Existence without a Vampire Wombat

[Marquis de Carabas]

Let's examine existence without a Vampire Wombat...

Without a Vampire Wombat, 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 a Vampire Wombat itself.
Hence, without a Vampire Wombat, 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 Vampire Wombat.

[Mercutio]

Well...gee. I never thought of it that way.





I'm convinced.

[El Greco]

This is so damn obvious and self-evident that I wonder how the heck have Sartre, Camus and Nietzsche managed to miss it. "Philosophers" my a$$.

[Dancing David]

And the Mind of the Vampire Wombat in fact is the matrix of awareness in which we all exist!

[wayrad]

In fact, we are all the Vampire Wombat. Except for those who are hamsters.

[DVFinn]

Are you in touch with your inner hampster?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Let's examine existence without a Vampire Wombat...

Without a Vampire Wombat, 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 a Vampire Wombat itself.
Hence, without a Vampire Wombat, 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 Vampire Wombat.

Call It whatever you want...

[roger]

Originally posted by DVFinn
Are you in touch with your inner hampster? No, he escaped.

[Pahansiri]

If there can be no existence without primal-cause then what was the primal-cause for the Vampire Wombat?

Self contradicting, self defeating belief.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Let's examine existence without a Vampire Wombat...

Without a Vampire Wombat, 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 a Vampire Wombat itself.
Hence, without a Vampire Wombat, there is no primal-cause within existence.

You guys are funny... but stupid. Presented with sound evidence for God's existence, you resort to monkey business.
Btw, a primal-cause cannot be a finite entity.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You guys are funny... but stupid. Presented with sound evidence for God's existence, you resort to monkey business.
Btw, a primal-cause cannot be a finite entity.

Greetings lifegazer. Sad to see you are still name calling. May I ask what is the "sound evidence"?

[wollery]

Originally posted by DVFinn
Are you in touch with your inner hampster? I thought that that was illegal?!

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
If there can be no existence without primal-cause then what was the primal-cause for the Vampire Wombat?
OK, you got me. My theory can't hold water, and is defeated by its own logi--

Hey, wait! What I mean to say is you are obviously blind to the truth. How can you not just accept my assertions, especially when I went through such trouble to use circular reasoning to back them up?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas

OK, you got me. My theory can't hold water, and is defeated by its own logi--

Hey, wait! What I mean to say is you are obviously blind to the truth. How can you not just accept my assertions, especially when I went through such trouble to use circular reasoning to back them up?

:big:

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Btw, a primal-cause cannot be a finite entity.
Do you assume the Vampire Wombat to be a finite entity? If so, why?

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Let's examine existence without a Vampire Wombat...

Without a Vampire Wombat, 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 a Vampire Wombat itself.
Hence, without a Vampire Wombat, 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 Vampire Wombat. Vampire Wombats stink.

Now Aquaman is cool. Prove Aquaman exists.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by GhostWriter

You guys are funny... but stupid. Presented with sound evidence for God's body, you resort to monkey business.
Btw, digestion cannot be a finite entity.

I suggest we name a suite in the Ivory Tower the Monkey Cage!

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas

Do you assume the Vampire Wombat to be a finite entity? If so, why?
A boundless entity has no form. In fact, a boundless entity with definite existence has to be God itself. But I wouldn't expect you to be capable of grasping such thangs.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

A boundless entity has no form. In fact, a boundless entity with definite existence has to be God itself. But I wouldn't expect you to be capable of grasping such thangs.

I can postulate plenty of boundless entities that aren't god.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


I can postulate plenty of boundless entities that aren't god.
Then postulate.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Then postulate.

This is the song never ends
Yes it goes on and on my friend
some people, started singing it
not knowing what it was
and now they'll go on
singing it forever just because
This is the song that never ends....

That song is boundless and infinite, and it has definite existence. Bow to your god.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


This is the song never ends
Yes it goes on and on my friend
some people, started singing it
not knowing what it was
and now they'll go on
singing it forever just because
This is the song that never ends....

That song is boundless and infinite, and it has definite existence. Bow to your god.
The sad thing is that you're serious. A song has no existence except within our heads... or, as sound-waves emanating from finite bodies.

Try again Russ. Or just admit you're full of...

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The sad thing is that you're serious. A song has no existence except within our heads... or, as sound-waves emanating from finite bodies.

Try again Russ. Or just admit you're full of...

Really? Does the song cease to exist if everyone stops thinking about it? Can you prove it won't exist long after we are gone? Would the number Pi be any different? Does it exist independant of us? Did you know that that song exists in the number Pi?

[fishbob]

You guys are funny... but stupid. Presented with sound evidence for God's existence, you resort to monkey business. 1370 posts with circular reasoning, big assertions, and no evidence.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
A boundless entity has no form. In fact, a boundless entity with definite existence has to be God itself. But I wouldn't expect you to be capable of grasping such thangs.
I'm not certain how appropriate it is for you to muse about how well I can grasp "thangs."

Anyhow, hold on a second...

[scans previous postings to see where I indicated the Vampire Wombat had a form]
[finds nowhere]
[scans again to be sure]
[still nothing]

So now you assume the Vampire Wombat has a form, too? Where do you get these strawombats from?

[RussDill]

Please Marquis, bring us your Third Revelation!

[Marquis de Carabas]

Sorry, Russ. I only got two revelations. I ordered a third in time for Christmas, but UPS got the address all wrong, and some guy in Kenya has it now. I can give you the tracking number if you think it might help.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
[scans previous postings to see where I indicated the Vampire Wombat had a form]

How can a vampire wombat have boundless existence (no form)?

[finds nowhere]
[scans again to be sure]
[still nothing]

Try scanning the space between you ears for form whilst you're at it.

So now you assume the Vampire Wombat has a form, too? Where do you get these strawombats from?
A boundless entity, having real existence, must be 'God'.
A vampire wombat - if one actually exists - is a finite entity having definitive form, existing amongst a greater reality, and is dependent upon that reality for its own existence.

You're playing games that you cannot win. Don't make me throw holy water on you.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Sorry, Russ. I only got two revelations. I ordered a third in time for Christmas, but UPS got the address all wrong, and some guy in Kenya has it now. I can give you the tracking number if you think it might help.

Hah, lies, all lies, you are just saying that because you know revealing your third revelation would cause us all to bow down and worship you, not realizing that we are all the wombat (except the hamsters of course)

Edited to add: You hast been giventh wisdom beyond words.

