Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (9420)	1/16/2002 10:57:57 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Then what caused God if everything needs a cause?

To: Greg or e who wrote (9420)	1/16/2002 11:07:07 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

If there are effects, those effects must have a cause. /i> It is the unspoken word I disagree with ;) Actually it is the word then which you did not write in what appears to be the classical theory of if cause, then effect . A strict cause and effect is a contradiction and a violation of physics as we know it. It's easist to look backwards to see the contradiction. Let's say you look at an effect and determine that it must have a cause, a precise cause that leads to this effect and only this effect. Well, that cause must in turn have a cause which led precisely to it. The cause in the middle is irrelevant since the first cause led directly to the next which led directly to the next, it is the same as having the first cause lead directly to the effect. By the process of elimination all of the causes disappear into an ever receeding infinite chain of past events which somehow contains all future events. If instead that effect is the result of a cause plus some tiny amount of randomness, complete unknown undirected randomness, then that effect can be tied to that cause and only that cause, but the same cause won't lead to exactly the same effect at any other time. TP