I have a question and it would be nice If somebody could answer it.
How is it possible that somebody believes in God although there doesn't exist any proof or at least an evidence for Gods existance besides some old books?
In my opinion God's an explanation for everything unknown.
Lets start with Newtonian Causality. Nothing can happen without first being acted upon by an object. For example, my keyboard can't type unless my fingers hit it.
IF we accept this as true, than the Universe, and everything in it, must have been acted upon by a previous object. It is theorized that the Universe has an end, therfore, it must have a beginning.
If the Universe must have a beginning, and if Newtonian Causality is held to be true, than something must have acted to create the universe. IE, an Intelligent Creator.
So your claims that their isn't any proof isn't any proof isn't really well founded; simply logic helps to proove the need for a creator. Than we get into arguments of whether any religions are true, but thats a differn't argument, and therfore a differnt thread.
If the Universe must have a beginning, and if Newtonian Causality is held to be true, than something must have acted to create the universe. IE, an Intelligent Creator.
That makes no sense. Ok, maybe there needs something to be the activator of the universe as we know it. Does it have to be a creator? No. And it is even less logical to suppose it was intelligent. You don't know what was before the universe, and therefore can't make any assumption about how it began. Consider this: to beginn and end, something must vary during a certain period of time, agree? Some say before the universe time didn't exist. Does it need a beginning then if there is no time?
Lets start with Newtonian Causality. Nothing can happen without first being acted upon by an object. For example, my keyboard can't type unless my fingers hit it.
False. That only is for movement, and their are plenty of forces that cause motion. For example, gravity. Muscle expansion and contraction. Convection. All this causes movement, nothing needs to start it.
IF we accept this as true, than the Universe, and everything in it, must have been acted upon by a previous object. It is theorized that the Universe has an end, therfore, it must have a beginning.
And, if your version is true, than that "creator" must need a beginning, and so on and so forth.
If the Universe must have a beginning, and if Newtonian Causality is held to be true, than something must have acted to create the universe. IE, an Intelligent Creator.
If you understand what this "Newtonian Causality" (I use quotes as this isn't an actual theory) is, then something would have to create that creator. Your theory is unsound logically.
So your claims that their isn't any proof isn't any proof isn't really well founded; simply logic helps to proove the need for a creator. Than we get into arguments of whether any religions are true, but thats a differn't argument, and therfore a differnt thread.
No,we do not need a creator. You do not have any proof. Logic works against you.
Well, I guess the Newtonian Causality was a theorie of Newton, wasn't it? Newton lived in the 17. Century about long, long, long after the first idea of God (even before Judaism etc.)
And besides that. It's just like HahiHa says: It doesn't have to be a creator and if then not an intelligent.
Don't argue like there are no other ideas of the beginning of Universe. There are. My favourite is that everything was pure Energy and because Energie doesn't need Dimensions to exist there weren't any dimensions. Then all Energie got into one point and expanded. Then there were particles and anti-particles which destroyed themselfes but there was a rest of particles which created the Universe we know... ... Thats just my theorie...
It is theorized that the Universe has an end, therfore, it must have a beginning.
A misconception what is before the beginning or the beginning? Anything is something. Also one of the basic laws of physics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed therefore not begging or end. But I'm using the universe as not "our" universe but as in the entire universe. Our universe did have some sort of "begging" and will sort of end theoretically. But if M-brane theory is correct than it's just an endless cycle.
The law of cause and effect apply in the existence of spacetime. Since "before" the universe there is no spacetime we can't apply the law of cause and effect.
That's not the question. Why should anybody belive in good if there's no proof for? I don't belive in a master grashopper, because there's no proof or theory (basing on facts).
Since "before" the universe there is no spacetime we can't apply the law of cause and effect.
Well, what universe are you referring to, our universe or the universe in general? If it's ours then the laws of cause and effect would still logically apply if it's not then there is no before.
If the Universe must have a beginning, and if Newtonian Causality is held to be true, than something must have acted to create the universe. IE, an Intelligent Creator.
Umm...but if something acted to create the universe, it has an effect on the universe and is itself a part of the universe, and therefore, Newtonian Causality still applies to that thing.
Furthermore, why God? Why not the Big Bang, which answers the question of Newtonian Causality?
The burden of proof IS on the person that has to prove God. But, I've given you legitimate arguments on several threads on undeniable conditions for the existence of God that seem to make God sort of trivial and impotent. So you could take this as proof against a creator.
Does it need a beginning then if there is no time?
Of course; it existed at some point, and at a point before that, it did not exist. Ergo, it had a beginning.
only is for movement, and their are plenty of forces that cause motion.
Those are Newton's Laws. I was talking about Newtonian Causality, or Cause-and-Effect.
And, if your version is true, than that "creator" must need a beginning, and so on and so forth.
If you understand what this "Newtonian Causality" (I use quotes as this isn't an actual theory) is, then something would have to create that creator. Your theory is unsound logically.
Yes, but if my Creator is an Omnipotent Being, than he would have created everything in the Universe, including Physics. He would be outside the realm of Physics, and as as the Creator of Physics, he would not be subject to them.
But if M-brane theory is correct than it's just an endless cycle.
I think that Universe is a cycle.
But then there would be, as Mage said, the existence of Spacetime, so Newtonian Causality would apply to the Universe, leaving us to wonder how it began. So M-Brane Theory and Newtonian Causality are at odds with eachother.
Why not the Big Bang, which answers the question of Newtonian Causality?
My understanding of the Big Bang is that the Universe was an extremely Hot Point that began to expand. So what put all the matter there?
