[Astronomical]

(Original post by medicine gapper)
EDIT: MY PREMISES RELY ON THE LAW OF CAUSE = EFFECT. EVERY EFFECT MUST HAVE A CAUSE, OR IT CAN NOT BE AN EFFECT. (YOU ARE USING THE PRINCIPLES OF CAUSE = EFFECT TO TYPE TO ME) . IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THIS LAW, THEN MY ARGUMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO YOU.

This thread is not if God exists. I do not wish to give my personal opinion. My answer to this question is look up at the sky.

Now, many of us say 'well if God exists, then who made God'.

There is no thread for this. I want an open debate (;

If we believe that we have around us a universe, with it's many laws and rules, then we can assume the following:

> Within this universe, of time , matter, space , and it's various components, the simple rule of 'cause = effect ' must be implied.
> Nothing makes nothing. Things WITHIN our universe must have a cause.
> Energy can not be created or destroyed.

If we assume God , an entity with no form, no shape, unlike any creation exists, who originated our universe, many rightly ask "well who made God". i don't think anyone has not contemplated this.

However, If God created our universe, he must have existed before the universe - this is a simple derivation.

If this is the case, and he can exist outside the universe, the laws of the universe i.e cause = effect, or needing to be 'created' do not apply to him. Rather, he made the notion that things must be 'created'.


What is your other alternative? the universe making itself. a paradox. infinite causes.

What do i mean by this? well, if you did not have an ultimate starting cause, every cause must have been caused. You therefore have an infinite set of causes - a paradox.

Somewhere along the line, there must have been a cause which needs no cause. Which needs not time and space to exist.


We either believe in a creator who has not been caused, or a paradox.

These are our only two options.

I want opposing views on this. i am restless about my ideas. Like leonardo da vinci in the renaissane, i seek to analyse the universe around me, think freely of what 'famous people' like to tell me i must believe. I want to use my own five senses, and own intellect.

Feel free to post!

Your premise is flawed. Universes can come from nothing provided they have zero total energy.

Other instances in where your premise fails are nuclear decay and quantum fluctuations, both of which are random processes.

[medicine gapper]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
Here's what you're saying. "Nothing can exist without being caused to exist, except god, who can do this because he's god and we say he can".

I will now explain why this is retarded. You are simply assuming that something exists without having been caused to exist, and then calling that thing "god". There is no reason why this "god" should have any of the characteristics you apply to the god in whatever iron age text you subscribe to. There is no reason why we couldn't just call the universe itself "god". Your decision that your god should be the thing that can exist uncreated is entirely arbitrary.

"Here's what you're saying. "Nothing can exist without being caused to exist, except god, who can do this because he's god and we say he can"

That is not at all what i am saying. You have produced a very weak argument and attributed it to me, then proceded to attack that argument while using extremely bias language that is not needed in a mature debate.

I have explained many times why god must be able to exist without being caused.

I will do so again:

I believe that the universe had a cause.

I believe that this cause was God - an uncaused causer, who is not made of matter and unlike creation.

I beleive God existed before time and space - he had no beggining nor an end. Therefore the laws that apply to matter and anything we see that is physical or energy, do not apply to him.

Rather, he CREATED the notion of 'creation' and 'time' and 'space'

Your other option is a paradox. I.E the universe causing itself. If you believe that the law of cause = effect applies,then the universe would need a cause, and that cause needs a cause (energy, matter can not just appear, energy is transfered and matter created).

This is why your a few posters here have been trying to debate the rule that cause = effect does not applies to matter , energy ect all the time.

EDIT: i am not making any thing up. Rather, the attributes i have noted are merely derived. Using a metaphorical example, if you have an electron, though you can not see it, you can see it's effects and derive the properties the electron must have had. God is not matter, but this is a metaphor, which does not justify the reality, but answers your point of theists 'making up a bunch of stuff about God with no proof'

[medicine gapper]

(Original post by Astronomical)
Your premise is flawed. Universes can come from nothing provided they have zero total energy.

