10 Questions for God, Whether He Is Freaked By Them Or Not

[Beerina]

Split from the "Superman vs. God at the Rapture" thread, someone wondered about a God who gets "freaked" when one asks questions. Someone else said questions were OK, as long as they were respectful.

Well, what are some good questions to ask God, respectful or not, whether He gets freaked or not?


1. Why bother creating humanity, if you knew you'd wipe them all out except for Noah once, then later on throw the vast majority who ever lived into Hell? Free will is one thing, but knowing the majority wouldn't live up to your standards, and result in severe, unending punishment, why bother?

2. Why send Jesus to die for our sins? Since you are the only one who cares anyway, why force Jesus (i.e. yourself) to jump through hoops only you care about?

3. Speaking of which, why is belief without proof of such high metaphysical importance to you? Yet we are threatened with eternal torture and damnation, "but there's no proof of it! But you'd better believe it! Even though there's no proof!" What's up with that?

4. What does happen to cavemen, anyway? I presume they actually existed, and the archaeological evidence are not plants by the devil. Do they go to heaven or hell or some limbo? Stay dead forever per pre-Christian Jewish beliefs? Are they resurrected, shown Jesus ("but there's no proof!") then given one chance, as preachers love to say, to "make an important decision"?

5. What are your origins? "Existing forever" is nonsensical, to say nothing of the finite number of combinations of finite things to do. Or are there infinite football games on infinite-inch TV screens?

[uruk]

6. Are you a girl o' boy? 'Cause if you a girl, OH BOY!!!*









*Blatantly ripped of from an ancient edition of Mad Magazine.

[sphenisc]

Split from the "Superman vs. God at the Rapture" thread, someone wondered about a God who gets "freaked" when one asks questions. Someone else said questions were OK, as long as they were respectful.

Well, what are some good questions to ask God, respectful or not, whether He gets freaked or not?


1. Why bother creating humanity, if you knew you'd wipe them all out except for Noah once, then later on throw the vast majority who ever lived into Hell? Free will is one thing, but knowing the majority wouldn't live up to your standards, and result in severe, unending punishment, why bother?


I exist forever. I get bored. It's something to do.



2. Why send Jesus to die for our sins? Since you are the only one who cares anyway, why force Jesus (i.e. yourself) to jump through hoops only you care about?


See answer to 1.



3. Speaking of which, why is belief without proof of such high metaphysical importance to you? Yet we are threatened with eternal torture and damnation, "but there's no proof of it! But you'd better believe it! Even though there's no proof!" What's up with that?


It isn't. You're all going to hell. I just like to see a little hope in people's eyes before I tell them.



4. What does happen to cavemen, anyway? I presume they actually existed, and the archaeological evidence are not plants by the devil. Do they go to heaven or hell or some limbo? Stay dead forever per pre-Christian Jewish beliefs? Are they resurrected, shown Jesus ("but there's no proof!") then given one chance, as preachers love to say, to "make an important decision"?


Ardapithecus goes up. Australopithecus goes down. Homo habilis up. Homo erectus down. Heidelbergensis and neanderthalensis are in purgatory.


5. What are your origins? "Existing forever" is nonsensical, to say nothing of the finite number of combinations of finite things to do. Or are there infinite football games on infinite-inch TV screens?

How the hell should I know - what do think I am, omniscient?

ETA for spelling, nobody's perfect.

[Ladewig]

If anyone can play....


7) What's the deal with Cain and Abel

4:2 And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
4:3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD.
4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
4:5 But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Your followers say you love us as a father loves his children. What kind of father would say to his two sons who bring him gifts, "This one gift is wonderful and I respect you for it and this other gift, eh, not so much"? Aren't you kind of an a-hole for respecting one gift and not the other? Especially when you knew it would lead to the world's first murder?

[uruk]

8. What's with the appendix? An organ with no purpose except to get infected and possibly kill? Oh wait. That's a purpose.

[ImaginalDisc]

9. Did you *ask* Mary to have your kid, or, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, did you slip your noodly appendage in there, and then send your angel down to tell her about it while you had a smoke?

[Ducky]

10) Why did you create cancer, and not give it to Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson?


(edited to clarify.)

[Dark Jaguar]

9. Did you *ask* Mary to have your kid, or, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, did you slip your noodly appendage in there, and then send your angel down to tell her about it while you had a smoke?

It was an HONOR to bear His child, so of course she didn't have a choice! When something is an honor, you don't get to decide! I learned that from TV!

Though, I suppose it is basically deitic rape.

[Smart_Cookie]

11) So...why not just end the debate - once and for all - and show yourself? Where have you been for the last couple of thousand years?

Heck, you could take over all the TV networks, world-wide, for an hour or two.

If a 'holy book' is so important, while you're at it, why not give us ONE clear-cut, no-doubt-about-the-meaning-or-interpretation document.
Thanks!

[CapelDodger]

If anyone can play....


7) What's the deal with Cain and Abel

7.1 What's the deal? 7.1.1Y'know, what's the fricking deal? 7.1.2 First it was a Covenant, then up pops the New Covenant before we've even sorted the first, how many have you got? 7.1.2.1 Four? 7.1.2.2 Six? 7.1.3 Lay it out and we'll go for it, but could you just come clean, yer bastage?

[CapelDodger]

11) If a 'holy book' is so important, while you're at it, why not give us ONE clear-cut, no-doubt-about-the-meaning-or-interpretation document.
Aren't we due a new delivery? CD, DVD, ASCII, HTML? Hello? Blackberry? Bluetooth? Are you living in a cave?

[CapelDodger]

11) Heck, you could take over all the TV networks, world-wide, for an hour or two.
Heck, that wouldn't prove God, it would prove Rupert Murdoch. With this generation you have to think bigger. Holographic projection, stuff like that. And that could be aliens anyway.

[Ashles]

12) So you tell Adam and Eve that they will die if they eat the fruit. Which is a lie. Then the snake (which you created) tells them the truth. And they use the curiousity which you gave them to see if that is true. And then you get all pissy and start handing out punishments? And you didn't see that all coming? What the hell is that all about?

13) Batman and Robin. Why did you allow it to be made?

14) Where is Dirk, my plastic turtle?

15) Could you get together with Allah and issue some kind of joint statement please?

[slingblade]

16. What have you got against women, anyway? What the hell did we ever do besides give birth to you, huh? No, don't give me that crap about "I told you it was wrong to eat that fruit"--we didn't know right from wrong, you moron, because you made us that way. And what's with this "man gets a pleasurable climax in order to reproduce, but women get the pelvis-wrenching pain of childbirth"--how fair is that crap? Also, "women must keep silence in the church"--wassamatter, scared?

[Rufo]

Since claiming to be God is sort of a hobby of mine, I suppose I should answer these questions, just to get into the role a bit. I'll try to be sincere.

1. Why bother creating humanity, if you knew you'd wipe them all out except for Noah once, then later on throw the vast majority who ever lived into Hell? Free will is one thing, but knowing the majority wouldn't live up to your standards, and result in severe, unending punishment, why bother?
Okay, it seems you're talking to יהוה, the jewish/christian God, and the one of fundamentalist literalists on top of that. That makes the whole thing more tricky, but all right...*puts on beard and halo*
You have no evidence for this claim. You do not know for how long humanity will exist and how many of the future humans will fullfill my standards, so there is no way you can talk about a "vast majority" in a wider perspective. Besides, aren't you happy to exist?

2. Why send Jesus to die for our sins? Since you are the only one who cares anyway, why force Jesus (i.e. yourself) to jump through hoops only you care about?

Appearently, it's just the christian God here, since the jewish version of יהוהis not the father of Jesus. *puts on crucifix necklace*
Are you saying this did not help to get my message across?

3. Speaking of which, why is belief without proof of such high metaphysical importance to you? Yet we are threatened with eternal torture and damnation, "but there's no proof of it! But you'd better believe it! Even though there's no proof!" What's up with that?
It's a challenge as good as any. You yourself admit that you find it hard to believe without evidence. Trust (in my existance) is a good characteristic, as good as any other to base my opinion of you on.

4. What does happen to cavemen, anyway? I presume they actually existed, and the archaeological evidence are not plants by the devil. Do they go to heaven or hell or some limbo? Stay dead forever per pre-Christian Jewish beliefs? Are they resurrected, shown Jesus ("but there's no proof!") then given one chance, as preachers love to say, to "make an important decision"?
Cavemen, if they are not planted by the devil (since you leave this question open, so will I), are judged according to their actions like everyone else. They have knowledge of right and wrong like any humans, don't they?

5. What are your origins? "Existing forever" is nonsensical, to say nothing of the finite number of combinations of finite things to do. Or are there infinite football games on infinite-inch TV screens?
Existing forever seems nonsensical to human beings, who has not seen evidence of anything existing forever and whose limited minds cannot grasp the idea of 'infinite'. If you ask what my orgins are, I say I have existed forever, or that I created myself, and you don't understand this, it's kind of stupid to ask the same question again but add "oh, and don't aswer this and that because I don't understand it", when that is the only answer there is.

6. Are you a girl o' boy? 'Cause if you a girl, OH BOY!!!*
Honestly, considering the nature of my existance - a celestial spirit being taking various physical forms - do you really think I can be defined by such terms?
Presuming we are still talking about the christian-literalist-fundamentalist God.
However, I take the shape of a man.

7) What's the deal with Cain and Abel
Your followers say you love us as a father loves his children. What kind of father would say to his two sons who bring him gifts, "This one gift is wonderful and I respect you for it and this other gift, eh, not so much"? Aren't you kind of an a-hole for respecting one gift and not the other? Especially when you knew it would lead to the world's first murder?
Has anybody ever mentioned to you that I sometimes test my followers?

8. What's with the appendix? An organ with no purpose except to get infected and possibly kill? Oh wait. That's a purpose.
Thank you for answering your own question! :D

9. Did you *ask* Mary to have your kid, or, like the Flying Spaghetti Monster, did you slip your noodly appendage in there, and then send your angel down to tell her about it while you had a smoke
Obviously, since I can read people's minds, I knew that she wanted to have it, so there was no need to ask.

