Why God does NOT require a cause
DragonI...@gmail.com
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
a cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support,
shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would
have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is
the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time.
Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has
no beginning in time-God is 'the high and lofty One that inhabiteth
eternity' (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.
Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian
Moron.
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
J Forbes
DragonInsura...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
> a cause.
the neat thing about god is that he's make-believe, so you can define
him however you want! any argument can be supported.
Jim
Santolina chamaecyparissus
> 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
> 2. The universe has a beginning.
> 3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
>
> By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
> a cause. The universe, however, does.
I have a way around that, which is to not accept one or more of your
premises.
Unless you give me a Radio Flyer.
DragonI...@gmail.com
Spoken like a true atheist.
Just looking for one of those "intellectual superiors" to address my
argument...
DragonI...@gmail.com
No, this is an argument for God. I'm defining him by scripture.
All insults, no honest debate.
How sad.
Free Lunch
DragonI...@gmail.com wrote in
<1174359787.6...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:
>1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
>2. The universe has a beginning.
>3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
>
>By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
>a cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
What evidence is there that such a god exists?
Conspiracy of Doves
Scripture is fairy tales invented by humans
Conspiracy of Doves
> 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
> 2. The universe has a beginning.
> 3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
>
> By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
> a cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
>
Explain why the cause of the universe has to be god.
Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
Dead on arrival. Radioactive decay.
> 2. The universe has a beginning.
The observable universe may have had a type of beginning.
> 3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
False conclusion.
>
> By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
> a cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
By definition the universe contains all that exists including causes and
effects.
>
> Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support,
> shows that time is linked to matter and space.
Attempt to extend a theory beyond it's realm of applicability rejected.
> So time itself would
> have begun along with matter and space.
Conclusion derived from false premise.
> Since God, by definition, is
> the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time.
Demonstrate that such a being exists and is a male.
Special pleading rejected. You cannot bring something into existence by a
definition.
Klazmon.
Olrik
Jim did not insult you. And he *had* an argument : "the neat thing
about god is that he's make-believe, so you can define him however you
want!"
Since your definition for "god" is derived from an old book, anything
is possible. It's just a concept.
Olrik
J Forbes
I offered no insults at all! I merely presented my understanding of
god, and a conclusion drawn from it. If you can do that, I can too,
right?
If you have some evidence which shows that god is not make-believe, I
would like to see it. Quoting scripture is not that type of evidence,
as scripture is merely a fairy tale, as far as I can tell.
Jim
Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th
@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Scripture is just human writing. It is of no value as far as existence
claims go without supporting evidence.
>
> All insults, no honest debate.
He posted no insults. Why tell lies.
>
> How sad.
Very sad that you would tell lies.
Klazmon.
>
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
"Llanzlan Klazmon the 15th" <Kla...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns98F99C2DBC694Kl...@203.97.37.6...
Good response.
I would have also asked what God was doing before
he created time. And how long was he doing it.
--
rb
J Forbes
DragonI...@gmail.com wrote:
> Just looking for one of those "intellectual superiors" to address my
> argument...
we're still waiting for you to present an argument!
that means having premises that you can support.
Jim
chibiabos
<DragonI...@gmail.com> wrote:
You want us to debate Snow White?
What did those dwarfs _really_ do for a living?
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
J Forbes
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
>
> I would have also asked what God was doing before
> he created time. And how long was he doing it.
Playing freecell. For a very long time...oh, yeah, no time yet.
Let's just say he played a lot of games.
Jim
quibbler
DragonI...@gmail.com says...
> 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
are just descriptive generalizations. Anyway, at best you say that some
things that have beginnings have causes and then you attempt to broaden
this conjecture to postulate that everything that begins has a cause.
This is a theory, not a premise.
> 2. The universe has a beginning.
False. The singularity could have existed for all eternity with no
beginnning. Expansion began the present space-time, but there could have
been others.
> 3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
False. Just
>
> By definition, God is eternal
Not all god definitions require this.
> and outside nature.
False. God has a nature and the sum total of all natures is Nature.
Therefore god is necessarily part of Nature.
> He does not require
> a cause.
Incorrect. The cause of god is merely overactive imagination.
Now you've tried to define god in such a way that he already exists, but
that was what you needed to prove, not what you get to fiat as part of
your definition. In any event, we could still postulate an eternal
simultaneous cause of an eternal being, which might be the existence of
space-time itself.
> The universe, however, does.
That hasn't been shown, since you haven't shown that the universe didn't
always exist in some form. You imply that you think the present universe
started according to some sort of ex nihilo, distorted version of big
bang cosmology, but the present universe is not necessarily all that
there ever was.
