Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Everything has a Cause

brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 3:36:46 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Why on earth would we assume that any currently unanswered question about physical existence would eventually turn out to be caused by God?

In ordinary every day life, you know intuitively that nothing happens in isolation. Every event can be traced to one or more events which preceded it and that, in fact, caused it. We ask: "How did this happen?" "What caused this?" "Where did this come from?" "When did it start?" Or,"Why did this happen?" Why do we do this? Because everything has a cause.

When we try to trace the event to its cause, we see that we never seem to reach a stopping point. The cause of the event was itself caused by a prior cause, which was affected by a previous cause, and so on back infinitely and eternally. If I said there was a fire at my house, your instant reaction is "what caused the fire?"

The very basis of the scientific method is this exact law of causality. This is the idea that effects are in and like their causes, and that like causes produce like effects. Science would become completely impossible if cause and effect should cease.

This law inevitably leads to a choice between two alternatives:

1) an infinite chain of nonprimary causes, essentially nothing ultimately responsible for all observable causes and effects.

or"

2)An uncaused primary Cause of all causes or the One absolute Cause that initiated everything.

Investigators on an accident scene, will use the principles of cause and effect every time to determine who was they think was responsible and how it happened. Eventually, we must face the looming question of what was the the original cause. If we reject an "original cause", we must form some idea of how that can be. I will share some answers I have heard from notheists.

1)There was a "nontime" before time.
(This suggests that reality jumped into existance from a'tenseless state')Think about it...

2)Reality is infinite. Time is infinite.

**This becomes a paradox answer. Why? Because it leaves us philosophically at quite the exotic conclusion. Our conclusion is this: That everything has happened is happening, and will happen again. It suggests no "first cause", which is the equivalent of saying everyone has a mother but there is no first mother. It suggests parralel universes in where there are infinite numbers of you and everyone you know in infinite reality and time. There is no limit to anything. Everything and everyone exist infinite times in reality. Now try to imagine a reality that never ever ends. It's impossible to the philosophical mind unless you implement an outside "cause".

The fundamental question for a Creationist in reference to nontheism is:
If we contend that "there is no god" is the truth, then we must ask which paradox should one subscribe to and philosophically how do we justify it logically?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 3:57:29 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 3:36:46 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Why on earth would we assume that any currently unanswered question about physical existence would eventually turn out to be caused by God?

In ordinary every day life, you know intuitively that nothing happens in isolation. Every event can be traced to one or more events which preceded it and that, in fact, caused it. We ask: "How did this happen?" "What caused this?" "Where did this come from?" "When did it start?" Or,"Why did this happen?" Why do we do this? Because everything has a cause.

When we try to trace the event to its cause, we see that we never seem to reach a stopping point. The cause of the event was itself caused by a prior cause, which was affected by a previous cause, and so on back infinitely and eternally. If I said there was a fire at my house, your instant reaction is "what caused the fire?"

The very basis of the scientific method is this exact law of causality. This is the idea that effects are in and like their causes, and that like causes produce like effects. Science would become completely impossible if cause and effect should cease.

Causes produce "like" effects ? what the hell does that mean ?

Give an example of something that would violate that law. I think your just making sh*t up there, it's a vague term that can be adjusted to suit purpose.

You know like, kind only begets kind.............


This law inevitably leads to a choice between two alternatives:

1) an infinite chain of nonprimary causes, essentially nothing ultimately responsible for all observable causes and effects.

or"

2)An uncaused primary Cause of all causes or the One absolute Cause that initiated everything.

Investigators on an accident scene, will use the principles of cause and effect every time to determine who was they think was responsible and how it happened. Eventually, we must face the looming question of what was the the original cause. If we reject an "original cause", we must form some idea of how that can be. I will share some answers I have heard from notheists.

1)There was a "nontime" before time.
(This suggests that reality jumped into existance from a'tenseless state')Think about it...

2)Reality is infinite. Time is infinite.

**This becomes a paradox answer. Why? Because it leaves us philosophically at quite the exotic conclusion. Our conclusion is this: That everything has happened is happening, and will happen again. It suggests no "first cause", which is the equivalent of saying everyone has a mother but there is no first mother. It suggests parralel universes in where there are infinite numbers of you and everyone you know in infinite reality and time. There is no limit to anything. Everything and everyone exist infinite times in reality. Now try to imagine a reality that never ever ends. It's impossible to the philosophical mind unless you implement an outside "cause".

I have no problem as a concept with the everything that is possible happens. Now whether that is actually true or not..............

SO I reject your it's impossible for the mind...............that may be true for your mind, doesn't mean it true for other minds thank you very much.

