A universe without God.

[lifegazer]

Wow, 2 1/2 years I have known lifegazer, and he is STILL a moron...does he get points for consistency?

Always good for a laff is our Zero. I'd like to have a beer with you one day. You never know.

"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?"

A primal-cause is not the same thing as an effect, by default. Why are you having problems seeing that? Perhaps you've had a few too many already.

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.

What?
Everything you can see is an effect and/or is dependent upon other things/effects.
So, since you want to argue against the position that there is a primal-cause (God), do so. How can effects come into existence without a cause?

 

[lifegazer]

Good. You finally managed to say something that makes sense in this thread

You finally spoke to me. You have now lost your credibility with the chicks. Send them to lifegazer@...

 

[Iacchus]

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!

Well if I'm Lifegazer's sockpuppet, then you're the sockpuppet of everyone on else on this board, aside from the fact that you're a ... Oh, nevermind!

 

[Dancing David]

In this thread, I shall argue that a body of effects requires a digestion = God.

Now, digestion is acausal, by definitive default. Therefore, if a digestion bodies, 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 digestion came from because the question only has relevance to an effect.
Do you and all the other skeptics in here understand this simple logic?

 

[DarkMagician]

Everything you can see is an effect and/or is dependent upon other things/effects.

Um, I put this up as an example of something happening without a cause. Before you make the "everything must have a cause" assertion, try to successfully argue against this:

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.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Iacchus asked:
Are you saying there was "nothing" before the Big Bang? Not even time?

There was nothing of this universe, nothing of this time. What else there might have been is probably impossible to know.

~~ Paul

 

[Tricky]

That's a complete lie. Sue me if you want to. The evidence in this thread will mean you are wasting your dough.

LOL. I wouldn't think of suing you, lifegazer. I would guess that my chances of you having any money are roughly the same as of you having any intelligence.

Which arguments would they be? Perhaps you are talking about upchurch's "two words: quantum fluctuations" so-called-argument?

I take it you are unaware of what quantum fluctuations are. They are rock-solid evidence of things happening without "primal cause". That is unless you can give us some good evidence as to what causes them. If you can, then you will not only win this debate, but the Nobel Prize for Physics.

Other than that, I can only see the usual insults and naivity.
Where's your own argument, btw? Is this it? LOL

Well, Upchurch's argument is a slam dunk in your face. However, since you are evidently immune to scientific evidence, I give you one of my favorite syllogisms. If you accept premise one and premise two, then you must accept the conclusion. If you disagree with one of the premises, then tell me why. (Beleth has been through this exercise already.)


Premise 1: Everything real has a primal cause
Premise 2: God is real
Conclusion: God has a primal cause

Which one of those premises do you disagree with? Be ready to defend your position.

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.

Ban me? For what reason? For insulting you? If insults were forbidden, you would have been gone a long time ago. But I have no wish (or ability) to destroy you. You have a vital task here, which is to serve as a bad example. Keep up the good work.

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.

Oh, I am plenty sincere. I simply cannot agree to your terms, your definitions and your, for lack of a better word, logic. If you want brainless copies of yourself to debate with, then you had better get busy making some sock puppets, you posturing pseudointellectual.

 

[El Greco]

You finally spoke to me. You have now lost your credibility with the chicks. Send them to lifegazer@...

I'm finally beginning to understand what you mean by "primal cause": It's what everybody else calls "testosterone".

 

[Iacchus]

I take it you are unaware of what quantum fluctuations are. They are rock-solid evidence of things happening without "primal cause". That is unless you can give us some good evidence as to what causes them. If you can, then you will not only win this debate, but the Nobel Prize for Physics.

But how do they fluctuate? Between "what" and "what?" And what are the "two whats" that are the cause? So all you're suggesting is we don't understand what the "two whats" are.

 

[Iacchus]

There was nothing of this universe, nothing of this time. What else there might have been is probably impossible to know.

~~ Paul

How can you say such a thing, if that "what else" never existed? ...

 

[triadboy]

There is still a 'god of the gaps' in this thread.

What a theist doesn't understand becomes 'god'.

 

[triadboy]

I noticed Lacchus and Lifegazer didn't comment on the expanding/collapsing universe. Is this thing on? (tap tap tap)

I didn't make this up - this is Hindu cosmology.

 

[Iacchus]

There is still a 'god of the gaps' in this thread.

What a theist doesn't understand becomes 'god'.

No, in order for God to exist He would have to be the primal-cause. And thus far no one has illustrated to the contrary that a primal-cause does not exist.

 

[DarkMagician]

No, in order for God to exist He would have to be the primal-cause. And thus far several people have illustrated to contrary that a primal-cause does not exist but I'm going to continue to stick my head in the sand.

*sigh* a post-fixer's work is never done.

 

[Iacchus]

*sigh* a post-fixer's work is never done.

Okay, which is it then?

 

[Tricky]

But how do they fluctuate? Between "what" and "what?" And what are the "two whats" that are the cause? So all you're suggesting is we don't understand what the "two whats" are.

This link might help

You'd have to get Upchurch to give you a better explanation, but my simple understanding is that the "fluctuations" are random perturbations of the geometry of the universe, so you could possibly say that they fluctuate from being predictable to unpredictable. Their randomness indicates that there is no primal cause for them. That is why I say if you can actually determine a cause, then you are in line for the Nobel Prize. (But they probably won't accept "God's Plan" as the cause.)

I would not be so egomaniacal as to claim that I know they have no primal cause, but there is one heck of a lot of evidence for that. Meanwhile there is no evidence of Lifegazer's assertion that there must be a primal cause for every non-god thing. His "evidence" is his assertion. That is simply not good enough.

 

[Iacchus]

This link might help

You'd have to get Upchurch to give you a better explanation, but my simple understanding is that the "fluctuations" are random perturbations of the geometry of the universe, so you could possibly say that they fluctuate from being predictable to unpredictable. Their randomness indicates that there is no primal cause for them. That is why I say if you can actually determine a cause, then you are in line for the Nobel Prize. (But they probably won't accept "God's Plan" as the cause.)

Are these things which would have occurred before or after the Big Bang? Of course how could I even conceive of such a thing if the Big Bang were IT?

I would not be so egomaniacal as to claim that I know they have no primal cause, but there is one heck of a lot of evidence for that. Meanwhile there is no evidence of Lifegazer's assertion that there must be a primal cause for every non-god thing. His "evidence" is his assertion. That is simply not good enough.

Because it's so much easier to say that something came from nothing which, is quite acceptable then, right?

 

[DarkMagician]

Okay, which is it then?

Again, you are putting up a false dichotomy.
"God always exists, or we all came from nothing."
Why can't the universe be always existing in one form or another, like a perpetual universe?
Or several "strings" cross to create our universe?

 

[Tricky]

Are these things which would have occurred before or after the Big Bang? Of course how could I even conceive of such a thing if the Big Bang were IT?

I don't know. As far as I know there is no evidence either way. However, I will resist calling my ignorance "God".

Because it's so much easier to say that something came from nothing which, is quite acceptable then, right?

Quantum fluctuations seem to indicate that something does come from nothing. All the time. Although this does not reveal the mechanism of the Big Bang, it does at least remove the false premise of primal cause.

 

[Iacchus]

Again, you are putting up a false dichotomy.
"God always exists, or we all came from nothing."
Why can't the universe be always existing in one form or another, like a perpetual universe?
Or, several "strings" cross to create our universe?

Or, what if I said a primal-cause does exists, or else we all came from nothing? And what is it about the Big Bang then, which most "theorists" claim to be the primal-cause? ... which in effect says everything stems from nothing?