It’s not nonsense to say that a cause is itself uncaused: it causes, but is not caused. — Jamal

Give me an example to explain what you mean.
God is posited as an entity that can cause processes to happen but was not itself, created.
A quick google search describes the word cause as meaning "a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition"
Cause has 'intent' behind it, so to me, uncaused cause sounds like unintended intent??
Perhaps your example will enlighten me.

I am aware of the term:
As formulated by Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica, the uncaused cause argument is stated as follows: "Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause. This leads to a regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God ."

But I think the logic applied by Aquinas here is a bad one and should not have been accepted as a way to 'sneak in' the god posit.

I refer you back to your unprovoked, irrational, arrogant earlier typings such as:

However don't let that stop you from looking deeper into this topic, either on your own or with others. GL.

Right. The idea was to hit the spot. Glad it did. Better luck next time. — skyblack

and what reads like conflated nonsense such as:

Re the questions: an error of perception (2nd line), or specially; compulsive erroneous attribution, is not a valid excuse for confusion. In that case an urgent need for freedom arises. Absence of such an effort demonstrates insincerity and lack of seriousness — skyblack

Which you then arrogantly refuse to explain further.

Like I said earlier, if anything, evidence consistently points to me refusing interactions — skyblack

So which is it? You refuse interactions because you are an arrogant ***** who only interacts with those YOU delusionally decide are worthy of you or you refuse interaction because you are scared to throw stones whilst inside your glasshouse?

Here I am trying to perfect my social inadequacy skills (as you call it), and you’re telling me it is having the opposite effect. Well, what do you know! — skyblack

I suggest you try to defeat your social inadequacy not 'try to perfect it.'
What I know is that you need to learn how to interact with others like a grown-up, instead of as a petulant child.

The first uncaused cause — val p miranda

What? The term uncaused cause makes no sense, it's like saying the nonexistent existent, just nonsense. I appreciate your comments regarding Hume and Kant and I have read some stuff about the PSR, like https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/
I appreciate the philosophical views put forward on this origin topic but I prefer the more scientific arguments.

I think 'causality,' has been dealt with most convincingly imo, by folks like Sean Carroll and theories like the Roger Penrose bounce and his 'hawking points' evidence from this Universe.
Sean's arguments point towards no need for a first cause and Roger pushes any first cause, way way back to the start of an oscillating Universe.
Also Laurence Krauss's book 'A Universe from nothing,' is another treatment of the topic I find quite compelling. For me, this is currently enough to completely refute such as the kalam cosmological argument and the god posit as a required first cause.

You are quite right. As i suspected, your post, even after my "bye bye", is certainly a testament to your adequacy.
Not only to your adequacy but also to your originality, and your intelligence, to be able to come up with what you have said. It is quite astonishing. — skyblack

It bodes well for you that you are so easily astonished. Perhaps this will aid you in your search for enlightenment.

Particularly enlightening was the part where you talk about me seeking "interaction". This is definitely a revelation. Had no idea, with my history in TPF, is that of one seeking “interaction”. — skyblack

If I have provided you with enlightenment, astonishment and revelation in my few responses to you so far then that's great. If you had no idea that interaction with other members on TPF is foundational then I am glad I was able to increase your awareness and grasp of the concept.

This tells me my social inadequacy issues aren't up to the mark. Which means i might have to take it up a notch (which will be of course under my discretion). Hopefully that way i will never need your (or your kind) pity. — skyblack

Well, I hope that you can maintain your own personal confidence that one day you will 'overcome' these shortfalls that you recognise in yourself.

But thank you for the offerings of your "shame" and your "pity". It is not often one comes across a person of your immense adequacy. Bye for now. *cough — skyblack

You're welcome! That cough sounds bad, perhaps you should get yourself tested! :death: :flower:

One can expect the present to contnue — val p miranda

So does this not clash with:
Past and future are words without existence; they do not exist.
— val p miranda

are you just trying to relabel the future as a continuum of 'present?' Do you see such a distinction as having vital significance or it is a relatively insignificant distinction?
We exist on a linear timeline, our existence is linear. A 1D timeline is a single coordinate system, only x varies, no height and no thickness, so the only directions are forwards (future), position (present) and backwards (past). Are you not just suggesting that the line can also be envisaged as a 'totality of positions,' is that a significant distinction? If you think it is significant, then why?