The fundamental question for a Creationist in reference to nontheism is:
If we contend that "there is no god" is the truth, then we must ask which paradox should one subscribe to and philosophically how do we justify it logically?

Like many God believers you stack the deck, it can't be this, it's absurd................so probably God.

Here is a few problems for you.............

1) The scientific understanding of casualty only applies "within" the universe. So what ever justification you use on that causality breaks down once you go outside the universe.

When you start talking about a "cause" outside of the universe at best your equivocating at worse your applying something to which something can't be applied (how heavy is the number 2 ?)

2) Even if there is a "first cause/prime mover" to act as an anchor in some causal chain it's merely asserted that "God" is the first cause.

Once you open the door up to things can exist without themselves needing a cause, you can't just say God, only God, then shut that door. In other words it just special pleading for God, and it gets tiresome.

So open the door that things can exist without needing a cause, by all means.............
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 4:08:01 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 3:57:29 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/6/2016 3:36:46 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Why on earth would we assume that any currently unanswered question about physical existence would eventually turn out to be caused by God?

In ordinary every day life, you know intuitively that nothing happens in isolation. Every event can be traced to one or more events which preceded it and that, in fact, caused it. We ask: "How did this happen?" "What caused this?" "Where did this come from?" "When did it start?" Or,"Why did this happen?" Why do we do this? Because everything has a cause.

When we try to trace the event to its cause, we see that we never seem to reach a stopping point. The cause of the event was itself caused by a prior cause, which was affected by a previous cause, and so on back infinitely and eternally. If I said there was a fire at my house, your instant reaction is "what caused the fire?"

The very basis of the scientific method is this exact law of causality. This is the idea that effects are in and like their causes, and that like causes produce like effects. Science would become completely impossible if cause and effect should cease.

Causes produce "like" effects ? what the hell does that mean ?

Give an example of something that would violate that law. I think your just making sh*t up there, it's a vague term that can be adjusted to suit purpose.

You know like, kind only begets kind.............


This law inevitably leads to a choice between two alternatives:

1) an infinite chain of nonprimary causes, essentially nothing ultimately responsible for all observable causes and effects.

or"

2)An uncaused primary Cause of all causes or the One absolute Cause that initiated everything.

Investigators on an accident scene, will use the principles of cause and effect every time to determine who was they think was responsible and how it happened. Eventually, we must face the looming question of what was the the original cause. If we reject an "original cause", we must form some idea of how that can be. I will share some answers I have heard from notheists.

1)There was a "nontime" before time.
(This suggests that reality jumped into existance from a'tenseless state')Think about it...

2)Reality is infinite. Time is infinite.

**This becomes a paradox answer. Why? Because it leaves us philosophically at quite the exotic conclusion. Our conclusion is this: That everything has happened is happening, and will happen again. It suggests no "first cause", which is the equivalent of saying everyone has a mother but there is no first mother. It suggests parralel universes in where there are infinite numbers of you and everyone you know in infinite reality and time. There is no limit to anything. Everything and everyone exist infinite times in reality. Now try to imagine a reality that never ever ends. It's impossible to the philosophical mind unless you implement an outside "cause".

I have no problem as a concept with the everything that is possible happens. Now whether that is actually true or not..............

SO I reject your it's impossible for the mind...............that may be true for your mind, doesn't mean it true for other minds thank you very much.

The fundamental question for a Creationist in reference to nontheism is:
If we contend that "there is no god" is the truth, then we must ask which paradox should one subscribe to and philosophically how do we justify it logically?

Like many God believers you stack the deck, it can't be this, it's absurd................so probably God.

Here is a few problems for you.............

1) The scientific understanding of casualty only applies "within" the universe. So what ever justification you use on that causality breaks down once you go outside the universe.

When you start talking about a "cause" outside of the universe at best your equivocating at worse your applying something to which something can't be applied (how heavy is the number 2 ?)

2) Even if there is a "first cause/prime mover" to act as an anchor in some causal chain it's merely asserted that "God" is the first cause.

Once you open the door up to things can exist without themselves needing a cause, you can't just say God, only God, then shut that door. In other words it just special pleading for God, and it gets tiresome.

So open the door that things can exist without needing a cause, by all means.............

Okay, give an example of

1)something you can prove had no cause.

2)An example of a nonspecies begatting another species.

Then offer us your explanation philosophically for a first agent with no cause.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 4:15:58 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
The scientific method model

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 4:23:19 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 4:08:01 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/6/2016 3:57:29 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/6/2016 3:36:46 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Why on earth would we assume that any currently unanswered question about physical existence would eventually turn out to be caused by God?