[eli54]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You guys are funny... but stupid. Presented with sound evidence for God's existence, you resort to monkey business.
Btw, a primal-cause cannot be a finite entity.

Evidence?
Surveilance photos?
Fingerprints?
DNA?
Library card?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

How can a vampire wombat have boundless existence (no form)?


because it is the primal cause


Try scanning the space between you ears for form whilst you're at it.


Silly lifegazer, that is not where the mind resides.


A boundless entity, having real existence, must be 'God'.


If you refuse to accept the vampire wombat, then mankind will be doomed (Except the hamsters). I think you are afraid of accepting the vampire wombat.


A vampire wombat - if one actually exists - is a finite entity having definitive form, existing amongst a greater reality, and is dependent upon that reality for its own existence.


It would not then be the primal-cause, so it must be a boundless formless definite being.


You're playing games that you cannot win. Don't make me throw holy water on you.

The holy water only exists in your perception.

[DarkMagician]

Originally posted by lifegazer
You're playing games that you cannot win. Don't make me throw holy water on you. If this was a game of Jargon, then you're pulversizing him.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

A boundless entity has no form. In fact, a boundless entity with definite existence has to be God itself. But I wouldn't expect you to be capable of grasping such thangs.

All you need do is prove the boundless entity. You confuse what is known and proven with something hoped for, a belief, a wish but something not supported by fact.

All you need do is prove this boundless entity and I will believe it.

But I wouldn't expect you to be capable of doing such.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
How can a vampire wombat have boundless existence (no form)?
The same way God can, only the Vampire Wombat gets more chicks.
A boundless entity, having real existence, must be 'God'.
So you keep saying. Any reason I should accept that over my much more chick-magnety Vampire Wombat theory?
A vampire wombat - if one actually exists - is a finite entity having definitive form, existing amongst a greater reality, and is dependent upon that reality for its own existence.
You keep assuming it is finite and has no form, but how do you know that?
You're playing games that you cannot win. Don't make me throw holy water on you.
Only game I'm playing right now is Madden, and I'm going to win, so don't worry. And the Vampire Wombat doesn't consecrate water (he likes grape Kool-Aid) so I fear nothing from you.

Originally posted by RussDill
Hah, lies, all lies, you are just saying that because you know revealing your third revelation would cause us all to bow down and worship you, not realizing that we are all the wombat (except the hamsters of course)
Damn, ya got me, Russ. I'd tell you the Third Revelation, but I don't want the pressure of all that worship. Just send a check.

edited to edit

[DVFinn]

sounds like the tired old Uncaused cause argument they dump on you in catholic schools. It's possibly the dumbest attempt at logical proof ever.

[lifegazer]

A real finite-existence within 'nothing'? Not a rational possibility. "Nothing" cannot embrace/envelop a real finite-entity. Therefore, existence, ultimately and essentially, is boundless in itself. A singularity of existence. No beginning and no end. Space is an illusion occuring within the mind of that singularity.
Behold, your God.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer
A real finite-existence within 'nothing'? Not a rational possibility. "Nothing" cannot embrace/envelop a real finite-entity. Therefore, existence, ultimately and essentially, is boundless in itself. A singularity of existence. No beginning and no end. Space is an illusion occuring within the mind of that singularity.
Behold, your God.

behold, the feeble mind of lifegazer, which cannot grasp the concept of finite things without beginning and end.

Also, I can still point out that your mind is bounded at every point. All I have to do is add another dimension.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill
behold, the feeble mind of lifegazer, which cannot grasp the concept of finite things without beginning and end.

Don't be a plonker Russ. And don't dare mention a circle or a sphere again.

Also, I can still point out that your mind is bounded at every point. All I have to do is add another dimension.
Don't just talk about adding dimensions... do it.
Those dimensions you dreamt up are concepts of the mind.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Don't be a plonker Russ. And don't dare mention a circle or a sphere again.


Ya, sorry, don't want to make your brain hurt.


Don't just talk about adding dimensions... do it.
Those dimensions you dreamt up are concepts of the mind.


ok, there is "The Mind" but there is also "The Observer". The observer attaches to the mind at every point of awareness and merely observes. The mind is not even aware of the observer.

And tada, you Mind is bounded at every point by the observer.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer
A real finite-existence within 'nothing'? Not a rational possibility. "Nothing" cannot embrace/envelop a real finite-entity. Therefore, existence, ultimately and essentially, is boundless in itself. A singularity of existence. No beginning and no end. Space is an illusion occuring within the mind of that singularity.
Behold, your God.

Therefore, existence, ultimately and essentially, is boundless in itself. A singularity of existence. No beginning and no end.

There you go you have at last reached truth. You will come to the truth of Buddhism fully soon.

Now where you go wrong badly is Space is an illusion occuring within the mind of that singularity.
Behold, your God.

You see you have come to the realization that existence is boundless, no beginning no end, no creation nor creator. We know of existence and can demonstrate it and look to the causes and conditions behind it all resulting from natural causes.

You see for you to say as you have over and over that this requires a god contradicts your statement of Therefore, existence, ultimately and essentially, is boundless in itself. A singularity of existence. No beginning and no end.


There is no need to add a god or anything else hoped for or grasped to by the ego. You are a smart man who has grasped to a desire to try to explain what is rather then look at what is for what is.

There is no need for a god to explain anything nor a need for a god or gods to do what must be done that being seeking to end suffering and ignorance. If there is or is not a god is irrelevant to this.

Be well.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
If there can be no existence without primal-cause then what was the primal-cause for the Vampire Wombat?

Self contradicting, self defeating belief.

If there can be no existence without the Big Bang then what was the cause for the Big Bang?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


If there can be no existence without the Big Bang then what was the cause for the Big Bang?

Why would something without a before need a cause?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by RussDill

Why would something without a before need a cause?

Someone could easily say the same thing about God, now couldn't they?

Fine, no before for the Big Bang...so all that material came from where exactly again? Magic?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Someone could easily say the same thing about God, now couldn't they?

Fine, no before for the Big Bang...so all that material came from where exactly again? Magic?

also a question which makes no sense to ask. However, it seems that the total energy of the universe is zero, which would mean the question is moot anyway.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


If there can be no existence without the Big Bang then what was the cause for the Big Bang?

Hello my friend.
I do not believe in "there can be no existence without the Big Bang " so you must ask someone who believs that my friend.

May I ask that you answer my Question,? If there needs be a primal-cause for everything what was the primal-cause for God?

As to the “big Bang” I just posted this at another site regarding how I look at the big bang.

Why must we grasp to the idea that this big bang was the first or only such event?

We can observe that all that is compound is subject to impermanence. The coming together and resulting death and decay. Each time non-“thing” elements come together to make “thing” or what is perceived and labeled as “thing”. All “things” are subject to death and decay with the coming apart of the non thing/self elements that formed the thing. These elements are again found , again in “time” forming or found in a new “thing”. An endless cycle no creation nor end.


May I ask as to your question Time, Proof Of God?

1- what is time? It is a concept and relative.
2- If there is “time” it is proof of time not a God.


be well my friend I hope all is well with you.

[Zep]

So... How do we know that the Great Vampire Wombat is (a) a wombat, (b) a vampire, and (c) great?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Zep
So... How do we know that the Great Vampire Wombat is (a) a wombat, (b) a vampire, and (c) great?

Because any such entity that is not a wombat, not a vampire, or not great, must not be the great vampire wombat.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by RussDill

also a question which makes no sense to ask. However, it seems that the total energy of the universe is zero, which would mean the question is moot anyway.

So again, what was before the Big Bang? Where did all the stuff come from?

-and if it makes no sense to ask what caused the Big Bang, why do you feel it does make sense to ask people what caused God?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
"Therefore, existence, ultimately and essentially, is boundless in itself. A singularity of existence. No beginning and no end."

There you go you have at last reached truth. You will come to the truth of Buddhism fully soon.

You agree with my words without recognising the significance of them. Have you given any thought whatsoever to what a singularity-reality is?

Now where you go wrong badly is:
"Space is an illusion occuring within the mind of that singularity.
Behold, your God."

You see you have come to the realization that existence is boundless, no beginning no end, no creation nor creator.

Of course there's a creation... a universe. Even if it's all in the mind, it's still a creation.
Space cannot exist within a boundless singularity, except as an illusion of the mind. Like a dream.

We know of existence and can demonstrate it and look to the causes and conditions behind it all resulting from natural causes.

Palease. This isn't even true, let alone rational. Science knows 'jack' about the origins and essential-nature of existence. Why tell porkies?

You see for you to say as you have over and over that this requires a god contradicts your statement of:
"Therefore, existence, ultimately and essentially, is boundless in itself. A singularity of existence. No beginning and no end."

That's exactly what God is. I hope you're not mistaking a singularity of existence with "nothing". Clearly, God (a singularity of existence) is not a (finite) thing as we understand "things" to be. But this doesn't equate that existence with ~nothing~ in its absolute sense.
God exists at an indivisible singularity, boundless so that no-thing exists externally to it, and everything which exists within it, does so merely as an illusion occuring within the mind of that God.

There is no need to add a god or anything else hoped for or grasped to by the ego.

I'm probably the most rational man you'll ever meet. If I was what you accuse me of being, I'd be going to church every week, and reading from the scriptures as a proof of my arguments.

There is no need for a god to explain anything nor a need for a god or gods to do what must be done that being seeking to end suffering and ignorance. If there is or is not a god is irrelevant to this.

"Need"? Need is not the issue. Truth is the issue. And you do not possess it.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Zep

So... How do we know that the Great Vampire Wombat is (a) a wombat, (b) a vampire, and (c) great?
a) we wouldn't call it a wombat if it wasn't. What do you think we are, nuts?
b) it has to be a vampire to acquire that weird seductive power over the chicks.
c) I never said it was all that great

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


So again, what was before the Big Bang? Where did all the stuff come from?

-and if it makes no sense to ask what caused the Big Bang, why do you feel it does make sense to ask people what caused God?

I can not speak for RussDill nor know what he believe as to the Big bang, but perhaps an answer he may give is that the Big bang can be studied from factual data and contains at the very least logical conclusion as to what is known the God idea can not. The big bang is based in what can be proven and observed the God idea is a belief only as a cause but has nothing other then belief or desire behind it.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by lifegazer

God exists at an indivisible singularity, boundless so that no-thing exists externally to it, and everything which exists within it, does so merely as an illusion occuring within the mind of that God.

* * *

I'm probably the most rational man you'll ever meet. Clearly.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by GhostWriter

The sad thing is that you're serious. God has no existence except within our heads... or, as brain-waves emanating from finite bodies.

Try again LifeGazer. Or just admit you're full of... [/B]

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

You agree with my words without recognising the significance of them. Have you given any thought whatsoever to what a singularity-reality is?

Of course there's a creation... a universe. Even if it's all in the mind, it's still a creation.
Space cannot exist within a boundless singularity, except as an illusion of the mind. Like a dream.

Palease. This isn't even true, let alone rational. Science knows 'jack' about the origins and essential-nature of existence. Why tell porkies?

That's exactly what God is. I hope you're not mistaking a singularity of existence with "nothing". Clearly, God (a singularity of existence) is not a (finite) thing as we understand "things" to be. But this doesn't equate that existence with ~nothing~ in its absolute sense.
God exists at an indivisible singularity, boundless so that no-thing exists externally to it, and everything which exists within it, does so merely as an illusion occuring within the mind of that God.

I'm probably the most rational man you'll ever meet. If I was what you accuse me of being, I'd be going to church every week, and reading from the scriptures as a proof of my arguments.

"Need"? Need is not the issue. Truth is the issue. And you do not possess it.




You agree with my words without recognising the significance of them. Have you given any thought whatsoever to what a singularity-reality is?

please again read my post and not adding what you wish to find there I did not agree with “singularity-reality”. My friend as I said you place what you desire to believe before facts. The above is yet another example.

Of course there's a creation... a universe.

Yes and it is explained by natural cause and conditions and requires no god nor do any facts point to a god or the great pumpkin not 100’ giants.


Even if it's all in the mind, it's still a creation.

Yes and it is explained by natural cause and conditions and requires no god nor do any facts point to a god or the great pumpkin not 100’ giants.

Space cannot exist within a boundless singularity, except as an illusion of the mind. Like a dream.

prove it. You make many statements of fact but do not offer facts. If you can prove it I will believe it but your statement carries no more weight then if I said

I wrote [b] We know of existence and can demonstrate it and look to the causes and conditions behind it all resulting from natural causes.

Palease. This isn't even true, let alone rational. Science knows 'jack' about the origins and essential-nature of existence. Why tell porkies?

Yet another statement with no supporting facts. I assume we must believe what you say just because you say it.
I wrote You see for you to say as you have over and over that this requires a god contradicts your statement of:
"Therefore, existence, ultimately and essentially, is boundless in itself. A singularity of existence. No beginning and no end."

