A universe without God.

[DarkMagician]

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.

Are you dumb, or just faking it.

And what materialist said there was nothing in the first place! Can't the universe always exist in one way or another?

I'd call you an idiot, but it would be an insult to idiots everywhere.

 

[Cecil]

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

Events can cause other events to occur, but this doesn't imply that all events must have a cause. In fact, millions of particles per cubic centimetre spontaneously appear out of the vacuum every second and then annihilate with each other. These are uncaused events. Cause and effect tends to hold at the macroscopic level, but on a very small scale reality doesn't work that way.

The general theory for the origin of the universe involves this process, called virtual particle pair creation. Space itself was expanding so rapidly in the early universe that the particles were flung away from each other before they could annihilate. Now, it is possible that a "god" provided the initial "spark", but it doesn't make any difference. Causality breaks down in a singularity, so whatever existed "before" the universe cannot have any influence over the events since then.

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

It does. We have observed this. I could go into theories about Higgs fields and vacuum energy, but I'll keep it simple. Just try to understand that the human mind is built to understand reality on a macroscopic level, and the universe does not necessarily behave the same on all scales. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it false. Very few people understand the leading edge of particle physics today, but our current theories are around because they explain what we see in experiments.

 

[CWL]

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.

You and Lifegazer has been dodging one very simple and important question, which your own line of reasoning inexorably gives rise to. Your argument stands (and falls) with the proposition that everything must with necessity have been created - that everything must have a "cause". Well then, my theistic friends, please do riddle me the following:

WHO OR WHAT CREATED GOD?!?

Don't ignore it. I guarantee you it will not go away.

 

[El Greco]

And if you want some help with CWL's question, I'll give you a hint:

Personally I had nothing to do with God's creation.

 

[lifegazer]

Your argument stands (and falls) on the proposition that everything must with necessity have been created - that everything must have a "cause". Well then, my theistic friends, please do riddle me the following:

WHO OR WHAT CREATED GOD?!?

Don't ignore it. I guarantee you it will not go away.

In this thread, I shall argue that an existence of effects requires a primal-cause = God.

Now, a primal-cause is acausal, by definitive default. Therefore, if a primal-cause exists, it is actually stupid to pursue your line of enquiry. No offense intended, but I must shock you out of the stupor you are in. You cannot ask where a primal-cause came from because the question only has relevance to an effect.
Do you and all the other skeptics in here understand this simple logic?

 

[El Greco]

Ok, then primal-cause = Big Bang.

Plain old archetypical unconceivable big bang.

 

[CWL]

And if you want some help with CWL's question, I'll give you a hint:

Personally I had nothing to do with God's creation.

Nor did I. Some nomadic desert tribe about 3.000 years ago is a much better bet...

In this thread, I shall argue that an existence of effects requires a primal-cause = God.

Yup. That's what you argue.

Now, a primal-cause is acausal, by definitive default. Therefore, if a primal-cause exists, it is actually stupid to pursue your line of enquiry. No offense intended, but I must shock you out of the stupor you are in. You cannot ask where a primal-cause came from because the question only has relevance to an effect.

So you are saying "God" is accausal? Well if you can say that, I can I simply say that the Universe as such is accausal.

That means that Occam's Razor just cut your "God" out of the picture, my friend. Hey, I'm just playing by your own rules...

Do you and all the other skeptics in here understand this simple logic?

I certainly do not understand your "logic", no. But it certainly does appear to be rather simple, yes.

 

[DarkMagician]

In this thread, I shall argue that an existence of effects requires a primal-cause = God.

Now, a primal-cause is acausal, by definitive default.

So, why do we need it?

Therefore, if a primal-cause exists, it is actually stupid to pursue your line of enquiry.

So, prove it exists, instead of "Well, every cause needs an effect, so we need one to not have a cause. Oh no, it can't be an infinite cycle of causes and effects. And we can't have you thinking that the universe acausal either. We can't let you do those awful, awful things!"

No offense intended, but I must shock you out of the stupor you are in. You cannot ask where a primal-cause came from because the question only has relevance to an effect.

In other words, special pleading.

Do you and all the other skeptics in here understand this logical sham?

FIXED!

 

[Iacchus]

Ok, then primal-cause = Big Bang.

Plain old archetypical unconceivable big bang.

Okay, But what caused the Big Bang!

Are you saying there was "nothing" before this, not even time?

 

[DarkMagician]

Okay, But what caused the Big Bang!

Are you saying there was "nothing" before this, not even time?

Um, if there wasn't time before the big bang, wouldn't there be no "before the big bang"?

I just have to drag this quote out of my sig:
"There is no hope for humanity. Reason is dead and we dance on the corpse. Tra la la la la!" --c4ts

 

[frisian]

I am a theist, anyhow...found this article interesting.

http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-04/cover/

Argh, nevermind...you need to be a subscriber to get the whole article. It was related to explaining the big bang with naturalistic theories.

 

[El Greco]

Are you saying there was "nothing" before this, not even time?

I'm not "saying" anything, but in the context of all the wild hypotheses formulated in this thread, yes, there was nothing before big-bang, not even time.

If you argue that this is impossible, then you tell me what was before god.

Or, otherwise, do you accept an acausal start as lifegazer did, or not ?

 

[Iacchus]

Events can cause other events to occur, but this doesn't imply that all events must have a cause. In fact, millions of particles per cubic centimetre spontaneously appear out of the vacuum every second and then annihilate with each other. These are uncaused events. Cause and effect tends to hold at the macroscopic level, but on a very small scale reality doesn't work that way.

And yet all that suggests is we don't "understand" what the cause is.

The general theory for the origin of the universe involves this process, called virtual particle pair creation. Space itself was expanding so rapidly in the early universe that the particles were flung away from each other before they could annihilate. Now, it is possible that a "god" provided the initial "spark", but it doesn't make any difference. Causality breaks down in a singularity, so whatever existed "before" the universe cannot have any influence over the events since then.

But it does make a difference, otherwise what the heck are we arguing about?

It does. We have observed this. I could go into theories about Higgs fields and vacuum energy, but I'll keep it simple. Just try to understand that the human mind is built to understand reality on a macroscopic level, and the universe does not necessarily behave the same on all scales. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it false. Very few people understand the leading edge of particle physics today, but our current theories are around because they explain what we see in experiments.

Again, you don't know what to apply this fluctation to, which isn't to say a "cause" doesn't exist.

 

[lifegazer]

two words: quantum fluctuations

Two words: ha ha.

Seriously, if you think quantum indeterminism gets you out of this hole, then you're in deep water my slippery friend.
Do you want to argue that quantum events are primal-causes, or what? Bring it on. I've heard it all before.

 

[DarkMagician]

Bring it on. I've misunderstood it all before.

FIXED AGAIN!

 

[Iacchus]

I'm not "saying" anything, but in the context of all the wild hypotheses formulated in this thread, yes, there was nothing before big-bang, not even time.

If you argue that this is impossible, then you tell me what was before god.

Or, otherwise, do you accept an acausal start as lifegazer did, or not ?

Yes, and here we are left with something from nothing again.

 

[lifegazer]

If a primal-cause is the only determining factor of existence, then what made God?

Read my previous post. The questions which apply to effects do not apply to a primal-cause. This is obvious when you think about it.

If God "always exists", then why cant the universe "always exist" in some form or another.

The universe is comprised of its effects. Not a primal-cause in sight. Do you want to argue that a primal-cause is not required for all the effects within the universe (existence)? Then do so. Then I shall destroy your argument.

 

[El Greco]

Yes, and here we are left with something from nothing again.

Indeed. Exactly the same as the God theory. Because every argument about God can also be applied to Big Bang.

I respect everyone's beliefs but God can't be proved logically. And as we already know, the burden of proof is on the one who's making the claim.

 

[Iacchus]

Indeed. Exactly the same as the God theory. Because every argument about God can also be applied to Big Bang.

I respect everyone's beliefs but God can't be proved logically. And as we already know, the burden of proof is on the one who's making the claim.

Yes, so there must have been a primal-cause then right? If so, then what is the primal-cause? If, in fact it hasn't "always" existed?

 

[lifegazer]

So you are saying "God" is accausal? Well if you can say that, I can I simply say that the Universe as such is accausal.

Saying it means Jack.
We're discussing the existence of a primal-cause (of changing existence) here. If you read my first post, I argue that the definitive-default of a primal-cause = God. I.e., if a primal-cause exists, then God exists.
So, do you believe a primal-cause exists or not?

That means that Occam's Razor just cut your "God" out of the picture, my friend. Hey, I'm just playing by your own rules...

Occam's razor looks for the simplest reasons for effects, right?
Well, Occam's razor surely supports the idea that the simplest explanation of all effects is the existence of a singular primal-cause = God. Reason cannot doubt this.
Thus, Occam's razor has, on this date (31st January 2004) shaved God's chin.