>This cause is God.
Non sequitur and speculation. Even if all your other assertions weren't
dubious, (which they are) then it would not follow that god must be the
"cause" of anything. You also haven't established that god is the only
thing which might exist which is uncaused. I know you might think you
took care of that by taking the universe to be everything that there is
and then making the special pleading that god is one thing outside of the
universe. But, if we grant that special pleading, we might as well grant
the special pleading that there is something else outside the universe
which is not god, but that caused/created the universe.
>
> Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support,
> shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would
> have begun
The present time line would have emerged from an expanding singularity.
However, the singularity still existed and was only infinitesimally
small. That is not the same as saying there was no space. So time and
space still existed inside the singularity.
> along with matter and space.
And what "space" did god exist in. Let me guess, you now have the
special pleading that god doesn't require any space/time in which to
exist. Then why can't we assume a myriad of other things which exist
with no space/time. Heck, if things can exist without space-time, then
what the fuck is the purpose of space-time to begin with?
> Since God, by definition, is
> the creator of the whole universe,
No, that his not his definition. Again, you are attempting to define
attributes for him which you were supposed to prove.
> he is the creator of time.
False. He cannot have caused time because (1) space-time existed in the
singularity (2) there is no time before time, so god cannot have been
temporally antecedent to time, as would be required for a cause and (3)
if god existed then he existed in some context, which means that the
spatiotemporal context which contained him had to exist for all eternity
as well. Time cannot have a creator. The reason that there can't be a
"time before time" (besides semantically) is that time is eternal.
Therefore there was always something spatially as well, since absolute
nothingness cannot exist.
> Therefore He is not limited
There is no "therefore" for you to conclude because what you have
asserted is not an argument. You have simply made one bizarre claim
after another. Now you are claiming that a creator is not limited by his
creation. Tell that to any engineer who often feels very limited by that
which they created.
> by the time dimension
It's not necessarily a limit.
> He created, so has
> no beginning
That doesn't follow either.
in time-God is 'the high and lofty One that inhabiteth
> eternity' (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.
Actually, you already asserted this and now you're attempting to conclude
what you asserted.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
Pete G.
news:1174359787.6...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Neat. If you actually had a 'god' to show us, we would all be *very
impressed*...
P.
J Forbes
quibbler wrote:
> And what "space" did god exist in. Let me guess, you now have the
> special pleading that god doesn't require any space/time in which to
> exist. Then why can't we assume a myriad of other things which exist
> with no space/time.
----------------------
nominated portion:
Heck, if things can exist without space-time, then
> what the fuck is the purpose of space-time to begin with?
---------------------------
seconds?
Jim
quibbler
DragonI...@gmail.com says...
Which "scriptures" define god in the precise way you claim. You only
cite one vague Isaiah reference at the end. Where do you get all the
other speculation?
>
> All insults
Which insults were those?
>, no honest debate.
I agree that your "debate" tactics are not honest. I guess you're going
to say I'm insulting you by using your own words.
>
> How sad.
Yes, your argument is very sad. You need to read up on some real
arguments, because you botched the present one rather badly (and no, that
isn't an insult, but a fact).
Mark K. Bilbo
> 2. The universe has a beginning.
Says who?
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
Pete G.
news:1174360496.0...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Then so much the worse for your 'God'. The bronze-age fairy story you call
'scripture' has *no status*.
>
> All insults, no honest debate.
>
> How sad.
'Honest debate' about *what*, exactly?!? You don't have a 'God' to show us,
cupcake. Just *empty words* from *an ancient fairy-story*.
Go find your 'God' for us, and then we'll listen. Until then, you're just
the latest brainwashed saddo in a long line of fools who thought they could
define a 'first cause' into existence without actually having one.
P.
Pete G.
>
>>Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support,
>>shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would
>>have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is
>>the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time.
Well, I've just been looking at your 'Bible', and I was interested to
discover that *it doesn't actually say* that this 'God' is 'the creator of
the whole universe'. Have a look for yourself, old bean, and tell us what
you think of what you read there.
http://www.rosicrucian.com/bible/01_gen.htm
Specifically, what do you think about all those 'waters' being there before
'creation', and about the land apparently being already under them as
well...? How did 'the spirit of god', or whatever, 'move upon the face of
the waters' *before the start of space-time*...?
P.
raven1
>1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
Wrong, but thanks for playing...
>2. The universe has a beginning.
We don't know that, as there is no way of knowing what preceded the
Big Bang.
>3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
As P1 is false, and P2 is tenuous, C is worthless.
>
>By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
>a cause.
Why not?
> The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
Which one?
>
>Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support,
>shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would
>have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition,
How do you know that your definition is correct?
> is
>the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time.
>Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has
>no beginning in time-God is 'the high and lofty One that inhabiteth
>eternity' (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.
Special pleading.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
raven1
There was nothing insulting about the above.
>
>How sad.
Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister
> 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
>
> a cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is The Gerbil that ate the old universe, then farted.
>
> Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support,
> shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would
> the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time.
> Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has
> eternity' (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.
IFYPFY.
Martin Phipps
also formed the conditions necessary for the existance of the
universe.
However, if we argue that God created the universe then we need to ask
"What created God?"
Because it easier to understand how the universe could come to be but
difficult to understand where an intelligent disembodied entity would
come from we use Occam's Razor and conclude that God never existed.
QED
Martin
Martin Phipps
Speak to a babboon then.
Martin
Martin Phipps
No intelligent person to debate with
>
> How sad.
Indeed.
Martin
Benjamin Franz
> 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
Not true. A basic of quantum physics is that events don't necessarily have
causes. A neutron decay, for example, doesn't have a 'cause'. It is
utterly and completely _random_. Virtual particles are completely
'uncaused'.
> 2. The universe has a beginning.
Unproven. I would argue even unlikely. Hawking's 'no boundaries' model,
for example, has no 'beginning'. It is also quite possible the universe
extends literally infinitely into the past. But even if it had a
beginning, given that premise #1 is false it doesn't actually matter.
> 3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
At least_ one of your premises is provably false, and the
other is probably false, your syllogism fails.
> By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
> a cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
And you know that 'God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
a cause' how? Oh, right: 'Proof by assertion'.
> Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support,
> shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would
> have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is
> the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time.
> Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has
> no beginning in time-God is 'the high and lofty One that inhabiteth
> eternity' (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.
Let's try something on for size here:
Idea #1: The universe is eternal and uncaused.
Idea #2: The universe is finite and caused by a *second* thing (let's
call it 'God') which is eternal and uncaused.
Occam's Razor suggests that given the choice between two ideas that give
the same result, pick the one requiring fewer 'entities'.
Hmmm...Idea #2 requires two things to explain the universe, Idea #1 only
requires one thing.
Guess which one I'm going to go with. ;)
--
Benjamin Franz
Elroy Willis
>1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
>2. The universe has a beginning.
>3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
>
>By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
>a cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
> So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since
> God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator
> of time.
Creating something requires time to create it. And if there's a plan,
then time is required to make the plan. You cannot have a god who
plans and creates things if there's no time present. Your argument
fails right there.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
Douglas Berry
DragonI...@gmail.com who stoppeth one in alt.atheism
><MAILTOsecret...@carcosa.de> wrote:
>> The same old bullcrap again.
>>
>> Moron.
>>
>> --
>> "To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
>> But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
>> (The Poetic Edda)
>> Must have been written with fundies in mind...
>>
>> My personal judgment of monotheism:http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
>
>Spoken like a true atheist.
>
>Just looking for one of those "intellectual superiors" to address my
>argument...
What argument? You're basically saying "God is whatever I say he is,
and I'm using a special pleading to avoiud the huge fallacy in the
"everything must have a creator" argument.
As for using Bronze Age writings as a basis for facts, may I point out
that Leviticus contains a cure for leprosy that consists of cutting
the heads of birds and smearing blood on people? Do you consider that
accurate?
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
Don Kresch
DragonI...@gmail.com let us all know that:
>1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
Kalaam has been refuted to death. Only the dumbest fucking
idiots believe that it's valid.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
justiz
wrote:
> On 19 Mar 2007 20:11:25 -0700 there was an Ancient
>
>
>
> >On Mar 19, 9:05 pm, "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian"
> ><MAILTOsecret...@carcosa.de> wrote:
> >> The same old bullcrap again.
>
> >> Moron.
>
> >> --
> >> "To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
> >> But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
> >> (The Poetic Edda)
> >> Must have been written with fundies in mind...
>
> >> My personal judgment of monotheism:http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
>
> >Spoken like a true atheist.
>
> >Just looking for one of those "intellectual superiors" to address my
> >argument...
>
> What argument? You're basically saying "God is whatever I say he is,
> and I'm using a special pleading to avoiud the huge fallacy in the
> "everything must have a creator" argument.
>
> As for using Bronze Age writings as a basis for facts, may I point out
> that Leviticus contains a cure for leprosy that consists of cutting
> the heads of birds and smearing blood on people? Do you consider that
> accurate?
> --
On behalf of absent christians I would like to point out that that is
an exact analogy of MDT used to cure leprosy today.
Christians will testify as to the authenticity of everything written
in the bible. The bible anticipated the cure.