You write: That's exactly what God is.

No that is exactly reality, a known, God is just a belief. You are confusing a reality a known with a desire.

I hope you're not mistaking a singularity of existence with "nothing".

Not at all “singularity of existence” is a term that you have made up and it is meaningless until proven and by such it is nothing but just that.

I believe you confuse it with reality simply because you want it to be true.


Clearly, God

Is an unproven unsupported by fact belief and nothing more.

Clearly, God (a singularity of existence) is not a (finite) thing as we understand "things" to be.

It is just a belief and nothing more until you prove it.

But this doesn't equate that existence with ~nothing~ in its absolute sense.

My friend what god is , is nothing until proven to be something.


God exists at an indivisible singularity,

Prove it. This statement is no more true then saying God exists at an indivisible singularity,

boundless so that no-thing exists externally to it, and everything which exists within it, does so merely as an illusion occuring within the mind of that God.

Prove it. This is fruitless, you simply can not carry on a logical interaction.

I'm probably the most rational man you'll ever meet.

Every mental patent says the same thing. Hitler said the same thing, all killers do etc.


If I was what you accuse me of being, I'd be going to church every week, and reading from the scriptures as a proof of my arguments.

Not at all, you believe you are the single holder of “truth” you alone have been given this “truth” this form of illness is never marked by going to church and reading scriptures it is marked by starting churches and writing scriptures.

"Need"? Need is not the issue. Truth is the issue. And you do not possess it.

Prove it. No forget it this is fruitless you will not conduct an exchange you seek to demand what you say is truth and have us follow you. But you will not offer any such proof to support it.

Be well my friend we are done.

[Tricky]

I hope you people realize the chance you are taking with your apostasy. the Great Taco In The Sky is slow to anger, but if you manage to rouse his ire, your blood shall flow like picante. Your bodies shall crumble like so much hamburger, and indeed the shell of your existance shall be crushed.

[Marquis de Carabas]

*sigh*

OK, lifegazer, at the risk of ruining the joke for the rest of the class by overexplaining it, I will tell you about the Vampire Wombat.

In your other thread, you asserted a "proof" for the existence of a primal cause, and then called that primal cause God. Now, your proof is severaly lacking at best, but others were handling that bit nicely. I decided to grant to you a primal cause. For the sake of argument, I'll say you proved it.

And then you go and attach the name God to it? By what right? You never even attempted a proof for this phase of the operation. Enter the Wombat (tell me, you'd see that movie, wouldn't you?).

Let's say you proved the primal cause must exist. What made you ascribe to it the name God? Whimsy led me to a Vampire Wombat; what was your motivation?

By naming something "God" you are ascribing to it all sorts of other qualities beyond being the primal cause, properties you need to account for. Much like you presumed my Vampire Wombat must have a form (because all wombats do, right? and how could it suck blood or terrorise Sunnydale without a form anyway?), anyone seeing you equate the primal cause to "God" will bring their preconceived notins of godness with them.

Now, I do not claim to know specifically which of the many aspects God has been credited with having you intended to bring to the table. But you obviously mean that God is more than just the primal cause, else "primal cause" would have been easily as good a name for it.

Anyway, back to reality, if you don't believe me by now, the Vampire Wombat will eat your soul, without gravy, but with a side of relish.

[Marquis de Carabas]

pshaw Tricky! The Wombat would eat that Taco for lunch, as soon as he was over the indigestion from lifegazer's soul.

[Zep]

Originally posted by RussDill
Because any such entity that is not a wombat, not a vampire, or not great, must not be the great vampire wombat. Correction in logic required, I fear: Any such entity that is not a wombat, and not a vampire and not great must not be the great vampire wombat.

That is: (not A) and (not B) and (not C), or I believe it can be expressed as not (A and B and C).

You were positing (not A) or (not B) or (not C), which is not the same thing.

But do carry on!

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Pahansiri

...perhaps an answer he may give is that the Big bang can be studied from factual data and contains at the very least logical conclusion as to what is known the God idea can not. The big bang is based in what can be proven and observed the God idea is a belief only as a cause but has nothing other then belief or desire behind it.

That's great and all, but that still doesn't address: what was before the Big Bang? Where did all the stuff come from?

(and if it makes no sense to ask what caused the Big Bang, why do you feel it does make sense to ask people what caused God?)

:)

[Dorian Gray]

Here's a little story: There was a primal cause, basically nameless and devoid of will, etc., and this primal cause had the effect of the Big Bang, God, and the Vampire Wombat. First, the Vampire Wombat needed chicks, so it caused the Big Bang, and a few billion years later WHAM! (UK), there were chicks. But the Wombat needed variety, so he created men so they could help make more chicks, because who has time to create more chicks when there's all those chicks to, um, you know. The men, not possessing the capability of rendering large numbers of chicks agog, had plenty of free time, and during this time invented all the abstract concepts and tangible products we know about today (although the seeds of all ideas were planted by the Wombat).

One of the things men created was God, who had many different forms and names, depending on where you lived and who you knew. Practically no one knew the Wombat, except (coincidentally) in the biblical sense - which is why the Bible was (ultimately) caused by the Wombat to exist. Also, the Wombat got tired of waiting for the chicks to call out 'Oh Great Vampire Wombat!' - which is why God was (ultimately) caused by the Wombat to exist ('Oh God!' takes less time to call out).

So as you can see, there is a primal cause back there somewhere, but we basically have the Vampire Wombat to thank for our existence - but don't try to pray or anything. The Vampire Wombat doesn't care. He only speaks three languages - the language of the Great Ancient Vampire Wombat, Binary, and Funkdaddy.

Thus, I have proven that primal causes don't need a primal cause to cause effects to exist. I submit to you, Lifegazer, that my logic is at least as unassailable as your own.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


That's great and all, but that still doesn't address: what was before the Big Bang? Where did all the stuff come from?

(and if it makes no sense to ask what caused the Big Bang, why do you feel it does make sense to ask people what caused God?)

:)

Greetings my friend T'ai Chi I wish I could say I was Caught off guard that you again did not answer a question I asked you but I am not. I have always answered everything you ask me and will again as it is the respectful and honest thing to do.



That's great and all, but that still doesn't address: what was before the Big Bang? Where did all the stuff come from?


If you were to answer my question you would have the answer over and above the fact I have already answered it. It needs no creation no beginning nor end I thought you had a grasp of my Buddhist belief and your beliefs?

