Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
I told you.....!!!
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I too am curious as to how Heisenberg, who demonstrated that some causes have no effect, utterly destroying the concepts of causality and scientific determinism, is still somehow subject to cause-and-effect.
By causality, I mean cause and effect. For every effect there must be a cause.
This sounds great until you follow it to its ultimate conclusion:
Who/what caused god?Then you see creationists, at least every single creationist I know of who has brought the cause effect argument up, back peddling because god is the only 'exception' to their claim.
Is that clear as mud!
We are actually on the same page here Mestemia. Before Einstein, cosmologists (along with atheists) believed in a static universe without a beginning (infinite). This creates a kind of paradox in a time continuum from past, present, to future. If the past is truly infinite, then it is physically impossible to get to the present. The fact that we are in the present mandates a beginning. If atheists can accept an infinite possibility with paradox, then what is so different than believers accepting the reality of a God having a "where did he come from?" paradox?
Then came Einstein, which explains that at infinite density time stops. In other words, there was no such thing as a tick in time before the first tick, since time did not exist. We can now see the "who created God" is actually overcome by this. "Who create" assumes an earlier event, which in infinite density, this did not occur.
Is that clear as mud!
Mike
If atheists can accept an infinite possibility with paradox, then what is so different than believers accepting the reality of a God having a "where did he come from?" paradox?
It's about "creation science." By this I don't mean the general idea that God created all things, which is religion, not science, but about the specifics of how "creationists" believe this happened. This thread is to give you an opportunity to demonstrate your hypothesis. Here's all you need to do--this is basically how science works:
1. State your hypothesis. That is, in your view, how did God go about creating the various species we see today.
2. Make some predictions based on your hypothesis. If this hypothesis is correct, what would we expect to observe? These observations should be such that if we don't observe them, your hypothesis would be disproved. In other words, your hypothesis should be falsifiable.
3. Show that the predictions match reality.
Yes, the ever popular cause and effect argument that fails as soon as the question "what caused god?" is asked.How about cause and effect.
Do you consider potential energy to be real?How about cause and effect.
Motion is real.
'Something' set all things into play.
Yes, the ever popular cause and effect argument that fails as soon as the question "what caused god?" is asked.
And this retort fails at it's speaking.
Motion without cause?...really?
(All things at rest remain at rest...until 'something' causes them to move).
The universe expanding from a common singularity....and no cause?
Spiritual life does not exist?....even though a 'spirit' might answer this post.
Interesting how you completely dodged the point...
Or perhaps in your attempt to be clever you forgot to address the actual point...?Or maybe you don't get it?
This is fine if your understanding of physics comes from before the time of Sir Isaac Newton.Motion without cause?...really?
(All things at rest remain at rest...until 'something' causes them to move).