Your link took me to p19 of your thread titled 'A first cause is logically necessary.
I take it that the proof you were referring to was in the OP of that thread (p1) and your XYZ statements regarding causality. This thread's OP ruminates on the 'something from nothing,' debate.
Laurence Kraus wrote a whole book on the issue, titled, 'A Universe from nothing.'
A appreciate the connection between the two threads. Something from nothing and first cause.
I am sure the 19 page dialogue on your thread dealt with the issues involved.
Your answer to my last question was no so I assume you are confirming that in your opinion, if there ever was a first cause, it may well have no significance at all, to our current Universe and therefore the theists are wasting their energy when the show deference to the god posit? Do you agree?

I would aslo like to ask, after your 19 page thread and the comments the contributors made,
did you have any doubts about the 'causality' route as being absolutely fundamental to the question of origin of the Universe?

Here is a counter view from quora:
Absolutely not; causality is a useful concept when we observe all the effects in existence and seek to find causes for all those effects. Existence itself is not an effect and does not have a prior cause. I find this condition of physical reality to be quite intriguing that existence as a whole is not an effect and has no cause, yet all the apparently separate things - objects and forces - are effects that have causes. It appears that it is our capacity to perceive that enables us to discern one thing from another which is responsible for this apparent dichotomy of causality / non-causality.

Wiki has very good detail and 'historicity' on causality at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
I don't know if such was already discussed ad nauseam in your thread but I thought,

Since causality is a subtle metaphysical notion, considerable intellectual effort, along with exhibition of evidence, is needed to establish knowledge of it in particular empirical circumstances. According to David Hume, the human mind is unable to perceive causal relations directly. On this ground, the scholar distinguished between the regularity view on causality and the counterfactual notion. According to the counterfactual view, X causes Y if and only if, without X, Y would not exist. Hume interpreted the latter as an ontological view, i.e., as a description of the nature of causality but, given the limitations of the human mind, advised using the former (stating, roughly, that X causes Y if and only if the two events are spatiotemporally conjoined, and X precedes Y) as an epistemic definition of causality. Having an epistemic concept of causality is needed to distinguish between causal and noncausal relations. The contemporary philosophical literature on causality can be divided into five big approaches to causality. These include the (mentioned above) regularity, probabilistic, counterfactual, mechanistic, and manipulationist views. The five approaches can be shown to be reductive, i.e., define causality in terms of relations of other types. According to this reading, they define causality in terms of, respectively, empirical regularities (constant conjunctions of events), changes in conditional probabilities, counterfactual conditions, mechanisms underlying causal relations, and invariance under intervention.

was worth including here for Hume's opinion alone that 'the human mind is unable to perceive causal relations directly,' when placed in the context of the rest of the text above about epistemology and causality. I tend to concur with the viewpoint that 'existence' does not require a cause.

Children can't entrap adults — skyblack

It's a shame you still see yourself as a child. I didn't realise you were trying to 'entrap' adults.
Paranoia is treatable, you don't have to suffer in silence. You are correct that the masks you wear are obvious but if you keep reading posts on TPF and contribute now and again when you feel you have grown up a little more then I am sure there will be many here who will show some pity for you and interact with you, even with your obvious social inadequacy issues.

Right. The idea was to hit the spot. Glad it did — skyblack

A shame you feel so defensive. I was not attacking you until you started to throw your toys at me.

Yes, my sentiment about that person as well. — Jackson

Well, seems like I second your opinion, but maybe in time he/she will improve their communication skills. Perhaps that's why he/she reads posts on TPF.

I don't know what point you are making here.
— universeness

Then that is a problem which will prevent any further inquiry. — skyblack

Perhaps you will choose to explain yourself more clearly in the future.
Imparting ideas to others takes time, effort and good communication skills.

However don't let that stop you from looking deeper into this either on your own or with others. GL. — skyblack

:rofl: Thank you for that rather arrogant permission that I don't require.

Hope, yeah, we can hope! It's a recommended course of action — Agent Smith

:cool: Remember this old song of hope:

Re the questions: an error of perception (2nd line), or specially; compulsive erroneous attribution, is not a valid reason for confusion. In that case an urgent need for freedom arises. Failing such an effort demonstrates insincerity and lack of seriousness. — skyblack

I don't know what point you are making here. The sound of woosh! As it went over my head.