(and if it makes no sense to ask what caused the Big Bang, why do you feel it does make sense to ask people what caused God?)

Again you misrepresent me, may I ask where I said it makes no sense to ask any question? While you have said you believe in no gods it also seems you do as I have pointed out in the past this being an example and I respect that as I do all beings. Just come off the fence and say what you believe. :con2:



Perhaps I will try one last time to see if you will be so good as to answer this., May I ask that you answer my Question,? If there needs be a primal-cause for everything what was the primal-cause for God? :)

I look forward to your answer. Be well

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


That's great and all, but that still doesn't address: what was before the Big Bang?Time doesn't extend past the big bang. There is no "before". The very question assumes a contrary model of the universe.

As Pahansiri points out, the reason people ask "What caused God" is simply because God is being used as the answer to "everything has a cause, so what caused the universe?"

The answer "God, who has no cause" is no answer, because it contradicts the premise that everything must have a cause. And if God doesn't need a cause, then why should the universe? God answers nothing.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
(and if it makes no sense to ask what caused the Big Bang, why do you feel it does make sense to ask people what caused God?) No, you misunderstand. It makes sense to ask what caused the Big Bang (quantum fluctuation), it does not make sense to ask what happened before time existed.

It is a huge misconception that time and space are infinite, homogenous throughout the universe, and has no beginning. That's the trouble of using the everyday world as the sole basis of your view of the world.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


That's great and all, but that still doesn't address: what was before the Big Bang? Where did all the stuff come from?

(and if it makes no sense to ask what caused the Big Bang, why do you feel it does make sense to ask people what caused God?)

:)

We can only guess what was there before the Big Band began to play. It is a very difficult to answer in a closed universe. I think that if we figure out a good approximation of what is happening in black holes then we can make a good guess as to what there might have been in the Big Bang. But if there is this 'place' that is without space and time, a word like 'before' may have little meaning, just as the word 'before' has little meaning inside a black hole.

When some one runs around shouting that 'god can catch bullets in thier teeth and answers all the questions that are correctly answered "I don't know". Then it makes fun to ask what caused god.

Maybe some people have a hard time accepting the limits of knowledge.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I think that if we figure out a good approximation of what is happening in black holes then we can make a good guess as to what there might have been in the Big Bang. But if there is this 'place' that is without space and time, a word like 'before' may have little meaning, just as the word 'before' has little meaning inside a black hole.What? How do you equate black holes with a lack of spacetime? Those are like polar extremes as far as spacetime goes. One is an incredible, extreme warping of spacetime and the other is the absence of it.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Upchurch
What? How do you equate black holes with a lack of spacetime? Those are like polar extremes as far as spacetime goes. One is an incredible, extreme warping of spacetime and the other is the absence of it.

I may be misremebering but I recall some very high up space/time devotees saying that space/time broke down in a black hole, they used some phrase that I didn't understand , they said that at the core of the black hole, inside the plank limit, there was a 'space time foam'. The guy seemed to imply that time had no meaning in that position. I wondered at the time bacause I thought angular momentum was conserved in a black hole and therefore was a representation of time. That could even be potentialy observed outside the black hole in the form of gravity waves, whatever the heck those are.

I think that the point he was making is that time has no meaning in the black hole. I know that the theory says time freezes as you pass the event horizon. The guy that I heard speak on it was some mucky muck mathematician who modeled black holes and the big bang. I am relaying the slightly less woo-woo elements of the talk he gave.

I came away thinking that words like 'before' and 'after' had no meaning below the planl limit of the balck hole. But I may have also misunderstood him, I feel that from outside the perspective of the black hole we could infer time/passage of time in the black hole but he felt differently. he felt that those things had no meaning in the black hole itself. Then he got into some really whacky stuff like time reversal and worm-holes.

(Shew, I am glad to see that our critical thinking skills have not been numbed by LifeGazer, Iacchus and HammeGK)

[DVFinn]

If there can be no existence without the Big Bang then what was the cause for the Big Bang?

Who said there could be no existence before the Big Bang? Nothing in physics that I'm familiar with requires that to be true. The Big Bang is merely, according to a so far pretty strong theory, the point at which spacetime and matter condense to a point where the laws of physics break down. I'm no expert, but I'm pretty well read in the popular stuff, lederman, hawkings etc. As I understand it they aren't saying there was nothing before the big bang, but merely that we cannot look back beyond it as it was the beginning of the physical universe we inhabit. We form observations based on the laws of physics so we can't observe a point where those laws don't apply.

Whether the Big bang ever happened or not, and I personally think it probably did, that doesn't justify making up silly ideas like "Gods".

See, in Science it's ok to not know something. There are lots of things we don't know. It's never ok to just make something up to fill in what you don't know if you can't provide evidence.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I may be misremebering but I recall some very high up space/time devotees saying that space/time broke down in a black hole, they used some phrase that I didn't understand , they said that at the core of the black hole, inside the plank limit, there was a 'space time foam'. Ooooh. Okay, I kinda know what you're talking about now. I don't know about the plank limit/spacetime foam stuff, but when people say that the laws of physics break down inside a black hole, they're talking about the map, not the terrain. Our current understanding of the laws of physics makes it very difficult for us to predict what it's like inside a black hole. And we have almost no way to obtain data to verify our guesses.
I think that the point he was making is that time has no meaning in the black hole. I know that the theory says time freezes as you pass the event horizon. Freezes, goes backwards, jumps around in circles, who knows? I've heard lots of guesses, but no one knows for certain. We'd be killed long before we even made it to the event horizon. It's one of the things that I consider to be closest fit to the description of "unknowable", at least from a practical sense.

[joyrex]

I thought this was about prying chipmunks..

oops..

[wayrad]

Originally posted by joyrex
I thought this was about prying chipmunks..

oops.. No, no. They are frying hamsters.;)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
If there needs be a primal-cause for everything what was the primal-cause for God? :)

This question is the dumbest philosophical question ever asked.
Will somebody please explain to me why people repeatedly enquire as to the cause of a primal-cause?

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer

This question is the dumbest philosophical question ever asked.
Will somebody please explain to me why people repeatedly enquire as to the cause of a primal-cause? Because your only justification for a primal cause is because you claim it. There is no rational justification for your assumption.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Zero
There is no rational justification for your assumption. Well, not only that, but the two assumptions are mutually exclusive. The two following statements can not both be true:

1. Everything has a cause.
2. There exists a primal-cause (that has no cause).

It's a pretty black and white contradiction.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Zero
Because your only justification for a primal cause is because you claim it. There is no rational justification for your assumption.
This is an irrelevant response by you to the question I posed.
Why are there so many bozos out there who ask where God came from (the question assumes God's existence that the question may be answered), when God is equated to the primal-cause of that existence?
Do you not understand that it is moronic to enquire as to the cause of a primal-cause?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by DVFinn

Who said there could be no existence before the Big Bang?


