A universe without God. [Archive]

Cecil

31st January 2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And what happens to cause and effect? Don't you believe in that? Events can cause other events to occur, but this doesn't imply that all events must have a cause. In fact, millions of particles per cubic centimetre spontaneously appear out of the vacuum every second and then annihilate with each other. These are uncaused events. Cause and effect tends to hold at the macroscopic level, but on a very small scale reality doesn't work that way.

The general theory for the origin of the universe involves this process, called virtual particle pair creation. Space itself was expanding so rapidly in the early universe that the particles were flung away from each other before they could annihilate. Now, it is possible that a "god" provided the initial "spark", but it doesn't make any difference. Causality breaks down in a singularity, so whatever existed "before" the universe cannot have any influence over the events since then.

And how does "nothing" fluctuate? ... from nothing to something? If so, then it must be the "something" which gives rise to the fluctuations It does. We have observed this. I could go into theories about Higgs fields and vacuum energy, but I'll keep it simple. Just try to understand that the human mind is built to understand reality on a macroscopic level, and the universe does not necessarily behave the same on all scales. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it false. Very few people understand the leading edge of particle physics today, but our current theories are around because they explain what we see in experiments.

CWL

31st January 2004, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you believe in cause and effect or not? If so, then how can nothing in the first place (cause) give rise to something (effect) in the second place?

Whereas if you insist that there must have been something there in the first place but, in "effect" it wasn't God, then this is just as idiotic.

You and Lifegazer has been dodging one very simple and important question, which your own line of reasoning inexorably gives rise to. Your argument stands (and falls) with the proposition that everything must with necessity have been created - that everything must have a "cause". Well then, my theistic friends, please do riddle me the following:

WHO OR WHAT CREATED GOD?!?

Don't ignore it. I guarantee you it will not go away.

El Greco

31st January 2004, 02:20 PM

And if you want some help with CWL's question, I'll give you a hint:

Personally I had nothing to do with God's creation.

lifegazer

31st January 2004, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by CWL
Your argument stands (and falls) on the proposition that everything must with necessity have been created - that everything must have a "cause". Well then, my theistic friends, please do riddle me the following:

WHO OR WHAT CREATED GOD?!?

Don't ignore it. I guarantee you it will not go away.
In this thread, I shall argue that an existence of effects requires a primal-cause = God.

Now, a primal-cause is acausal, by definitive default. Therefore, if a primal-cause exists, it is actually stupid to pursue your line of enquiry. No offense intended, but I must shock you out of the stupor you are in. You cannot ask where a primal-cause came from because the question only has relevance to an effect.
Do you and all the other skeptics in here understand this simple logic?

El Greco

31st January 2004, 02:34 PM

Ok, then primal-cause = Big Bang.

Plain old archetypical unconceivable big bang.

CWL

31st January 2004, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by El Greco
And if you want some help with CWL's question, I'll give you a hint:

Personally I had nothing to do with God's creation.
Nor did I. Some nomadic desert tribe about 3.000 years ago is a much better bet...

Originally posted by lifegazer

In this thread, I shall argue that an existence of effects requires a primal-cause = God.

Yup. That's what you argue.

Now, a primal-cause is acausal, by definitive default. Therefore, if a primal-cause exists, it is actually stupid to pursue your line of enquiry. No offense intended, but I must shock you out of the stupor you are in. You cannot ask where a primal-cause came from because the question only has relevance to an effect.

So you are saying "God" is accausal? Well if you can say that, I can I simply say that the Universe as such is accausal.

That means that Occam's Razor just cut your "God" out of the picture, my friend. Hey, I'm just playing by your own rules...

Do you and all the other skeptics in here understand this simple logic?

I certainly do not understand your "logic", no. But it certainly does appear to be rather simple, yes.

DarkMagician

31st January 2004, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

In this thread, I shall argue that an existence of effects requires a primal-cause = God.

Now, a primal-cause is acausal, by definitive default.So, why do we need it?Therefore, if a primal-cause exists, it is actually stupid to pursue your line of enquiry.So, prove it exists, instead of "Well, every cause needs an effect, so we need one to not have a cause. Oh no, it can't be an infinite cycle of causes and effects. And we can't have you thinking that the universe acausal either. We can't let you do those awful, awful things!"No offense intended, but I must shock you out of the stupor you are in. You cannot ask where a primal-cause came from because the question only has relevance to an effect. In other words, special pleading.Do you and all the other skeptics in here understand this logical sham? FIXED!

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by El Greco
Ok, then primal-cause = Big Bang.

Plain old archetypical unconceivable big bang. Okay, But what caused the Big Bang!

Are you saying there was "nothing" before this, not even time?

DarkMagician

31st January 2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Okay, But what caused the Big Bang!

Are you saying there was "nothing" before this, not even time? Um, if there wasn't time before the big bang, wouldn't there be no "before the big bang"?

I just have to drag this quote out of my sig:
"There is no hope for humanity. Reason is dead and we dance on the corpse. Tra la la la la!" --c4ts

frisian

31st January 2004, 02:56 PM

I am a theist, anyhow...found this article interesting.

http://www.discover.com/issues/feb-04/cover/

Argh, nevermind...you need to be a subscriber to get the whole article. It was related to explaining the big bang with naturalistic theories.

El Greco

31st January 2004, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Are you saying there was "nothing" before this, not even time?

I'm not "saying" anything, but in the context of all the wild hypotheses formulated in this thread, yes, there was nothing before big-bang, not even time.

If you argue that this is impossible, then you tell me what was before god.

Or, otherwise, do you accept an acausal start as lifegazer did, or not ?

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Cecil
Events can cause other events to occur, but this doesn't imply that all events must have a cause. In fact, millions of particles per cubic centimetre spontaneously appear out of the vacuum every second and then annihilate with each other. These are uncaused events. Cause and effect tends to hold at the macroscopic level, but on a very small scale reality doesn't work that way. And yet all that suggests is we don't "understand" what the cause is.

The general theory for the origin of the universe involves this process, called virtual particle pair creation. Space itself was expanding so rapidly in the early universe that the particles were flung away from each other before they could annihilate. Now, it is possible that a "god" provided the initial "spark", but it doesn't make any difference. Causality breaks down in a singularity, so whatever existed "before" the universe cannot have any influence over the events since then. But it does make a difference, otherwise what the heck are we arguing about?

It does. We have observed this. I could go into theories about Higgs fields and vacuum energy, but I'll keep it simple. Just try to understand that the human mind is built to understand reality on a macroscopic level, and the universe does not necessarily behave the same on all scales. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it false. Very few people understand the leading edge of particle physics today, but our current theories are around because they explain what we see in experiments. Again, you don't know what to apply this fluctation to, which isn't to say a "cause" doesn't exist.

lifegazer

31st January 2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
two words: quantum fluctuations
Two words: ha ha.

Seriously, if you think quantum indeterminism gets you out of this hole, then you're in deep water my slippery friend.
Do you want to argue that quantum events are primal-causes, or what? Bring it on. I've heard it all before.

DarkMagician

31st January 2004, 03:02 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Bring it on. I've misunderstood it all before. FIXED AGAIN!

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by El Greco

I'm not "saying" anything, but in the context of all the wild hypotheses formulated in this thread, yes, there was nothing before big-bang, not even time.

If you argue that this is impossible, then you tell me what was before god.

Or, otherwise, do you accept an acausal start as lifegazer did, or not ? Yes, and here we are left with something from nothing again.

lifegazer

31st January 2004, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by DarkMagician
If a primal-cause is the only determining factor of existence, then what made God?

Read my previous post. The questions which apply to effects do not apply to a primal-cause. This is obvious when you think about it.

If God "always exists", then why cant the universe "always exist" in some form or another.

The universe is comprised of its effects. Not a primal-cause in sight. Do you want to argue that a primal-cause is not required for all the effects within the universe (existence)? Then do so. Then I shall destroy your argument.

El Greco

31st January 2004, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and here we are left with something from nothing again.

Indeed. Exactly the same as the God theory. Because every argument about God can also be applied to Big Bang.

I respect everyone's beliefs but God can't be proved logically. And as we already know, the burden of proof is on the one who's making the claim.

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by El Greco

Indeed. Exactly the same as the God theory. Because every argument about God can also be applied to Big Bang.

I respect everyone's beliefs but God can't be proved logically. And as we already know, the burden of proof is on the one who's making the claim. Yes, so there must have been a primal-cause then right? If so, then what is the primal-cause? If, in fact it hasn't "always" existed?

lifegazer

31st January 2004, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by CWL
So you are saying "God" is accausal? Well if you can say that, I can I simply say that the Universe as such is accausal.

Saying it means Jack.
We're discussing the existence of a primal-cause (of changing existence) here. If you read my first post, I argue that the definitive-default of a primal-cause = God. I.e., if a primal-cause exists, then God exists.
So, do you believe a primal-cause exists or not?

That means that Occam's Razor just cut your "God" out of the picture, my friend. Hey, I'm just playing by your own rules...

Occam's razor looks for the simplest reasons for effects, right?
Well, Occam's razor surely supports the idea that the simplest explanation of all effects is the existence of a singular primal-cause = God. Reason cannot doubt this.
Thus, Occam's razor has, on this date (31st January 2004) shaved God's chin.

lifegazer

31st January 2004, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by El Greco
Iacchus has found a friend!

Iacchus + lifegazer = http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/liebe/love-smiley-009.gif
Change your name to mister superficial and p*** off.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

31st January 2004, 03:21 PM

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Thus, Occam's razor has, on this date (31st January 2004) shaved God's chin. Amen to that brother! :D

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Person: Why can't we call the primal-cause the Big Bang?Because what caused the Big Bang then?

That's a pretty arbitrary explanation for the current state of our affairs don't you think? ;)

lifegazer

31st January 2004, 03:29 PM

A primal-cause for all effects must exist.
This is the basis of my argument.
Further, I argue that a primal-cause = God.

So basically, you have to argue that a primal-cause does not exist. So do it. It's important. This is not a game.

DarkMagician

31st January 2004, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Occam's razor looks for the simplest reasons for effects, right?
Well, Occam's razor surely supports the idea that the simplest explanation of all effects is the existence of a singular primal-cause = God. Reason cannot doubt this.
Thus, Occam's razor has, on this date (31st January 2004) shaved God's chin. http://web.bvu.edu/students/yaegnic/logic/sig_occam.gif

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by DarkMagician
http://web.bvu.edu/students/yaegnic/logic/sig_occam.gif If the universe "just" exists, then it has no need for Occam's Razor now does it?

lifegazer

31st January 2004, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by DarkMagician
http://web.bvu.edu/students/yaegnic/logic/sig_occam.gif
This is not an assertion my friend. It's a fact: a primal-cause is not an effect... and hence has no cause... and hence: God is.

Deal with it. Grow up. Walk away from the sheep mentality. You have one life... don't waste it on things.

Tricky

31st January 2004, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
A primal-cause for all effects must exist.
This is the basis of my argument.
Further, I argue that a primal-cause = God.

So basically, you have to argue that a primal-cause does not exist. So do it. It's important. This is not a game.
You have made no argument at all. You have only made a statement of your belief, supported by no evidence whatsoever. All of the arguments put forth by those here trying to show why there need not be a primal cause have had no effect upon your deeply held but unsupported belief. It is simply impossible to change a mind that is not being used.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

31st January 2004, 03:36 PM

Lifegazer: The Big Bang needs a cause.

Person: Such as?

Lifegazer: God is the primal-cause.

Person: Why can't the Big Bang be the primal-cause?

Lifegazer: Because the Big Bang needs a cause. I call that God, the primal-cause, which needs no cause.

Person: Why can't we call the primal-cause the Big Bang?

Iacchus: Because what caused the Big Bang then?

Person: The same thing that did or did not cause God.

Lifegazer: A primal-cause for all effects must exist.
This is the basis of my argument.
Further, I argue that a primal-cause = God.
So basically, you have to argue that a primal-cause does not exist. So do it. It's important. This is not a game.

Person: Why do you argue that, rather than that the primal-cause is the Big Bang?

DarkMagician

31st January 2004, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
If the universe "just" exists, then it has no need for Occam's Razor now does it? :hb:

lifegazer

31st January 2004, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Amen to that brother! :D
The saddest and most ironic thing is that science pursues brain-melting string-theories as the fundamental cause of existence.
... Regardless of the fact that 1-dimensional or 2-dimensional entities cannot exist as tangible (real) entities beyond conception.

El Greco

31st January 2004, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Change your name to mister superficial and p*** off.

Good. You finally managed to say something that makes sense in this thread http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/aktion/action-smiley-033.gif

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Person: Why do you argue that, rather than that the primal-cause is the Big Bang? Are you saying there was "nothing" before the Big Bang? Not even time?

Hmm ... How can I even conceive of a continuum such as time then?

DarkMagician

31st January 2004, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

This is not an assertion my friend. It's a fact: a primal-cause is not an effect... and hence has no cause... and hence: God is.

Deal with it. Grow up. Walk away from the sheep mentality. You have one life... don't waste it on things. Let's play a little game.
The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of entropy in a system must always increase, correct?
So the only way to decrease the entropy in a system is to do something to the system (ie, make it non-isolated) and in-fact make a cause to create an effect, right?
The Poincare Recurrence Theorem says that the particles in a system will eventually, given enough time (which is a lot), return to original positions and velocites, thus decreasing the entropy.
BUT WAIT! That'd be in opposition to the Second LoT! Plus, it doesn't require a non-isolated system to decrease entropy. An effect without a cause.

In short, go "sleep with" yourself.

Zero

31st January 2004, 03:49 PM

Wow, 2 1/2 years I have known lifegazer, and he is STILL a moron...does he get points for consistency?

"A primal cause has no cause of its own...why? Because if it did, it wouldn't be called a primal cause, now would it?"

That's all you've got after 2 1/2 years? The stupidest argument in the world? It IS stupid, BTW, and obviously so, because it asks for an exception to be made to the rules, for the sole purpose of forcing the illogical to make sense.

lifegazer

31st January 2004, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
You have made no argument at all. You have only made a statement of your belief, supported by no evidence whatsoever.

That's a complete lie. Sue me if you want to. The evidence in this thread will mean you are wasting your dough.

All of the arguments put forth by those here trying to show why there need not be a primal cause

Which arguments would they be? Perhaps you are talking about upchurch's "two words: quantum fluctuations" so-called-argument?
Other than that, I can only see the usual insults and naivity.
Where's your own argument, btw? Is this it? LOL

have had no effect upon your deeply held but unsupported belief. It is simply impossible to change a mind that is not being used.
This forum should ban people such as you from posting in this particular forum. You have no intention or desire to discuss the issues. It's your sole intent to use propoganda to destroy me and (hence) my philosophy.
The one obstacle between you and your objective is that you come across as completely dumb and insincere in your efforts. Go away. Come back when you take me seriously.

Zero

31st January 2004, 03:53 PM

Did you see that?!? Navelgazer said he had evidence!! He doesn't, of course, he just has more assumptions and unfounded assertions...

...maybe we should all chip in and get him some lithium and a dictionary?

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Wow, 2 1/2 years I have known lifegazer, and he is STILL a moron...does he get points for consistency?

"A primal cause has no cause of its own...why? Because if it did, it wouldn't be called a primal cause, now would it?"

That's all you've got after 2 1/2 years? The stupidest argument in the world? It IS stupid, BTW, and obviously so, because it asks for an exception to be made to the rules, for the sole purpose of forcing the illogical to make sense. Or, maybe the whole thing is just arbitrary, you know, like the beginning of existence? If so, then may I ask why you are getting so upset? You shouldn't let "nothing" bother you Zero. ;)

Zero

31st January 2004, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Or, maybe the whole thing is just arbitrary, you know, like the beginning of existence? If so, then may I ask why you are getting so upset? You shouldn't let "nothing" bother you Zero. ;) Howdy sockpuppet.

It is a shame to see (another?) person give their life to idiocy...try to stay in the light, don't give in to lifegazer-style idiocy!

lifegazer

31st January 2004, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Wow, 2 1/2 years I have known lifegazer, and he is STILL a moron...does he get points for consistency?

Always good for a laff is our Zero. I'd like to have a beer with you one day. You never know.

"A primal cause has no cause of its own...why? Because if it did, it wouldn't be called a primal cause, now would it?"

A primal-cause is not the same thing as an effect, by default. Why are you having problems seeing that? Perhaps you've had a few too many already.

The stupidest argument in the world? It IS stupid, BTW, and obviously so, because it asks for an exception to be made to the rules, for the sole purpose of forcing the illogical to make sense.
What?
Everything you can see is an effect and/or is dependent upon other things/effects.
So, since you want to argue against the position that there is a primal-cause (God), do so. How can effects come into existence without a cause?

lifegazer

31st January 2004, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by El Greco

Good. You finally managed to say something that makes sense in this thread http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/aktion/action-smiley-033.gif
You finally spoke to me. You have now lost your credibility with the chicks. Send them to lifegazer@...

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Howdy sockpuppet.

It is a shame to see (another?) person give their life to idiocy...try to stay in the light, don't give in to lifegazer-style idiocy! Well if I'm Lifegazer's sockpuppet, then you're the sockpuppet of everyone on else on this board, aside from the fact that you're a ... Oh, nevermind!

Dancing David

31st January 2004, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by GhostWriter

In this thread, I shall argue that a body of effects requires a digestion = God.

Now, digestion is acausal, by definitive default. Therefore, if a digestion bodies, it is actually stupid to pursue your line of enquiry. No offense intended, but I must shock you out of the stupor you are in. You cannot ask where digestion came from because the question only has relevance to an effect.
Do you and all the other skeptics in here understand this simple logic?

DarkMagician

31st January 2004, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Everything you can see is an effect and/or is dependent upon other things/effects.Um, I put this up as an example of something happening without a cause. Before you make the "everything must have a cause" assertion, try to successfully argue against this:
Originally posted by DarkMagician
Let's play a little game.
The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of entropy in a system must always increase, correct?
So the only way to decrease the entropy in a system is to do something to the system (ie, make it non-isolated) and in-fact make a cause to create an effect, right?
The Poincare Recurrence Theorem says that the particles in a system will eventually, given enough time (which is a lot), return to original positions and velocites, thus decreasing the entropy.
BUT WAIT! That'd be in opposition to the Second LoT! Plus, it doesn't require a non-isolated system to decrease entropy. An effect without a cause.

In short, go "sleep with" yourself.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

31st January 2004, 04:50 PM

Iacchus asked:
Are you saying there was "nothing" before the Big Bang? Not even time?
There was nothing of this universe, nothing of this time. What else there might have been is probably impossible to know.

~~ Paul

Tricky

31st January 2004, 04:58 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

That's a complete lie. Sue me if you want to. The evidence in this thread will mean you are wasting your dough.
LOL. I wouldn't think of suing you, lifegazer. I would guess that my chances of you having any money are roughly the same as of you having any intelligence.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Which arguments would they be? Perhaps you are talking about upchurch's "two words: quantum fluctuations" so-called-argument?
I take it you are unaware of what quantum fluctuations are. They are rock-solid evidence of things happening without "primal cause". That is unless you can give us some good evidence as to what causes them. If you can, then you will not only win this debate, but the Nobel Prize for Physics.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Other than that, I can only see the usual insults and naivity.
Where's your own argument, btw? Is this it? LOL
Well, Upchurch's argument is a slam dunk in your face. However, since you are evidently immune to scientific evidence, I give you one of my favorite syllogisms. If you accept premise one and premise two, then you must accept the conclusion. If you disagree with one of the premises, then tell me why. (Beleth has been through this exercise already.)

Premise 1: Everything real has a primal cause
Premise 2: God is real
Conclusion: God has a primal cause

Which one of those premises do you disagree with? Be ready to defend your position.

Originally posted by lifegazer
This forum should ban people such as you from posting in this particular forum. You have no intention or desire to discuss the issues. It's your sole intent to use propoganda to destroy me and (hence) my philosophy.
Ban me? For what reason? For insulting you? If insults were forbidden, you would have been gone a long time ago. But I have no wish (or ability) to destroy you. You have a vital task here, which is to serve as a bad example. Keep up the good work.

Originally posted by lifegazer
The one obstacle between you and your objective is that you come across as completely dumb and insincere in your efforts. Go away. Come back when you take me seriously.
Oh, I am plenty sincere. I simply cannot agree to your terms, your definitions and your, for lack of a better word, logic. If you want brainless copies of yourself to debate with, then you had better get busy making some sock puppets, you posturing pseudointellectual.

El Greco

31st January 2004, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

You finally spoke to me. You have now lost your credibility with the chicks. Send them to lifegazer@...

I'm finally beginning to understand what you mean by "primal cause": It's what everybody else calls "testosterone".

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

I take it you are unaware of what quantum fluctuations are. They are rock-solid evidence of things happening without "primal cause". That is unless you can give us some good evidence as to what causes them. If you can, then you will not only win this debate, but the Nobel Prize for Physics.But how do they fluctuate? Between "what" and "what?" And what are the "two whats" that are the cause? So all you're suggesting is we don't understand what the "two whats" are.

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

There was nothing of this universe, nothing of this time. What else there might have been is probably impossible to know.

~~ Paul How can you say such a thing, if that "what else" never existed? ...

triadboy

31st January 2004, 05:25 PM

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

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

triadboy

31st January 2004, 05:29 PM

I noticed Lacchus and Lifegazer didn't comment on the expanding/collapsing universe. Is this thing on? (tap tap tap)

I didn't make this up - this is Hindu cosmology.

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by triadboy

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

What a theist doesn't understand becomes 'god'. No, in order for God to exist He would have to be the primal-cause. And thus far no one has illustrated to the contrary that a primal-cause does not exist.

DarkMagician

31st January 2004, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, in order for God to exist He would have to be the primal-cause. And thus far several people have illustrated to contrary that a primal-cause does not exist but I'm going to continue to stick my head in the sand.*sigh* a post-fixer's work is never done.

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by DarkMagician
*sigh* a post-fixer's work is never done. Okay, which is it then?

Tricky

31st January 2004, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
But how do they fluctuate? Between "what" and "what?" And what are the "two whats" that are the cause? So all you're suggesting is we don't understand what the "two whats" are.
This link might help (http://people.physics.tamu.edu/mershin/webcmb.html)

You'd have to get Upchurch to give you a better explanation, but my simple understanding is that the "fluctuations" are random perturbations of the geometry of the universe, so you could possibly say that they fluctuate from being predictable to unpredictable. Their randomness indicates that there is no primal cause for them. That is why I say if you can actually determine a cause, then you are in line for the Nobel Prize. (But they probably won't accept "God's Plan" as the cause.)

I would not be so egomaniacal as to claim that I know they have no primal cause, but there is one heck of a lot of evidence for that. Meanwhile there is no evidence of Lifegazer's assertion that there must be a primal cause for every non-god thing. His "evidence" is his assertion. That is simply not good enough.

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

This link might help (http://people.physics.tamu.edu/mershin/webcmb.html)

You'd have to get Upchurch to give you a better explanation, but my simple understanding is that the "fluctuations" are random perturbations of the geometry of the universe, so you could possibly say that they fluctuate from being predictable to unpredictable. Their randomness indicates that there is no primal cause for them. That is why I say if you can actually determine a cause, then you are in line for the Nobel Prize. (But they probably won't accept "God's Plan" as the cause.)Are these things which would have occurred before or after the Big Bang? Of course how could I even conceive of such a thing if the Big Bang were IT?

I would not be so egomaniacal as to claim that I know they have no primal cause, but there is one heck of a lot of evidence for that. Meanwhile there is no evidence of Lifegazer's assertion that there must be a primal cause for every non-god thing. His "evidence" is his assertion. That is simply not good enough. Because it's so much easier to say that something came from nothing which, is quite acceptable then, right?

DarkMagician

31st January 2004, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus as a perfect example of question begging
Okay, which is it then? Again, you are putting up a false dichotomy.
"God always exists, or we all came from nothing."
Why can't the universe be always existing in one form or another, like a perpetual universe?
Or several "strings" cross to create our universe?

Tricky

31st January 2004, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Are these things which would have occurred before or after the Big Bang? Of course how could I even conceive of such a thing if the Big Bang were IT?
I don't know. As far as I know there is no evidence either way. However, I will resist calling my ignorance "God".

Originally posted by Iacchus
Because it's so much easier to say that something came from nothing which, is quite acceptable then, right?
Quantum fluctuations seem to indicate that something does come from nothing. All the time. Although this does not reveal the mechanism of the Big Bang, it does at least remove the false premise of primal cause.

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by DarkMagician
Again, you are putting up a false dichotomy.
"God always exists, or we all came from nothing."
Why can't the universe be always existing in one form or another, like a perpetual universe?
Or, several "strings" cross to create our universe? Or, what if I said a primal-cause does exists, or else we all came from nothing? And what is it about the Big Bang then, which most "theorists" claim to be the primal-cause? ... which in effect says everything stems from nothing?

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

I don't know. As far as I know there is no evidence either way. However, I will resist calling my ignorance "God".Understood.

Quantum fluctuations seem to indicate that something does come from nothing. All the time. Although this does not reveal the mechanism of the Big Bang, it does at least remove the false premise of primal cause. Your argument seems to be rather circular here.

DarkMagician

31st January 2004, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Or, what if I said a primal-cause does exists, or else we all came from nothing? And what is it about the Big Bang then, which most "theorists" claim to be the primal-cause? ... which in effect says everything stems from nothing? http://web.bvu.edu/students/yaegnic/logic/here_roll_scientists.jpg
We have brought up points that need no cause, (my Pointcare Recurrence, their quantum fluctuations, etc.), and you haven't managed to explain them or read up on them.

The big bang theory says there was no "before the big bang," and thus no time where there was "nothing".

Suddenly

31st January 2004, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by triadboy
There is still a 'god of the gaps' in this thread.

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

Hey!!

Most theists I know do not understand me....

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by DarkMagician

The big bang theory says there was no "before the big bang," and thus no time where there was "nothing". So which is it? Are you in agreement with the Big Bang theory or, something else? And if there was no time where there was "nothing," then what was there?

Yahweh

31st January 2004, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Let's examine existence without God...

Without God, there is no primal-cause for existence. A primal-cause is, by definitive default, the only determining factor of existence. Such a cause has no external needs or influences in the creation of effects occuring within it. If we apply reason to the term "primal cause", it soon becomes apparent that we are in fact talking about God itself.
Hence, without God, there is no primal-cause within existence.

The absence of a primal-cause means that everything in existence is an effect. Who amongst you wants to defend this absurd position? I'll wait for rational responses. If none are forthcoming, I shall destroy the position anyway and show you that there is a primal-cause = there is a God.

What caused God?

Why doesnt God need cause?

What makes God the primal-cause?

Your logic is very circular.

(Note: No offense to deists.)

But to answer you question:

Here's the short answer (much hand-waving follows):

First, the Planck length. Max Planck discovered that there was a number (a very very very small number) which was effectively the smallest thing you could have. Expressed as distance, the Planck length is the smallest distance you can measure, like the limit of resolution of your ruler. Expressed as energy, it's the smallest bit of energy (the so-called quantum). Expressed as time, it is the smallest bit of time you can measure. (Remember that time and distance are functions of each other, so the smallest distance and the smallest time are related).

Then Stephen Hawking discovered that underneath this limit, all sorts of hanky panky was going on. For instance, sometimes particles (like say an electron) will just appear out of nothing, for no reason at all. So the old adage that something cannot come from nothing is false: it happens a gazillion times a second.

Of course, you are wondering, why don't we notice this? Well, its because the universe is as bad as a bank: you can't take money out without putting money in. So when that electron just pops into being, an anti-electron is also created. And here's the kicker: the two of them wander around a bit, and then collide. Well you know what happens when a particle and an anti-particle collide: they both go woosh! And the energy they create from their explosion is exactly the same amount of energy it took to create them... so everything balances out!

But wait, you say. Wouldn't we notice all this wooshing? The answer is, all of this takes place under the Planck limit. So no, we don't notice it. You know that movies are really just still frames displayed really quickly, right? And because your eyes can't adjust faster than 30 times a second or so, you can't tell. You don't see the stillness, just the motion. The Planck limit is like that: you can't see well enough to see the individual actions, just the net result.

So... imagine the universe when there was no matter in it. No distance, either (and hence no time but that's a different issue). Nothing at all. So along comes some innocent particle, pops into being just like they always do, but wait: there is no distance. Well you know what happens when you stuff 20 lbls of potatos into a 5lb bag, right. No distance means that the first particle had infinite density. Infinite density means infinte mass, which means infinite energy. And stuffing infinite energy into a tiny point means kaboom!

And there's your Big Bang. Out of nothing. Of course, now that we have distance, we don't have infinite energy anymore. So all those little guys popping in and out don't matter so much. But they still serve to evaporate black holes, so we're grateful they're around.

- Yahzi

DarkMagician

31st January 2004, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So which is it? Are you in agreement with the Big Bang theory, or something else? Yes, I agree with the Big Bang Theory. Just not your straw-man of it.

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by DarkMagician
Yes, I agree with the Big Bang Theory. Just not your straw-man of it. And if there was no time where there was "nothing," then what was there?

