If you believe in god, you have to believe in leprechauns.

LoL....but notice I wrote "MAY be the result..." where you wrote "IS caused". *edit to add: I am not assuming anything, but you are.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 12-09-2004 05:19 PM

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Direct observation of spontaneous, uncaused events at the quantum level. (Yes, I'm referring to atomic decay.) You're only assuming what you intend to prove - that God is the First Cause.

I would say "uncaused event" is a misnomer. The causal situation is more subtle in the quantum world. But I don't know enough about it to be sure. If you like, explain.

I would say that anyone who proposes that the decay of a particular atom is "really" caused, even though we've never detected any evidence that that is so, is just making up causes because they refuse to believe that something could happen without a cause. Again, circular reasoning. Your only rebuttal to an example of an uncaused effect is to assert what you're trying to defend in the first place - that all effects have causes.

Or "someone"? Look:1) I'm a klutz, and I accidentally knock a glass of water over...was it done with purpose...nope just a klutz....no inference of "intelligence".2) I wanna be an ass so I purposely spill molasses onto my friends brand new carpet....arguably some sort of intelligence inferred(sp?).NOW, which category does your cause fit into? the klutz or the ass?Cause IS NOT synonymous with purpose...something we humans tend to forget.

Who said anything aobut purpose?Note: I get the feeling that some people on this forum think that the very mention of the word "God" is automatically meant to invoke all sorts of things that I have never suggested.All I said was that the Big Bang means that the universe came into being. It once did not exist and now it exists.But before continuing, I will stop right there and see if anyone disagrees with me.

Oh? You don't think that the term "God" might be just a little loaded? You are, after all, capitalizing it, which implies you're referring to the Judeo-Christian god, and all that goes with it...If you're so worried about it, use a different term.

I propose we use "Jaba the Hut".

{bold added by me}Then Were you or were you not hinting that God (capital 'G') "caused" the Big Bang? If so, your stuck on thinking that there must be a purposeful causal effect. If not, then carry on.

The First Cause is X.X does not exist in space and time.X has always existed.That's the only qualities we can assign to X.I thereby have disproved the original claim of this thread.

No, you havent. Not even close. First, you have provided no support for your first cause beyond repeating it ad nauseum.There is no proof for your "X" existing and certainly none that it has existed eternally.You have shown nothing but the typical arrogance and ignorance of the creationist. Repitition is not support and it ain't so be cause you say it is.Oh, there are several problems with the argument I used to start this thread. I knew that when I posted it. I was trying to spark debate. Several people have found the problems and commented on them. You, unfortunately, have not.

"typical arrogance and ignorance of the creationist."The funny thing is, I'm not a creationist.Because I did not agree that believing in god (no capitals this time--heaven forbid!) and believing in leprechauns were the same sort of thing, I am hereby labelled as a creationist.The funny thing is, that it was not I who assumed so much in this debate about the person he was debating against. It is that assuming that is arrogance.It was not I who labelled anyone.No. It was you.I do not appreciate being treated with contempt.

Then do not attempt to debate in a manner that warrants it. Assertion is not debate. All you have done is made unfounded assertions.If you don't like the way I am addressing you, show me that you deserve respect! Make an argument and actually support it.

Whether my logic is bad or not has nothing to do with how one should be treated as a person. One should not be labelled. You should address my argument, not be labelling me or issuing adjectives in my direction such as "arrogant" and "ignorant."

I disagree because I think you are using the term "univerese" to mean all things in exsistance.There is good reason to believe that there is more to the universe than what is in our hubble volume. The idea that time itself started with the big bang is, perhaps, outdated though it was persuasivly argued by hawking in "A breif history of time".1: Our "universe" (meaning our space time continum) is larger than our hubble volume. Microwave backround radiation suggests this. Hence there are galaxys beyond our hubble volume. Just becase galaxys they are retreating at faster than the speed of light (and are therfore invisible and unreachable) is no reason to believe that they don't exsist.2: Our "universe" (meaning our space time continum). Could have been produced from a prior universe in a larger "multiverse" (see thread on inflationary cosmology) or it could have been produced from a nehboring "brane" colliding with our brane.So the universe (this time meaning "all exsistance") was not caused by the big bang (in my opinion). Instead the big bang was just something that happened in a larger multiverse, and as such had a cause (or was causeless as some quantum mechanical things are truly causeless (again in my opinion)).Even if the things I have stated are not true, they are still not logicaly inconsistant hence it is not inenvitable that we beleve in a causeless god.