Booo to you. You failed again. Why are atheists so stupid? Don't they
get it? The bible cannot be wrong.
Excuse me, I have to take my medicine now.
:)
Bush is mentioned in the bible.
Mark K. Bilbo
> On Mar 19, 9:05 pm, "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian"
> <MAILTOsecret...@carcosa.de> wrote:
>> The same old bullcrap again.
>>
>> Moron.
>>
>> --
>> "To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
>> But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
>> (The Poetic Edda)
>> Must have been written with fundies in mind...
>>
>> My personal judgment of monotheism:http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
>
> Spoken like a true atheist.
>
> Just looking for one of those "intellectual superiors" to address my
> argument...
No you're not.
Mark K. Bilbo
> On Mar 19, 9:05 pm, "J Forbes" <jforbnos...@selectric.org> wrote:
>> DragonInsura...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
>> > a cause.
>>
>> the neat thing about god is that he's make-believe, so you can define
>> him however you want! any argument can be supported.
>>
>> Jim
>
> No, this is an argument for God. I'm defining him by scripture.
>
> All insults, no honest debate.
Liar.
GoDrex
> > DragonInsura...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
> > > a cause.
> >
> > the neat thing about god is that he's make-believe, so you can define
> > him however you want! any argument can be supported.
> >
> > Jim
>
> No, this is an argument for God. I'm defining him by scripture.
>
> All insults, no honest debate.
>
>
where was the insult?
MarkA
> 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause 2. The universe has a
> beginning.
> 3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
>
> By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require a
> cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
>
> Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows
> that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun
> along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of
> the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited
> by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time-God is 'the
> high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity' (Is. 57:15). Therefore He
> doesn't have a cause.
90% of the Universe is made of something we can't even see; we can only
detect it's effects indirectly. We are so profoundly ignorant of most of
what there is to know about the Universe, it is the height of arrogance to
declare that "The Universe had a beginning" or "The Universe has a
'cause'." It is even more arrogant, if not sheer lunacy, to declare that
the god imagined by a group of Bronze Age goat herders must be that
'cause' the Universe supposedly requires.
Science is about learning and knowledge; religion is about ignorance and
superstition. Which do you think is a better tool for discovery?
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Robibnikoff
<DragonI...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174359787.6...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
> 2. The universe has a beginning.
> 3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
>
> By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
> a cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
What god?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
Robibnikoff
<DragonI...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> On Mar 19, 9:05 pm, "J Forbes" <jforbnos...@selectric.org> wrote:
>> DragonInsura...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > a cause.
>>
>> him however you want! any argument can be supported.
>>
>> Jim
>
> No, this is an argument for God. I'm defining him by scripture.
What god? And what is the objective, verifiable evidence that he/she/it
exists? Scripture doesn't meet those standards.
Robibnikoff
<DragonI...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174360285....@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 19, 9:05 pm, "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian"
> <MAILTOsecret...@carcosa.de> wrote:
>> The same old bullcrap again.
>>
>> Moron.
>>
>> --
>> "To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
>> But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood
>> meet."
>> (The Poetic Edda)
>> Must have been written with fundies in mind...
>>
>> My personal judgment of monotheism:http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
>
> Spoken like a true atheist.
>
> Just looking for one of those "intellectual superiors" to address my
> argument...
What "argument"?
Prove your god exists and then we'll talk.
DragonI...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 20:03:07 -0700, DragonInsurance wrote:
> > 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause 2. The universe has a
> > beginning.
> > 3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
>
> > By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require a
> > cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
>
> > Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows
> > that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun
> > along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of
> > the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited
> > by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time-God is 'the
> > high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity' (Is. 57:15). Therefore He
> > doesn't have a cause.
>
> 90% of the Universe is made of something we can't even see; we can only
> detect it's effects indirectly. We are so profoundly ignorant of most of
> what there is to know about the Universe, it is the height of arrogance to
> declare that "The Universe had a beginning" or "The Universe has a
> 'cause'."
Does that mean gravity isn't real? With your logic, we'll never know
anything.
DragonI...@gmail.com
example, Alpha decay is caused by an Alpha particle repeatedly hitting
a potential barrier until it tunnels through. Just because we can't
find the cause of an event does not mean there was no cause. Several
interpretations of Quantum physics provide a cause for all Quantum
events, and those that do not, simply do not care what the cause is.
One possiblity is that these events simply do not have a natural
cause, but a supernatural cause as suggested by General Intelligent
Design. In such a case, a search for a natural cause would fail to
find one. But that does not mean there is no cause.