Furthermore there is no purely "personal" beliefs, because the human is a conditioned continuity of the collective. — skyblack

I disagree, we are strongly influenced by 'the collective,' there is no doubt about that, but do you think that an individual human is capable of thinking a thought that no one has ever thought before?
I agree that new science builds on old science but there is also original thinking. So new original belief seems quite plausible to me.

One can see Belief is a movement of human though-feeling, common to all, without exceptions — skyblack

Maybe, or maybe human belief is just synonymous with a human need to justify human actions and yes, in that sense such a need to give reasons for what a person does by themselves or as part of a group is a common need but what about the concept that any generalised 'rule' has exceptions, why do you insist on rejecting the possibility of exceptions?

For now we will leave "children" out of it. That's a special case.....and we are not children — skyblack

You should never ignore your foundations but sure, we can leave childhood influences to one side.

A deeper inquiry into these beliefs will show that your (humanity) entire existence is founded on beliefs, irrespective of your belief in the primacy of reason, or your zealous propagation of the same. — skyblack

I think many/most individuals base their entire existence around their personal wants/needs/desires rather than what they perceive as their beliefs. Do you think personal wants/needs/desires create personal beliefs? or do you think the more compelling direction is that beliefs drive personal wants/needs/desires? Certainly, young human children are driven mainly by personal, perhaps even purely instinctual, wants/needs/desires.

My point was to simply give you a real life example of someone who was happy because they were a little mad, "out of touch with reality" as some shrinks like to say. — Agent Smith

Absolutely, I understood your approach, you were suggesting that the woman 'coped' with her delusions of grandeur, in fact, it may have been the most stabilising 'escapism' she had. So she's delusional but she is surviving. The 'shrinks' get involved, tell her how things 'really are' and a short time later, she is dead. I understand. So would it have been better to let the woman continue with her delusion?
I would agree the answer is yes, IF the result of professionals trying to help, was her death but as usual, hindsight is a great leveler.
There is always risk, if you choose to try to help any delusional, addicted or heavily conflicted person. Your intention is to do good but you can cause more harm, I agree.
But it's very hard to just surrender and accept that an individual cannot be helped towards a better life.
I was just citing back to you, some counter scenario, where 'interference,' has actually had very positive outcomes. We hear of examples on both sides, don't we? So as I typed,
Can I/you/we live in hope or do you think that such hope is forlorn in the final analysis?

I proved it was logically necessary here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary — Philosophim

How do posits like the multiverse or the Penrose bounce affect your view on the infinite regression and a necessary first cause? Does it not matter how many times, time is reset back to 0?
Is it only the 'first time' that time progressed from t=0 that a first cause is needed? and if so, does it matter how far back that was? Would this first cause still need to have a significance to our Universe other than as some original mindless spark that occurred at the start of an unknown number of t=o resets ago?

Here's a story I read in a book on psychiatry. There was this woman, living next to an airport. She was "suffering" from delusions of grandeur (thought she was a Duchess or something like that).

She was taken to a shrink, who promptly, in good faith, treated her. She was declared cured (of her delusion). Within a fortnight or so she took her own life! — Agent Smith

A sad story but are there not stories such as 'tried to kill myself, that was my turning point, now regret that I let myself reach that low point in my life. Had a lot of help since. My life now is so much better than it was and my future looks good and stable.' I think there are many such stories to counter the one you cited.
So based on the title of this thread, 'Let's discuss belief; can you believe something that has been proven wrong?' For you, has it been proven wrong that 'the vast majority of humans have the potential to live a happy fulfilling life?' Do you think the majority of humans are doomed to a life of suffering and misery no matter what efforts they make to counter such?
Can I/you/we live in hope or do you think that such hope is forlorn in the final analysis?

Live as an insane person or Die as a sane person — Agent Smith

Are those really the only options you consider?
Is there no way to live as a sane person?

Belief has an incline towards 'convinced.'
I know many theists who are not convinced god exists but have taken Pascal's wager or are too scared of the consequences of not believing due to indoctrination when they were young via a particular set of religious proposals. I am personally 'more convinced' by the Penrose bounce theory for the origin of our Universe than I am for the multiverse theory. I still think that the fundamental quantum of the universe may be vibrating strings, at least, I am more convinced.
I am completely convinced I am alive and solipsism is nonsense and our Universe is not a simulation but these are just MY beliefs.