Other instances in where your premise fails are nuclear decay and quantum fluctuations, both of which are random processes.

My premise is not a flaw. I will read yourl ink on zero energy further. Firstly it is not an established scientific fact, there are many oppising opinions and it is widely known as a theory.

i will look into this however.

[james22]

(Original post by medicine gapper)
EDIT: MY PREMISES RELY ON THE LAW OF CAUSE = EFFECT. EVERY EFFECT MUST HAVE A CAUSE, OR IT CAN NOT BE AN EFFECT. (YOU ARE USING THE PRINCIPLES OF CAUSE = EFFECT TO TYPE TO ME) . IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THIS LAW, THEN MY ARGUMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO YOU.

This thread is not if God exists. I do not wish to give my personal opinion. My answer to this question is look up at the sky.

Now, many of us say 'well if God exists, then who made God'.

There is no thread for this. I want an open debate (;

If we believe that we have around us a universe, with it's many laws and rules, then we can assume the following:

> Within this universe, of time , matter, space , and it's various components, the simple rule of 'cause = effect ' must be implied.
> Nothing makes nothing. Things WITHIN our universe must have a cause.
> Energy can not be created or destroyed.

If we assume God , an entity with no form, no shape, unlike any creation exists, who originated our universe, many rightly ask "well who made God". i don't think anyone has not contemplated this.

However, If God created our universe, he must have existed before the universe - this is a simple derivation.

If this is the case, and he can exist outside the universe, the laws of the universe i.e cause = effect, or needing to be 'created' do not apply to him. Rather, he made the notion that things must be 'created'.


What is your other alternative? the universe making itself. a paradox. infinite causes.

What do i mean by this? well, if you did not have an ultimate starting cause, every cause must have been caused. You therefore have an infinite set of causes - a paradox.

Somewhere along the line, there must have been a cause which needs no cause. Which needs not time and space to exist.


We either believe in a creator who has not been caused, or a paradox.

These are our only two options.

I want opposing views on this. i am restless about my ideas. Like leonardo da vinci in the renaissane, i seek to analyse the universe around me, think freely of what 'famous people' like to tell me i must believe. I want to use my own five senses, and own intellect.

Feel free to post!

The problem with this is that you have only proved the existance of something external to the universe which is not caused. How you get from this event being uncaused to it being a concious being I have no idea.

[medicine gapper]

(Original post by james22)
The problem with this is that you have only proved the existance of something which is not caused. How you get from this event being uncaused to it being a concious being I have no idea.

I see what you are saying. However, my argument is slightly deeper than that. I did not prove the existance of something which needs not be created on its' own. Rather, i explained how our universe needed a cause, and how the cause did not need a cause of its' own.

Without using any religious doctrine, i tried to show how a cause for the universe must exist.


Now on a 'conscious' God who sends doctrines (i do not beleive God is like creation and 'thinks' like us). That is a entirely different debate, one i would gladly have with you later.


However, i mereley wanted to prove that we have two options:

a paradox inwhich the universe is it's own cause.
or a creator, or originator which needs no cause (how this 'cause' communicates with us, is a new debate)
i have in previous posts on this thread, described why the universe can not be its' own cause, and why God uniquely needs no cause.
The debate i am having with the remaining who have stayed is on the principle of cause = effect.

the only option they have is to prove to me that out universe did not need a cause, and that cause = effect does not apply.

I am very encouraged.

[Astronomical]

(Original post by medicine gapper)
My premise is not a flaw. I will read yourl ink on zero energy further. Firstly it is not an established scientific fact, there are many oppising opinions and it is widely known as a theory.

i will look into this however.

Perhaps you'd like to read the conclusion of this paper.

Could you link me to where you found that it is widely contested that the total energy of the universe is zero?

[Trailblazer]

Yet again we see arguments on this thread that demonstrate how believers in God retreat into the shade of human knowledge to try and argue their case.

