Thank you everyone, really enjoying this discussion.

However, would beg that UOG stop with the stream of consciousness and write something that has a beginning and a middle if not an end.

Oliver writes:

>> ...if the universe were shown to be self-creating (because both time & causation have more roles than we experience), the credibility of a scientific answer is enhanced, unless the goal posts are moved: god allowed the self-creating universe. <<

Let's assume that a supreme being set in to motion a self-creating (perpetuating?) universe.

Whose supreme being?

The Jews?
The Christians?
The Muslims?
A Hindu pantheon of supreme deities?

None of the above?

Something that has never made its presence known on this planet, Earth?

I posit that anyone who claims to know the answer is either a liar or self-deluded.

The following article does not go near answering these questions, however I found it an interesting read and hope that others may enjoy it as well.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/philosophy-and-faith/

Excerpt below:

"There are, for example, no more basic truths from which we can prove that the past is often a good guide to the future, that our memories are reliable, or that other people have a conscious inner life. Such beliefs simply — and quite properly — arise from our experience in the world. Plantinga in particular has argued that core religious beliefs can have a status similar to these basic but unproven beliefs. His argument has clear plausibility for some sorts of religious beliefs. Through experiences of, for example, natural beauty, moral obligation, or loving and being loved, we may develop an abiding sense of the reality of an extraordinarily good and powerful being who cares about us. Who is to say that such experiences do not give reason for belief in God as much as parallel (though different) experiences give reason for belief in reliable knowledge of the past and future and of other human minds? There is still room for philosophical disputes about this line of thought, but it remains the most plausible starting point of a philosophical case for religious belief.....

Cont'd

Cont'd

"But this defense of faith faces a steep hurdle. Although it may support generic religious claims about a good and powerful being who cares for us, it is very hard to see it sustaining the specific and robust claims of Judaism, Christianity and Islam about how God is concretely and continually involved in our existence. God is said to be not just good and powerful but morally perfect and omnipotent, a sure ultimate safeguard against any evil that might threaten us. He not only cares about us but has set up precise moral norms and liturgical practices that we must follow to ensure our eternal salvation. Without such specificity, religion lacks the exhilarating and terrifying possibilities that have made it such a powerful force in human history."

Hello Severin,

Thanks for your interest and important comments.

Before, I was trying to suggest a "naked" comparison between the weak theories of non-classical science and God (free of religions). Weak in the sense these are little understood Although, predictions can be highly highly accurate). Here we have two competing external agents, one non-divine and one divine. Putting the various gods aside, adds focus, suggest, because who is divine is left out. Just: Does existence require a divine cause? I posit the weak theories of science still have more meat than the non-divine causation.

Direct matching of God versus non-God is more fundamental than Zeus (or another god) versus non-God. Although, outside of classical physics, understanding things a still fuzzy, having only weak theories: There is at least something. There is a "watch this space" fell with particle physics. If the universe, say in 2030, is proven to be self-organising and self-contained. What does this mean for God? There would be more tension between this finding and (various) scriptual claim's to the necessity of God(s).

On the back-step, in 2030, religionist's might amend their case to say God allowed the classical and non-classical physical properties to sustain the self-contained universe "to be". However, this position does not address the relationship of God with religions (plural), we side-lined, before.

(I iterate "weak" is a technical term for applied to explorative explanations, not strong theories l(e.g.,General Relativity or Newtown's Laws). Curiously, predictions from a weak theory can be more accurate than a strong theory, herein, Kip Thorne (Black Hole guru), notes GR appears only an approxiation for some quantum solutions.)

I actually think Life is the tough one. Not the chicken and egg thing between DNA and RNA, as quasi-RNA migh produce quasi-enzymes (in primative evolution,rather building peptide chains against the second law of thermodymics, might require looking outside of class systems to QM: time in quantum foam? Another possibility is a primitive cell having internally a QM environment and externally a classical presence, evolving to build amino-acid chains in QM time, until obersed by the space-time of the classical world.

something/that has..a beginning/..doesnt infure an end..but it is..likely to end..when the affect/..of the cause is ended..

[thats a complete thought]..the end.

but..i will/quote..<<severin..<<..Oliver writes:

>> ...if the universe were shown to be self-creating..>>>which is highly improbable....and if true..would negate science/method and certainty...as well as much/..we call physical...L.A.W

BUT lets egsamin,,,olivers middle..<<(because both time..&..causation have/more roles..than we experience),>>time is only relitive..to those running by the same measure

i agree that causation has many roles..but add it has certain rules it must..act its part/..within

<<..the credibility of a scientific answer is enhanced,>>>by evidence or proof...<<unless the goal posts are moved:>>

im not sure if the moving is..<<god allowed..the self-creating universe.>>..because this would be a double-movement at the try-line..[allowed infurs/..a seeking of permission]..and im sorry if that isnt a complete/reply..so return to severin/quote

<<..Let's assume/..that a supreme being..set in to motion>>>IE ..setting in motion...is a cause

setting/off..<<a self-creating..(perpetuating?)..universe.>>we have action/reaction...then ...there are other causes...ie let gravity/be...let light be...make this stick/together..make this liquid/this gas...this life//this logic...this mineral/this vegetable

then ask what am i...that causes?
[ok..thats not the end...only the beginning of beginnings]

in the beginning god was the deep
then he was a big-bang
then he was many/of the prementioned causes

then he was grass/insect/beast...eventually...'man'
man became men[god became god...many claimed to be of god
but eventually realised...god is one...the one conciousness who realises i am..[regardless of what i am was...or indeed is]

god/good is the cause of fruits
but to quote/severin..<<then the fruit of the causes>>would be an end

as to the backwardness..of..<<Whose supreme being?>>
let me invert the question..let the end be your reply

I?AM...is the cause...of..ALL LIVING
regardless of lable/division...or type...be they<<The Jews/The Christians/The Muslims/A Hindu pantheon..of supreme deities/or..None of the above>>>NO ALL THE ABOUVE...cause of causes

GOD..HAS..<<made its/his..presence/presents../gifts..
known/on this plane-t,/..Ear-th[let..theee with hearing hear

SEVERIN..posit/quote..<<that anyone who claims/to know..the answer is either a liar/or self-deluded.>>means...what is he/..that sets up a fellow being...into giving opinion..only to be called/fraud/deluded

who asks...not expecting a reply..?

<<The following article/does not go near..answering/..these questions>>..and if/..he knew the conditions..SET../after which he would be quoted,it would appear/in hindsight...he was wise in not doing so

the end

Thanks Oliver

I have been reading and rereading your latest post.

>> Does existence require a divine cause? <<

I posit no, for a proposal you made at the end of your post:

>> Another possibility is a primitive cell having internally a QM environment and externally a classical presence, evolving to build amino-acid chains in QM time, until observed by the space-time of the classical world. <<

For the simple reason, there does not have to be a single cause. We now know that the ingredients for the creation of a single cell are found in abundance throughout the cosmos.

And I continue with my question from previous post, if there is a divine cause, why would this divinity wish to be worshipped? This is human mammal thinking that a superior requires adoration.

UOG

I understand you are passionate about what you have to say, but I can't read your posts, do you talk how your write? If not, perhaps try to write how you talk.

WAU,

I’d like to apologise in advance for posting so much in one hit, but you’ve asked some good questions so I want to make sure I answer them as thoroughly as possible.

<<...if you are a non-believer and/or Atheist, why on earth, do you continue to question, scoff, ridicule and bother participating with your 'generalisations' about God, Jesus and people of Christian belief/faith?>>

Firstly, I used to be a very devout believer too, so I tend to use arguments and word them in a way that I believe would have made me think had someone put them to me when I believed.

Secondly, I think the good that comes from religion (all of which can/could’ve easily come from secular means) is far out-weighed by the bad (some of which I’ve covered at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3729#90588). Heck, there are millions of Christians out there who would quietly feel a sense of glee if a city were nuked because they’d see it as an imminent sign of the end times and the second coming of Jesus.

Speaking of which, I think my point was best made by Bill Maher, in the last five minutes of his documentary ‘Religulous’, as he was standing at the point were most Christians believe the world will come to an end. It’s a powerful message to moderate theists and those from the “Look, some people just need religion, okay” brigade - who I consider to be the enablers of the enablers of the fundamentalists...

“The plain fact is, religion must die for mankind to live. The hour is getting very late to be able to indulge in having key decisions made by religious people, by irrationalists, by those who would steer the ship of state not by a compass, but by the equivalent of reading the entrails of a chicken.

Faith means making a virtue out of not thinking. It's nothing to brag about. And those who preach faith and enable and elevate it are our intellectual slaveholders, keeping mankind in a bondage to fantasy and nonsense that has spawned and justified so much lunacy and destruction.

Continued...