I agree with:

I have heard the silly argument that ‘believing in science’ like believing in a deity. Absolutely not, because when people state they ‘believe in science’ (if they do so with sense) they just mean they understand the practice of science and how and when it can be reasonably applied to help understand and question the world we live in — I like sushi

To conclude, delusion isn't all that bad but can be misplaced — Varde

Delusion can be absolutely lethal to yourself and to others. You must have peer reviewed, rational reasoning behind your 'beliefs' and even then seek regular clarification of them, otherwise you risk becoming a mere reflection of the misguided beliefs of others who you follow for reasons such as biological loyalty or loyalty due to love or celebrity or blind respect or towards status, authority, wealth or title. All are dubious reasons to nurture or embody the same belief as another.

is it wise to assert that pure belief is not a weak kind of delusion but rather a type of menial strength? — Varde

No, I think what you call 'pure belief,' I would call 'unsubstantiated belief,' and it is unwise and not a strength at all to move such personally held beliefs any significant distance up the incline towards 'convinced.' You MUST have the empirical evidence first before you move a 'belief' up the incline towards 'convinced' status.

The point is, you don't understand what my theory is about. And you can call in the physical infantery, the "hot-shots", but they dont have a true counter. And WTF means highly unlikely? More likely that they are right? Oooookaaaaay.... woowoooooooo... kedeng kedeng....woowoooo!!! — Hillary

I think there are only two significant points that remain between us on the issue of your physics, your rationale and your dalliances with polytheism.

You often express emotive outbursts such as the text-based sound effects you simulate above.
Many people do this to a lesser or greater degree than you do, including me. You however have very honestly declared yourself bipolar. I think this should be fully recognised and respected as a very honourable declaration but such text-based sound effects are going to leave some people, me included, with the question of 'is he having an episode.' I have cited Stephen Fry as someone who deals with the condition very well in my opinion even though he has had some very difficult times because of it.
I hope and I am sure you will turn bipolar highs into positive effects in your life, and you will ensure bipolar lows don't cause too much damage in your life. It's a matter for you to decide if bipolar highs/lows contribute to you getting banned from discussion forums and contribute to your dalliances with polytheism. Please don't assume that I am suggesting all polytheists are bipolar (sorry to all Hindus if I am giving that impression) or that the only reason you are polytheist is because you are bipolar. I am more referring to your more superfringe statements such as the dinosaurs had their own separate god as does every species that has ever lived and all these gods are eternal and continue their existence in heaven.

The final point I wish to make to you is regarding physics. Since I left Uni I have worked within my degree field. So my knowledge of Computing Science was greatly enhanced because I had daily experience of enhancement in the subject as it became my way of making a living.
You have not revealed your working experience in physics. Has your expertise been honed in physics due to your career path? Those two examples I gave of Victor T. Toth and Allan Steinhard earlier certainly have honed their skills in physics and folks from Roger Penrose to Alan Guth and the younger mob such as Brian Cox, certainly have as well. Have you?
I personally will always default to the credence of the physics posits of Penrose, Guth, Cox and folks like Toth and Steinhard over @Hillary even if Hillary gets some support for one of his notions about the Higgs mechanism from one or two qualified people on quora. Especially when one or two equally qualified people completely disagreed with his notion regarding the Higgs.

I don't think there is much more to be gained by either of us by exchanging with each other as much as we have in the past. I will respond to you a lot less in the future as we have very little common ground but I do thank you for the exchanges we have had. I am certainly not saying 'never again,' but our future exchanges will be much reduced on my part.

Past and future are words without existence; they do not exist. — val p miranda

This is too simplistic, reality is more nuanced than this quote suggests imo.
As I copied and pasted the text you typed in your past, I brought the textual representation of your thoughts into my present. Anyone also reading your original posting at any moment in their 'now,' effectively brings something from your past into their present. The same connection/refresh of past events are brought into anyone's present when they read a book/look at a photo/listens to a story etc.
There is an issue with such recordings or renditions of past events, as exemplified by god fables, in that the reader/listener/viewer is reliant on the truth of the recording or rendition of past events.

