For every effect their must be a cuase. Everbody debate this classical arguement please

[coolduude]

Can you name a single effect that is uncaused?

Some would say the universe is uncaused (crazy, but I’ve heard it). I think the most common ‘uncaused effect’ are virtual particles. Interesting stuff right there.

 

[Luke_K]

Can you name a single effect that is uncaused?

Isn’t that a circular question though? Of course you can’t name an effect that is uncaused because then it wouldn’t be an effect. It’s a trivial question.

Can you name any cause-and-effect relationship that brought something into existence that didn’t exist before, and not just resulted in a translation in space and time of stuff that already existed?

The whole cosmological argument fails, I believe, because it attempts to form a chain of translational/transformational cause-and-effects back through time, but then makes the unjustified jump to creation cause-and-effects outside of time.

 

[momor]

Isn’t that a circular question though? Of course you can’t name an effect that is uncaused because then it wouldn’t be an effect. It’s a trivial question.

Can you name any cause-and-effect relationship that brought something into existence that didn’t exist before, and not just resulted in a translation in space and time of stuff that already existed?

The whole cosmological argument fails, I believe, because it attempts to form a chain of translational/transformational cause-and-effects back through time, but then makes the unjustified jump to creation cause-and-effects outside of time.

Why does time as we know it have to be the only ‘time’? Can’t there be a ‘time’ before time began?

 

[Luke_K]

Why does time as we know it have to be the only ‘time’? Can’t there be a ‘time’ before time began?

Because then you’re just talking fantasy, and not our actual experience and understanding of reality.

How about this:
Can’t there be a time
before time
before time
etc…
before time began?

 

[momor]

Because then you’re just talking fantasy, and not our actual experience and understanding of reality.

How about this:
Can’t there be a time
before time
before time
etc…
before time began?

Why do you think our actual experience and understanding of reality is all there is that’s real?

 

[grannymh]

Why do you think our actual experience and understanding of reality is all there is that’s real?

Reality actually consists of both the material and immaterial, spirit and matter, rational and corporeal.

Of course, the material and physical realm can be readily understood. But that does not exclude the reality of immaterial/spiritual existence which can be known by the tools of reason, self reflection, logical evaluation, and analytical thought.

 

[Luke_K]

Why do you think our actual experience and understanding of reality is all there is that’s real?

I don’t. I believe that bread and wine can become the body and blood of God, for one thing. I just don’t think we’re making any sense when we talk of a time before time.

 

[momor]

I don’t. I believe that bread and wine can become the body and blood of God, for one thing. I just don’t think we’re making any sense when we talk of a time before time.

I’m a little confused about what you think about God as a first cause.

Do you agree that God exists outside of time as we know it (always is, always was, always will be)?

Do you agree that God created the Universe?

 

[Luke_K]

I’m a little confused about what you think about God as a first cause.

Do you agree that God exists outside of time as we know it (always is, always was, always will be)?

Do you agree that God created the Universe?

Yes to both questions. But I think that although God created the universe, it and God and the angels have always existed, by which I mean there was no time when they did not exist.

 

[momor]

Yes to both questions. But I think that although God created the universe, it and God and the angels have always existed, by which I mean there was no time when they did not exist.

Thanks for clarifying.

The angels probably existed before the creation of the Universe since their creation is not mentioned in Genesis. But angels are not infinite beings like God is because they were created. Only God always was. So by definition, as a first cause that always was, God had to exist before the time of angels. And because angels were created, by definition, they had a beginning.

 

[Mojoforyeshua]

So God created the conditions that caused the big bang to occur, but we can never know from whence God came and have no observational evidence of God’s existence.

Why not just miss a step and say we don’t know what caused the big bang?

God is the ultimate uncaused cause. Time is apart of the universe and in the “time before” the universe existed, time did not either. God, existing before the universe and therefor time, does not need an explanation for his existence because “before God” is a nonsensical statement. A Jewish Rabbi was once asked to describe God and said “God is, He is, God is the isness of is.”

And in reference to the bumper-sticker-like-thingy saying " the existence of a thing is directly proportional to its observability." I would like to comment that I agree. God is just about the most obvious thing around, if you are mindful of it. Just like when you are reading, I’m sure you don’t always notice that you are using your eyes unless someone points it out. Just a thought, not basing any arguments on it really but once you start looking at the world through the lens of theism, then God truly does become clear.
Peace be with you ,
John

 

[Mojoforyeshua]

Thanks for clarifying.

