A universe without God.

[Iacchus]

How are laws without a universe any more than ideas? And don't ideas exist whether someone is thinking about them or not?

So, if matter springs from energy, wouldn't that also be tantamount to saying the material springs from the immaterial?

This is what I would suggest to you, is that the immaterial was there before the Big Bang.

 

[DarkMagician]

If you don't think I have evidence to back up my premise that God exists, then you're sadly mistaken. Now, whether I can explain it in a way that you can understand well, that might be another story?

However, to stress the need for a primal-cause is much more substantial than saying nothing existed before the Big Bang which, is just a "convenient" way of not addressing the issue.

How many times does it need to be said? Time as we know it didn't exist before the big bang, so according to our perceptions of time, there was no "before the big bang"! There wasn't even a "nothing." You constantly refer to it as an empty filing cabinet instantly being filled, while we say the filing cabinet didn't exist before it was filled, while it could be a filing cabinet that's always full, yet compacts once in a while to appear non-existent to everyone, then pops right back out into a full filing cabinet.

Also, why haven't you people proven your assertions that:
a. A primal-cause is necessary and
b. That primal-cause is God.

Either way, it still doesn't by-pass the need for a primal cause. Or does it? All I can suggest is that there had to be something there to oversee the Big Bang.

I have one question for you:
Why does there need to be someone to oversee it?

No, I just get tired of hearing all the crap about "where's the evidence?"

How about giving us actual evidence instead of the meta-evidence and circular reasoning that have constituted your posts.

 

[Iacchus]

How many times does it need to be said? Time as we know it didn't exist before the big bang, so according to our perceptions of time, there was no "before the big bang"! There wasn't even a "nothing." You constantly refer to it as an empty filing cabinet instantly being filled, while we say the filing cabinet didn't exist before it was filled, while it could be a filing cabinet that's always full, yet compacts once in a while to appear non-existent to everyone, then pops right back out into a full filing cabinet.

How convenient ... the lack of evidence "is" the evidence. Boy, that's even worse than tyring to prove the existence of an immaterial God.

 

[Zero]

How convenient ... the lack of evidence "is" the evidence. Boy, that's even worse than tyring to prove the existence of an immaterial God.

No, the lack of evidence is where we intelligent people say "hey, we don't know, but here's a good guess based on what we do know", or even "hey, maybe this portion of the evidence is inaccessable to us, no matter what we do".

You and navelgazer say 'goddidit', and pretend it is a real answer.

 

[Dorian Gray]

My Two Cents

Only one primal-cause for existence can exist, and it must be God.

What is the primal-cause for God. Why will you refuse to accept that the universe is its own cause, yet gleefully accept that God is its own primal cause?

Your example is dead.

God is dead.

A primal-cause exhibits free-will. It has to, otherwise it cannot be the primal-cause of the effects it produces. Think about it.

What is the definitive default definition of "primal-cause' versus 'primal cause'? Why is the hyphen necessary?

Look, if you just were to say "I believe God exists and is the cause for everything, and no one can sway me from this belief" that would be fine. But you are trying to scientifically prove your belief, and failing. Everyone has refuted all your arguments, but no one can refute your beliefs. Why don't you just stick with beliefs?

It's just a matter of deduction. A primal-cause has no external needs = no external abode = is not finite in nature = is essentially boundless. A primal-cause creates everything within it... thus we have an omnipresent cause. Being the sole cause of all effects, a primal-cause is also omnipotent.

Can you not see that this argument works equally well for the universe?

If you take away free-will from a primal-cause, then what else causes it to produce the effects it creates?

(variation on a theme) If you are arguing that God has will, then wouldn't God's will be the primal cause, not God? You have logically argued that God is not the primal cause of everything, but rather God's will

Yahweh wrote:Effect: The rocks are undergoing radioactive decay.

Cause: ... ... ... ...

Don't you know that anything you can't explain must have been caused by God? It saves so much time and energy and work and you don't have to think at all!

DarkMagician wrote: I hate it when people only see the first post of a thread and just joins into the fray with a question that's been shot at them to death.

Think of them as grunts/cannon fodder/zergs/swarms/expendables/insert your video game reference here. They play a small but cumulative part in defeating the 'Boss'.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lifegazer
Saying it means Jack.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Then I shall chalk all your statements up to Jack as well.

So now Jack is the primal cause?


