Big Bang Found

Right. Just as sunlight and water vapor transcend rainbows.

Does your question have any meaning at all? I can grant that your question might have implications if in fact your question makes sense.The laws of nature are not external and human like. They are not marionette strings pulling at the substance of the universe. Instead the laws of nature are a descriptive of how the universe operates or how it does not operate. Perhaps it has always been the case that when two masses are present, they will appear to attract each other as GR describes. Or it may be that under certain conditions opposite charges have always attracted. That can be true regardless of whether there have always been a pair of masses or charges. What would it mean to ask if the law of gravity existed when there was only one, or no particles, and no energy? And further, did those hypothetical conditions ever exist? I think what you (and kbertsche and shadow71) are doing is envisioning an answer that you feel comfortable and asking 'have you stopped beating your wife yet' questions in support of what you have already decided. You at least are not claiming that people who don't see it your way are shallow minded non-thinkers.

Of course it is not unreasonable to ask. But what I am seeing is people saying scientists are stupid because they don't ask the questions answered in Genesis when they slide pucks on an air table.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No. It doesn't. Perhaps that's the entire subject in nutshell. Germs cause you to get sick. You don't really need to assume an evil spirit is behind you getting a cold sore.

Do you think the distinction between your position and Oni's is simply that Oni does not accept your definitions. That is clearly not the case.The issue is that you label extra-universal things supernatural, which is okay as long as you are clear. You then say extra-universal events are supernatural causes, and that God is everything supernatural, which is your conclusion.We know that you believe that God created the universe. For that matter, I believe it. But the issue is that you haven't produced an argument. You have steady simply equivocated about what supernatural means, and then pretended that we all must reach your conclusion despite the fact that you haven't produced an argument, philosophical or otherwise.

I am referring to those instances where you say that if someone believes "X" is an ultimate cause or that "Y" is eternal, that X or Y are that persons gods.

That definition is total nonsense. If I think, mistakenly or not, that milk ultimately comes from lactating animals chewing on grass planted by farmer Brown, then those animals and farmer Brown are effectively my gods? Surely not.'Effectively' already has a meaning, which is something like 'for all reasonable and germane purposes'. If instead, we are going to use your definition for 'effectively' which is something closer to 'what kbersche needs to make a point without making an effort' then I think we can dismiss the statement until after you actually make a point.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I am not going to provide an alternative. I think the entire approach of insisting that a singularity or a 'nothing' or 'the universe' is someone's god is silly and wrong.And it is not a matter of what I "don't like".Here is the question you are posing (as I interpret it): "Why cannot I (kbertsche) make a list of the characteristics I know or believe God has, and then without any other defense other than "it's traditional" tell others that anything that they say treads on my (kbertsche's) list is "effectively" their god.Part of the answer is that what you call "traditional" excludes the beliefs of lots of god worshipers. The Greeks and Romans did not believe any sentient created the universe, and most of their gods did not create anything. Aphrodite did not create beauty, she was in charge of it. Hades did not create the underworld, he was simply in charge of it. Artemis did not invent the hunt, she embodied it. Ares did not invent war. They also were not eternalSimilarly, the Scandinavian gods largely created nothing.I couldn't begin to unravel the traditions behind the Hindu pantheon.Coming at things from another angle:Despite the fact that people worshiped idols, I doubt that anyone ever believed that they created anything. Yet they were false gods.So much for your traditional list.Secondly, listing characteristics is not the same thing as defining. That's particularly true when you don't bother to be exhaustive, nor to insist that all of the characteristics must be met. I could describe Santa as a red clothed man who delivers toys on Christmas. But I could not logically then tell you that every man clad that way and bearing gifts is effectively Santa Claus.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

A god is a thing "deified". Is that how you define God? Isn't that just the tiniest bit circular? What kind of argument begins with "somewhat related" to your usage? You are making this about me. I do not notice a single objection to even one of my arguments that you are wrong.I'll address Apostle Paul's usage more directly. His usage is nothing like yours. When you approach his level of Christian apologetics, and I still dismiss you, perhaps you will have something to complain about.

quote:

---

Join together in following my example, brothers and sisters, and just as you have us as a model, keep your eyes on those who live as we do. 18 For, as I have often told you before and now tell you again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is set on earthly things. 20 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

---

Is this anything like your usage? Because Paul is talking about the fate of people who do not live as Christians and who may even persecute Christians even as Saul used to do. Is this really what you are talking about. Because if it is, then you are equivocating.

And yet the Bible offers a promise that men can have eternal life in any number of places. Is that promise false? So says you.When a U-238 nuclei decays after having existed for 4.5 billion years, what is the cause for the decay and what is the cause for the existence of the brand new Th-234 nuclei? What caused the nearby, identical U238 atom to decay billions of years ago, while this one did not?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

These two statements are completely inconsistent. If there is no time, then what is the relationship between cause and effect. There is no sense in which we can say that the effect comes before the cause if there is no time. It seems to me that possible ways to resolve that issue is for the to universe either have no cause or to be self-caused.

What does "logically prior to it mean"? That is just double talk. Express the meaning of that phrase in terms that do not need quotation marks.

That appears to be an argument. I am going to show that it is not.First when you say "intrinsic" that is another way of saying that no actual cause is needed. Let us ask the same question regarding the Th234 atom which beta decays to Pa234.The Th234 atom was not primitively created, yet it decays unpredictably and without any impetus. That is because whenever Th234 nuclei are produced, be it from radioactive decay or via fusion in the sun, they all have the same intrinsic property.And let's be clear about the "double talk" "Intrinsic Stability" is not a cause, it is a description of the state of the nuclei. It means only that the nuclei is going to decay at some point. The probability of it decaying at any instant is determined by the nuclear arrangement of particles in the nucleus. But the actual decay itself is uncaused. No external event triggers it.

A common creationist tactic is to disparage indirect evidence. The only direct evidence is eye witness testimony. Every other piece of evidence is indirect. We know that the sun is made up of helium and hydrogen through indirect evidence, we understand that the earth's core is dense only indirectly. When we measure the voltage of electricity at an electrical socket, our measurement using the deflection of an electrical meter or a digit readout indirectly tells us the voltage present.The evidence we are discussing in this thread is indirect evidence and not direct evidence of inflation. I am skeptical too. I am skeptical that string theory will ever amount to much of anything. But my skepticism is not based on not appreciating indirect evidence.

No, that it is not a statement of causation.You have described the reason why an alpha particle can leave the nucleus. But the state you describe exists at all times. Why does the decay particle leave.I am still waiting on the meaning of "logically prior", that does not use temporal language or quotes.A causation description for radioactive decay is not something Heisenberg or Bohr would have accepted.Heisenberg:

quote:

---

We know the forces in the atomic nucleus that are responsible for the emission of the a-particle. But this knowledge contains the uncertainty which is brought about by the interaction between the nucleus and the rest of the world. If we wanted to know why the [alpha]-particle was emitted at that particular time we would have to know the microscopic structure of the whole world including ourselves, and that is impossible. Therefore, Kant's arguments for the a priori character of the law of causality no longer apply.

---

ABE:To be clear, some physicists would accept your description of causation. But if in fact, the intrinsic nature of something is enough to be a cause, then it is enough for whatever is the pre-cursor for the universe, and I know that is not what you are arguing. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.