Zero

31st January 2004, 06:49 PM

Lifegazer has taken on the idiotic postion: "everything has a cause, therefore something exists that DOESN'T have a cause", contradicting himself right up front.

DarkMagician

31st January 2004, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And if there was no time where there was "nothing," then what was there?

Yahweh

31st January 2004, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And if there was no time where there was "nothing," then what was there?
You are thinking on a macro-scale.

Reduce the scale down to the Quantum Level.

Does that help?

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

But to answer you question:

Here's the short answer (much hand-waving follows):

First, the Planck length. Max Planck discovered that there was a number (a very very very small number) which was effectively the smallest thing you could have. Expressed as distance, the Planck length is the smallest distance you can measure, like the limit of resolution of your ruler. Expressed as energy, it's the smallest bit of energy (the so-called quantum). Expressed as time, it is the smallest bit of time you can measure. (Remember that time and distance are functions of each other, so the smallest distance and the smallest time are related).So would you say that Planck's length is ever-stretching then?

Then Stephen Hawking discovered that underneath this limit, all sorts of hanky panky was going on. For instance, sometimes particles (like say an electron) will just appear out of nothing, for no reason at all. So the old adage that something cannot come from nothing is false: it happens a gazillion times a second.Wait a second! How can you get from Stephen Hawking says so, to it happens gazillion times a second? How can you be so sure?

Of course, you are wondering, why don't we notice this? Well, its because the universe is as bad as a bank: you can't take money out without putting money in. So when that electron just pops into being, an anti-electron is also created. And here's the kicker: the two of them wander around a bit, and then collide. Well you know what happens when a particle and an anti-particle collide: they both go woosh! And the energy they create from their explosion is exactly the same amount of energy it took to create them... so everything balances out!But what I want to know is "who" printed the money?

But wait, you say. Wouldn't we notice all this wooshing? The answer is, all of this takes place under the Planck limit. So no, we don't notice it. You know that movies are really just still frames displayed really quickly, right? And because your eyes can't adjust faster than 30 times a second or so, you can't tell. You don't see the stillness, just the motion. The Planck limit is like that: you can't see well enough to see the individual actions, just the net result.Okay, why is it so important then for us (man) to see beyond our "physical senses?" For according to Planck's length, it isn't a requirement in order for us to exist or, be fully functional.

So... imagine the universe when there was no matter in it. No distance, either (and hence no time but that's a different issue). Nothing at all. So along comes some innocent particle, pops into being just like they always do, but wait: there is no distance. Well you know what happens when you stuff 20 lbls of potatos into a 5lb bag, right. No distance means that the first particle had infinite density. Infinite density means infinte mass, which means infinite energy. And stuffing infinite energy into a tiny point means kaboom!All based upon the assumption that something comes from nothing of course.

And there's your Big Bang. Out of nothing. Of course, now that we have distance, we don't have infinite energy anymore. So all those little guys popping in and out don't matter so much. But they still serve to evaporate black holes, so we're grateful they're around.

- Yahzi So what I want to know is, "who" laid the cosmic egg?

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

You are thinking on a macro-scale.

Reduce the scale down to the Quantum Level.

Does that help? What for? I'd rather think of it in the "holistic sense." Besides, Planck's length says it isn't necessary to break things down into such small increments, not in order to understand something anyway. ;)

Zero

31st January 2004, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus

So what I want to know is, "who" laid the cosmic egg? The problem is, as soon as you make a guess as to "who laid the egg", I am going to ask "who made the egg-layer?" It is like when you have a mirror behind and in front of you, with infinite reflections going on. Every time you suggest a "final" creator, you will be asked to show why there isn't another creator behind that one.

Tricky

31st January 2004, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So what I want to know is, "who" laid the cosmic egg?
And this sums up the entire gist of the question that you and Lifegazer seek. You want to know who. You cannot accept "nobody". You cannot accept "nothing". You cannot accept "I don't know". You must assign this existence to something.

Try saying it. "I don't know". It doesn't hurt. It will give you a new sense of humility. The whole reason religion has been such a powerful and often evil force in the world is simply because of Man's inability to say those three words. Religion invents explanations to cover for its ignorance because it can't stand not knowing.

The whole reason science has become such a useful and positive force in the world is because it says, "...but I will try to find out."

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by DarkMagician

DarkMagician has attached this image:

http://www.dionysus.org/begging.jpgAnother artificially contrived "formula" by science no doubt. ;)

Zero

31st January 2004, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

*snip*
The whole reason science has become such a useful and positive force in the world is because it says, "...but I will try to find out." Exactly...

You know, as I said before, I have known lifegazer online for about 2 and a half years, and he has never said anything except 'goddidit'. For him, as soon as he decided that 'goddidit', he closed his mind to ever learning anything new, anything that might interfere with the perfection of his assurance.

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 07:57 PM

Originally posted by Zero
The problem is, as soon as you make a guess as to "who laid the egg", I am going to ask "who made the egg-layer?" It is like when you have a mirror behind and in front of you, with infinite reflections going on. Every time you suggest a "final" creator, you will be asked to show why there isn't another creator behind that one. So where will it ever end, except by establishing a primal-cause?

Zero

31st January 2004, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So where will it ever end, except by establishing a primal-cause? Maybe it doesn't end at all? That's an option that some people, for all their calls for open-mindedness, never seem willing to contemplate.

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

And this sums up the entire gist of the question that you and Lifegazer seek. You want to know who. You cannot accept "nobody". You cannot accept "nothing". You cannot accept "I don't know". You must assign this existence to something.It was just a rhetorical statement by the way.

Try saying it. "I don't know". It doesn't hurt. It will give you a new sense of humility. The whole reason religion has been such a powerful and often evil force in the world is simply because of Man's inability to say those three words. Religion invents explanations to cover for its ignorance because it can't stand not knowing. And why is it that you insist on speaking about that which "you" know nothing about? ... i.e., the purpose behind religion.

The whole reason science has become such a useful and positive force in the world is because it says, "...but I will try to find out." Except that it won't touch "the cause," of all the effects.

Tricky

31st January 2004, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So where will it ever end, except by establishing a primal-cause?
This line of questioning can never end, because you cannot establish "primal cause". The instant you do, you have to then ask, "what caused the primal cause". That is why this line of questioning is circular (as you accused one of my earlier arguments as being).

There's a funny phrase that I learned on these boards that describes this line of reasoning. It's called, "Turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down." What it refers to is one of the ancient beliefs that the world rested on the back of a giant turtle. When it became obvious that the giant turtle must itself rest on something, then it was hypothesized that the turtle stood on the back of an even greater turtle. And that one on another, ad infinitum. At some point you must decide that there is a turtle that need not stand on anything (the "primal turtle", if you will) but the point at which you choose to do this is absolutely arbitrary.

It is the same with primal cause. You must, at some point, agree that there is something which doesn't require a creator, or a primal cause. You may choose to call it God. But there is really no need to go down even one "turtle". You can simply start with "the universe" as not needing a creator, rather than creating additional layers of creators. Besides, giant turtles are an endangered species. Let's not use too many of them ;)

DarkMagician

31st January 2004, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So where will it ever end, except by establishing a primal-cause? How do you establish a primal cause?
You can't just point to something, and say "That's our primal cause". You can't just have a "primal cause" where it ends because it would allow you to sleep peacefully.

Like Zero says, why can't it go on to infinity? I mean, you can contemplate God always existing. Why can't you apply that to the universe?

DarkMagician

31st January 2004, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And why is it that you insist on speaking about that which "you" know nothing about? ... i.e., the purpose behind religion.Due to your knowledge of the Big Bang, I believe this is fitting.

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 08:20 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Maybe it doesn't end at all? That's an option that some people, for all their calls for open-mindedness, never seem willing to contemplate. But then it's okay to suggest everything began with the Big Bang, right? ... which in effect says everything stems from nothing. Sorry, but I really do have a hard time with this.

Yahweh

31st January 2004, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So would you say that Planck's length is ever-stretching then?
I dont understand where this is going, but the answer is "no".

Wait a second! How can you get from Stephen Hawking says so, to it happens gazillion times a second? How can you be so sure?
The information is predicted by Quantum Mechanics, and verified at CERN and other such research facilities.

Do you still have any objections?

But what I want to know is "who" printed the money?
You are begging the question.

The particles which come about arise spontaneously, there was no "who" that printed the "money". This is known, this is a fact, the information is very well documented and observed.

Okay, why is it so important then for us (man) to see beyond our "physical senses?"
We desire knowledge.

For according to Planck's length, it isn't a requirement in order for us to exist or, be fully functional.
I dont understand what you are saying.

All based upon the assumption that something comes from nothing of course.
Its not an assumption.

So what I want to know is, "who" laid the cosmic egg?
No one.

Yahweh

31st January 2004, 08:22 PM

Hilarious pictures, Dark Magician :p

(I see you are fan of WinAce's homepage :D )

DarkMagician

31st January 2004, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh
Hilarious pictures, Dark Magician :p

(I see you are fan of WinAce's homepage :D ) Yeah, I'm thinking of linking to the webpage in my sig.

Edit: Just did.

Zero

31st January 2004, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
But then it's okay to suggest everything began with the Big Bang, right? ... which in effect says everything stems from nothing. Sorry, but I really do have a hard time with this. No, there is nothing wrong with positing the Big Bang, because if you knew anything about it, you would know that scientists aslo claim ignorance about any time before the Big Bang.

Tricky

31st January 2004, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
It was just a rhetorical statement by the way.
Well, it certainly wasn't worded as one. It sounded as if you were insisting there must be a "who". I apologize if I have tried to respond seriously to a question you did not pose seriously.

Originally posted by Iacchus
And why is it that you insist on speaking about that which "you" know nothing about? ... i.e., the purpose behind religion.
I said I know nothing (or at least very little) about the origin of the universe. I did not say I knew nothing of religion. From my experience with religion, its primary function is to give life meaning (a position that Lifegazer has asserted numerous times). What would you say is its primary function?

Originally posted by Iacchus
Except that it won't touch "the cause," of all the effects.
Or maybe you just give up too easily?:p No, science probably never will find the cause of everything, especially if there is no "cause". But it will find many truly fascinating things while looking. It will never stop and say, "because that's how God made it." That is the reason I find science more wonderful than religion. The joy is in the journey, not the destination.

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Tricky

There's a funny phrase that I learned on these boards that describes this line of reasoning. It's called, "Turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down." What it refers to is one of the ancient beliefs that the world rested on the back of a giant turtle. When it became obvious that the giant turtle must itself rest on something, then it was hypothesized that the turtle stood on the back of an even greater turtle. And that one on another, ad infinitum. At some point you must decide that there is a turtle that need not stand on anything (the "primal turtle", if you will) but the point at which you choose to do this is absolutely arbitrary.Not unless the primal-cause was the beginning -- "and the ending" -- of everything.

"I am alpha and omega, the first and the last."

Yahweh

31st January 2004, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by Zero
No, there is nothing wrong with positing the Big Bang, because if you knew anything about it, you would know that scientists aslo claim ignorance about any time before the Big Bang.
I dont think its ignorance when you dont know the nature of something which cannot logically exist...

Zero

31st January 2004, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

I dont think its ignorance when you dont know the nature of something which cannot logically exist... Right...a semantic argument, I guess. There are certain things that we most likely CANNOT know, no matter what. Anything before the Big Bang would fall into that category.

EternalUniverse

31st January 2004, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Okay, But what caused the Big Bang!

Are you saying there was "nothing" before this, not even time?

Just specifically on the topic of time, the famous saying by physicists is that the universe was not created in time, but with it. Time and space are interlinked, and are concepts that make up the characteristics of the natural universe. The real question is, what can exist apart from the universe.

Yahweh

31st January 2004, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Tricky:
Quantum fluctuations seem to indicate that something does come from nothing. All the time. Although this does not reveal the mechanism of the Big Bang, it does at least remove the false premise of primal cause.

Iaachus:
Your argument seems to be rather circular here.
What makes you say that?

The argument is not circular at all.

EternalUniverse

31st January 2004, 09:22 PM

The problem I see with theistic arguments is that they necessarily have to start with the position that there is "God", and then from this tries to come up with arguments to justify (rationalize?) this position.
This "first cause" argument is a prime example. It argues that there must be an "uncaused cause" because they already are biased with the position that God exists.

Upchurch

31st January 2004, 09:38 PM

Tricky

31st January 2004, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Not unless the primal-cause was the beginning -- "and the ending" -- of everything.

"I am alpha and omega, the first and the last."
Nope. Not even then. This is a nice poetic phrase, but is nothing more than empty words. The beginning is the ending? Talk about your circular arguments. :rolleyes:

Tricky

31st January 2004, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Thanks, Tricky. Saved me the trouble.
You're welcome, but I'd still like to hear your take on this. I admit that I am a duffer at quantum theory. When you start doing math, my eyes glaze over.

It is said, though, that if you can't explain something to a child, then you don't really understand it. Personally, I'd love to have a short course in Quantum Mechanics for Dummies.

I thought Yawah's brief explanation was very good, but not in enough depth. Perhaps I'll go to the science forum to start a new thread.

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by EternalUniverse
The problem I see with theistic arguments is that they necessarily have to start with the position that there is "God", and then from this tries to come up with arguments to justify (rationalize?) this position.
This "first cause" argument is a prime example. It argues that there must be an "uncaused cause" because they already are biased with the position that God exists. Yes, and when we start saying, "Well, you'll just have to take our word for it that God exists," then who starts crying foul? Hmm ... Now why does this sound all too familiar to your references to the Big Bang theory, which in effect says everything stems from nothing?

Don't you think it would be fair to ask you to provide the same sort of evidence -- which, so far you haven't -- to back up your claims?

DarkMagician

31st January 2004, 10:39 PM

Yahweh

31st January 2004, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and when we start saying, "Well, you'll just have to take our word for it that God exists," then who starts crying foul? Hmm ... Now why does this sound all too familiar to your references to the Big Bang theory, which in effect says everything stems from nothing?

Don't you think it would be fair to ask you to provide the same sort of evidence -- which, so far you haven't -- to back up your claims?
Well, I ask that you do the same: Please back up your claims.

And now, here is some helpful information on Virtual Particles from Particles, Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/rmext04/92andwed/pf_quant.html#Q31d):

Do they go faster than light? Do virtual particles contradict relativity or causality?

In section 2, the virtual photon's plane wave is seemingly created everywhere in space at once, and destroyed all at once. Therefore, the interaction can happen no matter how far the interacting particles are from each other. Quantum field theory is supposed to properly apply special relativity to quantum mechanics. Yet here we have something that, at least at first glance, isn't supposed to be possible in special relativity: the virtual photon can go from one interacting particle to the other faster than light! It turns out, if we sum up all possible momenta, that the amplitude for transmission drops as the virtual particle's final position gets further and further outside the light cone, but that's small consolation. This "superluminal" propagation had better not transmit any information if we are to retain the principle of causality.