10) Why did you create cancer, and not give it to Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson?
I don't use illness as a punishment, but as a method to keep the population down.
Besides, if you are talking about the same God, isn't this more or less the God was is defined by idiots like Phelps and Robertson?

11) So...why not just end the debate - once and for all - and show yourself? Where have you been for the last couple of thousand years?

Heck, you could take over all the TV networks, world-wide, for an hour or two.

If a 'holy book' is so important, while you're at it, why not give us ONE clear-cut, no-doubt-about-the-meaning-or-interpretation document.
Thanks!
Wasn't this supposed to be 10 questions?
See question 2.

12) So you tell Adam and Eve that they will die if they eat the fruit. Which is a lie. Then the snake (which you created) tells them the truth. And they use the curiousity which you gave them to see if that is true. And then you get all pissy and start handing out punishments? And you didn't see that all coming? What the hell is that all about?
It's not a lie - they are both dead now. Yes, the snake tells the truth, but obviously only half the truth - like I did. The rest is free will stuff - I saw it all coming, obviously.

13) Batman and Robin. Why did you allow it to be made?
See question 10.

14) Where is Dirk, my plastic turtle?
Do not tempt the Lord thy God. :p

15) Could you get together with Allah and issue some kind of joint statement please?
Allah is my name in another language.

16. What have you got against women, anyway? What the hell did we ever do besides give birth to you, huh? No, don't give me that crap about "I told you it was wrong to eat that fruit"--we didn't know right from wrong, you moron, because you made us that way. And what's with this "man gets a pleasurable climax in order to reproduce, but women get the pelvis-wrenching pain of childbirth"--how fair is that crap? Also, "women must keep silence in the church"--wassamatter, scared?
I didn't tell you it was 'wrong' to eat the fruit, I simply told you not to eat it as in I don't want you to eat it. And yes, the universe happens to revolve around me. You had a free will back then too, so you made a choice. If what followed was punishment or simply a consequence, I will not get into. And I don't really want people of any gender to be babbling in the curch.

Phew! That was harder than I thought. Remember, these are not my opinions. I'm just trying to fit into your idea of God.

[uruk]

17. Ok. You already know everything that is going to happen so therefore you already know what the question is I'm going to ask. So tell me, what is my question?

[SirPhilip]

Good grief, it's rather irritating when people keep referring to the Judeo Christian version as if it was the only human conception of God. I can understand addressing it, considering the popularity of the myth, but at least phrase the title properly: "10 Questions For the Biblical God". Not everyone who believes in God thinks he's Patrick Bateman's higher self.

[wastepanel]

18. Why is this thread entitled "10 Questions" when 5 are only posted to start it off, and now I am posting number 18? Makes no sense to me.

[Ducky]

Good grief, it's rather irritating when people keep referring to the Judeo Christian version as if it was the only human conception of God. I can understand addressing it, considering the popularity of the myth, but at least phrase the title properly: "10 Questions For the Biblical God". Not everyone who believes in God thinks he's Patrick Bateman's higher self.


Beg your pardon, but my question had nothing to do with the Judeo/Christian version of God. IT was simply about cancer, and why two jackasses haven't gotten it.

[T'ai Chi]

"Existing forever" is nonsensical,


So the universe was created then.

How?

[Whydoe]

19) I'd like to know what the hell the "life lesson" is that you so gracefully love to give out is with the person who was trying to be a good samaritan in Toronto? He got out of his car to help another on the highway who was in distress and in the process you send another car smashing into his and killed one of his kids and the other is near death in the hospital. What the F-iretr-UCK is that?

[Smart_Cookie]

Heck, that wouldn't prove God, it would prove Rupert Murdoch. With this generation you have to think bigger. Holographic projection, stuff like that. And that could be aliens anyway.

I humbly stand corrected. I should have thought much bigger. No more books...

but...did I mention that that one hour of TV would be on Oprah?

[SirPhilip]

19) I'd like to know what the hell the "life lesson" is that you so gracefully love to give out is with the person who was trying to be a good samaritan in Toronto? He got out of his car to help another on the highway who was in distress and in the process you send another car smashing into his and killed one of his kids and the other is near death in the hospital. What the F-iretr-UCK is that? This is a common question, and quite a humanistic one. I don't really think it pertains to God though. As I see it, two reasons:

1) Circumstance is ultimately senseless. This is would appear obvious, but no rational person wants to believe that senselessness is a fundamental principle of existence for living things. This, as you can imagine, would pose serious problems on an individual level for any form of socially intelligent life that came to the realization.

2) All circumstance, including human, is caused by prior action as part of a cause and effect relationship.

[Whydoe]

This is a common question, and quite a humanistic one. I don't really think it pertains to God though. As I see it, two reasons:

1) Circumstance is ultimately senseless. This is would appear obvious, but no rational person wants to believe that senselessness is a fundamental principle of existence for living things. This, as you can imagine, would pose serious problems on an individual level for any form of socially intelligent life that came to the realization.

2) All circumstance, including human, is caused by prior action as part of a cause and effect relationship.

I agree. But it's more about the "life lesson" part a lot a religious people bring up. Everything happens for a reason (aside from cause and effect) and destiny and master plan and all that garbage. Just saw it on the news, and being a dad it's just a real bad day either way.

[SirPhilip]

I agree. But it's more about the "life lesson" part a lot a religious people bring up. Everything happens for a reason (aside from cause and effect) and destiny and master plan and all that garbage. Just saw it on the news, and being a dad it's just a real bad day either way. Well, if the religious people in question are Christian, they are contradicting scripture, which implies an unjust God; modern Christianity mostly just revolves around not having to take responsibility for your own lot by using God as a combination trash can and recycling bin, so I'm not surprised if that was revised. Anyone who has the gall to go up to someone grieving and declare something as asinine as that though, should have their legs broken as a "life lesson" in manners. (There's my Sicilian side coming out again...)

[Roboramma]

So the universe was created then.

While I agree that existing forever is not necessarily non-sensical, you present a false dichotomy.

The universe exists. It is possible that it has existed for a finite time, but was not created (ie. has no prior cause).

[Orangutango]

For the biblical god...

20) Why is it that back in the old days, you would wow humanity with big-budget miracles... such as plagues, parting of seas, raining of fire and brimstone, turning people into pillars of salt and making it rain for 40 days straight... when the best you can come up with today is making the occassional statue of Mary "weep" or to have your son's "image" appear on tree bark or moldy slices of bread...?

[roger]

1. Why bother creating humanity, if you knew you'd wipe them all out except for Noah once, then later on throw the vast majority who ever lived into Hell? Free will is one thing, but knowing the majority wouldn't live up to your standards, and result in severe, unending punishment, why bother?I was on the pipe at the time.

2. Why send Jesus to die for our sins? Since you are the only one who cares anyway, why force Jesus (i.e. yourself) to jump through hoops only you care about??I was on the pipe at the time.

3. Speaking of which, why is belief without proof of such high metaphysical importance to you? Yet we are threatened with eternal torture and damnation, "but there's no proof of it! But you'd better believe it! Even though there's no proof!" What's up with that??I was on the pipe at the time.

4. What does happen to cavemen, anyway? I presume they actually existed, and the archaeological evidence are not plants by the devil. Do they go to heaven or hell or some limbo? Stay dead forever per pre-Christian Jewish beliefs? Are they resurrected, shown Jesus ("but there's no proof!") then given one chance, as preachers love to say, to "make an important decision"??I was on the pipe at the time.

5. What are your origins? "Existing forever" is nonsensical, to say nothing of the finite number of combinations of finite things to do. Or are there infinite football games on infinite-inch TV screens??I don't remember, I'm on the pipe.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

21) Have you ever been caught masturbating?

[Dark Jaguar]

For the biblical god...

20) Why is it that back in the old days, you would wow humanity with big-budget miracles... such as plagues, parting of seas, raining of fire and brimstone, turning people into pillars of salt and making it rain for 40 days straight... when the best you can come up with today is making the occassional statue of Mary "weep" or to have your son's "image" appear on tree bark or moldy slices of bread...?

Well, you notice the miracles stopped being all that incredible after Christ's ressurection right? I suggest that since Christ was God, He is suffering from ressurection sickness, which lowers stats significantly. Perhaps "diety" class has some penalty of having a much longer ressurection sickness time than most other classes.

I feel for those who actually get that joke.

[T'ai Chi]

The universe exists. It is possible that it has existed for a finite time, but was not created (ie. has no prior cause).

Then that would be unknowable by science, since science investigates and relies on cause and effect.

Moreover, it would contradict what we know about the universe, that effects have causes.

[Mercutio]

Then that would be unknowable by science, since science investigates and relies on cause and effect.
Science does not claim to know. Any evidence we have to examine follows the BB. There is no evidence to examine about "before", so science cannot know, and does not cliam to.

Moreover, it would contradict what we know about the universe, that effects have causes.Why do you call BB an effect? Do you know something about it that has eluded cosmologists?

[CapelDodger]

I should have thought much bigger. No more books...
I wonder how "sufficiently advanced" a technology would have to be to appear as magic to generations raised on SciFi. It would have been a lot easier back in the day. But no. A few tricks, performed in front of small audiences with - as far I can see - no experience in science or conjuring. What's that all about?

[T'ai Chi]

There is no evidence to examine about "before", so science cannot know,


No kiddin'!

Which is why to the comment of


It is possible that it has existed for a finite time, but was not created (ie. has no prior cause).


I said


Then that would be unknowable by science,




Why do you call BB an effect?


You claim the BB had no cause?

[CFLarsen]

You claim the BB had no cause?

Answer the question:

Why do you call BB an effect?

[Mercutio]

You claim the BB had no cause?
Where do I claim this?

I said I do not know, and that science does not claim to know. You, it seems, are calling it an effect, and saying that it must therefore have a cause.

Have I misread you? Do you call the BB an effect? Why?

[T'ai Chi]

I said I do not know,


I never said I knew either.

I'm concluding from the evidence that everything we know has a cause. Therefore it is logical to infer that the BB had a cause, as many scientists do. It might not have been caused (even thought that would fly in the face of how we understand the universe to work), but saying I don't know and giving up isn't a useful way to approach a mystery.

