A universe without God.

[RussDill]

I think you misunderstood me in the previous post when I forgot to include the "caused" ...

"So what -- i.e., there has to be a 'what' which came before -- caused the Big Bang then?" In other words ... "What caused the Big Bang then?"

Nothing had to come before, and nothing had to cause it. Just like an idea, the universe simply exists, without reason, with out cause, and without time. Time is part of the universe, the universe does not exists within a stream of time.

Yes, but isn't it possible to remain perfectly still and still allow time to pass?

Particles happily decay without movement.

Yeah that makes sense, especially when there's no resistence in space.

You failed to see the point. And there is resistence in space, as well as pressure.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm totally frustrated. I cannot be bothered answering any more of your stupid questions.

That would be totally understandable if you actually answered it...

Fact of the matter is, you're now subdividing that which you once said was indivisible. You now have "God" and "things". Things have causes, you said, and God does not. But you have also said that things are God. So, once again, we have a contradiction.

T = things
G = God
C = has causes

T = C
G = ~C
G = T
:. ~C = C

still a pretty black and white contradition.

 

[RussDill]

Because maybe total non-existence never was?

It is like asking what is 15,000 miles away on the earth. You just go round and round.

 

[RussDill]

And yet what about future reference points, when a standard is developed after the Big Bang? Wouldn't it be possible to project a before the Big Bang at that point? Hey I don't see why not, because here we are doing it right now.

Possibly, but right now, it doesn't seem likely that it makes sense to ask. It would be a question of the ancients similar to, what is beyond the heavens? If one reached the end of the heavans, and stuck out a staff to a point beyond the heavans, where would it go?

 

[lifegazer]

That would be totally understandable if you actually answered it...

Fact of the matter is, you're now subdividing that which you once said was indivisible. You now have "God" and "things". Things have causes, you said, and God does not. But you have also said that things are God. So, once again, we have a contradiction.

T = things
G = God
C = has causes

T = C
G = ~C
G = T
:. ~C = C

still a pretty black and white contradition.

Things are what exist within God's perception. They are unreal in themselves... yet they are really in God's awareness.

God is the cause of things seen within that awareness. Therefore God is the primal-cause and things are the effects.

Let's not do the ritual tango over this. And let's just concede to the stupidity of asking for the cause of a primal-cause.

 

[Upchurch]

And let's just concede to the stupidity of asking for the cause of a primal-cause.

Fine with me, just show that God must be the primal-cause as opposed to, say, quantum fluctuations.

 

[Beleth]

Here's one of my replies:
"Why are there so many bozos out there who ask where God came from (the question assumes God's existence that the question may be answered), when God is equated to the primal-cause of that existence?
Do you not understand that it is moronic to enquire as to the cause of a primal-cause?"

You know what?

You're right.

If you are using the word "God" to mean the same thing as "the primal cause of existence", then yes, "God" has no cause, and "God" caused everything else to exist.

It's all a matter of definition. If that's all you mean when you say "God", and that's all Upchurch means when he says "quantum fluctuations", then the last million pages on this subject have been nothing but a semantic misunderstanding.

But here's the kicker.

From previous threads we have read your work in, we know that that's not what you mean when you use the word "God". You mean something other than merely "the primal cause." Usually, when you post, you state that some sort of reverance should be paid to this primal cause.

You are trying to buy into your definition of "God" by the old bait-and-switch routine. You say here that "God" is synonymous with "the primal cause," but elsewhere say that "God" is something entirely different.

And that's what we're not buying into.

We know you are going to pull this bait-and-switch tactic on us if we allow you to convince us that "God" and "the primal cause" are equivalent, but we know that you don't believe that yourself, so we don't let you fool us.


Yes. There was a primal cause. There was a cause that was not an effect of something else. We owe our existence to that primal cause. You are right as far as that goes.

But there is no way to tell whether that primal cause has any sort of sentience or not;
there is no reason to believe that that primal cause has any influence over us today;
and there is no reason to believe that that primal cause desires, requires, or requests us to worship it.