Lifegazer, your arguments are weak, flawed, circular, based on false premises and argued poorly. You contradict yourself by saying that there is no primal cause for God, but everything has a primal cause. You have huge gaps in your logic, and you fill them with language and terms that you invent on the spot - then you act superior and/or indignant when challenged.

You are wrong.

 

[Zero]

Don't forget the false dilemma: either the universe all happened by accident, or lifegazer's specific fantasy most be 100% true.

 

[DarkMagician]

Re: My Two Cents

What is the primal-cause for God. Why will you refuse to accept that the universe is its own cause, yet gleefully accept that God is its own primal cause?

That's the $64,001 question.

Look, if you just were to say "I believe God exists and is the cause for everything, and no one can sway me from this belief" that would be fine. But you are trying to scientifically prove your belief, and failing. Everyone has refuted all your arguments, but no one can refute your beliefs. Why don't you just stick with beliefs?

Yep, they've done nothing but play a horrible game of Jargon.

Don't you know that anything you can't explain must have been caused by God? It saves so much time and energy and work and you don't have to think at all!

It's pretty damn funny when he claims the universe is God.

Think of them as grunts/cannon fodder/zergs/swarms/expendables/insert your video game reference here. They play a small but cumulative part in defeating the 'Boss'.

Well, when you put it that way...

Lifegazer, your arguments are weak, flawed, circular, based on false premises and argued poorly. You contradict yourself by saying that there is no primal cause for God, but everything has a primal cause. You have huge gaps in your logic, and you fill them with language and terms that you invent on the spot - then you act superior and/or indignant when challenged.

You are wrong.

Our case in a nutshell.

 

[RussDill]

So, if matter springs from energy, wouldn't that also be tantamount to saying the material springs from the immaterial?

This is what I would suggest to you, is that the immaterial was there before the Big Bang.

energy is not immaterial, so no. There was no "before" the big bang, just like space, time is finite and unbounded

 

[Iacchus]

energy is not immaterial, so no.

It's not matter is it? ... Then what is it? I suspect this may have been what the Big Bang was all about ... one huge conversion of energy into matter ... from whence we derive our materialistic world, and all the materialistic "meat-heads" which inhabit it.

There was no "before" the big bang, just like space, time is finite and unbounded

You have the audacity to say this and then demand that I prove to you that God exists. And you want to call me a lunatic? The shouts of The Bacchae draw ever near ...

 

[Iacchus]

No, the lack of evidence is where we intelligent people say "hey, we don't know, but here's a good guess based on what we do know", or even "hey, maybe this portion of the evidence is inaccessable to us, no matter what we do".

You and navelgazer say 'goddidit', and pretend it is a real answer.

But the fact of the matter is you have no evidence. Now isn't that something?

 

[Donks]

But the fact of the matter is you have no evidence. Now isn't that something?

Look up "cosmic microwave background" on google.

 

[Iacchus]

Ecstasy - 230th Post

Excerpt from Robert A. Johnson's, Ecstasy, Understanding the Psychology of Joy ...

Western civilization praises the orderly life. We have a healthy skepticism that insists "seeing is believing." Our world is built on thinking, logic, progress, and success, and within these limits we feel secure. But today even our scientists tell us that these limits are illusory. Quantum physics shows us "the dancing universe; the ceaseless flow of energy going through an infinite variety of patterns." This is the Dionysian energy, the dance of the Maenads, the power of life that flows through all of us and unites us with heaven and earth. - Published in the year 1987.

Hmm ... the 230th post on this thread, just as there were 230 Years between the years 1757 and 1987 which, were the beginnings of the Swedenborg Era (5th Church) and the Dionysian Era (6th Church) ...

 

[Iacchus]

Look up "cosmic microwave background" on google.

Donks? It's funny how I just read about Dionysus arriving on the back of a donkey. Hence it would seem "yours" is the 230th post and mine is the 231st (and 232nd here). Also, did you notice how both our posts were posted at the same time? ...

Excerpt from Robert A. Johnson's, Ecstasy, Understandng the Psychology of Joy ...

Dionysus himself got drunk only once, and he didn't like it. To cure his wine-induced madness he went for a visit to Zeus's shrine. One story has it that he bogged down in quicksand and was saved by a donkey, who took him raving and drunk -- but safe nonetheless -- to Zeus. As recompense Zeus gave the donkey human speech. The other story, which I like much better, is that Dionysus turned into a donkey and arrived at Zeus's shrine braying, which became human speech. So when we get drunk enough to get this jackass aspect going, we are no longer candidates for ecstasy. Our humanness is lost.

 

[Zero]

YAY!!! We knew Iacchus would turn retarded at some point...we've apparently reached that point!

 

[sackett]

Re: Re: Quantum waffle.

They wants to take our precciiouuuss

God d*mmit, Russ -- Excuse me, PrimalCause it! You made me laff my first slup of coffee all over the screen! Are YOU going to clean it up? Noooooo, you're just going to sit there goading that poor soul, what's his name? IceScraper? I hope you're good and ashamed of yourself! (I bet you're not.)

 

[CWL]

[potshot mode]

In respnse to Iacchus claim that one of Tricky's arguments "were rather circular" Yahweh wrote:

What makes you say that?

The argument is not circular at all.

My guess is that Iacchus has picked up the term as a cool thing to say in a debate and is now making a poor attempt at using it himself. I refer to this post of mine.

[/potshot mode]

 

[Dancing David]

If you don't think I have evidence to back up my premise that God exists, then you're sadly mistaken. Now, whether I can explain it in a way that you can understand well, that might be another story?

See you are so stuck on your tiny island that your island is all that you can see.

My response to you was in regards to the 'something from something, not something from nothing' line of debate. But here you are talking about god.
Um,, is god relevant to the something and the nothing?

You evidently suffer from either loose associations or something. maybe nothing. I haven't been the one hacking on you about god, you screw that up on your own.

However, to stress the need for a primal-cause is much more substantial than saying nothing existed before the Big Bang which, is just a "convenient" way of not addressing the issue.

And you make all these asumptions about a promal cause that are totaly anthrocentric and very unimaginative. When it comes to speculation about things that can not be observed, it helps to show some originality.

And again you must be some kind of narrow minded geek because here again you say:
saying nothing existed before the Big Bang
which is not something that I said, you are just in a rut and not a very creative one. When did I say 'something came from nothing' oh, thats right you read the word vacum and your brain stalls out.
For all we know the creation of the universe was accidental or a side effect of some other creation.



Either way, it still doesn't by-pass the need for a primal cause. Or does it? All I can suggest is that there had to be something there to oversee the Big Bang.

And that just shows that you are a monkey that has to project monkey onto everything you see. The primal cause could be accidental, the primal cause could be acausal, the primal cause could be plural. You don't siggest, you demand and then put words in my mouth.
A primal cause is indeterminant, we can't know what it is at this time, speculation at best, so show some creativity at least!

Now please tell me who's demonstrating their lack of maturity here?

At least i don't go and keep putting words in your mouth that you didn't use, and maybe the stared words are compliments.


No, I just get tired of hearing all the crap about "where's the evidence?"

Why? Because there is none, or you just can't state it in a fashion that others understand, there is no evidence of the nature of the primal cause.
There could be a primal cause, but it might be acausal.

If the Grand Geometer gets up from the Drawing Board to have a Nummy Snack and the Cosmic Cat spills the Inkpot upon the Grand Design, then we could be just an unintended blot upon the Grand Design.

Not to mention the Mighty Crumbsnathcher!


Don't take it too personally, I was just looking for the opportunity to rub somebody's nose in it, well at least a little.

Yeah , which is what I said, you are not even communicating, you are arguing with yourself, and not very well at that.

 

[Dancing David]

So, if matter springs from energy, wouldn't that also be tantamount to saying the material springs from the immaterial?

This is what I would suggest to you, is that the immaterial was there before the Big Bang.

Oh, you foolish mortal! All that exists is energy, matter is energy, everything is energy. The material world is energy and therefore material.

 

[Dancing David]

It's not matter is it? ... Then what is it? I suspect this may have been what the Big Bang was all about ... one huge conversion of energy into matter ... from whence we derive our materialistic world, and all the materialistic "meat-heads" which inhabit it.

No imagination ! If you care to open your shuttered windows you might find that matter is a perceptual name placed upon nergy. I will start with a simple question:
When you sit on a chair, why doesn't your butt hit the floor?

If you read about the early universe you might learn some stuff that would give you even cooler ideas. Like unity.



You have the audacity to say this and then demand that I prove to you that God exists. And you want to call me a lunatic? The shouts of The Bacchae draw ever near ...

Hey if the shoe fits you can wear it, but your foolish believe that matter is something different from energy shows that you cling to your mommy's skirts and hide behind them.

 

[Dancing David]

Double post representing the false nature of the wave particle duality.