If I think something trivial and simple like I will make myself a coffee in 5 minutes from now, then I am predicting an event in my own future. I can absolutely make that prediction come true. So I can in some simple but accurate ways, predict many events in my own future. I can use a similar method to predict events in your future, from 'you will eat food tomorrow,' 'you will sleep within the next 24 hours' etc. These predictions could prove inaccurate but will be accurate in most cases.
Future, present and past events are more related/interconnected than you suggest imo.

How else if you envision it as absorbed? — Hillary

A photon is an energy packet, not a billiard ball, of course, it can be absorbed. What's happening in photosynthesis if energy cant be absorbed?

But you dont understand other physicists. What then do they say? Quote please! you make things up! — Hillary

Oh I know enough about physics and I can understand what other physicists say to understand your proposal for a T.O.E is highly unlikely. We all have our subject specialisations. I probably know a lot more about computing science than you will ever know about physics but such comparisons are fruitless and pointless.

There are so many people way more qualified and much more experienced than you who describe all sorts of photon emissions and absorption examples on websites like quora. I would need volume sized space here to paste them all, two quick examples below.

Allan Steinhardt
PhD,Author,"Radar in the Quantum Limit",Formerly DARPA's Chief Scientist,
First off, two photon absorption is pretty darn critical for cellular biology. An application of it was granted the most recent (2014) Nobel Prize. See STED microscopy for the technical details, and Page on nobelprize.org for official press release. Here is how it works and why it won a Nobel Prize. Two photon absorption involves striking an atom's electron with a one-two punch of photons fast enough that the electron can't emit the usual photon it would have emitted if just one photon struck it............

Viktor T. Toth
IT pro, part-time physicist
Information Technology Professional
Studied at Budapest University of Technology and Economics
Lives in Ottawa, ON
105.9M content views1.8M this month
Top Writer2018, 2017, 2016 and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Forbes, Apple News and 1 more

When the photon energy is less than what it takes to make the electron free, the electron indeed only absorbs photons at specific energies, allowing it to jump between energy levels.
But when a photon has more energy than it takes to free the electron altogether, the electron is not bound to specific energy levels. It can absorb any such photon, become free, and all the excess energy that it receives turns into kinetic energy for the electron.
Think of the energy levels as a finite set of (ever more closely spaced) distinct levels, followed by a continuum of levels.

If you had some knowledge of physics I would accept that. But you havent! — Hillary

Your point here is moot as I am not challenging your physics with mine, I am challenging your physics with what other physicists say.

You totally and utterly seriously lost me here — Hillary

I was just trying to be as ridiculous as you were being.
You implied that I envisaged an electron as being stuffed with photons.
I tried to explain to you that I found your suggestion as ridiculous as suggesting that everything in the Universe was made from the 4 elements the ancients believed made up the Universe.

If you're so much about rehabilitation over revenge then you should favor torture over death penalty.

if you favor lifetime prison instead of death, that's is not rehabilitation either, it's waste of time for the prisoner and waste of resources for society since that person will not be able to return to society — SpaceDweller

You are misquoting me, I stated that I remain conflicted between the two goals of 'punishment' and 'rehabilitation.' I think getting the balance correct or just improving the balance that currently exists within most judicial systems at present, is a very complicated issue.

I don't accept torture as a punitive methodology but I would use it against someone to extract information to save my loved ones or to save innocents in general but it's how I would define 'innocents' that may be problematic. Trying to avoid hypocrisy in the application of justice is very hard on a case-by-case basis.

I think the current prison system has many many problems and I do think new approaches are required.
I just don't know for sure, what they are. I do think we need much more investment in psychological studies, neuroscientific studies etc. I think we have to look much more deeply into how prisoners might 'payback' to the society they have harmed but I think it needs to be more nuanced than use of their physical labour. I think we need to study all the issues involved in far greater detail and we need many new 'pilot schemes,' conceived by those who have the best expertise in the area of 'evil behaviour,' and how to deal with it.

I certainly don't advocate your suggestions of deterrents or punishments based on mimicking the worse that evil people can come up with to abuse their victims.