In ordinary every day life, you know intuitively that nothing happens in isolation. Every event can be traced to one or more events which preceded it and that, in fact, caused it. We ask: "How did this happen?" "What caused this?" "Where did this come from?" "When did it start?" Or,"Why did this happen?" Why do we do this? Because everything has a cause.

When we try to trace the event to its cause, we see that we never seem to reach a stopping point. The cause of the event was itself caused by a prior cause, which was affected by a previous cause, and so on back infinitely and eternally. If I said there was a fire at my house, your instant reaction is "what caused the fire?"

The very basis of the scientific method is this exact law of causality. This is the idea that effects are in and like their causes, and that like causes produce like effects. Science would become completely impossible if cause and effect should cease.

Causes produce "like" effects ? what the hell does that mean ?

Give an example of something that would violate that law. I think your just making sh*t up there, it's a vague term that can be adjusted to suit purpose.

You know like, kind only begets kind.............


This law inevitably leads to a choice between two alternatives:

1) an infinite chain of nonprimary causes, essentially nothing ultimately responsible for all observable causes and effects.

or"

2)An uncaused primary Cause of all causes or the One absolute Cause that initiated everything.

Investigators on an accident scene, will use the principles of cause and effect every time to determine who was they think was responsible and how it happened. Eventually, we must face the looming question of what was the the original cause. If we reject an "original cause", we must form some idea of how that can be. I will share some answers I have heard from notheists.

1)There was a "nontime" before time.
(This suggests that reality jumped into existance from a'tenseless state')Think about it...

2)Reality is infinite. Time is infinite.

**This becomes a paradox answer. Why? Because it leaves us philosophically at quite the exotic conclusion. Our conclusion is this: That everything has happened is happening, and will happen again. It suggests no "first cause", which is the equivalent of saying everyone has a mother but there is no first mother. It suggests parralel universes in where there are infinite numbers of you and everyone you know in infinite reality and time. There is no limit to anything. Everything and everyone exist infinite times in reality. Now try to imagine a reality that never ever ends. It's impossible to the philosophical mind unless you implement an outside "cause".

I have no problem as a concept with the everything that is possible happens. Now whether that is actually true or not..............

SO I reject your it's impossible for the mind...............that may be true for your mind, doesn't mean it true for other minds thank you very much.

The fundamental question for a Creationist in reference to nontheism is:
If we contend that "there is no god" is the truth, then we must ask which paradox should one subscribe to and philosophically how do we justify it logically?

Like many God believers you stack the deck, it can't be this, it's absurd................so probably God.

Here is a few problems for you.............

1) The scientific understanding of casualty only applies "within" the universe. So what ever justification you use on that causality breaks down once you go outside the universe.

When you start talking about a "cause" outside of the universe at best your equivocating at worse your applying something to which something can't be applied (how heavy is the number 2 ?)

2) Even if there is a "first cause/prime mover" to act as an anchor in some causal chain it's merely asserted that "God" is the first cause.

Once you open the door up to things can exist without themselves needing a cause, you can't just say God, only God, then shut that door. In other words it just special pleading for God, and it gets tiresome.

So open the door that things can exist without needing a cause, by all means.............

Okay, give an example of

1)something you can prove had no cause.

Your kidding me right ? your the one who wanted to play the God exists without a cause card.

And I am making the point, fine, you want to go down the road that things can exist without a cause fine, just don't think you can get away with merely claiming that can only apply to God (special pleading for God)


2)An example of a nonspecies begatting another species.

Sorry, what was that law again about causes produce "like" effects ? LOL.

Give it up dude.



Then offer us your explanation philosophically for a first agent with no cause.

Why is God the only thing that can exist without a cause again ? because the religious say so ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 4:29:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 4:23:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/6/2016 4:08:01 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/6/2016 3:57:29 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/6/2016 3:36:46 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Why on earth would we assume that any currently unanswered question about physical existence would eventually turn out to be caused by God?

In ordinary every day life, you know intuitively that nothing happens in isolation. Every event can be traced to one or more events which preceded it and that, in fact, caused it. We ask: "How did this happen?" "What caused this?" "Where did this come from?" "When did it start?" Or,"Why did this happen?" Why do we do this? Because everything has a cause.

When we try to trace the event to its cause, we see that we never seem to reach a stopping point. The cause of the event was itself caused by a prior cause, which was affected by a previous cause, and so on back infinitely and eternally. If I said there was a fire at my house, your instant reaction is "what caused the fire?"

The very basis of the scientific method is this exact law of causality. This is the idea that effects are in and like their causes, and that like causes produce like effects. Science would become completely impossible if cause and effect should cease.

