Religion?

[Godmil]

You think?

Btw hahaha, someone recommended reading Darwins BlackBox! Hahahaha!
I may have to check out those other titles to see if they're as full of fallacies and intellectually dishonest material.

 

[zmikecuber]

So something that is infinite is impossible.... but you're totally happy with the idea that god is 'eternal'?

No, an actual infinite is impossible. An actual infinite is a infinite temporal regress of events which is bound to time. a causes b causes c causes d causes e causes et cetera on to infinity. That's what is impossible. the whole idea of one thing causing another into existence, and changing and causing another into existence is bound to time.

The concept of God on the other hand is not bound to time. If God DID create the universe, and CREATE time, the only logical conclusion is that He is outside of time. (Im not changing the definition of God here...)

So yes... actual infinite bound to time. uncaused caused is not bound to time, since it created time. Thus the concept of God is not an actual infinite.

I ask Godmil and PatrickJameson... is there a first cause to the universe? an uncaused cause? from which all other causes come? (Im not saying that the cause is God, Im just asking IF this cause exists.)

Here is another argument, used in conjunction with Thomas Aquinas'. Please note I dont fully understand ALL of the terms used here. it's quite a mouthful.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite:
2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition:
2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.
2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.
2.3 Confirmation based on the expansion of the universe.
2.4 Confirmation based on the thermodynamic properties of the universe.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.
4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.
4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a personal Creator:
4.11 The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.
4.12 The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions.
4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent.
4.2 Argument that the Creator sans creation is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent:
4.21 The Creator is uncaused.
4.211 An infinite temporal regress of causes cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)
4.22 The Creator is beginningless.
4.221 Whatever is uncaused does not begin to exist. (1)
4.23 The Creator is changeless.
4.231 An infinite temporal regress of changes cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23)
4.24 The Creator is immaterial.
4.241 Whatever is material involves change on the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator is changeless. (4.23)
4.25 The Creator is timeless.
4.251 In the complete absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator is changeless. (4.23)
4.26 The Creator is spaceless.
4.261 Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and timeless (4.24, 4.25)
4.27 The Creator is enormously powerful.
4.271 He brought the universe into being out of nothing. (3)
4.28 The Creator is enormously intelligent.
4.281 The initial conditions of the universe involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points to intelligent design.
5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is "beginningless," changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

I know certain parts are going to be pointed out as "impossible", so I will make my responses to those points already.

4.11 The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent.
4.12 The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions.
4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent.

This might seem like a jump from 4.11 to 4.12, but think... if the universe was caused into existence by a set of conditions... what caused these conditions? perhaps they were caused by other conditions, et cetera. we're back to the actual infinite. conditions causing conditions causing conditions, which is impossible. so we can conclude that conditions causing the universe (conditions meaning a natural cause to the universe) is an impossibility in and of itself.

So is there a first cause to the universe? If not, we come to an actual infinite of events, with no beginning, which has been proved impossible. If there is a first cause to the universe, it must have not been caused by anything else. It must BE cause in and of itself.

Another interesting point is that long before this argument was known to man that the Judeo Christian Islamic God claimed... "I am who am". A cause which IS cause.

I really just wanted to get my points out here...

EDIT: Oh, and LOL at Kirjava and that other guy. hehehehe. that was really funny. xD

 

[PatrickJameson]

Please don't feed the trolls. And please don't create another account just to troll.

 

[Muesli]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

I don't grant you this premise. Being "begun to exist" implies something 'ex nihilo', from nothing which is completely unfounded in reality.

Say, perhaps, I'm a carpenter. If I have a block of wood do I "create" a chair out of it? Was there nothing there and then a chair? No. There was a block of wood which I reformed into a chair shape. Essentially I have created it 'ex materia' (from already existing materials). For something to cause creation 'Ex Nihilo' has never been observed in the natural world, so why should we admit it to be possible to your God? We shouldn't. Your logic is unsound.

What you're essentially doing is pushing the question back one step. Who says that your God is timeless/eternal/etc etc etc? You do? Why? What reason have you got for that bald assertion? Why should I accept it?

Also, for your God to interact at all in the universe, it must become timeful, and thus your argument falls to pieces again. This is because your God cannot have started the universe (timelessness), yet still interact with it on a chonological timescale (tinefulness)
That is unless you're prepared to declare yourself a Transtheist (essentially meaning God got the universe started then buggered off somewhere). In which case, there's no possible way we could discover the truth about this ethereal God, so there's no sense in discussing it.

Lastly, even if I admitted every single one of your premises and accepted your argument to be logical (which I don't) it supports every single God that can and could ever have been thought up. Even if a God is necessary, which one? The FSM? Yahweh? Allah? Take your pick, the argument works for all of them.

And if that logical reaming wasn't enough, Godmil has the scientific reasons for why your argument is bunk below.

 

[Godmil]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

Oh man, I can't believe I've been so stupid. I spent so much time thinking in the abstract I forgot to consider how the universe actually/physically works.
All these arguments circle around the fact that everything must be caused by something else. I'm afraid to tell you that isn't actually true. Quantum fluctuations/ virtual particles are real and appear in a vacuum without anything influencing them. Particles and anti-particles are constantly creating and destroying themselves. Producing predictable and observable effects. That's how nature works. An uncaused cause is actual measurable reality. So there is no contradiction of the big bang creating itself, and so no need to propose a supernatural element.

(F@#*ing years of studying cosmology, astrophysics, particle physics, and quantum mechanics, and I completely overlooked it :facepalm: )
EDIT: Unbelievable... I paused my regular podcast I was listening to to do this research - and it took forever to make sure I was correct cause I only half rememebred it from Uni, after I typed this up I went back to my podcast, and within 10mins they did a complete summary of everything I was trying to find out! Completely out of the blue (they hadn't mentioned anything like it in any of the previous 130 podcasts). That's Sceptics Guide to the Universe Ep. 159 20mins in, if anyone wants to have a listen.

 

[vcuber13]

big thing of text

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3yKxvW9yNA

 

[zmikecuber]

Oh man, I can't believe I've been so stupid. I spent so much time thinking in the abstract I forgot to consider how the universe actually/physically works.
All these arguments circle around the fact that everything must be caused by something else. I'm afraid to tell you that isn't actually true. Quantum fluctuations/ virtual particles are real and appear in a vacuum without anything influencing them. Particles and anti-particles are constantly creating and destroying themselves. Producing predictable and observable effects. That's how nature works. An uncaused cause is actual measurable reality. So there is no contradiction of the big bang creating itself, and so no need to propose a supernatural element.

(F@#*ing years of studying cosmology, astrophysics, particle physics, and quantum mechanics, and I completely overlooked it :facepalm: )
EDIT: Unbelievable... I paused my regular podcast I was listening to to do this research - and it took forever to make sure I was correct cause I only half rememebred it from Uni, after I typed this up I went back to my podcast, and within 10mins they did a complete summary of everything I was trying to find out! Completely out of the blue (they hadn't mentioned anything like it in any of the previous 130 podcasts). That's Sceptics Guide to the Universe Ep. 159 20mins in, if anyone wants to have a listen.

How did the quantum physics, natural conditions, come to be? or have they always been? do quantum physics just pop into existence? after all quantum physics tells us that things do randomly pop into existence... oh wait...

do quantum physics apply to empty space or to nothing? theres a bit of a difference there. empty space is different than nothing. even though empty space is empty, it EXISTS in a sense.

so according to quantum physics, things just pop into existence and out of existence?

if quantum physics did not exist, could these particles jump in and out of existence?

quick question... does quantum physics contradict the first law of thermodynamics? oh and I did look up quantum physics...

What you're essentially doing is pushing the question back one step. Who says that your God is timeless/eternal/etc etc etc? You do? Why? What reason have you got for that bald assertion? Why should I accept it?

Because without a first cause, the universe becomes a actual infinite, which is impossible. please dont jump to conclusions.

Also, for your God to interact at all in the universe, it must become timeful, and thus your argument falls to pieces again. This is because your God cannot have started the universe (timelessness), yet still interact with it on a chonological timescale (tinefulness)
That is unless you're prepared to declare yourself a Transtheist (essentially meaning God got the universe started then buggered off somewhere). In which case, there's no possible way we could discover the truth about this ethereal God, so there's no sense in discussing it.

Why must God become timeful? If he created time, thus being outside of time, it would make logical sense that He would have control over time, and would not need to abide by it.

I don't grant you this premise. Being "begun to exist" implies something 'ex nihilo', from nothing which is completely unfounded in reality.