Where did J suggest that? — Hillary

Well, I was just suggesting that if we all just accept that everything in the Universe is 'stuffed' with some combination from earth, air, fire and water based on your accusation that I am claiming electrons are stuffed with photons, then your physics T.o.E might become more popular and people will accept the final sentence you will be compelled to write in your physics paper when it's finally ready to be published. I suggest it will be something like:
"So based on all the evidence I have cited in this paper my final conclusion is, gods did it all, Wooooooooooooo Woooooooooooooo!''

And what about the monkeys to know, in the name of science.. — Hillary

All such monkeys are too busy trying to type out the full works of Shakespeare!

Woowoo! :lol: — Hillary

Woowoo to you too! do you like old steam train whistles?

Good examples of theistic hypocrisy!

An electron stuffed with photons... :lol: — Hillary

Yeah, :roll: thats what I am suggesting, in the same way I suggested a flame is stuffed with smoke and phosphorus is stuffed with fire! Just like the ancients who believed there were 4 elements only in science earth, air, fire and water! Do you suggest we go back to that?

Penrose is close to my cosmology, in the sense that its a cyclic model. But he offers no solution for DE. I proposed the model on PSE. No comments. Only question closure. So much for free science... — Hillary

Or else they were just fed up answering questions that they consider are more at the level of 'crank physics,' like the idea that energy levels cannot be increased because energy cannot be absorbed!

Of course. Smoke resides in the fire.. — Hillary

We see again the importance of accuracy!
I said is smoke inside the flame, not the fire.
Is fire inside phosphorus or is it a reaction to oxygen?
Photons are emitted/absorbed by electrons due to specific interactive conditions.
Electrons have mass, photons don't. Photon absorption is an energy exchange which 'excites' the electron (increases its energy level) and makes it move faster, creating increased heat!

Imagine Im an atheist! — Hillary

Unlike you, I do not consider my imagination a reliable source of truth!

But you seem to mind I do — Hillary

I do mind someone who wants to claim they know the physics of the origin of the Universe and their ultimate conclusion is gods did it. Yes, I am going to advocate that others should question the physics conclusions that such a person is trying to suggest are fact.

I know what it means. But it makes no sense. There are no photons inside of electrons — Hillary

Fire produces smoke, does the smoke exist inside the flame?

So you can't understand what I'm talking about. — Hillary

I understand that most physicists disagree with you. I know that, as none of the names you mentioned such as Penrose, Rovelli, et al propose anything like you for the origin story.
You ultimately posit gods as the origin story! That's my problem with that!

Now again you bring the gods in. Leave them! You just use that to discredit. I have a complete theory for the cosmos. That should suffice. — Hillary

I did not bring gods alongside physics, you did! You invented them and you try to convince others they exist, just like you are trying to convince others your version of physics is correct. You want the two posits to be unrelated but THEY ARE NOT, as you claim gods made physics!

How can it be absorbed? Are there photons in electrons. No. — Hillary

From quora:
It happens as follows :

Photons from the Sun strike your skin .
In this process, they may collide with the electron .
The electron gains energy from the photon and gets promoted to a higher energy state .
The electron then stabilizes itself by releasing energy .
This energy is nothing but the warmth or heat energy that the sun makes us feel .

How can it be absorbed? Are there photons in electrons. No — Hillary

What happens when an infrared photon from the sun hits your skin? Does your skin absorb the photon as heat energy?

I knew you would say this! — Hillary

I try not to dissappoint!

but thats because most stick to the mass haucination — Hillary

Or in other words 'that which is much more credible and more likely to be correct.'

Because not being very enlightened or because of lost esteem, or even career. Money! — Hillary

People in glass houses should not throw stones! Are you suggesting that all those on the fringes of physics have no interest in status, esteem, career, money etc. :roll:
If you want to judge others then expect to be judged by others, that's only fair!

Untill now, they havent succeeded! :lol: Note even one! :lol:

Loose bullets, only. Only softly touching.

And approval from the expert! Look here

And don't say, "that's only one!".. — Hillary

I think they have succeeded very well.
I looked at your link. You merely provided your answer to the question:
Is string theory only the stuff of speculation and hypothesis?

I would have broadly answered yes to that question myself but I would have added that it has a lot more credibility than the suggestion that gods made the Universe.
Where was your answer approved by an expert?
I would suggest most 'experts' and most physics laypeople would broadly answer yes to that question.
I also think most would answer 'yes' to 'can photons be absorbed?'
How many physics experts answered no to that question?