The angels probably existed before the creation of the Universe since their creation is not mentioned in Genesis. But angels are not infinite beings like God is because they were created. Only God always was. So by definition, as a first cause that always was, God had to exist before the time of angels. And because angels were created, by definition, they had a beginning.

Possibly, but there is also the fact that we know very little about angels. And this makes some sense because that isn’t our story.

 

[Lypher]

Faith…

 

[Moonstruck888]

God is the ultimate uncaused cause. Time is apart of the universe and in the “time before” the universe existed, time did not either. God, existing before the universe and therefor time, does not need an explanation for his existence because “before God” is a nonsensical statement. A Jewish Rabbi was once asked to describe God and said “God is, He is, God is the isness of is.”

In other words, God is what he is and is not what he is not, and other than that I have no duty to provide any explanation?

That is a vague, meaningless, non-statement.

And in reference to the bumper-sticker-like-thingy saying " the existence of a thing is directly proportional to its observability." I would like to comment that I agree. God is just about the most obvious thing around, if you are mindful of it. Just like when you are reading, I’m sure you don’t always notice that you are using your eyes unless someone points it out. Just a thought, not basing any arguments on it really but once you start looking at the world through the lens of theism, then God truly does become clear.
Peace be with you ,
John

The “bumper-sticker-like-thingy” is merely making the point that the more extraordinary a claim is, the more extraordinary the evidence needs to be that backs it up.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I’ll accept your criticism when you can show me the “evidence” that God doesn’t exist and it won’t be found in the banned topic because I can use the topic to argue for the existence of God. And lack of evidence of God is not proof.

Lack of evidence is in itself evidence. If something cannot be detected or categorized by any means, then it is either nothing or it is indistinguishable from nothing. Moreover, I don’t have to prove to you that I dismiss the claim that an omnipotent superbeing is running the show.

You see, I don’t care if you believe there is a God or not, it makes no difference to me, but if you or anyone expects me to spend two hours grovelling on my knees on a Sunday, if you or anyone expects me to give 10% of my income to God, or to sit with my hands clapsed murmuring to God, you’re going to have to prove to me that God exists.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Why do you think our actual experience and understanding of reality is all there is that’s real?

Speaking for myself, I don’t. I think that since the question cannot currently be answered, it is our duty to suspend judgement until if and when it can be answered.

Any answer to that question postulated at the moment would at best be science fiction.

 

[grannymh]

Speaking for myself, I don’t. I think that since the question cannot currently be answered, it is our duty to suspend judgement until if and when it can be answered.

Any answer to that question postulated at the moment would at best be science fiction.

I understand your worldview and your right to it. However, in my humble opinion, commenting that “Any answer to that question postulated at the moment would at best be science fiction.” is a tad over the top.

Personally, I don’t expect you to do anything…
You have an intellect and will and apparently you are responsible for your actions.

Blessngs,
granny

All human persons are worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[momor]

Lack of evidence is in itself evidence. If something cannot be detected or categorized by any means, then it is either nothing or it is indistinguishable from nothing. Moreover, I don’t have to prove to you that I dismiss the claim that an omnipotent superbeing is running the show.

You see, I don’t care if you believe there is a God or not, it makes no difference to me, but if you or anyone expects me to spend two hours grovelling on my knees on a Sunday, if you or anyone expects me to give 10% of my income to God, or to sit with my hands clapsed murmuring to God, you’re going to have to prove to me that God exists.

Lack of evidence means it hasn’t been measured or observed in some way yet, not that something doesn’t exist. It requires actual evidence of non-existence to say something doesn’t exist. In another post you agree that you don’t think we know everything there is to know yet about reality.

 

[Mojoforyeshua]

In other words, God is what he is and is not what he is not, and other than that I have no duty to provide any explanation?

That is a vague, meaningless, non-statement.

No, the assumption many atheists make (including Dawkins) is that since the universe began to exist, then God must have to (assuming his existence). But this is not what Christians believe, we believe He is eternal and existed before time. This means He “always” has been. The statement is that God simply is, it isn’t that He is what He isn’t. It is most definitely not a vague, meaningless, non-statement. It’s actually abundantly clear.

 

[reggieM]

Speaking for myself, I don’t. I think that since the question cannot currently be answered, it is our duty to suspend judgement until if and when it can be answered.

I think we’re just asking you to speak for yourself here. In this case, you’ve made a judgement (that you “don’t”). You had to base that judgement on something. From reading your responses, you don’t seem to be unintelligent or deluded – so I would guess that you found some good reasons.

Any answer to that question postulated at the moment would at best be science fiction.

As above, you’ve drawn a personal conclusion though. I do not think that we have to believe that you accept your own science fiction as being true.