I refer both the OP, and everyone else to the Fallacy of Composition. It is the logical fallacy on which the Cosmological argument is based, and it has several premises.

1. Just because things in the universe are caused as such, does not mean the universe itself is also caused - just because we humans have a mother, does not mean the universe has a mother
2. and yes, who pushed the first domino? Was it a transcendent God? If so who caused the transcendent God. The answer is probable but not certain; there is absolutely no conclusive evidence to suggest that, as it currently stands. Scientists and Philosophers are working on it. Until that day however, belief in a God is a completely irrational, and illogical decision to make. There is simply no way you can logically justify the existence of a first un-caused cause. Oh and then of cause as we have seen, believers will simple say "Oh well he is God and we humans just don't understand" - No, you've lost just accept it and build your views from what we know to be true.

By established laws of empirical logic, atheism is ultimately the only rational stance on this issue. In a courtroom a person isn't guilty until proven innocent.

Ergo, "I say the universe is just there and that is all" - Bertrand Russel

*I'm not a scientist, but I believe there is strong evidence to suggest the existence of zero energy in the universe? In which case a universe can come from nothing. Which slams every supporter of the Cosmological Argument into intellectual oblivion

[Sean9001]

(Original post by Cephalus)
Ok then I will answer again.

The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not subject to time

Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end.


Obviously, I have answered this from a Christian perspective, of course, lots of people will disagree.

The Bible also said that Yahwe did some **** with light, days before the sun the moon and the stars were created. But we have a very full understanding, that light wouldn't be, but for the sun moon and the stars.

Doesn't convince me of the Bible's reliability...

[Tusoteuthis]

Why would one postulate such a being to explain the origin of the universe anyway? It must have more explanatory power to be preferred over a more simple explanation.

The theist's usual reply to the cause question is to state that God always existed and therefore requires no cause. However, if you have a extravagant ad-hoc explanation like a god it must be supported by evidence or must be justified in such a way so that it becomes the most parsimonious explanation. It could be justified if there was an answer to the question: What is the explanation of God?

It is a cop-out to answer the question by claiming that the god is eternal because it does not justify his insertion, and therefore I don't think it's justified until the question is answered properly.

[jordanosborn]

Let's take cause and effect. In normal time flow the cause has to precede the effect. But when you go back to the beginning of the universe time retracts towards zero. Before the big bang there was no such thing as time. No such thing as causality. The effect could have preceded the cause because there is not a linear flow of events like we are used to in the universe today. It's kind of like going backwards in time where from the observer's point of view they would see the effect preceding the cause. But because there is no such thing as time before the big bang things can happen in any "order".

Therefore the universe does not need a creator to exist.

[bordercollies10]

(Original post by medicine gapper)
EDIT: MY PREMISES RELY ON THE LAW OF CAUSE = EFFECT. EVERY EFFECT MUST HAVE A CAUSE, OR IT CAN NOT BE AN EFFECT. (YOU ARE USING THE PRINCIPLES OF CAUSE = EFFECT TO TYPE TO ME) . IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THIS LAW, THEN MY ARGUMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO YOU.

This thread is not if God exists. I do not wish to give my personal opinion. My answer to this question is look up at the sky.

Now, many of us say 'well if God exists, then who made God'.

There is no thread for this. I want an open debate (;

If we believe that we have around us a universe, with it's many laws and rules, then we can assume the following:

> Within this universe, of time , matter, space , and it's various components, the simple rule of 'cause = effect ' must be implied.
> Nothing makes nothing. Things WITHIN our universe must have a cause.
> Energy can not be created or destroyed.

If we assume God , an entity with no form, no shape, unlike any creation exists, who originated our universe, many rightly ask "well who made God". i don't think anyone has not contemplated this.

However, If God created our universe, he must have existed before the universe - this is a simple derivation.

If this is the case, and he can exist outside the universe, the laws of the universe i.e cause = effect, or needing to be 'created' do not apply to him. Rather, he made the notion that things must be 'created'.


