Explain Your Religious Views or Lack Thereof

[Neo Rome Republic]

Trollbaiting now, keep it up. Why does cause have to exist first? Why can't it be uncause and then cause?

Uncausing implies that something has been caused, and you are undoing it.

Uncaused:having no cause or apparent cause
I fail to see how that implies what you just said?

[Grave_n_idle]

What? No, it means that you don't need time to cause something to happen. It doesn't mean you can't cause things to happen.

How? If cause and effect require time, and there is no time outside the universe, then it has no cause.

See the problem with that?

Our universe has no 'cause', by your logic.

Thus, our universe must have always existed (which the evidence doesn't support), or the way our universe was 'caused' is not bound by the rules of cause and effect we observe WITHIN our universe.

With or without god - that 'cause' is not limited by our understanding of cause and effect. Thus it doesn't rule out a god.

[Neo Rome Republic]

How? If cause and effect require time, and there is no time outside the universe, then it has no cause.

See the problem with that?

Our universe has no 'cause', by your logic.

Thus, our universe must have always existed (which the evidence doesn't support), or the way our universe was 'caused' is not bound by the rules of cause and effect we observe WITHIN our universe.

With or without god - that 'cause' is not limited by our understanding of cause and effect. Thus it doesn't rule out a god.

But the evidence doesn't support God either? So I'd say it rules out an eternal universe and God. I honestly don't know what the answer is to the universe, but reject both of the one's you mentioned, because the evidence is against both.

[Grave_n_idle]

I can't.

I'm simply basing it off the assumed nature of God.

So you're admitting that the claim that "god" exists outside the universe is bullshit?
Good.

Neo's argument was that god can't exist, because our universe was eternal, and thus no one caused it.

He's modified (or abandoned) this doomed argument, and instead is now arguing that god can't have created the universe because there's a chain of cause and effect.

We're explaining that whatever went before our universe would not be limited by the rules of this universe and, indeed, must have - by definition - existed 'outside' the universe.

This would apply just as well to whatever 'caused' the big bang, as it does to god.

The point is to show Neo why his argument is flawed - not to actually argue for the literal existence of a god - you're tilting at a windmill.

[The Blaatschapen]

What you fail to see, dumbass, is that if cause does not exist, then uncause cannot either.

Well if it didn't have a cause, then it can only have no cause. Also don't insult me, or I will report you.

Don't do threaten with a report.

Just report.

Considering your past history, you are *** Banned for 1 day ***. I suggest that you read the rules.

[Grave_n_idle]

See the problem with that?

Our universe has no 'cause', by your logic.

Thus, our universe must have always existed (which the evidence doesn't support), or the way our universe was 'caused' is not bound by the rules of cause and effect we observe WITHIN our universe.

With or without god - that 'cause' is not limited by our understanding of cause and effect. Thus it doesn't rule out a god.

But the evidence doesn't support God either? So I'd say it rules out an eternal universe and God. I honestly don't know what the answer is to the universe, but reject both of the one's you mentioned, because the evidence is against both.

There's no evidence that supports or rule-out a 'god' creating the universe - which is why it differs from the idea of the universe always having existed as it is - which is disproved by the expansion of the universe.

It doesn't rule out a creator god.

Like I've said, there are actually some pretty good arguments against the idea of an interventionist god that performs miracles. The arguments you're presenting are not those arguments.

[Mbone]

I was raised a Christian, but I have strayed from it.
My faith began to dwindle on it's own, so I began to research about the existence of God and gave it lots of thought.
I soon lost my faith, and I guess you could call me an Atheist.

[With Teeth]

I can't.

I'm simply basing it off the assumed nature of God.

So you're admitting that the claim that "god" exists outside the universe is bullshit?
Good.

I think the more intelligent theist can provide an argument for why god exists outside of space-time and material reality. Of course, cosmological arguments aren't true, but I think a decent explanation can be provided.

[With Teeth]

There's no evidence that supports or rule-out a 'god' creating the universe - which is why it differs from the idea of the universe always having existed as it is - which is disproved by the expansion of the universe.

I think Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metrics provide good reason to think that there is no external cause of the universe, but that's just me.

[With Teeth]

What? No, it means that you don't need time to cause something to happen. It doesn't mean you can't cause things to happen.

How? If cause and effect require time, and there is no time outside the universe, then it has no cause.

