A universe without God.

[RussDill]

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.

Your closed little mind never wants to accept the concept that when someone says this, they mean the universe as a whole, not the parts.

 

[RussDill]

Saying it means Jack.

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

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?

Sigh, you didn't even read his post. He said that if you say that, then why not say the universe is accausal.

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.

Right...we have a, the primal cause being completely random, unitelligent, unorganized stuff, or b, a supreme intelligent being that exists for no reason at all.

 

[RussDill]

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.

You keep trying to argue against points people aren't making. It is sad really.

 

[RussDill]

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.

paranoia paranoia everybody's coming to get me just say you never met me i'm going underground with the moles….put me in the hospital for nerves and then they had to commit me you told them all i was crazy.

Right lifegazer....They are all out to get you.

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.

Umm...this coming from you? the "I don't have a freakin' clue how stereoscopic vision works, so god did it" lifegazer?

 

[DarkMagician]

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

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

Y'know, with lifegazer's assertion that "the universe is God," this post becomes a pretty good flame.

 

[RussDill]

The infinite regression of effects nonsense, in one of its guises.

There can be no yield or effect that is dependent upon the culmination of an infinite number of other effects that have no origin. This post, for example, cannot be the yield of an infinite number of past effects without an origin. Something must have instigated the primal-act of events which culminated with this post. Therefore, there is a primal-cause.
Before anyone mentions Cantor, please note that those infinities are contained within sets with an origin and an end.

All your arguments apply equally to any god, except that when we attempt to apply them, you say, no no no, wait, god is the "primal-cause" therefore the arguments don't apply to him. That is just a bunch of meaningless handwaving. I can do the same thing with the universe.

 

[RussDill]

This conversation should proceed upon the back of reason. Those of you claiming that the big-bang came from ~nothing~ in its absoluteness, are absolutely devoid of that aforementioned trait.
Something cannot proceed from, nor enter into, a state of absolute nothingness. Those of you claiming that the universe came from and replaced a state of nothingness are completely and utterly insane, rationally speaking.

Do not use the term "nothing" in this conversation unless you want to defend your insanity.

Where does the number Pi come from? It certainly exists and has all sorts of properties, what caused it? Where did the equation x = 4y come from? Where did the story "moby dick" come from, what caused it, did it exist before it was written down? Will it exist after it is forgotten? None of these things came from a state of nothingness, nor proceed to a state of nothingness. The universe is no different. It is a logically consistent system, so it exists.

 

[RussDill]

Re: Quantum waffle.

It amuses me when people blurt out nonsense such as "Two words: quantum fluctuations.", as a counter to the argument that there is a primal-cause.

The indeterminism exhibited by quanta is not a proof that this energy emanates from nothing and acts without cause or primal-force. Such reasoning is absurd (see my previous post). Indeed, quanta depends upon the existence of spacetime, for starters, before it even does whatever it does.

So here you claim that things that occur with no apparent cause is not proof enough.

The indeterminism exhibited by quanta is only a proof that this energy emanates from a source which has free will.

But here you claim that it proves your alternate explaination. Interesting. So anything that has two explainations, one of them being yours, is only proof of yours? And the alternate explanation is automatically wrong? Sorry LG, you are too far gone. Why would the mind sit there and care about all these virtual particles?

Indeed, the probablistic order exhibited by quanta as it progresses towards the classical order of our perceptions, is a proof that there is a certain order imposed upon this free energy, by the source of that energy itself. We are talking Self-ordering energy of a source with free will.

Umm...no, its already been explained that the only reason we have a classical order of things is because we are a lot bigger than atoms. Just like relativistic effects, we move way too slow

An entity is either an effect or a primal-cause. There are no other choices. And ultimately, an entity that is the effect of a primal-cause will exhibit essential indeterminism within its nature, simply because it has been effected by a source with free will (a primal cause has free will by definitive default. Ask if you don't understand why), whose own energy is essentially indeterminable. It is impossible to predict what a primal-cause will do or can do. Therefore, its energy is indeterminable.

So....with this argument, why can't the existence of the universe be the primal cause? Also, the random effects of QM are by freewill, why could their probabilities be predicted by
feynman diagrams. Seems a little silly, predicting the free will of a supreme being.

Put simply, it should have been predicted eons ago that the energy yielding this existence should possess a base indeterminancy. In 1800, for example, I might have said something like "The conclusion that there is a primal-cause infers the prediction that the essential energy of this existence should possess a base indeterminisn." I.e., philosophy might have predicted QM long before science ever got there.

But QM isn't just about indetrminism, there is still excating probability within it. You wouldn't be able to predict free-will like that. It would be like postulating, without ever seeing you eat ice cream, that exactly 65.43202093820% of the time, you will choose chocolate. And then observing your ice cream choices millions of times, and seeing it match. Doesn't sound like free will to me.

But never mind, we understand now.

They wants to take out precciiouuuss

 

[Dancing David]

Yep, something from nothing. This is the latest breaking scientific evidence, huh?

No thanks, I'd rather believe that something comes something else.

Iachuss, if you weren't so stuck on your tiny little premise, you would have noticed that I didn't say it came from nothing. But then that would be you engaging in rational and meaningful discussion which obviosly is not your interest.

Lets recap your mindless drivel shall we:

Yep, something from nothing. This is the latest breaking scientific evidence, huh?


Either you didn't do a google search on vacum energy, or your are just plain lacking in brains. Both vacum energy and inflation theory have an implication that the something of the universe came from something.
So maybe you just had another spiritual rebirth which would explain you ... um... lack of maturity.