Scientists do put forth causes for the BB. For example, http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99292.htm

[Mercutio]

I'm concluding from the evidence that everything we know has a cause. Therefore it is logical to infer that the BB had a cause, as many scientists do. It might not have been caused (even thought that would fly in the face of how we understand the universe to work), but saying I don't know and giving up isn't a useful way to approach a mystery.
No one is giving up. Why do you suggest that?

Why do you think that it is logical to infer that the BB had a cause? (My behaviorist bias insists that we only can claim causality when we have demonstrated it, and this is, of course, impossible in this instance.) Who are these "many scientists"? (Do you claim that it is the mainstream view? It is not my area, so I ask sincerely.) Which evidence persuades you that everything we know has a cause, including the big bang?

Scientists do put forth causes for the BB. For example, http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/ast99/ast99292.htm
Did you read your link?

A third-grader asks for help understanding "what caused the big bang"?, and the answer begins with which two words? Ah, yes... "nobody knows." Three competing theories, or categories of theories, are suggested, but I would hardly call this "scientists do put forth causes"...unless you wish to explore the question at a third grade level.

[T'ai Chi]

Why do you think that it is logical to infer that the BB had a cause? (My behaviorist bias insists that we only can claim causality when we have demonstrated it, and this is, of course, impossible in this instance.) Who are these "many scientists"? (Do you claim that it is the mainstream view? It is not my area, so I ask sincerely.) Which evidence persuades you that everything we know has a cause, including the big bang?

Did you read your link?

A third-grader asks for help understanding "what caused the big bang"?, and the answer begins with which two words? Ah, yes... "nobody knows." Three competing theories, or categories of theories, are suggested, but I would hardly call this "scientists do put forth causes"...unless you wish to explore the question at a third grade level.

Was the Big Bang a natural event?

[CFLarsen]

Was the Big Bang a natural event?
Just answer the questions put to you.

[Mercutio]

Was the Big Bang a natural event?
The dictionary defines "natural event" as "an event that happens". The available evidence suggests that the BB happened.

But that seems much too simple...so I google "natural event" and "big bang", and a smile comes to my face. Page after page of christian apologetics. Page after page where "natural event" is not simply "an event that happens", but part of a cause-and-effect chain that requires the BB to be an effect, a product of an earlier natural event.

Basically, the same misunderstanding that asks "what was before the big bang?".

So, TC, what is your reason for asking the question? Which definition of "natural event" are you using?

[T'ai Chi]

Do natural events have causes?

[CFLarsen]

Just answer the questions put to you.

[Mercutio]

Do natural events have causes?
In the definition "events that happen", there is no requirement for a cause.

In the apologetics websites, that was clearly part of their definition.

Which definition are you using?

Behaviorists are rather different from most folks when it comes to talking about "causes" of behavior. If we were not able to manipulate it and see its effect on the rate of behavior, we will not claim that it is a cause. Many things which others might call causes, are easily demonstrated to be the product of circular reasoning. The apologetics make this mistake. Ambrose Bierce points out the circularity in the definitions of cause and effect: Of certain phenomena, one never occurs without the other, which is dissimilar: the first in point of time we call the cause, the second, the effect. One who had many times seen a rabbit pursued by a dog, and had never seen rabbits and dogs otherwise, would think the rabbit the cause of the dog.

Natural events are events which happen. One can only make the claim that "all natural events have causes" through the use of circular reasoning. If you need natural events to have causes in order to make some logical point...keep trying.

[T'ai Chi]

In the definition "events that happen", there is no requirement for a cause.


Is it your experience that there are events that happen that don't have causes?

[Mercutio]

Is it your experience that there are events that happen that don't have causes?
It is my experience that people tend to circularly infer causes for things that happen. Sometimes, these inferred causes are demonstrably not the cause of the subsequent event. If I cannot demonstrate that X was the cause of Y, I am happier saying "I don't know if Y was caused or not" than saying "Y must have had a cause".

Circularly inferring a cause does not magically mean it exists.

[T'ai Chi]

What are some events that have no causes?

[CFLarsen]

Running away from the questions....again.

[Mercutio]

What are some events that have no causes?
I did not say I knew of any; I said that there are many events, the causes of which I (or anyone) am ignorant of. Whether they are caused or uncaused I do not know, and cannot know.

Do you assume that events must have causes, whether or not you have evidence of these causes?

[T'ai Chi]

The issue is not about knowing here, but making an inference.

You know of no events that lack causes. Why then it is unwise to infer that all events must have a cause? Is there any evidence to believe otherwise?

[Iacchus]

I did not say I knew of any; I said that there are many events, the causes of which I (or anyone) am ignorant of. Whether they are caused or uncaused I do not know, and cannot know.

Do you assume that events must have causes, whether or not you have evidence of these causes?I would presume that the evidence of the cause is the effect. I think most people would presume that.

[Mercutio]

The issue is not about knowing here, but making an inference.

You know of no events that lack causes. Why then it is unwise to infer that all events must have a cause? Is there any evidence to believe otherwise?
I know of many events for which I do not know the cause. Why then is it wise to circularly infer causes for them? If there was evidence of causation, it would be a different question.

I think you also know many events for which you do not know the cause. Many of them, you think you do know the cause of. Others, you have assumed have causes.

Do you claim to know the causes of every event you see?

[Mercutio]

I would presume that the evidence of the cause is the effect. I think most people would presume that.
Thank you for illustrating what I said about circular reasoning. This is a perfect example. You infer a cause by assumption, not by evidence. Of course you see cause-and-effect, if you assume that each thing you see is an effect which presupposes a cause.

[T'ai Chi]

I know of many events for which I do not know the cause.


You may not know the cause, but do these events have a cause? Are these events natural events?

[CFLarsen]

You may not know the cause, but do these events have a cause? Are these events natural events?
Answer the question:

Do you claim to know the causes of every event you see?

[Iacchus]

Thank you for illustrating what I said about circular reasoning. This is a perfect example. You infer a cause by assumption, not by evidence. Of course you see cause-and-effect, if you assume that each thing you see is an effect which presupposes a cause.We are here. We didn't just get here by chance.

[Mercutio]

You may not know the cause, but do these events have a cause? Are these events natural events?
They are natural events, in that they happened. Whether they had causes or not is not knowable. If you assume that they have causes, as Iacchus does, then you are assuming something you cannot know. If you assume that they do not, you are assuming something you cannot know.

You keep asking if they have causes; I keep explaining that it is impossible to know. If your two questions here are intended to be essentially the same question, then you are, as Iacchus is, assuming that all natural events are caused. Others who have done so have then used this as "proof" that the big bang must have had a cause, which they label "god". Their proof is circular, because it could not have reached that conclusion without first assuming that all natural events are caused.

On another thread, it took me putting the question in limerick form before you answered it. Do I need to do that this time, for these questions? (Was the limerick the cause of your answer? I do not assume that it was...)

[Mercutio]

We are here. We didn't just get here by chance.
I can't wait until you say something backed up with evidence and logic. It will be such a refreshing change.

[Hazen]

22. How colossal an ego does it require to be a being/entity whose prime purpose is to create beings from which you then demand worship and subsequently behave like a petulant child when you don't get it?

[Roboramma]

"I don't know of any events that I'm certain don't have a cause. Therefore all events are caused. Therefore the big bang must have had a cause, and I will call it god."
So, we assume god, for which we have no evidence, rather than allow the possibility of an uncaused event?
Hm.

By the way, when a uranium atom decays, what is the cause?

[T'ai Chi]

They are natural events, in that they happened.


Of all the events that happened that you know about, do those have a cause?

Are there any events that happened that you know about that do not have cause?

[Mercutio]

Of all the events that happened that you know about, do those have a cause?
If you have understood what I have written here, you will know that the only honest answer to that is "I do not, nor cannot, know".

Are there any events that happened that you know about that do not have cause?
This is another thing I do not, nor cannot, know.

Do you truly fail to understand what I have been saying? Perhaps it is time for you to answer some questions, so I can see where your deficits lie. TC, if you want to ask me any more questions, you will have to answer some first.

[CFLarsen]

Do you truly fail to understand what I have been saying? Perhaps it is time for you to answer some questions, so I can see where your deficits lie. TC, if you want to ask me any more questions, you will have to answer some first.

Glad to be of assistance.

T'ai Chi,


Why do you call BB an effect?


Do you know something about it that has eluded cosmologists?


Have I misread you? Do you call the BB an effect? Why?


Why do you suggest that people are giving up?


Why do you think that it is logical to infer that the BB had a cause?


Who are these "many scientists"?


Do you claim that it is the mainstream view?


Which evidence persuades you that everything we know has a cause, including the big bang?


Did you read your link?


What is your reason for asking the question?


Which definition of "natural event" are you using?


In the definition "events that happen", there is no requirement for a cause. In the apologetics websites, that was clearly part of their definition. Which definition are you using?


Do you assume that events must have causes, whether or not you have evidence of these causes?


Do you claim to know the causes of every event you see?


Wow. They sure pile up, don't they?

[Mercutio]

Wow. They sure pile up, don't they?
To be fair, many of them are the same question asked a second, third... time, because they were not answered the first time around. Feel free to condense the list.

[CFLarsen]

To be fair, many of them are the same question asked a second, third... time, because they were not answered the first time around. Feel free to condense the list.
Oh, I think I'll leave it be. It emphasizes T'ai Chi's...reluctance..to answer the questions.

Of course, merely answering will drastically reduce the count.

[SirPhilip]

Do natural events have causes? A natural event is a linear event (representationally a vector). An event that preceeds cause is magic. A nonlinear event is (representationally) circular. All linear events, including relativistic ones, have a cause and effect relationship. We don't know of any event in nature that doesn't; an event that preceeds cause is essentially magic. I personally have a hard time with the fundamental nature of the big bang theory, despite how well-supported it is.

[Mercutio]

All linear events, including relativistic ones, have a cause and effect relationship. We don't know of any event in nature that doesn't; an event that preceeds cause is essentially magic. Is this cause-and-effect relationship demonstrated, or assumed? If the latter, you have not avoided the circularity problem.

[T'ai Chi]

..the only honest answer to that is "I do not, nor cannot, know".


So you know of no events that lack causes.

So your argument about the Big Bang, suggesting it is unwise to infer it has a cause, really doesn't mean much.

[Mercutio]

So you know of no events that lack causes.
Do you know the cause of every event you are aware of? If yes, how have you ascertained that the cause is what you believe it is? If no, do you simply assume that it must have had a cause?
So your argument about the Big Bang, suggesting it is unwise to infer it has a cause, really doesn't mean much.Not to you, it would seem. To people who understand circularity, perhaps it does. Careful...you have Iacchus on your side. That alone should tell you your arguments are circular.

[SirPhilip]

Is this cause-and-effect relationship demonstrated, or assumed? If the latter, you have not avoided the circularity problem.Well, both. As a rule, I would assume any linear event over time there exists a cause. Even very strange events - the big bang idea being one such example, although it would imply time and space existed in some manner before the bang for it to have occured, which is ridiculous since time and space exist as a result of it. Another possibility is there was a degree of instability between space and matter opposing each other, and for some reason one gave way, there was a slight degree of time created as a result, which overcame whatever force kept them locked together, and boom, both went flying in opposite "directions". This however, still doesn't explain how that instability even manifested itself at a state where time didn't exist.

(Of course, this is a very deep subject, and not being well read on it, my notions here are fundamental and simplistic..)

[Mercutio]

Well, both. As a rule, I would assume any linear event over time there exists a cause.
You are not alone, of course. But you must recognise that this assumption will lead you to the same doubts the apologetics pages claim, which are purely the result of this assumption.

As long as you recognise that it is an assumption, and temper your conclusions accordingly, that is fine. But it is entirely possible that the fact that you "personally have a hard time with the fundamental nature of the big bang theory" stems from this assumption.

[CFLarsen]

Still no answers from T'ai Chi....

[Rufo]

From my point of view, there are only two explanations to how the universe can exist.
1. Something has existed forever.
2. Something came from nothing.
Niether of these make any sense, but I haven't heard of any ideas not based on one of these concepts, and I can't think of any either. I prefer to believe in the first one, since it disturbs me less (for some reason), but it's not an entirely logical choice and I won't defend it.

I would like to point out, however, that something 'existing forever' is just as much a fault in the cause-and-effect chain as 'coming from nothing' is.

[UndercoverElephant]

Beerina,


What are your origins? "Existing forever" is nonsensical.


Why? Why couldn't something have always existed, and always be destined to exist?

What doesn't make sense is that you can have a state of total and absolute nothingness (i.e. not even the potential for something) and then end up with a Universe. If logically follows that there has always been something and always will be. Even Nietschze, who proclaimed God to be dead, accepted this much.

Geoff

[UndercoverElephant]

From my point of view, there are only two explanations to how the universe can exist.
1. Something has existed forever.
2. Something came from nothing.
Niether of these make any sense, but I haven't heard of any ideas not based on one of these concepts, and I can't think of any either. I prefer to believe in the first one, since it disturbs me less (for some reason), but it's not an entirely logical choice and I won't defend it.

I would like to point out, however, that something 'existing forever' is just as much a fault in the cause-and-effect chain as 'coming from nothing' is.

Only just spotted this one. (1) is a logical choice. (2) is only logical if you redefine nothing as "potentially something" or more likely: "potentially everything. The very fact that you aren't comfortable defending either (1) or (2) suggests there is a problem with your position.

[Iacchus]

I would like to point out, however, that something 'existing forever' is just as much a fault in the cause-and-effect chain as 'coming from nothing' is.Well, whatever it is would have to be acausal and responsible for the existence of everything else.

[Rufo]

The very fact that you aren't comfortable defending either (1) or (2) suggests there is a problem with your position.
I'd like to point out that I'm willing to defend (1) as being at least as logical and possible as (2). I might agree with you that it is even more logical, but both concepts are very difficult for human beings to grasp.

Well, whatever it is would have to be acausal and responsible for the existence of everything else.
Most likely.

[Beerina]

22. How colossal an ego does it require to be a being/entity whose prime purpose is to create beings from which you then demand worship and subsequently behave like a petulant child when you don't get it?

Yes, God thinks to himself, "Hmmmm...I'm so mad at these people, I'm going to resurrect them and throw them into a lake of lava where they'll burn in unending agony for all eternity. Well, I think I'll take human form and have myself killed. Thus I'll demonstrate I can end death and simultaneously satisfy my infinite anger at people taking cocks up the ass. Now all people have to do is believe I've ended death and am no longer angry, and they can come live with me after they die, rather than go into the lake of lava. But it'll only be meaningful if they believe without proof. After all, what's the point of believing in something with proof?"

Ummm, good thinkin' there, Yahweh!

[CFLarsen]

Ummm, good thinkin' there, Yahweh!

Don't ever think about what religion is. Don't think, period.

Thinking is the enemy of religious belief.

[Roboramma]

Only just spotted this one. (1) is a logical choice. (2) is only logical if you redefine nothing as "potentially something" or more likely: "potentially everything. The very fact that you aren't comfortable defending either (1) or (2) suggests there is a problem with your position.

It seems to me that you're thinking of nothing as something already. The idea isn't that there was this nothing hanging around, and then suddenly everything appeared out of it.
It's that there is everything, it's only been around for a finite time, but there wasn't anything before it. There wasn't even a before.

I don't see why that's logically impossible.

It's not like there's this thing called "nothing" which is the cause of everything. It's that everything just didn't have a cause. That could be true either of an eternal or a finite universe. Why does the eternal universe exist? Why does the finite universe exist? Why does the cause of the finite (or eternal) universe exist? Why does god exist?
These are all the same question. They can all be answered with either "It doesn't exist" "I don't know that it exists" or "I don't know." There may not be an answer.
But anyway, we'll keep looking, just in case.

[Mercutio]

From my point of view, there are only two explanations to how the universe can exist.
1. Something has existed forever.
2. Something came from nothing.
Our very conceptions of "nothing" are built by our experience with the "something" that we see. We tend to think of our something as exploding into an empty space of nothingness (read any of Iacchus's posts on dimensionality for examples), when this is not the case at all. We keep trying, because we are so familiar with time, to pin the concept of "forever" onto the cosmos, in one of the two forms you list above. (Worse, we will try to, for #2, imply that the "nothingness" that the something came from was itself around forever. I am not saying that you are saying this, but rather that I have heard it in other discussions, whether here or in real life.) But the very concept of "forever" is dependent on our notions of time; while your two explanations make perfect sense from our experience, you are taking our experience and trying to explain something that is completely outside that experience, where there is no reason that our concept of "forever" is useful at all.

Our universe has existed for as long as time has; or, time has existed for as long as our universe has. "Forever" makes no sense without time. Nor does "came from". Neither option is necessarily true, nor is it necessarily true that these two are the only options. The truth is, as was said earlier, that we do not, and cannot, know. Until and unless some wormhole allows us to go "outside" the universe (which of course is also nonsensical by definition, according to all available evidence and theory), we will and must remain ignorant of the answers to these questions. (And it goes without saying that no dream, prayer, or altered state allows us to go outside our universe; we know enough about consciousness to dismiss that utterly, with the exception of one or two ignorant trolls.)

It is remarkable that our species even tries to answer these questions. I would love to be proved wrong by the next Einstein...but that is not going to happen by circularly assuming answers to questions we cannot know the answers to.

[T'ai Chi]

Do you know the cause of every event you are aware of? If yes, how have you ascertained that the cause is what you believe it is? If no, do you simply assume that it must have had a cause?Not to you, it would seem.

Since you are not able to name anything that doesn't have a cause, I'd say your argument is failing.

[Rufo]

Our very conceptions of "nothing" are built by our experience with the "something" that we see. We tend to think of our something as exploding into an empty space of nothingness (read any of Iacchus's posts on dimensionality for examples), when this is not the case at all.
Yes, that is an interesting problem. We see time and space as such basic prerequisites that we apply them even where they don't belong. They are parts of our basic thinking. Maybe I've done this mistake, but I assure you that I tried to avoid it.

We keep trying, because we are so familiar with time, to pin the concept of "forever" onto the cosmos, in one of the two forms you list above. (Worse, we will try to, for #2, imply that the "nothingness" that the something came from was itself around forever. I am not saying that you are saying this, but rather that I have heard it in other discussions, whether here or in real life.)
I agree that saying that saying the "nothingness" has been around forever is meaningless. As you stated, nothing is nothing. We can't talk of nothing as if it was an empty space with nothing in it, since it's not even a space. It transcends the common human thinking - just like eternity does.

But the very concept of "forever" is dependent on our notions of time; while your two explanations make perfect sense from our experience, you are taking our experience and trying to explain something that is completely outside that experience, where there is no reason that our concept of "forever" is useful at all.
To some extent, we must "take our experience and try to explain something that is completely outside that experience", because we can't free ourselves completely from our experience completely. But I agree - the concept "forever" might be misleading when there is no time.

Our universe has existed for as long as time has; or, time has existed for as long as our universe has. "Forever" makes no sense without time. Nor does "came from".
What did time come from? If that question doesn't make any sense, the whole idea of trying to find these things out is meaningless.

Neither option is necessarily true, nor is it necessarily true that these two are the only options.
It was simply the only ones I could think of. What are the other ones?

The truth is, as was said earlier, that we do not, and cannot, know.
With that I totally and completely agree. We can't know anything. But I don't really understand what you are referring to.

Until and unless some wormhole allows us to go "outside" the universe (which of course is also nonsensical by definition, according to all available evidence and theory), we will and must remain ignorant of the answers to these questions. (And it goes without saying that no dream, prayer, or altered state allows us to go outside our universe; we know enough about consciousness to dismiss that utterly, with the exception of one or two ignorant trolls.)
I agree that we most likely can't go outside the universe (once again, it's peoples' problem with understanding exactly how nothing nothing is), and when it comes to prayers and meditations we are talking about methods that are, at this point, very far from science, since they can't be proven.