Say, perhaps, I'm a carpenter. If I have a block of wood do I "create" a chair out of it? Was there nothing there and then a chair? No. There was a block of wood which I reformed into a chair shape. Essentially I have created it 'ex materia' (from already existing materials). For something to cause creation 'Ex Nihilo' has never been observed in the natural world, so why should we admit it to be possible to your God? We shouldn't. Your logic is unsound.

so according to you, something cannot come to exist out of nothing? by that logic, if at one time there was nothing, there would still be nothing, and we wouldnt be here.

has the ability to exist always existed? thats a contradiction. of course the ability to exist has always existed, because if it didnt, it could not exist, once again contradicting itself.

the ability to exist has always existed, since the ability to exist disregards time. much the same as concepts exist not in a material level, yet in a conceptual level. these concepts are not bound to time. how can they be if they are material?

Lastly, even if I admitted every single one of your premises and accepted your argument to be logical (which I don't) it supports every single God that can and could ever have been thought up. Even if a God is necessary, which one? The FSM? Yahweh? Allah? Take your pick, the argument works for all of them.

thats the second step. what we are trying to do is to find out whether the universe was started by a free agent.

about the flying spaghetti monster... I dont think we're talking about the same thing. at least, I dont think of God as a "flying spaghetti monster" unless of course the flying spaghetti monster is eternal and all good and self existent, and timeless, etc. etc. now it doesnt quite sound like a flying spaghetti monster anymore...

define what you mean by flying spaghetti monster.

 

[Godmil]

How did the quantum physics, natural conditions, come to be? or have they always been? do quantum physics just pop into existence? after all quantum physics tells us that things do randomly pop into existence... oh wait...

Quantum physics isn't a 'thing', it's a mathematical system that we created to 'perfectly' describe and predict events that happen on tiny scales.

do quantum physics apply to empty space or to nothing? theres a bit of a difference there. empty space is different than nothing. even though empty space is empty, it EXISTS in a sense.

That is a very astute question, I'm impressed. While a vacuum could be described as nothing, in reality it exists within our universe and so comprises of space/time. Thing is that's as good a definition of actual nothing as we can possibly have you could say there is 'more nothing' outside the universe, but since we have no concept of what is 'outside the universe' and if that is even meaningful to say, we can't say there is or isn't anything more nothingnesslyness.

so according to quantum physics, things just pop into existence and out of existence?

Yes.

if quantum physics did not exist, could these particles jump in and out of existence?

Yes. Again, QM isn't a thing, it's a way of understanding the world around us. Virtual particles have been appearing and disappearing since the universe began.. we just didn't know and didn't have a way of understanding it (until around a hundred years ago). It's similar to how gravity existed before Newton worked out it's laws.

quick question... does quantum physics contradict the first law of thermodynamics? oh and I did look up quantum physics...

You mean, the concervation of energy? No, the net energy in a particle/anti-particle pair is zero.

 

[Muesli]

Because without a first cause, the universe becomes a actual infinite, which is impossible. please dont jump to conclusions.

Then who caused your God? Is he an actual infinite? You just said that was impossible. Which is it?

You’re asking me to allow an exception, for no reason other than you affirming it, to a rule we both agree on. I have no reason to allow you this logical non sequitir.

Why must God become timeful? If he created time, thus being outside of time, it would make logical sense that He would have control over time, and would not need to abide by it.

You’re making stuff up now and taking advantage of the fact that all of this is impossible to disprove.

For example; This Rubik’s cube is Jesus reincarnate. The holy ghost is contained within its plastic.
Can you prove me wrong? No, of course not. The onus is on you to demonstrate that a timeless being can exist and your argument will become more than just fanciful thinking.

so according to you, something cannot come to exist out of nothing? by that logic, if at one time there was nothing, there would still be nothing, and we wouldnt be here.

has the ability to exist always existed? thats a contradiction. of course the ability to exist has always existed, because if it didnt, it could not exist, once again contradicting itself.

the ability to exist has always existed, since the ability to exist disregards time. much the same as concepts exist not in a material level, yet in a conceptual level. these concepts are not bound to time. how can they be if they are material?

