DeathPartyStar can prove God!

Death Party Star has no logically proven God.

Lo! Be blessed with this knowledge, and you will go far:

1) An infinite regression of potential causes actualized would preclude the existence of the universe.
2) The universe exists.
3) Therefore, there is only a finite regression of actualized causes.
4) Therefore, the universe has a first cause, a cause which cannot be the effect of another cause, i.e., it is uncaused.
5) The uncaused first cause is what men understand to be God (the Creator).

Discuss.

Death Party Star meant to say:

"Death Party Star can NOW logically prove God!"

Death Party Star thinks NG BBS needs to have an edit post option.

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

1) An infinite regression of potential causes actualized would preclude the existence of the universe.

Explain, this isn't very obvious to me.

2) The universe exists.

True, true.

I'm not sure what an actualized cause is.

Prove cause and effect now. Also prove that existence is not cyclical in nature. (for you science geeks, Yes I know that the universe is expanding faster than necessary for recollapse, but is it not possible that human intervention could change this?)

[Taxman2A]

At 6/12/03 10:17 PM, DeathPartyStar wrote: Death Party Star meant to say:

"Death Party Star can NOW logically prove God!"

Taxman2A says: Good Job Death Party Star! You have completely copied this from Thomas Acquinas' Summa Theologica ! I'm very impressed, it must have been very difficult to cut and paste from such an old book!

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

I knew it sounded familiar...

[mysecondstar]

the existence of God, or a higher entity, can be proved thus:

the universe was a vacuum at one point. there is no arguement with that. a vacuum is literally nothing. and from nothing comes something? interesting, no?

[FUNKbrs]

yes, yes, "the unmoved mover". The real question is this: Is the "unmoved mover" God as religion defines Him? that is the true question.

[misterx2000]

At 6/13/03 02:25 AM, mysecondstar wrote: the existence of God, or a higher entity, can be proved thus:

the universe was a vacuum at one point. there is no arguement with that. a vacuum is literally nothing. and from nothing comes something? interesting, no?

That is the real brain wracker...thus I've come to the same conclusion as you. People have been too out of touch with the beginning of the universe to think too much about it.

[JudgeDredd]

physics at the early universe were weird but not godly.

The potentiality (spark inside a vaccuum; which by definition is not yet a universe) ..at the beginning of measurable time caused by a leaking into our dimension of stupendous ammounts of hydrogen atoms which are in turn the result of the spearation of matter and anti-matter.

Basically, a spill in the cosmic ocean from a universe existing in along another plane of reality

-----

What God?

[FUNKbrs]

At 6/13/03 11:29 AM, Judge_Dredd wrote: physics at the early universe were weird but not godly.

The potentiality (spark inside a vaccuum; which by definition is not yet a universe) ..at the beginning of measurable time caused by a leaking into our dimension of stupendous ammounts of hydrogen atoms which are in turn the result of the spearation of matter and anti-matter.

Basically, a spill in the cosmic ocean from a universe existing in along another plane of reality

-----

What God?

I'm not letting you get off that easy, Dredd. Where did the other dimension come from? Where did the rules of physics that caused these processes come from? Rules are something, and we have to start with nothing, remember?

At 6/13/03 01:13 AM, Taxman2A wrote:

At 6/12/03 10:17 PM, DeathPartyStar wrote: Death Party Star meant to say:

"Death Party Star can NOW logically prove God!"

Taxman2A says: Good Job Death Party Star! You have completely copied this from Thomas Acquinas' Summa Theologica ! I'm very impressed, it must have been very difficult to cut and paste from such an old book!

Death Party Star improved upon the legendary St. Thomas Aquinas's First Cause argument! For Aquinas's argument refutes itself!

[mysecondstar]

this whole third person speak reminds me of the '96 election...

At 6/13/03 12:49 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote:

1) An infinite regression of potential causes actualized would preclude the existence of the universe.

Explain, this isn't very obvious to me. :

Death Party Star apologizes for not being clear. What Death Party Star is trying to say is if there is were infinite chain of causes, then the universe (an effect of a cause) could not exist because it would have to wait forever for the previous cause that would create it.

Prove cause and effect now. :

Death Party Star finds this unclear. However, for Death Party Star to 'prove' cause and effect, he would need an example. But, simply put both cause and effect are events...one event creates another.

Also prove that existence is not cyclical in nature. :

From the logical proof above, existence cannot be cyclical! What put forth existence? A necessary creator that is an uncaused cause!

[TheShrike]

At 6/13/03 01:11 PM, DeathPartyStar wrote: Death Party Star apologizes for not being clear. What Death Party Star is trying to say is if there is were infinite chain of causes, then the universe (an effect of a cause) could not exist because it would have to wait forever for the previous cause that would create it.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Wrong answer. Sorry, but you logic is invalid. Please retry from the start.

[Taxman2A]

At 6/13/03 12:20 PM, DeathPartyStar wrote:

At 6/13/03 01:13 AM, Taxman2A wrote:

At 6/12/03 10:17 PM, DeathPartyStar wrote: Death Party Star meant to say:

"Death Party Star can NOW logically prove God!"

Taxman2A says: Good Job Death Party Star! You have completely copied this from Thomas Acquinas' Summa Theologica ! I'm very impressed, it must have been very difficult to cut and paste from such an old book!

Death Party Star improved upon the legendary St. Thomas Aquinas's First Cause argument! For Aquinas's argument refutes itself!

How does it refute itself?
Oh- and if you plan on leaving a one line response, or referring to yourself in the third person don't bother responding please. We are interested in thought out and well defended arguments. Just so you know ahead of time, you cannot refute acquinas with one line. Also, how does your argument succeed where his failed?

