First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
The Universe, god can't have created it
1814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/19/10 , edited 3/19/10
Here's a short post about the Law of Cause and Effect. Well, it will be short for me anyway.

This is the most basic law of science. Every effect must have a cause. The cause will be greater than the effect itself. Every event has a cause. The beginning of the universe was an event. Whatever the cause is, it will be greater than the effect itself. We live in a very orderly and complex universe.

That being said, then the logical conclusion is that if the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe it would have contained more energy and matter than is currently in the universe. Where did the energy come from? Where did the matter come from? What triggered this energy and matter to act outside of the laws of nature -- by exploding and spontaneously generating? How does this explosion cause order while every other explosion ever observed and recorded in history caused only disorder and disarray?

That being said, then the logical conclusion is that if God brought about the beginning of the universe he would have to embody more energy and matter than is currently in the universe -- to be the greater cause of a great effect. Huh. Isn't that what the Bible already states? "Omnipotent" and "Eternal" pretty much covers the prerequisites of the Law of Cause and Effect.

Does the answer seem too simple? Sometimes the truth is -- which is why I generally subscribe to the philosophy of Occam's Razor -- the simplest answer is usually the right one.
13258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / O.C. So.Cal
Offline
Posted 3/26/10 , edited 3/26/10
With this reasoning, you can conclude nothing.
181 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Seattle, WA
Offline
Posted 3/27/10
I'm positive it has been touched on a bunch of times in this thread, but saying that God created the universe doesn't solve anything... You've basically just moved the goal post because you've failed to explain who created the creator.

It's a pretty basic logical trap.
69 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41 / M / Ossining, NY
Offline
Posted 3/30/10
Wow Occam's razor and a basic primer on St. Thomas Aquinas's chain of cause and effect. "Every effect must have a cause, but you can not have an infinite chain, so at some point there must be that uncaused cause which we choose to call God." Pretty sure that's the quote, but it
has been a few years.

While I'm at it, anyone mind if we toss St. Augustine into the mix? "If you were to find a watch, logically it's complexity would necessitate the conclusion that there had to be a watch maker. Since the universe/nature is more complex than a watch, that necessarily implies the presence of a creator or god."

Last philosopher I'd like to reference would be William James, the great pragmatist. The argument is as follows: You should believe in God because if he doesn't exist your belief doesn't really bring you any harm, but if he does exist and you don't believe you risk damnation. Interesting writer, loads more fun than his stodgy brother Henry.
Posted 3/30/10

animeandshakespeare wrote:

Wow Occam's razor and a basic primer on St. Thomas Aquinas's chain of cause and effect. "Every effect must have a cause, but you can not have an infinite chain, so at some point there must be that uncaused cause which we choose to call God." Pretty sure that's the quote, but it
has been a few years.

While I'm at it, anyone mind if we toss St. Augustine into the mix? "If you were to find a watch, logically it's complexity would necessitate the conclusion that there had to be a watch maker. Since the universe/nature is more complex than a watch, that necessarily implies the presence of a creator or god."

Last philosopher I'd like to reference would be William James, the great pragmatist. The argument is as follows: You should believe in God because if he doesn't exist your belief doesn't really bring you any harm, but if he does exist and you don't believe you risk damnation. Interesting writer, loads more fun than his stodgy brother Henry.
I'm pretty sure infinity does exist, otherwise the gravitational pull of a black hole wouldn't have the characteristic of "infinite".

And when the universe hasn't complete its cycle, nobody had done creating anything.

Finally, for someone who just offhandedly referring to other people's quotes without originality, you sure sound misleading when you just don't have any fact to prove their philosophies.
1682 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Brisbane, Australia
Offline
Posted 3/30/10 , edited 3/30/10

animeandshakespeare wrote:

Wow Occam's razor and a basic primer on St. Thomas Aquinas's chain of cause and effect. "Every effect must have a cause, but you can not have an infinite chain, so at some point there must be that uncaused cause which we choose to call God." Pretty sure that's the quote, but it
has been a few years.

