Doubting Believer

[SteveB28]

Let me clear this up for you.

The Law of Causality does not say that everything needs a cause. It says that everything that comes to be needs a cause. God did not come to be. No one created God. He is eternal. God did not have a beginning, so he did not need a cause.

So, would you also care to address part b) ?

 

[TomZzyzx]

So, would you also care to address part b) ?

It is not "my rule". It is a scientific Law, the Law of Cause and Effect.

 

[selfinflikted]

It is not "my rule". It is a scientific Law, the Law of Cause and Effect.

So then, again, why does your god get an exception?

 

[TomZzyzx]

So then, again, why does your god get an exception?

Because the Law says that everything that came to be needs a cause. God did not come to be, He is eternal, so he does not need a cause.

Didn't I already say this?

 

[selfinflikted]

Because the Law says that everything that came to be needs a cause. God did not come to be, He is eternal, so he does not need a cause.

Didn't I already say this?

You did. Sorry must've missed that.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Let me clear this up for you.

The Law of Causality does not say that everything needs a cause. It says that everything that comes to be needs a cause. God did not come to be. No one created God. He is eternal. God did not have a beginning, so he did not need a cause.

That is called Special Pleading.

If God doesn't need a cause/creator, then the universe doesn't need a cause/creator.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

It is not "my rule". It is a scientific Law, the Law of Cause and Effect.

But according to you, this isn't a scientific Law. You said it doesn't apply sometimes.

 

[TomZzyzx]

That is called Special Pleading.

If God doesn't need a cause/creator, then the universe doesn't need a cause/creator.

Your kidding, right?

I just eliminated your charge of Special Pleading by clearing up the misunderstanding of the Law of Causality.

The Universe had a beginning, therefore the Universe needs a cause.

God did not have a beginning, therefore God does not need a cause.

I did not create a principle, I stated a scientific law. I did not create an exception to that law, merely explained how that law works in relation to God and the Universe.

 

[TomZzyzx]

But according to you, this isn't a scientific Law. You said it doesn't apply sometimes.

What isn't a scientific law? Where did I say it doesn't apply sometimes? Please tell me where I said these things.

 

[dlamberth]

God did not have a beginning,...

No one knows that.

.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Your kidding, right?

I just eliminated your charge of Special Pleading by clearing up the misunderstanding of the Law of Causality.

The Universe had a beginning, therefore the Universe needs a cause.

God did not have a beginning, therefore God does not need a cause.

I did not create a principle, I stated a scientific law. I did not create an exception to that law, merely explained how that law works in relation to God and the Universe.

(bolding mine)

No, I'm not kidding. I can do that too:

The universe did not have a beginning, therefore the universe does not need a cause.

There we go. Easy peasy.

EDIT: Just to let you know, according to science, normal scientific principles and laws didn't hold until after the first 10^-40 (or something like that) of a second of the big bang. So the law of causation wasn't necessarily applicable initially.

 

[TomZzyzx]

(bolding mine)

No, I'm not kidding. I can do that too:

The universe did not have a beginning, therefore the universe does not need a cause.

There we go. Easy peasy.

EDIT: Just to let you know, according to science, normal scientific principles and laws didn't hold until after the first 10^-40 (or something like that) of a second of the big bang.

If the Universe did not have a beginning then your right, it does not need a cause, but it does appear to have had a beginning.

Of course when I said you were kidding I was talking about your charge of special pleading which you didn't mention in this post. So I guess we're done with the erroneous special pleading charge. Thank you.

 

[BucksWordBearer]

(bolding mine)

No, I'm not kidding. I can do that too:

The universe did not have a beginning, therefore the universe does not need a cause.

There we go. Easy peasy.

EDIT: Just to let you know, according to science, normal scientific principles and laws didn't hold until after the first 10^-40 (or something like that) of a second of the big bang. So the law of causation wasn't necessarily applicable initially.

Firstly this isn't within the scope of what I was arguing as I was simply arguing the justification for God not requiring a cause.

Secondly I will go onto say that the moment time existed in this universe the universe had a beginning because everything subject to time has a beginning like I said before this isn't a scientific principle but a logical principle it's something we can deduct. Time ALWAYS implies a start.

Lastly again I'm not here to argue the origin of the universe I was simply here to justify the answer that God doesn't require a cause as he always existed.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

If the Universe did not have a beginning then your right, it does not need a cause, but it does appear to have had a beginning.

There was no time before the big bang, cause and effect requires time.

As I mentioned, it appears that "normal" scientific laws did not apply until some time after the big bang started, so "cause and effect" does not apply until after the universe is in existence..

So, the Universe did not necessarily need a cause.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Firstly this isn't within the scope of what I was arguing as I was simply arguing the justification for God not requiring a cause.

Acknowledged.

Secondly I will go onto say that the moment time existed in this universe the universe had a beginning because everything subject to time has a beginning like I said before this isn't a scientific principle but a logical principle it's something we can deduct. Time ALWAYS implies a start.

Please see my post #154 immediately preceding this one.

I explain why cause and effect, and your "logical principals", don't apply to the beginning of the big bang. They only came into effect later, after the universe was formed.

Lastly again I'm not here to argue the origin of the universe I was simply here to justify the answer that God doesn't require a cause as he always existed.

No problem, so long as you agree that the universe doesn't need a cause because it too might have always existed.

 

[TomZzyzx]

There was no time before the big bang, cause and effect requires time.

As I mentioned, it appears that "normal" scientific laws did not apply until some time after the big bang started, so "cause and effect" does not apply until after the universe is in existence..

So, the Universe did not need a cause.

So you are saying that the universe came into being by itself and from nothing? Remember something can not come from nothing. Talk about blind faith.

By the way, can you tell me how you know how "normal scientific laws did not apply until some time after the big bang started"?

 

[BucksWordBearer]

Removed text*

 

[SteveB28]

Your kidding, right?

I just eliminated your charge of Special Pleading by clearing up the misunderstanding of the Law of Causality.

The Universe had a beginning, therefore the Universe needs a cause.

God did not have a beginning, therefore God does not need a cause.

I did not create a principle, I stated a scientific law. I did not create an exception to that law, merely explained how that law works in relation to God and the Universe.

Please explain how you know for a fact that our universe had a beginning. And once you complete that chore, please explain why it is that it must have had a "cause".

My understanding is that, mathematically at least, contemporary scientists have demonstrated that this is not necessarily so.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

So you are saying that the universe came into being by itself and from nothing? Remember something can not come from nothing. Talk about blind faith.

First, how do you know something cannot come from nothing? Please give proof if you have it. Maybe "nothing" is unstable, and if nothing exists, something has to come from it.

Second, the universe is eternal, just like your god. There was no time before the big bang.

Then the big bang, then according to science shortly after the universe was created, the normal scientific laws came into effect.

EDIT: Please see post #160. Mathematicians have proven the universe could have come from nothing.

By the way, can you tell me how you know how "normal scientific laws did not apply until some time after the big bang started"?

Reading scientific papers and watching lectures on cosmology on youtube. They are very interesting.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...
My understanding is that, mathematically at least, contemporary scientists have demonstrated that this is not necessarily so.

Interesting, I didn't know that.

I only knew the normal scientific laws didn't apply for the first 10^-40 of a second (roughly) after the big bang. So no cause and effect for the creationists lol.

EDIT: Thanks for the tip. I googled it, and found this:

A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Today they get their wish thanks to the work of Dongshan He and buddies at the Wuhan Institute of Physics and Mathematics in China. These guys have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations.The new proof is based on a special set of solutions to a mathematical entity known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation.