Im not ranting! nor am i preaching im checking your judgements to were they belong "self-internalize" them... If you dont believe in what youi have been talking about where do your belifes come from?

..er..Kalamazooguy ...didn't I explain it to you..CraniumDesigns made that comment and I just commented on what he said ...so stop with the judgemental tunnel vision .

LOL! seems i took "cranium design" as a theory i do appologize

no problem

funches: Please read the rest of my post again. (I know — it was very long and a pain in the ass to read the first time, but it covers most of the big concepts of first causation.) The question is neither a matter of simple logic, nor does a brief explanation cover the topic. I attempted to cover the basics in my response, but it is cursory at best. The gist of what I wrote is this: If our universe has a singularity (apex of creation), according to the law of causation there must be a cause. While that proves nothing further, many people hold to faith that God is the "uncaused cause." We cannot apply any knowledge of entities that have a beginning to potential entities that do not — we have no basis, no reference point. A singularity hasn't been proven or disproved, and what either discovery would mean is not entirely clear.

Most people believe something similar to what they were taught as children; many others rebel entirely and believe something vastly different. Very few people put a great deal of thought into what they believe, though many do put a great deal of thought into justifying their beliefs. The uncaused cause problem isn't really a problem in simplest terms. Some scientists theorize that the universe is a closed system with no beginning and no end, and they believe that to be a valid model (but with uncertain veracity). If they are right about the validity and wrong about the veracity, then it would be fully justifiable to believe in a God with the properties they are seeking within the universe itself. Therefore, believers maybe be justified in having hope that God exists, even if they are ignorant of what that justification entails.

I guess I'm concerned that the faith of others seems to bother you so much, to the point that you press hard for an answer from believers when there can be none. It's an approach that will encourage people to push back with similar force, but without really exploring the issues at hand. If you truly wish to enlighten the masses then hostile confrontation (while fun) is not as effective as leading by example. Being too aggressive will drive people away and turn them off to your ideas, but being open and helpful in your approach will lead to people asking questions of you and seeking your advice. You'll catch more flies with honey, my friend.

I read all of your post when you spoke about Stephen Hawking's theories about the universe or on about the existence of God, but the question is not that complicated, the question is not about how the universe was created and the question doesn't even dispute the existence of God ..but it does address the content in your post since you spoke about how everything was created then doesn't the same logic apply to the creator ..and if the answer is no then explain rationally why

Please, reread my post. I never said that everything was created. Further, the complicated concepts used in my reply discuss directly whether it is justifiable to believe in the possibility of a creator God. To reiterate the point that directly addresses your original question:

The concept you are indirectly referencing is one of first cause. The law of causation says that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. The law is worded this way because it deals with only those concepts of which we have empirical knowledge. We know nothing of the possibility or the nature of entities that have no beginning, and thus the law does not apply to such situations. Theists believe that there is at least one God, and that such God (or gods) exists outside of space and time in the ways we perceive them and has no beginning. If God exists and has no beginning, then the law of causation does not apply. The law of causation cannot be applied to something that has no beginning because we have no reference for such existence. The relevance of my original post is that it describes how scientists and theoretical mathematicians are attempting to illustrate whether our universe might have no beginning — which would be a remarkable discovery — essentially opening up the possibility that our universe has no cause.

If you want it in simpler terms, basically it comes down to whether anything with no beginning is possible. If yes, then an uncaused God is possible — just as an uncaused universe is possible. If no, then the universe needs a cause, but so does whatever caused it. I can't reduce the concepts any further than that.

Your question has been answered, but the logical inquisitive progression is, "is it justifiable to believe in something for which there is no evidence if it is merely possible?" That question works both ways, of course, because all the theories I've mentioned that result from the law of causation are nothing more than possibilities. We cannot even determine what the probability of these theories might be until we have considerably more knowledge — which may lie in the work of Stephen Hawking or his contemporaries.

After all is said and words are exchanged...Why is it so important? Why only confront Christianity ? Why not Taoism or Buddhism? How about Paganism, Hinduism or Atheism (yes atheists are considered a religious sect). Maybe Scientology…lets go back further. Let’s look at Thor or maybe Ra…hmmm…did I hear someone say Zeus and many others. What’s your logic behind that?

you are introducing the laws of causation and the theories of Stephen Hawking but the question is phrase in such a way that it avoid theories in order to remain focus on "believers logic" which is that nothing can just pop out of nothingness and had to been created

Yea I like those questions......hmmmm funches what do you have to say about this?????

you must not have read the post correctly because it made no mention of any religion or denomination it just ask a question about believers logic so therfore if you are a believer in Zeus allmighty the question applies to you ..

Mr. Fuucnhes if I may, the post is irrelevant because your comments have spoken your true intent, especially concerning creation. No mention of any other ‘esoteric theories’. So be honest good sir, what happened that made you so bitter and ill? Why allow your soul to be tormented? Why lie to me and the rest of us?

Oh forgot to add that many religions don’t believe that god created the universe. So you must be targeting a select few. Hmmm… Just something to ponder.

“Wow, that brother got a point. ”
“Amen, brother”
“Now that’s logic”

geez another Dr. Phil ..the original question is a simple question but apparently not simple enough for you to answer it ..sorry maybe they have a kiddy forum you can play in someplace

How mature Mr. Funches… you’re in a corner…so you take a cheap shot…wow…how expected. If you want to argue philosophical beliefs than give some parameters.

look Dr. Phil..all you have to do is answer the original question if you can't then move on to the kiddies section

I am explaining the _real_ argument, not the limited way in which you understand "believers' logic." You insist on refusing anyone's explanation and demand a "simple answer" to your "simple question." You don't want an answer, because the one I've provided is also the one that theistic and atheistic scholars are currently debating, yet you reject it as somehow being outside the parameters of your question.

When you assert that believers claim that "nothing can pop out of nothingness and had to be created," you are alluding to the law of causation — whether you acknowledge it or not. Even your wording — "pop out of nothingness" — suggests existence with beginning, exactly the subject with which the law of causation deals. However, each time I elaborate on the law of causation and explain why it doesn't apply to a concept of a God that has no beginning, you insist that the law of causation isn't relevant.

It has become clear to me that you are not interested in an explanation of belief or how people feel justified in their belief. You merely wish to argue. Most of what I have stated in my previous posts is directly relevant to your question and answers how believers can feel justified in their belief, and I've phrased the points three different ways because your responses led me to believe that I wasn't being clear enough in my explanation. Your refusal to accept any of what I've written, however, plainly indicates that you are uninterested in having a deeper understanding of theistic thought or how it applies to your question of first cause.

I am an atheist (or agnostic with atheistic components), as I stated before, and I tend to consider most theistic thought to be misguided, but not on this point. Many theists acknowledge the uncertainties, but feel justified in their beliefs because what they believe to be so is _possible_ or, in some cases, they believe it to be _probable_. That was the point I made in my last post, that many people feel justified for reasons of possibility, but are they even justified in such rationalization?

I now realize that you have no interest in engaging in a deep discussion, so I won't trouble you further. I do hope, however, that my words weren't entirely wasted and that someone here found my posts helpful and relevant in their own pursuit of understanding the concepts and problems associated with first cause.

(A friend of mine has/had a book on this subject, and it dealt pretty deeply [in part] with the philosophical concepts without getting deep into the mathematics. It was a bit biased toward theistic justification, but I found it interesting nonetheless. If anyone is interested in reading the book, I may be able to get the title and author's name from my friend and pass it along.)

and that sums it up..you claim that I don't want an answer but how can supply an answer if the issue is still being debated as you yourself stated in your post ..and that means you yourself also have no answer...which means all you are doing is supplying theories from Stephan Hawking among others ..you wish to engage in endless debate about millions of unproven scientific theories.. and to avoid that type of debate is why I phrase the question as I did ..the question is logical and requires a logical answer and a rational explanation from you and not from Stephan Hawking and the game

This thread is really cool.

If you don't answer, you are afraid.

If you do answer, you are irrational.

Funches has all the bases covered.

debate are better with the thoughts of the participates not from plagirizing the thoughts of "google cut and paste" ...