Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
43 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, Faith, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), PurpleYouko, vimesey (8 members, 35 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,628 Year: 18,664/19,786 Month: 1,084/1,705 Week: 336/518 Day: 12/88 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   If you believe in god, you have to believe in leprechauns.
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2920
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 121 of 150 (166622)
12-09-2004 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by robinrohan
12-09-2004 5:07 PM


LoL....but notice I wrote "MAY be the result..." where you wrote "IS caused". *edit to add: I am not assuming anything, but you are.

This message has been edited by 1.61803, 12-09-2004 05:19 PM


"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by robinrohan, posted 12-09-2004 5:07 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 150 (166628)
12-09-2004 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by robinrohan
12-09-2004 1:53 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?

Direct observation of spontaneous, uncaused events at the quantum level. (Yes, I'm referring to atomic decay.)

That makes all the difference in the world for the First Cause idea.

You're only assuming what you intend to prove - that God is the First Cause.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by robinrohan, posted 12-09-2004 1:53 PM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by robinrohan, posted 12-09-2004 7:28 PM crashfrog has responded

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 responded

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

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 150 (166747)
12-09-2004 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by robinrohan
12-09-2004 7:28 PM


I would say "uncaused event" is a misnomer.

I would say that anyone who proposes that the decay of a particular atom is "really" caused, even though we've never detected any evidence that that is so, is just making up causes because they refuse to believe that something could happen without a cause. Again, circular reasoning. Your only rebuttal to an example of an uncaused effect is to assert what you're trying to defend in the first place - that all effects have causes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by robinrohan, posted 12-09-2004 7:28 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

Taqless
Member (Idle past 4200 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 125 of 150 (166791)
12-09-2004 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by robinrohan
12-09-2004 2:17 AM


Which cause & effect?
If it "occurred" then something caused it to occur.

Or "someone"? Look:

1) I'm a klutz, and I accidentally knock a glass of water over...was it done with purpose...nope just a klutz....no inference of "intelligence".

2) I wanna be an ass so I purposely spill molasses onto my friends brand new carpet....arguably some sort of intelligence inferred(sp?).

NOW, which category does your cause fit into? the klutz or the ass?

Cause IS NOT synonymous with purpose...something we humans tend to forget.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by robinrohan, posted 12-09-2004 2:17 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by robinrohan, posted 12-10-2004 12:19 AM Taqless has responded

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 responded

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

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 150 (166810)
12-10-2004 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by robinrohan
12-10-2004 12:19 AM


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.

Oh? You don't think that the term "God" might be just a little loaded? You are, after all, capitalizing it, which implies you're referring to the Judeo-Christian god, and all that goes with it...

If you're so worried about it, use a different term.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by robinrohan, posted 12-10-2004 12:19 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Lammy, posted 12-10-2004 12:32 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Lammy
Member (Idle past 17 days)
Posts: 3611
From: Chicago
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 128 of 150 (166814)
12-10-2004 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by crashfrog
12-10-2004 12:23 AM


froggie writes:

If you're so worried about it, use a different term.


I propose we use "Jaba the Hut".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by crashfrog, posted 12-10-2004 12:23 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Taqless
Member (Idle past 4200 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 129 of 150 (166817)
12-10-2004 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by robinrohan
12-10-2004 12:19 AM


Re: Which cause & effect?
robinrohan writes:

If it "occurred" then something caused it to occur.

{bold added by me}

Then

robinrohan writes:

Who said anything aobut purpose?

Were you or were you not hinting that God (capital 'G') "caused" the Big Bang? If so, your stuck on thinking that there must be a purposeful causal effect. If not, then carry on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by robinrohan, posted 12-10-2004 12:19 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by robinrohan, posted 12-10-2004 1:43 AM Taqless has responded

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 responded

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

mikehager
Member (Idle past 4753 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 131 of 150 (166854)
12-10-2004 1:56 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by robinrohan
12-10-2004 1:43 AM


Re: Which cause & effect?
No, you havent. Not even close. First, you have provided no support for your first cause beyond repeating it ad nauseum.

There is no proof for your "X" existing and certainly none that it has existed eternally.

You have shown nothing but the typical arrogance and ignorance of the creationist. Repitition is not support and it ain't so be cause you say it is.

Oh, there are several problems with the argument I used to start this thread. I knew that when I posted it. I was trying to spark debate. Several people have found the problems and commented on them. You, unfortunately, have not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by robinrohan, posted 12-10-2004 1:43 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by robinrohan, posted 12-10-2004 2:08 AM mikehager has responded

  
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 responded

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

mikehager
Member (Idle past 4753 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 133 of 150 (166861)
12-10-2004 2:21 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by robinrohan
12-10-2004 2:08 AM


Re: Which cause & effect?
Then do not attempt to debate in a manner that warrants it. Assertion is not debate. All you have done is made unfounded assertions.

If you don't like the way I am addressing you, show me that you deserve respect! Make an argument and actually support it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by robinrohan, posted 12-10-2004 2:08 AM robinrohan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by robinrohan, posted 12-10-2004 2:36 AM mikehager has not yet responded

  
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 yet responded

The Dread Dormammu
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 150 (166891)
12-10-2004 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by robinrohan
12-10-2004 12:19 AM


Actualy I disagree
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.

I disagree because I think you are using the term "univerese" to mean all things in exsistance.

There is good reason to believe that there is more to the universe than what is in our hubble volume. The idea that time itself started with the big bang is, perhaps, outdated though it was persuasivly argued by hawking in "A breif history of time".

1: Our "universe" (meaning our space time continum) is larger than our hubble volume. Microwave backround radiation suggests this. Hence there are galaxys beyond our hubble volume. Just becase galaxys they are retreating at faster than the speed of light (and are therfore invisible and unreachable) is no reason to believe that they don't exsist.

2: Our "universe" (meaning our space time continum). Could have been produced from a prior universe in a larger "multiverse" (see thread on inflationary cosmology) or it could have been produced from a nehboring "brane" colliding with our brane.

So the universe (this time meaning "all exsistance") was not caused by the big bang (in my opinion). Instead the big bang was just something that happened in a larger multiverse, and as such had a cause (or was causeless as some quantum mechanical things are truly causeless (again in my opinion)).

Even if the things I have stated are not true, they are still not logicaly inconsistant hence it is not inenvitable that we beleve in a causeless god.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by robinrohan, posted 12-10-2004 12:19 AM robinrohan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Ben!, posted 12-10-2004 6:02 AM The Dread Dormammu has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019