[quote='solja247' pid='98505' dateline='1286715617']
[quote]Then facts are never a fact. The North Pole is found in the North is not a fact, because one day what we call the North Pole may become the South Pole...
I called it a present fact, not an absolute fact, which are two different things...[/quote]

Obviously most facts are contingent upon the definition. You can't say that it isn't an absolute fact that a Shetland Pony is a pony because we might one day call ponies 'tigers'. An assumption is a statement, or premise, which one takes to be true from which a conclusion can be drawn. A fact is a piece of evidence from which a conclusion can be drawn.

[quote]That is why there had to be an uncaused cause, which I call God...[/quote]

Why couldn't the uncaused cause be the universe?

[quote]Thoughts exist in an immaterial realm, some being in another dimension could possibly intercept them? but lets not speculate. This thread isnt about that anyways...[/quote]

Well, it is, because you say not to speculate about uncaused universes, then invoke an even more speculative explanation!

Quote:Bollocks do they, thoughts are the fireing of neurons in the brain not some fanciful mysterious thing, you can see 'thoughts' with MRI scanners.

No. You can see what part of the brain is stimulated, thoughts and neurons are a little different...

---

Quote:Why couldn't the uncaused cause be the universe?

It could be, but what we know of the laws of nature, at the present time, is that the universe couldnt be uncaused. Of course in 50years time we may prove that law completely wrong, which would be really cool and screw theists over!

Quote:Well, it is, because you say not to speculate about uncaused universes, then invoke an even more speculative explanation!

In this case, 'more' is a subjective word...

(October 10, 2010 at 6:09 pm)solja247 Wrote: No. You can see what part of the brain is stimulated, thoughts and neurons are a little different...

---

What we see is our thoughts, although we can't really interpret/decode those electric stimuli. There is also a chemical component that affects our thoughts. There are alot of research being done to create a machine that allows us to control it with our thoughts, although rudimentary it has achieved some progress.

Quote:It could be, but what we know of the laws of nature, at the present time, is that the universe couldnt be uncaused. Of course in 50years time we may prove that law completely wrong, which would be really cool and screw theists over!

Not really, knowing theistic imagination, another branch of apologetics whould rise, and based on some spin off of some biblical passage.

(October 10, 2010 at 6:09 pm)solja247 Wrote: It could be, but what we know of the laws of nature, at the present time, is that the universe couldnt be uncaused.

No, I think what we know of the laws of nature does not suggest the universe couldn't be uncaused. It suggests uncaused quantum events occurs in the universe all the time, everywhere, down to the smallest dimension and shortest time. Hawkin's radiation is the result of such events. It also provides a similar basis for a rigorously describable, in principle experimentally verifiable uncaused origin of the entire universe.

When weighing different proposed first causes, Occam's razor applies still. Law of parsimony says a hypothesis that comes replete with numerous frills unnecessary for explaining the main thing it was designed to explain is unlikely to be the correct one. If a theologian were to par God down to just that thing which caused observable universe to come into being, then he could place himself closer to equal footing with other speculations for now. Although while there is no reason to think other speculations can not advance, it is hard to see how the theologians have room for anything but stay still. But when the theologian loads the concept that he thinks created the universe down with numerous enormously weighty frills unnecessary for creation, such as "trinity, goodness, talking to Adam and Moses, capable of, much less cares about, a relationship with you, impregnating a particular Jewish girl without the act of penetration", he bankrupts himself with his profligacy. Even if theologian insist on calling the thing behind each of these god, Occam's razors still says he would be stupid, if he cares about whether he is likely to be right, to assume the one behind one concept is the same as the one behind another.

Quote:Not quite right. There is something, and that something is everywhere. It's called quantum fluctuations.

To my knowledge you still need something for a quantum fluctuation to occur?
If you had absolutely nothing, you would still have absolutely nothing?

In physics the concept of 'nothing' doesn't exist. Even in the vacuum of space and at absolute zero there is still something.

'Nothing' is a human creation that has not been realised by nature.

Nothing isn't anything indeed, it's the absence of anything. So "not nothing" means "something" of course. This is why I hate all those double negatives people sometimes say such as: "I told you. I ain't done nothing!" I always think "Then you must have done SOMETHING!" and then I think "I'm almost annoyed!".

After all, it's impossible to not do anything, because being is doing.

(October 11, 2010 at 4:19 am)solja247 Wrote:

Quote:Not quite right. There is something, and that something is everywhere. It's called quantum fluctuations.

To my knowledge you still need something for a quantum fluctuation to occur?
If you had absolutely nothing, you would still have absolutely nothing?

There is no such thing as absolutely nothing. There is no volume in this universe where there is absolutely nothing. So absolutely nothing only exists in your imagination.

(October 11, 2010 at 8:42 am)little_monkey Wrote: There is no such thing as absolutely nothing. There is no volume in this universe where there is absolutely nothing. So absolutely nothing only exists in your imagination.

Are you saying that there's absolutely nothing in his head?

---

(October 10, 2010 at 6:09 pm)solja247 Wrote: No. You can see what part of the brain is stimulated, thoughts and neurons are a little different...

True, but it does suggest that thoughts are contingent on matter.

Quote:It could be, but what we know of the laws of nature, at the present time, is that the universe couldnt be uncaused. Of course in 50years time we may prove that law completely wrong, which would be really cool and screw theists over!

Some interpretations of quantum mechanics say otherwise. Besides, the laws of nature don't necessarily apply outside the universe.

Quote:In this case, 'more' is a subjective word...

By 'more speculative', I mean 'further from our experience'. Which it probably is. In fact, most Christians claim that God is incomprehensible, whereas an uncaused universe might one day be comprehensible and investigable.

(October 11, 2010 at 9:31 am)The Omnissiunt One Wrote:

(October 11, 2010 at 8:42 am)little_monkey Wrote: There is no such thing as absolutely nothing. There is no volume in this universe where there is absolutely nothing. So absolutely nothing only exists in your imagination.

Are you saying that there's absolutely nothing in his head?

I am tempted to say yes: there is a pattern of neurons and synapses in his head that holds the thought "absolutely nothing".