What may have been the initial cause?

James you are telling me that a concept is not invented by man?

People give names and labels to concepts. Man did not invent the circle, he merely gave it a name. Nor did he invent the concept of a tree, he merely gave the category a name, not anything within the category/concept.

You are contradicting yourself by stating there was a BB but it did not initiate the universe. What evidence have you?

Did you read the links?
I described the event "if it actually took place". The "evidence" is purely logic.

The BB is a concept, god is concept. A tree is physical object.

You are describing a concept, describing the BB.

-- Updated Mon Mar 19, 2012 8:48 am to add the following --

What evidence do you think exists to make you believe the BB ever occurred?

Redshift; Background radiation, etc... I mean I have like 90% of all physicists backing me up. BB did occur. You can write that it didn't in flashing red colors, doesn't make it true.

You want to see a very very interesting speech with Paul Davies? check this: watch?v=lmOFns4elTc on you tube
starts at 9:40 I still can't post URL s here for some reason...

99% of Christians believe jesus is the son of god but it does not indicate that he is. You have it partially correct but background radiation does not indicate a BB and the red shift observations have and are questionable. The concept of the BB is totally dependent on suspect red shift observations.

What if we're still in the beginning of the universe?
-Amakatura Murou

-- Updated March 19th, 2012, 9:54 am to add the following --

Every second that passes, we are in the first moment of the universe. It is similar to some body playing a tape, stopping it, fast-forwarding, then pressing play again.
-Amakatura Murou

-- Updated March 19th, 2012, 9:55 am to add the following --

Every second that passes, we are in the first moment of the universe. It is similar to some body playing a tape, stopping it, fast-forwarding, then pressing play again.
-Amakatura Murou

con·cept (knspt)
n.
1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at idea.
3. A scheme; a plan

con·cept (knspt)
n.
1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at idea.
3. A scheme; a plan

So you agree with me James? An idea, notion, something formed in the brain. a scheme, a plan. God therefor is a concept something you appeared to deny. A tree is formed external to the brains ability.

con·cept (knspt)
n.
1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at idea.
3. A scheme; a plan

So you agree with me James? An idea, notion, something formed in the brain. a scheme, a plan. God therefor is a concept something you appeared to deny. A tree is formed external to the brains ability.

Not at all. You can't just pick the one you want and blame the other person for misuse. The 1st definition is the one people use in the context you are discussing. The second definition applies to all words and thus has no meaning when you say, "XYZ is just a concept".

con·cept (knspt)
n.
1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. See Synonyms at idea.
3. A scheme; a plan

So you agree with me James? An idea, notion, something formed in the brain. a scheme, a plan. God therefor is a concept something you appeared to deny. A tree is formed external to the brains ability.

Not at all. You can't just pick the one you want and blame the other person for misuse. The 1st definition is the one people use in the context you are discussing. The second definition applies to all words and thus has no meaning when you say, "XYZ is just a concept".

Sorry but what exactly are you saying. Everything is a concept or everything formed exclusively in the brain is considered a concept?

Sorry but what exactly are you saying. Everything is a concept or everything formed exclusively in the brain is considered a concept?

Each word in the language represents a concept. A concept is a category within thought and within which are items. The word "tree" is a category set, a concept, an idea. Within that set, "tree", are items that fit the category description. We call those items, "trees" because they fit into the category concept, "tree".

The word "God" is a category concept. You want to propose that the category concept, "God" is an empty set. That is fine, but merely saying that it is a concept, says nothing - of course it is a concept.

Sorry but what exactly are you saying. Everything is a concept or everything formed exclusively in the brain is considered a concept?

Each word in the language represents a concept. A concept is a category within thought and within which are items. The word "tree" is a category set, a concept, an idea. Within that set, "tree", are items that fit the category description. We call those items, "trees" because they fit into the category concept, "tree".

The word "God" is a category concept. You want to propose that the category concept, "God" is an empty set. That is fine, but merely saying that it is a concept, says nothing - of course it is a concept.

I think for you to say that a tree and god are equally concepts has very little to recommend it. A tree has substance and the word portrays that certainty. God is concept of the mind, exclusively, it has no value in real terms. It is an invention of the mind a concept. For you everything is a concept and has no intrinsic meaning so why has the word concept have meaning?

If you can produce physical evidence of god external to the mind then it has as much value as the tree so I would agree to re categorize its value.

But if the tree is God, then they are of the same nature. You can picture a tree in your mind: concept. You can picture "God" in your mind: concept. If one believes that God is in everything (however you may picture God it does not matter), then the tree and the God are equally physical and conceptual.
-Amakatura Murou

But if the tree is God, then they are of the same nature. You can picture a tree in your mind: concept. You can picture "God" in your mind: concept. If one believes that God is in everything (however you may picture God it does not matter), then the tree and the God are equally physical and conceptual.
-Amakatura Murou

Sorry but I have witnessed a tree and I can physically point one out. It is not a abstract notion invented by my mind. It does matter if you have no proof of the picture. God is an abstract concept invented by your mind. It has no substance.

But if the tree is God, then they are of the same nature. You can picture a tree in your mind: concept. You can picture "God" in your mind: concept. If one believes that God is in everything (however you may picture God it does not matter), then the tree and the God are equally physical and conceptual.
-Amakatura Murou

If you really mean this, then you have a mental problem, and clearly unfit to talk about truth very evident in this and previous posts.

Btw, to all of you guys arguing that God is merely an invented concept and therefore doesn't exist, realize that what you call your "self" or "you" (from the English "ewe") is also no more than an abstract concept that you naturally invent but doesn't physically exist. Thus you must not exist either. That same abstraction in religion is referred to as "your soul".

Truth is subjective, and I am as equally fit as any. My point with the God and tree comparison is that in some spiritual interpretations they could be seen as the same, as well as in metaphorical interpretations which can also be subjectively analysed.
-AM

Btw, to all of you guys arguing that God is merely an invented concept and therefore doesn't exist, realize that what you call your "self" or "you" (from the English "ewe") is also no more than an abstract concept that you naturally invent but doesn't physically exist. Thus you must not exist either. That same abstraction in religion is referred to as "your soul".

I am not saying god does not exist just as I am not denying the BB has possibilities but both are concepts that have been formed in the mind. They have been formed in the mind from information or evidence the mind accepts. Concepts can be questioned.I do not believe it is really worth questioning the reality of a tree or me. My soul is a concept that requires questioning not me.

So you're saying to argue the tangible here, rather than the abstract?
-AM