What is your other alternative? the universe making itself. a paradox. infinite causes.

What do i mean by this? well, if you did not have an ultimate starting cause, every cause must have been caused. You therefore have an infinite set of causes - a paradox.

Somewhere along the line, there must have been a cause which needs no cause. Which needs not time and space to exist.


We either believe in a creator who has not been caused, or a paradox.

These are our only two options.

I want opposing views on this. i am restless about my ideas. Like leonardo da vinci in the renaissane, i seek to analyse the universe around me, think freely of what 'famous people' like to tell me i must believe. I want to use my own five senses, and own intellect.

Feel free to post!

I was first introduced to the notion of cause and effect after reading up on St Thomas Aquinas about a year or so ago, and before that I attended church but was an agnostic in reality...
Anyway, to add to your metaphysical points:
>you know that you had a great, great, great, great gran for you are here today but empirical evidence says that you had no great, great, great, great gran for you can have no sensory perception of her (well gravestones might be enough evidence, but hear me out on this one) as you are here today, it is an argument from necessity. It is exactly the same issue with proving the existence of God.
>the problem with infinite causality can be demonstrated like so:
say I can only greet you if I ask the person behind me for permission. Presuppose that person behind me had to ask the person behind them ad infitum. In short, would I ever get to greet you? No, as I only could after an infinite number of people have given me permission to do so and infinite is impossible to obtain (10,000 doesn't bring me any closer than 3 did!!)...
>the problem with infinite time is that the universe would remain in a stagnant state as all processes are finite and will eventually come to an ultimate state of a lifeless equilibrium (I believe Prof Cox speculates about that one!!)...
>if there were potential prior to the big bang then there wouldn't have been a nothing ergo there must have been time ergo the universe must have been and must have not been at the same time, contradictory isn't it?
>evolutionists cannot account for the nature of a thought as chemicals react, they do not reason!! Chemicals do not speculate based on whether or not an outcome will be good for bad and if Darwin is right then free will is an illusion.
>as God is immaterial, spaceless, timeless etc... God must then be non-contingent which means that the law of cause and effect doesn't apply to God anyway!!
>God must have a reason for creating a cause within an empty void that gave rise to causality - finding that one out is the job role of a theologian!
>evil must exist in order for us to develop the virtues required to want to pray to a deity of any kind!!!

[Astronomical]

(Original post by Trailblazer)

*I'm not a scientist, but I believe there is strong evidence to suggest the existence of zero energy in the universe? In which case a universe can come from nothing. Which slams every supporter of the Cosmological Argument into intellectual oblivion

Indeed, our universe is flat on average which is strong evidence in favour of the zero-energy universe.

[E.Blackadder]

(Original post by medicine gapper)
If we believe that we have around us a universe, with it's many laws and rules, then we can assume the following:

> Within this universe, of time , matter, space , and it's various components, the simple rule of 'cause = effect ' must be implied.
> Nothing makes nothing. Things WITHIN our universe must have a cause.
> Energy can not be created or destroyed.

If we assume God , an entity with no form, no shape, unlike any creation exists, who originated our universe, many rightly ask "well who made God". i don't think anyone has not contemplated this.

However, If God created our universe, he must have existed before the universe - this is a simple derivation.

If this is the case, and he can exist outside the universe, the laws of the universe i.e cause = effect, or needing to be 'created' do not apply to him. Rather, he made the notion that things must be 'created'.

true the law of cause and effect is a property of this universe. but you haven't shown that it CAN be different outside of the universe. so you've made 2 unfounded assumptions so far 1. god exists and 2. things can exist without a cause provided they don't exist within this universe.

What is your other alternative? the universe making itself. a paradox. infinite causes.

What do i mean by this? well, if you did not have an ultimate starting cause, every cause must have been caused. You therefore have an infinite set of causes - a paradox.

