Do you believe in God ?

[offthewall14420]

I would imagine God would have a transformable dick so it's perfect for everyone.

- - - Updated - - -

Now cut versus uncut, that is a profound discussion.

 

[Telstra]

No, these are just assertions, the "science" only starts after someone else has successfully reproduced the experiment.

- - - Updated - - -



Cut? or uncut?

No every magic has a scientific question, its either possible or not.

 

[FirmaFan]

I do believe in God. The reason is that something can't come out of nothing, someone had to have created the universe.

The problem with this argument is that the claim "something can not come from nothing" has yet to be demonstrated as true, and thus, can not be used as reason or evidence in the argument for god. Please note, I am not saying "something can come from nothing", as that would be just as much in need of demonstration, but since there has never been a "nothing" which can be studied, we can in no way infer what properties "nothing" has.

Another problem is the immediate jump to "someone" when talking about the origin of the universe. A better word is "something" as that includes "someone", whereas "someone" deliberately excludes any non-sentient entity, and just shows bias rather than intellectual honesty.

 

[TX-Beau]

No every magic has a scientific question, its either possible or not.

A question of possibility, isn't "scientific" either. No "magic" has a "scientific" question.

Assertions are just that, whether or not something is scientific is a matter of testability. You can make all kinds of assertions of fact that are not provable as impossible, that can't be argued with "science."

God exists, is the big one.

 

[TX-Beau]

The problem with this argument is that the claim "something can not come from nothing" has yet to be demonstrated as true, and thus, can not be used as reason or evidence in the argument for god. Please note, I am not saying "something can come from nothing", as that would be just as much in need of demonstration, but since there has never been a "nothing" which can be studied, we can in no way infer what properties "nothing" has.

Another problem is the immediate jump to "someone" when talking about the origin of the universe. A better word is "something" as that includes "someone", whereas "someone" deliberately excludes any non-sentient entity, and just shows bias rather than intellectual honesty.

Not to mention that it's extremely linear reasoning, B follows A therefore A. There is no evidence this is how things function in the universe.

 

[jbrown329]

I do believe in God. The reason is that something can't come out of nothing, someone had to have created the universe.

OK. With that reasoning, who or what created god?

 

[FirmaFan]

OK. With that reasoning, who or what created god?

The most common response I have heard to this is that everything that "begins to exist" must have a cause, but since god has always existed, no cause is needed. Of course, you are simply shifting an argument from ignorance to an argument from special pleading when making that claim.

 

[kallipolis]

I'll repeat the first few words of my last post....just in case some one overlooked my contribution...for one reason, or another.

Here we are discussing the matter of first cause, an academic debate that can never produce a verifiable answer.

 

[FirmaFan]

I'll repeat the first few words of my last post....just in case some one overlooked my contribution...for one reason, or another.

Here we are discussing the matter of first cause, an academic debate that can never produce a verifiable answer.

I think it is wrong to assume there will never be an answer to the origins of the universe. However, I do think it is going to be much more complicated than we may currently be able to conceive, plus, in thinking of it as a "cause", we are looking at it entirely wrong since the whole concept of a "cause" is temporal in nature, and since time came into existence with the universe, it would be entirely wrong to view the origin of the universe as a cause-and-effect event.

 

[kallipolis]

The discussion is here, and now...not some distant future.

First cause cannot be verified, making any discussion specious....but, for argument's sake.....

First cause is never temporal, for it explains the reason for everything, therefore beyond defining.

Time is measurable within the context of what is known to human life.

The universe had a beginning therefore there is a causation that created the effect we call the universe.

A cause is the sine qua non for an effect: if no cause, no effect.

Leading us back to the question of the first cause. A question that remains unanswerable unless one is prepared to consider that all that exists is, because the first cause made, and is making everything that exists. For we know that the universe is in constant expansion, therefore we can conclude that creation continues. We can further argue that the first cause remains the causation of the continuation of all that exists.

Reason invites each of us to understand that knowing, all that we know includes knowing, that we know so very little.

 

[Telstra]

^ How do you know there is a "first cause" ?
According to the multiverse theory, there is No "first cause".

 

[kallipolis]

^ How do you know there is a "first cause" ?
According to the multiverse theory, there is No "first cause".

I'm not discussing sci fi theories here.

I'll repeat my earlier words, in my last post:

A cause is the sine qua non for an effect: if no cause, no effect.

 

[Telstra]

Multiverse is a mathematical theory and it is not sci fi

 

[kallipolis]

Multiverse is a mathematical theory and it is not sci fi

No....it is an hypothesis that has no logical reasoning to support it. Making it popular with sci fi fans who enjoy being entertained by movies where parallel universe produce similar people. Jet Li's movie, The One demonstrates this idea. I enjoyed the film.

It's bizarre to use the multiverse hypothesis to explain only things we don’t understand.

Here's a trailer advertising The One.

 

[TX-Beau]

The discussion is here, and now...not some distant future.

First cause cannot be verified, making any discussion specious....but, for argument's sake.....

First cause is never temporal, for it explains the reason for everything, therefore beyond defining.

Time is measurable within the context of what is known to human life.

The universe had a beginning therefore there is a causation that created the effect we call the universe.

A cause is the sine qua non for an effect: if no cause, no effect.

Leading us back to the question of the first cause. A question that remains unanswerable unless one is prepared to consider that all that exists is, because the first cause made, and is making everything that exists. For we know that the universe is in constant expansion, therefore we can conclude that creation continues. We can further argue that the first cause remains the causation of the continuation of all that exists.

Reason invites each of us to understand that knowing, all that we know includes knowing, that we know so very little.

This is just a bunch of assumptions. Though I have to admit that beginning your "argument" with a statement that there can never be argument is very creative.

This however:

Reason invites each of us to understand that knowing, all that we know includes knowing, that we know so very little.

WOW just, wow, I'm truly speechless. Saying nothing at all has never sounded so portentous. You missed your calling. You should be wearing a sparkly turban, living in a mountain cave somewhere.

 

[TX-Beau]

No....it is an hypothesis that has no logical reasoning to support it. Making it popular with sci fi fans who enjoy being entertained by movies where parallel universe produce similar people...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

 

[FirmaFan]

The discussion is here, and now...not some distant future.

First cause cannot be verified, making any discussion specious....but, for argument's sake.....

First cause is never temporal, for it explains the reason for everything, therefore beyond defining.

Time is measurable within the context of what is known to human life.

The universe had a beginning therefore there is a causation that created the effect we call the universe.

A cause is the sine qua non for an effect: if no cause, no effect.

Leading us back to the question of the first cause. A question that remains unanswerable unless one is prepared to consider that all that exists is, because the first cause made, and is making everything that exists. For we know that the universe is in constant expansion, therefore we can conclude that creation continues. We can further argue that the first cause remains the causation of the continuation of all that exists.

Reason invites each of us to understand that knowing, all that we know includes knowing, that we know so very little.

Everything you are talking about with regards to causes and effects are always going to be within the medium of time. Time only began to exist with the universe. There can not be a "cause" before there was time.

 

[jbrown329]

No....it is an hypothesis that has no logical reasoning to support it. Making it popular with sci fi fans who enjoy being entertained by movies where parallel universe produce similar people. Jet Li's movie, The One demonstrates this idea. I enjoyed the film.

It's bizarre to use the multiverse hypothesis to explain only things we don’t understand.

Here's a trailer advertising The One.

The Case for Parallel Universes
Why the multiverse, crazy as it sounds, is a solid scientific idea (Scientific American)

 

[kallipolis]

^Max Tegmark's proposition is regularly dusted down, and cited as the "gospel truth" on behalf of multiverse fans.

That the decisions we make everyday appear a little absurd from the viewpoint of a single vast and eternal universe, it can be argued from the perspective of an infinite ensemble of universes containing infinite copies of ourselves, all making every possible choice, they are absolutely absurd. I am happy that sci fi fans can be entertained with the thought there is a doppelganger out there, resident in another dimension determined to make use of my bank account, even write these words to conceal his real identity.

I am a big fan of sci fi, with Ray Bradbury's works a staple in my daily diet, feeding my brain with fantastical reading matter.

 

[kallipolis]

Everything you are talking about with regards to causes and effects are always going to be within the medium of time. Time only began to exist with the universe. There can not be a "cause" before there was time.

For time to begin, as human life understands time, there had to have been a causation for that beginning.

That human life also measures time with the aid of a clock, it can be argued that in terms of time, homo sapiens emerged at five minutes to midnight, leading one to understand that the preceding fifty five minutes is beyond the scope of human appreciation. I've allowed for the dinosaur factor by embracing the thought that prior to the emergence of human life, time was ticking sufficiently for me not to speculate.