Causes produce "like" effects ? what the hell does that mean ?

Give an example of something that would violate that law. I think your just making sh*t up there, it's a vague term that can be adjusted to suit purpose.

You know like, kind only begets kind.............


This law inevitably leads to a choice between two alternatives:

1) an infinite chain of nonprimary causes, essentially nothing ultimately responsible for all observable causes and effects.

or"

2)An uncaused primary Cause of all causes or the One absolute Cause that initiated everything.

Investigators on an accident scene, will use the principles of cause and effect every time to determine who was they think was responsible and how it happened. Eventually, we must face the looming question of what was the the original cause. If we reject an "original cause", we must form some idea of how that can be. I will share some answers I have heard from notheists.

1)There was a "nontime" before time.
(This suggests that reality jumped into existance from a'tenseless state')Think about it...

2)Reality is infinite. Time is infinite.

**This becomes a paradox answer. Why? Because it leaves us philosophically at quite the exotic conclusion. Our conclusion is this: That everything has happened is happening, and will happen again. It suggests no "first cause", which is the equivalent of saying everyone has a mother but there is no first mother. It suggests parralel universes in where there are infinite numbers of you and everyone you know in infinite reality and time. There is no limit to anything. Everything and everyone exist infinite times in reality. Now try to imagine a reality that never ever ends. It's impossible to the philosophical mind unless you implement an outside "cause".

I have no problem as a concept with the everything that is possible happens. Now whether that is actually true or not..............

SO I reject your it's impossible for the mind...............that may be true for your mind, doesn't mean it true for other minds thank you very much.

The fundamental question for a Creationist in reference to nontheism is:
If we contend that "there is no god" is the truth, then we must ask which paradox should one subscribe to and philosophically how do we justify it logically?

Like many God believers you stack the deck, it can't be this, it's absurd................so probably God.

Here is a few problems for you.............

1) The scientific understanding of casualty only applies "within" the universe. So what ever justification you use on that causality breaks down once you go outside the universe.

When you start talking about a "cause" outside of the universe at best your equivocating at worse your applying something to which something can't be applied (how heavy is the number 2 ?)

2) Even if there is a "first cause/prime mover" to act as an anchor in some causal chain it's merely asserted that "God" is the first cause.

Once you open the door up to things can exist without themselves needing a cause, you can't just say God, only God, then shut that door. In other words it just special pleading for God, and it gets tiresome.

So open the door that things can exist without needing a cause, by all means.............

Okay, give an example of

1)something you can prove had no cause.

Your kidding me right ? your the one who wanted to play the God exists without a cause card.

And I am making the point, fine, you want to go down the road that things can exist without a cause fine, just don't think you can get away with merely claiming that can only apply to God (special pleading for God)



2)An example of a nonspecies begatting another species.

Sorry, what was that law again about causes produce "like" effects ? LOL.

Give it up dude.



Then offer us your explanation philosophically for a first agent with no cause.

Why is God the only thing that can exist without a cause again ? because the religious say so ?

There's a philosophical difference. Any answer an Atheist can try to come with will have a cause within the constructs of OUR reality. In our reality, everything has a cause. God would not be from OUR reality. If you have watched the movie "Interstellar" you see an example of"a reality where time is quantumized. In other dimensions the construct of time is defined in different points than in the 3rd dimension.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 4:33:26 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 4:23:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/6/2016 4:08:01 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/6/2016 3:57:29 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/6/2016 3:36:46 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Why on earth would we assume that any currently unanswered question about physical existence would eventually turn out to be caused by God?

In ordinary every day life, you know intuitively that nothing happens in isolation. Every event can be traced to one or more events which preceded it and that, in fact, caused it. We ask: "How did this happen?" "What caused this?" "Where did this come from?" "When did it start?" Or,"Why did this happen?" Why do we do this? Because everything has a cause.

When we try to trace the event to its cause, we see that we never seem to reach a stopping point. The cause of the event was itself caused by a prior cause, which was affected by a previous cause, and so on back infinitely and eternally. If I said there was a fire at my house, your instant reaction is "what caused the fire?"

The very basis of the scientific method is this exact law of causality. This is the idea that effects are in and like their causes, and that like causes produce like effects. Science would become completely impossible if cause and effect should cease.

Causes produce "like" effects ? what the hell does that mean ?

Give an example of something that would violate that law. I think your just making sh*t up there, it's a vague term that can be adjusted to suit purpose.

You know like, kind only begets kind.............


This law inevitably leads to a choice between two alternatives:

1) an infinite chain of nonprimary causes, essentially nothing ultimately responsible for all observable causes and effects.

or"

2)An uncaused primary Cause of all causes or the One absolute Cause that initiated everything.