And we know that that is what you are going to try to trick us into believing we admitted to.

 

[lifegazer]

Fine with me, just show that God must be the primal-cause as opposed to, say, quantum fluctuations.

Okay. To do this, I shall have to clearly show that a primal-cause possesses the qualities of will, boundlessness, omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, omnicreativeness.
Then you shall know that a localised event or finite entity cannot be a primal-cause.
But I need a break. I shall try later tonight or tomorrow.

 

[Upchurch]

Okay. To do this, I shall have to clearly show that a primal-cause possesses the qualities of will, boundlessness, omnipresence, omnipotence, omniscience, omnicreativeness.
Then you shall know that a localised event or finite entity cannot be a primal-cause.

 

[lifegazer]

Meet your God.

There are two distinct aspects to this conversation. Firstly, does an existence full of effects have an absolute-origin via a primal-cause? This is probably the easiest aspect to argue for... since how can anyone seriously argue for infinite regression of cause (= no cause)? I'm even prepared for those of you wishing to mention the mathematics of Cantor - the infinities of which relate to closed sets/systems - whereas we here discuss the possibility of an open set (without origin), which claims to have a multitude of end-products (all the specific effects or events which make-up perceived existence)(even existence as it is perceived is effected).
Not too many of you (unsurprisingly, since it is the obviously-rational option) have argued against the existence of a primal-cause. So for now, I'm going to concentrate on the second aspect of this conversation: what is a primal-cause?

... The term is well understood: "Primal-cause" is actually reducible to the only cause. An entity, for example, cannot be the primal-cause of existence (or of any system of related effects), if other entities have contributed to that existence/system.
So, the first conclusion becomes brightly apparent to our gaze: a primal-cause is a SINGLE ENTITY. This is important, hence the emphasis and re-emphasis. Truly it is: a primal-cause is absolutely singular. Please engrave this upon your memories for as long as you live: A primal-cause is absolutely-singular = INDIVISIBLE, by nature. I cannot emphasise, enough, how significant this is to this whole issue... so I will not apologise for repeating myself or for over-emphasising this conclusion.
*A primal-cause is the only cause = a singular cause = an indivisible cause.*

What else can we say about a primal-cause? Well, as it is the only cause of existence, we can know that nothing else embraces it. I.e., that there is no external reality to it. I.e., that a primal-cause is the absolute whole of existence.
We can know these things because a primal-cause cannot be a primal-cause if its own existence is dependent upon other realms/dimensions and/or entities (a primal-cause cannot depend upon an external reality (have an abode)).
We can actually say that Primal-cause Is.
If a primal-cause exists, it embraces all existence. Nothing else does. So, only the primal-cause actually exists.
Moreover, the effects of a primal-cause MUST exist within it. This is obvious since there is no external (to it) reality. So, all things reside within the primal-cause.

Matters already become highly interesting at this point, since we've already substantiated that a primal-cause is an absolutely-singular and indivisible entity. Therefore, by simple default, the effects of a primal-cause can only exist as illusionary-effects, within perception (of a mind). If the primal-cause is absolutely singular, effects that reside within it can only do so by means of illusionary-perception. An indivisible entity is not distanced from itself. I.e., there is no such thing as two separate points within an indivisible entity. Therefore, where two points are seen, they must be illusions within a mind (of that entity).

Anything else? Yes! A primal-cause embraces the whole of existence and is responsible for every-thing created within it. So, we can say that a primal-cause is definitely omnipresent. Also, the forces of existence emanate from It... hence, we can say that a primal-cause is also an omnipotent being.

Not convinced of God yet? Okay, I shall now argue for the existence of will. By default, this argument (if successful) proves the existence of awareness and intelligence and purpose. There can be no will without these traits.
So, in the beginning there was the primal-cause.
Then, that primal-cause acted to effect the succession of things.
How?
...By itself. There was nothing else.
... Meaning, ultimately, by self-will.
It's really that simple. Only the primal-cause exists... it acts... therefore, it wills that act.
Will is a requirement for a primal-cause to act. Think about it - there are no other entities or forces around. There cannot be, or else we are not within the realm of a primal-cause... and yet, that's where we are as we discuss this matter. So, if the primal-cause acts, what causes that act? The simple answer is: Itself alone.
It is absolutely impossible for a primal-cause to act, absolutely by itself, without will. How could it? What OTHER causes would you invoke for this act?!!
Therein lies the evidence of will: there is no other. Therefore, the entity must choose to act for itself.