Somewhere along the line, there must have been a cause which needs no cause. Which needs not time and space to exist.

you said that god exists outside of the universe and therefore does not need a cause, but why can't the precursory dimensions and energy that changed into this universe be uncaused? why is one event an uncausable but the other isn't? you admit that the universe as it is has a set of laws which we recognise (because we live in the universe), but you don't know what the laws or the nature of the pre-universe were.

We either believe in a creator who has not been caused, or a paradox.

These are our only two options.

I want opposing views on this. i am restless about my ideas. Like leonardo da vinci in the renaissane, i seek to analyse the universe around me, think freely of what 'famous people' like to tell me i must believe. I want to use my own five senses, and own intellect.

Feel free to post!

that is a false dichotomy. you've only conceived two options. the 1st is based on the laws of the current state of the universe and the 2nd is a hypothetical construct of which there isn't any evidence. nothing in our universe indicates that god exists and because we don't truly know anything about the properties outside or before our universe the entire notion of god itself could be a paradox.

remember as humans we have a very specific perspective on the universe. we are barely scratching the surface of sub atomic physics and it isn't like anything experience in every day life. for instance if a photon travels from a light source and hits a surface the angle it is reflected at is indeterminable - there is no predictive measure - we just have to apply a true probability and say it has a 90% change it will be reflected at this angle, 8% at this angle, 1.9% at this angle, 0.08% at this angle and so on with the probability getting smaller and smaller but never reaching 0. the point is that cause and effect are breaking down at this point. once you get into more complicated concepts within quantum physics you begin to see that all of your assumptions about how time (running backwards), infinity, and cause and effect (occurring in the opposite order) work are just assumptions based on limited human experience.

the point i am trying to make is that while the events you are describing may well be a paradox based on our assumptions about the universe, they might not represent the actual universe and therefore might not be a paradox.

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by medicine gapper)
If we believe that we have around us a universe, with it's many laws and rules, then we can assume the following:

> Within this universe, of time , matter, space , and it's various components, the simple rule of 'cause = effect ' must be implied.

Why?

Rules or laws are properties of the universe.

> Nothing makes nothing. Things WITHIN our universe must have a cause.

Back to the previous point here: you talk of "within" our universe, which is to make an error.

> Energy can not be created or destroyed.

Again, you are using laws that govern an existent universe, not a non-existent universe.

If we assume God , an entity with no form, no shape, unlike any creation exists, who originated our universe, many rightly ask "well who made God". i don't think anyone has not contemplated this.

However, If God created our universe, he must have existed before the universe - this is a simple derivation.

Time is a product of the universe and consequently there is no "before" for God to exist in.

If this is the case, and he can exist outside the universe, the laws of the universe i.e cause = effect, or needing to be 'created' do not apply to him. Rather, he made the notion that things must be 'created'.

This argument would work if you substituted God with universe.

What is your other alternative? the universe making itself. a paradox. infinite causes.

Only if you by neglect subject the creation of the universe to the same laws that govern the universe as it is.

What do i mean by this? well, if you did not have an ultimate starting cause, every cause must have been caused. You therefore have an infinite set of causes - a paradox.

You going off on a tangent now.

Somewhere along the line, there must have been a cause which needs no cause. Which needs not time and space to exist.

By definition the big bang fits this as time and space did not exist before it therefore we can conclude that it did not need time nor space to occur.

We either believe in a creator who has not been caused, or a paradox.

These are our only two options.

With all due respect you are making huge jumps in logic.

[fantafruittwist]

(Original post by medicine gapper)
However, God is not matter, nor anything physical. Time does not effect him - he created the notion of time.

If god is not physical then how can he create something physical (the universe)?
surely only a physical entity can create the universe. It has to be made of something, maybe not protons or electrons, but something tangible.

if god is not physical then he isnt really anything is he?


the origin of god is unknown - so why evoke god at all?
If the origin of god is unknown then why not just save a step and conclude the origin of the universe it unknown? (what i mean by this is - we have no idea what the properties of the singularity is, our physics breaks down at this point and we are lost)

by adding god, you are just multiplying entities beyond necessity.

