Sentences with word «uncaused»

What kind of uncaused cause do you believe is possible and why would it not apply to a universe?

In any case they assert very Positively that there is no way of proving that such uncaused events do not occur.»»

It's a LOOOOONG way from arcane arguments about the supposed necessity of some sort of uncaused caused to the anthropomorphisized monstrosties called Yahweh or Allah.

If you think causality is true at all, there are no such things as uncaused suspensions of physical laws («miracles») and therefore no possibility of the sort of miraculous events all religions claim as basic to their dogmas.

This Mind is NOT contingent being — but one that is necessary: this we call GOD, a Centre of Knowing and Loving beyond the material universe, one that was there before the universe existed and is present to keep it in existence; one that will continue to exist after the universe has ceased to exist, pure Spirit, necessary Being, uncaused First Cause, the Creator.

You said, «Is it reasonable to believe that it exists uncaused?»

You believe it's possible for something to pop into existence uncaused out of nothing that it doesn't surprise me that you wouldn't.

The word «random» as used in science does not mean uncaused, unplanned, or inexplicable; it means uncorrelated.

How does Craig get from his hypothetical uncaused cause made of nothing to the bizarro 3 - in - 1 Christian god who becomes his own son and sends people to hell if they don't believe the right unbelievable things about him?

We aren't just saying «God did it,» we are saying that an intelligent, transcendent, immaterial, preexistent, uncaused being — called God — did it.

That's odd since you acknowledged uncaused causes.

As man is here seen to be essentially a being who wills, so God is primarily Will, and moreover sovereign, uncaused Will, which has no need to justify the willing on any rational grounds before the bar of intellect.

We live in a universe where the so - called «butterfly effect» plays a strong role, so that things at a quantum microscopic level affect things at a large scale, and a universe where there is true randomness at the quantum level, which gives theoretically uncaused events which can't be empirically distinguished from events with unseen causes.

Physical (A) Causality: Determinism, Randomness and Uncaused Events (Fundamental Theories of Physics)

Hartshorne may mean to suggest his acceptance of option 1 when referring to the categories as «interdependent» (LLF) or self - caused or of option 5 when referring to them as uncaused or requiring no particular decision.

I've even been told by a skeptic that it's possible things can just pop into being uncaused out of nothing.

He says that «the word «random» as used in science does not mean uncaused, unplanned, or inexplicable; it means uncorrelated.»

Furthermore, Maudlin suggests that «the initial state of the universe (if there is one) could just as well be the uncaused cause.

Well then with Occu.ms Razor we can just say the Univesre was uncaused and cut god of the equation.

Metaphysics would help us to see that the initial state of the universe could not be the uncaused cause of the universe, as Maudlin suggests would be possible.

There are no invisible 3 - in - 1 magic hypothetical «uncaused causes» who are having a sad day because some people don't believe in them.

«Oh HE was uncaused» you will resond.

You're willing to accept the impossible (that it materialized) on faith, whereas I accept that the uncaused cause (the God of Abraham) as having deposited it.

Now, you can argue that that does nt mean its the God of Abraham, but you cant argue that an uncaused - cause is a requirement.

Why aren't atheists ever swayed into belief by WLC's meanderings about his hypothetical «uncaused caused» (named god) which is made of nothing but poofed everything into existence from its nothingness?

The universe would need to be eternal for it to be uncaused.

Either God is eternal or uncaused - so you are at the same point as the atheists.

The scientific evidence in support of God's existence lies in the evidence that the universe is not eternal and that it is unscientific for something with a beginning to be uncaused.

In an important 1987 article in the American Journal of Jurisprudence, Grisez, Finnis, and Joseph Boyle acknowledged in passing that «what we offer here presupposes many theses of metaphysics and philosophical anthropology — for example, that human intelligence is irreducible to material realities, that doing and making are irreducible to one another, that human persons and their actions are caused by an uncaused cause, and so on.»

Uncaused, uncausing, it would have no reason to perish into a new time.

In the nineteenth century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the «death of God» that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers.»

No it doesn't, not for your «uncauses cause» conclusions.