It is remarkable that our species even tries to answer these questions. I would love to be proved wrong by the next Einstein...but that is not going to happen by circularly assuming answers to questions we cannot know the answers to.
And I would love to be the next Einstein and prove you wrong. :D
Of course I won't be, but I don't think I've done any circular assuming. What are you referring to?

Since you are not able to name anything that doesn't have a cause, I'd say your argument is failing.
It's impossible to prove that something doesn't have a cause. It's proving a negative. Can you prove that everything has a cause?

[Roboramma]

This is what it comes down to for me. Some things are outside of our experience. But that doesn't suggest that we can't know anything about them. It just means that we need to be careful about making assumptions about them - assuming that they act the same way that the things that we commonly do experience act.

So what can we say about them? Only what logically follows from the evidence we can gather. Take Quantum Mechanics. It doesn't jive that well with everyday experience. On the other hand, it's very well supported. There are a number of interpretations. At present, we can't really distinguish between them. To me, it seems silly to suggest that because one of them seems counter-intuitive that it is wrong. Rather, we just say we don't know which (if any) is the correct interpretation, and then go back to the maths.

The same is true of the big bang. It's just outside of our experience. So how do we learn about it?
We look at the evidence we have. The universe is expanding. It's been expanding for a very long time. It was very hot and small a long time ago (see microwave background radiation). This long time ago was a finite about of time (somewhere around 15 billion years I think).

There, that's it. 15 or so billion years ago the universe was very dense and very small - and this includes space and time - and it was expanding.

We just don't know anything else. To assume that the universe has to have been caused because events within the universe that we're familiar with tend to have causes is just reasoning from our current experience to something that is far outside of it.

New evidence may come to light. Something else we haven't thought of. Maybe one day we'll be able to answer these questions. I really hope so. I think that would be an amazing achievement. But until then, we can't know.

[SirPhilip]

You are not alone, of course. But you must recognise that this assumption will lead you to the same doubts the apologetics pages claim, which are purely the result of this assumption.The big bang is far more complementary to apologetics than, say, the steady state or quasi steady state theory. If it was discovered that the universe was infinite, it would be more difficult to structure any apologetic distortion of what caused the universe to "happen".

[T'ai Chi]

It's impossible to prove that something doesn't have a cause. It's proving a negative. Can you prove that everything has a cause?

I didn't claim or demand that one prove something has a cause.

I'm making the inference that things have causes, based on things we see having causes and our success with science that relies on causality.

[Mercutio]

I didn't claim or demand that one prove something has a cause.

I'm making the inference that things have causes, based on things we see having causes and our success with science that relies on causality.
But you are making an inference out of ignorance. I would wager that the vast majority of things for which you assume there are causes, you have not done the requisite work to establish that there was indeed a cause. You have, as most of us have, simply assumed circularly that the event you witnessed was an "effect", and must have been caused.

If you cannot establish that the things you see have causes, then you cannot make the inference that "things have causes". You are making your inference from an assumption, not from an established fact. It is, then, only as good as the assumption was to begin with.

Since you won't answer my previous question (add it to the list, Claus), let me ask you another: These "things we see having causes"--what percentage of observed things can you say have a cause because it has been established through systematic investigation, and how many are simply assumed to have been caused? I assume you have more than a passing familiarity with the data, as you are using it to infer causality of all things.

Roboramma, for instance, asked about the cause of decay of a uranium atom. Could you tell us what causes that? If we know the cause, why does it remain unpredictable?

[Ossai]

T'ai Chi
What are some events that have no causes? Specific radioactive decay of unstable isotopes.

Ossai

[CFLarsen]

(add it to the list, Claus)

Why, certainly:

T'ai Chi,


Why do you call BB an effect?


Do you know something about it that has eluded cosmologists?


Have I misread you? Do you call the BB an effect? Why?


Why do you suggest that people are giving up?


Why do you think that it is logical to infer that the BB had a cause?


Who are these "many scientists"?


Do you claim that it is the mainstream view?


Which evidence persuades you that everything we know has a cause, including the big bang?


Did you read your link?


What is your reason for asking the question?


Which definition of "natural event" are you using?


In the definition "events that happen", there is no requirement for a cause. In the apologetics websites, that was clearly part of their definition. Which definition are you using?


Do you assume that events must have causes, whether or not you have evidence of these causes?


Do you claim to know the causes of every event you see?

These "things we see having causes"--what percentage of observed things can you say have a cause because it has been established through systematic investigation, and how many are simply assumed to have been caused?

Roboramma, for instance, asked about the cause of decay of a uranium atom. Could you tell us what causes that? If we know the cause, why does it remain unpredictable?



T'ai Chi, this is increasingly embarrassing for you. I hope you realize this.

[T'ai Chi]

Specific radioactive decay of unstable isotopes.


The cause is excess neutrons or protons.

[Mercutio]

The cause is excess neutrons or protons.
Does knowing this allow you to predict when a given atom will decay? What causes, within one half-life, half of the atoms to decay and the others not to? Can you predict which atoms will decay and which will not, over the first ten half-life periods?

This level of explanation is not helpful. It is rather like saying that the cause of a particular behavior in a person is "some stimulus in the environment". There are plenty of stimuli in the environment; which one(s) is (are) the cause? If, for a given time, only half of the atoms of a given material decay, how can you say that a property of both those that decay and those that do not (excess neutrons or protons) is the cause of the decay? Will you accept such vague claims of causation in all things?

If we are looking at aggregate performance, I absolutely agree with you; what is more, behaviorists looking at reinforcement of a behavior also look at cumulative data and changes in rate in order to infer causation. But...even in that case, the "initial cause" of any ongoing behavior is not specified and cannot be known. Behaviors are treated as if "emitted"; any inference about the initial cause is necessarily speculation, and behaviorism makes no claims about what the initial cause of a behavior is.

I mention the behaviorist example because it is close, in spirit, to your example; in both cases the cause is known at a macro level, but the cause of any individual event remains unknown.

[Taffer]

We are here. We didn't just get here by chance.

Prove it.

[Taffer]

Since you are not able to name anything that doesn't have a cause, I'd say your argument is failing.

Since you are unable to prove all events have causes, I'd say your argument is failing.

[Taffer]

The cause is excess neutrons or protons.

No, it isn't.

[T'ai Chi]

Since you are unable to prove all events have causes, I'd say your argument is failing.

I have evidence that all events we know of have causes.

You have no evidence that any events lack causes.

The preponderance of evidence being on my side, not yours, and the fact that I nor anyone else have to "prove" anything, only provide evidence to make an inference, kind of demolishes your case.

[Mercutio]

I have evidence that all events we know of have causes.
Please present this. You have been asked (it's on the list), but have not presented anything approaching support for this.

[T'ai Chi]

My sources (http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/radiation_types_body.html) disagree (http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/radiation.htm) with (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00774.htm) you, Taffer.

[T'ai Chi]

Please present this. You have been asked (it's on the list), but have not presented anything approaching support for this.

Cause and effect is why Science works so well. The causes of natural events are explored.

So, what are some examples of events that lack causes? Cricket chirps, apparently. ;)

[Mercutio]

Cause and effect is why Science works so well. The causes of natural events are explored.

So, what are some examples of events that lack causes? Cricket chirps, apparently. ;)
Please just answer the question. You claimed to "have evidence that all events we know of have causes." Please present it.

[T'ai Chi]

Please just answer the question. You claimed to "have evidence that all events we know of have causes." Please present it.

Science working so well is reason to infer that events have causes.

Now, can you or anyone give evidence or reasoning that events don't have causes? If not, why should anyone take that argument seriously?

[Mercutio]

Science working so well is reason to infer that events have causes.

Now, can you or anyone give evidence or reasoning that events don't have causes? If not, why should anyone take that argument seriously?
For a third time. You have made the claim. Back it up, or admit you cannot.

I already gave you the example, in behaviorism, of the difference between causation at a macro level, and the admission of the inability to know causality at the level of discrete instances of behavior. Your own explanation of radioactive decay is another that works at one level but not at another. Science can work at the macro level on both of these with tremendous success, and yet cannot demonstrate causality at the level of discrete events. Your inference once again goes beyond your data.

I have given you two examples of events where we are unable to determine causality. You claim that you "have evidence that all events we know of have causes." Please produce that evidence or withdraw your claim. If you cannot produce that evidence, why should anyone take your argument seriously?

[T'ai Chi]

For a third time. You have made the claim. Back it up, or admit you cannot.


Already gave my reasoning; science (based on cause and effect) working so darn well. If you don't like it you don't like it. :)

But all you have to do is produce one actual event that doesn't have a cause (note: not you just not being aware of its cause).


I already gave you the example, in behaviorism, of the difference between causation at a macro level, and the admission of the inability to know causality at the level of discrete instances of behavior. Your own explanation of radioactive decay is another that works at one level but not at another. Science can work at the macro level on both of these with tremendous success, and yet cannot demonstrate causality at the level of discrete events.


The links I have directly stated the cause for radioactive decay. Please go read them.

Your "behaviorism" example says there is a difference between causation at one level vs. another; this obviously still admits there is causation. -so it still isn't an example of an event without a cause.

[Roboramma]

But all you have to do is produce one actual event that doesn't have a cause (note: not you just not being aware of its cause).
Please explain how that is possible even in theory. Say there is an event without a cause. How do we differentiate that from an event with a cause of which we are unaware?

That's the whole point that we're making about the big bang. If it has a cause, we can't know anything about that. If it doesn't have a cause, we can't know that either.
If you want to assume that means that it must have a cause, well, go ahead, I'm okay with that. It is an assumption though. But just so long as you don't suggest that you know anything about this cause, I'm fine with that.

[woodguard]

1. Why bother creating humanity before Noal.
Before Noah, humans were running with a beta OS ( morals version 2 were add), some of the bugs were fix after the betas were delete. But in the new design humans died young(120 years) God lives forever and 120 or 800 years are close and who would find the new bug?

2. Why send Jesus.
The Son of God was send to fix his father problems, that is just normal. But the job was killing him.

3. Proof.
We are only data in God’s computers, he uses an APPLE. There is not proof because we are not real here. And God erases his mistakes. Data alone is not proof.