No thanks, I'd rather believe that something comes something else.

***** ** *** ****** your **** *** ** your **** ****you would realize, some of us have agreed to.
But you are just some demented ****** ***** who gets off on riding a high horse. If you want to talk then it means trying to at least understand the other person, I am seriously thinking that exchanging ideas with you is pointless.


What a twit you are at least LifeGazer reads and tries to understand what other people post.

 

[Dancing David]

Lifegazer:
Why does the primal cause have to be single, as we discussed before, it could be multiple. Why not primal causes?

 

[RussDill]

And yet all I see is one or two choices here or, perhaps both?

Quantum fluctuations = Free will ... Yes, that does make a lot of sense.

(read the ice cream stuff previous to this post)

 

[RussDill]

I would appreciate it if you didn't clutter my proof of God's existence with irrelevant cackle. Thankyou.

Now, are there any rational counters to my arguments here, or shall we sound the trumpets?

In your view, there cannot be in rational arguments. You have already excepted your philosophy as the only truth. You yourself don't even question it. Anything that disagrees with your philosophy from your point of view is not rational. Its like talking to someone who has accepted jesus as their saviour, to them, there can be no other truth.

There have been plenty of rational argument, but you sit there, sing lalalalalal, and don't question anything.

 

[RussDill]

And don't you think the laws which set the Big Bang in motion would have existed first?

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

 

[RussDill]

Is anyone in this forum going to present a rational argument to show that an existence full of effects needs no primal-cause?
That's the bottom-line. Time to get serious. God awaits.

Nope, sorry lifegazer. From your point of view, no one will ever, ever, present a rational argument. As long as you are absolutely convinced that a rational argument doesn't exist, you will never see one, so stop looking.

 

[RussDill]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Quantum waffle.

I've already addressed this issue. If a primal-cause exists amongst "the universe itself", then the universe is God. I shall more, again, in a mo...

ok, but it is time you address the statement when it is talking about the universe itself, not things amoungst the universe. You keep arguing against points people aren't making and then claiming victory. It would be like david slaying goliath's squire and claiming victory.

"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." [original post, page 1]

The energy of such a primal-cause is shown to be free energy, since it is free from any external influences or internal obligations. The cause itself is shown to exhibit free will in the creation of the proceeding effects of time. It's rationally impossible to argue a case for the existence of a primal-cause that does not have free will. Hence, it's rationally impossible to argue for the existence of an entity which has free will, but lacks self-awareness and purpose.

It's very very easy to show why a primal-cause must = God.

The only reason that primal-cause must be god is that you included god in your definition. You could include the existence of the universe in the definition instead.

Then it is God.

OK, then the universe itself is god, and the universe exists. If you want to call the universe god, feel free. But that means that A) God didn't create anything, and B) god is not sentient in any way.

 

[RussDill]

http://schoolsite.edex.net/323/science/html/radioactivity.html
snippet:
"The decay constant describes the proportion of atoms in the isotope which will disintegrate within a certain time period. It is impossible to predict which atoms will decay. However, it is easy to state with a high degree of precision, what proportion or fraction of them will decay.
Half life describes the amount of time it takes for the amount of a radioactive isotope to decay by a half. The strange thing is, is that no matter how much of the isotope exists at the start of the timing, it always takes the same amount of time for half of it to decay."

... evidence of imposed order. Hardly the work of "nothing".

This is similar to claiming that order is imposed on Pi. The digits within Pi are random. If you wanted a random number generator, just pick somewhere in Pi and start pulling out digits. You don't know what the next digit will be.

The stange thing is, is that no matter what digit you start at, given enough digits, you always end up with each digit apearing one tenth of the time.

... evidence of imposed order. Hardly the work of "nothing".

 

[Iacchus]

Iachuss, if you weren't so stuck on your tiny little premise, you would have noticed that I didn't say it came from nothing. But then that would be you engaging in rational and meaningful discussion which obviosly is not your interest.

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.

Either you didn't do a google search on vacum energy, or your are just plain lacking in brains. Both vacum energy and inflation theory have an implication that the something of the universe came from something.

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.

So maybe you just had another spiritual rebirth which would explain you ... um... lack of maturity.

***** ** *** ****** your **** *** ** your **** ****you would realize, some of us have agreed to.

But you are just some demented ****** ***** who gets off on riding a high horse.

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

If you want to talk then it means trying to at least understand the other person, I am seriously thinking that exchanging ideas with you is pointless.

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

What a twit you are at least LifeGazer reads and tries to understand what other people post.

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.

 

[Iacchus]

Your claim lacks any substance. It is nothing more than a subjective assertion.

Yes, and who is capable of anything more?

 

[Zero]

Yes, and who is capable of anything more?

Lifegazer claims to be able to, and so do you...that is the main strike against the two of you.

 

[calladus]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A universe without God.

Guess what - we finally agree upon something.

Calladus, I answered this question on page 1:
"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?"

I saw that. I also saw that it started with a faulty assumption that has ended up in a lot of tail chasing.

If you want to feel superior to someone? Go purchase a puppy to kick around. Maybe that will satisfy your pseudo-intellectualism. Then maybe you can learn some simple logic yourself.

Are you assuming God has no primal effect? Do you argue that everything requires a primal effect? This is circular logic. You instantly destroy your own argument, and then blindly walk on, oblivious, preforming mental mastrubation.

pfft. This is why I usually just skip a "Lifegazer" thread - you like to see yourself in print too much to make any real sense.