Close Topic Options

Law Of Causality - Page 2

Name: Al

Comments: Whatever the cause of the universe is, it must be more powerful then the universe, intelligent (therefore, personal), and alive. This sounds a lot like the Biblical God. The only things that can exist outside the universe, are abstract concepts, mind (God) and numbers. But numbers don't stand in causal relations to each other. So the cause must be a mind. The law of causality is a fact. All effects must have a cause. The universe is an effect (Big Bang). God must be the cause. An atheist can challenge it is God, but they cannot give us an alternate explanation that meets the criteria stated above (causality, mind, personality, all power).

Causality Law

Name: Cimafish

Comments: The Law of Causality is a scientific necessity. IOW, science could not exist if there was no Law of Causality. Almost all scientists agree that the Universe had a cause. Some scientists postulate the theory that the Universe is eternal and had no cause. All scientists agree that if the Universe is eternal, then it does not need a cause. Therefore, it follows that if God is eternal, and He is, then God does not need a cause. Thus, the Law of Causality applies to origin as follows:
Every effect has a cause.
The Universe is an Effect
The Universe was caused.

The only question that remains is, who or what caused the universe? The Anthropic Principle presents the fact that there are 122 constants that prove that the universe was designed. The odds are 10138 that any other planet in the Universe could fulfill these constants and sustain human life. All scientists agree that this number equals zero chance. The Teleological Argument is as follows:
Every design had a designer
The Anthropic Principle proves that the universe was designed.
Therefore, the universe had a designer.

If the universe was designed, and it cannot design itself, then what ever designed it had to be an eternal designer. Atheistic Scientists and other atheists are searching frantically for either an eternal designer that is not God, or for another eternal cause for the universe. However, to date they have not come up with even a single clue. Until they can prove differently, it is without question that the universe was designed/created by God. For this reason, we know that He exists. To say otherwise is illogical and unreasonable, and is most certainly not based on scientific fact, but on a willful denial of His existence based on ones unwillingness to accept the idea of the existence of an eternal God. Many scientists and atheists agree that this is exactly their opposition to the logical conclusion of origin. It isn't that there exists no evidence to the existence of God, but rather that they do not want to accept the evidence. A cursory research of this fact will convince any skeptic that it is correct.


Source 1: I don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist; Geisler & Turek - Crossway

Law Of Causality Beliefs Religious General

The law of causality is the law of identity applied to actions. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities. "God" is not an entity, it is a zero, a non-existent, a non-a

A=A.

Define "God", if you cannot measure a thing it does not exist.

Page 2 Causality Law

We haven't the power in our tiny minds to comprehend such a big question.

First of all, this:

The absurdity here has to be addressed. No. You can not say that something does not exist. Even if you can not measure it. Unless, of course you understand any, and every, thing contained within all realms of being.

We seem to place /WAY/ too much faith in logic. This causality argument follows a strict logic. What we have seen with our minuscule little minds seems to be consistent with this theory, however, the answer to this question can not be reached by mere logic. Logic may only tell us what is consistent, not what is true. If I was born underground and never for a day saw the light of the sun, or anything for that matter, I would be inclined (following logic) to believe that the world was a dark void, filled with sounds and smells and hard rock walls. Logically, I would be correct. But am I right? No.

Why waste our time trying to answer a question we obviously have no ability whatsoever to answer at this point? Why not instead ask, "Why does this creator figure seem so ever present in our lives? Why does this god seem to exist? Why do people put so much faith in it? What is it's importance? If it has any at all.." These would all be much fairer questions to ask than wasting your precious little time arguing for an answer that will never be reached.

Causality Law

Name: Rick

Comments: In reading these comments, I see two common threads throughout. First, there is discussion about the universe not requiring a creator or creative force, and second, the question that if God created the universe, who created God?

Regarding the universe, what we know from operational science is that the universe is governed by laws, and one set of these is the laws of thermaldynamics. The 1st law of thermaldyamaics, stated simply, is that energy is never created or destroyed, but only changes form. The amount of energy in the universe is a constant. The second law of thermaldynamics, called the law of entropy, simply stated, is that all usable energy in the universe is moving towards maximum entropy, or dissapated potential. This law has all energy in the universe moving only one way, towards uselessness, or disorder, or exhausted potential.

When these laws are combined, the only logical and scientific conclusion is that all potential energy in the universe is slowly being used up, and if the universe were eternal, it would have used all potential energy in eternity past. We also know from astronomy that the universe is rapidly expanding outward. This is the reason the secular world developed the Big Bang model. In previous centuries, the Big Bang wasn't required, because the scientific community considered the universe eternal. We now know, though the operation sciences, that it is not.