I don’t know. Quite simply I don’t know. There’s no reason to suppose a timeless, spaceless creator exists just because we don’t know. That’s an argument from ignorance. Creation ex nihilo has never, neverbeen demonstrated. Your argument swings on the fact that we don’t know, and that’s why it’s illogical.

thats the second step. what we are trying to do is to find out whether the universe was started by a free agent.

about the flying spaghetti monster... I dont think we're talking about the same thing. at least, I dont think of God as a "flying spaghetti monster" unless of course the flying spaghetti monster is eternal and all good and self existent, and timeless, etc. etc. now it doesnt quite sound like a flying spaghetti monster anymore...

define what you mean by flying spaghetti monster.

Surely even if it was created by a free agent it’s completely irrational to attach yourself to one particular God. How did you pick this God? I’d bet you were born into the Christian faith and never looked back.
At the very least declare yourself a Pantheist. I’m still unconvinced by your “First mover” argument because of the reasons I have explained but a personal, good, loving God like Yahweh, Allah etc is patently absurd.

 

[Godmil]

Surely even if it was created by a free agent it’s completely irrational to attach yourself to one particular God. How did you pick this God? I’d bet you were born into the Christian faith and never looked back.
At the very least declare yourself a Pantheist. I’m still unconvinced by your “First mover” argument because of the reasons I have explained but a personal, good, loving God like Yahweh, Allah etc is patently absurd.

The other count is that, even given the special pleading about an uncaused first cause, there is no logical reason to believe that it was intelligent.

 

[zmikecuber]

Quantum physics isn't a 'thing', it's a mathematical system that we created to 'perfectly' describe and predict events that happen on tiny scales.

we created it? or did we discover it?

Yes.

do they pop into and out of existence without a cause?

Yes. Again, QM isn't a thing, it's a way of understanding the world around us. Virtual particles have been appearing and disappearing since the universe began.. we just didn't know and didn't have a way of understanding it (until around a hundred years ago). It's similar to how gravity existed before Newton worked out it's laws.

why did we ever bother to try to understand why these particles come into existence? Why not just say “well some things just pop into existence for no reason or cause, just like some things fall for no reason or cause”? The reason is because humans ALWAYS look for a cause if there is an effect. Its simple logic. It's in us. We found the cause for why an apple falls.

did we discover quantum mechanics or has it always existed as long as space and time exists?

obviously, we discovered it. Im saying if quantum mechanics did not exist, these particles would not jump in and out of existence. just like if gravity did not exist, things would not fall to the ground. can't we say that because QM exists, these particles can jump into existence? just like an apple falling to the ground falls, because of gravity, these particles jump in and out of existence beCAUSE of quantum physics. if you have an effect (the apple falling to the ground) you must have a cause (gravity) (although this cause isnt always quite so easy to see). It's quite simple logic actually.

do you know that these particles jumping in and out of existence have no cause whatsoever? or is that still to be proved?

has quantum mechanics proved that there is no cause to these particles jumping in and out of existence? or has it proved that there is no cause, so far as we know, to prove why they jump in and out of existence? if there really is no cause for these particles to come into existence, how can you logically prove that?

Also, it would seem that in complete nothing, the absence of anything and everything (including space time), that nothing could come to exist, and that particles could not jump in and out of existence. This leads me to believe that there is something about space time which causes these particles to come in and out of existence, which we do not know about or understand yet.

You mean, the concervation of energy? No, the net energy in a particle/anti-particle pair is zero.

but are these particles matter then? because matter and energy are the same things according to einstein. how can something with zero energy be matter? what happens to these particles if they have zero energy? how can these particles do anything like cause the universe into existence if they have no energy?

Causality is a basic logical principle. We live our lives by it. Why are you taking the time to reply to this? To show me the CAUSE of why my arguments are wrong. Cause is ultimately a why and how.

Then who caused your God? Is he an actual infinite? You just said that was impossible. Which is it?

I've already refuted this. >.< an actual infinite is a series of events bound to time, which go on forever. the creator of time would not be bound to time, and thus could not be an actual infinite. you should look up the difference between an actual infinite and a potential infinite, and how they are associated with time. I've explained this multiple times. God is not an actual infinite. He is the ULTIMATE cause. The uncaused cause. Without a source of cause, there would be no cause.

Also, let's imagine me... Im sitting here existing. Ok cool. So but if an actual infinite IS possible, in order for ME to exist right now, an INFINITE amount of things need to happen before I can exist, which is impossible. Obviously I have existence. Where did I get existence from if the line goes on for actual infinity? how could I have existence if before I can exist an actual infinite amount of things have to happen?

Infinity is not an actual. It's a potential. Even numbers have a beginning, an origin, yet are potentially infinite.

Surely even if it was created by a free agent it’s completely irrational to attach yourself to one particular God. How did you pick this God? I’d bet you were born into the Christian faith and never looked back.
At the very least declare yourself a Pantheist. I’m still unconvinced by your “First mover” argument because of the reasons I have explained but a personal, good, loving God like Yahweh, Allah etc is patently absurd.

That's beside the point. Either I'm right or I'm wrong. I'm trying to prove to you that I'm right, and you guys are trying to prove I'm wrong. It's that simple. Who cares how I came to my beliefs? That's utterly beside the point. Right now, you guys are trying to prove me and my beliefs wrong. And like I said, I'm trying to prove them right.

The other count is that, even given the special pleading about an uncaused first cause, there is no logical reason to believe that it was intelligent.

If there is a first mover, it is either a movement from a natural set of conditions, or from a self existent being, a free agent. There are no other possibilities. Anything proposed can be categorized as one or the other. But ultimately a set of conditions causing itself is illogical, because it is a thing, and by a thing's very nature, it cannot cause itself.

If this thing or set of conditions did cause itself (for some reason unknown to us), and is the first mover, once we start defining it and giving it properties, we get properties such as “self existent”, “self sustaining”, “created time”, “the most powerful thing in the universe”, etc. etc. (I'm not going to dictate this all, you guys can think on your own. )

Ok, so I really could sit here and go on and on all day. As Pascal says... "This is so long because I lack the time to make it shorter". I really feel like Im banging my head against the wall at this point, trying to get you guys to understand my points, and I would guess you guys feel the same way. Idk, maybe I am an *****... but as they say "Dont argue with an ***** because he will drag you down to his level of reasoning, and then beat you from experience" haha sorry, I just had to say that.

And yeah, I have school that I need to be doing. You guys can think on your own, you dont need me to help you do that. I thought I did pretty well in my arguments considering you guys are all obviously much more intelligent in areas such as science and math.

So yeah, I find at this point that nothing is happening, and I no longer need to keep doing this. I have alot of other stuff that I need to do... idk about you, but Im pretty busy with life and school. ;P

anyway, I will keep thinking and asking questions and seeking the answers.

 

[Godmil]

AGHHH! I lost my reply! :.( ok here we go again.

we created it? or did we discover it?

Doh! I'm afraid I accidently made this more confusing by using incorrect terms. Quantum Physics is a term to catagorise actual physical events that happen at the quantum level, Quantum Mechanics (or Quantum Theory) is our system of understanding these events.

do they pop into and out of existence without a cause?

Yes.

why did we ever bother to try to understand why these particles come into existence? Why not just say “well some things just pop into existence for no reason or cause, just like some things fall for no reason or cause”? The reason is because humans ALWAYS look for a cause if there is an effect. Its simple logic. It's in us. We found the cause for why an apple falls.

It's slightly the other way around, we had some effect that couldn't be explained, then when we understood virtual particles, we realised they were the cause of these effects. We don't need a cause for the virtual particles, as I'm sure I'll get to in a bitty.

did we discover quantum mechanics or has it always existed as long as space and time exists?

Again, this confusion is my fault. Quantum physics, that is to say, physical events that happen at the quantum level, are just natural events in the universe.

Im saying if quantum mechanics did not exist, these particles would not jump in and out of existence. just like if gravity did not exist, things would not fall to the ground.

That is a false analogy. Quantum Mechanics is analogous to the Theory of Gravity. So your argument would become "if the theory of gravity did not exist, things would not fall to the ground" which is false.
If you ment "Quantum Physics" then the answer to the question would be:
Yes, if there were no physical events at the quantum level then there would be no quantum events (I'm afraid that's a tautology).
Virtual particles are a quantum event.
Therefore, if there were no physical events at the quantum level then there would be no virtual particles.
However that doesn't tell us anything.

can't we say that... these particles jump in and out of existence beCAUSE of quantum physics. if you have an effect (the apple falling to the ground) you must have a cause (gravity). It's quite simple logic actually.

No. Gravity is a force which acts on physical objects. Quantum physics is a name to catagorise events that happen at the quantum level. There is no 'Quantum Force'.

do you know that these particles jumping in and out of existence have no cause whatsoever? or is that still to be proved?

