A simple question.

[Czernobog]

Czernobog, yes, we know you have shit for brains. God can't cause the universe because God causing the universe is acasual??? Dumbshit.

No, dumbass, I specifically acknowledged that a deistic God, could very well have "nudged" the singularity, and caused the Big Bang. However, because that set in motion a causal system, that God would be incapable of ever affecting anything within that causal system again. Since life did not begin until several million years later, life had to have occurred naturally, because a God outside of the causal universe cannot operate within that universe, without creating an a-causal event, and collapsing the causal universe.

Dumbshit, you really are a dumbshit if you think you can do away with God by defining acts of God as non-causal.

Also, dumbshit, why would you or anyone offer that your imagined singularity could cause the big bang without cause?

Not non-causal; a-causal. As in, they are not part of a causal chan that stretches back to the Big Bang. At least, try to keep up.

 

[Czernobog]

Do we live in a causal universe?

I live in a casual universe

Cute.

 

[BulletProof]

Not non-causal; a-causal. As in, they are not part of a causal chan that stretches back to the Big Bang. At least, try to keep up.

Dumbshit, what's the difference between non- and a-? Dumbshit, you can't just define God as non-causal. And, Dumbshit, it's totally arbitrary for you to appeal to a non-casual start to the universe. You're just striking out. Do you always strike out?

 

[MPS777]

if every event is caused by a previous event, where is free will?

 

[BulletProof]

if every event is caused by a previous even, where is free will?

Free will is illogical. If it exists, it represents something supernatural.

 

[Czernobog]

Not non-causal; a-causal. As in, they are not part of a causal chan that stretches back to the Big Bang. At least, try to keep up.

Dumbshit, what's the difference between non- and a-? Dumbshit, you can't just define God as non-causal. And, Dumbshit, it's totally arbitrary for you to appeal to a non-casual start to the universe. You're just striking out. Do you always strike out?

Well, fucknut, since you clearly don't have even a 7th grade science education, let me educate you. A non-causal event is an event which has no previous cause. It is a self-caused event. This would be what religious fucknuts like you define as your mythical God. An a-causal event is an event whose cause is independent of any causal chain within a causal system.

Now why don't you go take your ignorant ass off, and read an actual science book.

 

[Czernobog]

if every event is caused by a previous event, where is free will?

Actually it is because we live in a causal universe that you have free will. In an a-causal universe, events would occur spontaneously; there would be no way to explain them using physical laws, and the previous state of the universe. It would, therefore, be impossible for you to "decide" to do anything, as your decisions, as events, would now be nothing but random selections. In a universe with no discernable past, there can be no free will.

 

[Czernobog]

For those of you having a hard time comprehending what an a-causal event is. I drew a couple of simplified [pictures to help:

Hopefully, this is simple enough for everyone to understand.

 

[BulletProof]

Dumbshit, what's the difference between non- and a-? Dumbshit, you can't just define God as non-causal. And, Dumbshit, it's totally arbitrary for you to appeal to a non-casual start to the universe. You're just striking out. Do you always strike out?

Well, fucknut, since you clearly don't have even a 7th grade science education, let me educate you. A non-causal event is an event which has no previous cause. It is a self-caused event. This would be what religious fucknuts like you define as your mythical God. An a-causal event is an event whose cause is independent of any causal chain within a causal system.[/QUOTE]

Man, you really are a full-on fcking retard, shitead. A non-caused event is self-caused? lol! Self-cause, aside from being illogical, is still a cause, not a non-cause.

 

[Czernobog]

Dumbshit, what's the difference between non- and a-? Dumbshit, you can't just define God as non-causal. And, Dumbshit, it's totally arbitrary for you to appeal to a non-casual start to the universe. You're just striking out. Do you always strike out?

Well, fucknut, since you clearly don't have even a 7th grade science education, let me educate you. A non-causal event is an event which has no previous cause. It is a self-caused event. This would be what religious fucknuts like you define as your mythical God. An a-causal event is an event whose cause is independent of any causal chain within a causal system.

Man, you really are a full-on fcking retard, shitead. A non-caused event is self-caused? lol! Self-cause, aside from being illogical, is still a cause, not a non-cause.

Go read a ******* science book you inbred fucktard. You are dismissed. I even included a diagram for your retarded ass, and you are still too stupid to understand what an a-causal event is.

 

[Picaro]

By the thread title, I thought maybe a 'rationalist' had come up with something rational to say. Ah well, back to waiting.

 

[Marion Morrison]

It doesn't matter which theistic religion; they all explain God as a "Supernatural" - existing outside of the physical Universe - entity. As such, any interaction with that God would, in fact, be an a-causal event, breaking down the causal chain, making our universe an a-causal universe, rendering all laws of physics meaningless. In short it would destroy the universe as we know it. Hence, God, as envisioned by theistic religions, could not exist.

Czernobog, yes, we know you have shit for brains. God can't cause the universe because God causing the universe is acasual??? Dumbshit.

No, dumbass, I specifically acknowledged that a deistic God, could very well have "nudged" the singularity, and caused the Big Bang. However, because that set in motion a causal system, that God would be incapable of ever affecting anything within that causal system again. Since life did not begin until several million years later, life had to have occurred naturally, because a God outside of the causal universe cannot operate within that universe, without creating an a-causal event, and collapsing the causal universe.

Hence, the God of theism, continuing to act upon the universe is not scientifically possible.

Just because it's something you're incapable of wrapping your pea-brain around, doesn't mean it's something that isn't so.

 

[ding]

An a-causal event in a causal universe corrupts the causal chain, and breaks the universe. It is not my "perception". It is science.

No. It would be a part of the causal chain just as the creation of space and time was a part of the causal chain.

How exactly would it "break" the universe? What does a "broken" universe look like?

 

[Marion Morrison]

An a-causal event in a causal universe corrupts the causal chain, and breaks the universe. It is not my "perception". It is science.

No. It would be a part of the causal chain once just as the creation of space and time was a part of the causal chain.

How exactly would it "break" the universe? What does a "broken" universe look like?

Good one!

Yes, please demonstrate the repeatable, documented results of the breaking universe experiments, OP.

Like I said: Pea Brain. No science involved.

 

[Czernobog]

Do we live in a causal universe? That's it. simple question. Do we live in a causal universe?

100%

Then God, at least as envisioned by any theistic religion, is an impossibility.

No. That would be you envisioning their beliefs.

But putting that aside, reality is independent of belief. Yours or anyone else's. Things do indeed exist independently of your knowledge of them or your perceived knowledge of them. Or anyone's perceived knowledge of them.

You logic is massively flawed. So much so, your ability to reason is in question.

It doesn't matter which theistic religion; they all explain God as a "Supernatural" - existing outside of the physical Universe - entity. As such, any interaction with that God would, in fact, be an a-causal event, breaking down the causal chain, making our universe an a-causal universe, rendering all laws of physics meaningless. In short it would destroy the universe as we know it. Hence, God, as envisioned by theistic religions, could not exist.

Again, Reality is independent of belief. Things do indeed exist independent of your knowledge of them or your perceived knowledge of them.

does “a causal universe” = “a deterministic universe” ?

No. a causal universe is one in which, on a macroscopic level, events are caused by prior events, according to the laws of physics, creating causal chains that stretch back to the very beginnings of the universe.

 

[Czernobog]

It doesn't matter which theistic religion; they all explain God as a "Supernatural" - existing outside of the physical Universe - entity. As such, any interaction with that God would, in fact, be an a-causal event, breaking down the causal chain, making our universe an a-causal universe, rendering all laws of physics meaningless. In short it would destroy the universe as we know it. Hence, God, as envisioned by theistic religions, could not exist.

Czernobog, yes, we know you have shit for brains. God can't cause the universe because God causing the universe is acasual??? Dumbshit.

No, dumbass, I specifically acknowledged that a deistic God, could very well have "nudged" the singularity, and caused the Big Bang. However, because that set in motion a causal system, that God would be incapable of ever affecting anything within that causal system again. Since life did not begin until several million years later, life had to have occurred naturally, because a God outside of the causal universe cannot operate within that universe, without creating an a-causal event, and collapsing the causal universe.

Hence, the God of theism, continuing to act upon the universe is not scientifically possible.

Just because it's something you're incapable of wrapping your pea-brain around, doesn't mean it's something that isn't so.

It's not about what I can "wrap my pea-brain" around. It is about the nature of the universe. A system cannot be, simultaneously, causal, and a-causal. As we live in a causal universe, a-causal events are not possible without obliterating the causal universe, and creating an a-causal one. Period. And all of your insults, and name-calling won't change that.

 

[Czernobog]

I notice that, in spite of all the name calling, and screams that I'm wrong, not a single person has attempted to demonstrate how an a-causal event can occur in a causal system, while still maintaining that causal system.

 

[Picaro]

I notice that, in spite of all the name calling, and screams that I'm wrong, not a single person has attempted to demonstrate how an a-causal event can occur in a causal system, while still maintaining that causal system.

Definitely a correct observation there,Sparky. I haven't been able to make my breakfast toast dance the Frug, either.

Those Xians are to blame, I'm sure of it; they screw up everything.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I notice that, in spite of all the name calling, and screams that I'm wrong, not a single person has attempted to demonstrate how an a-causal event can occur in a causal system, while still maintaining that causal system.

You haven't demonstrated how you are correct, either. How long before you realize you are incapable of doing so?

 

[badger2]

#33 has not contemplated the philosophy of a phonograph recording the sound of itself breaking. (Zizek, Absolute Recoil), while others on the thread arrive at an impasse. making something from nothing (Zizek, Absolute Recoil).