Those of you who accept the existence of a primal-cause for our existence, have this day met your God.

 

[Zero]

*Yawn*

Meds, lifegazer...look into them.

And then maybe read a book or two so you don't come off as being supremely ignorant as well as wrong.

Everything you post reads like it is a summation of a 500-page dissertation, where you leave out the supporting logic and evidence for the sake of brevity. The problem is, there is no supporting logic or evidence, and you are simply stringing together unfounded assumptions.

 

[RussDill]

I see you've once again given up on confronting arguments head on and instead have just repeated your assumptions and provided arguments against things that no one has claimed. If you wish to ignore all the gaping holes in your philosophy, and want to think that posts like the above will magically make them go away, I suppose it is your perogative.

 

[Zero]

I see you've once again given up on confronting arguments head on and instead have just repeated your assumptions and provided arguments against things that no one has claimed. If you wish to ignore all the gaping holes in your philosophy, and want to think that posts like the above will magically make them go away, I suppose it is your perogative.

What's next on the lifegazer schedule? I know it goes from restating assumptions to accusing us of being narrow minded, then a couple of misrepresentations of scientific viewpoints, then we get a few more assertions, serious insults, attempts at humor, and then a half-day break before restarting the cycle...


Have I missed anything?

 

[RussDill]

What's next on the lifegazer schedule? I know it goes from restating assumptions to accusing us of being narrow minded, then a couple of misrepresentations of scientific viewpoints, then we get a few more assertions, serious insults, attempts at humor, and then a half-day break before restarting the cycle...


Have I missed anything?

The paranoia

 

[Zero]

The paranoia

Oh yeah, and the messianic blathering comes at some point too, towards the end of the cycle..how could I forget?!?

 

[lifegazer]

5 posts between two of you, and not one relevant to my argument. Please go away you sad gits.

 

[RussDill]

5 posts between two of you, and not one relevant to my argument. Please go away you sad gits.

Just because you restated your assumptions doesn't mean that all previous arguments are erased. Just because you feel like repeating stuff doesn't mean we do. Course, you'll probably feel all justified anyway.

 

[lifegazer]

Just because you restated your assumptions doesn't mean that all previous arguments are erased. Just because you feel like repeating stuff doesn't mean we do. Course, you'll probably feel all justified anyway.

That's 6 posts between two of you, and none relevant to my post from tonight.
Address my argument or fade away. You're wasting my time and exhibiting the fact that you have nothing to offer worth addressing.

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Meet your God.

"Primal-cause" is actually reducible to the only cause. An entity, for example, cannot be the primal-cause of existence (or of any system of related effects), if other entities have contributed to that existence/system.

I disagree. "Primal-cause" only means that cause which has no cause itself. In essence, "primal-cause" is synonimous with "acausal". There is nothing in that definition that says a certain effect can not have multiple causes which, themselves, have no cause.

It may or may not be the case that our universe has only one primal-cause, but there is nothing in the definition of "primal-cause" that necessitates it. If you are going to assert that this is the case, you'll need to prove that there is only one primal-cause.

Since the rest of your argument is predicated on the claim that there is only one primal-cause to the universe, I'll let you defend that claim before I go on.

 

[Dancing David]

It could be that the primal cause did that, and then decided to fracture itself into a series of causes that are all independant of each other.

Then there is this question, if the primal cause becomes disolute in the process of becoming multiple causes, is it still the primal cause. I would argue yes, it was the primal cause, in that it originated as single and indivisible, but upon the assumtion of the multiple form it looses it's identity and becomes multiple primal causes.

Then there is the worse scenarion where a primal causes chooses to loose it's will.

Could we tell?