While I'm at it, anyone mind if we toss St. Augustine into the mix? "If you were to find a watch, logically it's complexity would necessitate the conclusion that there had to be a watch maker. Since the universe/nature is more complex than a watch, that necessarily implies the presence of a creator or god."

Last philosopher I'd like to reference would be William James, the great pragmatist. The argument is as follows: You should believe in God because if he doesn't exist your belief doesn't really bring you any harm, but if he does exist and you don't believe you risk damnation. Interesting writer, loads more fun than his stodgy brother Henry.


Concluding that there was a watch maker to make the watch, complicates the problem even further
since the watch maker is more complex than the watch, and where did he come from and how did he learn how to make watches

Saying that their was no god and that the universe arose from nothing is more reasonable than saying something even greater and more complex appeared out of nowhere

What/who then created god if he exists, because he would be more complex than god to have created him
you cannot continually raise the creators power and say that gods creator is greater than god
the nature of the universe tends to be order to disorder and simplicity to complexity over time







1682 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Brisbane, Australia
Offline
Posted 3/30/10

meezermex wrote:

Here's a short post about the Law of Cause and Effect. Well, it will be short for me anyway.

This is the most basic law of science. Every effect must have a cause. The cause will be greater than the effect itself. Every event has a cause. The beginning of the universe was an event. Whatever the cause is, it will be greater than the effect itself. We live in a very orderly and complex universe.

That being said, then the logical conclusion is that if the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe it would have contained more energy and matter than is currently in the universe. Where did the energy come from? Where did the matter come from? What triggered this energy and matter to act outside of the laws of nature -- by exploding and spontaneously generating? How does this explosion cause order while every other explosion ever observed and recorded in history caused only disorder and disarray?

That being said, then the logical conclusion is that if God brought about the beginning of the universe he would have to embody more energy and matter than is currently in the universe -- to be the greater cause of a great effect. Huh. Isn't that what the Bible already states? "Omnipotent" and "Eternal" pretty much covers the prerequisites of the Law of Cause and Effect.

Does the answer seem too simple? Sometimes the truth is -- which is why I generally subscribe to the philosophy of Occam's Razor -- the simplest answer is usually the right one.




This so called "Law" isn't even written by a physicist or a scientist, it's not even a hypothesis let alone a theory






1814 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 3/30/10 , edited 3/30/10

Daniel9878 wrote:


meezermex wrote:

Here's a short post about the Law of Cause and Effect. Well, it will be short for me anyway.

This is the most basic law of science. Every effect must have a cause. The cause will be greater than the effect itself. Every event has a cause. The beginning of the universe was an event. Whatever the cause is, it will be greater than the effect itself. We live in a very orderly and complex universe.

That being said, then the logical conclusion is that if the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe it would have contained more energy and matter than is currently in the universe. Where did the energy come from? Where did the matter come from? What triggered this energy and matter to act outside of the laws of nature -- by exploding and spontaneously generating? How does this explosion cause order while every other explosion ever observed and recorded in history caused only disorder and disarray?

That being said, then the logical conclusion is that if God brought about the beginning of the universe he would have to embody more energy and matter than is currently in the universe -- to be the greater cause of a great effect. Huh. Isn't that what the Bible already states? "Omnipotent" and "Eternal" pretty much covers the prerequisites of the Law of Cause and Effect.

Does the answer seem too simple? Sometimes the truth is -- which is why I generally subscribe to the philosophy of Occam's Razor -- the simplest answer is usually the right one.




This so called "Law" isn't even written by a physicist or a scientist, it's not even a hypothesis let alone a theory








No, the Law of Cause and Effect was not written by a phycisit or a scientist. Does a hypothesis or theory being written by a scientist or physicist make it automatically valid and untouchable? That would explain a lot about the overwhelming acceptance and lack of questioning when it comes to macro-evolution and the Big Bang.

