Please do your best to respond to this post. I won't insult you if you don't insult me.

Cause and effect. How can something come out of nothing? How could the very first thing that happened to start the universe not be effected by anything? It has to go back and back and back until one thing that effected something without being caused. That, I believe, was a god. Can somebody please prove this point wrong?

Views: 2173

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Well, actually, can you disprove my assertion that it was a drunken lizard? The burden is on you when you want to dispel someone else's belief.

You seem unaware (I almost said ignorant) of a number of facts:

Cause and effect doesn't seem to operate on the subatomic level. The universe may not have come out of "nothing" since an increasing number of theorists believe that The Big Bang happened when one "brane" bumped into another one, creating a new universe. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you need to study a bit and come back fully loaded.

" It has to go back and back and back until one thing that effected something without being caused. That, I believe, was a god."... 

Keep in mind, if you believe it goes back and back to a god. Then that leads to another question. What created the god? If nothing can exist without something creating it, that would mean the god needed to come from somewhere, such as another god.then you have to ask where did that god come from and so forth. If you believe matter needed something to create it, then you must also believe that the god needed a creator also. No matter how you look at it they're both the same concept and to invalidate one is to invalidate the other. 

Bertrand Russell used to argue that, if SOMETHING can exist without a beginning, then, invoking the principle of Occam's Razor (a simpler explanation is better than a more elaborate one), it might as well be the Universe. Of course, today we'd substitute Reality or The Multiverse in place of the Universe, but the same principle applies.

   I can't imagine anything coming from nothing, INCLUDING GODS!  But Stephen Hawking and a lot of scientists who are smarter than I (and maybe even you, too) can imagine it, based on their mathematical and physical experimentation.  Incidentally, it's "affected," not "effected."  You misspelled it twice, so I assume it's an educational deficit, not a typo.  

Not so fast. One meaning of "to effect" is "to bring about" or "to bring into being" or "to make real." Go reread and see if maybe that isn't exactly what he was saying.

Effect and affect can both be used as verb and noun. So they have four distinct meanings. It's used used correctly here.

Unseen:  I understand your point.  IF Mr. Turner DID mean to use "effected" in the sense that you seem to grant him, then he used the word correctly.  But do you SERIOUSLY believe that was his intent?  I sure don't.  Almost anyone who intended to convey that meaning would have used the word "created."  In his second use of the word, he wrote, "...until one thing that effected something without being caused."  That is very awkward wording.  It would have been more concise to have written, "...until one thing that caused something without ITSELF FIRST being caused."  But that is semantic nitpicking.  I am quite sure that he meant "affected" when he wrote "effected."  Even if I am wrong and he meant to use "effected" in its correct sense, then he did a disservice to a lot of non-grammarians by not being clear that it was what he meant.  "Effect," as a verb, is nearly always used to mean "to cause to HAPPEN."  It is rarely, if ever, used to mean "cause to EXIST," which is what you seem to think he meant.  For example, it would be correct and concise to use the sentence, "That law was meant to effect a change in behavior."  It does not imply some behavior that had never before existed.  But that is exactly what Mr. Turner is trying to suggest: that a universe is being "effected" - created out of nothing.  I guarantee you, NO scientist (or English teacher, like me) would ever use that word in place of "created" for that meaning.  Bottom line: I REALLY don't think that is what he meant; and if he did, then he should have been more clear by using more commonly understood words, like "created" or "caused."

Have you not researched this yet?  Trolling?

http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Nothing/Origin.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdvWrI_oQjY

Ultimately, your simplistic "argument" collapses on itself - by your reasoning, the god you posit must also have been created.

 

God could be "nothing" :)

God could be anything - and it seems has been and is for many people

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/why_is_there_something_rather_than_no...

*As Nobel Laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, “The answer to the ancient question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ would then be that ‘nothing’ is unstable.”"

In the Beginning, there was a state of Pure Potentiality. In other words, anything could happen,

RSS

Blog Posts

Life Condensed

Posted by Cato Rigas on October 19, 2014 at 8:30pm 1 Comment

Cool Vehicle Inspection!

Posted by Ed on October 18, 2014 at 9:03am 2 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service