Investigators on an accident scene, will use the principles of cause and effect every time to determine who was they think was responsible and how it happened. Eventually, we must face the looming question of what was the the original cause. If we reject an "original cause", we must form some idea of how that can be. I will share some answers I have heard from notheists.

1)There was a "nontime" before time.
(This suggests that reality jumped into existance from a'tenseless state')Think about it...

2)Reality is infinite. Time is infinite.

**This becomes a paradox answer. Why? Because it leaves us philosophically at quite the exotic conclusion. Our conclusion is this: That everything has happened is happening, and will happen again. It suggests no "first cause", which is the equivalent of saying everyone has a mother but there is no first mother. It suggests parralel universes in where there are infinite numbers of you and everyone you know in infinite reality and time. There is no limit to anything. Everything and everyone exist infinite times in reality. Now try to imagine a reality that never ever ends. It's impossible to the philosophical mind unless you implement an outside "cause".

I have no problem as a concept with the everything that is possible happens. Now whether that is actually true or not..............

SO I reject your it's impossible for the mind...............that may be true for your mind, doesn't mean it true for other minds thank you very much.

The fundamental question for a Creationist in reference to nontheism is:
If we contend that "there is no god" is the truth, then we must ask which paradox should one subscribe to and philosophically how do we justify it logically?

Like many God believers you stack the deck, it can't be this, it's absurd................so probably God.

Here is a few problems for you.............

1) The scientific understanding of casualty only applies "within" the universe. So what ever justification you use on that causality breaks down once you go outside the universe.

When you start talking about a "cause" outside of the universe at best your equivocating at worse your applying something to which something can't be applied (how heavy is the number 2 ?)

2) Even if there is a "first cause/prime mover" to act as an anchor in some causal chain it's merely asserted that "God" is the first cause.

Once you open the door up to things can exist without themselves needing a cause, you can't just say God, only God, then shut that door. In other words it just special pleading for God, and it gets tiresome.

So open the door that things can exist without needing a cause, by all means.............

Okay, give an example of

1)something you can prove had no cause.

Your kidding me right ? your the one who wanted to play the God exists without a cause card.

And I am making the point, fine, you want to go down the road that things can exist without a cause fine, just don't think you can get away with merely claiming that can only apply to God (special pleading for God)



2)An example of a nonspecies begatting another species.

Sorry, what was that law again about causes produce "like" effects ? LOL.

Give it up dude.



Then offer us your explanation philosophically for a first agent with no cause.

Why is God the only thing that can exist without a cause again ? because the religious say so ?

God is the best explanation. There could be other attempts at a noncaused explanation, but that answer would in and of itself have to come from outside of our reality to be "noncaused".
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 4:39:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 4:33:26 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/6/2016 4:23:19 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/6/2016 4:08:01 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/6/2016 3:57:29 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 2/6/2016 3:36:46 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Why on earth would we assume that any currently unanswered question about physical existence would eventually turn out to be caused by God?

In ordinary every day life, you know intuitively that nothing happens in isolation. Every event can be traced to one or more events which preceded it and that, in fact, caused it. We ask: "How did this happen?" "What caused this?" "Where did this come from?" "When did it start?" Or,"Why did this happen?" Why do we do this? Because everything has a cause.

When we try to trace the event to its cause, we see that we never seem to reach a stopping point. The cause of the event was itself caused by a prior cause, which was affected by a previous cause, and so on back infinitely and eternally. If I said there was a fire at my house, your instant reaction is "what caused the fire?"

The very basis of the scientific method is this exact law of causality. This is the idea that effects are in and like their causes, and that like causes produce like effects. Science would become completely impossible if cause and effect should cease.

Causes produce "like" effects ? what the hell does that mean ?

Give an example of something that would violate that law. I think your just making sh*t up there, it's a vague term that can be adjusted to suit purpose.

You know like, kind only begets kind.............


This law inevitably leads to a choice between two alternatives:

1) an infinite chain of nonprimary causes, essentially nothing ultimately responsible for all observable causes and effects.

or"

2)An uncaused primary Cause of all causes or the One absolute Cause that initiated everything.

Investigators on an accident scene, will use the principles of cause and effect every time to determine who was they think was responsible and how it happened. Eventually, we must face the looming question of what was the the original cause. If we reject an "original cause", we must form some idea of how that can be. I will share some answers I have heard from notheists.

1)There was a "nontime" before time.
(This suggests that reality jumped into existance from a'tenseless state')Think about it...

2)Reality is infinite. Time is infinite.

