God had help

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Mr. Blue Sky If god exists, he existed before creation, because he made it. logic and cause and effect could have not existed with god, because god isn't existence, he's god. so he could have created cause and effect and logic with the rest of creation.

Creation requires cause and effect. Are you really trying to tell me God created the rules that allowed him to create?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Geneticist Listen, if there is absolutely no existence then cause/effect and logic are nonexistent as they are meaningless.

That's correct.

Quote by: Geneticist Both of these concepts exist only because there is something that exist which they can be applied to.

The problem is, you're assuming things are bifurcated. Logic and cause and effect cannot exist without existence.. that is true (although debatable). THAT is in no way, shape or form, logical reason to conclude that logic and cause and effect therefore exist because we have existence/objects in existence.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Creation requires cause and effect. Are you really trying to tell me God created the rules that allowed him to create?

Well, he'd have to wouldnt he? Prior to creation there would have been no rules for creation, he'd have to make them.

[Geneticist]

Quote by: lullaby chainer The problem is, you're assuming things are bifurcated. Logic and cause and effect cannot exist without existence.. that is true (although debatable). THAT is in no way, shape or form, logical reason to conclude that logic and cause and effect therefore exist because we have existence/objects in existence.

"sigh"

I dont think you get it. Logic and cause/effect are not tangible, but rather concepts that describe a universe that possess the existence of something tangible. Because they describe existence, their own existence is dependent upon the existence of something else....something tangible. Therefore they cannot exist on their own, but only in the presence of something. When something tangible exists so does that which describes it. Its a simultaneous existence so that logic and cause/effect can never proceed the very first tangible existence.

[Jack]

their own existence is dependent upon the existence of something else

Remember the problem of Schrödinger's cat, L.C.?

We place a living cat into a steel chamber, along with a device containing a vial of hydrocyanic acid. There is, in the chamber, a very small amount of a radioactive substance. If even a single atom of the substance decays during the test period, a relay mechanism will trip a hammer, which will, in turn, break the vial and kill the cat. The observer cannot know whether or not an atom of the substance has decayed, and consequently, cannot know whether the vial has been broken, the hydrocyanic acid released, and the cat killed. Since we cannot know, the cat is both dead and alive according to quantum law, in a superposition of states. It is only when we break open the box and learn the condition of the cat that the superposition is lost, and the cat becomes one or the other (dead or alive). This situation is sometimes called quantum indeterminacy or the observer's paradox: the observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, so that it can never be known what the outcome would have been if it were not observed.

Source
(emphasis mine)

Even Buddhism agrees that nothing ever happens until, and unless, it's observed.

[samsara15]

How is God any different from calling it the Big Bang, or M-membranes brushing against each other, or Quantum Fluctauations in teh vacuum of a universe with practically infinite mass? All that is being said is that something had to have always existed, or nothing would be here now. Why postulate the existence of a supernatual cause, when a natural one, although as yet undetermined (that's how science works), would serve just as well?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Mr. Blue Sky Prior to creation there would have been no rules for creation, he'd have to make them.

Don't you see the problem here? You admit there would be no rules for creation, but then you insist he CREATED them?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Geneticist "sigh" I dont think you get it. Logic and cause/effect are not tangible, but rather concepts that describe a universe that possess the existence of something tangible. Because they describe existence, their own existence is dependent upon the existence of something else....something tangible. Therefore they cannot exist on their own, but only in the presence of something. When something tangible exists so does that which describes it. Its a simultaneous existence so that logic and cause/effect can never proceed the very first tangible existence.

Multi-framed existence is not a requirement of tangible objects. Why do you keep thinking that?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: samsara15 How is God any different from calling it the Big Bang, or M-membranes brushing against each other, or Quantum Fluctauations in teh vacuum of a universe with practically infinite mass? All that is being said is that something had to have always existed, or nothing would be here now. Why postulate the existence of a supernatual cause, when a natural one, although as yet undetermined (that's how science works), would serve just as well?

The Big Bang can't "love me".

The Big Bang doesn't think, and doesn't get jealous.

The Big Bang doesn't watch over human life.

Need I continue?

[Mr. Blue Sky]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Don't you see the problem here? You admit there would be no rules for creation, but then you insist he CREATED them?

not really, i mean, hes god. simply by deciding to make creation he made the first cause and thusly the first effect. they did not have to exist before that because before that there was no such thing as existence. he made existence so he made the rules of existence and the rules of creating existence. If you assume god created everything you must assume he created logic, cause, and effect, because theyre just another part of everything. To try and say he is restricted by them would be absurd, he cant be restricted by things that are part of an everything that did not exist before he made it.

[samsara15]

How can you create logic? Logic is a sub-set of mathematics, which is not creatable. Logic is deducable. You might be able to make a reasonable argument based on Godel's Incompleteness theory, but I have a hard time just following the logic on that one. Good luck.

Cause and effect are not the same as logic, that is only a human inferred definition. Induced, not deduced. David Hume did a creditable job in placing cause ands effect in some doubt.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Mr. Blue Sky not really, i mean, hes god. simply by deciding to make creation he made the first cause and thusly the first effect.

That makes no sense.. please try to think before you type. Please..

Quote by: Mr. Blue Sky they did not have to exist before that because before that there was no such thing as existence.

Before what? What's your point? If you want to assume God exists, he is part of existence.

Quote by: Mr. Blue Sky he made existence so he made the rules of existence and the rules of creating existence.

He can't create cause and effect because creation requires cause and effect.

Quote by: Mr. Blue Sky If you assume god created everything you must assume he created logic, cause, and effect, because theyre just another part of everything.

What the hell? I'm not assuming that, and if you'd just stop to think you'd realize the entire thread is arguing that he DIDN'T create everything. Obviously he didn't create himself, either, although I'm sure you have some absurd explanation for that too.

Quote by: Mr. Blue Sky To try and say he is restricted by them would be absurd, he cant be restricted by things that are part of an everything that did not exist before he made it.

For crying out loud! Just read the OP, please. This is ridiculous.

[Geneticist]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Multi-framed existence is not a requirement of tangible objects. Why do you keep thinking that?

This is pointless as you obviously cant grasp that concepts that describe reality, that describe processes and action exist only because that which they describe is already in existence.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: samsara15 How can you create logic? Logic is a sub-set of mathematics, which is not creatable. Logic is deducable. You might be able to make a reasonable argument based on Godel's Incompleteness theory, but I have a hard time just following the logic on that one. Good luck.

Logic and perception go hand and hand. It is our most basic tool, but it can only understand itself.

No, this has nothing to do with Godel's theory, so please stop bringing it up.

Quote by: samsara Cause and effect are not the same as logic, that is only a human inferred definition. Induced, not deduced. David Hume did a creditable job in placing cause ands effect in some doubt.

I really, really, don't care. Please use practical words in this debate. All you've done is made reference to other arguments without explanation, links, or your own thoughts. This isn't a post your opinion bulletin.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Geneticist This is pointless as you obviously cant grasp that concepts that describe reality, that describe processes and action exist only because that which they describe is already in existence.

Just because they describe something, and that something exists, doesn't mean they must simataneously begin to exist at the same time. Try to support what you say if you want to argue such insane points.

[Geneticist]

Just because they describe something, and that something exists, doesn't mean they must simataneously begin to exist at the same time. Try to support what you say if you want to argue such insane points.

You cannot talk of cause and effect if there is not first something that is possible of causing an effect. In the absence of such a thing the concept does not exist. I have tried to drill this through to you, but you dismiss my arguments without any counter arguments or support. Im sorry I have wasted my time here, it is rather pointless to continue such a fruitless debate.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I always think before I type, that's the whole point of this forum. If god made the world then he made all thats in it, and thusly all the rules about it.

If I want to assume God exists, I can assume he is outside of normal existence, It would actually be more probable as he would seem quite mysterious in that regard. when i say "before" I mean before existence as we know it.

I realize creation requires cause and effect, what I'm saying is he essentially created cause and effect by making the first cause (creating) and thusly the first effect (creation existing)


If god is the ultimate creator, he created everything. I know you're not assuming that, but you have to if you want to think of god as the creator, he either created everything or nothing. If you're assuming god exists, which you ARE in this thread, he existed before everything else, and no he didn't create himself, but if you're assuming god exists you're also inherently assuming some of his mystery.

I read the OP, a few times. Stop telling people to read the OP when they have a response contrary to your ideas like theyre some kind of idiot. You are saying God could not have created logic, cause and effect because they are required for creation. I'm saying that if they didnt exist in the first place then god could create them, because if the rules required for creation didnt exist then he could do whatever the hell he wants, like making up rules.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Geneticist You cannot talk of cause and effect if there is not first something that is possible of causing an effect. In the absence of such a thing the concept does not exist. I have tried to drill this through to you, but you dismiss my arguments without any counter arguments or support. Im sorry I have wasted my time here, it is rather pointless to continue such a fruitless debate.

Yes, for the last time, everyone knows there must be an object in existence for cause and effect to conduct. What you can't hear, or maybe you just can't understand, is that the existence of an object does not entail the existence of cause and effect. You need to get over this mental road block of yours and try to support your claim without faulty logical statements.

[Jagged]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer everyone knows there must be an object in existence for cause and effect to conduct. What you can't hear, or maybe you just can't understand, is that the existence of an object does not entail the existence of cause and effect.

Hello? You just contradicted yourself. You just said that its obvious that "there must be an object in existence for cause and effect to occur", but assert that the existence of the object does not "entail the existance of C%E"

Did i get you wrong or did you just state that, in short terms, An "object" must exist for "[something else(C&E) to exist]"? You just used the concept of cause and effect to make the assumption that an object must exist for cause and effect to exist. Therefore the existence of the object DOES assert the existence of cause and effect, unless you simply believe in something else entirely.

Quote by: rez god just exists. god was never created. god was just always there.

Man. It doesn't seem that hard for many to believe that God has existed forever; why is it so hard for them to believe that everything has existed forever?

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer The Big Bang can't "love me". The Big Bang doesn't think, and doesn't get jealous. The Big Bang doesn't watch over human life.

Hey, on a lighter note, i didnt know God could get jealous. I didnt know he watches over human life either.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Jagged Hello? You just contradicted yourself. You just said that its obvious that "there must be an object in existence for cause and effect to occur", but assert that the existence of the object does not "entail the existance of C%E"

There's no contradiction.

Simple logic.

A cannot exist without B.
B exists.
Therefore A exists? O.o

WRONG, dear.. WRONG

What you're confused about is if it were worded like this..

A is a requirement of B.
B exists.
Therefore A exists.

Yes, that would be valid logic. But, if you notice, that isn't the case.