4. Caveman?
What caveman, that is a myth. There was just Adam and Eve, no caveman. God place the fossils as a joke, but Man never got it.

5. What are your origins?
The big Bang was real just autoexec.bat starting and the end comes with the big logout. The after live is just a backup tape or something.

[Complexity]

T'ai Chi - You don't have a clue about what you are babbling about. Science, math, reasoning, ethical behavior - all seem to be way beyond your grasp.

You are a disingenuous fool who does not behave honorably and who merely pretends to be interested in the truth, when all you work towards is disruption and subversion.

Shut up and learn from your betters.

[Mercutio]

Already gave my reasoning; science (based on cause and effect) working so darn well. If you don't like it you don't like it. :)

But all you have to do is produce one actual event that doesn't have a cause (note: not you just not being aware of its cause).
I gave you two. In neither of those instances is it just me not being aware of the cause. You have not given causes for either of them.


The links I have directly stated the cause for radioactive decay. Please go read them.
I did; did you? They do not address causation at the discrete level; at that level, one source mentions "spontaneous changes in [the] nucleus". Another mentions that the nucleus is "continually rearranging itself". What, TC, is the cause of the "spontaneous" changes? What causes the nucleus to "rearrange itself"?

Your sources describe radioactive decay; they do not state the cause. Please go re-read them.

Your "behaviorism" example says there is a difference between causation at one level vs. another; this obviously still admits there is causation. -so it still isn't an example of an event without a cause.The initial event absolutely is an event without a known (or even knowable) cause. It is a mistake to circularly infer a cause where you simply do not have evidence. That is my point. That is what the scientists in those situations are aware of, and what you are sweeping under the table.

You claim to "have evidence that all events we know of have causes." Your first sentence here speaks not of evidence, but of reasoning. Sorry, but you are reasoning from ignorance, and that is not at all the same as having evidence.

Do you "have evidence that all events we know of have causes"? Or do you simply have your "reasoning"?

[Tricky]

I did; did you? They do not address causation at the discrete level; at that level, one source mentions "spontaneous changes in [the] nucleus". Another mentions that the nucleus is "continually rearranging itself". What, TC, is the cause of the "spontaneous" changes? What causes the nucleus to "rearrange itself"?

Your sources describe radioactive decay; they do not state the cause. Please go re-read them.
I blame free will. (Sorry. Couldn't resist.):rolleyes:

[Taffer]

My sources (http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/radiation_types_body.html) disagree (http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/radiation.htm) with (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00774.htm) you, Taffer.

No, they don't. Each source provided a description of radioactive decay, not an explanation.

ETA: Opp, beaten by Mercutio. :blush:

[Taffer]

I have evidence that all events we know of have causes.

Please provide this evidence.

You have no evidence that any events lack causes.

You cannot prove a negative.

The preponderance of evidence being on my side, not yours, and the fact that I nor anyone else have to "prove" anything, only provide evidence to make an inference, kind of demolishes your case.

You cannot prove a negative. I have no need to provide evidence (yet we have done so anyway). The burden is on you to provide evidence to back up your statement.

[CFLarsen]

All questions put to T'ai Chi will be ignored.

[Taffer]

I've noticed.

[SirPhilip]

Why do you call BB an effect?Because it had the effect of creating the crappy living conditions we now enjoy. Duh.

Do you know something about it that has eluded cosmologists?His name is "Tai Chi". Of course he does.

Have I misread you? Do you call the BB an effect? Why?Because it seperated Randi and Sylvia, creating a measurable effect and (a lot of radiated heat in the process).

Duh.

Why do you suggest that people are giving up?Because a big bang implies a big blasting cap, so obviously the theory logically doesn't hold up.

Why do you think that it is logical to infer that the BB had a cause?Someone better be responsible for this, that's all I can say.

Who are these "many scientists"? They all moved on to working at cafe Trieste on some of Jack Sarfatti's secret goverment projects.

Do you claim that it is the mainstream view?The mainstream view is always crap. Alternatives must be sought, however mainstream alternatives tend to also be crap.

Which evidence persuades you that everything we know has a cause, including the big bang?Because it's like claiming to have banged Courtney Love without proof. Everyone can see she was clearly, obviously banged by something (the size of a horse). Some people think one bang couldn't explain the mess, and a horse was only the beginning. But nobody knows what the hell happened.

Which definition of "natural event" are you using? I was going to explore the analogy of Courtney Love further here, but everyone would rebute me on the context.

T'ai Chi, this is increasingly embarrassing for you. I hope you realize this. "Who is more the fool, the fool, or the fool who follows him (around the table)" - Ben Kenobi

[CFLarsen]

"He, who seeks answers to claims (be they ever so unsopported), is a skeptic". Claus Larsen ;)

[Mercutio]

"He, who seeks answers to claims (be they ever so unsopported), is a skeptic". Claus Larsen ;)
misspelled and everything?

[CFLarsen]

misspelled and everything?
Yes. :p

[Mercutio]

At the aggregate level, we know enough about probability to have cities like Las Vegas built around it.

Does the evidence of the success of Las Vegas allow you to say that any given spin of the roulette wheel can be exactly predicted?

You can be Iacchus, and say after the fact that there could have been no other outcome than the one that occurred, but that is purely circular reasoning. You can assume that the outcome can be predicted if you only know all the initial variables, but that assumption is not the same as demonstrating causation.

Games of chance, decay of radioactive particles, the behavior of organisms...in each case, the behavior of the aggregate is very predictable, but the cause of any one event is unknown.

Well, to everyone but TC, who has "evidence that all events we know of have causes." Evidence. Not inference.

[CFLarsen]

And we will wait for T'ai Chi to present this evidence longer than the universe will exist.

[Mercutio]

And we will wait for T'ai Chi to present this evidence longer than the universe will exist.
Not me; I'm gonna go play frisbee with my son.

buh-bye.

[Tricky]

Not me; I'm gonna go play frisbee with my son.

That is horribly cruel. Couldn't you at least use a pie-plate or something?

[T'ai Chi]

but the cause of any one event is unknown.


Unknown? So what. Does it lack a cause or not?

[T'ai Chi]

They do not address causation at the discrete level;


The '"discrete level" is your criteria.

Just showing any causation, which those links did, is enough to show causation.

You're attemping to argue that if we go deep enough, not knowing the cause is the same as lacking a cause? Come again?

[Mercutio]

Unknown? So what. Does it lack a cause or not?
Please take a look at what you are asking.

Whether it has or has not a cause is precisely what is unknown. You are the one claiming to "have evidence that all events we know of have causes." Where is the evidence that these events have causes?

Your response to my behaviorism answer implies that if something can influence the rate of an event, it is its cause; by that logic, headaches are caused by a lack of aspirin. That example alone should tell you that influences on ongoing events, and initial causes of events, may be two entirely different types of causes. Knowing even a great deal about the latter is not the same as knowing anything about the former.

Where is your evidence that all events we know of have causes?

[Mercutio]

The '"discrete level" is your criteria.

The "all events we know of" was your claim.

[Mercutio]

Just showing any causation, which those links did, is enough to show causation.
No.

You're attemping to argue that if we go deep enough, not knowing the cause is the same as lacking a cause? Come again?
I do not claim they lack a cause. I claim it is not knowable. You are claiming all are knowable. Heisenberg backs me up. Where is your evidence?

[T'ai Chi]

I do not claim they lack a cause. I claim it is not knowable.


We do know the cause of radioactivity, check out those links. The "discrete level" is your post hoc criteria. You are basically trying to dig down far enough to say 'aha, you don't know', but those links say we do know- basically excess neutrons or protons.


You are claiming all are knowable. Heisenberg backs me up. Where is your evidence?


Please read. I said all events that we know of. We don't know about the ones we don't know of.

Of course, it is highly reasonable that all natural events have causes. This would mesh well with reality and the success of science, both things which you are fighting against here.

You claim things are not knowable. Care to prove your universal negative?

The success of science, which relies on cause and effect relationships, is enough to support my argument that events have causes.

Try again.

[T'ai Chi]

You are the one claiming to "have evidence that all events we know of have causes." Where is the evidence that these events have causes?


Read the links re: radioactivity- excess of neutrons or protons.

The success of science, which relies on cause and effect relationships, is evidence.


Your response to my behaviorism answer implies that if something can influence the rate of an event, it is its cause; by that logic, headaches are caused by a lack of aspirin.


Argue with the link (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00774.htm) then, which directly states the causes.


Where is your evidence that all events we know of have causes?

The success of science, which relies on cause and effect relationships, is evidence.

Where is your evidence that the cause of ANY event is ultimately unknowable?

[Mercutio]

We do know the cause of radioactivity, check out those links. The "discrete level" is your post hoc criteria. You are basically trying to dig down far enough to say 'aha, you don't know', but those links say we do know- basically excess neutrons or protons.
You must have missed my response to those links. No, TC, they do not explain it. They describe it. "Basically" doesn't do it.

Please read. I said all events that we know of. We don't know about the ones we don't know of.
Your own claim is unproven; you do well to focus on the others.

Of course, it is highly reasonable that all natural events have causes. This would mesh well with reality and the success of science, both things which you are fighting against here.
Um...no.

You claim things are not knowable. Care to prove your universal negative?
Fortunately, Heisenberg already did.

The success of science, which relies on cause and effect relationships, is enough to support my argument that events have causes.
No. Perhaps there are others here who can phrase it in a manner that you are more likely to understand, but...no. The success of science in working on the things for which causes can be demonstrated, in no way supports anything about events for which causes are circularly inferred. Moreover, science does not need to (and cannot) address those things. It is limited to things which can be empirically studied.

Try again.Speaking of "try again", would you care to withdraw your claim yet? It has become clear that you have no intention of defending it.

[Mercutio]

Where is your evidence that the cause of ANY event is ultimately unknowable?
You edited while I was responding.

I have not made this claim. It is your strawman.

[T'ai Chi]

Your own claim is unproven; you do well to focus on the others.


The success of science, which relies on cause and effect relationships, is evidence.


Fortunately, Heisenberg already did.


Heisenberg didn't even talk about "behaviorialism", as far as I am aware, which is what you are attempting to appeal to.


Moreover, science does not need to (and cannot) address those things. It is limited to things which can be empirically studied.


Cause and effect are things that can be empirically studied. That is in part why science is so successful.


It has become clear that you have no intention of defending it.

The success of science, which relies on cause and effect relationships, is evidence. If you don't like that explanation, you don't like it. :)

Why should anybody believe that there are events without causes? Why should 'not knowing' (ignorance) be a strong argument against positive evidence of events with causes?

[T'ai Chi]

You edited while I was responding.


Um, so how am I or you supposed to prevent that from occuring? Why even point it out?

[T'ai Chi]

No, TC, they do not explain it. They describe it.


The link use the word "cause". Then it describes the cause. Please define explicitly what you mean by explanation.


Your own claim is unproven;


You are disputing that science is successful, that science relies on cause and effect relationships, that natural events have causes, and probably other things. Why should anyone take your argument seriously? I'd say these things have a lot of evidence ("proof" is your strawman).

Just saying you don't know of causes isn't a strong argument. I don't know of many causes either.. doesn't mean that they aren't natural events which have causes just because we don't know.

[Mercutio]

The success of science, which relies on cause and effect relationships, is evidence.
Evidence that it is successful at what it does. You are assuming that the things we are discussing are in fact cause and effect relationships (which is the claim under dispute) in order to use science as evidence. Assuming your conclusions is not science, it is circular reasoning.

Heisenberg didn't even talk about "behaviorialism", as far as I am aware, which is what you are attempting to appeal to.
Wow. In quotes, you misspell it. And that is a separate example.
Cause and effect are things that can be empirically studied. That is in part why science is so successful.
Assumes your conclusion. Again.
The success of science, which relies on cause and effect relationships, is evidence. If you don't like that explanation, you don't like it. :)No one should like, or accept, a circular argument.
Why should anybody believe that there are events without causes? More straw. Your claim was that all events are caused. That claim cannot be supported, because there are many events for which we cannot know a cause.
Why should 'not knowing' (ignorance) be a strong argument against positive evidence of events with causes?It isn't. Where is this positive evidence you speak of, for "all events we know of"?

Um, so how am I or you supposed to prevent that from occuring? Why even point it out?I did not ask you to prevent it. I point it out to explain the discrepancy between your post and the one I quoted.

The link use the word "cause". Then it describes the cause. Please define explicitly what you mean by explanation.The problems with their "cause" have been pointed out. If two identical things both possess quality X, but act in different ways, how is it that you can say that quality X is the cause of both actions?


You are disputing that science is successful, that science relies on cause and effect relationships, that natural events have causes, and probably other things. Why should anyone take your argument seriously? I'd say these things have a lot of evidence ("proof" is your strawman).
Where do I dispute that science is successful? Where do I dispute that science looks at cause and effect relationships?

May I take this as an admission that you are using the definition of "natural event" that the apologetics sites are, and not the one that simply calls a natural event "an event that happens"? (That was on the list--why did you not simply answer it?)

Last I saw, we were discussing your claim. We are finally getting somewhere; at least we know which definition (the flawed, circular one) of "natural event" you are using.

Just saying you don't know of causes isn't a strong argument. I don't know of many causes either.. doesn't mean that they aren't natural events which have causes just because we don't know. You don't know of many causes, and yet you "have evidence that all events we know of have causes."

I agree with your last statement. It really does not mean that they aren't natural events which have causes. It also does not mean that they are or are not natural events which do not have causes. It means that they are natural events (they happened), and that the requirement of causation is purely circular.

See? It wasn't that hard...

[Tricky]

The success of science, which relies on cause and effect relationships, is evidence.
But some science doesn't rely on cause and effect relationships. There is a significant element of randomness in the scientific principles of evolution. Statistics relies on certain events to be acausal.

You would not be the first to assume that everything has a cause, even if we cannot determine it. It is an assumption that has strong evidence against it. Yet no amount of evidence will prevent the religious from making this flawed assumption. So you won't be the last either.

[Taffer]

Unknown? So what. Does it lack a cause or not?

Unknown. Not knowable. Unable to be known. Can never be known. We cannot know. It is impossible to know. There is no way to know. Do you get it yet, or shall I continue?

[Taffer]

We do know the cause of radioactivity, check out those links. The "discrete level" is your post hoc criteria. You are basically trying to dig down far enough to say 'aha, you don't know', but those links say we do know- basically excess neutrons or protons.

As has been pointed out multiple times, they do not show a cause of radioactivity, but a description of it. This description even lacks the single defining property of a cause: the ability to predict.

Please read. I said all events that we know of. We don't know about the ones we don't know of.

Name a single event of which we know, with absolute certainty, the cause of.

Of course, it is highly reasonable that all natural events have causes. This would mesh well with reality and the success of science, both things which you are fighting against here.

We fight neither science or "reality". We fight ignorance. Like yours. Just because something is "highly reasonable" doesn't make it true.

You claim things are not knowable. Care to prove your universal negative?

There is no need to prove a negative, ever. He states that things are not knowable. Show us evidence that he is wrong.

The success of science, which relies on cause and effect relationships, is enough to support my argument that events have causes.

No, it isn't.

Try again.

Perhaps you should practice what you preach?

[Taffer]

The success of science, which relies on cause and effect relationships, is evidence.

That is not evidence.

Heisenberg didn't even talk about "behaviorialism", as far as I am aware, which is what you are attempting to appeal to.

No, he is responding to your question, and has nothing to do with "behavioralism".

Cause and effect are things that can be empirically studied. That is in part why science is so successful.

Circular.

The success of science, which relies on cause and effect relationships, is evidence. If you don't like that explanation, you don't like it. :)

Circular.

Why should anybody believe that there are events without causes? Why should 'not knowing' (ignorance) be a strong argument against positive evidence of events with causes?

Because you have failed to show a single account of a known cause, with certainty.

[Taffer]

Read the links re: radioactivity- excess of neutrons or protons.

This is a description of radioactivity, not a cause.

The success of science, which relies on cause and effect relationships, is evidence.

Circular.

Argue with the link (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy00/phy00774.htm) then, which directly states the causes.

From your own link:

{snip}If a light nucleus has too many neutrons compared to
the number of protons in the nucleus, the nucleus will be radioactive. What
constitutes "too many" depends upon the element

So we do not know the cause at all, which is how many is 'too many'. We only know that if there ARE too many (or too few), then the element will be radioactive.

The success of science, which relies on cause and effect relationships, is evidence.

Circular.

Where is your evidence that the cause of ANY event is ultimately unknowable?

Proving a negative. You can't do that, T'ai.

[Taffer]

The link use the word "cause". Then it describes the cause. Please define explicitly what you mean by explanation.

It uses the word "cause" incorrectly. All it has is a description.

You are disputing that science is successful, that science relies on cause and effect relationships, that natural events have causes, and probably other things. Why should anyone take your argument seriously? I'd say these things have a lot of evidence ("proof" is your strawman).

Circular. Circular. Circular.

Just saying you don't know of causes isn't a strong argument. I don't know of many causes either.. doesn't mean that they aren't natural events which have causes just because we don't know.

A "strong argument" is just an argument. There is no such thing as the "strength" of an argument. In fact, our position isn't even an argument at all. It is the "default", if you will, which is the negative of your statement. Please prove your statement.

[CFLarsen]

This is why T'ai Chi normally shy away from making any contributions to a debate.

[RandFan]

10) Why did you create cancer, and not give it to Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson?


(edited to clarify.):D Hey!!!!

[RandFan]

But some science doesn't rely on cause and effect relationships. There is a significant element of randomness in the scientific principles of evolution. Statistics relies on certain events to be acausal.

You would not be the first to assume that everything has a cause, even if we cannot determine it. It is an assumption that has strong evidence against it. Yet no amount of evidence will prevent the religious from making this flawed assumption. So you won't be the last either.I resemble that remark. Most of us need to accept that we have an upper limit on understanding and try and figure out what we can reasonably argue and at least have a rudimentary understanding of the concepts and the science behind the concepts.

When I first started arguing for ID and dualism I thought I knew something. Wrong. I've given up on the 2nd Law of thermodynamics. First I was a proponent of the misbegotten notion that it proved something contrary to evolution. Then I was a debunker of the notion only to find my arguments weren't all that strong and perhaps it was, at least for now, a little beyond me. Hey, stick with what you know. I'm not going to be able to debate quantum theory, relativity, string theory, etc.. Don't get me wrong, I haven't given up on attempting to understand those things it's just that I've realized that having an interest and some knowledge doesn't make one an expert.

I haven't given up on the current limits of AI yet. Hey, fools rush in... Besides, I do have a background in programing and I've got to have something to debate on the science side.

[CFLarsen]

I resemble that remark.

Yeah, you two are indistinguishable. ;)

[Ossai]

T'ai Chi
Specific radioactive decay of unstable isotopes.
The cause is excess neutrons or protons.
One of two answers.
1. Deliberate strawman
2. Ignorance
I don’t know how much you know about radioactive decay so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume number two.

Ossai

[UndercoverElephant]

It seems to me that you're thinking of nothing as something already.


I have ended up having to redefine my ideas about what "nothing" is, yes.



The idea isn't that there was this nothing hanging around, and then suddenly everything appeared out of it.
It's that there is everything, it's only been around for a finite time, but there wasn't anything before it. There wasn't even a before.


Forget "before". Forget time. That is just a distraction. The question "why is there something instead of nothing?" still needs answering even if you remove the temporal aspects of the question.


It's not like there's this thing called "nothing" which is the cause of everything.


That is a matter of opinion.

I personally believe that there is indeed something denoted by the word "nothing" which is in fact the ultimate cause of everything. :)


It's that everything just didn't have a cause. That could be true either of an eternal or a finite universe. Why does the eternal universe exist? Why does the finite universe exist? Why does the cause of the finite (or eternal) universe exist? Why does god exist?

These are all the same question.


Why does ANYTHING exist? That is NOT the same question.


