Dr Rick

There is no "first causer" because every causer, under the rules you define, has an antecedent, and so it becomes logically impossible to have a first causer.

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

Totalitarianist

That's exactly what I said; however, it is equaly illogical to not have a first causer in a finite universe.

Edit:-- I changed my name, just so you know.

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Lack of Paint ]</p>

Divide et Impera

Originally posted by Aquila ka Hecate:

I'm not ridiculing you: I honestly don't know what relevance that story has to the subject in hand.

The relevance isn't the same to all, some can hear what I said louder then others. Some would probably get angry or annoyed -- as if I was a threat. Some will post a quick dismissal of my post -- as if Lord Logic simply could not be disturbed enough to entertain it. Perhaps some will be slightly interested -- but not enough so to think about it after today. Maybe some people really do not care in the slightest, what happened to some guy from Delaware, in October of '98. The chips fall where they may.

Perhaps there is more to this then any of us know:

Atoms who think, who'd have thought...

Oh well, seems like everyone's at church.

On which alter do you bow?

Mageth

Silliness in the extreme.

Carl Sagan was a well-known astrogodicist.
Advances in nuclear godics led to the development of the nuclear bomb.
Geology and chemistry are examles of godical sciences.
Before being accepted in the military, an applicant has to pass a godical.
My friend severly broke his leg and had to endure months of godical therapy.

Divide et Impera

Are you talking to someone in particular?

Mageth

My comments were posted on a public forum, so I was talking to anyone who wishes to read my post.

Divide et Impera

I would hope you at least had some specific point of referance, that you were aiming for with that finely constructed missile of straw.

Sorry had to do it -- if you have issues address them.

Mageth

For those that don't recognize sarcasm, my point is that substituting "god" for "physics" as LoP is wont to do is pointless - and silly. It serves no explanatory purpose whatsoever.

Oh, and you left out one category in your post above, those who read the first couple of sentences of your post, scanned the rest, and dismissed it as silliness.

I suspect you'll object to that word.

Totalitarianist

Whether it provides any explanatory purpose or not is irrelevant. If God can be defined as omnipresent and omnipotent and the creator of the universe, and if the laws of physics also hold the same definition, then they are synonyms. Can you deny this? Please explain how it is incorrect, without jumping to moronic, last-effort bowelcruddle (i.e., saying its silly, which refutes nothing). I can label any argument "silly", but that alone cannot refute it.

Tah!

[ June 16, 2002: Message edited by: Lack of Paint ]</p>

Mageth

I'm not trying to refute it. You can take something (e.g. physics) and define something else to have the same definition (e.g. your version of "god") all you want. But as has been pointed out, why? If it serves no purpose to equate physics with a particular definition of "god," then, IMO, it's silly to do so.

So you might say I'm equating your equating physics as "god" with "silliness." To refute my argument, you'll have to show us what possible purpose the equating provides, other than as an exercise in mental masturbation.