Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If you believe in god, you have to believe in leprechauns.
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 150 (166562)
12-09-2004 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by mikehager
12-09-2004 1:30 PM


What is illogical is to say that there can be such a thing as a "spontaneous event."
What reason is there to assume that such an illogical event could happen?
There's no "special pleading" here, because a spontaneous event makes no sense whereas my scenario does make sense.
The flaw in the traditional first cause argument was the idea that the universe was assumed by first cause advocates to be created, and naturally people would not accept that. The question that destroyed the argument was "Who Made God?" There was no reason to say God was the First Cause, since there was no reason to suppose there was a first cause.
Then along comes Big Bang, and now the First Cause argument makes perfect sense. Now we know that the universe did not always exist.
That makes all the difference in the world for the First Cause idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by mikehager, posted 12-09-2004 1:30 PM mikehager has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 12-09-2004 5:22 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 120 of 150 (166620)
12-09-2004 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by 1.61803
12-09-2004 3:51 PM


"dimensional membrane"?? You appear to be multiplying assumptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by 1.61803, posted 12-09-2004 3:51 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by 1.61803, posted 12-09-2004 5:11 PM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 150 (166675)
12-09-2004 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by crashfrog
12-09-2004 5:22 PM


I would say "uncaused event" is a misnomer. The causal situation is more subtle in the quantum world. But I don't know enough about it to be sure. If you like, explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 12-09-2004 5:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by crashfrog, posted 12-09-2004 9:44 PM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 150 (166808)
12-10-2004 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Taqless
12-09-2004 11:30 PM


Re: Which cause & effect?
Who said anything aobut purpose?
Note: I get the feeling that some people on this forum think that the very mention of the word "God" is automatically meant to invoke all sorts of things that I have never suggested.
All I said was that the Big Bang means that the universe came into being. It once did not exist and now it exists.
But before continuing, I will stop right there and see if anyone disagrees with me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Taqless, posted 12-09-2004 11:30 PM Taqless has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 12-10-2004 12:23 AM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 129 by Taqless, posted 12-10-2004 12:39 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 135 by The Dread Dormammu, posted 12-10-2004 5:52 AM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 150 (166849)
12-10-2004 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Taqless
12-10-2004 12:39 AM


Re: Which cause & effect?
The First Cause is X.
X does not exist in space and time.
X has always existed.
That's the only qualities we can assign to X.
I thereby have disproved the original claim of this thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Taqless, posted 12-10-2004 12:39 AM Taqless has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by mikehager, posted 12-10-2004 1:56 AM robinrohan has replied
 Message 137 by Taqless, posted 12-10-2004 11:06 AM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 139 by 1.61803, posted 12-10-2004 11:32 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 150 (166857)
12-10-2004 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by mikehager
12-10-2004 1:56 AM


Re: Which cause & effect?
"typical arrogance and ignorance of the creationist."
The funny thing is, I'm not a creationist.
Because I did not agree that believing in god (no capitals this time--heaven forbid!) and believing in leprechauns were the same sort of thing, I am hereby labelled as a creationist.
The funny thing is, that it was not I who assumed so much in this debate about the person he was debating against. It is that assuming that is arrogance.
It was not I who labelled anyone.
No. It was you.
I do not appreciate being treated with contempt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by mikehager, posted 12-10-2004 1:56 AM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by mikehager, posted 12-10-2004 2:21 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 150 (166868)
12-10-2004 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by mikehager
12-10-2004 2:21 AM


Re: Which cause & effect?
Whether my logic is bad or not has nothing to do with how one should be treated as a person. One should not be labelled. You should address my argument, not be labelling me or issuing adjectives in my direction such as "arrogant" and "ignorant."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by mikehager, posted 12-10-2004 2:21 AM mikehager has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 150 (166942)
12-10-2004 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Ben!
12-10-2004 6:02 AM


Re: Actually I disagree
I think he was claiming by introducing the multiverse that there is no reason to suppose that the multiverse has not existed forever and that therefore there is not need for a First Cause.
What evidence is there for a multiverse?
What evidence is there for the Big Bang? Quite a bit, I think.
Is there more evidence for the Big Bang than for a multiverse?
I assume so.
However:
"2. Unprovability is an absolute quality. I.e. one thing cannot be more or less unprovable then another."
How are we supposed to know if something is "unprovable" or not?
I guess you mean, (1)unprovable unless some new evidence turns up any minute now?
Or do you mean, (2)that the existence (or non-existence)of X is unprovable in a logically necessary way, and therefore absolutely unprovable--in other words, that there can be no possible evidence in our wildest imaginations that would prove that X existed or did not exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Ben!, posted 12-10-2004 6:02 AM Ben! has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by mikehager, posted 12-10-2004 4:17 PM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 150 (166964)
12-10-2004 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by 1.61803
12-10-2004 11:32 AM


Re: Which cause & effect?
Could you explain in what sense the universe does not exist in space/time and in what sense it has existed forever?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by 1.61803, posted 12-10-2004 11:32 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by coffee_addict, posted 12-10-2004 3:38 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 148 by 1.61803, posted 12-12-2004 1:06 AM robinrohan has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 150 (167031)
12-10-2004 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by mikehager
12-10-2004 4:17 PM


Re: Actually I disagree
Let's have it. Just don't do any special pleading or beg any questions or try an "argument from ignorance."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by mikehager, posted 12-10-2004 4:17 PM mikehager has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024