MarkA
>>
>> 90% of the Universe is made of something we can't even see; we can only
>> detect it's effects indirectly. We are so profoundly ignorant of most
>> of what there is to know about the Universe, it is the height of
>> arrogance to declare that "The Universe had a beginning" or "The
>> Universe has a 'cause'."
>
> Does that mean gravity isn't real? With your logic, we'll never know
> anything.
Not at all. We can directly observe the effects of gravity, and its
behavior is absolutely consistent. We don't know what 'causes' gravity,
but it is very real. We cannot, however, observe the beginning of the
Universe, nor can we measure the properties of whatever preceded the
Universe. We are trying to piece things together 12 billion years after
the fact.
skyeyes
> On Mar 19, 11:03 pm, DragonInsura...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
> > 2. The universe has a beginning.
> > 3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
>
> > By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
> > a cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
>
And explain why, if God doesn't have to have a cause, the universe
does.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
I KILLED YOUR GOD---IT WAS FUN!
<DragonI...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> On Mar 19, 9:05 pm, "J Forbes" <jforbnos...@selectric.org> wrote:
>> DragonInsura...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > a cause.
>>
>> him however you want! any argument can be supported.
>>
>> Jim
>
> No, this is an argument for God. I'm defining him by scripture.
>
>
> How sad.
>
WE ARE RIGHT-AS USUAL-AND YOU AND THE REST OF YOU JESUS JUNKIES ARE HORRIBLY
INCORRECT-AS USUAL.
YOU HAVE NO PROOF-NONE-ZERO-ZILCH.
NO EVIDENCE=NOTHING TO DEBATE.
YOU WEIRDO'S WOULD BELEIVE ANYTHING.
WHAT YEAR IS THIS-AND WHY ARE YOU THIS STUPID?
Enkidu
@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
It does? Give evidence for this assertion.
> 2. The universe has a beginning.
It did? Give evidence for this assertion.
> 3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
It does? Why?
> By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
> a cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
If God does not require a cause, then not everything requires a cause.
If something does not require a cause, then the universe may not require
a cause.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"I'm all in favor of the democratic principle that one idiot is as good
as one genius, but I draw the line when someone takes the next step and
concludes that two idiots are better than one genius."
-Leo Szilard
Cary Kittrell
> DragonI...@gmail.com wrote in news:1174359787.642278.114210
> @b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> > 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
>
> It does? Give evidence for this assertion.
>
> > 2. The universe has a beginning.
>
> It did? Give evidence for this assertion.
>
> > 3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
>
> It does? Why?
>
> > By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
> > a cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
>
> If God does not require a cause, then not everything requires a cause.
> If something does not require a cause, then the universe may not require
> a cause.
Now, now, don't slow the boy down, hear? He's just proved
the existence of Bast. Totally made my day.
-- cary
Harry F. Leopold
(in article <1174364982.8...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
> aqotm nomination:
>
> quibbler wrote:
>
>> And what "space" did god exist in. Let me guess, you now have the
>> special pleading that god doesn't require any space/time in which to
>> exist. Then why can't we assume a myriad of other things which exist
>> with no space/time.
> ----------------------
> nominated portion:
>
> Heck, if things can exist without space-time, then
>> what the fuck is the purpose of space-time to begin with?
>
> ---------------------------
>
> seconds?
>
> Jim
>
Yes, I will second it.
--
Harry F. Leopold
aa #2076
AA/Vet #4
The Prints of Darkness
(remove gene to email)
łI have an inferiority complex, but it's not a very good one.ł -
Vintagewheels
DragonI...@gmail.com
cause.
If something does not require a cause, then the universe may not
require
a cause.
I never said EVERYTHING requires a cause. Only things that began. God,
or an ID in general, never BEGAN.
Doc Smartass
> Subject: Why God does NOT require a cause
'cause there's no god.
--
Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling
aa # 1939
AUTHORITARIANS ARE PERVERTS. Why?
--They consider themselves shepherds.
--They consider the rest of us sheep.
--Shepherds fuck sheep.
--Therefore AUTHORITARIANS ARE PERVERTS.
J Forbes
DragonI...@gmail.com wrote:
> I never said EVERYTHING requires a cause. Only things that began. God,
> or an ID in general, never BEGAN.
Finally, you made a factual statement...God, and ID in general, never
began....because they don't exist. They're make-believe.
Jim
johac
DragonI...@gmail.com wrote:
> 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
Assertion. (Quantum physics permits probabilistic events.)
> 2. The universe has a beginning.
Assertion. (Nothing in cosmology rules out a previous universe, for
example.)
> 3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
Unless you can support 1 and 2, 3 fails.
Even if the universe does have a cause, how can you prove that it was
not a natural cause? If your universe was caused by a god, how can you
prove that it was your god?
If the universe requires a cause, why does your god not require a cause?
>
> By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
> a cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
Where is you evidence that your god is outside nature, or that your god
even exists?
If your god exists, what evidence do you have that it created the
universe?
If your god exists and created the universe, by what mechanism did it
create the universe?
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
Martin Phipps
> In alt.atheism On 19 Mar 2007 20:03:07 -0700,
>
> >1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
>
> Kalaam has been refuted to death. Only the dumbest fucking
> idiots believe that it's valid.
No hold on here, he is talking about causality. Causality would
appear to be valid, the alternative being that things happen at random
and for no reason. The objection here would be to point out that some
things can ultimately be their own cause. Perhaps the universe is one
of them. I personally find the idea of the universe being its own
cause more satisfying than the other possibilities (1. there is no
cause, 2. the cause is God, 3. the universe existed in some form or
another for all time).
Martin
Martin Phipps
> The causes of radioactive decay are part of Quantum physics. For
> example, Alpha decay is caused by an Alpha particle repeatedly hitting
> a potential barrier until it tunnels through.
Actually, no. The "potential barrier" is not a real physical
barrier. It is analogous to the "barrier" a baseball would encounter
if it were thrown at anything less than escape velocity: as the
baseball can freely move inside the Earth's gravitational pull but
cannot go any further we could say that the baseball is trapped inside
a "potential barrier". The alpha particle here is analogous to the
baseball. The question is what enables the alpha particle to attain
enough energy to escape the atom's potential barrier. This is an
unexplained question in physics: the only "explanation" we have is
descriptive, namely that the alpha particle has a certain probability
of getting through the potential barrier; the lower this probability,
the larger the half life of decay.
Quantum mechanics perfectly well predicts the probability of decay
and, hence, the half life of radiactive isotopes but it doesn't say
WHY the decay occured. That being said, there is no reason to believe
that anything supernatural is taking place: indeed, we are talking
about a natural phenomenon, radioactive decay. The answer, instead,
may lie in changing your view of what constitutes cause and effect and
acknolwledging that causes may not always precede effects in time. In
quantum theory, it is believed that measurement affects the object
being measured so perhaps the reason why the radioactive isotope
decayed was because we observed the alpha particle: the observation of
the alpha particle outside of the atom requires the atom to have
decayed.
This makes perfect sense if you know about virtual particles: virtual
particles only become real when they interact with real particles and
real particles are considered real because we can detect them. In
quantum mechanics, the observer cannot be separated from the system:
it would appear as though real particles only behave a certain way
because we are able to observe them. Thus, the alpha particle in a
radioactive isotope before we observe it is not exactly analogous to
the baseball which is subject to the more restrictive classical
mechanics. That doesn't mean we completely understand the behaviour
of quantum particles, however, but only that we shouldn't be so quick
to describe their behaviour in classical terms.
Martin
Martin Phipps
Besides, the theory of gravity is a predictive theory whereas big bang
theory is not. This makes it hard to test experimentally. :)
Martin
Martin Phipps
> If God does not require a cause, then not everything requires a
> cause.
The cause of God is imagination.
> If something does not require a cause, then the universe may not
> require
> a cause.
True but one could equally well argue that the universe is its own
cause. That sort of thing happens in quantum mechanics. I suppose
these two sentences could be used as support for the (otherwise
unsupported) assertation that the universe started as a singularity
(in which case the beginning of the universe as we know it could have
been a quantum effect).
> I never said EVERYTHING requires a cause. Only things that began. God,
> or an ID in general, never BEGAN.
That's because it never existed.
Martin
Martin Phipps
> In article <1174359787.642278.114...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> DragonInsura...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
>
> Assertion. (Quantum physics permits probabilistic events.)
Technically, to say "quantum mechanics permits" sounds as though a
bunch of old men in the 1930s came up with quantum mechanics and now
the universe has to obey it. :) Quantum mechanics is a descriptive
theory: it describes how the universe behaves; it says nothing about
why the universe behaves that way.
What's more, quantum mechanics does not say that events happen without
cause. There is good reason to believe that the universe is both
causal and deterministic. What quantum mechanics does require is that
the universe not be predictable, but that is only because we have to
perform measurements to get the data we need to make predictions and
the act of measuring affects the system being measured.
> > 2. The universe has a beginning.
>
> Assertion. (Nothing in cosmology rules out a previous universe, for
> example.)
True. I personally prefer the idea of a universe which is its own
cause. (The other possibilites being 1) a supernatural cause 2) no
cause or 3) the universe has always existed in some form).
