Causation and a suposed god.

[Willamena]

If there is no causation, then there is no need for a god;

If there must be causation, then what was the cause of a supposed god?

What say you?

I actually agree: since you are the cause of causation, there is no need for a supposed god to be the cause of causation.

 

[Willamena]

What if it were all mutually causational (is that even a word???).

Brilliant! Thank you!

*takes a bow*

 

[Baydwin]

I suggest no, it has existed forever in one phase or another, with no original causative mechanism.

And you have supportive evidence for that belief I presume?

 

[Danmac]

If there is no causation, then there is no need for a god;

If there must be causation, then what was the cause of a supposed god?

What say you?

The good of universal being is intrinsically and infinitely valuable for its own sake. Or in a nutshell , L-O-V-E

 

[Dunemeister]

If there is no causation, then there is no need for a god;

If there must be causation, then what was the cause of a supposed god?

What say you?

I say you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

 

[logician]

Actually the fact that we can conceive of tinkering around with matter and energy is the foundation of scientific and other kinds of knowledge. If we can tinker with such things – is it not unreasonable to imagine and consider that someone smarter than us could do with such things on a proportionately larger or longer scale?

If man can evolve in this universe with how long this universe has existed – what greater beings could evolve if we but think outside the little box that this universe is; in what we imagine as forever and ever?


Zadok

Uh, but those "evolved" beings would not be a creator god or any god as man has conceived it, they would be super intelligent aliens, something that could well exist.

 

[Copernicus]

It seems to be a common flaw to believe that things outside this universe behave the same as things in it.

That could account for the way people describe their gods.

 

[Thief]

Okay...I didn't see it...must be an oversight.

An object at rest will remain at rest.....until Something causes it to move.

 

[Anti-thesisofreason]

Here's a link to an interesting article I read just the other day. Thought it might fit nicely into this conversation.

Roger Penrose: Non-stop cosmos, non-stop career - opinion - 10 March 2010 - New Scientist

Here's the part I thought most interesting.

"at the very end of the universe, the only remaining particles will be massless. That means everything that exists will travel at the speed of light, making the flow of time meaningless. After a few mathematical manipulations of infinity, out popped a never-ending universe, where new big bangs are the inevitable result of a universe's demise. In Penrose's theory, one cosmos leads to another. "I used to call it a crazy scheme, but I'm starting to believe it now," he says."

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

God exists, god is all knowing=Inescapable hard determinism.

God exists, god isn't all knowing, but still first cause = Inescapable hard determinism

God doesn't exist, unknown first cause=inescapable hard determinism.

God exists/doesn't exist, acausal universe=debunked.

It seems to me like the matter of 'god' is quite irrelevant to this question.

 

[McBell]

God exists, god is all knowing=Inescapable hard determinism.

God exists, god isn't all knowing, but still first cause = Inescapable hard determinism

God doesn't exist, unknown first cause=inescapable hard determinism.

God exists/doesn't exist, acausal universe=debunked.

It seems to me like the matter of 'god' is quite irrelevant to this question.

But glory has to be given to god.
I matters nt that he actually deserves it, or even exists, glory has to be given.

 

[Danmac]

God exists, god is all knowing=Inescapable hard determinism.

God exists, god isn't all knowing, but still first cause = Inescapable hard determinism

God doesn't exist, unknown first cause=inescapable hard determinism.

God exists/doesn't exist, acausal universe=debunked.

It seems to me like the matter of 'god' is quite irrelevant to this question.

Now I'm really confused. Thanks a lot.

 

[Walkntune]

I tend towards the "no causation" thought, i.e. matter and energy have existed forever, with no need for a supposed god to tinker around.

How do you explain entropy law and also expanding universe?

 

[logician]

How do you explain entropy law and also expanding universe?

These really have no relevance to causation.

 

[Baydwin]

And you have supportive evidence for that belief I presume?

I can't help but notice you've not responded to this logician.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

The argument is that because of the complexity of the universe, there has to be a cause for said complexity.
The cause for said complexity is supposed to be God.
Yet that rule is tossed out the window when applied to God.


No, that assumption is made by the one who claims that the complexity had to come from God.

I wasn't aware that complexity was brought up in the OP.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Actually this statement is nothing more than a cop out given in order to divert the attention away from the assumptions being applied to God.

Time is a construct of this universe and God existed before this universe began.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I tend towards the "no causation" thought, i.e. matter and energy have existed forever, with no need for a supposed god to tinker around.

Limited thinking.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Seems to be an even more common flaw to make completely unsubstantiated claims of beings that supposedly exist outside this universe.

"Things outside the universe" don't exist, because there is no "outside" of the universe.

Life beyond our universe: Physicists explore the possibility of life in universes with laws different from our own.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That could account for the way people describe their gods.

How else could you describe God?