(September 28, 2011 at 8:52 pm)R-e-n-n-a-t Wrote: To be completely fair, mastertrell is a hell of a lot smarter than the usual ilk that gets sent this way. You say 'infinite regress' to most theists or deists and they just scratch their heads and say 'Godidit'. Like I said, this one seems more intelligent (yes, it's a compliment mastertrell) Welcome to the forum.

I agree with that hence my kudos to his post.

However, like padraic already said, it would be nicer if he posted an introduction first and let us know more about his religion.

Also, he should have tried to improve the OP by mindful of capitalizing the first letter in the beginning of all the sentences, and broken the paragraphs a little bit smaller, to make his post appear more organized and readable especially since the post is very long. Aside from that, however, the content of the post is not bad. But I don't know if he's going to post again or not.

Hey all, sorry to not introduce myself, I am mastertrell, a shaman by creed and wanderer by choice. I do thank you for the compliments as well, I try and be a studious learner. I have been studying both particle physics and the different spiritual path for most of my life. I believe that the 2 of them must merge and meet at a certain point if they exist. I have taken my beliefs to be what ever I find to be true and test all hypothesis and to admit failure if something is wrong and change my beliefs as the evidence presents itself. But what I love most is a vigorous debate as that is the only way to expand your mind.

Now on to my rebuttals, the first one is a good one. Rythym said "If everything has a cause, what is the cause of god?" and I must reply this way, Everything in this universe has a cause, we have never observed in practice or law of math an effect that preceded a cause. The simple reason for this is logical by definition, an effect is a measurable property or condition that bears the result of sequential action. All I stated was that in order to seed the first mass/energy cycle that we know as the big bang and big crunch, something outside of causality would have to cause this. I don’t proclaim or deny that god could be an entity or some illogical process that spawned a universe of steady logic laws. And to the second point, we can’t measure that which is outside the realm of logic, as different laws apply, remember effects are measurable and since we can’t measure god, he/she would not be subject to effect or cause. My argument does hold merit on this basis.

BTW, shaman origins translated from German mean to burn but since the first shaman culture was Russian, it’s more accurate to use the meaning from the culture that practiced the beliefs and not one that was merely looking in with their own interpretations. In Russian it means to loose control and be enraptured. I believe in meditation if you use the logic of simulation- wrapping your mind around all possible outcomes and tempering it with physics, you will come to the truth.

One great point that was brought up by Rayaan that I really want to delve into deeper is the concept of nothing and that many people have different notions of what it means. One idea is there is no matter or energy are in a given space, which seems correct at first but then you do have something, you have a property a dimension of measurement- space itself, and vacuum pressure and the laws of the universe also apply in said space so there is quite a lot of something there. A net zero means you have a potential which is an applied property and therefore it’s effects must have cause. I believe that scientists when they did the first devised the theory of the big bang, Georges Lemaître in particular, defined everything before the big bang as utter void. No special dimension or property of time, no innate laws, no potential energy as that is a form of energy and had no area to exist in (numbers need a number line as mass energy needs special dimension to be defined). Now here is the rub, in such an utter void of nothingness, there is no spark or cause that can create something in a LOGICAL manner. For if you say something popped in like a spark or gravity effecting the branes of a dimension and poof this creates energy that can then correlate into mass as hawking pointed out, could not be possible in an utter void, there would be no gravity or dimensional membrane. I have found no scientific way such an event could happen without defying the laws of logic.

I love this forum because I do see a lot of well read people, very intelligent discussion and most important, open minds here. I run into a lot of people who just insult you because you say you believe in something more complex then the mundane but when you start rattling off magnetic field and how they are necessary to preserve angular momentum, they just usually capitulate and say “well god doesn’t exist so there” and I roll my eyes and move on. I hope to be a new and contributing member here.

Welcome to the forum.

I am glad that you like this place and I hope that you continue to post in the same, intelligent manner.

The point of responding to CA or KCA was to show you that you have not been able to remove "god" from the problem of infinite regress. The argument used is not sound. Not really an issue for someone who has no problem with their creator having a creator, and so on and so forth ad infinitum, but since you have defined god as the unmoved mover, obviously a problem for you. If you're going to remove god from evidence (which you appear to have done) you aren't left with anything to argue your point with. You could propose some variant of any of the arguments for any other god, but they are all currently in need of some love. Besides, the cosmological argument, by definition, is an argument from evidence. On the one hand claiming that god cannot be measured, and then measuring god by way of invoking the known universe is a bit problematic.

What you seem to be arguing for here, is what we call a god of the gaps. Again, not really a problem, unless/until that gap is filled.

