Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


New Britain
Today at 03:10 PM

German nationalist party ...
Today at 01:11 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 03:13 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
February 05, 2025, 10:04 PM

Gaza assault
February 05, 2025, 10:04 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
February 03, 2025, 09:25 AM

The origins of Judaism
by zeca
February 02, 2025, 04:29 PM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 11:48 PM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 01, 2025, 07:29 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 01, 2025, 11:55 AM

News From Syria
by zeca
December 28, 2024, 12:29 AM

Mo Salah
December 26, 2024, 05:30 AM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Prove We Have Creator

 (Read 20952 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #90 - May 20, 2009, 08:54 AM

    Kope;

    Islam is a religious faith  - not a religious fact.



    do you believe evolution is a fact or faith?


    do you believe atheistism is a fact or faith?

    Kope, you seem to have things arse-about-face. So lets start with your second question:
           Atheism is a disregard for all faith, for the concept of faith itself, even. This is because every single faith there ever was simply has no evidence for it's assertions and therefore no support except that which is manufactured in men's minds. Having 'faith' in a thing does not make it true or real. I can understand how a religiously reared person might not be able to see how 'belief' can be omitted but it might help to see that 'expectation' could be substituted. Expectation, in the form of the Hypothesis is built into the Scientific method, and is not there to be believed but to be tested. If the tests (experiments) do not support it, it is modified or debunked and the process of formulation restarts. You can't do this with a Belief.
       Belief is a black or white/ right or wrong thing and Atheism is not, it is open ended.
    Now, why is that plain assertion not straightforward?

    As for your first question, the answer is again quite straightforward, if you want to see it:
         Evolution is a demonstrable fact. You can prove this to yourself by making the observations and carrying out the experiments that provide the irrefutable evidence.
    Of course, you'll need to start by reading up some Darwin, Malthus, Mendel, etc, but that will provide the basis you need to carry out some simple observations and do some simple experiments , as Mendel did.
        You can look at all the different strands of evidence, if your mind is not in a straight jacket, and come to realise how each strand contributes to the inexorable conclusion of the fact of evolution and it's mechanisms.
    Inform yourself on Geology, Palaeontology, Archaeology, Chemistry, Genetics, the vastness of time and, most importantly, the scientific method.
    For proper understanding you need to rid yourself of Belief. Perhaps Belief is an evolutionary form of mass Psychiatry.

    Religion is ignorance giftwrapped in lyricism.
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #91 - May 20, 2009, 09:03 AM

    Kope;

    Islam is a religious faith  - not a religious fact.



    do you believe evolution is a fact or faith?


    do you believe atheistism is a fact or faith?




    A person who doent believe in god is fact. Its a fact they dont believe in God.


    Many scientist agree the evolution is a fact



    base on what? scientist say so? did they tested in lab?

    Quote
    A person who doent believe in god is fact. Its a fact they dont believe in God.



    A person who  believe in god is fact  grin12

    please read my blog, read how islam will win
    the clash of civilization.

    http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #92 - May 20, 2009, 09:05 AM

    we are living breathing creature something created us


    Wrong! My father and mother created me!

    ...
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #93 - May 20, 2009, 09:06 AM

    Quote
    base on what? scientist say so? did they tested in lab?


    Yes, they did.  Try reading up on the subject a little....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution

    "Befriend them not, Oh murtads, and give them neither parrot nor bunny."  - happymurtad's advice on trolls.
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #94 - May 20, 2009, 09:07 AM

    A person who doent believe in god is fact. Its a fact they dont believe in God.

    Many scientist agree the evolution is a fact

    base on what? scientist say so? did they tested in lab?

    Yes. They did. Shows how much you know, doesn't it? You don't even know what you don't believe in. Grin

    Go read up on evolution. If you're going to criticise it you should learn something about it.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #95 - May 20, 2009, 09:16 AM

    Kope;

    Islam is a religious faith  - not a religious fact.



    do you believe evolution is a fact or faith?


    do you believe atheistism is a fact or faith?