I'll give a plausibility argument that it doesn't in the context of a thought experiment. Let's try to send information faster than light with a virtual particle.

Suppose that you and I make repeated measurements of a quantum field at distant locations. The electromagnetic field is sort of a complicated thing, so I'll use the example of a field with just one component, and call it F. To make things even simpler, we'll assume that there are no "charged" sources of the F field or real F particles initially. This means that our F measurements should fluctuate quantum- mechanically around an average value of zero. You measure F (really, an average value of F over some small region) at one place, and I measure it a little while later at a place far away. We do this over and over, and wait a long time between the repetitions, just to be safe.

.
.
.
------X
------
X------

^ time
------X me |
------ |
you X------ ---> space

After a large number of repeated field measurements we compare notes. We discover that our results are not independent; the F values are correlated with each other-- even though each individual set of measurements just fluctuates around zero, the fluctuations are not completely independent. This is because of the propagation of virtual quanta of the F field, represented by the diagonal lines. It happens even if the virtual particle has to go faster than light.

However, this correlation transmits no information. Neither of us has any control over the results we get, and each set of results looks completely random until we compare notes (this is just like the resolution of the famous EPR "paradox").

You can do things to fields other than measure them. Might you still be able to send a signal? Suppose that you attempt, by some series of actions, to send information to me by means of the virtual particle. If we look at this from the perspective of someone moving to the right at a high enough speed, special relativity says that in that reference frame, the effect is going the other way:

.
.
.

X------
------
------X

you X------ ^ time
------ |
------X me |
---> space

Now it seems as if I'm affecting what happens to you rather than the other way around. (If the quanta of the F field are not the same as their antiparticles, then the transmission of a virtual F particle >from you to me now looks like the transmission of its antiparticle >from me to you.) If all this is to fit properly into special relativity, then it shouldn't matter which of these processes "really" happened; the two descriptions should be equally valid.

We know that all of this was derived from quantum mechanics, using perturbation theory. In quantum mechanics, the future quantum state of a system can be derived by applying the rules for time evolution to its present quantum state. No measurement I make when I "receive" the particle can tell me whether you've "sent" it or not, because in one frame that hasn't happened yet! Since my present state must be derivable from past events, if I have your message, I must have gotten it by other means. The virtual particle didn't "transmit" any information that I didn't have already; it is useless as a means of faster-than-light communication.

The order of events does *not* vary in different frames if the transmission is at the speed of light or slower. Then, the use of virtual particles as a communication channel is completely consistent with quantum mechanics and relativity. That's fortunate: since all particle interactions occur over a finite time interval, in a sense *all* particles are virtual to some extent.

And more information from Virtual Particle Contents (http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/rmext04/92andwed/pf_quant.html#Q31c):
Do they violate energy conservation?

We are really using the quantum-mechanical approximation method known as perturbation theory. In perturbation theory, systems can go through intermediate "virtual states" that normally have energies different >from that of the initial and final states. This is because of another uncertainty principle, which relates time and energy.

In the pictured example, we consider an intermediate state with a virtual photon in it. It isn't classically possible for a charged particle to just emit a photon and remain unchanged (except for recoil) itself. The state with the photon in it has too much energy, assuming conservation of momentum. However, since the intermediate state lasts only a short time, the state's energy becomes uncertain, and it can actually have the same energy as the initial and final states. This allows the system to pass through this state with some probability without violating energy conservation.

Some descriptions of this phenomenon instead say that the energy of the *system* becomes uncertain for a short period of time, that energy is somehow "borrowed" for a brief interval. This is just another way of talking about the same mathematics. However, it obscures the fact that all this talk of virtual states is just an approximation to quantum mechanics, in which energy is conserved at all times. The way I've described it also corresponds to the usual way of talking about Feynman diagrams, in which energy is conserved, but virtual particles can carry amounts of energy not normally allowed by the laws of motion.

(General relativity creates a different set of problems for energy conservation; that's described elsewhere in the sci.physics FAQ.)

There is lots more helpful information on that page, I suggest giving it a good read.

Tricky

31st January 2004, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

There is lots more helpful information on that page, I suggest giving it a good read.
Thanks Yahweh. I will do so.

Iacchus

31st January 2004, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

Well, I ask that you do the same: Please back up your claims.And compare them to what? That which is only speculative at best? You see if you claim that cause and effect does exists, that is up to a point, and then for some "special reason" it doesn't exist, and then turn around and say there's no such thing as a primal-cause, because where is "the cause" which existed before this, aren't you in fact saying the same thing? ... That cause and effect does exist but, that something must have existed prior to it? It sounds terribly illogical to me, especially when you start claiming -- which, in no way can be backed I might add -- everything stems from nothing.

Isn't it much more plausible to say that something has always existed, somehow, someway, somewhere, in some shape or form, which gives rise to everything?

Dorian Gray

1st February 2004, 01:12 AM

Lifacchuzer

And yet all that suggests is we don't "understand" what the cause is. Exactly. You don't understand.

That's a pretty arbitrary explanation for the current state of our affairs don't you think? Your God argument is arbitrary, yes.

Hmm ... How can I even conceive of a continuum such as time then? I wonder how you can myself. It goes like this: Nothing - Big Bang - Time.

How can effects come into existence without a cause? Exactly. How can God come into existence without a cause? By the way, that cause is Man's Imagination.

But how do they fluctuate? Between "what" and "what?" And what are the "two whats" that are the cause? So all you're suggesting is we don't understand what the "two whats" are. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it isn't there. I don't understand women, yet there they are, dozens of them, all over my bedroom......... um, where was I?

Of course how could I even conceive of such a thing if the Big Bang were IT? You can conceive of Roseanne making out with Bette Midler on a purple bear rug in front of a toaster oven (you can now!). Humans can conceive of all sorts of crap.

Isn't it much more plausible to say that something has always existed, somehow, someway, somewhere, in some shape or form, which gives rise to everything? :what: :id:

Yes, it is. The Big Bang IS that something.

lifegazer

1st February 2004, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by triadboy
What if - for the sake of argument - the universe expands and collapses on itself eternally - no beginning , no end. There is no primal cause - the only recognizable cause is the expansion and the collapsion (huh?). The universe is a circle. In this case, there is no reason for a god.
The infinite regression of effects nonsense, in one of its guises.

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

lifegazer

1st February 2004, 02:47 AM

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

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

lifegazer

1st February 2004, 03:33 AM

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

The indeterminism exhibited by quanta is not a proof that this energy emanates from nothing and acts without cause or primal-force. Such reasoning is absurd (see my previous post). Indeed, quanta depends upon the existence of spacetime, for starters, before it even does whatever it does.
The indeterminism exhibited by quanta is only a proof that this energy emanates from a source which has free will. Indeed, the probablistic order exhibited by quanta as it progresses towards the classical order of our perceptions, is a proof that there is a certain order imposed upon this free energy, by the source of that energy itself. We are talking Self-ordering energy of a source with free will.

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

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

But never mind, we understand now.

Zero

1st February 2004, 03:38 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
This conversation should proceed upon the back of reason. Ha! Don't you think it would be nice of you to show some reasoning first, before demanding it from others?

lifegazer

1st February 2004, 03:56 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Ha! Don't you think it would be nice of you to show some reasoning first, before demanding it from others?
Do you have any reasons left to refute the existence of a primal-cause? If so, then let me hear them. If not, then say hello to your God.

Zero

1st February 2004, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Do you have any reasons left to refute the existence of a primal-cause? If so, then let me hear them. If not, then say hello to your God. There's one of your logical fallacies.

Do you have any proof that my left boot didn't create the universe? No?

Then say hello to your God.

And polish it.

El Greco

1st February 2004, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Something cannot proceed from, nor enter into, a state of absolute nothingness.

I'm not so sure about that. What about your logic ?

epepke

1st February 2004, 07:06 AM

The Universe is what the Universe is. Or maybe not. In any event, it has little to do with philosophical word-games.

Flatworm

1st February 2004, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
an entity that is the effect of a primal-cause will exhibit essential indeterminism within its nature, simply because it has been effected by a source with free will (a primal cause has free will by definitive default. Ask if you don't understand why)

Translation: I refuse to consider the possibility that the universe itself is its own primal cause, and I cannot logically justify this position. Any attempt to get such a justification out of me will only yielf further categorical assertions without logical support.

Zero

1st February 2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by epepke
The Universe is what the Universe is. Or maybe not. In any event, it has little to do with philosophical word-games. Down on your knees and worship my left boot, which is your God!

Iacchus

1st February 2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by epepke
The Universe is what the Universe is. Or maybe not. In any event, it has little to do with philosophical word-games. And yet all I see is one or two choices here or, perhaps both?

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

Dancing David

1st February 2004, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by GhostWriter
A digestion for all effects must body.
This is the basis of my argument.
Further, I argue that a digestion = God.

So basically, you have to argue that disgestion does not body. So do it. It's important. This is not a game.

Zero

1st February 2004, 08:56 AM

Every lifegazer/Iacchus post reminds me of a Japanese instruction manual translated into English. The words are real, but they never seem to add up to anything sensible.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

1st February 2004, 08:57 AM

Iaccus said:
Quantum fluctuations = Free will ... Yes, that does make a lot of sense.
If you don't mind free will being random. I don't think Interesting Ian will go for that.

~~ Paul

lifegazer

1st February 2004, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Flatworm
Translation: I refuse to consider the possibility that the universe itself is its own primal cause, and I cannot logically justify this position. Any attempt to get such a justification out of me will only yielf further categorical assertions without logical support.
"A primal-cause is, by definitive default, the only determining factor of existence. Such a cause has no external needs or influences in the creation of effects occuring within it. If we apply reason to the term "primal cause", it soon becomes apparent that we are in fact talking about God itself."

A primal-cause = God. Nothing else can lay claims to being a primal-cause. That is my position and my philosophy. So, the universe cannot be its own primal-cause unless you acknowledge that the universe is in fact an expression of God.

Only one primal-cause for existence can exist, and it must be God.

Iacchus

1st February 2004, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Every lifegazer/Iacchus post reminds me of a Japanese instruction manual translated into English. The words are real, but they never seem to add up to anything sensible. That's because you're only "corporeal" in your understanding -- and fixated to "the facts" so to speak.

El Greco

1st February 2004, 09:07 AM

There are some threads that beg for the coining of a new term: "Masturbosophy".

Zero

1st February 2004, 09:07 AM

Yep, he'll keep repeating it with the hopes that if he posts it enough times, it will magically become true and logical.

Zero

1st February 2004, 09:08 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
That's because you're only "corporeal" in your understanding -- and fixated to "the facts" so to speak. Yep, I'm stuck in reality, and I don't speak or understand the language of fantasy and mental illness.

Plus, lifegazer uses language that he thinks makes him sound smarter, and it just makes him look stupid. For instance, why say "by definitive default", when you can use the much clearer term "by definition"?

Dancing David

1st February 2004, 09:11 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
But then it's okay to suggest everything began with the Big Bang, right? ... which in effect says everything stems from nothing. Sorry, but I really do have a hard time with this.

try a Google search on vacum energy. 'Nothing' can actualy be an energy potential.

As I have tried to explain to LG, the vacum may be empty but it is not 'nothing' it can be devoid of energy and matter but still be 'something'.

The thing about the Big Band is this, we can make assumptions about the form the music has taken since the band began to play. But we can not find out what was there in the Hall before the music started. All we can do is observe the music.

Due to the nature of the Big Splooge there is no way to know what caused the Big Splooge or to see past it. We are stuck inside the universe with no current way to see out of it. We can engage in all sorts of modeling but currently there is no way to answer the question of the primal cause. Under quantum theory , you can have a virtual universe arise from a quantum fluctuation as long as it also gives rise to a virtual anti-universe and the two universes do not excede the energy of the vacum which they popped out of.

Inflation is very cool too, in that an inflating universe can lead to an infinity of inflating universe.

But it is just like me making a machine to go back in time and create the universe. In doing so I will leave the universe and not be able to say that i did it.

Kind of frustrating that the primal cause can never be determined, but it sure makes for a great debate.

lifegazer

1st February 2004, 09:11 AM

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

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

Zero

1st February 2004, 09:14 AM

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

Now, are there any rational counters to my arguments here, or shall we sound the trumpets? You don't have an argument, you have an assertion that YOU have to present evidence for, not that we have to refute. Your assertion still boils down to "everything has a cause, therefore something exists which doesn't have a cause." then you assert that this 'causeless cause' is God, because it suits you, not because of any logic.

Plus, my left boot(God) is becoming angry at you, and is threatening a one-way trip through your digestive system, starting at the exit and working its way up.

Iacchus

1st February 2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

The thing about the Big Band is this, we can make assumptions about the form the music has taken since the band began to play. But we can not find out what was there in the Hall before the music started. All we can do is observe the music.So maybe it's God who changes the tunes then? ;)

Dancing David

1st February 2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
It sounds terribly illogical to me, especially when you start claiming -- which, in no way can be backed I might add -- everything stems from nothing.

Isn't it much more plausible to say that something has always existed, somehow, someway, somewhere, in some shape or form, which gives rise to everything?

Well maybe you should open your mind to the fcat that science does not deal in absolutes but in approximations.

The 'nothing' that verything came from is most likely a 'something', the nature of which we can only make some vauge surmises about. We can only model the possible events that might have led to the universe as it appears to be.

And virtual particles are a real phenomena, but like verything else the process of science involves a lot of overcoming 'the way things ought to be' in favor of ' a theory that adequatley explains observed phenomena.'

Most current cosmologies do allow for the something that exists for evr, we just can't determine what that might be.

lifegazer

1st February 2004, 09:18 AM

Take a look around you. Lots and lots of effects within your awareness. What is their ultimate cause... their primal-cause?
Is it really your position that there is no cause for any state of existence?

Zero

1st February 2004, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Take a look around you. Lots and lots of effects within your awareness. What is their ultimate cause... their primal-cause?
Is it really your position that there is no cause for any state of existence? Everything I see has a cause, do you agree with that? Everything that we know about has a cause. You just posted that everything is an effect, therefore everything has a cause.

How do you get from there to saying that something exists without a cause? That is like saying 'all birds have wings, therefore there must be a bird that doesn't have wings.' Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

Dancing David

1st February 2004, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by GhostWriter

Do you have any reasons left to refute the body of a digestion? If so, then let me hear them. If not, then say hello to your God.

Zero

1st February 2004, 09:24 AM

Oh, and I'm waiting for you to refute that my boot is your God...and waiting for you to admit that you could possibly be wrong, and we could be right.

Dancing David

1st February 2004, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by GhostWriter
Take a look around you. Lots and lots of effects within your awareness. What is their disolution... their digestion?
Is it really your position that there is no cause for any state of body?

Plenty of causes so little time!

Iacchus

1st February 2004, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Well maybe you should open your mind to the fcat that science does not deal in absolutes but in approximations.So before the Big Bang existence was not absolute -- of course not, how could it, right? -- and now that it has occurred it is?

Dancing David

1st February 2004, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So before the Big Bang existence was not absolute -- of course not, how could it, right? -- and now that it has occurred it is?

Uh, I think I just said that there are no absolutes in science that are used as 'absolute in philosophical terms'. The 'whatever' was most likely not absolute prior to the Big Band, and it ceratianly seems to be non-absolure now.

We can not know what 'existance' was prior to the Big Band starting to play, we can only see the music.

Where is thees absolute? We have fermions and bosons and leptons, and not even those seem to be absolute.(white solution?)

Iacchus

1st February 2004, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Uh, I think I just said that there are no absolutes in science that are used as 'absolute in philosophical terms'. The 'whatever' was most likely not absolute prior to the Big Band, and it ceratianly seems to be non-absolure now.

We can not know what 'existance' was prior to the Big Band starting to play, we can only see the music.

Where is thees absolute? We have fermions and bosons and leptons, and not even those seem to be absolute.(white solution?) So you're saying existence is not absolute, and only because you can't get past the Big Bang ... Right?

Welcome to the immaterial Mind of God!

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

1st February 2004, 09:51 AM

Lifegazer said:
A primal-cause = God. Nothing else can lay claims to being a primal-cause. That is my position and my philosophy. So, the universe cannot be its own primal-cause unless you acknowledge that the universe is in fact an expression of God.
That is neither a position nor a philosophy. It is merely a definition.

~~ Paul

triadboy

1st February 2004, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus

So what I want to know is, "who" laid the cosmic egg?

Apparently you believe the 'cosmic chicken' did it. I believe his name was Yahweh. The most pitiful excuse for a god in mythological history. He sure was a lot more active back when ignorance ruled. We don't see him much anymore, do we?

Iacchus

1st February 2004, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

That is neither a position nor a philosophy. It is merely a definition.

~~ Paul A definition of what? His philosophy? :p

Zero

1st February 2004, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
A definition of what? His philosophy? :p No, just a definition. Basically, it is like saying "Thor is the god of storms, by definition. You see storms, therefore Thor exists."

"Primal cause" is a phrase that lifegazer made up, or borrow, and he defines it a certain way, which doesn't prove its existance, any more than my definition of Thor proves that Thor exists.

Iacchus

1st February 2004, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by triadboy

Apparently you believe the 'cosmic chicken' did it. I believe his name was Yahweh. The most pitiful excuse for a god in mythological history. He sure was a lot more active back when ignorance ruled. We don't see him much anymore, do we? "But the Orphics say that black-winged Night, a goddess of whom even Zeus stands in awe, was courted by the Wind and laid a silver egg in the womb of Darkness; and that Eros, whom some call Phanes, was hatched from this egg and set the Universe in motion." ~ Robert Graves, The Greek Myths, Vol. 1 ...

Iacchus

1st February 2004, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus

So you're saying existence is not absolute, and only because you can't get past the Big Bang ... Right?

Welcome to the immaterial Mind of God! And don't you think the laws which set the Big Bang in motion would have existed first?

lifegazer

1st February 2004, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Zero
Everything I see has a cause, do you agree with that? Everything that we know about has a cause. You just posted that everything is an effect, therefore everything has a cause.

How do you get from there to saying that something exists without a cause? That is like saying 'all birds have wings, therefore there must be a bird that doesn't have wings.' Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.
All effects have causes. A primal-cause is not an effect.
Let's get serious Zero. Stop playing games.
It is the things in our awareness, constituting material-perception, to which the argument applies that all such things, being effects, must have a primal-cause.

lifegazer

1st February 2004, 10:20 AM

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

Flatworm

1st February 2004, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

"A primal-cause is, by definitive default, the only determining factor of existence. Such a cause has no external needs or influences in the creation of effects occuring within it. If we apply reason to the term "primal cause", it soon becomes apparent that we are in fact talking about God itself."

The universe itself can meet the requirements of your "definitive default". You are assuming, without any justification, that the universe itself must have external needs or influences.

A primal-cause = God. Nothing else can lay claims to being a primal-cause. That is my position and my philosophy. So, the universe cannot be its own primal-cause unless you acknowledge that the universe is in fact an expression of God.

Only one primal-cause for existence can exist, and it must be God.

This is not a logical argument, but dogma. You have not provided any sort of logical support for your claim that the universe itself cannot be a primal cause. As I predicted, you resorted instead to categorical assertions without logical support.

Flatworm

1st February 2004, 10:27 AM

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

It has been repeatedly argued that 1) the universe could be its own primal cause, or 2) The universe may expand and contract cyclically and have no beginning, hence no cause

Your response to both is essentially that neither fits into your worldview, therefore they are false.

El Greco

1st February 2004, 10:34 AM

According to the bible, when doubting Thomas questioned the resurrection Jesus himself appeared to make him believe. He didn't believe by listening to the masturbosophies of other Apostles.

If God appears before me the way he allegedly appeared before Thomas, then I will believe too.

Zero

1st February 2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

All effects have causes. A primal-cause is not an effect.
Let's get serious Zero. Stop playing games.
It is the things in our awareness, constituting material-perception, to which the argument applies that all such things, being effects, must have a primal-cause. How is it that everything we know of is an 'effect', so you assume that there is something that is not an 'effect'? It is time for YOU to get serious. Your position is illogical, and anyone can show you why, if you would just open your eyes. How would you prove that your 'primal cause' doesn't have a cause of itsown, except by definition? I can define my left boot as your God-creator-primal cause, but making that the definition doesn't make it so.

DarkMagician

1st February 2004, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by DarkMagician
Let's play a little game.
The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of entropy in a system must always increase, correct?
So the only way to decrease the entropy in a system is to do something to the system (ie, make it non-isolated) and in-fact make a cause to create an effect, right?
The Poincare Recurrence Theorem says that the particles in a system will eventually, given enough time (which is a lot), return to original positions and velocites, thus decreasing the entropy.
BUT WAIT! That'd be in opposition to the Second LoT! Plus, it doesn't require a non-isolated system to decrease entropy. An effect without a cause.Hey, doesn't anyone want to play my game and try to win.
If I can show that an effect can come without a cause, then the point that everything needs a cause is null and void.
If effects can come without causes, then there is NO need for a primal-cause that has no cause and is in effect Special Pleading.

In short, go "sleep with" yourselves.

lifegazer

1st February 2004, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by Flatworm
The universe itself can meet the requirements of your "definitive default". You are assuming, without any justification, that the universe itself must have external needs or influences.

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

"A primal-cause = God. Nothing else can lay claims to being a primal-cause. That is my position and my philosophy. So, the universe cannot be its own primal-cause unless you acknowledge that the universe is in fact an expression of God.
Only one primal-cause for existence can exist, and it must be God."

This is not a logical argument, but dogma. You have not provided any sort of logical support for your claim that the universe itself cannot be a primal cause. As I predicted, you resorted instead to categorical assertions without logical support.
"A primal-cause is, by definitive default, the only determining factor of existence. Such a cause has no external needs or influences in the creation of effects occuring within it. If we apply reason to the term "primal cause", it soon becomes apparent that we are in fact talking about God itself." [original post, page 1]

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

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

It has been repeatedly argued that 1) the universe could be its own primal cause,

Then it is God.

or 2) The universe may expand and contract cyclically and have no beginning, hence no cause

"There can be no yield or effect that is dependent upon the culmination of an infinite number of other effects that have no origin. This post, for example, cannot be the yield of an infinite number of past effects without an origin. Something must have instigated the primal-act of events which culminated with this post. Therefore, there is a primal-cause.
Before anyone mentions Cantor, please note that those infinities are contained within sets with an origin and an end." [page 4]

Your response to both is essentially that neither fits into your worldview, therefore they are false.

My response is that number(1) = God and that number(2) is irrational.

Zero

1st February 2004, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by DarkMagician
Hey, doesn't anyone want to play my game and try to win.
If I can show that an effect can come without a cause, then the point that everything needs a cause is null and void.
If effects can come without causes, then there is NO need for a primal-cause that has no cause and is in effect Special Pleading.

In short, go "sleep with" yourselves. Hey, lifegazer doesn't even want to back up his own stuff, why would he tackle yours?

Flatworm

1st February 2004, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

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

Can you accept that the universe shows no signs of consciousness? Can you accept a mindless God?

The energy of such a primal-cause is shown to be free energy, since it is free from any external influences or internal obligations.

Gobbledygook. You must not be talking about energy in the physical sense, because "obligations" mean nothing to a mindless physical property.

The cause itself is shown to exhibit free will in the creation of the proceeding effects of time. It's rationally impossible to argue a case for the existence of a primal-cause that does not have free will.

How is that so? Let's say time is a property of the universe. There would therefore be no "before the universe" and no cause for the universe. There is also no need to invoke free will.

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

Then by all means, just go ahead and show it. Give us a sound logical argument, with premises (that don't presuppose your conclusions) and conclusions that inevitably follow from them.

"There can be no yield or effect that is dependent upon the culmination of an infinite number of other effects that have no origin. This post, for example, cannot be the yield of an infinite number of past effects without an origin. Something must have instigated the primal-act of events which culminated with this post. Therefore, there is a primal-cause.

You are essentially asserting, without a shred of logical support, that the universe could not have existed for an infinite time in the past. I have no reason to accept your assertion as axiomatic.

My response is that number(1) = God and that number(2) is irrational.

If can accept that a primal cause needn't have consciousness, then feel free to call the universe itself "god". You have yet to provide any reason for rejecting #2 aside from an unsupported assertion that it cannot be.

DarkMagician

1st February 2004, 11:52 AM

Let's list the unsupported assertions.

1. You say there must be an acausal cause, even though I have brought up a case where there isn't one neede.

2. You claim that this acausal cause must be God, even to the extent of calling any acausal cause God (in my example, the Pointcare Recurrence is acausal; therefore, by your logic, it must be God.)

3. The universe can't be infinite, as it wouldn't let you sleep peacefully at night.

lifegazer

1st February 2004, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by DarkMagician
The second law of thermodynamics says that the amount of entropy in a system must always increase, correct?

If that's the case, why does the universe proceed towards localised order through particles; atoms; stars; molecules/compounds; planets; galaxies; life itself? If the amount of entropy in a system always increases, then such progressive order should be impossible. Hence, can somebody explain to me how that statement of yours can be absolutely true. I'm not a physicist, so perhaps there's something I'm unaware of. But rationally-speaking, a universe which proceeds towards yielding localised order on a vast scale is not a universe which is always progressing towards maximum entropy.

So the only way to decrease the entropy in a system is to do something to the system (ie, make it non-isolated) and in-fact make a cause to create an effect, right?

Translated = the only way to increase the order in a system is to have a cause or force to effect that order. Is that what you mean?

The Poincare Recurrence Theorem says that the particles in a system will eventually, given enough time (which is a lot), return to original positions and velocites, thus decreasing the entropy.
BUT WAIT! That'd be in opposition to the Second LoT! Plus, it doesn't require a non-isolated system to decrease entropy. An effect without a cause.

http://www.math.umd.edu/~lvrmr/History/Recurrence.html
snippet:
"If you play bridge long enough you will eventually be dealt any grand-slam hand, not once but several times. A similar thing is true for mechanical systems governed by Newton's laws, as the French mathematician Henri Poincare (1854-1912) showed with his recurrence theorem in 1890: if the system has a fixed total energy that restricts its dynamics to bounded subsets of its phase space, the system will eventually return as closely as you like to any given initial set of molecular positions and velocities. If the entropy is determined by these variables, then it must also return to its original value, so if it increases during one period of time it must decrease during another."

Note the highlighted parts. The theorem relates, apparently, to perceived matter with definite position in space and time.
So here's the first problem for you to address: it is known that no thing possesses absolutely definite form in spacetime. So, things that possess no definite form in spacetime will have a difficult time returning to their past states, since no such state actually existed, except within our perception. This realisation alone brings down your house of cards.

Hey, doesn't anyone want to play my game and try to win.
If I can show that an effect can come without a cause, then the point that everything needs a cause is null and void.

What are you talking about? Are you implying that the changing order of a system occurs without a cause or force(s)?

This "game" you played took you into an offside position.

lifegazer

1st February 2004, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by DarkMagician
Let's list the unsupported assertions.

1. You say there must be an acausal cause, even though I have brought up a case where there isn't one neede.

You brought up no such case. See previous post.

2. You claim that this acausal cause must be God, even to the extent of calling any acausal cause God (in my example, the Pointcare Recurrence is acausal; therefore, by your logic, it must be God.)

Your example is dead.

3. The universe can't be infinite, as it wouldn't let you sleep peacefully at night.
Err, I'm bound to be kept awake tonight, wondering what the hell this means. lol

lifegazer

1st February 2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by Flatworm
Can you accept that the universe shows no signs of consciousness? Can you accept a mindless God?

A primal-cause exhibits free-will. It has to, otherwise it cannot be the primal-cause of the effects it produces. Think about it.
An entity which possesses free-will, must be self-aware and intelligent. An entity possessing absolute free-will cannot exhibit this freedom of will without self-awareness and intelligence.
Reason forces me to accept the existence of a primal-cause. And reason further forces me to accept that this cause possesses free-will and intelligence/knowledge. Not to mention omnipresence and omnipotence.

"The energy of such a primal-cause is shown to be free energy, since it is free from any external influences or internal obligations."

Gobbledygook. You must not be talking about energy in the physical sense, because "obligations" mean nothing to a mindless physical property.

We're discussing the [potential] energy of a primal-cause here. The flow of this energy (the yields of this energy), are determined by the primal-cause itself (being the sole cause of the effects). Hence, the primal-cause has free-will, meaning that it has free (indeterminable) energy to act however it likes.

My post headed "quantum waffle", posted earlier today, explains how philosophy could have predicted the essential indeterminism of nature's energy/being long before science ever did. The existence of a God would necessitate that this be true.
Quantum mechanics is actually a proof that the energy of existence proceeds from a source with absolute free-will. Really, it is.

"The cause itself is shown to exhibit free will in the creation of the proceeding effects of time. It's rationally impossible to argue a case for the existence of a primal-cause that does not have free will."

How is that so?

If you take away free-will from a primal-cause, then what else causes it to produce the effects it creates? Without free-will, you automatically transfer responsibility for the creation of the effects from the primal-cause to something else beyond its control. Reason cannot accept that something can be a primal-cause if it doesn't have absolute sovereignity over the effects that it produces. Taking away free-will takes away that sovereignity.