However, contrary to your statement the Law of Cause and Effect actually is a Law unless of course you disregard the works of Aristotle and the fact that "for thousands of years, the law of cause and effect guided scientific inquiry." (http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/law_of_cause_and_effect_FoS_V7N3_(causality).pdf) To dismiss the Law of Cause and Effect is to dismiss other laws that were discovered because of it's application (e.g. -- Newton's Law of Gravity, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc.).

Many people today seem to have this mistaken idea that philosophy has nothing whatsoever to do within the arena of science -- which of course is absolute nonsense. A scientist's philosophy guides him from his hypothesis to his interpretation of the evidence. For thousands of years scientists viewed science based on the Law of Cause and Effect; it is only recently that scientists have begun to base their philosophies on the idea of chance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
I have completely read this article in wikipedia and it appears that the Law of Cause and Effect is considered a general law that affects a variety of studies including but not limited to: biology, botany, physics, quantum mechanics, philosophy, religion, etc. The pros, cons, implications, limitations, and uses of this Law are clearly explained.

I never thought that the day would come when a common sense Law could be accused of not even being valid. I mean, come on -- not a hypothesis let alone a theory?! An experiment or series of experiments to demonstrate the Law of Cause and Effect are pretty simple to put together. Knock over a glass of water, and what is going to happen? The water will spill out of the cup -- every single time. Also if you see a damp glass tipped over with water all around it you assume that a glass of water was knocked over -- you may not have seen the cause, but the effect is obvious. Since it is impossible that a glass of water should randomly spill over on it's own without some outside influence, it is not speculation to say that it was knocked over -- it is fact.

EDIT

Oh, and I would like to address a statement that you made in answer to someone else about "the universe tending to go from order to disorder and from simplicity to complexity." Do you realize that this statement is an oxymoron? How can you go from order to disorder yet go from simplicity to complexity? Complexity requires an increase in order not an increase in disorder. The more complex something becomes the more care has to be taken that it is perfectly in order so that it can function. Exceptionally special care must be taken to keep things in order if you plan on making something more complex so that it does not "collapse" in on itself from lack of proper structure and order.

Stating, "it is more reasonable to believe that there is no God and that the universe arose from nothing" just frees a person from any kind of moral responibility. If there is no God then who is to say what is right or wrong? The strongest or most powerful individual or organization? Any individual who tries to impose morals is doing so without grounds or right since they are no better than the next person -- this leads to social instability and anarchy. As creator, God has every right to impose his own laws, morals, and values -- this leads to social stability.

And to the people who have a problem with the idea that God created the universe refering to this as a "logical trap," why do we need to ask who created the creator? Do you need to know every detail about the life of the mother of Bill Gates before accepting his work? This isn't even a good example because by definition God is eternal having no end and no beginning.
25049 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / fresno, ca
Offline
Posted 3/30/10
time is a creation of those who live and die (in example Albert Einsteins theory of relativity proving that time doesn't exist. and yeas I know this is an extremely simplified down version of it assuming there is a omniscient and/ or omnipresent being and only one at that there would be no time only existence or lack there of. That being said if you look at Hindu and please correct me if I'm wrong I'm writing this off the top of my head existence is a infinite amount of possibilities our existence along with others exists because there is a god that dreams of us and the god exists because we dream of it. now if we pull out of religion and look at it from the angle of quantum physics(err. . i think that is the name I mean) the universe as we know it is these infinite existences and our and while we have assumed or fantasized that we could open a window and still theoretically a possibility there is space between us a void and aside from theories this space as we call it is non existence. that being said if you look back to ancient belief systems my Norwegian ancestors beliefs is that this realm was created completely by accident in a great explosion and not even the gods know what exists beyond this realm.

Its amazing the circles you see as mythology culture science and even science fiction comes full circle and reconnect again if your willing to look with an unbiased outlook. After all the great discoveries and inventions are usually made by those who are not afraid to believe in something even if there told smugly that it doesn't exist if we all did that wed all still be living in caves. Although that could be too. and just for the heck of it emoticon
181 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Seattle, WA
Offline
Posted 3/30/10

digs wrote:

All science and all the scientific laws point to a creator and a beginning. The universe must have been created by one who is beyond the universe (God). The laws of thermodynamics say matter can't be created or destroyed (same for energy) and that the universe moves towards disorder and not towards order. Science cannot explain everything, and it can't explain beyond our universe. But what we do know from the laws of science is that something beyond science had to start all this, by the very laws science is based on it is impossible for all this to have happened naturally.