    Kope, you seem to have things arse-about-face. So lets start with your second question:
           Atheism is a disregard for all faith, for the concept of faith itself, even. This is because every single faith there ever was simply has no evidence for it's assertions and therefore no support except that which is manufactured in men's minds. Having 'faith' in a thing does not make it true or real. I can understand how a religiously reared person might not be able to see how 'belief' can be omitted but it might help to see that 'expectation' could be substituted. Expectation, in the form of the Hypothesis is built into the Scientific method, and is not there to be believed but to be tested. If the tests (experiments) do not support it, it is modified or debunked and the process of formulation restarts. You can't do this with a Belief.
       Belief is a black or white/ right or wrong thing and Atheism is not, it is open ended.
    Now, why is that plain assertion not straightforward?




    if there is no prove for god than  there is also no prove god does not exists

    please read my blog, read how islam will win
    the clash of civilization.

    http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #96 - May 20, 2009, 09:17 AM

    we are living breathing creature something created us


    Wrong! My father and mother created me!


    who created your father and mother?

    please read my blog, read how islam will win
    the clash of civilization.

    http://www.xanga.com/hfghj23458654fgha
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #97 - May 20, 2009, 09:21 AM

    we are living breathing creature something created us


    Wrong! My father and mother created me!


    who created your father and mother?


    My grandparents for sure! Silly you!

    ...
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #98 - May 20, 2009, 09:22 AM

    if there is no prove for god than  there is also no prove god does not exists

    That is a non sequitur.

    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #99 - May 20, 2009, 09:33 AM

    Kope;

    Islam is a religious faith  - not a religious fact.



    do you believe evolution is a fact or faith?


    do you believe atheistism is a fact or faith?

    Kope, you seem to have things arse-about-face. So lets start with your second question:
           Atheism is a disregard for all faith, for the concept of faith itself, even. This is because every single faith there ever was simply has no evidence for it's assertions and therefore no support except that which is manufactured in men's minds. Having 'faith' in a thing does not make it true or real. I can understand how a religiously reared person might not be able to see how 'belief' can be omitted but it might help to see that 'expectation' could be substituted. Expectation, in the form of the Hypothesis is built into the Scientific method, and is not there to be believed but to be tested. If the tests (experiments) do not support it, it is modified or debunked and the process of formulation restarts. You can't do this with a Belief.
       Belief is a black or white/ right or wrong thing and Atheism is not, it is open ended.
    Now, why is that plain assertion not straightforward?




    if there is no prove for god than  there is also no prove god does not exists

    I'm not talking about god or any other irrational belief - who gives a flying fuck what people believe in. I'm talking about Belief itself. Concentrate, stick to the point!

    Religion is ignorance giftwrapped in lyricism.
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #100 - May 20, 2009, 09:36 AM

    we are living breathing creature something created us


    Wrong! My father and mother created me!


    who created your father and mother?


    My grandparents for sure! Silly you!

    As the little-old-lady-southern-baptist said to Terry Pratchett, 'It's turtles all the way down, young man'.

    Religion is ignorance giftwrapped in lyricism.
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #101 - May 20, 2009, 10:00 AM

    Inform yourself on Geology, Palaeontology, Archaeology, Chemistry, Genetics, the vastness of time and, most importantly, the scientific method.

     Afro

    My Book     news002       
    My Blog  pccoffee
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #102 - May 20, 2009, 10:29 AM

    we are living breathing creature something created us


    Wrong! My father and mother created me!


    who created your father and mother?


    My grandparents for sure! Silly you!

    As the little-old-lady-southern-baptist said to Terry Pratchett, 'It's turtles all the way down, young man'.


     Cheesy

    ...
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #103 - May 20, 2009, 05:49 PM

    Anyone got terminally bored and read Kope's xanga blog? Believe me. it's cuckoo-mental. This person has serious mental health issues. there's no wonder he/she/it can't string a proper argument together.
    Go on! Have a quick peek! No one's looking. Shan had better clutch her cross and mutter a long prayer though.

    Yep, look at his earlier threads when we first got glimpse of his poetry


    He wrote poetry?

    Yes, you did not know that?  Its some of the best poetry I have ever read - just check his blog (on his profile)


    I don't see any poetry...

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #104 - May 20, 2009, 06:35 PM

    It doesn't have to be a copout. You could take the Kalam Cosmological argument line that says that something which is eternal is (obviously) not caused, and everything which isn't eternal does have a cause (seems to be the case). But everything that is not eternal must have a cause. The line of causes cannot go back infinitely, so there must be an eternal cause. What is it?

    Why can't it go back infinitely?

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #105 - May 20, 2009, 06:41 PM

    It doesn't have to be a copout. You could take the Kalam Cosmological argument line that says that something which is eternal is (obviously) not caused, and everything which isn't eternal does have a cause (seems to be the case). But everything that is not eternal must have a cause. The line of causes cannot go back infinitely, so there must be an eternal cause. What is it?

    Why can't it go back infinitely?


    The definition of eternal is something which has no beginning and no end.

    Therefore, something which is not eternal has a beginning (i.e. It's existence does not go back infinitely in time).

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #106 - May 20, 2009, 06:55 PM

    The definition of eternal is something which has no beginning and no end.

    Therefore, something which is not eternal has a beginning (i.e. It's existence does not go back infinitely in time).

    And?

    First of all, we are supposing that each single physical event is NOT eternal.
    That doesn't in any way tell us if the span of all physical events is itself eternal or not.

    Secondly, if time is not-discrete (it does not even have to be mathematically continuous for this to be true), it's very possible to go back through the chain of cause-effect WITHOUT going back infinitely in time.

    Example:
    a happens at time 0
    b caused a, b happened 1 unit of time before a (at time -1)
    c caused b, c happened 1/2 unit of time before b (at time -1.5)
    d caused c, d happened 1/4 unit of time before c (at time -1.75)

    And so on...

    Result? You have an infinite regression of causes that does not even reach time -2

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #107 - May 20, 2009, 07:04 PM

    In mathematical words, you CANNOT claim that some set A is unlimited if you can partition it in subsets that are all limited

    Take the natural numbers, for example.
    You can define infinite ways to group natural numbers into limited subsets, but the their superset is unlimited by definition.

    For example, I can divide N in these subsets: {1, 2}, {3, 4}, {5, 6}, {7, 8}, ...
    Each is limited. Their parent set is not.

    Edited cause I can't count Tongue

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #108 - May 20, 2009, 07:40 PM

    The definition of eternal is something which has no beginning and no end.

    Therefore, something which is not eternal has a beginning (i.e. It's existence does not go back infinitely in time).

    And?

    First of all, we are supposing that each single physical event is NOT eternal.
    That doesn't in any way tell us if the span of all physical events is itself eternal or not.

    Secondly, if time is not-discrete (it does not even have to be mathematically continuous for this to be true), it's very possible to go back through the chain of cause-effect WITHOUT going back infinitely in time.

    Example:
    a happens at time 0
    b caused a, b happened 1 unit of time before a (at time -1)
    c caused b, c happened 1/2 unit of time before b (at time -1.5)
    d caused c, d happened 1/4 unit of time before c (at time -1.75)

    And so on...

    Result? You have an infinite regression of causes that does not even reach time -2


    I think that matter cannot be eternal, yes. This means there cannot be an eternal string of physical causes.

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #109 - May 21, 2009, 12:44 PM

    The definition of eternal is something which has no beginning and no end.

    Therefore, something which is not eternal has a beginning (i.e. It's existence does not go back infinitely in time).

    And?

    First of all, we are supposing that each single physical event is NOT eternal.
    That doesn't in any way tell us if the span of all physical events is itself eternal or not.

    Secondly, if time is not-discrete (it does not even have to be mathematically continuous for this to be true), it's very possible to go back through the chain of cause-effect WITHOUT going back infinitely in time.

    Example:
    a happens at time 0
    b caused a, b happened 1 unit of time before a (at time -1)
    c caused b, c happened 1/2 unit of time before b (at time -1.5)
    d caused c, d happened 1/4 unit of time before c (at time -1.75)

    And so on...

    Result? You have an infinite regression of causes that does not even reach time -2


    I think that matter cannot be eternal, yes. This means there cannot be an eternal string of physical causes.

    1) this is an additional hypothesis
    2) It doesn't exclude that there can be an unlimited regression of non-physical causes (i.e. something that is not "matter" cause matter, and something else that is not matter caused that one, and so on ad infinitum)

    So it still does not demonstrate there is an uncaused cause.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #110 - May 21, 2009, 12:49 PM

    Basically, if you can concede that something non-physical created the physical world, you cannot automatically infer that such cause was not caused itself.

    The only way you have to construct your hypothesis to conclude that there MUST be an uncaused cause is if you say:

    1) everything physical has a cause
    2) the set of "everything physical that has ever existed" is finite
    3) everything non-physical is uncaused

    But that's a really baroque way to just say "there is a creator because I believe there is a creator"
    Because so far, by observation alone, we have no idea if any of those 3 is true or not.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #111 - May 21, 2009, 12:56 PM

    Also, there is the problem of multiple causes.

    Even if you take those hypothesis, you infer that there is AT LEAST 1 uncaused cause.
    But there might be any number >= 1

    That still screws up monotheism

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #112 - May 21, 2009, 02:10 PM

    1) everything physical has a cause
    2) the set of "everything physical that has ever existed" is finite
    3) there must be something that is uncaused, but we know it isn't anything physical... hence I postulate a dimension which is eternal.

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #113 - May 21, 2009, 03:47 PM

    1) everything physical has a cause
    2) the set of "everything physical that has ever existed" is finite
    3) there must be something that is uncaused, but we know it isn't anything physical... hence I postulate a dimension which is eternal.

    That doesn't prove that anything physical has an uncaused cause.

    Because your 3 hypotheses still allow for an infinite regression of causes.
    Except that, due to #2, we know that if such an infinite regression exists, from a certain point backward it will be all made of non-physical causes.

    Your #3 says that something exists which is uncaused, but does not necessarily imply that such an uncaused cause must be found in the chain of causes that lead to anything physical.

    I.E. this scenario fits with your hypothesis:

    "non-physical entity #0" is uncaused
    "Universe" was caused by "not-physical entity #1"
    "not-physical entity #1" was caused by "not-physical entity #2"
    "not-physical entity #2" was caused by "not-physical entity #3"
    ... and so on ad infinitum.

    i.e. two parallel chains. one made of the uncaused non-physical entity to satisfy hypothesis #3
    and an infinite regression chain of unphysical causes that lead to the first physical cause

    The physical universe still would not have an uncaused cause Grin

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #114 - May 21, 2009, 04:32 PM

    1) everything physical has a cause
    2) the set of "everything physical that has ever existed" is finite
    3) there must be something that is uncaused, but we know it isn't anything physical... hence I postulate a dimension which is eternal.

    That doesn't prove that anything physical has an uncaused cause.

    Because your 3 hypotheses still allow for an infinite regression of causes.
    Except that, due to #2, we know that if such an infinite regression exists, from a certain point backward it will be all made of non-physical causes.

    Your #3 says that something exists which is uncaused, but does not necessarily imply that such an uncaused cause must be found in the chain of causes that lead to anything physical.

    I.E. this scenario fits with your hypothesis:

    "non-physical entity #0" is uncaused
    "Universe" was caused by "not-physical entity #1"
    "not-physical entity #1" was caused by "not-physical entity #2"
    "not-physical entity #2" was caused by "not-physical entity #3"
    ... and so on ad infinitum.

    i.e. two parallel chains. one made of the uncaused non-physical entity to satisfy hypothesis #3
    and an infinite regression chain of unphysical causes that lead to the first physical cause

    The physical universe still would not have an uncaused cause Grin


    But the physical universe must have a cause. Everything physical needs a cause. Therefore, there needs to be an eternal, non-physical, uncaused causer.

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #115 - May 21, 2009, 06:54 PM

    Prove We Have A Creator



    The diffination of creator is someone or something cause something to happen


    Our creator is the Earth, Earth is the unique planet among other planets. Earth created all living thing through the process of evolution.


    And the Sun is God of preserver of all living thing  dance




    Immanuel Kant showed that it is not necessary that every event has a cause. This belief is merely based on habit not on reason the universe does not need a cause. Even if it did have a cause there is absolutely no reason then that cause was like a human having conciousness, love etc.





    every thing have cause

    give me example which does not have cause?


