Philosoft

In a finite causal chain, your reasoning is probably sound. Now, two questions:
1. How do you determine the universe is the product of a finite causal chain?
2. How do you determine an agent (presumably conscious or willful) is responsible for any effect in your chain?

Clutch

Daniel, "still" has no absolute extension. By choosing a rest frame, you can choose what is to count as "still". The basic assumption of your argument is about four centuries out of date, since it was Galileo who undermined the notion of absolute rest.

And, to echo Feather's intervention, logics are not true or false.

Really, here as elsewhere, the grandiosity of your claims seems inversely proportionate to your grasp of the basic notions involved. You are getting lots of critical feedback from various posters, which should be very useful to you. But only if you take it on board. Good luck.

Keith Russell

Yes.

False premises can lead to logical, but utterly untrue (false, incorrect, wrong) conclusions.

Keith.

Biff the unclean

Daniel, "still" has no absolute extension.

Hmmm, here's a thought that probably comes from watching too much PBS (Carl Sagan and the blue shifting Vesper motor scooter). Time is relative to speed (as I understand it) so that the faster you went the slower time would move relative to you. The speed of light being the speed limit. If it were physically possible to travel at the speed of light time would stop for you-relatively speaking.
If the speed of light is the upper limit you could go then absolutely still is the slowest you can go. If time stops when you are traveling the fastest then if you are going slow time should speed up, relatively speaking. If you are completely still then, far from being outside of time, all time should happen simultaneously. The good news is you would be eternal, the bad news is that all of eternity would happen at once. Instead of events happening sequentially they would all happen concurrently. Yikes!
There would be no way to get much creating done if time were screwed up like that. Not to mention the clerical problems punishing all Atheists at the same time--since all of time would be exactly the same time to someone who was "still."

irichc

1. If it wasn't, there would be two choices: a) the Universe never started to exist, which is false, and b) the Universe ever existed, with no begining or end, which, according to the big-bang theory, is presumably false.

2. By "grades of perfection" I understand any perceivable or conceivable improvement. Everything in the Universe could be improved in quantity or quality. Thus, I call "absolutely perfect" something without spacial and temporal limits, which can't be improved. If God has none, then he is perfect. And being absolutely perfect means having every grade of perfection at the maximum: a perfect will, a perfect perception, a perfect goodness, a perfect power, etc.

Daniel.

irichc

I know. When I assume that something which is still will be also uncaused I do it analitically, not empirically. Of course, I deny that any matter could be in absolute rest. Nevertheless, presupposing it hypothetically, I can extract logical conclusions a sensu contrario.

Daniel.

Clutch

Oh, well then it's all okay that your premises incorporate an incoherence.

Here's my wondrous, irrefutable counter-argument, a la Daniel:

1) Everything that is non-phlogistonated is randomized.
2) Nothing is phlogistonated.
Therefore,
3) Everything is randomized.

But the existence of randomness is inconsistent with the existence of any sort of higher power. (Proof, by reductio ad vocis flatus: read Addison, Poincare, and Anne Conway's letters to John Locke.) Hence there can be no higher power in the universe. No reasonable person could doubt this, given the obviousness of the premises.

Keith Russell

Daniel:

Saying that 'God' is not bound by the law of causality is meaningless. You have not explained what 'God' is, how 'God' is possible, or what characteristics 'God' possesses that account for 'His' exemption from this law.

Daniel said:
"You are wondering about the relation between the first cause and the agent (God), which can't be causal, but created ex nihilo."

Claiming that the relationship between the first cause and the agent ('God') was 'created ex nihilo doesn't really address the issue, either. You have not supported your claim.

In fact, your argument is circular.

An uncaused 'God' caused the first cause ex nihilo.

Wonderful.

Now, prove it. (Or, at least, support it.)

Keith.

Biff the unclean

Thus, I call "absolutely perfect" something without spacial and temporal limits, which can't be improved. If God has none, then he is perfect.

Wait a minute, wait a minute. Now, on top of everything else this God, who you cannot show to exist is perfect because he doesn't have temporal or spacial limits???!!!! How the hell do you know what he's got when you don't even know there is a he?
Not having temperol or spacial limits means that he is imperfect anyway. With out them he sufferes from the severe flaw of being imaginary. Being imaginary places huge limitations on you...such as no one can prove that you exist--because you don't.
You could be vastly improved by being real.:banghead:

irichc

What is an effect THEN?

Daniel.