Given everything you have said in this thread and others, I am curious to know if you've ever read any actual scientific papers (you know, the ones that are published in actual Journals like Nature) on the topic of universal geometry and total energy. The work is very much based on actual observational data and shows pretty clearly in calculations that the universe certainly could have arisen from, basically nothing... Because nothing isn't nothing anymore. I might be able to get actual reviewed research papers on this topic if you're curious, but I somehow doubt you are.

I would appreciate it if you actually formed your own educated opinions rather than just running off to creationist websites that endlessly parrot the same old tired crap that you want to hear (and no one else does).

Besides your faith and some links to creationist propaganda crap, what evidence do you have for your claims? Do you have any actual peer-reviewed data to show us? I think not.
Why should anyone believe the Judeo-Christian God created the universe rather than any of the other thousands of God throughout history, some of whom are far older? What if you found out tomorrow that Pacha Kamaq created the universe? You'd be pretty screwed then wouldn't you?

Now, don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the kind of deistic view of God that our founding fathers had, nor do I have a problem with the idea that a God "started" biological evolution on Earth. However I do have a very large problem with the young Earth creationist view that has been thoroughly debunked to the point that it isn't even worth discussing (think Kitzmiller v. Dover).
I'm quite sure someone could debate with you until they're blue in the face and it wouldn't change your mind even in the slightest. Am I right? You should admit at least that much.

Out of sheer curiosity, did you attend the Evolution discussions in your biology classes, or did you walk out like so many other religious students in the south, displaying a breathtaking intolerance toward hearing anything that might be counter to your precious beliefs?

Also, do you think bats are birds (Leviticus 11:13, 19), rabbits chew cud (Leviticus 11:6), Whales are sea monsters (Matthew 12:40), donkeys can talk (Numbers 22:1-35), and pi is a round number (Kings 7:23)?
Or do you condone mass genocide (Judges 16:30), stoning (Leviticus 24:16), dashing babies on rocks (Psalm 137:9), ritual human sacrifice (Judges 11), or any of the other horrible acts in the Bible? If not, why? It IS the perfect infallible word of God after all, right?

2273 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 4/3/10 , edited 4/3/10

otakujohn wrote:


digs wrote:

All science and all the scientific laws point to a creator and a beginning. The universe must have been created by one who is beyond the universe (God). The laws of thermodynamics say matter can't be created or destroyed (same for energy) and that the universe moves towards disorder and not towards order. Science cannot explain everything, and it can't explain beyond our universe. But what we do know from the laws of science is that something beyond science had to start all this, by the very laws science is based on it is impossible for all this to have happened naturally.


Given everything you have said in this thread and others, I am curious to know if you've ever read any actual scientific papers (you know, the ones that are published in actual Journals like Nature) on the topic of universal geometry and total energy. The work is very much based on actual observational data and shows pretty clearly in calculations that the universe certainly could have arisen from, basically nothing... Because nothing isn't nothing anymore. I might be able to get actual reviewed research papers on this topic if you're curious, but I somehow doubt you are.

I would appreciate it if you actually formed your own educated opinions rather than just running off to creationist websites that endlessly parrot the same old tired crap that you want to hear (and no one else does).

Besides your faith and some links to creationist propaganda crap, what evidence do you have for your claims? Do you have any actual peer-reviewed data to show us? I think not.
Why should anyone believe the Judeo-Christian God created the universe rather than any of the other thousands of God throughout history, some of whom are far older? What if you found out tomorrow that Pacha Kamaq created the universe? You'd be pretty screwed then wouldn't you?

Now, don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the kind of deistic view of God that our founding fathers had, nor do I have a problem with the idea that a God "started" biological evolution on Earth. However I do have a very large problem with the young Earth creationist view that has been thoroughly debunked to the point that it isn't even worth discussing (think Kitzmiller v. Dover).
I'm quite sure someone could debate with you until they're blue in the face and it wouldn't change your mind even in the slightest. Am I right? You should admit at least that much.

Out of sheer curiosity, did you attend the Evolution discussions in your biology classes, or did you walk out like so many other religious students in the south, displaying a breathtaking intolerance toward hearing anything that might be counter to your precious beliefs?

Also, do you think bats are birds (Leviticus 11:13, 19), rabbits chew cud (Leviticus 11:6), Whales are sea monsters (Matthew 12:40), donkeys can talk (Numbers 22:1-35), and pi is a round number (Kings 7:23)?
Or do you condone mass genocide (Judges 16:30), stoning (Leviticus 24:16), dashing babies on rocks (Psalm 137:9), ritual human sacrifice (Judges 11), or any of the other horrible acts in the Bible? If not, why? It IS the perfect infallible word of God after all, right?




digs does not understand the basic concepts of of science and love to claim that he is a biology student at a university when his postings clearly states that he don't have a clue about the subject. many times i ask him for physical evidence of his creator and all he can do is repeat the same debunked crap.

181 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Seattle, WA
Offline
Posted 4/3/10

shinto-male

digs does not understand the basic concepts of of science and love to claim that he is a biology student at a university when his postings clearly states that he don't have a clue about the subject. many times i ask him for physical evidence of his creator and all he can do is repeat the same debunked crap.



In other words, he has a Morton's Demon like a steel trap. Confirmation bias is a sad, sad thing.
Posted 4/5/10
Hey!!! Hebrew, it’s time to go home!!! **** HotSugars. cooooom **** is the world's largest and best club whe seek love, fun, friends, or relatives!!!
1682 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Brisbane, Australia
Offline
Posted 4/8/10 , edited 4/8/10

meezermex wrote:


Daniel9878 wrote:


meezermex wrote:

Here's a short post about the Law of Cause and Effect. Well, it will be short for me anyway.

This is the most basic law of science. Every effect must have a cause. The cause will be greater than the effect itself. Every event has a cause. The beginning of the universe was an event. Whatever the cause is, it will be greater than the effect itself. We live in a very orderly and complex universe.

That being said, then the logical conclusion is that if the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe it would have contained more energy and matter than is currently in the universe. Where did the energy come from? Where did the matter come from? What triggered this energy and matter to act outside of the laws of nature -- by exploding and spontaneously generating? How does this explosion cause order while every other explosion ever observed and recorded in history caused only disorder and disarray?

That being said, then the logical conclusion is that if God brought about the beginning of the universe he would have to embody more energy and matter than is currently in the universe -- to be the greater cause of a great effect. Huh. Isn't that what the Bible already states? "Omnipotent" and "Eternal" pretty much covers the prerequisites of the Law of Cause and Effect.

Does the answer seem too simple? Sometimes the truth is -- which is why I generally subscribe to the philosophy of Occam's Razor -- the simplest answer is usually the right one.




This so called "Law" isn't even written by a physicist or a scientist, it's not even a hypothesis let alone a theory








No, the Law of Cause and Effect was not written by a phycisit or a scientist. Does a hypothesis or theory being written by a scientist or physicist make it automatically valid and untouchable? That would explain a lot about the overwhelming acceptance and lack of questioning when it comes to macro-evolution and the Big Bang.

However, contrary to your statement the Law of Cause and Effect actually is a Law unless of course you disregard the works of Aristotle and the fact that "for thousands of years, the law of cause and effect guided scientific inquiry." (http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/law_of_cause_and_effect_FoS_V7N3_(causality).pdf) To dismiss the Law of Cause and Effect is to dismiss other laws that were discovered because of it's application (e.g. -- Newton's Law of Gravity, the Laws of Thermodynamics, etc.).