    If God is a cause then one asks what caused God? If God caused himself then one can say the universe caused itself.



    god is not a living thing so he is not created being


    The Qur'an says Allah is living (Hayy).


    not in a sense of biology

     Cheesy You keep changing what you say.

    First you say;

    'everything has a cause'

    Then when someone points out that you believe God has no cause you say;

    'Oh I mean a living thing"

    Then when I point out Allah says he is a living thing, you say:

    "Oh I meant in the sense of Biology"

     Cheesy

    OK... How do you know Allah falls outside your definition of Biology?



    well, allah is not made of blood and bones


    Here we go again... Cheesy

    How do you know what Allah is made of?




    ayat declares that allah is beyond comprehend



    Surah Ikhlas (Holy Qur'an 112:1-4) i


    Say: He is Allah, the One and Only! Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not nor is He begotten. And there is none like unto Him.
     



     Cheesy I wondered how long it would take you to resort to the Qur'an as proof!  Cheesy


    Here we go again....  Cheesy "How do you know the Qur'an is true?"

    Don't you understand, Kope?

    It's a circular argument.

    "It's true because it says it's true"






    quran make sense to (ME)


    But that's not proof of anything, Kope.

    You set out to prove we have a creator and you have ended up with the Qur'an as your proof.

    Can't you see that you have no proof for either a Creator nor that the Qur'an is true.






    we are living breathing creature something created us


    Kope, the word "create" implies an intelligent "Creator" - in other words, you are saying that our existence proves the existence of God.

    It doesn't.

    Evolution explains how we developed.

    I agree that science cannot explain how everything all started.

    But the fact that we don't know, does NOT prove that God exists.

    Do you understand?


    what ever created us that is our creator

    can you understand that?

    What is so hard to understand about that, kope that 'what ever' created us, is our creator?

    "Ask the slave girl; she will tell you the truth.' So the Apostle called Burayra to ask her. Ali got up and gave her a violent beating first, saying, 'Tell the Apostle the truth.'"
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #116 - May 22, 2009, 12:47 PM

    1) everything physical has a cause
    2) the set of "everything physical that has ever existed" is finite
    3) there must be something that is uncaused, but we know it isn't anything physical... hence I postulate a dimension which is eternal.

    That doesn't prove that anything physical has an uncaused cause.

    Because your 3 hypotheses still allow for an infinite regression of causes.
    Except that, due to #2, we know that if such an infinite regression exists, from a certain point backward it will be all made of non-physical causes.

    Your #3 says that something exists which is uncaused, but does not necessarily imply that such an uncaused cause must be found in the chain of causes that lead to anything physical.

    I.E. this scenario fits with your hypothesis:

    "non-physical entity #0" is uncaused
    "Universe" was caused by "not-physical entity #1"
    "not-physical entity #1" was caused by "not-physical entity #2"
    "not-physical entity #2" was caused by "not-physical entity #3"
    ... and so on ad infinitum.

    i.e. two parallel chains. one made of the uncaused non-physical entity to satisfy hypothesis #3
    and an infinite regression chain of unphysical causes that lead to the first physical cause

    The physical universe still would not have an uncaused cause Grin


    But the physical universe must have a cause. Everything physical needs a cause. Therefore, there needs to be an eternal, non-physical, uncaused causer.

    In my scenario above, the physical universe has a cause, and it's not physical.
    In no way from your 3 hypotheses you can infer that such cause must be eternal.

    This is yet another hypothesis that you are adding now.

    But as you can notice, you are making this so unnecessarily twisted you could simply say "the universe needs an uncaused cause by hypothesis" Smiley

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #117 - May 22, 2009, 10:20 PM

    1) everything physical has a cause
    2) the set of "everything physical that has ever existed" is finite
    3) there must be something that is uncaused, but we know it isn't anything physical... hence I postulate a dimension which is eternal.

    That doesn't prove that anything physical has an uncaused cause.

    Because your 3 hypotheses still allow for an infinite regression of causes.
    Except that, due to #2, we know that if such an infinite regression exists, from a certain point backward it will be all made of non-physical causes.

    Your #3 says that something exists which is uncaused, but does not necessarily imply that such an uncaused cause must be found in the chain of causes that lead to anything physical.