It is implied. If the Big Bang is the start of it all, it implies there was nothing before the Big Bang, doesn't it?


As I understand it they aren't saying there was nothing before the big bang, but merely that we cannot look back beyond it as it was the beginning of the physical universe we inhabit.


Right.. it was the beginning, so where did this beginning come from?


Whether the Big bang ever happened or not, and I personally think it probably did, that doesn't justify making up silly ideas like "Gods".


Whether an actual god(s) exist or not, and some personally think it/they might, that doesn't justify making up silly ideas like beginning of universes, or a infinitely hot and dense point where physical laws break down, etc.


See, in Science it's ok to not know something. There are lots of things we don't know. It's never ok to just make something up to fill in what you don't know if you can't provide evidence.

You claim that the Big Bang is a point where the physical laws break down. How exactly do you know that?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Well, not only that, but the two assumptions are mutually exclusive. The two following statements can not both be true:

1. Everything has a cause.
2. There exists a primal-cause (that has no cause).

It's a pretty black and white contradiction.

And that is my point but it is wasted on our friend.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Well, not only that, but the two assumptions are mutually exclusive. The two following statements can not both be true:

1. Everything has a cause.
2. There exists a primal-cause (that has no cause).

It's a pretty black and white contradiction.
A thing equates to a finite entity within our perception. God, being boundless (see other threads) is neither finite nor, therefore, a 'thing' as defined.
God is not part of every-thing that God creates, since God is not a thing.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


And that is my point but it is wasted on our friend.
Two strikes. Don't underestimate me or talk to me like a fool.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Two strikes. Don't underestimate me or talk to me like a fool. :rub: yes I am sure you will rain down upon me your rath etc etc.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

A thing equates to a finite entity within our perception. God, being boundless (see other threads) is neither finite nor, therefore, a 'thing' as defined.
God is not part of every-thing that God creates, since God is not a thing.

Vs.

Originally posted by lifegazerOnly God exist and if God exists nothing else exist (see other threads)

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer

This is an irrelevant response by you to the question I posed.
Why are there so many bozos out there who ask where God came from (the question assumes God's existence that the question may be answered), when God is equated to the primal-cause of that existence?
Do you not understand that it is moronic to enquire as to the cause of a primal-cause? It is moronic to assume a primal cause without any logic basis. The question is put to you because it highlights the weakness in your concept. You assume something that can easily be questioned,and you refuse to answer the question in a meaningful way.

[SkepticalScience]

Hi LifeGazer. . .

I just started following your thread. . .

You said in one of your posts "since God is not a thing"

I am curious how you know that?? Also, is there anything else that is not a thing? (even feelings are things at some level)

And how is "not a thing" different than "doesn't exist"

[Zero]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


Vs.

Originally posted by lifegazer[quote]Only God exist and if God exists nothing else exist[quote] (see other threads) Yeah, that is why he likes to break up his ideas into seperate threads, since the parts don't match up with each other.

[Zero]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience


And how is "not a thing" different than "doesn't exist" From a practical standpoint, there is no difference, which is yet another flaw in his fevered reasoning.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
Hi LifeGazer. . .

I just started following your thread. . .

You said in one of your posts "since God is not a thing"

I am curious how you know that?? Also, is there anything else that is not a thing? (even feelings are things at some level)

And how is "not a thing" different than "doesn't exist" http://www.stjosephaspirin.com/images/stjoseph/home/homephstjoseph.jpg
Welcome you will need these

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
A thing equates to a finite entity within our perception. God, being boundless (see other threads) is neither finite nor, therefore, a 'thing' as defined.
God is not part of every-thing that God creates, since God is not a thing.

Vs.

Only God exist and if God exists nothing else exist (see other threads)
There is no contradiction. The top quote states that things exist as finite entities within perception, which basically means that they are illusionary things seen within awareness and are not real.
Only God exists. The things within God's perception are not real.

That's three strikes for you.

[SkepticalScience]

Hmm. . .also, LifeGazer. . .exactly why couldn't the universe arise from naturalistic reasons? What prevents that exactly?

There are plenty of "first things" I see that get created by natural processes. 10,000 years ago, if we were cave men, we might have looked up at the sky, and wondered what caused the first lightning bolt. . . There was a first lightning bold. . and it turns out that it had no supernatural causes at all. . . Same could be said about the first earthquake, first volcano explosion, etc.

What prevents the "first big bang" from having a natural cause as well?

Hope I don't come of rude, I am just trying to understand your position.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

This is an irrelevant response by you to the question I posed.
Why are there so many bozos out there who ask where God came from (the question assumes God's existence that the question may be answered), when God is equated to the primal-cause of that existence?
Do you not understand that it is moronic to enquire as to the cause of a primal-cause?

Why is it a bozo question to ask where god came from, but not a bozo question to ask where the universe came from?

[Sugartits]

LOL at the f***** who started this thread.

Also, why bother debating if your arguments are an a priori?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
Hmm. . .also, LifeGazer. . .exactly why couldn't the universe arise from naturalistic reasons? What prevents that exactly?

Hello. Please read my own thread. I have answered questions such as this already.

There are plenty of "first things" I see that get created by natural processes. 10,000 years ago, if we were cave men, we might have looked up at the sky, and wondered what caused the first lightning bolt. . . There was a first lightning bold. . and it turns out that it had no supernatural causes at all. . . Same could be said about the first earthquake, first volcano explosion, etc.

Okay then... please tell the members here what the primal-cause is of lightning, earthquakes and volcanoes.

Hope I don't come of rude, I am just trying to understand your position.
You sound very polite. But if you want a serious convo, I'd like to conduct it in my own thread please, outside of this joke thread.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

There is no contradiction. The top quote states that things exist as finite entities within perception, which basically means that they are illusionary things seen within awareness and are not real.
Only God exists. The things within God's perception are not real.

That's three strikes for you.

You still haven't answered the ice cream question, nor repsonded to free will having cause.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Sugartits
LOL at the f***** who started this thread.

Also, why bother debating if your arguments are an a priori? <table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#333333 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#333333><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by Upchurch:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>This post has been edited.

Please watch the language.

As always, this decision may be appealed to Hal Bidlack (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/private.php?s=&action=newmessage&userid=1753)[/i]</font></td></tr></table>

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by RussDill


Why is it a bozo question to ask where god came from, but not a bozo question to ask where the universe came from?
The physical universe is its effects. No effect is a primal-cause. No thing within the universe is a primal-cause.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Ooooh. Okay, I kinda know what you're talking about now. I don't know about the plank limit/spacetime foam stuff, but when people say that the laws of physics break down inside a black hole, they're talking about the map, not the terrain. Our current understanding of the laws of physics makes it very difficult for us to predict what it's like inside a black hole. And we have almost no way to obtain data to verify our guesses.
Freezes, goes backwards, jumps around in circles, who knows? I've heard lots of guesses, but no one knows for certain. We'd be killed long before we even made it to the event horizon. It's one of the things that I consider to be closest fit to the description of "unknowable", at least from a practical sense.

I agree, like proving god to exist or finding the cause of the primal cause.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The physical universe is its effects. No effect is a primal-cause. No thing within the universe is a primal-cause.

I'm not talking about the contents of the universe, just as you are not talking about the contents of the mind.

[SkepticalScience]

Thanks LifeGazer. . .

I appologize if I didn't fully understand your previous posts. . .

As far as the lightning though, I'm not sure I clearly expressed my point. Would you agree that 10,000 years ago. . . a couple of cavemen who saw lightning in the sky, might have thought that it was the result of a God??

But today, there is hardly anyone holds that notion. . . .

Back then, people just didn't understand what caused lightning to appear in the sky. . . but today, we know its causes pretty well.

The truth is, no one on this forum (or in the world, I presume) knows exactly what caused the big bang. . .

I think everyone can agree however, that there was *SOME* process at work. The disagreement comes in the nature of that process; is it supernatural or natural.

Since no one has observed any evidence of supernatural phenomena, shouldn't the default assumption be that the creation of the universe is natural (though, currently mysterious) phenomena as well?

If not, why, exactly?

(I hope that makes sense. . .please let me know if I was unclear)

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

There is no contradiction. The top quote states that things exist as finite entities within perception, which basically means that they are illusionary things seen within awareness and are not real.
Only God exists. The things within God's perception are not real.

That's three strikes for you. :rub:

My sweet friend please do not stand in on coming traffic.

May I ask now that I have " three strikes" what are you going to do to me? :rolleyes:

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
:rub:

My sweet friend please do not stand in on coming traffic.

May I ask now that I have " three strikes" what are you going to do to me? :rolleyes:
I'm going to save your hide, of course. Three strikes opens your mind and sets you free.:p

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
As far as the lightning though, I'm not sure I clearly expressed my point. Would you agree that 10,000 years ago. . . a couple of cavemen who saw lightning in the sky, might have thought that it was the result of a God??

A supernatural entity, yes.

But today, there is hardly anyone holds that notion. . . .

Actually, many people still view an omnipresent God as the fundamental source of all effects.

Back then, people just didn't understand what caused lightning to appear in the sky. . . but today, we know its causes pretty well.

I asked you earlier to tell the forum what the primal-cause of lightning is. Are you going to do this?

The truth is, no one on this forum (or in the world, I presume) knows exactly what caused the big bang. . .

That was "God". :D

Since no one has observed any evidence of supernatural phenomena, shouldn't the default assumption be that the creation of the universe is natural (though, currently mysterious) phenomena as well?

We observe the effects of creation. Indeed, observation of the world itself is an effect of creation. The primal-cause of those effects cannot be observed via our sensations, by logical default. We have to use reason to acknowledge 'her' presence.

[Zero]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I'm going to save your hide, of course. Three strikes opens your mind and sets you free.:p Here we go with the messianic complex again...

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by lifegazer
[B]
That was "God". :D


That is an interesting hypothesis; would you care to provide evidence for it?

[Zero]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


That is an interesting hypothesis; would you care to provide evidence for it? No, he wouldn't...I've been waiting 2 1/2 years for it, and so far he's provided nothing.

[SkepticalScience]

Well LifeGazer, I'm not sure ligtning has a primal cause. . .

"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."

Can you rephrase that in any way. . .cause I am not sure I understand it fully. . .

How can a cause have no external needs or influences? Can there be more than one primal causes of things? Can there be a primal cause of lightning, but wind have an alltogether different primary cause? Or is the primary cause the root of EVERYTHING?

[tim]

I have no comment, apart from denying catagorically that I am a vampire.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by SkepticalScience
Well LifeGazer, I'm not sure ligtning has a primal cause. . .

But you said that you knew the cause for lightning. If you do, then you know the primal-cause for lightning. Otherwise, you don't know the cause for lightning.
It's as simple as that.

"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."

Can you rephrase that in any way. . .cause I am not sure I understand it fully. . .

How can a cause have no external needs or influences?

A primal cause can have no external needs or influences only if it is the whole of existence itself. It can be the cause of things perceived within it. Yet, the cause is singular... and hence, the perception of division is illusion. You should hop over to my thread if you want to see detailed discussion of this stuff. I've just made a long post tonight which I want people like yourself to read.

Can there be more than one primal causes of things?

No, because a primal-cause cannot be finite.

Can there be a primal cause of lightning, but wind have an alltogether different primary cause?

No, because a primal-cause must embrace all of existence.

Or is the primary cause the root of EVERYTHING?
Yes.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by Zep
Correction in logic required, I fear: Any such entity that is not a wombat, and not a vampire and not great must not be the great vampire wombat.

That is: (not A) and (not B) and (not C), or I believe it can be expressed as not (A and B and C).


Actually, no. !A & !B & !C = !(A or B or C). "FFF" is the only truth assignment that makes both of these true. Which suggests that something is not the Great Vampire Wombat if it possesses none of the three traits, suggesting that any old wombat or vampire could be the GVW.


You were positing (not A) or (not B) or (not C), which is not the same thing.

Likewise, !A or !B or !C = !(A & B & C), which is the more appropriate clause for the argument. If X lacks any of these three things, X is not the Great Vampire Wombat. So the original proposition was correct:

!(A & B & C) => !GVW

The reverse implication is true only if the Great Vampire Wombat is unique.

But do carry on!

Do indeed.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by lifegazer
A primal cause can have no external needs or influences only if it is the whole of existence itself. It can be the cause of things perceived within it. Yet, the cause is singular... and hence, the perception of division is illusion. You should hop over to my thread if you want to see detailed discussion of this stuff. I've just made a long post tonight which I want people like yourself to read.

