Quote:
But your "we don't know yet" is spelled: "there is a God and nothing else". That doesn't sound like we don't know yet. That sounds like shut up, we have the only truth. And that is simply not true.
no, i'm not trying to convert anyone here. i'm just saying, your logic is useless. you're saying He cannot exist, and i'm saying you're wrong.
Quote:
Quote:
that's right. and why don't we know? because there's no evidence for what caused it. does that mean there is no cause? no. so you are stuck, until you change your mind.

I am not stuck. Don't tell me that i have to change my mind to rubbish. It is you who is bound to a fairytale book and its storys, not me. I look for facts, not for lies.

Again you are wrong. We don't know because we cannot look behind the big bang. The why is because the natural laws doesn't allow to look farer back than around 100,000 years after the big bang. We can calculate farer back by math. But we cannot go before point zero with even that weapon. This has nothing to do with a god. But natural laws.

Having causality means we have causality in the first place. A proven thing. There is no light going on before i turn the switch.

Causality is a rule that also a god would need to follow when he didn't want to destroy the universe by doing something uncausal. Like a miracle for example ...
yes, you're stuck. i showed how your own logic contradicts yourself: you say there cannot be a God because you don't see evidence for Him. you also say everything obeys causality. the Big Bang obeys causality, but we don't know what caused it yet. why don't we know? no evidence! but your logic says that no evidence means no existence!
Quote:
Quote:
What caused god? Did he origined by chance?
The answer that he lived "outside causality" would be rediculous.

That's exactly right, it clearly makes no sense. But I do think the answers aren't within our current uhm frame of knowledge and perhaps even logic so much. Perhaps or rather probably we will need to think outside of the box.
yes, we all need to think outside the box. by saying that something cannot exist outside of causality, you effectively assume that causality does go back infinitely.

Lukas is basically asking "what caused the first cause?", assuming nothing ever existed outside of causality, and that causality goes infinitely into the past (ie: everything had something that caused it that happened before it). nothing wrong with that theory; only the blind assumption that it's true isn't exactly thinking outside the box.

julz

Formerly known as JulzMighty.
I made KarBOOM!