Who is your favorite Physicist?

There is no 'right picture'.
Your tendency to religious absolutism is showing !

• Post: # 6,493,961 | Susmariosep | Tue 29 Aug, 2017 05:16 pm

@Olivier5,
Dear Olie, I see you are now into what I call stubborn evasiveness, with your text:

Quote:

From Olie:

Quote:

From Susmariosep: "all that is in existence, it is put there by some entity."

Or several entities, more often. Like in the case of the elephant I was talking about.

You know, dear Olie, I am thinking all the time about a thread on Autopsy of Impasses, right now I have you and Brian for protagonists, with me on the one side and you two on the other side.

The purpose of the proposed thread is to examine how impasse occurs, by examining the cognitive psychology of the protagonists.

Right now I have the idea that impasse occurs when humans use words with their insistence that the words they use are understood by them in their own way, and they have the natural right to understand words in their own meanings of the words in concern.

What do you say about that?

Nevermind, let us you and me talk about the elephant you mention above, namely: "...several entities, more often. Like in the case of the elephant I was talking about."

Tell me where previously you brought in elephant, so that I will know what for you is the definition of the word, elephant.

Dear readers here, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness what other words Olie will bring in, to replace my phrase in bold: "all that is in existence, it is put there by some entity".

That phrase, some entity, is chosen by me precisely for all protagonists to specify what they want to mean with the phrase from me, some entity.

You see readers, if my opponent protagonists want to refer to the creator cause of everything with a beginning, then it is all right with me, except that I have to explain to readers that by elephant Olie means also what I mean with the phrase, some entity, namely, the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

That is typical of atheists' speech, because they have this taboo and phobia of the thought/concept of creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Take notice that they also use words like: flying spaghetti monster, invisible pink unicorn, tooth fairy, Santa, etc., all of them of course with people who do read and think on the cognitive psychology of atheists, they refer to what theists understand, like one theist Susmariosep, the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

So, dear Olie, what are you referring to with your elephant, in place of my some entity?

For your notice, Dear Olie, by some entity I am talking about God in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

No more, please, of evasiveness, and also please don't dwell in flippancies, because you will lapse into profanities, and that is the end of civility with you in a web forum.

• Post: # 6,494,493 | Susmariosep | Wed 30 Aug, 2017 11:22 am

@Olivier5,
Dear Olie, you tell me:
"And I am talking of the possibility of several gods. In my experience it always take a group of entities to create something. Like a mother AND a father would create a child, right?"

Several gods must have brought it about, namely, the something rather than nothing, aside from themselves.

That is pretty good.

Now, think further, don't the several gods have to work together at all to bring about something so that something is present than nothing aside from themselves?

Isn't one god the better thought of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence?

Think on Occam's razor.

That is the big trouble with your brain, you are always into evasiveness, instead of doing what comes spontaneously with your brain, as your brain and everyman's brain has been wired to think logically, otherwise man would not have survived up to today.

Read this post from my favorite poster here, and reply to it with your nature-endowed logical brain:

Quote:

• Post: # 6,494,483 | Susmariosep | Wed 30 Aug, 2017 11:04 am

Dear Barmpot, I like very much to exchange thoughts with you, let us try this question:

"Think and tell me what is the first rule of logical explanation, for example, explain why there is something rather than nothing."

Okay, everyone, let us all sit back and await with bated breath to witness how Barm think, as to tell mankind what is the first rule of logical explanation, like to the question, why is there something instead of nothing.

Dear Barm, if you want me to be first to tell mankind what is the first rule from me, on how to give a logical explanation to the question, why is there something rather than nothing, please tell me so when you reply to this post, but please, no profanities, okay?