Why physicists can't avoid a creator

[Lion Hearted Man]

God did not have a beginning and so did not require a cause. God created time and is not subject to the limitations of His own creation.

Then some things can be their own causes. Like God.

 

[CabVet]

Then some things can be their own causes. Like God.

Yeah, they use the argument "what was before the Big Bang?" to try to weaken science, but when the same question is asked about God ("what was before God?"), the same logic does not apply. Typical and very predictable.

 

[mathetes123]

Then some things can be their own causes. Like God.

Let me repeat. Things which have no beginning do not require a cause. God was not his own cause because he had no beginning and therefore did not require a cause. God created time, exists outside of time, and is not subject to the limitations of his own creation.

 

[CabVet]

Let me repeat. Things which have no beginning do not require a cause. God was not his own cause because he had no beginning and therefore did not require a cause. God created time, exists outside of time, and is not subject to the limitations of his own creation.

Let me repeat. There might be things in physics that have no beginning and do not require a cause.

 

[mathetes123]

1) It's okay if you want God to be exempt from the rules, but then the rules aren't really rules anymore. So now, not everything requires a cause.

2) The DNA-protein system evolved. DNA can be altered, thus the information can be changed. All you're doing is regurgitating PRATs.

1) God is not subject to the limitations of His own creation. Since he has no beginning, he does not require a cause. He created time and exists outside of time.

2) DNA evolved is not an answer. Have you ever seen life spontaneously appear from non-life? Has DNA ever been produced in a laboratory, much less observed to evolve in nature? How did the first DNA molecule replicate itself in the first generation without the mechanism to reproduce itself in place?

You have simply accepted evolution as the answer, not because the evidence leads to that conclusion, but because it is the answer that does not require God as the cause. With God out of the picture, you can live under the self-delusion that you are not answerable to a higher being for the way you live your life.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I am not sure it is meaningful to view intelligence in an atemporal context.

 

[mathetes123]

Let me repeat. There might be things in physics that have no beginning and do not require a cause.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Science has established that the universe had a beginning, therefore, it required a cause.

 

[CabVet]

1) God is not subject to the limitations of His own creation. Since he has no beginning, he does not require a cause. He created time and exists outside of time.

2) DNA evolved is not an answer. Have you ever seen life spontaneously appear from non-life? Has DNA ever been produced in a laboratory, much less observed to evolve in nature? How did the first DNA molecule replicate itself in the first generation without the mechanism to reproduce itself in place?

You have simply accepted evolution as the answer, not because the evidence leads to that conclusion, but because it is the answer that does not require God as the cause. With God out of the picture, you can live under the self-delusion that you are not answerable to a higher being for the way you live your life.

How about providing evidence for your statement #1 above? While you think about it, I have two:

1) Evolution does not explain how DNA appeared, it explains how it evolves.

2) DNA is produced in laboratories every single day and there are literally millions of observations of it evolving. Do you know why you need a flu shot every year? Because the DNA of the flu virus evolves and causes the virus to become resistant to vaccines. Ever heard of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics? That is caused by evolution.

 

[CabVet]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Science has established that the universe had a beginning, therefore, it required a cause.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

The only evidence for "creationism" is that everything needs a creator, therefore, God needs a creator.

 

[Upisoft]

Logic. Nothing can be it's own cause.

This is not logic, this is statement. It could be true or false. Why do you think it is true?

I still wait for an answer.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I still wait for an answer.

It is true by definition. 'Cause' always refers to a different entity than its 'effect'. Otherwise we'd not make the distinction to begin with.

 

[mathetes123]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

The only evidence for "creationism" is that everything needs a creator, therefore, God needs a creator.

Why would something that has no beginning require a cause? God created time, exists outside of time, and is not subject to time.

 

[mathetes123]

How about providing evidence for your statement #1 above? While you think about it, I have two:

1) Evolution does not explain how DNA appeared, it explains how it evolves.

2) DNA is produced in laboratories every single day and there are literally millions of observations of it evolving. Do you know why you need a flu shot every year? Because the DNA of the flu virus evolves and causes the virus to become resistant to vaccines. Ever heard of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics? That is caused by evolution.

DNA is not "created" in laboratories. Existing DNA is manipulated.

Bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics is an example of micro-evolution (variation within created kinds) which is not in contention. The more resistant bacteria is still bacteria. Macro-evolution, which is a change from one created kind to another, is the point in contention.

 

[mathetes123]

I still wait for an answer.

You might benefit from a course in logic if you are suggesting that something can be it's own cause. How can something which does not exist, cause itself to come into existence? You cannot get something from nothing.

 

[Upisoft]

It is true by definition. 'Cause' always refers to a different entity than its 'effect'. Otherwise we'd not make the distinction to begin with.

In this case the "logic" you used still has problems and the problem is that it assumes that everything has a cause, thus(by definition above) you conclude that something cannot be caused by itself. You did not state that premise, so I didn't know you hold it true. So why you think everything has a cause?

 

[Upisoft]

You might benefit from a course in logic if you are suggesting that something can be it's own cause. How can something which does not exist, cause itself to come into existence? You cannot get something from nothing.

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm analyzing what you've said and asking questions about missing pieces of information. Please let us discuss it in more civil way.

 

[SonOfTheWest]

Our current limited understanding of space/time makes understanding how far the necessity of causality stretches difficult at best.

 

[mathetes123]

In this case the "logic" you used still has problems and the problem is that it assumes that everything has a cause, thus(by definition above) you conclude that something cannot be caused by itself. You did not state that premise, so I didn't know you hold it true. So why you think everything has a cause?

Not everything requires a cause, only everything that has a beginning, and nothing can be it's own cause.

 

[Upisoft]

Not everything requires a cause, only everything that has a beginning, and nothing can be it's own cause.

I like that, now I'll need some more information.

1) What you call "beginning"? Is it a point in time before which the thing did not exist and exists after this point?

2) Why everything that has beginning (whatever that is) must necessarily have a cause?

 

[mathetes123]

I like that, now I'll need some more information.

1) What you call "beginning"? Is it a point in time before which the thing did not exist and exists after this point?

2) Why everything that has beginning (whatever that is) must necessarily have a cause?

1) Yes
2) Can you get something from nothing?