|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If you believe in god, you have to believe in leprechauns. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1399 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
[begin butt in]
Isn't this just pushing cause into some other place? So the cause isn't in OUR universe, it's in the multi-verse... you're still talking all about causality. In other words, you haven't shown that anything exists without a cause, you've just argued that the cause of our universe may lie somewhere else. So I don't think your point is a valid one, unless you can argue something about the multiverse being a place where 'causeless' things happen. And as it stands, you state that you think that the multiverse is a causal place. I think quantum mechanics is the best place to argue for causeless events, but ... well, I'll leave it at that.
[end butt in]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 5914 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
The First Cause is X.
You cannot establish a "First Cause". The assumption you make here is that time is linear i.e. a beginning and an end. Where is your support for this?
X does not exist in space and time.
Which "space" and which "time"? You are using arbitrary definitions.
X has always existed.
This is an assertion...if something/someone exists outside of space and time, how does that allow you to use this definition of existence?
That's the only qualities we can assign to X.
You can't even apply this further. Not that I want to lend credence, but how does this prevent this entire event from being caused by a leprechaun...I mean call it whatever you want. As Mike says you have disproven nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
robinrohan writes:
Let's replace X with the word Universe. The First Cause is X.X does not exist in space time X has always existed. Thats's the only qualities we can assign to X. First Cause is the Universe.The Universe does not exist in space time The Universe has always exsited.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Could you explain in what sense the universe does not exist in space/time and in what sense it has existed forever?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 5914 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
Well, that was more concise than my reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
I don't know what 1.61803 meant when he said that, but my thought on this is this. According to the string theory, the universe exists in at least 11 dimensions. Space/time is only 4 dimensions.
Hate world. Revenge soon!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mikehager Member (Idle past 6467 days) Posts: 534 Joined: |
What evidence is there for a multiverse? What evidence is their for a god of some kind? I am unsure about the multiverse thing, but I know how much real evidence there is for a god. None. Next? By unprovable I mean your second suggestion. You know, like an infinitely powerful and knowledgable god. Want to hear why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Let's have it. Just don't do any special pleading or beg any questions or try an "argument from ignorance."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dpardo Inactive Member |
Mikehager writes: You know, like an infinitely powerful and knowledgable god. What do you mean by infinitely powerful and knowledgeable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
The Dread Dormammu Inactive Member |
Isn't this just pushing cause into some other place? So the cause isn't in OUR universe, it's in the multi-verse... you're still talking all about causality. In other words, you haven't shown that anything exists without a cause, you've just argued that the cause of our universe may lie somewhere else. Right that was all I wanted to do. I do not claim to know what the "first cause" was perhaps the first effect happend without a cause or perhaps there was no first cause at all and the multiverese is eternal. I have no idea. I just wished to point out that though everything in our universe started with the big bang, the big bang was NOT nessesaraly the first event. I have basicly 2 major problems with the assertion that God is the only thing that could have caused the big bang. 1) The big bang may have had a materialistic cause in a larger multiverse. 2) Not event has to have a cause. If you claime that some things don't have causes (like god) then why can't other things also not have causes. The argument that "god is not an effect" doesn't make sense to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5908 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
I am curious as to the application of cause and effect as concerns the big bang.
If the effect of first cause is the universe itself does this not mean that all subsequent events are therefore determined by that first cause since the universe is the given result of it? If not, then any effects that occur after the first cause are necessarily not a result or effect of the first cause and constitute something seperate from that first cause within the universe. This appears to me to be paradoxical.One is also drawn to wonder what is meant by first cause.How can it organize the given effect of the universe without previous effects occuring? "A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death."- |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
space/time is a phenomenon that occurred at t=
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Ahhhh. This topic is running amok! Here is mikehagars original statement:
It is my contention that accepting the existence of a deity logically forces the believer, if they are consistent, to also believe in myriad other fanciful imaginings.
We can either stick with tried and true provable concepts,we can speculate on scientific theories that are as yet theoretical, or, as Mike suggests, we can accept the fanciful world of the supernatural. Has everyone made their points? Is there anything that you wanted to continue with, Mike? The ball is again in your court.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mikehager Member (Idle past 6467 days) Posts: 534 Joined: |
It did get pretty far afield. Also, I fear that I may have missed a lot in the middle as well as leaving a challenge unanswered. As to that, I must plead the distractions of work and such and apologize.
As to the runaway-ness of this thread, I agree. Close 'er down, unless someone else objects.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024