[cyfer]

(Original post by Cephalus)
God is uncreated.

You get a paradox when you apply human logic to God.

God is beyond the bounds of our comprehension.

I think you will find that you get a paradox when you apply God to men.

[Hypocrism]

Fallacy to assume that the universe needs to be created. The possibility is that is has always existed.

[Sheep]

(Original post by medicine gapper)
EDIT: MY PREMISES RELY ON THE LAW OF CAUSE = EFFECT. EVERY EFFECT MUST HAVE A CAUSE, OR IT CAN NOT BE AN EFFECT. (YOU ARE USING THE PRINCIPLES OF CAUSE = EFFECT TO TYPE TO ME) . IF YOU DO NOT FOLLOW THIS LAW, THEN MY ARGUMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO YOU.

This thread is not if God exists. I do not wish to give my personal opinion. My answer to this question is look up at the sky.

Now, many of us say 'well if God exists, then who made God'.

There is no thread for this. I want an open debate (;

If we believe that we have around us a universe, with it's many laws and rules, then we can assume the following:

> Within this universe, of time , matter, space , and it's various components, the simple rule of 'cause = effect ' must be implied.
> Nothing makes nothing. Things WITHIN our universe must have a cause.
> Energy can not be created or destroyed.

If we assume God , an entity with no form, no shape, unlike any creation exists, who originated our universe, many rightly ask "well who made God". i don't think anyone has not contemplated this.

However, If God created our universe, he must have existed before the universe - this is a simple derivation.

If this is the case, and he can exist outside the universe, the laws of the universe i.e cause = effect, or needing to be 'created' do not apply to him. Rather, he made the notion that things must be 'created'.


What is your other alternative? the universe making itself. a paradox. infinite causes.

What do i mean by this? well, if you did not have an ultimate starting cause, every cause must have been caused. You therefore have an infinite set of causes - a paradox.

Somewhere along the line, there must have been a cause which needs no cause. Which needs not time and space to exist.


We either believe in a creator who has not been caused, or a paradox.

These are our only two options.

I want opposing views on this. i am restless about my ideas. Like leonardo da vinci in the renaissane, i seek to analyse the universe around me, think freely of what 'famous people' like to tell me i must believe. I want to use my own five senses, and own intellect.

Feel free to post!

When people say things like this, that God does not follow the laws of our universe or is beyond our comprehension, I don't think that is really a valid argument for his existence

in fact I think it just promotes agnostism, ie we basically don't know because we can't comprehend it

and the argument of atheism vs theism is very high level and never produces any answers simply because we don't know, people like william lane craig who come up with a ton of random arguments like "because there is purpose, we must therefore assume there is a God" or something lol

but what annoys me is that arguing a case for theism vs atheism does not in any way validate or prove all these wild specific claims that are asserted by these so called 'holy books', do you know what I mean ?

ok you might come up with some brilliant philosophy that proves that the universe was indeed created by something... is the bible still a ridiculous book full of fairy tales ? yes. is any of that nonsense that was invented about thor, zues, apollo, etc etc suddenly believable ? no.

that's the stuff that really rustles my jimmies, the anti-homo, evolution-denying, sacrifice a goat, harmful, man-made specifics

[MissKay05]

Does it ever occur to you non scientifically that god is supreme, the absoulute. Refering to your argument there is no effect without a cause, are you seriously saying because we are created with a cause and so are the laws of the universe, something even more supreme than god has to create god, because thearetically for something to form or create into something else, that thing would be made, created before the thing to be created.

Please argue your case philosophically the laws of tort of the universe do not apply to god, Anything attributed to us does not apply to god for example we are mortal god is imortal, we have a begining and a end god does not have no being nor no end, so therefore non of our qualities are not the same as god, god created everything how he intended.