> > 3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
>
> Unless you can support 1 and 2, 3 fails.
>
> Even if the universe does have a cause, how can you prove that it was
> not a natural cause? If your universe was caused by a god, how can you
> prove that it was your god?
>
> If the universe requires a cause, why does your god not require a cause?
Oops! I don't think he can answer that. :)
> > By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
> > a cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
>
> Where is you evidence that your god is outside nature, or that your god
> even exists?
>
> If your god exists, what evidence do you have that it created the
> universe?
It's all moot because God was imagined by man. Even if we imagined
that something supernatural created the universe, why would it have to
be the imagined god of Abraham and not something else? It would
actually be a wildly improbable coincidence if the imagined god of
Abraham not only actually existed but was actually responsible for the
creation of the universe!
> If your god exists and created the universe, by what mechanism did it
> create the universe?
Like everything else, once you discover a natural reason for something
to occur, you no longer need a supernatural explanation.
Martin
thomas p.
> 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
>
> a cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
Your argument is circular. You assume that there is a god who does
not require a cause. You assume that the universe requires a cause.
>
> Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support,
> shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would
> have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is
> the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time.
> Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has
> no beginning in time-God is 'the high and lofty One that inhabiteth
> eternity' (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.
Which is totally meaningless unless you can prove that the universe
needed a cause or that that cause was supernatural.
johac
"Martin Phipps" <martin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2:00 pm, johac <jhachm...@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > In article <1174359787.642278.114...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > DragonInsura...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
> >
> > Assertion. (Quantum physics permits probabilistic events.)
>
> Technically, to say "quantum mechanics permits" sounds as though a
> bunch of old men in the 1930s came up with quantum mechanics and now
> the universe has to obey it. :) Quantum mechanics is a descriptive
> theory: it describes how the universe behaves; it says nothing about
> why the universe behaves that way.
In his recent book, "God: the Failed Hypothesis" Victor Stenger gives
radioactive decay as an example of an uncaused event. There are others.
I mentioned that to counter the claim that "everything has a cause".
As far as why this universe behaves in a certain way, all I can answer
is "Because that's the way it is." There may be other universes where
the laws of physics are different, but we don't know about those.
>
> What's more, quantum mechanics does not say that events happen without
> cause. There is good reason to believe that the universe is both
> causal and deterministic. What quantum mechanics does require is that
> the universe not be predictable, but that is only because we have to
> perform measurements to get the data we need to make predictions and
> the act of measuring affects the system being measured.
I don't think that we can say that the universe was caused or uncaused.
If the universe was caused, I have no reason to believe that it was
caused by a supernatural being rather than something else, i.e. a yet as
undiscovered natural cause.
>
> > > 2. The universe has a beginning.
> >
> > Assertion. (Nothing in cosmology rules out a previous universe, for
> > example.)
>
> True. I personally prefer the idea of a universe which is its own
> cause. (The other possibilites being 1) a supernatural cause 2) no
> cause or 3) the universe has always existed in some form).
Many possibilities have been postulated. As a non astrophysicist it's
hard to keep up with them. In the absence of independent evidence for
its existence, I see no reason to believe a supernatural agent had
anything to do with it.
>
> > > 3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
> >
> > Unless you can support 1 and 2, 3 fails.
> >
> > Even if the universe does have a cause, how can you prove that it was
> > not a natural cause? If your universe was caused by a god, how can you
> > prove that it was your god?
> >
> > If the universe requires a cause, why does your god not require a cause?
>
> Oops! I don't think he can answer that. :)
That's where the Kalam argument falls down.
>
> > > By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
> > > a cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
> >
> > Where is you evidence that your god is outside nature, or that your god
> > even exists?
> >
> > If your god exists, what evidence do you have that it created the
> > universe?
>
> It's all moot because God was imagined by man. Even if we imagined
> that something supernatural created the universe, why would it have to
> be the imagined god of Abraham and not something else? It would
> actually be a wildly improbable coincidence if the imagined god of
> Abraham not only actually existed but was actually responsible for the
> creation of the universe!
I myself do not believe in gods for a number of reasons, but I agree
that if a god did it, how would we know which one? Through history,
thousands of gods existed and thousands of religions, each with its own
creation myth. In the absence of evidence for supernatural creation, how
could ever choose among them?
>
> > If your god exists and created the universe, by what mechanism did it
> > create the universe?
>
> Like everything else, once you discover a natural reason for something
> to occur, you no longer need a supernatural explanation.
Of course.
>
> Martin
Father Haskell
> 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
>
> a cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
>
> shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would
> have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is
> the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time.
> Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has
> no beginning in time-God is 'the high and lofty One that inhabiteth
> eternity' (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.
Walt Disney created him.
Ron Baker, Pluralitas!
"J Forbes" <jforb...@selectric.org> wrote in message
news:1174363587.8...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
>
>>
>> I would have also asked what God was doing before
>> he created time. And how long was he doing it.
>
> Playing freecell. For a very long time...oh, yeah, no time yet.
> Let's just say he played a lot of games.
>
> Jim
>
;)
--
rb #2187
MarkA
That is not quite true. The BB theory does make predictions, and these
have been born out. The most famous is the discovery of the Cosmic
Background Radiation (CMB) by Penzias and Wilson. They stumbled across
the CMB while trying to develop a method of satellite communication for
Bell Telephone. They didn't know why they kept getting interference in
their antenna, so they called Dr Dicke, at nearby Princeton, to ask his
advice. As it turns out, Dicke was trying to find exactly what Penzias and
Wilson were trying to get rid of. Penzias and Wilson got the Nobel Prize
in physics for their discovery, though many felt that the prize should
have gone to Dicke.
Father Haskell
> <DragonInsura...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1174359787.6...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
> > 2. The universe has a beginning.
> > 3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
>
> > By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
> > a cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
>
Brian Eno.
*nemo*
Harry F. Leopold <hleo...@coxyx.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:29:42 -0500, J Forbes wrote
> (in article <1174364982.8...@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > aqotm nomination:
> >
> > quibbler wrote:
> >
> >> And what "space" did god exist in. Let me guess, you now have the
> >> special pleading that god doesn't require any space/time in which to
> >> exist. Then why can't we assume a myriad of other things which exist
> >> with no space/time.
> > ----------------------
> > nominated portion:
> >
> > Heck, if things can exist without space-time, then
> >> what the fuck is the purpose of space-time to begin with?
> >
> > ---------------------------
> >
> > seconds?
> >
> > Jim
> >
>
> Yes, I will second it.
Recorded
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
Martin Phipps
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 02:17:17 -0700, Martin Phipps wrote:
> > On Mar 21, 5:43 am, MarkA <manth...@stopspam.net> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:16:34 -0700, DragonInsurance wrote:
>
> >> >> 90% of the Universe is made of something we can't even see; we can
> >> >> only detect it's effects indirectly. We are so profoundly ignorant
> >> >> of most of what there is to know about the Universe, it is the height
> >> >> of arrogance to declare that "The Universe had a beginning" or "The
> >> >> Universe has a 'cause'."
>
> >> > Does that mean gravity isn't real? With your logic, we'll never know
> >> > anything.
>
> >> Not at all. We can directly observe the effects of gravity, and its
> >> behavior is absolutely consistent. We don't know what 'causes' gravity,
> >> but it is very real. We cannot, however, observe the beginning of the
> >> Universe, nor can we measure the properties of whatever preceded the
> >> Universe. We are trying to piece things together 12 billion years after
> >> the fact.
>
> > Besides, the theory of gravity is a predictive theory whereas big bang
> > theory is not. This makes it hard to test experimentally. :)
>
> have been born out. The most famous is the discovery of the Cosmic
> Background Radiation (CMB) by Penzias and Wilson. They stumbled across
> the CMB while trying to develop a method of satellite communication for
> Bell Telephone. They didn't know why they kept getting interference in
> their antenna, so they called Dr Dicke, at nearby Princeton, to ask his
> advice. As it turns out, Dicke was trying to find exactly what Penzias and
> Wilson were trying to get rid of. Penzias and Wilson got the Nobel Prize
> in physics for their discovery, though many felt that the prize should
> have gone to Dicke.
Indirectly observing something that happened 20 billion years ago is
not the same as designing an experiment, carrying it out and then
getting the results.
Martin
Ash
> 1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause
> 2. The universe has a beginning.
> 3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
You'd need to prove 1 and 2 first
> By definition, God is eternal and outside nature. He does not require
> a cause. The universe, however, does. This cause is God.
We might as well say that by definition, the universe is all that there
is and fully encompasses nature and so does not require a cause
> Einstein's general relativity, which has much experimental support,
> shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would
> have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is
> the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time.
> Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has
> no beginning in time-God is 'the high and lofty One that inhabiteth
> eternity' (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn't have a cause.
>
How can promethiumng be eternal if there is no universe? Without time,
there is no such thing as eternal. If god created time when the
universe was created, then there was no "before" and god must have come
into existence with the universe
MarkA
I agree completely. Some fields of inquiry lend themselves to
experimentation more than others. However, every theory makes testable
predictions, even the Big Bang.
--
MarkA
(this space accidentally filled in)