At 6/13/03 01:14 PM, TheShrike wrote:

At 6/13/03 01:11 PM, DeathPartyStar wrote: Death Party Star apologizes for not being clear. What Death Party Star is trying to say is if there is were infinite chain of causes, then the universe (an effect of a cause) could not exist because it would have to wait forever for the previous cause that would create it.

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Wrong answer. Sorry, but you logic is invalid. Please retry from the start.

Death Party Star has nothing much to say since he is aware that you have not actually disproved his syllogism. He sees only, "well you are wrong!"

At 6/13/03 01:15 PM, Taxman2A wrote:

How does it refute itself? :

Interesting! Death Party Star will cut-n-paste the legendary St. Thomas Aquina's First Cause Argument and ask you to find the error in his syllogism!

1. Everything is caused by something other than itself
2. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
3. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
4. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.
5. Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely god.

Discuss the St. Thomas's error in logic! Then we shall procede to your next question!

[Taxman2A]

At 6/13/03 01:23 PM, DeathPartyStar wrote:

At 6/13/03 01:15 PM, Taxman2A wrote:

How does it refute itself? :

Interesting! Death Party Star will cut-n-paste the legendary St. Thomas Aquina's First Cause Argument and ask you to find the error in his syllogism!

1. Everything is caused by something other than itself
2. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
3. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
4. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.
5. Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely god.

Discuss the St. Thomas's error in logic! Then we shall procede to your next question!

Well.. if I was to have to pick a point of contention with this argument as you typed it, I would say that the argument would appear to entail that God is caused by something else, since everything is caused by something else. Is that what you were getting at?

[mysecondstar]

is anyone else really annoyed by this third person speak? but as taxman said, the logic is flawed. who is to say that the line of causes can not be infinite? it's an assumption made to prove the theory.

[TheShrike]

The Shrike is annoyed and he is definately not amused.

And your logic is flawed. Just because one event takes place, that does not mean the effects of that event have to wait for any further events to occur before they take place.

Again, your logic is flawed.

[dudeitsallama]

We know that the universe is expanding from a set point of origin. Scientists believe that they've found the first things to ever come from that point of origin (quasars) which indicates that the universe had to begin expanding at some time. All evidence points to there being some initial cause at least for the expansion of the universe if not its creation. This still doesn't prove the existence God. To prove the existence of God you would have to prove that this initial cause was an intelligent being that had some purpose for what it was doing. This can't be proven. That's the whole point of religion. The best science can do is make the existence of God seem more or less likely.

[antiqkk]

At 6/13/03 03:54 PM, dudeitsallama wrote: We know that the universe is expanding from a set point of origin. Scientists believe that they've found the first things to ever come from that point of origin (quasars) which indicates that the universe had to begin expanding at some time. All evidence points to there being some initial cause at least for the expansion of the universe if not its creation. This still doesn't prove the existence God. To prove the existence of God you would have to prove that this initial cause was an intelligent being that had some purpose for what it was doing. This can't be proven. That's the whole point of religion. The best science can do is make the existence of God seem more or less likely.

Precisely. The DeathStar is just making assumptions, which he does not care to back properly even. You are merely applying the fact that since everything needs reaction needs an action to prove that there was God to create the Universe in teh first place. But you are not proving that this God was an intelligent being who with his great powers created the universe, purposely and for a reason, with one wave of his hand.

Death Party Star is amazed at the problems people are having with the simplicity of the logical proof of God!

Death Party Star implores people to understand that there cannot be an infinite causal chain: For every cause yet to be actualized, there are an infinite number of potential causes that must be actualized before it can be. If cause x represents the creation of universe, the universe will never exist because x is preceded by an infinite number of causes waiting to become manifest. There must be a starting point in which exists an uncaused cause i.e. God!

Death Party Star sees that people are unable to refute the first cause argument by saying that one must prove God! Death Party Star says this is easy! The very concept that nature exists in such complex ways literally shows that an intelligent designer must exist!

Death Party Star reminds people, that these are two different issues so please...stay on topic.

[Kenney333]

there are so many theories about how the unniverse was created, obviously one of them being the god made the whole deal, but this happened so many billion years ago that really anything could have created it all and we cant even come close to understanding how it all started since it happened so far beyond our reach

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

Kenny, I think you just don't understand.

Anyways mr Death Party Star. Heres a clarification on my cyclical comment.

If you take a more detached view of the universe, time is not neccessarily a property of the universe. It is conceivable that some alternate universe does not have time, or has 2D time. In fact, any dimentionality of tiem could exist.

It might help to imagine, flatland, a 2d plane in which little flat creatures exist. If the ends of the plane, instead of being infinite were twisted around to meet opposite ends you would have a torus, ( a donut, as an experiment, grab a piece of paper, roll it into a cylinder. Then imagine if the paper was stretchy you could bend the holes at the ends to meet eachother)

The point I'm trying to make is that the flatlanders would look in all directions and see an infinite universe. In reality, their universe is actually finite.

Why not have cycilcal time?

I hope Death Party Star is happy with my explanation

Dr. Arbitrary

Death Party Star would like to thank you for this interesting discussion!

Death Party Star has indeed logically proven God!

[Commander-K25]

Dr. Arbitrary, there are in fact some theories that have the universe starting itself by space time curving to the point that it loops back on itself.

[mrpopenfresh]

At 6/13/03 10:42 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: Dr. Arbitrary, there are in fact some theories that have the universe starting itself by space time curving to the point that it loops back on itself.

Can you explain it in a bit more detail? Im not sure I understand.

[misterx2000]

Yea pls explain how that might be possible.