I think this is bad reasoning. That's not to say it's uninteresting, but the argument is flawed. Simultaneous causation destroys the conception of cause and effect that you're presenting. Alain Aspect and others did experiments in 1986 when disproved Bell's theorems and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations because they demonstrated that two spatially distant photons can become entangled. Measuring one simultaneously causes the other one to take on an anticorrelated spin. If cause and effect can happen at the same time, then god can enter time simultaneously with creating the universe. I don't think he actually did, but this particular argument is flawed.

[Grave_n_idle]

There's no evidence that supports or rule-out a 'god' creating the universe - which is why it differs from the idea of the universe always having existed as it is - which is disproved by the expansion of the universe.

I think Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metrics provide good reason to think that there is no external cause of the universe, but that's just me.

You're right.

It's just you.

[With Teeth]

I think Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metrics provide good reason to think that there is no external cause of the universe, but that's just me.

You're right.

It's just you.

Ok, me and maybe some other philosophy of physics professors like Quentin Smith, but they don't go on here.

FLRW metrics say that every state of time is half-open. It has to be represented with no minimum value but a maximum value.


A first state of time would have to be represented by both a minimum value and a maximum value.


(The external cause brings point A into existence.)

Relativity therefore tells us that a first state of time doesn't exist.

If every state of time is half-open, then every state of the universe is sufficient caused by a previous state.



Therefore, no part of our universe is caused by something external to our universe. This is consistent with standard Big Bang cosmology as long as every state, T, occurred less than 13.9 billion years ago.

There's a much longer version of this argument, but I don't want to bore everyone.

[The Silence of Night]

You're right.

It's just you.

Ok, me and maybe some other philosophy of physics professors like Quentin Smith, but they don't go on here.

FLRW metrics say that every state of time is half-open. It has to be represented with no minimum value but a maximum value.


A first state of time would have to be represented by both a minimum value and a maximum value.


(The external cause brings point A into existence.)

Relativity therefore tells us that a first state of time doesn't exist.

If every state of time is half-open, then every state of the universe is sufficient caused by a previous state.



Therefore, no part of our universe is caused by something external to our universe. This is consistent with standard Big Bang cosmology as long as every state, T, occurred less than 13.9 billion years ago.

There's a much longer version of this argument, but I don't want to bore everyone.

I'm actually very interested, please continue.

[Neo Rome Republic]

How? If cause and effect require time, and there is no time outside the universe, then it has no cause.

I think this is bad reasoning. That's not to say it's uninteresting, but the argument is flawed. Simultaneous causation destroys the conception of cause and effect that you're presenting. Alain Aspect and others did experiments in 1986 when disproved Bell's theorems and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen correlations because they demonstrated that two spatially distant photons can become entangled. Measuring one simultaneously causes the other one to take on an anticorrelated spin. If cause and effect can happen at the same time, then god can enter time simultaneously with creating the universe. I don't think he actually did, but this particular argument is flawed.

Fine, I stand corrected. Guess I need to look for another argument, at least I still have the null hypothesis.

[Neo Rome Republic]

So you're admitting that the claim that "god" exists outside the universe is bullshit?
Good.

Neo's argument was that god can't exist, because our universe was eternal, and thus no one caused it.

He's modified (or abandoned) this doomed argument, and instead is now arguing that god can't have created the universe because there's a chain of cause and effect.

We're explaining that whatever went before our universe would not be limited by the rules of this universe and, indeed, must have - by definition - existed 'outside' the universe.

This would apply just as well to whatever 'caused' the big bang, as it does to god.

The point is to show Neo why his argument is flawed - not to actually argue for the literal existence of a god - you're tilting at a windmill.

I never made an argument that the universe is eternal, the evidence obviously goes against it. I was simply mentioning it as a hypothetical, that's why I kept saying ''if the universe WERE eternal''. My actual argument was the whole ''no cause outside of time''. Still I concede, that my actual argument was wrong.

[Neo Rome Republic]

You're right.

It's just you.

Ok, me and maybe some other philosophy of physics professors like Quentin Smith, but they don't go on here.

FLRW metrics say that every state of time is half-open. It has to be represented with no minimum value but a maximum value.


A first state of time would have to be represented by both a minimum value and a maximum value.


(The external cause brings point A into existence.)

Relativity therefore tells us that a first state of time doesn't exist.

If every state of time is half-open, then every state of the universe is sufficient caused by a previous state.



Therefore, no part of our universe is caused by something external to our universe. This is consistent with standard Big Bang cosmology as long as every state, T, occurred less than 13.9 billion years ago.

There's a much longer version of this argument, but I don't want to bore everyone.

If your argument states, there cannot be an external cause for the universe, does this imply a somehow ''self-caused universe''?

[With Teeth]

Ok, me and maybe some other philosophy of physics professors like Quentin Smith, but they don't go on here.

FLRW metrics say that every state of time is half-open. It has to be represented with no minimum value but a maximum value.


A first state of time would have to be represented by both a minimum value and a maximum value.


(The external cause brings point A into existence.)

Relativity therefore tells us that a first state of time doesn't exist.

If every state of time is half-open, then every state of the universe is sufficient caused by a previous state.



Therefore, no part of our universe is caused by something external to our universe. This is consistent with standard Big Bang cosmology as long as every state, T, occurred less than 13.9 billion years ago.

There's a much longer version of this argument, but I don't want to bore everyone.

If your argument states, there cannot be an external cause for the universe, does this imply a somehow ''self-caused universe''?

Only metaphorically. The causation I'm talking about could be represented by [...A-->B-->C...]. It's not [A-->A]. I think the latter would be absurd.

[Neo Rome Republic]

If your argument states, there cannot be an external cause for the universe, does this imply a somehow ''self-caused universe''?

Only metaphorically. The causation I'm talking about could be represented by [...A-->B-->C...]. It's not [A-->A]. I think the latter would be absurd.

Would this mean the universe has no cause? If it has no external cause and isn't self caused.

[Kolumbiya]

I am an atheist. I also believe that religion is holding back the progress of the human race and should be eradicated. If we want to progress scientifically, and technologically, religion cannot be a powerful aspect in the world, which it, sadly, currently is.

[Distruzio]

I was raised a Christian, but I have strayed from it.
My faith began to dwindle on it's own, so I began to research about the existence of God and gave it lots of thought.
I soon lost my faith, and I guess you could call me an Atheist.

What would YOU call you?

[Distruzio]

I am an atheist. I also believe that religion is holding back the progress of the human race and should be eradicated. If we want to progress scientifically, and technologically, religion cannot be a powerful aspect in the world, which it, sadly, currently is.

Who is "we" and why would "we" want to progress scientifically and technologically without religion when "we" have, thus far, progressed despite perceived slights on the part of religion? Moreover, who decides what "we" want?

[Allbeama]

All religions have extremists, too much. People willing to kill others and themselves over there believes is mind-boggling to think of. Science has treated more and killed less people than religion. And, not just death, but hate as well. Gays are hated by some religious people because its "wrong", and ignoring facts that abolish religious beliefs, like evolution, shows ignorance.

Science facilitated all the modern weapons of war. Science is also amoral, so you cannot use it as a guide to morality as you propose, because the Nazi scientists who experimented on Jews were still using science.

Well, I suggest you read The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris, wherein it is argued that there may be something to a science of morality. That being said, one of the main ideas of this book in question is that any two different people/cultures may find themselves in a different location on the moral landscape. Mengele and Jonas Salk would be in two completely different neighborhoods, for example.

[Allbeama]

All religions have extremists, too much. People willing to kill others and themselves over there believes is mind-boggling to think of. Science has treated more and killed less people than religion. And, not just death, but hate as well. Gays are hated by some religious people because its "wrong", and ignoring facts that abolish religious beliefs, like evolution, shows ignorance.

Science, in the wrong hands, can and will do more damage than religion. The Atomic bomb was not invented by priests in robes.

Nor did they invent the internal combustion engine, or plastic, or pesticides. All science.

[Neo Rome Republic]

I am an atheist. I also believe that religion is holding back the progress of the human race and should be eradicated. If we want to progress scientifically, and technologically, religion cannot be a powerful aspect in the world, which it, sadly, currently is.

You do realize banning something, has NEVER actually gotten rid of it? Soviets tried, Romans, Catholics, but Religion and the many of the Religions persecuted, are still around. Besides I see no reason to take such extreme measures, Religion is currently on the decline anyways. I'd say criticizing it does enough although I do agree, laws should be established to weaken their political power.

[The Grey Wolf]

I am an atheist. I also believe that religion is holding back the progress of the human race and should be eradicated. If we want to progress scientifically, and technologically, religion cannot be a powerful aspect in the world, which it, sadly, currently is.

And you're kind of thinking is one reason I despise atheism.