Let's say time is a property of the universe. There would therefore be no "before the universe" and no cause for the universe. There is also no need to invoke free will.

Time = change. Something can exist before change (time) is
effected. Indeed, clearly, this must be the case: for change to occur, something must exist from whence it can occur.

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

Then by all means, just go ahead and show it. Give us a sound logical argument, with premises (that don't presuppose your conclusions) and conclusions that inevitably follow from them.

I already did it in a manner which should suffice:
"A primal-cause is, by definitive default, the only determining factor of existence. Such a cause has no external needs or influences in the creation of effects occuring within it. If we apply reason to the term "primal cause", it soon becomes apparent that we are in fact talking about God itself." [original post, page 1]

It's just a matter of deduction. A primal-cause has no external needs = no external abode = is not finite in nature = is essentially boundless. A primal-cause creates everything within it... thus we have an omnipresent cause. Being the sole cause of all effects, a primal-cause is also omnipotent.
And I've already discussed free-will and intelligence.

You are essentially asserting, without a shred of logical support, that the universe could not have existed for an infinite time in the past. I have no reason to accept your assertion as axiomatic.

"There can be no yield or effect that is dependent upon the culmination of an infinite number of other effects that have no origin. This post, for example, cannot be the yield of an infinite number of past effects without an origin. Something must have instigated the primal-act of events which culminated with this post. Therefore, there is a primal-cause.
Before anyone mentions Cantor, please note that those infinities are contained within sets with an origin and an end." [page 4]

Please counter.

Dancing David

1st February 2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So you're saying existence is not absolute, and only because you can't get past the Big Bang ... Right?

Welcome to the immaterial Mind of God!

As they say in math class, show your work. I say there are no absolutes for two reasons, one we only approxiamate reality with our thoughts, reality has no observable absolute. I am saying there are no absolutes because i am a nihilist.

When you meet the immaterial mind of god be sure to have them write me a postcard!

Dancing David

1st February 2004, 01:30 PM

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

Pure surmise and speculation as at this time they are unobservable.

Dancing David

1st February 2004, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by GhostWriter
Is anyone in this forum going to present a rational argument to show that a body full of effects needs no digestion?
That's the bottom-line. Time to get serious. God awaits.

Yahweh

1st February 2004, 01:37 PM

lifegazer

1st February 2004, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David
Originally posted by GhostWriter
Is anyone in this forum going to present a rational argument to show that a body full of effects needs no digestion?
That's the bottom-line. Time to get serious. God awaits.
[/B]
Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Why don't you make your point in a manner which I can understand, and then I will respond.

Flatworm

1st February 2004, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

A primal-cause exhibits free-will. It has to, otherwise it cannot be the primal-cause of the effects it produces.

Again, this is not an argument, but an unsupported assertion. You are saying that a primal cause must have free will, because otherwise it could not be a primal cause. This is circular.

We're discussing the [potential] energy of a primal-cause here.

Isn't it pointless to discuss energy outside the context of the universe?

The flow of this energy (the yields of this energy), are determined by the primal-cause itself (being the sole cause of the effects).
Hence, the primal-cause has free-will, meaning that it has free (indeterminable) energy to act however it likes.

Once again, you are assigning free will to a primal cause, rather than giving any logical reason why a primal cause must have free will.

My post headed "quantum waffle", posted earlier today, explains how philosophy could have predicted the essential indeterminism of nature's energy/being long before science ever did. The existence of a God would necessitate that this be true.
Quantum mechanics is actually a proof that the energy of existence proceeds from a source with absolute free-will. Really, it is.

Sure it is, you just have to assume that the primal cause must have free will, then stick your fingers in your ears and hum loudly.

If you take away free-will from a primal-cause, then what else causes it to produce the effects it creates?

It doesn't have a cause- if it had a cause, it wouldn't be a primal cause, now would it?

Without free-will, you automatically transfer responsibility for the creation of the effects from the primal-cause to something else beyond its control. Reason cannot accept that something can be a primal-cause if it doesn't have absolute sovereignity over the effects that it produces. Taking away free-will takes away that sovereignity.

So this is the root of all this confusion- you are assuming that free will is a primal cause- not that a primal cause must have free will. Again, this is an assertion without support.

Time = change.

Not quite true. See General Relativity.

Something can exist before change (time) is
effected. Indeed, clearly, this must be the case: for change to occur, something must exist from whence it can occur.

Try to listen to what you're saying. How can there logically be a time before time began? If indeed time had a beginning, you cannot look beyond that and ask what caused it, or what was there before. There would be no "before".

I already did it in a manner which should suffice:

Perhaps for you. I require more than dogmatic assertions for me to accept your ideas as true.

If we apply reason to the term "primal cause"

I'm still waiting for you to apply reason to the concept of primal cause. Once you stop gracing us with absurdities such as "time before time", and "the cause of the first cause", and stop making assumptions and presenting them as logical deductions, we can start making progress in this discussion.

It's just a matter of deduction. A primal-cause has no external needs = no external abode = is not finite in nature = is essentially boundless.

My italics. Another assumption you make without support, because it fits your presuppositions about primal cause.

A primal-cause creates everything within it... thus we have an omnipresent cause. Being the sole cause of all effects, a primal-cause is also omnipotent.

An invalid argument, because it is not accepted as axiomatic that effects are necessarily contained within their cause, or that causes must endure as long as their effects do.

"There can be no yield or effect that is dependent upon the culmination of an infinite number of other effects that have no origin. This post, for example, cannot be the yield of an infinite number of past effects without an origin. Something must have instigated the primal-act of events which culminated with this post. Therefore, there is a primal-cause.

Please counter.

It is possible that the universe has undergone an infinite number of expansion/collapse cycles extending an infinite time in the past. There would therefore be no first cause, and your assertion that this scenario is impossible is completely
unsupported.

Edited for formatting

Zero

1st February 2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Why don't you make your point in a manner which I can understand, and then I will respond. You first.

El Greco

1st February 2004, 01:49 PM

Flatworm, how do you do it ? I mean, do you take sedatives or something ? How can you remain so calm when you know that after two pages you will be asking the same questions and will be getting the same "answers" ?

DarkMagician

1st February 2004, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
If that's the case, why does the universe proceed towards localised order through particles; atoms; stars; molecules/compounds; planets; galaxies; life itself? If the amount of entropy in a system always increases, then such progressive order should be impossible. Hence, can somebody explain to me how that statement of yours can be absolutely true. I'm not a physicist, so perhaps there's something I'm unaware of. But rationally-speaking, a universe which proceeds towards yielding localised order on a vast scale is not a universe which is always progressing towards maximum entropy. What are you talking about?

From Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism 1.5 (http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/1.html#1.5)
In the first place, the Big Bang is not a disordered explosion, but the smooth expansion of spacetime and almost perfectly uniform distribution of matter. In fact, the distribution of matter in the early universe was so uniform that until the results came in from the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer), cosmologists were hard-pressed to explain how this matter could eventually clump up into galaxies. COBE revealed very tiny irregularities that became the "seeds" around which galaxies formed by gravitation (Gribbin 1993). And herein lies the second problem with the creationist claim: systems like galaxies form by dissipating gravitational energy, thereby increasing the entropy of the universe. There is thus no contradiction with the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Just because you see a "violation" of the Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't mean it's an actual violation.

Another sign you don't know a single thing you talk about.
Translated = the only way to increase the order in a system is to have a cause or force to effect that order. Is that what you mean?One of the few things you've got right so far.
http://www.math.umd.edu/~lvrmr/History/Recurrence.html
snippet:
"If you play bridge long enough you will eventually be dealt any grand-slam hand, not once but several times. A similar thing is true for mechanical systems governed by Newton's laws, as the French mathematician Henri Poincare (1854-1912) showed with his recurrence theorem in 1890: if the system has a fixed total energy that restricts its dynamics to bounded subsets of its phase space, the system will eventually return as closely as you like to any given initial set of molecular positions and velocities. If the entropy is determined by these variables, then it must also return to its original value, so if it increases during one period of time it must decrease during another."

Note the highlighted parts. The theorem relates, apparently, to perceived matter with definite position in space and time.
So here's the first problem for you to address: it is known that no thing possesses absolutely definite form in spacetime. So, things that possess no definite form in spacetime will have a difficult time returning to their past states, since no such state actually existed, except within our perception. This realisation alone brings down your house of cards.Huh?

You go off talking about perceptions. Why would there need to be a definite form to go back to past states?

Try playing Boggle. Seeing all of those dice roll in that container.
Do the positions of the dice have a definitive "form"? No.
Can the positions of the dice go back to a previous form? Yes.
What are you talking about? Are you implying that the changing order of a system occurs without a cause or force(s)?

This "game" you played took you into an offside position. Let's grade your performance
9.0
1.0
1.0

In short, go "sleep with" yourself.

Yahweh

1st February 2004, 01:51 PM

Lifegazer, a quick question:

What causes radioactive decay?

That was merely a leading question, but the answer is "nothing". Radioactive decay occurs spontaneously, it is a phenomena which is acausal.

And what causes vitual particles to pop into existence?

Quantum Fluctuations.

But then what causes those Quantum Fluctuations? The answer is "nothing", they occur spontaneously.

In quantum mechanics there are effects such as quantum tunneling, radioactive decay of an atom and the probability function collapse that might be considered acausal.

Keep in mind, Lifegazer, that you may in fact be right. There may have been a "primal-cause". However, you are very much begging the question by presupposing that primal-cause was supernatural.

Dancing David

1st February 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

If that's the case, why does the universe proceed towards localised order through particles; atoms; stars; molecules/compounds; planets; galaxies; life itself? If the amount of entropy in a system always increases, then such progressive order should be impossible. Hence, can somebody explain to me how that statement of yours can be absolutely true. I'm not a physicist, so perhaps there's something I'm unaware of. But rationally-speaking, a universe which proceeds towards yielding localised order on a vast scale is not a universe which is always progressing towards maximum entropy.

Well first off lets get something straight, just for your information which seems to be limited to trashing string theory (and how dare you presume god's right to play with string!), the universe starts off in this undifferentiated state where none of the 'things' exist because the universe is too small and hot for them to differentiate. So get the notion of Victorian Progress out of your mind.
Second any scale of complexity you look at comes at the expense of creating entropy. Which is self evident if you think about it. Take the phone system , a marvel of creating entropy, we take a concentrated element in the arths crust (copper) and spread it far and wide acreoos the face of the earth evenly dispersing it:entropy. At every stage in the creation of the phone system some ordered system is robbed of energy and disordered to create a smaller amount of order:entropy. The use of the phone system is through the use of the order to disorder energy again and just creates more:entropy.

When you eat a loaf of bread it is very ordered, but that is because you are not thinking of all the energy that was used and wasted to create that loaf of bread, like the growing plant, the fertilizer, the harvest, the processing the cooking, the shipping, each step requires that something ordered become disordered for the change to occur. the trick is that you always end of up with more total disorder in the end.

Translated = the only way to increase the order in a system is to have a cause or force to effect that order. Is that what you mean?

the only way to create order is to take the energy from someplace else and disorder something else to create the smaller order.

http://www.math.umd.edu/~lvrmr/History/Recurrence.html
snippet:
"If you play bridge long enough you will eventually be dealt any grand-slam hand, not once but several times. A similar thing is true for mechanical systems governed by Newton's laws, as the French mathematician Henri Poincare (1854-1912) showed with his recurrence theorem in 1890: if the system has a fixed total energy that restricts its dynamics to bounded subsets of its phase space, the system will eventually return as closely as you like to any given initial set of molecular positions and velocities. If the entropy is determined by these variables, then it must also return to its original value, so if it increases during one period of time it must decrease during another."

That relates to a closed system independant of the energy involved. It is likely that every molecule will return to it's original position in a jar of water. less likely that it will return to it's original position and velocity. And even less likely you would call that order.

Note the highlighted parts. The theorem relates, apparently, to perceived matter with definite position in space and time.
So here's the first problem for you to address: it is known that no thing possesses absolutely definite form in spacetime.

that is totaly dependant upon the scale.

So, things that possess no definite form in spacetime will have a difficult time returning to their past states, since no such state actually existed, except within our perception. This realisation alone brings down your house of cards.

No silly rabbit this realization is called entropy. You are such a goof.

What are you talking about? Are you implying that the changing order of a system occurs without a cause or force(s)?

the forces could come from a state of disordered imbalance.

This "game" you played took you into an offside position.

Yahweh

1st February 2004, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

All effects have causes. A primal-cause is not an effect.
Let's get serious Zero. Stop playing games.
It is the things in our awareness, constituting material-perception, to which the argument applies that all such things, being effects, must have a primal-cause.
Effect: I am curious.

Cause: I dont know why my hand felt warm when I put it close to a rock.

Effect: I feel a slight warmth when I put my hand close to a rock.

Cause: This rock is spewing out alpha particles.

Effect: This rock is spewing out alpha particles.

Cause: The rock contains radioactive metals which are undergoing radioactive decay.

Effect: The rocks are undergoing radioactive decay.

Cause: ... ... ... ...

lifegazer

1st February 2004, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Flatworm
"A primal-cause exhibits free-will. It has to, otherwise it cannot be the primal-cause of the effects it produces."

Again, this is not an argument, but an unsupported assertion. You are saying that a primal cause must have free will, because otherwise it could not be a primal cause. This is circular.

It looks like I'll have to take the long route to explain this.
Let's examine our primal-cause, which I will label X. This "X" is assumed to exist so that I can show you why it would possess free-will. So:-
(1)X acts, producing the universe of changing effects (I will label this Y).
(2) X is the sole cause of Y. The creation of Y can only be attributed to X and to no other cause.
(3) X, therefore, possesses free-will. This is deducible from "(2)" since if X possesses no free-will, then other causes are invoked for the creation of the effects produced byX. Clearly, 'other causes' are not an option in relation to a primal-cause. Therefore, the conclusion holds true: X possesses free-will.

Isn't it pointless to discuss energy outside the context of the universe?

The actions of a primal-cause are an exhibition of its energy to effect those events. So no, it's not pointless to discuss the energy of a primal-cause.
Furthermore, since a primal-cause must be omnipresent, everything [perceived] within it must be essentially indeterminate anyway, as confirmed by QM, since everything would actually be a form created by the energy of a primal-cause.

"If you take away free-will from a primal-cause, then what else causes it to produce the effects it creates?"

It doesn't have a cause- if it had a cause, it would be a primal cause, now would it?

The primal-cause is the entity itself which effects everything. It is the primal-cause. The primal-act is the reason for the proceeding [perceived] effects of that primal-cause. The reason for the primal-act is to be found within the will of the primal-cause. I.e., to discover the reason for the primal-act, you would have to ask the primal-cause why it chose (via will) to effect things. The primal-act originates with will/choice.

So this is the root of all this confusion- you are assuming that free will is a primal cause- not that a primal cause must have free will. Again, this is an assertion without support.

Free-will is an attribute of the primal-cause and is the origin of the primal-act.

Try to listen to what you're saying. How can there logically be a time before time began?

X causes Y. X is not in time because X is not affected by time - Y is affected by time. Indeed, Y occurs within X = time occurs within X. X does not occur within time.

If indeed time had a beginning, you cannot look beyond that and ask what caused it, or what was there before. There would be no "before".

"Time" applies to Y - to the effects of time. It does not apply to the primal-cause of Y = it does not apply to X.

I'm still waiting for you to apply reason to the concept of primal cause. Once you stop gracing us with absurdities such as "time before time"

I have never used that term. It's yours. "Time" is just the changes which are occuring within Y. It has no other meaning beyond this... and certainly has no relevance to X.

, and "the cause of the first cause"

First-cause is God itself - the absolute-source of everything. The primal-cause is the reason for the primal-act, and this reason is to be found within the will of X. That's where the original decision was made, to instigate the origin of Y. From that will, came the primal-act which created Y.

"It's just a matter of deduction. A primal-cause has no external needs = no external abode = is not finite in nature = is essentially boundless."

My italics. Another assumption you make without support, because it fits your presuppositions about primal cause.

Those italics are deducible from the former sentences. If a primal-cause is not dependent upon external needs or influences, then there is no external-realm embracing/housing that primal-cause. Thus, the primal-cause is without bounds = not finite. A finite entity must be embraced by something else... To be real, 'nothing' cannot have extension around its surface. So, a finite entity is always embraced/housed by another realm. This cannot apply to a primal-cause = not finite.

"A primal-cause creates everything within it... thus we have an omnipresent cause. Being the sole cause of all effects, a primal-cause is also omnipotent."

An invalid argument, because it is not accepted as axiomatic that effects are necessarily contained within their cause, or that causes must endure as long as their effects do.

A primal-cause has no external abode. Therefore, everything which comes into effect, does so within it.
Whatever is the essence of all things must endure. Or else, the things themselves cannot have existence. God lives.

A primal-cause is existence. Any effects occuring within it are just 'forms' of that primal-cause.

It is possible that the universe has undergone an infinite number of expansion/collapse cycles extending an infinite time in the past. There would therefore be no first cause, and your assertion that this scenario is impossible is completely
unsupported.

By that reasoning, this post is the end-product of an infinity without origin. Clearly, the advocation of an end-product from an infinite-chain is absurd. There is no end to an infinity. Likewise, there is no origin. Infinity is a potential - not an actual/tangible reality.

calladus

1st February 2004, 03:00 PM

DarkMagician

1st February 2004, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by calladus

So where did god come from? I hate it when people only see the first post of a thread and just joins into the fray with a question that's been shot at them to death.

lifegazer

1st February 2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh
Lifegazer, a quick question:

What causes radioactive decay?

I have no idea.
However, if nothing causes radioactive decay, then radioactive decay wouldn't occur, would it?

That was merely a leading question, but the answer is "nothing". Radioactive decay occurs spontaneously, it is a phenomena which is acausal.

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

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

lifegazer

1st February 2004, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by DarkMagician
I hate it when people only see the first post of a thread and just joins into the fray with a question that's been shot at them to death.
Guess what - we finally agree upon something.

Calladus, I answered this question on page 1:
"In this thread, I shall argue that an existence of effects requires a primal-cause = God.

Now, a primal-cause is acausal, by definitive default. Therefore, if a primal-cause exists, it is actually stupid to pursue your line of enquiry. No offense intended, but I must shock you out of the stupor you are in. You cannot ask where a primal-cause came from because the question only has relevance to an effect.
Do you and all the other skeptics in here understand this simple logic?"

DarkMagician

1st February 2004, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have no idea.
However, if nothing causes radioactive decay, then radioactive decay wouldn't occur, would it?

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

... evidence of imposed order. Hardly the work of "nothing". Then what caused the order?

You have only proved that half-life for radioactive materials exist. You haven't shown its real cause.

You assert that every "effect" has a cause. Then, you assert that an "effect" without an apparent cause must have one or otherwise it doesn't happen.

DarkMagician

1st February 2004, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Guess what - we finally agree upon something.

Calladus, I answered this question poorly on page 1:So much fixing, so little time.

Yahweh

1st February 2004, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

I have no idea.
However, if nothing causes radioactive decay, then radioactive decay wouldn't occur, would it?
We observe radioactive decay, we know it occurs, so what in the hell is causing it?

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

The rates associated with radioactive decay come as result of unstable arrangements of protons and neutrons. The more unstable the arrangement, the faster the decay is expected to occur. The instability between the strongforce holding together protons and neutrons and electrostatic forces repelling other protons is about as close to a "cause" as you will ever get, there are no immediate causes that account for radioactive decay.

Yet still, the decay itself occurs spontaneously.

It is vaguely reasonable to justify the rates of decay as being indirectly related to the arragement of the protons and neutrons of the neucleus, but the decay itself still remains acausal.

That was a quick chemistry lesson from Yahweh, do you have any objections?

... evidence of imposed order. Hardly the work of "nothing".
Your claim lacks any substance. It is nothing more than a subjective assertion.

Yahweh

1st February 2004, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Guess what - we finally agree upon something.

Calladus, I answered this question on page 1:
"In this thread, I shall argue that an existence of effects requires a primal-cause = God.

Now, a primal-cause is acausal, by definitive default. Therefore, if a primal-cause exists, it is actually stupid to pursue your line of enquiry. No offense intended, but I must shock you out of the stupor you are in. You cannot ask where a primal-cause came from because the question only has relevance to an effect.
Do you and all the other skeptics in here understand this simple logic?"
Your logic begs the question.

You are implicitly assuming the primal cause is supernatural, the primal cause could very well be nothing more spectacular than quantum fluctuations or a virtual particle which happened to pop into existence as they do gallions of times a second.

Iacchus

1st February 2004, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Pure surmise and speculation as at this time they are unobservable. Yep, something from nothing. This is the latest breaking scientific evidence, huh?

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

RussDill

1st February 2004, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Are you saying there had to be something there in the first place, or not?

Which of the two sounds more plausible? That something has always been there? Or, that everything arose out of nothing?

And what happens to cause and effect? Don't you believe in that?

who says the universe has not "always been there" and plus, which sounds more plausible, something with desires, intelligence, etc, a complex being, has always been there, or something random, formless, shapeless, etc, has always been there?

RussDill

1st February 2004, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

In this thread, I shall argue that an existence of effects requires a primal-cause = God.

Now, a primal-cause is acausal, by definitive default. Therefore, if a primal-cause exists, it is actually stupid to pursue your line of enquiry. No offense intended, but I must shock you out of the stupor you are in. You cannot ask where a primal-cause came from because the question only has relevance to an effect.
Do you and all the other skeptics in here understand this simple logic?

sounds pretty circular to me. You make up a term called "primal cause" give some requirements to it, and then prove it by it's own definition that you created.

RussDill

1st February 2004, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Two words: ha ha.

Seriously, if you think quantum indeterminism gets you out of this hole, then you're in deep water my slippery friend.
Do you want to argue that quantum events are primal-causes, or what? Bring it on. I've heard it all before.

They are quite clearly, events without causes.

RussDill

1st February 2004, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The universe is comprised of its effects. Not a primal-cause in sight. Do you want to argue that a primal-cause is not required for all the effects within the universe (existence)? Then do so. Then I shall destroy your argument.

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

RussDill

1st February 2004, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Saying it means Jack.

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

We're discussing the existence of a primal-cause (of changing existence) here. If you read my first post, I argue that the definitive-default of a primal-cause = God. I.e., if a primal-cause exists, then God exists.
So, do you believe a primal-cause exists or not?

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

Occam's razor looks for the simplest reasons for effects, right?
Well, Occam's razor surely supports the idea that the simplest explanation of all effects is the existence of a singular primal-cause = God. Reason cannot doubt this.
Thus, Occam's razor has, on this date (31st January 2004) shaved God's chin.

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

RussDill

1st February 2004, 05:06 PM

RussDill

1st February 2004, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

This forum should ban people such as you from posting in this particular forum. You have no intention or desire to discuss the issues. It's your sole intent to use propoganda to destroy me and (hence) my philosophy.

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

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

The one obstacle between you and your objective is that you come across as completely dumb and insincere in your efforts. Go away. Come back when you take me seriously.

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

DarkMagician

1st February 2004, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by triadboy
There is still a 'god of the gaps' in this thread.

What a theist doesn't understand becomes 'god'. Y'know, with lifegazer's assertion that "the universe is God," this post becomes a pretty good flame.

RussDill

1st February 2004, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

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

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

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

RussDill

1st February 2004, 05:27 PM

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

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

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

RussDill

1st February 2004, 05:35 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But never mind, we understand now.

They wants to take out precciiouuuss

Dancing David

1st February 2004, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yep, something from nothing. This is the latest breaking scientific evidence, huh?

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

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

Lets recap your mindless drivel shall we:

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

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

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

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

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

Dancing David

1st February 2004, 05:51 PM

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

RussDill

1st February 2004, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
And yet all I see is one or two choices here or, perhaps both?

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

(read the ice cream stuff previous to this post)

RussDill

1st February 2004, 06:00 PM

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

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

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

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

RussDill

1st February 2004, 06:04 PM

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

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

RussDill

1st February 2004, 06:05 PM

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

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

RussDill

1st February 2004, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

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

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

"A primal-cause is, by definitive default, the only determining factor of existence. Such a cause has no external needs or influences in the creation of effects occuring within it. If we apply reason to the term "primal cause", it soon becomes apparent that we are in fact talking about God itself." [original post, page 1]

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

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

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

Then it is God.

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

RussDill

1st February 2004, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

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

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

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

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

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

Iacchus

1st February 2004, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Iachuss, if you weren't so stuck on your tiny little premise, you would have noticed that I didn't say it came from nothing. But then that would be you engaging in rational and meaningful discussion which obviosly is not your interest.If you don't think I have evidence to back up my premise that God exists, then you're sadly mistaken. Now, whether I can explain it in a way that you can understand well, that might be another story?

However, to stress the need for a primal-cause is much more substantial than saying nothing existed before the Big Bang which, is just a "convenient" way of not addressing the issue.

Either you didn't do a google search on vacum energy, or your are just plain lacking in brains. Both vacum energy and inflation theory have an implication that the something of the universe came from something.Either way, it still doesn't by-pass the need for a primal cause. Or does it? All I can suggest is that there had to be something there to oversee the Big Bang.

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

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

But you are just some demented ****** ***** who gets off on riding a high horse.Now please tell me who's demonstrating their lack of maturity here?

If you want to talk then it means trying to at least understand the other person, I am seriously thinking that exchanging ideas with you is pointless.No, I just get tired of hearing all the crap about "where's the evidence?"

What a twit you are at least LifeGazer reads and tries to understand what other people post. Don't take it too personally, I was just looking for the opportunity to rub somebody's nose in it, well at least a little. ;)

Iacchus

1st February 2004, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

Your claim lacks any substance. It is nothing more than a subjective assertion. Yes, and who is capable of anything more?

Zero

1st February 2004, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and who is capable of anything more? Lifegazer claims to be able to, and so do you...that is the main strike against the two of you.

calladus

1st February 2004, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Guess what - we finally agree upon something.

Calladus, I answered this question on page 1:
"In this thread, I shall argue that an existence of effects requires a primal-cause = God.

Now, a primal-cause is acausal, by definitive default. Therefore, if a primal-cause exists, it is actually stupid to pursue your line of enquiry. No offense intended, but I must shock you out of the stupor you are in. You cannot ask where a primal-cause came from because the question only has relevance to an effect.
Do you and all the other skeptics in here understand this simple logic?"

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

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

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

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

Iacchus

1st February 2004, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by RussDill

How are laws without a universe any more than ideas? And don't ideas exist whether someone is thinking about them or not? So, if matter springs from energy, wouldn't that also be tantamount to saying the material springs from the immaterial?

This is what I would suggest to you, is that the immaterial was there before the Big Bang.

DarkMagician

1st February 2004, 09:31 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you don't think I have evidence to back up my premise that God exists, then you're sadly mistaken. Now, whether I can explain it in a way that you can understand well, that might be another story?

However, to stress the need for a primal-cause is much more substantial than saying nothing existed before the Big Bang which, is just a "convenient" way of not addressing the issue.How many times does it need to be said? Time as we know it didn't exist before the big bang, so according to our perceptions of time, there was no "before the big bang"! There wasn't even a "nothing." You constantly refer to it as an empty filing cabinet instantly being filled, while we say the filing cabinet didn't exist before it was filled, while it could be a filing cabinet that's always full, yet compacts once in a while to appear non-existent to everyone, then pops right back out into a full filing cabinet.

Also, why haven't you people proven your assertions that:
a. A primal-cause is necessary and
b. That primal-cause is God.
Either way, it still doesn't by-pass the need for a primal cause. Or does it? All I can suggest is that there had to be something there to oversee the Big Bang.I have one question for you:
Why does there need to be someone to oversee it?
No, I just get tired of hearing all the crap about "where's the evidence?"How about giving us actual evidence instead of the meta-evidence and circular reasoning that have constituted your posts.

Iacchus

1st February 2004, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by DarkMagician
How many times does it need to be said? Time as we know it didn't exist before the big bang, so according to our perceptions of time, there was no "before the big bang"! There wasn't even a "nothing." You constantly refer to it as an empty filing cabinet instantly being filled, while we say the filing cabinet didn't exist before it was filled, while it could be a filing cabinet that's always full, yet compacts once in a while to appear non-existent to everyone, then pops right back out into a full filing cabinet.How convenient ... the lack of evidence "is" the evidence. Boy, that's even worse than tyring to prove the existence of an immaterial God.

Zero

1st February 2004, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
How convenient ... the lack of evidence "is" the evidence. Boy, that's even worse than tyring to prove the existence of an immaterial God. No, the lack of evidence is where we intelligent people say "hey, we don't know, but here's a good guess based on what we do know", or even "hey, maybe this portion of the evidence is inaccessable to us, no matter what we do".

You and navelgazer say 'goddidit', and pretend it is a real answer.

Dorian Gray

1st February 2004, 10:26 PM

Only one primal-cause for existence can exist, and it must be God. What is the primal-cause for God. Why will you refuse to accept that the universe is its own cause, yet gleefully accept that God is its own primal cause?

Your example is dead. God is dead.