They can all be answered with either "It doesn't exist" "I don't know that it exists" or "I don't know."

There may not be an answer.


There may not be an answer that everyone is willing to accept. ;)


But anyway, we'll keep looking, just in case.

Good plan. :)

[UndercoverElephant]

Re: my last post

I think that this is actually simpler than some people make it out to be. Nothing can come from nothing. It is as simple as that. If there had ever been a state where there was absolutely nothing, not even the potential for this "nothing" to be split into polar opposites, then there would never have been anything at all. That is a logical certainty that I do not understand how anyone can actually deny. It then follows, also as a logical certainty, that Existence itself is eternal and indestructable. At least potentially, something has always existed and will always exist, even if it is just Nietszche's eternal repetition of universes. Now, whether you want to call that something "God" is another matter. What is for sure is that such an argument doesn't imply most of the attributes that most theists usually associate with God (such as infinitely good, infinitely powerful etc....).

It is all too easy to say "We don't know, we can't know" when what is actually happening is that people are failing to acknowledge something that we can and do know, and that is that nothing at all can come from an absolute abscence of anything.

I do not believe this question is unanswerable. I believe that many people simply do not like the answer.

[Iacchus]

Well, speaking for myself, I have a hard time imagining that I just popped up out of nowhere. And, although I can't recount anything beyond this point, it was in the works. Or, at least this is what my mom and dad keep telling me. ;)

[T'ai Chi]

T'ai Chi

One of two answers.
1. Deliberate strawman
2. Ignorance
I don’t know how much you know about radioactive decay so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume number two.

Ossai

Please address the link I posted that states that.

[Mercutio]

Please address the link I posted that states that.
Two people (Taffer and I) have already addressed that. It is a description, not a cause-and-effect analysis. (Or did you address the "spontaneous" or "rearranging itself" comments, and I just missed that?)

Will you have each person here independently address your links? Even if, when they do, you do not acknowledge that? (The closest thing to addressing it that you do is to repeat the request to read a link which I actually quoted in my response. You do not, whatsoever, address my response to it.)

Your links do not provide the argument you claim they do. Do you have anything else? Present it, or withdraw your claim.

[T'ai Chi]

It is a description, not a cause-and-effect analysis.


I didn't claim it presented an "analysis", now did I?

It does use the word "cause". Feel free to nitpick with the authors of those pages.


Present it, or withdraw your claim.

Thanks for your comments.

[Mercutio]

I didn't claim it presented an "analysis", now did I?

It does use the word "cause". Feel free to nitpick with the authors of those pages.

Argument from authority, then?

Do you actually understand what is said in your links, or did you just look for the word "cause"?

You claimed it ("they", actually) show causation. They do not.

[Ed]

I am happy to respond.

Split from the "Superman vs. God at the Rapture" thread, someone wondered about a God who gets "freaked" when one asks questions. Someone else said questions were OK, as long as they were respectful.

Well, what are some good questions to ask God, respectful or not, whether He gets freaked or not?


1. Why bother creating humanity, if you knew you'd wipe them all out except for Noah once, then later on throw the vast majority who ever lived into Hell? Free will is one thing, but knowing the majority wouldn't live up to your standards, and result in severe, unending punishment, why bother?

Look: you play Pong? Watch The Weather Channel? Sometime you do stuff "just because". Actually, Noah was a smelly old reprobate and was supposed to go down with his ship but I got distracted.

2. Why send Jesus to die for our sins? Since you are the only one who cares anyway, why force Jesus (i.e. yourself) to jump through hoops only you care about?

See answer to #1, above. Actually, long before Jesus, when I'd bang my leg or something I'd yell "Jesus Christ". And I thought "hey, why not share?". The whole idea was to add a useful lingustic expression for the benefit of humanity. Unfortunately you guys took something that was really as trivial as dust motes and made a big thing of it. Then, typically, you blame me. If that damn Jew Saul or "Paul" as he called himself (do Jews always change their names? Today he would have changed it to "Burton Hathaway") weren't so adept PR-wise my intentions would have been fulfilled and your lives would have been better.

3. Speaking of which, why is belief without proof of such high metaphysical importance to you? Yet we are threatened with eternal torture and damnation, "but there's no proof of it! But you'd better believe it! Even though there's no proof!" What's up with that?

You are so gullible. "threatened this, threatened that". You take this stuff seriously? Let me let you in on a secret. We are all partying down up here. No STD's, no hangovers, no liver damage, no John Ashcroft (a complete invention on my part, BTW).

On the no proof thing: you don't know if you don't ask.

4. What does happen to cavemen, anyway? I presume they actually existed, and the archaeological evidence are not plants by the devil. Do they go to heaven or hell or some limbo? Stay dead forever per pre-Christian Jewish beliefs? Are they resurrected, shown Jesus ("but there's no proof!") then given one chance, as preachers love to say, to "make an important decision"?

Truth be told, some were planted, by me. Some stuff was sort of embaressing like Peking Man. Had to scoop up the damn fossils before you guys developed good dating. That was close.

Given the Jesus data, would you care to withdraw your question?


5. What are your origins? "Existing forever" is nonsensical, to say nothing of the finite number of combinations of finite things to do. Or are there infinite football games on infinite-inch TV screens?

To me, one football game is about like another so your analogy sorta sucks. I am real old. Since I am who I am I can sort of define things a bit. Everything began when I did so "forever" is relative to moi. This is a bit arrogant but I think when you see what I have planned for you after, you, you know, you will foregive and forget.

Gotta run. A little planet orbiting a minor star in NGC 3456 is about to collide with a sun and the little dudes on that planet are supposed to enslave you all in 50,045 years.

See ya.

[T'ai Chi]

Argument from authority, then?


You obviosuly don't understand what an argument from authority is. I'm not saying it is a correct argument because an authoirty said it. I'm saying that you are confusing the messenger with the message. If you have beef with the use of the word cause, you'd have to ask those who wrote it why they chose to use the words cause. Second they appear to be physicists or teacher of physics. You, do not. It is not an argument of authority to say they their argument is most likely correct since they have experience in that field.


You claimed it ("they", actually) show causation. They do not.

Your opinion is noted.

Speaking of cause, and the circularity you talk about, perhaps your argument is what is circular. So why should anybody take it seriously? :D

[Mercutio]

You obviosuly don't understand what an argument from authority is. I'm not saying it is a correct argument because an authoirty said it. I'm saying that you are confusing the messenger with the message. If you have beef with the use of the word cause, you'd have to ask those who wrote it why they chose to use the words cause. Second they appear to be physicists or teacher of physics. You, do not. It is not an argument of authority to say they their argument is most likely correct since they have experience in that field.
You are not presenting their argument. You are presenting them, and asking others to take up disputes with them. At least two here have taken issue with the argument, and you have done nothing but repeat it. You obviously do not understand what is written in the links; this leaves merely their authority for you to appeal to.

(You are right, I am not a physicist or teacher of physics. My mom taught physics, though, and I was reading high-school physics in grade school, college level in high school. It did not turn into my profession, but I can certainly read it. I can easily tell when someone knows more than I do about it. I can also tell when someone knows less.)

If you would like to actually present the arguments and demonstrate that I am wrong, please feel free. I don't think you can, or you would have tried already.

Your opinion is noted.
Noted, again. One of these days perhaps you will also understand it.

Speaking of cause, and the circularity you talk about, perhaps your argument is what is circular. So why should anybody take it seriously? :D"Perhaps"? Is it or is it not? I have shown how yours is circular; please, if you think mine is, show it. If not, do not be so dishonest as to say that "perhaps" it is, even though that allows you to later say "I never claimed that it was".

[Ossai]

T'ai Chi
One of two answers.
1. Deliberate strawman
2. Ignorance
I don’t know how much you know about radioactive decay so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume number two.
Please address the link I posted that states that.
I was correct then, it is number 2. It doesn’t matter how many links you post, if you can’t describe radioactive decay in your own words then you don’t understand it.

Ossai

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi

I was correct then, it is number 2. It doesn’t matter how many links you post, if you can’t describe radioactive decay in your own words then you don’t understand it.

Ossai

Somebody - I even think it was on this board - once said:

If you won't explain it, then I won't understand it.

But if you can't explain it, then you don't understand it.

[Ed]

I recall that recently Ian took the position that some things have no cause. Pixie Mixa made the point that, philosophically, the basis of science demands that everything have a cause. I may be misremembering but it was recent.

[Roboramma]

Re: my last post

I think that this is actually simpler than some people make it out to be. Nothing can come from nothing. It is as simple as that. If there had ever been a state where there was absolutely nothing, not even the potential for this "nothing" to be split into polar opposites, then there would never have been anything at all.
No one is suggesting that this state ever existed.

You said forget about the temporal and address the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" I don't know the answer to that question. I'm only saying that you can't either. If you think you can, I'd like to hear it.

[UndercoverElephant]

If you think you can, I'd like to hear it.

The answer has been there from the start to the finish of the history of philosophy. I'd be perfectly happy to explain it in fine detail, but only by PM or email because if I try to do it in public on this particular forum the thread will be trashed by certain extremists who are not only not interested in the answer to the question but are desperate to make sure that nobody else considers such an answer either.

Put briefly it goes something like:

"Being and Non-Being produce each other."

This idea was first specified by Lao Tse, but the history of philosophy ends up with Hegel, Heidegger and Sartre effectively providing exactly the same answer. This is the answer to BOTH questions that the materialists can never answer: "Why is there something instead of nothing?" and "How does consciousness arise from matter?" These two questions are like mirror-image knots on a length of string. Neither can be untied on it's own because it is a topological impossibility. But move the two knots to the same place on the string and they cancel each other out. The critically important point is to note that these questions are deeply inter-related, but you will find that any attempt by a philosopher to explain their inter-relation will be met by noises coming from extremist scientific atheists which resemble the howls of wounded animals. The level of their resistance indicates the level of threat they percieve from such arguments. Just watch them go for my jugular. ;)

PM me if you want more.

Geoff.

[Iacchus]

"Being and Non-Being produce each other."The Yin and Yang exist within a singularity, however. Or, at least this is the way it's depicted.