So what about God? What many people fail to realize about causality, is that only those things which have a beginning require a cause. The universe has a beginning, therefore the universe reqires a cause. What caused it? Clearly, it has to be something that was itself, caused, but that only moves the problem back one step, or something that is eternal. Eternal does not mean "a really long time," it means without time, or timelessness. It means "no beginning." It always was, is, and will be. The only logical expalantion for the existence of the universe is that at some point, something eternal caused it. So what is that?

It is a humbling experience to reach the point where you accept that the universe you live in was created by somthing unseen, something eternal, and clearly, something very powerful. But that is the truth, and the operational scientific disciplines of physics and astronomy prove it. What that thing is....that is where faith begins.

What I can tell you is, if you want to know; if you really want to know, then ask that unseen, powerful, and eternal creator. Like many others, I know Him, and He promises to reveal Himself to anyone who truly desire to know Him.

Law Of Causality

Name: Wing

Comments: Causality applies to all events and objects within the existing universe, so why is it such a stretch to apply it to the origin of the universe as a whole? Scientist agree that there is a point at which the universe, including the time and space in which it exists, simply did not exist. So the universe, including time and space, had a cause, and it follows that the cause of the universe must have existed transcendent of time and space, in order to have caused those two elements to come into existence. So the cause of the universe is not bound by time and space, and therefore nothing could possibly have existed "before" it. The objection over the first cause of the universe being called "God" is nothing more than a prejudice against God. Some call it God, but others call it Allah, still others Jehovah, some "The Force." Who cares what that first cause is called? The fact is that "it" exists, and there are even ways of analyzing the broad spectrum of existing beings in the universe to discern the very nature of "it." Dialectical materialism denies spirituality by deeming the first cause to be only material, but it fails miserably in showing how spirit comes into existence. Extreme "idealism" claims that "it" is only spiritual, but they have no way of explaining the material worl. Neither is able to adequately explain the fact that both spirit and matter exist together in every existing being in the universe. We have to conclude that the first cause is a being of both a material, energic element that is the origin of every physical element in the universe, and a spiritual element that is the origin of the spiritual element of every existing being. The fact that man at this point can't fully explain ALL the elements of the first cause of the universe is no excuse to deny its existence, in the same way that because psychiatrists can't explain ALL aspects of the human mind doesn't prove that no one actually has a mind.

Law Causality - Page 2

Name: Neutralist

Comments: Big Bang states that all existences time, matter, and space were generated in a white flash of light and energy. Reason dictates that you can't get something from nothing, but you can get something from something if all existence began at that point then what existed before hand? reason dictates that something must have existed to create it and it must have been eternal because it was their before time matter and space. Reason also dictated that it must have been intelligent to create and immensely powerful to create it all at once.

Message Edited...
Persephone: Before submitting your comments please use good grammar - no net talk or slang, check your spelling and remember that names of places and people begin with an uppercase letter.

Law Causality General Religious Beliefs - Page 2

Name: Wing

Comments: ZEDDICUS! To say that God is a non-entity is to define God out of existence simply on the evidence of your own say-so.

Your parents did not give birth to a dog, but rather, another human being who resembles themselves in very fundamental ways (cause / effect), and even if I never met your parents, by looking at you and examining some of your fundamental attributes, we can still come to some correct conclusions about your "invisible" parents. We can at least conclude that, barring unfortunate accidents or birth defects, they each had two eyes, nostrils, ears, two arms, two legs, a torso, a brain inside a skull, they walked upright, etc. I hope I'm not wrong on these points.

Similarly, the universe (effect) resembles in very fundamental ways the nature of its own invisible cause, which some call "God."

I can define God, if you like, even though neither of us can "see" God, in the same way that I can come to reasonable conclusions about your parents by looking at you, or the nature of the invisible author of a book, without ever having met that author - even if that author is long dead. In the same vein, I can make some solid conclusions about the nature of an artist under similar conditions. You simply look at the "effects" that have emanated from those "causes."

In the case of the universe (the "effect") you will immediately notice that every form of existing being exists with two partner characteristics - male and female or + and -. This fact reveals that the "cause" must be a being having the characteristics of male and female or + and -.

Also, every existing being has another set of partner characteristics: an external, measurable form as well an an inner, invisible element that determines all the behaviors of that external form. In human beings, that relationship is the one that exists between the mind and the body. Therefore, the "cause" of the universe must also have at least those characteristics too.

Since all effects in the universe come from the cause of the universe, then individual entities give even more details about the cause. Human beings, for example, have intellect, emotion and will. I conclude that, since humans came from the cause and resemble it, therefore the first cause must also have such attributes. And there's more.

Is this logic faulty?