**This becomes a paradox answer. Why? Because it leaves us philosophically at quite the exotic conclusion. Our conclusion is this: That everything has happened is happening, and will happen again. It suggests no "first cause", which is the equivalent of saying everyone has a mother but there is no first mother. It suggests parralel universes in where there are infinite numbers of you and everyone you know in infinite reality and time. There is no limit to anything. Everything and everyone exist infinite times in reality. Now try to imagine a reality that never ever ends. It's impossible to the philosophical mind unless you implement an outside "cause".

I have no problem as a concept with the everything that is possible happens. Now whether that is actually true or not..............

SO I reject your it's impossible for the mind...............that may be true for your mind, doesn't mean it true for other minds thank you very much.

The fundamental question for a Creationist in reference to nontheism is:
If we contend that "there is no god" is the truth, then we must ask which paradox should one subscribe to and philosophically how do we justify it logically?

Like many God believers you stack the deck, it can't be this, it's absurd................so probably God.

Here is a few problems for you.............

1) The scientific understanding of casualty only applies "within" the universe. So what ever justification you use on that causality breaks down once you go outside the universe.

When you start talking about a "cause" outside of the universe at best your equivocating at worse your applying something to which something can't be applied (how heavy is the number 2 ?)

2) Even if there is a "first cause/prime mover" to act as an anchor in some causal chain it's merely asserted that "God" is the first cause.

Once you open the door up to things can exist without themselves needing a cause, you can't just say God, only God, then shut that door. In other words it just special pleading for God, and it gets tiresome.

So open the door that things can exist without needing a cause, by all means.............

Okay, give an example of

1)something you can prove had no cause.

Your kidding me right ? your the one who wanted to play the God exists without a cause card.

And I am making the point, fine, you want to go down the road that things can exist without a cause fine, just don't think you can get away with merely claiming that can only apply to God (special pleading for God)



2)An example of a nonspecies begatting another species.

Sorry, what was that law again about causes produce "like" effects ? LOL.

Give it up dude.



Then offer us your explanation philosophically for a first agent with no cause.

Why is God the only thing that can exist without a cause again ? because the religious say so ?

God is the best explanation. There could be other attempts at a noncaused explanation, but that answer would in and of itself have to come from outside of our reality to be "noncaused".

I think you mean outside our universe.

And once again, the religious merely assert that God is the only thing that can exist without a cause. You know, cause it makes their side of the argument so much easier.

Once you open the door to the possibility that things can exist without a cause..................
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 4:46:54 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 3:36:46 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Why on earth would we assume that any currently unanswered question about physical existence would eventually turn out to be caused by God?

In ordinary every day life, you know intuitively that nothing happens in isolation. Every event can be traced to one or more events which preceded it and that, in fact, caused it. We ask: "How did this happen?" "What caused this?" "Where did this come from?" "When did it start?" Or,"Why did this happen?" Why do we do this? Because everything has a cause.

When we try to trace the event to its cause, we see that we never seem to reach a stopping point. The cause of the event was itself caused by a prior cause, which was affected by a previous cause, and so on back infinitely and eternally. If I said there was a fire at my house, your instant reaction is "what caused the fire?"

The very basis of the scientific method is this exact law of causality. This is the idea that effects are in and like their causes, and that like causes produce like effects. Science would become completely impossible if cause and effect should cease.

This law inevitably leads to a choice between two alternatives:

1) an infinite chain of nonprimary causes, essentially nothing ultimately responsible for all observable causes and effects.

or"

2)An uncaused primary Cause of all causes or the One absolute Cause that initiated everything.

Investigators on an accident scene, will use the principles of cause and effect every time to determine who was they think was responsible and how it happened. Eventually, we must face the looming question of what was the the original cause. If we reject an "original cause", we must form some idea of how that can be. I will share some answers I have heard from notheists.

1)There was a "nontime" before time.
(This suggests that reality jumped into existance from a'tenseless state')Think about it...

2)Reality is infinite. Time is infinite.

**This becomes a paradox answer. Why? Because it leaves us philosophically at quite the exotic conclusion. Our conclusion is this: That everything has happened is happening, and will happen again. It suggests no "first cause", which is the equivalent of saying everyone has a mother but there is no first mother. It suggests parralel universes in where there are infinite numbers of you and everyone you know in infinite reality and time. There is no limit to anything. Everything and everyone exist infinite times in reality. Now try to imagine a reality that never ever ends. It's impossible to the philosophical mind unless you implement an outside "cause".

The fundamental question for a Creationist in reference to nontheism is:
If we contend that "there is no god" is the truth, then we must ask which paradox should one subscribe to and philosophically how do we justify it logically?