In all honesty though, as long as you aren't claiming that your god has sent commandments for us to follow, complete with punishments and holy texts etc....I like him already. The only reason I'm really offering any resistance here is that the OP states that science can prove a god must exist. Last I checked, science deals with evidence. The CA and KCA aren't evidence.

(September 28, 2011 at 1:50 am)mastertrell Wrote: .....First off in occams razor, the simplest explanation are usually the correct ones and to this point, I do not believe in infinities in this universe. However in explaining current string theory and singularities I will acknowledge that they might exist, however when you truly have anything in infinite dimensions fundamental laws break down and that is where occams razor comes in, i don't believe the laws of physics break down. In black holes I know due to the lack of surface volume your equation would leads to an infinitely dense structure in the singularity however I believe it is extremely compact......

The problem with this argument is that there is too much of it based on what you just believe or do not believe. Ultimate Truth must be able to continue existing as It is - regardless of what you believe or do not believe. Your belief or disbelief is entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether It Exists or not - or What It's Nature Is. Is this not so?

What you have here is a blind faith position, or at least one compromised by it - not a logical argument. Unless, of course, you can rigorously demonstrate why your belief or disbelief in each case is fully justified by logic.

---

(September 29, 2011 at 1:34 am)Rhythm Wrote: The point of responding to CA or KCA was to show you that you have not been able to remove "god" from the problem of infinite regress. The argument used is not sound. Not really an issue for someone who has no problem with their creator having a creator, and so on and so forth ad infinitum, but since you have defined god as the unmoved mover, obviously a problem for you. If you're going to remove god from evidence (which you appear to have done) you aren't left with anything to argue your point with. You could propose some variant of any of the arguments for any other god, but they are all currently in need of some love. Besides, the cosmological argument, by definition, is an argument from evidence. On the one hand claiming that god cannot be measured, and then measuring god by way of invoking the known universe is a bit problematic.

What you seem to be arguing for here, is what we call a god of the gaps. Again, not really a problem, unless/until that gap is filled.

In all honesty though, as long as you aren't claiming that your god has sent commandments for us to follow, complete with punishments and holy texts etc....I like him already. The only reason I'm really offering any resistance here is that the OP states that science can prove a god must exist. Last I checked, science deals with evidence. The CA and KCA aren't evidence.

Ultimate Reality, by definition, is the basis of all else! It supports all else. As such, it is absolutely necessary for all that would survive to adjust themselves to It. This is not a demand made by Ultiamte Reality - it's just a fact that follows from the dependence of all else on It. This is the origin of the perception of cosmic "laws" promulgated from the Origin of all things. They do indeed exist - but have not arisen arbitrarily - but only as an unavoidable consequence of the Unconditional and Unconditioned Existence of Ultimate Reality.

In short, effects follow their causes - iinevitably. This is not some arbitrary rule made up by someone, but rather the same as affirming that a thing is itself! To depart from this line of reasoning is simply absurdist - even insane!

So, Zaku, what is the cause of god? The effect has been confusion, so was the cause chaos?

(September 29, 2011 at 8:35 am)Epimethean Wrote: So, Zaku, what is the cause of god? The effect has been confusion, so was the cause chaos?

Are you actually asking me to tell you the "cause" of Ultimate Reality? Why do you think It needs or could even have a cause? How can It be the Ultimate Origin of all things if anything can precede It?

Hey Zaki, got any evidence?

LOL, you realize that both of my responses to Trell apply equally to you and your Chr...er "Ultimate Reality" right?

(September 29, 2011 at 8:45 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote:

(September 29, 2011 at 8:35 am)Epimethean Wrote: So, Zaku, what is the cause of god? The effect has been confusion, so was the cause chaos?

Are you actually asking me to tell you the "cause" of Ultimate Reality? Why do you think It needs or could even have a cause? How can It be the Ultimate Origin of all things if anything can precede It?

You have made my point for me. Thank you.

(September 29, 2011 at 8:46 am)Epimethean Wrote:

(September 29, 2011 at 8:45 am)Zaki Aminu Wrote:

(September 29, 2011 at 8:35 am)Epimethean Wrote: So, Zaku, what is the cause of god? The effect has been confusion, so was the cause chaos?

Are you actually asking me to tell you the "cause" of Ultimate Reality? Why do you think It needs or could even have a cause? How can It be the Ultimate Origin of all things if anything can precede It?

You have made my point for me. Thank you.

Well I'm glad you understand my argument about Ultimate Reality being irreducible. It's a bit like sayhing there is nothing north of the North Pole.