No, because a primal-cause cannot be finite.

No, because a primal-cause must embrace all of existence.


I'd just like to note that all of lifegazer's points here can be correctly said to apply to the universe; thus, the universe makes a perfectly servicable God.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by aerosolben


I'd just like to note that all of lifegazer's points here can be correctly said to apply to the universe; thus, the universe makes a perfectly servicable God.
But I also argue that a primal-cause possesses will.

[Suezoled]

Can the Wombat cause a blinding?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
But I also argue that a primal-cause possesses will.
And that's the question I asked on the last page. What is it that causes you to impart other attributes besides merely being the primal-cause to the primal-cause. On what grounds do you assert that it has a will?

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by lifegazer
But I also argue that a primal-cause possesses will.

Not there, you didn't. Nor have you provided any evidence for that assertation, as far as I can tell.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer Two strikes. Don't underestimate me or talk to me like a fool.

And

That's three strikes for you.

My friend while we did see snow here last night I have yet to see any plagues, locust, wrath or smiting or any form. May I ask when it is I will see your vengeance and what form it will take?

[SkepticalScience]

Hi LifeGazer. . .

I think that Marquis de Carabas and aerosolben echo my thoughts as well.

You claim that the primal cause has free will. . . but I (and apparently others on this board) can't understand the reasons behind your claim. . .

It's one thing to say something like that, but without evidence, why is it right?

Why do you feel so strongly that the primal cause has thoughts? Where is the evidence for that?

[lifegazer]

My reasoning that a primal-cause would possess will is expressed in the post that I made tonight in my own thread ("a universe without God"). Those truly interested are invited to discuss, over there. I eventually intend to ease myself out of this joke thread. I certainly don't intend to discuss the attribute of will by a primal-cause in a thread labelled "Existence without a Vampire Wombat".
Hopefully, you'll understand why.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
My friend while we did see snow here last night I have yet to see any plagues, locust, wrath or smiting or any form. May I ask when it is I will see your vengeance and what form it will take?
Vengeance? God is to blame for everything. There shall be no vengeance come judgement day.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Vengeance? God is to blame for everything. There shall be no vengeance come judgement day.

I will try again.

Originally posted by lifegazer
Two strikes. Don't underestimate me or talk to me like a fool.

And

:That's three strikes for you.

My friend while we did see snow here last night I have yet to see any plagues, locust, wrath or smiting or any form. May I ask when it is I will see your vengeance and what form it will take?

[SkepticalScience]

I understand lifegazer. . .

I will look for that thread.


Thanks again

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Hopefully, you'll understand why.
Of course I understand why. You're scared my thread's post count will catch up to yours.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri


I will try again.

Originally posted by lifegazer


And



My friend while we did see snow here last night I have yet to see any plagues, locust, wrath or smiting or any form. May I ask when it is I will see your vengeance and what form it will take?
Why do you keep quoting biblical scripture at me? When did I ever claim to be a Christian? Or when did I ever claim that the bible was to be read as a literal history?

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Why do you keep quoting biblical scripture at me? When did I ever claim to be a Christian? Or when did I ever claim that the bible was to be read as a literal history?

Originally posted by lifegazer
quote:me or talk to me like a fool.

And

That's three strikes for you.

You have "warned" me, I "hit strike 3" , what will now happen? Are your warnings also hollow and Free from facts?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Pahansiri
[B]

Originally posted by lifegazer
quote:

And



You have "warned" me, I "hit strike 3" , what will now happen? Are your warnings also hollow and Free from facts?
What happens now is dependent upon you. Do you have the balls to change? Most people do not.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas

Of course I understand why. You're scared my thread's post count will catch up to yours. You know, that is as good a reason to post here as any I have seen...

Lifgazer sez:
What happens now is dependent upon you. Do you have the balls to change? Most people do not. Interesting concept, from someone whose message has not changed in...what is it? According to Zero, 2-1/2 years...

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What happens now is dependent upon you. Do you have the balls to change? Most people do not.

Originally posted by lifegazer

Two strikes. Don't underestimate me or talk to me like a fool.
And

That's three strikes for you.

As in most cases you have again avoided responding to statements you have made or in this case a “threat” and danced off on an irrelevant, illogical, meaningless and childish tangent.

My point was to demonstrate that I believed that is what you would do again. You make statements and do not attempt to back them up with fact or logical conclusion, now you make threats and fail to back them up or even address them after making them instead hiding behind silliness.

The reason, to me it is clear you are powerless to respond in a logical or mature way you have no power.

You say you are here to safe and change the world, then start to do so go out, get off the computer and seek to help others at their real needs. Feed people who are hungry, teach others who can not read to do so, help find shelter for ones who need it etc.

I believe you are a very good man. Goodbye and May you be well and happy.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What happens now is dependent upon you. Do you have the balls to change? Most people do not.

Ahem, 50% of the population doesn't.
;)

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What happens now is dependent upon you. Do you have the balls to change? Most people do not.

I have some old tennis balls in my garage, can I change them for a football?

[Wudang]

I'm surprised nobody has thus far drawn an important theological conclusion - for the Wombat to be a Vampire it must have died and risen from the grave! In accordance with prophecy!
We are washed in the blood of the Wombat. I just hope it's non-bio or my rash will flare up.

[ingoa]

Originally posted by lifegazer

A boundless entity has no form. In fact, a boundless entity with definite existence has to be God itself. But I wouldn't expect you to be capable of grasping such thangs.

So true!
People! Don't listen to the false prophet of the Vampire Wombat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*) Every sane and intelligent person knows it must be the IPU. **)

*) Exclamation marks added to get some browny points from the IPU and for effect.
**) For the unbelievers: IPU is Invisible Pink Unicorn. :p

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by ingoa
So true!
People! Don't listen to the false prophet of the Vampire Wombat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*) Every sane and intelligent person knows it must be the IPU.
*sigh*
sometimes, I wish the Vampire Wombat was not so diametrically opposed to hunting down and slaying the followers of other faiths. Leave it to me to find the tolerant Deity.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas

*sigh*
sometimes, I wish the Vampire Wombat was not so diametrically opposed to hunting down and slaying the followers of other faiths. Leave it to me to find the tolerant Deity.

But surely if you hunt them down and slay them in a loving way to help bring them into the light, that's okay? Yeah?




Otherwise I've just made a bit of a faux pas.