Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

nezmot · 12-01-2005, 08:19 AM

1. Uncaused: No, this violates the Principle of Causality
Wrong - there is no such thing as the Principle of Causality. Read some quantum physics, causality was replaced with Undeterminism a long time ago (1920s?)

2. Self-caused: Imposable beacuse somehting can't create itself. The universe would exist prior to it existing.
Wrong Things create themselves all the time. Life is a great example of a self-creative process, so are the particle/anti-particle pairs that appear and disappear from and back into nowhere all over the place.

3.Caused by something or someonelse:Yes, it is the only reasonable explanation and is consistent with the principle of causality. It's more reasonable to believe the existence came from nothing by someone then nothing by nothing. (Hebrews 11:3)
Wrong No, it's not, because by definition, it is not an explanation. Why? Because it starts off by carefully stating that everything requires a cause, and then invents a causeless entity called God that breaks all the rules. Where's the logic in that? It's nonsense.

You're replacing an unknown with another unknown - that doesn't answer the question, it just deferrs it for later.

12-01-2005, 08:19 AM	#9 (permalink)
nezmot Registered User	1. Uncaused: No, this violates the Principle of Causality Wrong - there is no such thing as the Principle of Causality. Read some quantum physics, causality was replaced with Undeterminism a long time ago (1920s?) 2. Self-caused: Imposable beacuse somehting can't create itself. The universe would exist prior to it existing. Wrong Things create themselves all the time. Life is a great example of a self-creative process, so are the particle/anti-particle pairs that appear and disappear from and back into nowhere all over the place. 3.Caused by something or someonelse:Yes, it is the only reasonable explanation and is consistent with the principle of causality. It's more reasonable to believe the existence came from nothing by someone then nothing by nothing. (Hebrews 11:3) Wrong No, it's not, because by definition, it is not an explanation. Why? Because it starts off by carefully stating that everything requires a cause, and then invents a causeless entity called God that breaks all the rules. Where's the logic in that? It's nonsense. You're replacing an unknown with another unknown - that doesn't answer the question, it just deferrs it for later.