there are impersonal aspects to God, but then personal attributes as well which is logically consistent with certain mono theistic traditional beliefs..

[@Spasaymoostard]

⁠@@zacksmith4509as an atheist myself, pantheism is the only ism that I would comfortably assign myself to if I had a gun to my head. I still see flaw in your view in that you’re assuming beginning, and not just beginning but an intelligent one. If your only options are personal or impersonal, it still implies an initial timeless cause. We just don’t know whether causality can apply to something like reality. We DO know that causality applies WITHIN reality, but not whether it applies to it. Reality could be an entirely uncaused and eternal event. Time and space are things that make our reality make sense, but its not unreasonable to assume there can be another reality where time and space is different, atoms arrange themselves in a different way, there is a different boiling point of water, etc.

[@zacksmith4509]

@@Spasaymoostard a timeless, eternal reality which created you, would be God..

[@Spasaymoostard]

@@zacksmith4509 yes, but I’m not equating or associating it at all to the Christian god. It’s a standalone idea that shares qualities, sure.

[@zacksmith4509]

@@Spasaymoostard changing a label doesn't do much to the truth of the idenity..

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

For well over 300 years (ever since Newton vs Leibniz) we have defined 0 and 1 (and their geometric counterparts) as follows: 0 = not-necessary 0D = not-necessary 1 = necessary 1D = necessary (Newton won so above are his definitions. Newton conflated "natural" with "necessary" and was largely ignorant of Geometry.) A year ago quantum physics proved that Leibniz was actually correct (the universe is "not locally real") which looks like this: 0 = necessary 0D = necessary 1= not-necessary 1D = not-necessary Since Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biology... the implications of the definitions of 0 and 1 changing are world altering. "Only the zero-of yourself is necessary" is now a true statement (always has been). That's neat to think about. A little over a year ago the zero-of yourself was not-necessary. See how the facts change over time? Newton really set humanity back with his conflated definitions. Zero is the most important number in mathematics and is both a real and an imaginary number with a horizon through it. It's geometric counterpart zero-dimensional space is the most important dimension in physics and is both a real and an imaginary dimension with an event horizon through it. Quarks are zero-dimensional color-charged electricity and the Monad is the zero-dimensional space binding our quarks together with the strong force; the hue-monad (or soul). Read Leibniz's Monadology 📖. Black holes are ten-dimensional: Zero is the only number with a horizon through it. Zero-dimensional space is the only dimension with an event horizon through it. So, has to include a 0. Got it. 0 and 10 are the first two times we encounter zero in the natural number system (1-9 are nonzero numbers). Their geometric counterparts 0D (quantum) and 10D (cosmological) would then be the event horizon boundaries of this side of the mirror universe.

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

[Monad in philosophy/cosmogony]: Monad (from Greek μονάς monas, "singularity" in turn from μόνος monos, "alone") refers, in cosmogony, to the Supreme Being, divinity or the totality of all things. The concept was reportedly conceived by the Pythagoreans and may refer variously to a single source acting alone, or to an indivisible origin, or to both. The concept was later adopted by other philosophers, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who referred to the Monad as an *elementary particle.* It had a *geometric counterpart,* which was debated and discussed contemporaneously by the same groups of people. [In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's *Monad,* from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of *the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together* using the strong nuclear force]: 1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the strong force. 2) Interconnectedness: Leibniz's monads are interconnected, each reflecting the entire universe from its own perspective. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together. 3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions. 4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the strong nuclear force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter. 5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz. 6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics. 7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions. [Monad in mathematics, science and technology]: Monad (biology), a historical term for a simple unicellular organism Monad (category theory), a construction in category theory Monad (functional programming), functional programming constructs that capture various notions of computation Monad (homological algebra), a 3-term complex Monad (nonstandard analysis), the set of points infinitesimally close to a given point

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

[2D is not the center of the universe, 0D is the center of the mirror universe]: The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped. In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge. Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed. Leibniz or Newton: Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe. In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective. On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view. Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective. Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view. What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz? There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible. What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. What are the arguments against Leibniz? Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.

[@BlueEyesDY]

It seems all we get from Loke is non sequitur inferences and unsupported claims.

[@AWalkOnDirt]

I can speculate, just as the religious assert to the conditions outside our universe. Outside our universe time is perceived in a manner that light perceives time in our universe. Time doesn't exist and everything unfolds at once and doesn't unfold. Eternity and an instant exist in the same "moment." At the speed of light...time ceases to exist and this is likely the same condition outside our universe where energy is "timeless." This timelessness is because time does not exist and not really because of something is long lasting.. There can't be a long lasting. To light, the universe isn't long lasting...it already knows it's end just like it's beginning almost like a god.

[@LordBlk]

And Jesus is the light of the world....😅

[@br.m]

So... What is this "light" you keep referring to? Sounds like a drug or medicine? Long lasting? But there can't be a long lasting? If you could try this particular phenotype of cannabis I grow you might change your mind about that. Are you saying the light knows it's own end, or are you saying this light knows the end of the universe? Or could you be saying the universe knows either it's own or the lights beginning and end? So the universe is... Nobody knows? And light is... Nobody knows? Time is another word we made up to describe... Something that nobody really knows. And our comments are... Nobody knows? Did I miss anything?

[@nebojsadraksimovic]

Loke can't even follow the conversation, remainds me of his Oppy debate.

[@nebojsadraksimovic]

​@@JohnSmith-bq6nf I get it, neather is mine, he could get hiper focused on something because of that and miss a whole point.. i get it, just a bit frustrating...

[@Insane_ForJesus]

Why?

[@Drdontcare1]

Hey so what's wrong with the why-not-sooner objection?

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

Like why did God not do things or have things done sooner? Because it doesn't address whether or not God did something. Just that he didn't it another time. One could then ask, why didn't he do something later. I hope I understood you. I know this comment was from 6 months ago, but I hope it helped

[@monkkeygawd]

Lol physical reality HAS NO INTRINSIC EXISTENCE!!!!! UGH! When will all of science/religious mind people catch up with where Quantum Field Theory and Nondual Philosophy points!?!? This conversation is MOOT.

[@onlygettinbetter]

Dan Linford is sharp!

[@TomCollinsRocks]

Capturing Christianity is distracted by the World. The Gospel is plain and simple, but I don't hear any of the Gospel on Capturing Christianity. Capturing Christianity doesn't teach the Bible.

[@stpaul0859]

you do not like opposing view points and are scared that god might not be real

[@d.j.aguilar6208]

I kept fastforwarding through Dr. Linford's speaking to find something of substance, but did not. I watched Dr. Loke for about 5 seconds, and that's all I needed to be satisfied. This topic is too complex for the human mind which is why there is faith. No disrespect for Dr. Linford. Very Interesting debate!

[@aydentrevaskis8390]

I’d like to add that a model of creation ex deus makes this conversation harmonious on both sides

[@TheFranchfry]

This model is? @aydentrevaskis8390

[@aydentrevaskis8390]

@@TheFranchfry huh?

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

_Creatio ex deo_ is just creation _ex materia,_ but the stuff out of which the universe is made is (or was) divine. But it seems _prima facie_ incoherent because God is not made of some sort of substance; He is not a being; He is Being itself; the ground of substances.

[@aydentrevaskis8390]

@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco I’m a neoclassical theist, and there’s too many problems with the classical theistic claims that make classical theism incoherent, so I can reject that he is being itself, while maintaining he is the ground of most being. Consider morality, math, logic, etc. The abstracts are necessary and so do not need a ground in God. There’s also modal collapse problems and aloneness arguments, for all of these reasons, I reject classical theism, and creation ex deus is plausible

[@CosmoPhiloPharmaco]

@@aydentrevaskis8390 To me the idea that something immaterial could "take a piece of itself" to transform it into the physical world just doesn't make sense -- is unintelligible. Immaterial beings aren't things or substances, properly speaking.

[@britterm]

1:35:14 - "after having existing for some measure of non-metric time". Said with a straight face.

[@dukeone224]

I am amazed that people with PhD's think they are so smart because they use so many big words. Dr. Linford looks sorely pitiful because he has to read what he thinks. He couldn't be more boring!! The fact of the matter is both of these men with PhD's cannot, EVER prove what they believe. Now for what I believe. I am a Christian and therefore I believe God's word written in the Bible. With that said I can say anyone is a fool to believe that the entire universe and everything in it came from absolutely nothing! With this fact I believe that anyone that spends quality time thinking about this subject could only come to the belief that everything in the universe and all of the life we see on planet earth had to be designed. Therefore there must be a designer. My viewpoint still does not explain where the designer came from but it is the only rational viewpoint in my opinion. Now look at that! I gave my viewpoint with only a few words and I do not have a PhD!

[@Insane_ForJesus]

This comment is so cringe

[@charlescarter2072]

I love it! Nice one

[@huh2275]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[@dominiqueubersfeld2282]

DEBATE: In Light of Contemporary Physics, Does Trump's Stupidity Have a Cause or Beginning?

[@uffeflong8065]

Loke has not a clue of what he tries to speak about.

[@HorseSense-pq9vq]

Loke is a lunatic

[@LogosTheos]

I think you are😜

[@bradfordjr9905]

How did the universe start? The honest answer is, "we don't know!" Just another God of the gaps argument.

[@nemrodx2185]

"How did the universe start? The honest answer is, "we don't know!" Just another God of the gaps argumen" How did the universe start? The honest answer is, "we don't know!" Just another Naturalism of the gaps argument.

[@bradfordjr9905]

@@nemrodx2185 OMG! How did the universe start? Was it a God? We don't know. Was it a natural event? We don't know. Now say it again so you can remember. WE DON'T KNOW!

[@nemrodx2185]

@@bradfordjr9905 "OMG! How did the universe start? Was it a God? We don't know. Was it a natural event? We don't know. Now say it again so you can remember. WE DON'T KNOW!" Of course, you can take the safer option that risks nothing and say "I don't know." But that does not mean that the person who affirms makes an "argument from ignorance." Not so as long as he can justify his position. Now... as you say "I don't know", you can't support atheist alternatives either.

[@MrGustavier]

@@dirtydevil *-""we don't know"?! You can't simply dismiss universe-creating pixies"* Really ? Why ?

[@MrGustavier]

@@dirtydevil Oh waw... I'll delete my question then if you don't mind.