Many people today seem to have this mistaken idea that philosophy has nothing whatsoever to do within the arena of science -- which of course is absolute nonsense. A scientist's philosophy guides him from his hypothesis to his interpretation of the evidence. For thousands of years scientists viewed science based on the Law of Cause and Effect; it is only recently that scientists have begun to base their philosophies on the idea of chance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
I have completely read this article in wikipedia and it appears that the Law of Cause and Effect is considered a general law that affects a variety of studies including but not limited to: biology, botany, physics, quantum mechanics, philosophy, religion, etc. The pros, cons, implications, limitations, and uses of this Law are clearly explained.

I never thought that the day would come when a common sense Law could be accused of not even being valid. I mean, come on -- not a hypothesis let alone a theory?! An experiment or series of experiments to demonstrate the Law of Cause and Effect are pretty simple to put together. Knock over a glass of water, and what is going to happen? The water will spill out of the cup -- every single time. Also if you see a damp glass tipped over with water all around it you assume that a glass of water was knocked over -- you may not have seen the cause, but the effect is obvious. Since it is impossible that a glass of water should randomly spill over on it's own without some outside influence, it is not speculation to say that it was knocked over -- it is fact.

EDIT

Oh, and I would like to address a statement that you made in answer to someone else about "the universe tending to go from order to disorder and from simplicity to complexity." Do you realize that this statement is an oxymoron? How can you go from order to disorder yet go from simplicity to complexity? Complexity requires an increase in order not an increase in disorder. The more complex something becomes the more care has to be taken that it is perfectly in order so that it can function. Exceptionally special care must be taken to keep things in order if you plan on making something more complex so that it does not "collapse" in on itself from lack of proper structure and order.

Stating, "it is more reasonable to believe that there is no God and that the universe arose from nothing" just frees a person from any kind of moral responibility. If there is no God then who is to say what is right or wrong? The strongest or most powerful individual or organization? Any individual who tries to impose morals is doing so without grounds or right since they are no better than the next person -- this leads to social instability and anarchy. As creator, God has every right to impose his own laws, morals, and values -- this leads to social stability.

And to the people who have a problem with the idea that God created the universe refering to this as a "logical trap," why do we need to ask who created the creator? Do you need to know every detail about the life of the mother of Bill Gates before accepting his work? This isn't even a good example because by definition God is eternal having no end and no beginning.



You said that the cause will always be greater than the effect, but this is impossible because matter and energy can neither be created an destroyed.

Also the cause of death from cancer, comes from a tumor and the tumor is a clump of cancer cells, cancer cells arise when a single normal cell is genetically damaged by forms of radiation.
The cause is a single damaged cell, the effect is death.
Hardly greater at all.

random chance is a cause in many effects, sometimes highly complex effects, and random chance is only possible through disorder


I highly disagree that disorder can not result in complexity.

Disorder is what happens when you don't take notice to your room, it gets messy.
It is the reason, why grass doesn't grow neat.
It is why some people die and others live, why some people are rich and others are poor.
Disorder is the reason why people get robbed and there is need of police.
Because of disorder it rains at different places at different times, parts of earth are hot and others are cold
why there is so much diversity on earth.

All these things result in high amounts of complexity.
The creation of complex chemicals is impossible without the disordered movement of atoms and their electrons.
An electrons position cannot be determined or accurately predicted only an area of possible places can be guessed.Though this is required for compounds and reactions to exist.


Social stability is created through elimination, selection, survival.
A clan or village that is not socially stable will be weak, poor and susceptible to invasion or elimination from rivals.
They will always be captured, conquered or killed by the richer and smarter nations with higher moral and social stability.
In the medieval times, nations with kings and religions had higher moral and stability, hence being stronger than the less.
This eventually lead to all the nations having kings and religion. The king was only a king because he said so, and the populace only obeyed the king through fear death and god. God is real because god said so, religion is alive because kings who upheld religion had more power and support, through the power of religion.













21247 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M / South Gate, Calif...
Offline
Posted 4/9/10
I think/believe that God made everything. Some people want to believe everything God made just happened, but he is perfect and with perfection comes laws and details. Religion and science should be one and the same, not the way some people believe that their polar opposites. The earth was not created in seven human days.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.