Ok, this I'm afraid is where it could get complicated. Hiesenbergs Uncertainty Principle describes a fundamental aspect of the universe, a degree of uncertainty that is ALWAYS present in nature. This principle allows for the existance of virtual particles by the Energy/Time pair of 'conjugate variables'. More certainty of one of these things leads to less certainty in the other. When you start to think of smaller and smaller time periods (going down to the Plank Time (~10^-44s)) the time period becomes precise and so the energy level becomes uncertain, allowing for the existance of mass. And as it turns out this is what happens (and the effects can be measured). So it's not like they are created, but rather their spontanious creation is allowed for as a fundamental aspect of the universe.

This leads me to believe that there is something about space time which causes these particles to come in and out of existence, which we do not know about or understand yet.

It certainly seems reasonable to want that to be the case. Our view of the world is based on intuition about how things work, which comes from all our experiences. Every object I've ever seen that felt heavy, when I dropped it it fell to the ground. It is intuitive to me that heavy things fall to the ground. If I drop my cup, I'm extremely certain that it will fall to the ground because of all the experience I've had over my whole life. It is unintuitive to me and also unreasonable for me to expect my cup to fly in the air if I drop it. We however ONLY experience things on the macro level, our understanding of what is and isn't normal is limited to these kinds of experiences. If we somehow lived at the quantum level and the crazy **** that happens there was everyday to us, then it wouldn't be so hard to accept. But we don't, so it will always seem crazy.
We don't need to look for a cause, because the maths (which perfectly predict and explain quantum events) allows for their existence. There is no missing variable that is eluding us. It is just the way the universe works.

but are these particles matter then? because matter and energy are the same things according to einstein. how can something with zero energy be matter?

Ah no, you misread what I said. They have a *net* energy of Zero. One has positive energy the other has negative energy, the sum of the system containing the two is zero. So before they existed there was zero energy, then after they collide and cancel each other out there is zero energy.

Causality is a basic logical principle. We live our lives by it. Why are you taking the time to reply to this? To show me the CAUSE of why my arguments are wrong. Cause is ultimately a why and how.

You're right, we accept causality in order to live our lives and see the world in a logical way. However, causality only works at the scale in which we have experience. Any unusual quantum effects level themselves out by the time you get to anything we can have direct and immediate experience of. There is no reason to throw out causality in our day to day lives.

But (and this is the really big but), Your argument about cause and effect claims to be completely true not only of the whole universe, but even making claims outside the universe. Your system of causality DOES NOT apply to the whole universe, it doesn't even apply to the basic elements that make up the finger tips you'll use to reply to this post. Your initial premise, which makes assumption about the known universe, is flawed, so any attempt to expand this to thinking outside the universe is ridiculous.

The causal argument can only be entertained as a philisophical/logical argument, it can not be assumed to apply to the real world, and since your argument is intended to describe reality then it is fallacious.

<phew!>

 

[Kirjava]

Again, QM isn't a thing

thing (noun)

That which is considered to exist as a separate entity, object, quality or concept.

 

[Muesli]

I've already refuted this. >.< an actual infinite is a series of events bound to time, which go on forever. the creator of time would not be bound to time, and thus could not be an actual infinite. you should look up the difference between an actual infinite and a potential infinite, and how they are associated with time. I've explained this multiple times. God is not an actual infinite. He is the ULTIMATE cause. The uncaused cause. Without a source of cause, there would be no cause.

No, you didn't refute this. What you did was invent a magical exception that has no grounds in reality. You haven't yet explained why I should take this assertion seriously.

I'm beginning to think we're going in circles here. You keep making this bald assertion and I keep refuting it, and we're getting nowhere.

 

[Godmil]

thing (noun)

That which is considered to exist as a separate entity, object, quality or concept.

Thing includes concepts? yeah I guess it should. ok physical thing.
Glad that was all you could criticise me on (though I'm aware that's tempting fate now).

I feel a little sorry for zmikecuber, it's gatta be hella difficult to fight an argument on two fronts. Someone really should try to help him out.

you guys are trying to prove me and my beliefs wrong. And like I said, I'm trying to prove them right.

Ooh, just noticed this.. I'm more concentrating on proving your argument wrong. I have no problem with you having an irrational/personal belief, but if you claim there is a rational/logical conclusion for it and that it relates to reality, then I think there are problems.

Darn just finshed reading your post, I'd mistakenly taken the last half to be just for Muesli. Yeah, it's been quite an exciting argument, and I've learned a lot, you've really pushed me to try harder than anyone else I've argued with. Also I wouldn't say anyone is more intelligent in any areas, just people can have a little more knowledge in some areas, but that's cool everyone can learn new knowledge. Anyway, just to be stuborn I'll do one more point then give my closing arguments to the jury.
Firstly, I don't think your last arugment about why a first cause must be intelligent holds any grounds.
Now finally:
I believe it has been demonstrated that within the realm of the known universe the premise that every cause must have a prior cause is false. And so on rational ground it must be conceeded that the entire argument is false. The only way to hold onto the conclusion is to conceed that it is done irrationaly. Which, like I said, I have no problem with. Just as long as you accept that there isn't a rational reason to get to the conclusion through these premises.
Now that was just one argument, there are many others.... though just a wee heads up, if anyone brings up the Transcendental Argument for God - that too falls in it's initial premises under Quantum Mechanics.

Oh and don't feel bad about not having a solid counter argument against Quantum Mech... In the hundred years or so it's been about there has been no indication that it's actually wrong (and there is a Nobel Prize waiting for anyone who can prove otherwise).

 

[Kirjava]

I have no problem with you having an irrational/personal belief, but if you claim there is a rational/logical conclusion for it and that it relates to reality, then I think there are problems.

YOU JUST GOT OWNED WITH LOGIC

 

[JasonK]

I lol'd

Ray Comfort is probably my favourite creationist ever

 

[Godmil]

I loved the Matt Dillahunty reply to that where he just goes "So who created the coconut?"
Actually he then trumphs it by pointing out that the banana is only the way it is because of human intervention, and that the original banana fruit was very different... which would suggest that humans have one upped god

 

[zmikecuber]

Ok, so I dont have time to make a long reply, but I thought I would just say this.

You're right, we accept causality in order to live our lives and see the world in a logical way. However, causality only works at the scale in which we have experience. Any unusual quantum effects level themselves out by the time you get to anything we can have direct and immediate experience of. There is no reason to throw out causality in our day to day lives.

If QM are so illogical to our logical understanding which we should not throw out in our day to day lives, how can we logically prove them to be true? What's more important? Which comes first? Logic and philosophy or mathematics and science? How can we understand quantum mechanics if they seem so illogical? If we can't truly understand quantum mechanics, how do we know logically that we are right?

How can something illogical and unreasonable be true? "Is reason always reasonable?" (GK Chesterton... heh heh great question)

How can I or anybody know Quantum Mechanics to be true if I and nobody cannot ultimately understand them logically in our minds?

I personally believe that in order for these particles to come into existence, they need a cause. Could this cause be something that is not in our physical level? Otherwise if there is no cause for these particle's existence, then ultimately there is no cause for the universe or for anything. If there is no cause for the universe, then how could there be any cause in our day to day life?

Or you could say that it is the nature of space and time for particles to come into existence, since space and time is required for quantum mechanics to exist? But then you're saying the nature of space and time is the cause for the particles coming into existence.

So let me get this straight.. youre saying that macroscopic level things need cause, but microscopic dont? dont the two exist together though? how did the macroscopic level come into existence? macroscopic things need a cause, right? how did the microscopic level come into existence?

Oh, and in my Chemistry we are getting into quantum mechanics a little bit. its quite interesting.

Asking somebody to believe Quantum Mechanics without a logical explanation, and saying "there is no logical explanation" is illogical.

oh and I hate it when I get a long reply and then somehow I lose it... ahhhgg >.< I feel your pain.

No, you didn't refute this. What you did was invent a magical exception that has no grounds in reality. You haven't yet explained why I should take this assertion seriously.

my definition of God has remained the same throughout this argument. If my definition of God is correct, and this free agent did create time, this free agent must be outside of time, since it created it. and in order to create something an agent must be outside of it. Thus this free agent is not bound to time, which it created. Thus this free agent cannot be an actual infinite, since an actual infinite is impossible inside of time. how does this not refute your point? :|

Are we arguing about your definition of God, or mine? Because I sure dont know what your definition of God is... other than your definition of God seems to be bound to time, and thus is not really God, since it's not "almighty".

 

[Cube-Fu]

There is no definite proof for the big-bang theory; please don't be dismissive. And particles simply 'popping in and out of existence' is not simple at all, and has as much scientific validation, as saying God created them. I think some here, are confusing the concept of created particles, with the ideas of common religious beliefs.