A primal-cause exhibits free-will. It has to, otherwise it cannot be the primal-cause of the effects it produces. Think about it. What is the definitive default definition of "primal-cause' versus 'primal cause'? Why is the hyphen necessary?

Look, if you just were to say "I believe God exists and is the cause for everything, and no one can sway me from this belief" that would be fine. But you are trying to scientifically prove your belief, and failing. Everyone has refuted all your arguments, but no one can refute your beliefs. Why don't you just stick with beliefs?

It's just a matter of deduction. A primal-cause has no external needs = no external abode = is not finite in nature = is essentially boundless. A primal-cause creates everything within it... thus we have an omnipresent cause. Being the sole cause of all effects, a primal-cause is also omnipotent. Can you not see that this argument works equally well for the universe?

If you take away free-will from a primal-cause, then what else causes it to produce the effects it creates? (variation on a theme) If you are arguing that God has will, then wouldn't God's will be the primal cause, not God? You have logically argued that God is not the primal cause of everything, but rather God's will

Yahweh wrote:Effect: The rocks are undergoing radioactive decay.

Cause: ... ... ... ... Don't you know that anything you can't explain must have been caused by God? It saves so much time and energy and work and you don't have to think at all!

DarkMagician wrote: I hate it when people only see the first post of a thread and just joins into the fray with a question that's been shot at them to death. Think of them as grunts/cannon fodder/zergs/swarms/expendables/insert your video game reference here. They play a small but cumulative part in defeating the 'Boss'.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lifegazer
Saying it means Jack.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? Then I shall chalk all your statements up to Jack as well. So now Jack is the primal cause?

Lifegazer, your arguments are weak, flawed, circular, based on false premises and argued poorly. You contradict yourself by saying that there is no primal cause for God, but everything has a primal cause. You have huge gaps in your logic, and you fill them with language and terms that you invent on the spot - then you act superior and/or indignant when challenged.

You are wrong.

Zero

1st February 2004, 10:32 PM

Don't forget the false dilemma: either the universe all happened by accident, or lifegazer's specific fantasy most be 100% true.

DarkMagician

1st February 2004, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
What is the primal-cause for God. Why will you refuse to accept that the universe is its own cause, yet gleefully accept that God is its own primal cause?That's the $64,001 question.
Look, if you just were to say "I believe God exists and is the cause for everything, and no one can sway me from this belief" that would be fine. But you are trying to scientifically prove your belief, and failing. Everyone has refuted all your arguments, but no one can refute your beliefs. Why don't you just stick with beliefs?Yep, they've done nothing but play a horrible game of Jargon.
Don't you know that anything you can't explain must have been caused by God? It saves so much time and energy and work and you don't have to think at all!It's pretty damn funny when he claims the universe is God.
Think of them as grunts/cannon fodder/zergs/swarms/expendables/insert your video game reference here. They play a small but cumulative part in defeating the 'Boss'.Well, when you put it that way...
Lifegazer, your arguments are weak, flawed, circular, based on false premises and argued poorly. You contradict yourself by saying that there is no primal cause for God, but everything has a primal cause. You have huge gaps in your logic, and you fill them with language and terms that you invent on the spot - then you act superior and/or indignant when challenged.

You are wrong. Our case in a nutshell.

RussDill

1st February 2004, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, if matter springs from energy, wouldn't that also be tantamount to saying the material springs from the immaterial?

This is what I would suggest to you, is that the immaterial was there before the Big Bang.

energy is not immaterial, so no. There was no "before" the big bang, just like space, time is finite and unbounded

Iacchus

2nd February 2004, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by RussDill

energy is not immaterial, so no.It's not matter is it? ... Then what is it? I suspect this may have been what the Big Bang was all about ... one huge conversion of energy into matter ... from whence we derive our materialistic world, and all the materialistic "meat-heads" which inhabit it.

There was no "before" the big bang, just like space, time is finite and unbounded You have the audacity to say this and then demand that I prove to you that God exists. And you want to call me a lunatic? The shouts of The Bacchae (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33760) draw ever near ...

Iacchus

2nd February 2004, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by Zero
No, the lack of evidence is where we intelligent people say "hey, we don't know, but here's a good guess based on what we do know", or even "hey, maybe this portion of the evidence is inaccessable to us, no matter what we do".

You and navelgazer say 'goddidit', and pretend it is a real answer. But the fact of the matter is you have no evidence. Now isn't that something?

http://www.dionysus.org/pot_kettle.jpg

Donks

2nd February 2004, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
But the fact of the matter is you have no evidence. Now isn't that something?

Look up "cosmic microwave background" on google.

Iacchus

2nd February 2004, 05:13 AM

Excerpt from Robert A. Johnson's, Ecstasy, Understanding the Psychology of Joy ...

Western civilization praises the orderly life. We have a healthy skepticism that insists "seeing is believing." Our world is built on thinking, logic, progress, and success, and within these limits we feel secure. But today even our scientists tell us that these limits are illusory. Quantum physics shows us "the dancing universe; the ceaseless flow of energy going through an infinite variety of patterns." This is the Dionysian energy, the dance of the Maenads, the power of life that flows through all of us and unites us with heaven and earth. - Published in the year 1987.Hmm ... the 230th post on this thread, just as there were 230 Years (http://www.dionysus.org/x0201.html) between the years 1757 and 1987 which, were the beginnings of the Swedenborg Era (http://www.swedenborg.com) (5th Church) and the Dionysian Era (http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html) (6th Church) ...

Iacchus

2nd February 2004, 05:28 AM

Originally posted by Donks

Look up "cosmic microwave background" on google. Donks? It's funny how I just read about Dionysus arriving on the back of a donkey. Hence it would seem "yours" is the 230th post and mine is the 231st (and 232nd here). Also, did you notice how both our posts were posted at the same time? ...

Excerpt from Robert A. Johnson's, Ecstasy, Understandng the Psychology of Joy ...

Dionysus himself got drunk only once, and he didn't like it. To cure his wine-induced madness he went for a visit to Zeus's shrine. One story has it that he bogged down in quicksand and was saved by a donkey, who took him raving and drunk -- but safe nonetheless -- to Zeus. As recompense Zeus gave the donkey human speech. The other story, which I like much better, is that Dionysus turned into a donkey and arrived at Zeus's shrine braying, which became human speech. So when we get drunk enough to get this jackass aspect going, we are no longer candidates for ecstasy. Our humanness is lost.

Zero

2nd February 2004, 06:12 AM

YAY!!! We knew Iacchus would turn retarded at some point...we've apparently reached that point!

sackett

2nd February 2004, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by RussDill

They wants to take our precciiouuuss

God d*mmit, Russ -- Excuse me, PrimalCause it! You made me laff my first slup of coffee all over the screen! Are YOU going to clean it up? Noooooo, you're just going to sit there goading that poor soul, what's his name? IceScraper? I hope you're good and ashamed of yourself! (I bet you're not.)

CWL

2nd February 2004, 06:47 AM

[potshot mode]

In respnse to Iacchus claim that one of Tricky's arguments "were rather circular" Yahweh wrote:

Originally posted by Yahweh

What makes you say that?

The argument is not circular at all.

My guess is that Iacchus has picked up the term as a cool thing to say in a debate and is now making a poor attempt at using it himself. I refer to this post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870287962&highlight=circular#post1870287962) of mine.

[/potshot mode]

Dancing David

2nd February 2004, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you don't think I have evidence to back up my premise that God exists, then you're sadly mistaken. Now, whether I can explain it in a way that you can understand well, that might be another story?

See you are so stuck on your tiny island that your island is all that you can see.

My response to you was in regards to the 'something from something, not something from nothing' line of debate. But here you are talking about god.
Um,, is god relevant to the something and the nothing?

You evidently suffer from either loose associations or something. maybe nothing. I haven't been the one hacking on you about god, you screw that up on your own.

However, to stress the need for a primal-cause is much more substantial than saying nothing existed before the Big Bang which, is just a "convenient" way of not addressing the issue.

And you make all these asumptions about a promal cause that are totaly anthrocentric and very unimaginative. When it comes to speculation about things that can not be observed, it helps to show some originality.

And again you must be some kind of narrow minded geek because here again you say:
saying nothing existed before the Big Bang
which is not something that I said, you are just in a rut and not a very creative one. When did I say 'something came from nothing' oh, thats right you read the word vacum and your brain stalls out.
For all we know the creation of the universe was accidental or a side effect of some other creation.

Either way, it still doesn't by-pass the need for a primal cause. Or does it? All I can suggest is that there had to be something there to oversee the Big Bang.

And that just shows that you are a monkey that has to project monkey onto everything you see. The primal cause could be accidental, the primal cause could be acausal, the primal cause could be plural. You don't siggest, you demand and then put words in my mouth.
A primal cause is indeterminant, we can't know what it is at this time, speculation at best, so show some creativity at least!

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

At least i don't go and keep putting words in your mouth that you didn't use, and maybe the stared words are compliments. :)

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

Why? Because there is none, or you just can't state it in a fashion that others understand, there is no evidence of the nature of the primal cause.
There could be a primal cause, but it might be acausal.

If the Grand Geometer gets up from the Drawing Board to have a Nummy Snack and the Cosmic Cat spills the Inkpot upon the Grand Design, then we could be just an unintended blot upon the Grand Design.

Not to mention the Mighty Crumbsnathcher!

Don't take it too personally, I was just looking for the opportunity to rub somebody's nose in it, well at least a little. ;)

Yeah , which is what I said, you are not even communicating, you are arguing with yourself, and not very well at that.

Dancing David

2nd February 2004, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
So, if matter springs from energy, wouldn't that also be tantamount to saying the material springs from the immaterial?

This is what I would suggest to you, is that the immaterial was there before the Big Bang.

Oh, you foolish mortal! All that exists is energy, matter is energy, everything is energy. The material world is energy and therefore material.

Dancing David

2nd February 2004, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by Iacchus
It's not matter is it? ... Then what is it? I suspect this may have been what the Big Bang was all about ... one huge conversion of energy into matter ... from whence we derive our materialistic world, and all the materialistic "meat-heads" which inhabit it.

No imagination ! If you care to open your shuttered windows you might find that matter is a perceptual name placed upon nergy. I will start with a simple question:
When you sit on a chair, why doesn't your butt hit the floor?

If you read about the early universe you might learn some stuff that would give you even cooler ideas. Like unity.

You have the audacity to say this and then demand that I prove to you that God exists. And you want to call me a lunatic? The shouts of The Bacchae (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33760) draw ever near ...

Hey if the shoe fits you can wear it, but your foolish believe that matter is something different from energy shows that you cling to your mommy's skirts and hide behind them.

Dancing David

2nd February 2004, 07:41 AM

Double post representing the false nature of the wave particle duality.

Iacchus

2nd February 2004, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Zero
YAY!!! We knew Iacchus would turn retarded at some point...we've apparently reached that point! Are you saying you don't believe in synchronicity? It would almost have to be that way wouldn't it? ... If, in fact we were all of One Mind.

Iacchus

2nd February 2004, 07:57 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Oh, you foolish mortal! All that exists is energy, matter is energy, everything is energy. The material world is energy and therefore material. But isn't it conceivable -- i.e., before the Big Bang -- that all that existed was energy, before it was converted to matter? Or else how do you explain where all this "latent energy" came from?

Or, how about this? ... Is it possible that energy is the medium and hence "barrier" that exists between the material and immaterial? ... Thus allowing the spiritual to become the cause of which the material is the effect?

Upchurch

2nd February 2004, 08:03 AM

Just a quick aside.

Several months ago, we had a thread that discussed what happened "before" the Big Bang. I can't find it, or I'd post a link. I'll summerize briefly.

There are a number of consequences that come from the Theory of Relativity, only the most famous of them is that matter and energy are the same thing. Another, only slightly less famous, consequence is that space and time are also the same thing. In other words, we live in a truly homogenous 4 dimensional hyperspace as opposed to a 3 dimensional space with a universal time dimension tacked on. In simple English, that means what we consider to be the "future" here could be "left" somewhere else. Those directions are determined locally, not globally.

An even less known consequence of Relativity is that spacetime is defined by matter/energy. Where there is no matter/energy, there is no spacetime. So, at a point where there was "nothing" (meaning no matter/energy) there was no spacetime. So in an absolute lack of matter/energy and spacetime, individual quantum fluctuations (the spontaneous generation of a particle/anti-partical pair that quickly annihilates one another) generate a brief "period" of local spacetime which disappears with the fluctuation. The current theory is that the "Big Bang" is a quantum fluctuation that, for some reason, did not end in mutual destruction (or, at least, not yet).

But anyway, back to the point of my post. It is impossible to talk about what happened "before" the Big Bang because there was no time "before" the Big Bang. No matter/energy means no spacetime. No time means no "before". It's a difficult concept to grasp, but no one ever said the universe was a simple place.

Iacchus

2nd February 2004, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Yeah , which is what I said, you are not even communicating, you are arguing with yourself, and not very well at that. Do you want to know what I think? I think you're just p***ed off at lifegazer for ignoring your posts. ;)

Iacchus

2nd February 2004, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Dancing David

Hey if the shoe fits you can wear it, but your foolish believe that matter is something different from energy shows that you cling to your mommy's skirts and hide behind them. Ever trip over a radio wave? :D

Iacchus

2nd February 2004, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Just a quick aside.

Several months ago, we had a thread that discussed what happened "before" the Big Bang. I can't find it, or I'd post a link. I'll summerize briefly.

There are a number of consequences that come from the Theory of Relativity, only the most famous of them is that matter and energy are the same thing. Another, only slightly less famous, consequence is that space and time are also the same thing. In other words, we live in a truly homogenous 4 dimensional hyperspace as opposed to a 3 dimensional space with a universal time dimension tacked on. In simple English, that means what we consider to be the "future" here could be "left" somewhere else. Those directions are determined locally, not globally.

An even less known consequence of Relativity is that spacetime is defined by matter/energy. Where there is no matter/energy, there is no spacetime. So, at a point where there was "nothing" (meaning no matter/energy) there was no spacetime. So in an absolute lack of matter/energy and spacetime, individual quantum fluctuations (the spontaneous generation of a particle/anti-partical pair that quickly annihilates one another) generate a brief "period" of local spacetime which disappears with the fluctuation. The current theory is that the "Big Bang" is a quantum fluctuation that, for some reason, did not end in mutual destruction (or, at least, not yet).

But anyway, back to the point of my post. It is impossible to talk about what happened "before" the Big Bang because there was no time "before" the Big Bang. No matter/energy means no spacetime. No time means no "before". It's a difficult concept to grasp, but no one ever said the universe was a simple place. So what -- i.e., there has to be a "what" which came before -- caused the Big Bang then?