Help! (First Cause)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-09-2016, 08:49 AM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(14-09-2016 02:49 PM)ScientificTruth321 Wrote:  I find these questions best answered by poetry. Well, after all the bible and koran are supposedly poetic.

Oh first cause?
Why were you the first cause?
What came before?
Your mother or a whore?
Will we find out?
Will will be first
When thou hast given thy secret up?

This is the lousiest poem I have ever read. Dodgy

The poem about the man from Nantucket was more deep philosophically than this.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
15-09-2016, 08:51 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
The first cause argument is huge cluster duck theist will argue

1.That infinite regresses are impossible though they have not proved it and no shut up about Hilbert hotel that doesn't prove shit. And lots of solution were proposed stop sucking William Lane Craig cock

2.Something cannot come from nothing another thing they have yet to prove after all why should nothing have rules or restraints

3.They will argue false delemia's one must believe the universe was created or always existed. Nope i reject both as unfounded assertions or you must believe that that there was always something or there was nothing again i reject both as baseless assertion.

4.They will claim science has proven the universe has a beginning when it has not it's shown that current physics are not eternal but that's all

There's lots more to be said but think this post is long enough

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes OrdoSkeptica's post
15-09-2016, 10:47 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(15-09-2016 08:51 PM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  you must believe that that there was always something or there was nothing again i reject both as baseless assertion.

See this is where my logic gets stuck. Like I said in my previous post, by definition "nothing" cannot exist. So when you say "there was nothing", that is a nonsensical phrase. It is contradictory.

And if "nothing" cannot exist, then "something" is all we are left with. Thus existence is all that has ever been. All talk of a first cause is then relegated to what caused our universe to become what it is from whatever it was, but actual creation of matter or energy from non existence is logically impossible.

At least that's how my mind sees it...

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2016, 02:30 AM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
Even when there was nothing, Virtual particles still existed, even if that was not the case, so what? Why does the first cause have to be Yahweh? Even if you submit to the first cause which can be refuted in many different ways, it in no way brings any Christian no matter what argument they can ever bring forth, no matter how many special feelings, bible versus, witnesses and faith they can bring to the table any closer to proving that their god, let alone any god for that matter exists, let alone WAS the first cause themselves.





My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2016, 07:53 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(15-09-2016 10:47 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 08:51 PM)OrdoSkeptica Wrote:  you must believe that that there was always something or there was nothing again i reject both as baseless assertion.

See this is where my logic gets stuck. Like I said in my previous post, by definition "nothing" cannot exist. So when you say "there was nothing", that is a nonsensical phrase. It is contradictory.

And if "nothing" cannot exist, then "something" is all we are left with. Thus existence is all that has ever been. All talk of a first cause is then relegated to what caused our universe to become what it is from whatever it was, but actual creation of matter or energy from non existence is logically impossible.

At least that's how my mind sees it...

Yeah, zero kinda fucked us up for a long time until 7th century Indian mathematicians. Null set's all fucked up ain't it.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2016, 08:08 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(16-09-2016 07:53 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(15-09-2016 10:47 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  See this is where my logic gets stuck. Like I said in my previous post, by definition "nothing" cannot exist. So when you say "there was nothing", that is a nonsensical phrase. It is contradictory.

And if "nothing" cannot exist, then "something" is all we are left with. Thus existence is all that has ever been. All talk of a first cause is then relegated to what caused our universe to become what it is from whatever it was, but actual creation of matter or energy from non existence is logically impossible.

At least that's how my mind sees it...

Yeah, zero kinda fucked us up for a long time until 7th century Indian mathematicians. Null set's all fucked up ain't it.

The null set is a thing of beauty. Angry

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2016, 08:17 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(16-09-2016 08:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-09-2016 07:53 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Yeah, zero kinda fucked us up for a long time until 7th century Indian mathematicians. Null set's all fucked up ain't it.

The null set is a thing of beauty. Angry

And if you gaze long into the null set, the null set also gazes into you.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
17-09-2016, 06:36 AM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(16-09-2016 08:17 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-09-2016 08:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  The null set is a thing of beauty. Angry

And if you gaze long into the null set, the null set also gazes into you.

The things contained in the null set are things of beauty. Nothing contained in the null set is beautiful.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 08:06 AM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(11-09-2016 09:03 PM)ErinRH2342 Wrote:  The argument I'm hearing is that either the universe started or it didn't. There can't be an infinite regress [...]
How could anyone claim to know that? Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2016, 05:14 PM
RE: Help! (First Cause)
(17-09-2016 08:06 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(11-09-2016 09:03 PM)ErinRH2342 Wrote:  The argument I'm hearing is that either the universe started or it didn't. There can't be an infinite regress [...]
How could anyone claim to know that? Consider

Well, to be fair, they don't claim to know it -- they just say that the concept is logically absurd. The problem (at least for me) is that the concept of an immaterial being creating the material universe out of nothing is also logically absurd. So by a type of reductio absurdum you can use either one to deny the other one. Or just admit that there are some things we will never know, which is what I do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Grasshopper's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: