Is 'God' the ultimate causer, of which there is no cause??

[XliMun(Frontalobe)~]

Something has to cause something.

So do we just keep on going back and back and back? How could this be the case? That would mean that something caused 'the big bang', and something caused the cause before that, and so on.

If there is a creator above all creation then the above statement, "something has to be caused by something" would then be false.

How on earth can you even start to imagine that? I don't think it is possible to imagine it, therefore, how can it be possible to believe in such a thing?

Ignorance, perhaps?

*I don't truly believe in anything I have typed, it's just thought (imagination).

quote:

Dude: "Why is there evil?"

God: "Because I gave people free will"



Dude: "Why do you want man to have free will if evil can happen?"

God: "Without evil, you would not appreciate me"

Dude: "But if I don't believe in you, how can I appreciate you?"

God: "If you don't believe in me, then to whom are you asking your questions?"

Dude: "Myslef?"

God: "Exactly...And without free will you would not appreciate yourself"

Dude: "So, I am you?...You are me?"

God: "yes"

Dude "So, if I decide to become evil, then you are evil?"

God: "yes"

Dude: "so you are potential good and evil?"

God: "not potentialy, am."

Dude: "like a balance then?"

God: "yes, dude, like a balance..."

Dude: "Then evil actually IS necessary for existence!"

God: "...balanced with good, yes"

Dude: " So I can never be all good, never be perfect?"

God: "But, dude, you are perfect, I made you in my image..."

Dude: "ok, thanks, God, sorry to bother you...I mean, me..."

God: "It's no trouble"

[This message has been edited by XliMun(Frontalobe)~ (edited 01-13-2004).]

[icantthinkofaname]

well you could listen to quantum physics and replace causality with the word "chance", problem just about solved. there does not have to be any underlying mechanism. who know's superstring theory could be the answer...?

"if you were not shocked by Quantum physics then you did not understand it" Neils Bohr

[This message has been edited by icantthinkofaname (edited 01-13-2004).]

[XliMun(Frontalobe)~]

quote:

well you could listen to quantum physics and replace causality with the word "chance",

But doesn't something have to cause a chance?

The way i see it at this precise moment is that 'there is always a cause' (with or without chance), but, 'there isn't always a chance'.

For example, there is no chance that I am going to turn into a pink dragon, is there?

But IF I did, there would be cause behind it.

If you can explain why anyone could imagine different then please show the way...

I'm not trying to be flippant, I would honestly like someone to disprove this statement:

'there is no chance without cause'

[icantthinkofaname]

the whole essence of chance is that it does not require a mechanism that controls the outcome, i.e. it is random. for example beta decay is random, it has no underlying known mechanism.

it is difficult to think about. i do not believe in causality becasue you end up with awkward questions. lets say for exmaple you discover a particle called "that causes that", then we want to know the answer to "what causes that which causes that to occur". if you were to limit it you end up with either the whole purpose of causality or you end up with a omnipotent being. just sit and think about it.......

[This message has been edited by icantthinkofaname (edited 01-13-2004).]

[XliMun(Frontalobe)~]

quote:

the whole essence of chance is that it does not require a mechanism that controls the outcome, i.e. it is random. for example beta decay is random, it has no underlying known mechanism.

it is difficult to think about. i do not believe in causality becasue you end up with awkward questions. lets say for exmaple you discover a particle called "that causes that", then we want to know the answer to "what causes that which causes that to occur". if you were to limit it you end up with either the whole purpose of causality or you end up with a omnipotent being. just sit and think about it.......

quote:

the whole essence of chance is that it does not require a mechanism that controls the outcome, i.e. it is random. for example beta decay is random, it has no underlying known mechanism.

Because it is unknown, does that mean there is none? So would you be willing to say that something can just 'exist' without being caused to exist? I have trouble picturing that.

quote:

lets say for exmaple you discover a particle called "that causes that", then we want to know the answer to "what causes that which causes that to occur". if you were to limit it you end up with either the whole purpose of causality or you end up with a omnipotent being.

Exactly my point. But how can we tell that there is a 'whole purpose of causality' or 'the cause of which there is no cause'?

So by your reasoning then, you believe that it IS possible to have 'a cause of which there is no cause'...

So, you believe that 'existence can happen without cause' ?

You can't explain an incident which would prove this. (like you can't prove there is no underlying mechansim for beta decay)

Even IF it does NOT have an underlying 'mechanism', then how would you go about proving that there is no underlying 'anything'?

Last but not least...

Would we have Beta decay without the existence of the universe? Therefore the existence of the universe could be considered the cause of Beta decay.

What I'm asking is, 'What is the cause of the universe?'.

If the cause is random, then what made it possible for there to be randomness in the first place?

You see, it either stops at something, or it just carries on.

If it stops, what the fuck is it?

Nothing, perhaps.

[ilbastardoh]

What if the whole purpose of casuality is to cause yourself to be. What if you are only causing yourself to be, however you desire. Causing yourself to be, causes a point of reference which certain postulates can be deduced through observation. The fact that you recognize yourself as a point of reference, along with other points of reference creates the whole system.

Perhaps for a system to be whole all parts must have a link. An example of this "link" would be a balance, not unlike the atmosphere of this planet. What if all information is binary(two sided) and cyclical in nature. If this were true, then what is it that causes variations? I say it would have to be points of reference caused by whatever expresses itself as a point of reference.

[Inside_Voices]

Does there need to be a cause? Human nature is that we try to find a cause because we refuse to let it be said that there is no cause...but what if that is true? What if we exist for no reason but coincidence and evolution? I prefer that line of thought, myself.

[Whisp]

How do you know that the cause doesnt go on for infinity, or what if in the future we cause the big bang...then all this will be exactly repeated in the future/past.

humans, what a joke...

[Inside_Voices]

quote:Originally posted by Whisp:

How do you know that the cause doesnt go on for infinity, or what if in the future we cause the big bang...then all this will be exactly repeated in the future/past.

humans, what a joke...

It's funny cuz humans have done next to nothing to impact the universe...we are just a little speck of nothing.

[XliMun(Frontalobe)~]

quote:

What if we exist for no reason but coincidence and evolution?

What's the cause of coincidence and evolution?

Ok, I'll stop. I think that was ever point has been made...Has been made.