A simple question.

[westwall]

The rest of my post still stands, westwall : While a causal universe may not preclude a deistic creator - one who tapped the big bang into exploding, and then toddled off to play with his other toys, never bothering with the universe again - it does preclude a theistic creator that is still actively involved in the function of the universe, for the reasons I already described.

Not necessarily. We have heard many times of miracles, King Kamehameha benefited from the army trying to kill him being destroyed by a volcanic eruption, as a for instance. If there is a God, maybe he merely drops in occasionally. There is simply no way to know. Your argument is based on opinion, not fact, so it is limited by that simple problem.

 

[Czernobog]

The rest of my post still stands, westwall : While a causal universe may not preclude a deistic creator - one who tapped the big bang into exploding, and then toddled off to play with his other toys, never bothering with the universe again - it does preclude a theistic creator that is still actively involved in the function of the universe, for the reasons I already described.

Not necessarily. We have heard many times of miracles, King Kamehameha benefited from the army trying to kill him being destroyed by a volcanic eruption, as a for instance. If there is a God, maybe he merely drops in occasionally. There is simply no way to know. Your argument is based on opinion, not fact, so it is limited by that simple problem.

Nope. Miracles are supernatural events, and, by definition, a-causal events. Volcanoes erupting, on the other hand, are entirely natural events, an d part of causal chains. People assigning "miraculous" status to naturally occurring events are just attempting to justify their religious pre-conceptions. It's like calling a pregnancy, or a birth a "miracle". Uh no. It's not. it's what happens when a man puts his peepee into a woman's hoohoo. And birth is the natural conclusion of pregnancy. Sorry. Nothing "miraculous" about it. It is just nature. Animals, including humans, have been doing it for millennia.

 

[Czernobog]

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

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

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

I dont know how all theistic religions envision God. I know from an Abrahamic point of view, yes...to me.

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.

At best, one could argue for a deistic God - one who "nudged" the singularity that expanded to create our universe, and then toddled off. However, once that causal chain was set in motion, that God could no longer directly interact with the universe without destroying it.

Couldn’t he have moved our planets around and put earth and the moon where they are?

Yesterday I watched the first second of the Big Bang. Why couldn’t a god have done that?

But then why do that and then go through the dinosaur phase? And why let that meteor hit the planet? And if gods creation will one day all die why not make suns last forever?

I don’t know the point you are making though. Seems like a god could do the cause. Explain please

Okay. Everyone wants to put all their hopes on God "creating" the Big Bang. Is it in the realm of the possible that an entity with intelligence could have set off the Big Bang? Sure. However, the nature of the universe dictates that that entity's involvement with our universe ended. There. The universe is a causal system. Causal systems are extremely fragile. In order to maintain themselves as causal systems, it requires that all events that occur within the system be causal - that they be a part of a causal chain that stretches all the way back to the genesis of the system - in the case of the universe, the Big Bang.

So, any interference in a causal system from outside of that system, because that interference is, by definition, a-causal, will force the system to break down, and become a-causal. Thus the universe could not withstand any "supernatural" interference from a God that exists outside of the space/time of the physical universe. It would make the universe a-causal.

Now, one might ask, so what? Why is that such a big deal? Simple. The nightmare chaos of an a-causal universe would make Hell sound like an amusement park. If (A) does not lead, logically to (B) all of reality as we understand it ceases to function. So, a-causal events are an absolute "no-no".

Thus, the causal nature of the universe renders the idea of the "supernatural" God actively involved in the events of the universe, that is fundamental to practically all theistic religions, is an impossibility. If theists want to maintain the existence of God, then they must acknowledge that God exists within the physical universe.

That distinction is important, because, if God exists within the confines of the universe, then it should, absolutely, be possible to find objective, verifiable evidence of his existence.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

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

I dont know how all theistic religions envision God. I know from an Abrahamic point of view, yes...to me.

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.

At best, one could argue for a deistic God - one who "nudged" the singularity that expanded to create our universe, and then toddled off. However, once that causal chain was set in motion, that God could no longer directly interact with the universe without destroying it.

Couldn’t he have moved our planets around and put earth and the moon where they are?

Yesterday I watched the first second of the Big Bang. Why couldn’t a god have done that?

But then why do that and then go through the dinosaur phase? And why let that meteor hit the planet? And if gods creation will one day all die why not make suns last forever?

I don’t know the point you are making though. Seems like a god could do the cause. Explain please

Okay. Everyone wants to put all their hopes on God "creating" the Big Bang. Is it in the realm of the possible that an entity with intelligence could have set off the Big Bang? Sure. However, the nature of the universe dictates that that entity's involvement with our universe ended. There. The universe is a causal system. Causal systems are extremely fragile. In order to maintain themselves as causal systems, it requires that all events that occur within the system be causal - that they be a part of a causal chain that stretches all the way back to the genesis of the system - in the case of the universe, the Big Bang.

So, any interference in a causal system from outside of that system, because that interference is, by definition, a-causal, will force the system to break down, and become a-causal. Thus the universe could not withstand any "supernatural" interference from a God that exists outside of the space/time of the physical universe. It would make the universe a-causal.

Now, one might ask, so what? Why is that such a big deal? Simple. The nightmare chaos of an a-causal universe would make Hell sound like an amusement park. If (A) does not lead, logically to (B) all of reality as we understand it ceases to function. So, a-causal events are an absolute "no-no".

Thus, the causal nature of the universe renders the idea of the "supernatural" God actively involved in the events of the universe, that is fundamental to practically all theistic religions, is an impossibility. If theists want to maintain the existence of God, then they must acknowledge that God exists within the physical universe.

That distinction is important, because, if God exists within the confines of the universe, then it should, absolutely, be possible to find objective, verifiable evidence of his existence.

I’m an atheist and don’t think you’ll get anywhere with this argument but nice thought.

When I watch the first second after the Big Bang it blows my mind. There is so much we don’t know I can see why people think a god must be behind it but the more we learn the more possibilities open up like a multi verse.

If anything should be worshipped it’s the stars. But the same stars that created us will one day destroy us.

If I believed I would guess that god heaven and my mother are inside black holes. That’s where he’s hiding

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Yes...I believe that there is no independent origination.

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

I dont know how all theistic religions envision God. I know from an Abrahamic point of view, yes...to me.

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.

At best, one could argue for a deistic God - one who "nudged" the singularity that expanded to create our universe, and then toddled off. However, once that causal chain was set in motion, that God could no longer directly interact with the universe without destroying it.

Couldn’t he have moved our planets around and put earth and the moon where they are?

Yesterday I watched the first second of the Big Bang. Why couldn’t a god have done that?

But then why do that and then go through the dinosaur phase? And why let that meteor hit the planet? And if gods creation will one day all die why not make suns last forever?

I don’t know the point you are making though. Seems like a god could do the cause. Explain please

Okay. Everyone wants to put all their hopes on God "creating" the Big Bang. Is it in the realm of the possible that an entity with intelligence could have set off the Big Bang? Sure. However, the nature of the universe dictates that that entity's involvement with our universe ended. There. The universe is a causal system. Causal systems are extremely fragile. In order to maintain themselves as causal systems, it requires that all events that occur within the system be causal - that they be a part of a causal chain that stretches all the way back to the genesis of the system - in the case of the universe, the Big Bang.

So, any interference in a causal system from outside of that system, because that interference is, by definition, a-causal, will force the system to break down, and become a-causal. Thus the universe could not withstand any "supernatural" interference from a God that exists outside of the space/time of the physical universe. It would make the universe a-causal.

Now, one might ask, so what? Why is that such a big deal? Simple. The nightmare chaos of an a-causal universe would make Hell sound like an amusement park. If (A) does not lead, logically to (B) all of reality as we understand it ceases to function. So, a-causal events are an absolute "no-no".

Thus, the causal nature of the universe renders the idea of the "supernatural" God actively involved in the events of the universe, that is fundamental to practically all theistic religions, is an impossibility. If theists want to maintain the existence of God, then they must acknowledge that God exists within the physical universe.

That distinction is important, because, if God exists within the confines of the universe, then it should, absolutely, be possible to find objective, verifiable evidence of his existence.

If people want to believe in God that is their prerogative. If they find comfort and it leads to good things in their life, then who is anyone to contradict that?

Buddha to the Kalama people:
“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them."
Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas

 

[ding]

The rest of my post still stands, westwall : While a causal universe may not preclude a deistic creator - one who tapped the big bang into exploding, and then toddled off to play with his other toys, never bothering with the universe again - it does preclude a theistic creator that is still actively involved in the function of the universe, for the reasons I already described.

Actively through the laws of nature. So while you deny that moral laws exist, I assure you without a doubt they do.

 

[ding]

Consciousness evolves per the laws of nature.

For a purpose.

 

[BreezeWood]

That distinction is important, because, if God exists within the confines of the universe, then it should, absolutely, be possible to find objective, verifiable evidence of his existence.

- within the confines of the universe ...

then it must also be possible to determine the origin of a being before they are born ... from whence they came and where they pass too after their physiology has expired.

despite the fact that existence does exist but is unobtainable for the same reason the causal universe would disintegrate by commingling the two distinct realities. though it is possible an Almighty could transpose the two.


- then it should, absolutely, be possible to find objective, verifiable evidence of (their) existence.

and it might also be possible the A-Bomb chain reaction might become uncontrollable and envelop the entire planet. having the same result as the above.

 

[Czernobog]

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

Why? Why couldn't God have created the heavens and the Earth, and then just kicked back to see how it all turns out? Who's to say that God, is merely a experimenter, who truly doesn't care what happens, just wants to watch how it happens?

Maybe he's just the biggest voyeur ever.

What you're describing is a deistic creator. I specifically stated that theistic perceptions of God are impossible. I would submit that a deistic creator is...unlikely. However, I will not discount the possibility, however slim.

Your OP states specifically "is the universe a cause and effect realm?" You then postulate that if it is, that makes God impossible. I merely showed your statement to be false due to its simplicity, and obvious bias.

You did no such thing. You pointed to an event that occurred prior to the universe existing. Why on Earth would you think that anything prior to the universe's existence would, in any way, affect the universe as it exists, now? And do you have evidence to support such an outrageous claim?

Here. Perhaps this diagram will help:

You'll notice that the causality of the universe does not, in any way, make any assertions about what happened before the Big Bang; nor does it make any observations about why the Big Bang happened. It is only about the nature of the universe as it is since the Big Bang.

Are we on the same page, now?

I'm not on the same page. That sounded like goobly gook to me.

The nature of the universe as it is is to produce beings that know and create (aka intelligence). Intelligence was predestined by the laws of nature which existed before space and time. Everything about the laws of nature are such that intelligence is built into the laws of nature.

No break in causality there. In fact, it is causality which sinks your argument.

It is absolutely not causality that breaks my argument. First, you presume purpose because we are here. Sorry. Nothing about our existence dictates the "purpose" of the uniform.

Second, causality does dictate that every event that occurs in the universe be part of a causal chain that reaches back, unbroken, to the big Bang. so any stories about some supernatural god that just "bamfed" something into existence - like a virgin birth, or a dead man magically coming back from the dead - is complete, and utter fiction. Such things are simply not possible in a causal universe.

 

[Czernobog]

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

I dont know how all theistic religions envision God. I know from an Abrahamic point of view, yes...to me.

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.

At best, one could argue for a deistic God - one who "nudged" the singularity that expanded to create our universe, and then toddled off. However, once that causal chain was set in motion, that God could no longer directly interact with the universe without destroying it.

Couldn’t he have moved our planets around and put earth and the moon where they are?

Yesterday I watched the first second of the Big Bang. Why couldn’t a god have done that?

But then why do that and then go through the dinosaur phase? And why let that meteor hit the planet? And if gods creation will one day all die why not make suns last forever?

I don’t know the point you are making though. Seems like a god could do the cause. Explain please

Okay. Everyone wants to put all their hopes on God "creating" the Big Bang. Is it in the realm of the possible that an entity with intelligence could have set off the Big Bang? Sure. However, the nature of the universe dictates that that entity's involvement with our universe ended. There. The universe is a causal system. Causal systems are extremely fragile. In order to maintain themselves as causal systems, it requires that all events that occur within the system be causal - that they be a part of a causal chain that stretches all the way back to the genesis of the system - in the case of the universe, the Big Bang.

So, any interference in a causal system from outside of that system, because that interference is, by definition, a-causal, will force the system to break down, and become a-causal. Thus the universe could not withstand any "supernatural" interference from a God that exists outside of the space/time of the physical universe. It would make the universe a-causal.

Now, one might ask, so what? Why is that such a big deal? Simple. The nightmare chaos of an a-causal universe would make Hell sound like an amusement park. If (A) does not lead, logically to (B) all of reality as we understand it ceases to function. So, a-causal events are an absolute "no-no".

Thus, the causal nature of the universe renders the idea of the "supernatural" God actively involved in the events of the universe, that is fundamental to practically all theistic religions, is an impossibility. If theists want to maintain the existence of God, then they must acknowledge that God exists within the physical universe.

That distinction is important, because, if God exists within the confines of the universe, then it should, absolutely, be possible to find objective, verifiable evidence of his existence.

If people want to believe in God that is their prerogative. If they find comfort and it leads to good things in their life, then who is anyone to contradict that?

Buddha to the Kalama people:
“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them."
Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas

No one is saying that it isn't. Just don't pretend that "science supports" such beliefs.

 

[Czernobog]

The rest of my post still stands, westwall : While a causal universe may not preclude a deistic creator - one who tapped the big bang into exploding, and then toddled off to play with his other toys, never bothering with the universe again - it does preclude a theistic creator that is still actively involved in the function of the universe, for the reasons I already described.

Actively through the laws of nature. So while you deny that moral laws exist, I assure you without a doubt they do.

"...through the laws of nature..." That's an adorable turn of phrase, and utterly meaningless. If a supernatural entity inserts its will on the universe, there is nothing natural about that. It is, be definition, supernatural.

 

[Czernobog]

That distinction is important, because, if God exists within the confines of the universe, then it should, absolutely, be possible to find objective, verifiable evidence of his existence.

- within the confines of the universe ...

then it must also be possible to determine the origin of a being before they are born ... from whence they came and where they pass too after their physiology has expired.

despite the fact that existence does exist but is unobtainable for the same reason the causal universe would disintegrate by commingling the two distinct realities. though it is possible an Almighty could transpose the two.

Not at all. Because simultaneous with the Law of Causality is the Heisenberg Principle. The further an event chain progresses from the origin (The Big Bang), the more unpredictable the events become.

- then it should, absolutely, be possible to find objective, verifiable evidence of (their) existence.

and it might also be possible the A-Bomb chain reaction might become uncontrollable and envelop the entire planet. having the same result as the above.

I'm not even sure what that has to do with anything, but, okay.

 

[sealybobo]

I dont know how all theistic religions envision God. I know from an Abrahamic point of view, yes...to me.

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.

At best, one could argue for a deistic God - one who "nudged" the singularity that expanded to create our universe, and then toddled off. However, once that causal chain was set in motion, that God could no longer directly interact with the universe without destroying it.

Couldn’t he have moved our planets around and put earth and the moon where they are?

Yesterday I watched the first second of the Big Bang. Why couldn’t a god have done that?

But then why do that and then go through the dinosaur phase? And why let that meteor hit the planet? And if gods creation will one day all die why not make suns last forever?

I don’t know the point you are making though. Seems like a god could do the cause. Explain please

Okay. Everyone wants to put all their hopes on God "creating" the Big Bang. Is it in the realm of the possible that an entity with intelligence could have set off the Big Bang? Sure. However, the nature of the universe dictates that that entity's involvement with our universe ended. There. The universe is a causal system. Causal systems are extremely fragile. In order to maintain themselves as causal systems, it requires that all events that occur within the system be causal - that they be a part of a causal chain that stretches all the way back to the genesis of the system - in the case of the universe, the Big Bang.

So, any interference in a causal system from outside of that system, because that interference is, by definition, a-causal, will force the system to break down, and become a-causal. Thus the universe could not withstand any "supernatural" interference from a God that exists outside of the space/time of the physical universe. It would make the universe a-causal.

Now, one might ask, so what? Why is that such a big deal? Simple. The nightmare chaos of an a-causal universe would make Hell sound like an amusement park. If (A) does not lead, logically to (B) all of reality as we understand it ceases to function. So, a-causal events are an absolute "no-no".

Thus, the causal nature of the universe renders the idea of the "supernatural" God actively involved in the events of the universe, that is fundamental to practically all theistic religions, is an impossibility. If theists want to maintain the existence of God, then they must acknowledge that God exists within the physical universe.

That distinction is important, because, if God exists within the confines of the universe, then it should, absolutely, be possible to find objective, verifiable evidence of his existence.

If people want to believe in God that is their prerogative. If they find comfort and it leads to good things in their life, then who is anyone to contradict that?

Buddha to the Kalama people:
“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them."
Kalama Sutta: To the Kalamas

No one is saying that it isn't. Just don't pretend that "science supports" such beliefs.

Billy Graham is why I hate religion. And now I see guys like him and Eisenhower thought communism and atheism were somehow connected. Now I understand why religious nuts on USMB constantly say shit like that.

Graham's closest presidential relationship was with Nixon, who offered him any government job he wanted - including ambassador to Israel. It turned out to be a painful relationship for Graham, who said Nixon and his circle misled him on the Watergate scandal.

Nixon aide H.R. Haldeman first mentioned Graham's anti-Semitic remarks in a 1994 book, which Graham strongly denied. But when audio tapes from the Nixon White House were released in 2002, Graham could be heard referring to Jews as pornographers and agreeing with Nixon that the U.S. media was dominated by liberal Jews and could send the United States "down the drain."

Graham also confided in Nixon that he hid his true feelings about Jews from them: ''I go and I keep friends with Mr. Rosenthal (then executive editor) at The New York Times and people of that sort, you know. And all -- I mean, not all the Jews, but a lot of the Jews are great friends of mine, they swarm around me and are friendly to me because they know that I'm friendly with Israel. But they don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country. And I have no power, no way to handle them, but I would stand up if under proper circumstances.''

Billy Graham, Nixon and anti-Semitism: The bombshell tapes that tarnished the faith leader's reputation

The real Billy Graham is in those tapes. Not the faker that he showed the world. **** him.

 

[westwall]

Why? Why couldn't God have created the heavens and the Earth, and then just kicked back to see how it all turns out? Who's to say that God, is merely a experimenter, who truly doesn't care what happens, just wants to watch how it happens?

Maybe he's just the biggest voyeur ever.

What you're describing is a deistic creator. I specifically stated that theistic perceptions of God are impossible. I would submit that a deistic creator is...unlikely. However, I will not discount the possibility, however slim.

Your OP states specifically "is the universe a cause and effect realm?" You then postulate that if it is, that makes God impossible. I merely showed your statement to be false due to its simplicity, and obvious bias.

You did no such thing. You pointed to an event that occurred prior to the universe existing. Why on Earth would you think that anything prior to the universe's existence would, in any way, affect the universe as it exists, now? And do you have evidence to support such an outrageous claim?

Here. Perhaps this diagram will help:

You'll notice that the causality of the universe does not, in any way, make any assertions about what happened before the Big Bang; nor does it make any observations about why the Big Bang happened. It is only about the nature of the universe as it is since the Big Bang.

Are we on the same page, now?

I'm not on the same page. That sounded like goobly gook to me.

The nature of the universe as it is is to produce beings that know and create (aka intelligence). Intelligence was predestined by the laws of nature which existed before space and time. Everything about the laws of nature are such that intelligence is built into the laws of nature.

No break in causality there. In fact, it is causality which sinks your argument.

It is absolutely not causality that breaks my argument. First, you presume purpose because we are here. Sorry. Nothing about our existence dictates the "purpose" of the uniform.

Second, causality does dictate that every event that occurs in the universe be part of a causal chain that reaches back, unbroken, to the big Bang. so any stories about some supernatural god that just "bamfed" something into existence - like a virgin birth, or a dead man magically coming back from the dead - is complete, and utter fiction. Such things are simply not possible in a causal universe.

I presume nothing. That is your problem. I'm agnostic, thus I have no "belief", I leave that up to you religious people. I merely point out when you conflate opinion with evidence. The deists do that all of the time, and I find you do to.

 

[ding]

The rest of my post still stands, westwall : While a causal universe may not preclude a deistic creator - one who tapped the big bang into exploding, and then toddled off to play with his other toys, never bothering with the universe again - it does preclude a theistic creator that is still actively involved in the function of the universe, for the reasons I already described.

Actively through the laws of nature. So while you deny that moral laws exist, I assure you without a doubt they do.

"...through the laws of nature..." That's an adorable turn of phrase, and utterly meaningless. If a supernatural entity inserts its will on the universe, there is nothing natural about that. It is, be definition, supernatural.

I am glad you like it. It isn't meaningless. The purpose of the universe is to create beings that know and create (another adorable phrase) and progress beings that know and create. This is accomplished through the laws of nature; physical and moral. The fact that these laws direct and control the events and the fact that these laws have a preference and a direction are proof of intelligence.

 

[ding]

That distinction is important, because, if God exists within the confines of the universe, then it should, absolutely, be possible to find objective, verifiable evidence of his existence.

- within the confines of the universe ...

then it must also be possible to determine the origin of a being before they are born ... from whence they came and where they pass too after their physiology has expired.

despite the fact that existence does exist but is unobtainable for the same reason the causal universe would disintegrate by commingling the two distinct realities. though it is possible an Almighty could transpose the two.

Not at all. Because simultaneous with the Law of Causality is the Heisenberg Principle. The further an event chain progresses from the origin (The Big Bang), the more unpredictable the events become.

- then it should, absolutely, be possible to find objective, verifiable evidence of (their) existence.

and it might also be possible the A-Bomb chain reaction might become uncontrollable and envelop the entire planet. having the same result as the above.

I'm not even sure what that has to do with anything, but, okay.

The uncertainty principle doesn't violate the laws of nature. It works with the laws of nature. It doesn't mean or do what you think it does. The universe is deterministic. The laws which govern living things directs living things not in a random way but in a very specific direction.

 

[ding]

Why? Why couldn't God have created the heavens and the Earth, and then just kicked back to see how it all turns out? Who's to say that God, is merely a experimenter, who truly doesn't care what happens, just wants to watch how it happens?

Maybe he's just the biggest voyeur ever.

What you're describing is a deistic creator. I specifically stated that theistic perceptions of God are impossible. I would submit that a deistic creator is...unlikely. However, I will not discount the possibility, however slim.

Your OP states specifically "is the universe a cause and effect realm?" You then postulate that if it is, that makes God impossible. I merely showed your statement to be false due to its simplicity, and obvious bias.

You did no such thing. You pointed to an event that occurred prior to the universe existing. Why on Earth would you think that anything prior to the universe's existence would, in any way, affect the universe as it exists, now? And do you have evidence to support such an outrageous claim?

Here. Perhaps this diagram will help:

You'll notice that the causality of the universe does not, in any way, make any assertions about what happened before the Big Bang; nor does it make any observations about why the Big Bang happened. It is only about the nature of the universe as it is since the Big Bang.

Are we on the same page, now?

I'm not on the same page. That sounded like goobly gook to me.

The nature of the universe as it is is to produce beings that know and create (aka intelligence). Intelligence was predestined by the laws of nature which existed before space and time. Everything about the laws of nature are such that intelligence is built into the laws of nature.

No break in causality there. In fact, it is causality which sinks your argument.

It is absolutely not causality that breaks my argument. First, you presume purpose because we are here. Sorry. Nothing about our existence dictates the "purpose" of the uniform.

Second, causality does dictate that every event that occurs in the universe be part of a causal chain that reaches back, unbroken, to the big Bang. so any stories about some supernatural god that just "bamfed" something into existence - like a virgin birth, or a dead man magically coming back from the dead - is complete, and utter fiction. Such things are simply not possible in a causal universe.

No. I presume because of the direction of evolution to create ever increasing complex life forms until beings that know and create arise. And once they do arise, the law of nature progresses them in a very specific direction. That is causality.