    I.E. this scenario fits with your hypothesis:

    "non-physical entity #0" is uncaused
    "Universe" was caused by "not-physical entity #1"
    "not-physical entity #1" was caused by "not-physical entity #2"
    "not-physical entity #2" was caused by "not-physical entity #3"
    ... and so on ad infinitum.

    i.e. two parallel chains. one made of the uncaused non-physical entity to satisfy hypothesis #3
    and an infinite regression chain of unphysical causes that lead to the first physical cause

    The physical universe still would not have an uncaused cause Grin


    But the physical universe must have a cause. Everything physical needs a cause. Therefore, there needs to be an eternal, non-physical, uncaused causer.

    In my scenario above, the physical universe has a cause, and it's not physical.
    In no way from your 3 hypotheses you can infer that such cause must be eternal.

    This is yet another hypothesis that you are adding now.

    But as you can notice, you are making this so unnecessarily twisted you could simply say "the universe needs an uncaused cause by hypothesis" Smiley



    No, let's start again:

    Everything around us that we can see, the trees, the earth, the stars, the sun; they are all physical things. They were all caused by a cause. I can't think of a physical thing which has not been caused by something else, so I infer that all physical things must have a cause.

    Because all physical things have a cause, there would have to be an infinite regress of causes, since "everything physical has a cause". However, there would not be a point at which we could say "...And this was the first physical thing that there ever was and which did not have a cause" because I have already inferred that all physical things have a cause. So having an infinite regress has not solved the problem. You could keep asking "...And what caused that cause?"

    Yet there must be something that started off the chain. As I have demonstrated above, it cannot be anything physical, since all physical things have been caused themselves. Therefore, I infer the existence of an extra-physical dimension. The cause must be found in this. And the cause that is found in this dimension must be uncaused.

    Questions?

    The unlived life is not worth examining.
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #118 - May 23, 2009, 08:27 AM

    No, let's start again:

    Everything around us that we can see, the trees, the earth, the stars, the sun; they are all physical things. They were all caused by a cause. I can't think of a physical thing which has not been caused by something else, so I infer that all physical things must have a cause.

    Because all physical things have a cause, there would have to be an infinite regress of causes, since "everything physical has a cause". However, there would not be a point at which we could say "...And this was the first physical thing that there ever was and which did not have a cause" because I have already inferred that all physical things have a cause. So having an infinite regress has not solved the problem. You could keep asking "...And what caused that cause?"

    Yet there must be something that started off the chain. As I have demonstrated above, it cannot be anything physical, since all physical things have been caused themselves. Therefore, I infer the existence of an extra-physical dimension. The cause must be found in this. And the cause that is found in this dimension must be uncaused.

    Questions?

    In the first part I bolded, you are implying that the property of an element is also the property of a set of those elements.
    You are jumping from: "every physical event has a cause" to "the set of all physical events has a cause" as if such set MUST be a physical event itself.
    Such a big assumption requires a hypothesis because it's not inferred from anything.
    It would be like saying: since every natural number is limited, then the set of all natural numbers MUST be limited.

    Now, let's take for granted that the set of all physical events is also a physical event itself.
    Then, yes, it must have a non-physical cause.

    But you pulled out of nowhere that such a non-physical cause MUST be uncaused.

    Why MUST it be uncaused, exactly?
    Even if we assume that the "set of all physical events" is a physical event (and, thus, requires a cause)... You cannot logically say that "the set of all physical events + some non-physical events" is a physical event at all, so you cannot infer that there is NOT an infinite regression of non-physical causes.

    And that doesn't work not even if you claim that "the set of all physical events and non-physical events is a physical event" because, then, you would have that "all physical events + their supposed uncaused cause" is a physical event itself. And it would be uncaused. Which contradicts hypothesis #1 that all physical events have a cause.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Re: Prove We Have Creator
     Reply #119 - May 23, 2009, 08:29 AM

    The only way in which such a demonstration would come up with your conclusion is if you also add: "everything non-physical is uncaused"

    Otherwise an infinite regression of non-physical causes IS ALLOWED.

    Do not look directly at the operational end of the device.
  • Previous page 1 2 3 45 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »