A universe without God.

El Greco said:
Iacchus has found a friend!

Iacchus + lifegazer =
love-smiley-009.gif
Click to expand...
Change your name to mister superficial and p*** off.
 
Lifegazer: The Big Bang needs a cause.

Person: Such as?

Lifegazer: God is the primal-cause.

Person: Why can't the Big Bang be the primal-cause?

Lifegazer: Because the Big Bang needs a cause. I call that God, the primal-cause, which needs no cause.

Person: Why can't we call the primal-cause the Big Bang?

Lifegazer: The Big Bang needs a cause, so it's not primal.

Aagh! My new Turingometer!

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Person: Why can't we call the primal-cause the Big Bang?
Click to expand...
Because what caused the Big Bang then?

That's a pretty arbitrary explanation for the current state of our affairs don't you think? ;)
 
A primal-cause for all effects must exist.
This is the basis of my argument.
Further, I argue that a primal-cause = God.

So basically, you have to argue that a primal-cause does not exist. So do it. It's important. This is not a game.
 
lifegazer said:
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.
Click to expand...
sig_occam.gif
 
DarkMagician said:
sig_occam.gif
Click to expand...
This is not an assertion my friend. It's a fact: a primal-cause is not an effect... and hence has no cause... and hence: God is.

Deal with it. Grow up. Walk away from the sheep mentality. You have one life... don't waste it on things.
 
lifegazer said:
A primal-cause for all effects must exist.
This is the basis of my argument.
Further, I argue that a primal-cause = God.

So basically, you have to argue that a primal-cause does not exist. So do it. It's important. This is not a game.
Click to expand...
You have made no argument at all. You have only made a statement of your belief, supported by no evidence whatsoever. All of the arguments put forth by those here trying to show why there need not be a primal cause have had no effect upon your deeply held but unsupported belief. It is simply impossible to change a mind that is not being used.
 
Lifegazer: The Big Bang needs a cause.

Person: Such as?

Lifegazer: God is the primal-cause.

Person: Why can't the Big Bang be the primal-cause?

Lifegazer: Because the Big Bang needs a cause. I call that God, the primal-cause, which needs no cause.

Person: Why can't we call the primal-cause the Big Bang?

Iacchus: Because what caused the Big Bang then?

Person: The same thing that did or did not cause God.

Lifegazer: A primal-cause for all effects must exist.
This is the basis of my argument.
Further, I argue that a primal-cause = God.
So basically, you have to argue that a primal-cause does not exist. So do it. It's important. This is not a game.

Person: Why do you argue that, rather than that the primal-cause is the Big Bang?
 
Iacchus said:
Amen to that brother! :D
Click to expand...
The saddest and most ironic thing is that science pursues brain-melting string-theories as the fundamental cause of existence.
... Regardless of the fact that 1-dimensional or 2-dimensional entities cannot exist as tangible (real) entities beyond conception.
 
lifegazer said:

Change your name to mister superficial and p*** off.
Click to expand...

Good. You finally managed to say something that makes sense in this thread
action-smiley-033.gif
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Person: Why do you argue that, rather than that the primal-cause is the Big Bang?
Click to expand...
Are you saying there was "nothing" before the Big Bang? Not even time?

Hmm ... How can I even conceive of a continuum such as time then?
 
lifegazer said:

This is not an assertion my friend. It's a fact: a primal-cause is not an effect... and hence has no cause... and hence: God is.

Deal with it. Grow up. Walk away from the sheep mentality. You have one life... don't waste it on things.
Click to expand...
Let's play a little game.
The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of entropy in a system must always increase, correct?
So the only way to decrease the entropy in a system is to do something to the system (ie, make it non-isolated) and in-fact make a cause to create an effect, right?
The Poincare Recurrence Theorem says that the particles in a system will eventually, given enough time (which is a lot), return to original positions and velocites, thus decreasing the entropy.
BUT WAIT! That'd be in opposition to the Second LoT! Plus, it doesn't require a non-isolated system to decrease entropy. An effect without a cause.

In short, go "sleep with" yourself.
 
Wow, 2 1/2 years I have known lifegazer, and he is STILL a moron...does he get points for consistency?

"A primal cause has no cause of its own...why? Because if it did, it wouldn't be called a primal cause, now would it?"

That's all you've got after 2 1/2 years? The stupidest argument in the world? It IS stupid, BTW, and obviously so, because it asks for an exception to be made to the rules, for the sole purpose of forcing the illogical to make sense.
 
Tricky said:
You have made no argument at all. You have only made a statement of your belief, supported by no evidence whatsoever.
Click to expand...
That's a complete lie. Sue me if you want to. The evidence in this thread will mean you are wasting your dough.
All of the arguments put forth by those here trying to show why there need not be a primal cause
Click to expand...
Which arguments would they be? Perhaps you are talking about upchurch's "two words: quantum fluctuations" so-called-argument?
Other than that, I can only see the usual insults and naivity.
Where's your own argument, btw? Is this it? LOL
have had no effect upon your deeply held but unsupported belief. It is simply impossible to change a mind that is not being used.
Click to expand...
This forum should ban people such as you from posting in this particular forum. You have no intention or desire to discuss the issues. It's your sole intent to use propoganda to destroy me and (hence) my philosophy.
The one obstacle between you and your objective is that you come across as completely dumb and insincere in your efforts. Go away. Come back when you take me seriously.
 
Did you see that?!? Navelgazer said he had evidence!! He doesn't, of course, he just has more assumptions and unfounded assertions...



...maybe we should all chip in and get him some lithium and a dictionary?
 
Zero said:
Wow, 2 1/2 years I have known lifegazer, and he is STILL a moron...does he get points for consistency?

"A primal cause has no cause of its own...why? Because if it did, it wouldn't be called a primal cause, now would it?"

That's all you've got after 2 1/2 years? The stupidest argument in the world? It IS stupid, BTW, and obviously so, because it asks for an exception to be made to the rules, for the sole purpose of forcing the illogical to make sense.
Click to expand...
Or, maybe the whole thing is just arbitrary, you know, like the beginning of existence? If so, then may I ask why you are getting so upset? You shouldn't let "nothing" bother you Zero. ;)
 
Iacchus said:
Or, maybe the whole thing is just arbitrary, you know, like the beginning of existence? If so, then may I ask why you are getting so upset? You shouldn't let "nothing" bother you Zero. ;)
Click to expand...
Howdy sockpuppet.

It is a shame to see (another?) person give their life to idiocy...try to stay in the light, don't give in to lifegazer-style idiocy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom