Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Saying something cannot be uncaused is only saying that it is caused. This in no way necessitates 'God' or a finite past that must be transversed to 'God.'
Energy/Matter can be eternal and if the Standard Big Bang is correct (which is by no means certain)nothing necessitates that it is not one in a sequence - energy/matter are not static and the 'Universe' has not remained in a static state since the BB nor was the 'Universe' caused as is at this moment - which is what the akward phrase 'the Universe was caused' implies.
As suggested earlier, and ignored, no model, even remotely, suggests that there was no cause to the universe as wee see it now or for energy/matter.
'What I mean by "self-caused" in this paper is that there is a certain type of whole of parts, namely, a temporal and causal sequence of different individuals, with each individual being caused by earlier individuals in the sequence. What I mean by "the universe is self-caused" is that (a) the universe is a whole of parts, specifically, a sequence of states of the universe, with each part or state being an individual; (b) the existence of each part (state) of the universe is caused by earlier parts of the universe; and (c) the reason the universe as a whole exists is either because it is composed of or is identical with these successively caused parts.'
And by the way Matt Slick from CARM is the most annoying and disingenuous fellow that there is - he certainly uses 'Slick' Logic to play his assertive and assumptive language games demanding people account for things he himself cannot account for - seems Vizio takes one right out of the Slick handbook. Vizio's modus operandi is made clear by this association. And by the way Quentin is a real Philospher with published papers unlike Mr. Slick.
All of this is beside the problems that a Being like God has in affecting nothing and bringing about something. Also, the above is just one of many different models that explains a cause - if a cause is even necessary - given the possibility of energy/matter being eternal.
Of course as we take time to answer these issues others (wink! wink!) just ignore the questions asked them and procede to strawmen and mischaracterizations and misuse of logic. Go figure!
The law of Cause and Effect states that nothing can exist without being caused. If you can't demonstrate how the universe exists, then we know the "no creator" option is false and the only logical conclusion is the only other one--that there was one.
Round and round and round and round and round and round and round and...
The law of Cause and Effect states that nothing can exist without being caused.
All our science "laws" refer to the universe in it's current form. All physicists acknowledge that our "laws" break down as we approach the big bang. You are using laws from one system and trying to apply them to another system therefore. That is not helpful.
For example "cause and effect" is a temporal law. That means: it requires "time" to be an attribute of the system you are speaking about. You can not have causality without time. Or at least... if you think you can.... then I would love to see your model for how before you submit it to the nobel prize committee for consideration.
"Time" however is an attribute that came into being "after" the big bang. So your attempts to apply causality arguments to a system where we have no reason to think it applies is crass, weak and false.
If I were doing as you say . . . it would be hypocritical. I cannot stop others from taking my witness about my views (opinions) as personal attacks on theirs. But . . . respect does not demand agreement . . . just tolerance. I have issues with both atheists and theists as this post reveals . . . but I respect their right to hold their beliefs. Polarized atheists ignore as not "on offer" or relevant all existing evidence and knowledge about reality including consciousness and the current intelligence and design that enables science to be possible. They focus on whether or not there is intelligence and design BEHIND the current existence of everything (the "chicken or egg" question) and ask for proof of God. Polarized theists ignore the current knowledge acquired through science over the intervening 2000+ years and maintain ignorant ancient beliefs and superstitions as a sign of their Faith in God. These descriptions reflect my opinion of the current status of the debate between the two most vocal and aggressive extremes. But I continue to respect their right to hold those beliefs. It is not mutual, however.
You apparently do not read your own post, at least with your self proclaimed open mind.
You continue to post hypocritical statements, then claim a lack of understanding on the part of others.
You claim to respect the beliefs of others and then proceed to tell that how wrong they are according to your beliefs. Yet you expect from others what you will not give yourself, respect.
The law of Cause and Effect states that nothing can exist without being caused. If you can't demonstrate how the universe exists, then we know the "no creator" option is false and the only logical conclusion is the only other one--that there was one.
You do know that your precious "law of cause and effect" is a human construct, right?
You continue to damage your position with your assumptions.
All our science "laws" refer to the universe in it's current form. All physicists acknowledge that our "laws" break down as we approach the big bang. You are using laws from one system and trying to apply them to another system therefore. That is not helpful.
For example "cause and effect" is a temporal law. That means: it requires "time" to be an attribute of the system you are speaking about. You can not have causality without time. Or at least... if you think you can.... then I would love to see your model for how before you submit it to the nobel prize committee for consideration.
"Time" however is an attribute that came into being "after" the big bang. So your attempts to apply causality arguments to a system where we have no reason to think it applies is crass, weak and false.
Are you making ANY assumptions with that theory?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
