Since you can't get past the superficial, depth being beyond your reach, I can see how names confuse you. As for explaining the system, you would have to be weaned first before serving that up.GiC said:So you don't have to explain the system because you gave it a different name, wow!ialmisry said:That's why one is called Creator, and the other creation. If the First Cause was just a cause like all the rest, then at best you would have deism, but more likely monism.GiC said:If the theory of a cyclical universe (or mulitverse) is correct there need be no first cause, it is infinite in the dimension of time and therefore 'eternal'. Theists like to bring god up as a first cause, but then fail to explain the first cause of this entity or even the nature that allows it to be infinite in any scientific terms.FatherHLL said:Right, it does not eliminate the problem of causality but buries it in several more steps so that people bail before getting to the fact that the problem still exists without God.Papist said:All the multi-verse model does is push the same problem back a few steps. You just have a larger universe to explain. No dice buddy.Entscheidungsproblem said:You are assuming there is a first cause though, since the human mind is so used to such a structure of events. What if existence (in terms of a multi-verse, cyclical universe, etc) has always been? Some attributes you assign to a deity, should then be assigned to the naturalistic world.FatherHLL said:Really? There are no reasons to bring up a first cause for all other things?
Was that a Freudian slip? I've always suspected that you spend time here to prove that a monkey banging on a typewriter can't produce Shakespeare.GiC said:Do you even read this dribble before you post it? A monkey throwing feces at a keyboard could have come up with a better response.
GiC said:Who needs 'revelation' when they have half a brain and even the tiniest shred of common sense?ialmisry said:Why explain Him? We can know Him, while watching the cosmologists entertain us with their tales of big bangs, strings, dark energy, and other theories du jour.GiC said:A rudimentary theory of an infinite universe/multiverse is an infinitely better approach than bringing in some magical being that you insist you don't have to explain.
Yes, what would we do without you to tell us what to think. Who needs revelation when we have Greeki's assertions?GiC said:Insisting there has to be a first cause, throwing in the idea of a god as an explanation, then refusing to give a first cause for this god is such an obvious fallacy I shouldn't even have to point it out.
Why would we do that? Christ is risen, and we don't need fossils.GiC said:So instead you just bury your head in the sand?ialmisry said:Then we would end up chasing our tails with the monists. And the cosmologists.GiC said:If your comfortable with the idea of your god not having a first cause, then perhaps you should apply Occam Razor and cut out the middle man, ascribing that attribute to the universe/multiverse instead.