Argument plagiarized from...

http://www.icr.org...
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 5:45:12 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Since you have told me you are a fan of WLC, this is what he defines "begins to exist" means in his KCA:
e comes into being at t if and only if
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact.

This means that it presupposes the A-Theory of Time and Presentism.
If the universe is tenseless (which modern science supports), then the universe cannot have begun to exist.
As the KCA says that that which begins to exist has a cause (which is an appeal to intuition fallacy), that means that a tenseless universe can be said not to have a cause.

This allows for the universe to be finite in time but always existed, no cause needed.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 7:37:11 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 5:45:12 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Since you have told me you are a fan of WLC, this is what he defines "begins to exist" means in his KCA:
e comes into being at t if and only if
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact.

This means that it presupposes the A-Theory of Time and Presentism.
If the universe is tenseless (which modern science supports), then the universe cannot have begun to exist.
As the KCA says that that which begins to exist has a cause (which is an appeal to intuition fallacy), that means that a tenseless universe can be said not to have a cause.

This allows for the universe to be finite in time but always existed, no cause needed.

"Tenseless" is a mythological concept that has no meaning. It's an imaginary concept.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 7:38:52 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 7:37:11 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/6/2016 5:45:12 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Since you have told me you are a fan of WLC, this is what he defines "begins to exist" means in his KCA:
e comes into being at t if and only if
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact.

This means that it presupposes the A-Theory of Time and Presentism.
If the universe is tenseless (which modern science supports), then the universe cannot have begun to exist.
As the KCA says that that which begins to exist has a cause (which is an appeal to intuition fallacy), that means that a tenseless universe can be said not to have a cause.

This allows for the universe to be finite in time but always existed, no cause needed.

"Tenseless" is a mythological concept that has no meaning. It's an imaginary concept.

Except that it isn't. That is why there is such a thing as the B and C Theories of Time...
THIS, this is why you aren't worth talking to. You have no understanding of metaphysics and just try and sound intelligent when you are really just talking out of you ***.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 7:47:02 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 7:38:52 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/6/2016 7:37:11 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/6/2016 5:45:12 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Since you have told me you are a fan of WLC, this is what he defines "begins to exist" means in his KCA:
e comes into being at t if and only if
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact.

This means that it presupposes the A-Theory of Time and Presentism.
If the universe is tenseless (which modern science supports), then the universe cannot have begun to exist.
As the KCA says that that which begins to exist has a cause (which is an appeal to intuition fallacy), that means that a tenseless universe can be said not to have a cause.

This allows for the universe to be finite in time but always existed, no cause needed.

"Tenseless" is a mythological concept that has no meaning. It's an imaginary concept.

Except that it isn't. That is why there is such a thing as the B and C Theories of Time...
THIS, this is why you aren't worth talking to. You have no understanding of metaphysics and just try and sound intelligent when you are really just talking out of you ***.

I am or you are? If something was "tenseless" it wouldn't then magically become of tense. You are citing a theoretical and philosophical concept, not a scientific concept that exists in reality. If something was tenseless it wouldn't move, it would be frozen. If something were tenseless, it would be like a picture. The people in the picture don't suddenly start walking around. Without tense there no potential for anything. If you believe in completely mythological concepts, you might as well believe in one that is helpful vs destructive.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 7:49:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 7:38:52 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/6/2016 7:37:11 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/6/2016 5:45:12 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Since you have told me you are a fan of WLC, this is what he defines "begins to exist" means in his KCA:
e comes into being at t if and only if
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact.

This means that it presupposes the A-Theory of Time and Presentism.
If the universe is tenseless (which modern science supports), then the universe cannot have begun to exist.
As the KCA says that that which begins to exist has a cause (which is an appeal to intuition fallacy), that means that a tenseless universe can be said not to have a cause.

This allows for the universe to be finite in time but always existed, no cause needed.

"Tenseless" is a mythological concept that has no meaning. It's an imaginary concept.

Except that it isn't. That is why there is such a thing as the B and C Theories of Time...
THIS, this is why you aren't worth talking to. You have no understanding of metaphysics and just try and sound intelligent when you are really just talking out of you ***.

You yourself referred to them as theories, which they are. They are being presented as actual proven concepts which is incorrect.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 7:56:04 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 7:47:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/6/2016 7:38:52 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/6/2016 7:37:11 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/6/2016 5:45:12 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Since you have told me you are a fan of WLC, this is what he defines "begins to exist" means in his KCA:
e comes into being at t if and only if
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact.

This means that it presupposes the A-Theory of Time and Presentism.
If the universe is tenseless (which modern science supports), then the universe cannot have begun to exist.
As the KCA says that that which begins to exist has a cause (which is an appeal to intuition fallacy), that means that a tenseless universe can be said not to have a cause.

This allows for the universe to be finite in time but always existed, no cause needed.

"Tenseless" is a mythological concept that has no meaning. It's an imaginary concept.

Except that it isn't. That is why there is such a thing as the B and C Theories of Time...
THIS, this is why you aren't worth talking to. You have no understanding of metaphysics and just try and sound intelligent when you are really just talking out of you ***.

I am or you are? If something was "tenseless" it wouldn't then magically become of tense. You are citing a theoretical and philosophical concept, not a scientific concept that exists in reality. If something was tenseless it wouldn't move, it would be frozen. If something were tenseless, it would be like a picture. The people in the picture don't suddenly start walking around. Without tense there no potential for anything. If you believe in completely mythological concepts, you might as well believe in one that is helpful vs destructive.

The universe IS static from a noumenal/observer view. We are under the illusion of it changing, but it is, in reality, static.

It is like you never decided to study metaphysics yet want to pretend you are an expert in it.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 8:04:40 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 7:56:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/6/2016 7:47:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/6/2016 7:38:52 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/6/2016 7:37:11 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/6/2016 5:45:12 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Since you have told me you are a fan of WLC, this is what he defines "begins to exist" means in his KCA:
e comes into being at t if and only if
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact.

This means that it presupposes the A-Theory of Time and Presentism.
If the universe is tenseless (which modern science supports), then the universe cannot have begun to exist.
As the KCA says that that which begins to exist has a cause (which is an appeal to intuition fallacy), that means that a tenseless universe can be said not to have a cause.

This allows for the universe to be finite in time but always existed, no cause needed.

"Tenseless" is a mythological concept that has no meaning. It's an imaginary concept.

Except that it isn't. That is why there is such a thing as the B and C Theories of Time...
THIS, this is why you aren't worth talking to. You have no understanding of metaphysics and just try and sound intelligent when you are really just talking out of you ***.

I am or you are? If something was "tenseless" it wouldn't then magically become of tense. You are citing a theoretical and philosophical concept, not a scientific concept that exists in reality. If something was tenseless it wouldn't move, it would be frozen. If something were tenseless, it would be like a picture. The people in the picture don't suddenly start walking around. Without tense there no potential for anything. If you believe in completely mythological concepts, you might as well believe in one that is helpful vs destructive.

The universe IS static from a noumenal/observer view. We are under the illusion of it changing, but it is, in reality, static.

It is like you never decided to study metaphysics yet want to pretend you are an expert in it.

You have no idea what I have knowledge about. You are hoping to toss as many darts as you can hoping something sticks as a defense mechanism. If this were an illusion it would most certainly point towards intelligent design. Otherwise nothingness created the illusion of organs inside of our bodies, love, hate, greed, etc. History would be an illusion. Atheism would be an illusion.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 8:19:07 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/6/2016 7:56:04 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/6/2016 7:47:02 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/6/2016 7:38:52 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 2/6/2016 7:37:11 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 2/6/2016 5:45:12 PM, SNP1 wrote:
Since you have told me you are a fan of WLC, this is what he defines "begins to exist" means in his KCA:
e comes into being at t if and only if
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact.

This means that it presupposes the A-Theory of Time and Presentism.
If the universe is tenseless (which modern science supports), then the universe cannot have begun to exist.
As the KCA says that that which begins to exist has a cause (which is an appeal to intuition fallacy), that means that a tenseless universe can be said not to have a cause.

This allows for the universe to be finite in time but always existed, no cause needed.

"Tenseless" is a mythological concept that has no meaning. It's an imaginary concept.

Except that it isn't. That is why there is such a thing as the B and C Theories of Time...
THIS, this is why you aren't worth talking to. You have no understanding of metaphysics and just try and sound intelligent when you are really just talking out of you ***.

I am or you are? If something was "tenseless" it wouldn't then magically become of tense. You are citing a theoretical and philosophical concept, not a scientific concept that exists in reality. If something was tenseless it wouldn't move, it would be frozen. If something were tenseless, it would be like a picture. The people in the picture don't suddenly start walking around. Without tense there no potential for anything. If you believe in completely mythological concepts, you might as well believe in one that is helpful vs destructive.

The universe IS static from a noumenal/observer view. We are under the illusion of it changing, but it is, in reality, static.

It is like you never decided to study metaphysics yet want to pretend you are an expert in it.

Let's get right down to the nitty gritty of "metaphysics" SNP1 before we get too far.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/6/2016 8:19:33 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Metaphysics
noun
-The branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
Abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality.

https://www.rep.routledge.com...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...