A universe without God.

[lifegazer]

Let's examine existence without God...

Without God, there is no primal-cause for existence. A primal-cause is, by definitive default, the only determining factor of existence. Such a cause has no external needs or influences in the creation of effects occuring within it. If we apply reason to the term "primal cause", it soon becomes apparent that we are in fact talking about God itself.
Hence, without God, there is no primal-cause within existence.

The absence of a primal-cause means that everything in existence is an effect. Who amongst you wants to defend this absurd position? I'll wait for rational responses. If none are forthcoming, I shall destroy the position anyway and show you that there is a primal-cause = there is a God.

 

[Zero]

*Yawn*

Aren't you tired of a life without the medications you so sorely need to function rationally?

*Yawn again*

 

[DarkMagician]

Let's examine existence without God...

Without God, there is no primal-cause for existence. A primal-cause is, by definitive default, the only determining factor of existence.

Okay, that doesn't make a lick of sense. If a primal-cause is the only determining factor of existence, then what made God? If God "always exists", then why cant the universe "always exist" in some form or another.

*snip*
Hence, without God, there is no primal-cause within existence.

The absence of a primal-cause means that everything in existence is an effect.

Who amongst you wants to defend this absurd position?

Yours or mine?

I'll wait for rational responses. If none are forthcoming, I shall destroy the position anyway and show you that there is a primal-cause = there is a God.

Yeah, feh.
Atheists, be amazed. Your lack of faith is in dire trouble. </monotone>

 

[Iacchus]

Let's examine existence without God...

Without God, there is no primal-cause for existence. A primal-cause is, by definitive default, the only determining factor of existence. Such a cause has no external needs or influences in the creation of effects occuring within it. If we apply reason to the term "primal cause", it soon becomes apparent that we are in fact talking about God itself.
Hence, without God, there is no primal-cause within existence.

The absence of a primal-cause means that everything in existence is an effect. Who amongst you wants to defend this absurd position? I'll wait for rational responses. If none are forthcoming, I shall destroy the position anyway and show you that there is a primal-cause = there is a God.

Indeed, that seems the most rational definition for constituting the existence of God. If there was nothing there in the first place, absolute "Zero" in other words, then how can something arise from "it" in the second place?

Hence it would be much easier to "accept" a primal cause, as opposed to saying "something" (the universe) just arose out of nothing.

I agree, I don't think the materialists have a leg to stand on.

 

[El Greco]

Iacchus has found a friend!

Iacchus + lifegazer =

 

[Iacchus]

Okay, that doesn't make a lick of sense. If a primal-cause is the only determining factor of existence, then what made God? If God "always exists", then why cant the universe "always exist" in some form or another.

Are you saying there had to be something there in the first place, or not?

Which of the two sounds more plausible? That something has always been there? Or, that everything arose out of nothing?

And what happens to cause and effect? Don't you believe in that?

 

[DarkMagician]

Iacchus has found a friend!

Iacchus + lifegazer =

I was thinking something more graphic, but posting a pic would violate several rules on this forum...

...not to mention, a couple of laws.

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus has found a friend!

Iacchus + lifegazer =

No, it's just that his line of inquiry is too easy. Even a five year old can figure it out.

 

[DarkMagician]

*snip*
And what happens to cause and effect? Don't you believe in that?

Look in any science textbook for anything along the lines of "For every effect, there must be a cause." You'll probably end up not finding any.

 

[Iacchus]

Look in any science textbook for anything along the lines of "For every effect, there must be a cause." You'll probably end up not finding any.

In other words you're saying there was "nothing" there in the first place, right?

 

[Upchurch]

two words: quantum fluctuations

 

[Upchurch]

I was thinking something more graphic, but posting a pic would violate several rules on this forum...

Don't make me get mod-evil on your backside.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Lifegazer, here are the two questions you need to answer:

1. Is there a reason there is something rather than nothing?
2. If yes, what is the reason there is something rather than nothing?

If you think up answers to these questions, that is called philosophy. If you find evidence for your answers, then you will be famous.

~~ Paul

 

[triadboy]

What if - for the sake of argument - the universe expands and collapses on itself eternally - no beginning , no end. There is no primal cause - the only recognizable cause is the expansion and the collapsion (huh?). The universe is a circle. In this case, there is no reason for a god.

 

[gentlehorse]

two words: quantum fluctuations

Yes indeed. Spacetime is swarming with them. They're everywhere, randomly cluttering up the universe. Er, no offense intended, Mr. Moderator, Sir, but what of 'em?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by lifegazer If we apply reason to the term "primal cause", it soon becomes apparent that we are in fact talking about God itself.

"Primal Cause" is a man-made idea. That there must be a first cause to everything is just a fabrication that describes the limits of your thinking.

Why must there be a primal cause?

 

[Iacchus]

two words: quantum fluctuations

And how does "nothing" fluctuate? ... from nothing to something? If so, then it must be the "something" which gives rise to the fluctuations.

 

[Dancing David]

With apologies to LifeGazer, the following is meant for entertainment purpose solely. It is not meant to reflect upon the JREF or any of it's posters, and as to God well I am sure he will take it well...

Let's examine the body without God...

Without God, there is no digestion for the body. A digestion is, by definitive default, the only determining factor of the body. Such a cause has no external needs or influences in the creation of effects occuring within it. If we apply reason to the term "digestion", it soon becomes apparent that we are in fact talking about God itself.
Hence, without God, there is no digestion within the body.

The absence of a digestion means that everything in the body is an effect. Who amongst you wants to defend this absurd position? I'll wait for rational responses. If none are forthcoming, I shall destroy the position anyway and show you that there is a digestion = there is a God.

 

[DarkMagician]

In other words you're saying there was "nothing" there in the first place, right?

Why'd there have to be nothing? You all should know about the Law of Conservation of Mass. I'm not the one claiming that there was nothing. "Either God always exists or the universe came from nothing" is called a false dichotomy.

 

[Iacchus]

Why'd there have to be nothing? You all should know about the Law of Conservation of Mass. I'm not the one claiming that there was nothing. "Either God always exists or the universe came from nothing" is called a false dichotomy.

Do you believe in cause and effect or not? If so, then how can nothing in the first place (cause) give rise to something (effect) in the second place?

Whereas if you insist that there must have been something there in the first place but, in "effect" it wasn't God, then this is just as idiotic.