PDA

View Full Version : how can we best explain our existence ?


Pages : [1] 2

Tsid502
27th May 2010, 08:33 AM
how can we best explain our existence ?

what do you think is the cause of the existence of our universe ?

I think there are 3 options.

1. The univerese exists eternally, in one form, or the other, had no beginning.

2. The universe had a beginning, with the Big Bang, but without a cause.

3. The universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause.

If there are other options, which do not fit in one of these three categories, please name them.

If you agree, there exist basically only the above options, please explain, which option you think is most plausible, and why.

Sir Patrick Crocodile
27th May 2010, 09:48 AM
I pick #3 - The universe had a beginning, and we cannot explain it. However there is the Big Bang theory, and what happened before then is not known at this stage.

atheist_angel
27th May 2010, 10:06 AM
how can we best explain our existence ?

what do you think is the cause of the existence of our universe ?

I think there are 3 options.

1. The univerese exists eternally, in one form, or the other, had no beginning.

2. The universe had a beginning, with the Big Bang, but without a cause.

3. The universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause.

If there are other options, which do not fit in one of these three categories, please name them.

If you agree, there exist basically only the above options, please explain, which option you think is most plausible, and why.Exactly how does this question relate to 'general chit-chat about atheism', again? :confused:

Are you trying to (dis)prove atheism ...with THIS question?

Sir Patrick Crocodile
27th May 2010, 10:07 AM
It includes the words "Big Bang" and "universe" and "existence" which have something to do with atheism. ;)

Dane
27th May 2010, 10:14 AM
You see, when a mummy brane and daddy brane love each other very much...

Tsid502
27th May 2010, 10:22 AM
I pick #3 - The universe had a beginning, and we cannot explain it. However there is the Big Bang theory, and what happened before then is not known at this stage.

#3 states, the universe had a beginning, and therefore a CAUSE. Do you agree with this statement ?

Dave
27th May 2010, 10:45 AM
All three choices are purely speculative at this stage and to embrace any of your choices would have to be done on faith! This I leave to the religious. If you are asking me to take a guess, I really don't see what could be possibly gained by doing so. I could just as well say that the universe both had a cause and also no cause. This answer would be as good as any of your choices based on the fact that none have been proven to date. I prefer to leave this question unanswered and simply embrace the models containing our best estimates from observation and falsification, yet quite willing for new models to supercede them!;)

owheelj
27th May 2010, 10:50 AM
I don't really understand the question.

The evidence for the big bang is pretty conclusive. On the other hand, what do you mean by cause? Are you implying some kind of conscious decision? Your last post seems to suggest this. On the other hand, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the big bang occurred as a consequence of the conditions before the big bang, and that although we don't have the ability to know what these were, I would call this a cause. Cause is also very broad. If we could analyse the events leading up to the big bang we could come up with many causes, none of which would be wrong. "This particular particle collided with that particle." "Quantum fluctuations caused an energy gradient" etc.

It's also important to note that the big bang isn't really considered the start of the universe, but the start of the known universe, which may sound predantic, but what it's really saying is that we don't, and probably can't, know what occurred before it because of its nature - it destroyed or pushed away from us any evidence we could have found. There is as much evidence that it was the start of the universe as there is that the universe had no start - and that amount of evdience is none.

Tsid502
27th May 2010, 11:18 AM
All three choices are purely speculative at this stage and to embrace any of your choices would have to be done on faith!

Certainly. The question we want to have a explanation, is which answer best explains our existence. Since we have no proofs whatsoever to answer this question, its deduction will always be based on faith. It can however be a faith, based and deduced on rational and reasonable thoughts, based on scientific pressumptions and prerrogations. We have advanced scientific knowledge to come close to the truth as never before.


This I leave to the religious.

Nope. It can be left to the ones, that search their answers in religion, philosophy, and science.


If you are asking me to take a guess, I really don't see what could be possibly gained by doing so.

A lot. The finding of the truth, and eventually even the reason of our existence. It is a essential question to our existence, a question which every human being should make to itself.


I prefer to leave this question unanswered and simply embrace the models containing our best estimates from observation and falsification, yet quite willing for new models to supercede them!;)

And which is in your view the best estimate ?

Tsid502
27th May 2010, 11:22 AM
I don't really understand the question.

The evidence for the big bang is pretty conclusive. On the other hand, what do you mean by cause? Are you implying some kind of conscious decision? Your last post seems to suggest this. On the other hand, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the big bang occurred as a consequence of the conditions before the big bang, and that although we don't have the ability to know what these were, I would call this a cause. Cause is also very broad. If we could analyse the events leading up to the big bang we could come up with many causes, none of which would be wrong. "This particular particle collided with that particle." "Quantum fluctuations caused an energy gradient" etc.

It's also important to note that the big bang isn't really considered the start of the universe, but the start of the known universe, which may sound predantic, but what it's really saying is that we don't, and probably can't, know what occurred before it because of its nature - it destroyed or pushed away from us any evidence we could have found. There is as much evidence that it was the start of the universe as there is that the universe had no start - and that amount of evdience is none.

The Big Bang theory states, there was no physical " before ", since there was no time. Time itself began with the Big Bang as well.

the assertion our universe had most likely a absolute beginning is not just a claim of theists, but from well respected scientists, like Vilenkin :

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

Big Bang - Physics Planet .com

There are some disquieting issues with this theory, at least to the non-Physicists. First, the singularity did not appear in space. Space did not exist before the big Bang and in fact, had to begin inside the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed. So, where did it come from and why? We don’t know. All we do know is that we exist within space and at one time it did not exist and neither did we.

The Big Questions - In the Beginning - ABC Science Online

Beyond the point is nothing. The balloon – space – has simply disappeared. Play this scenario in forward time and it represents the coming-into-being of a universe from literally nothing, with space itself appearing. So it’s not an explosion in a pre-existing space. Space itself appears. And so, for that matter, does time.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astr...nning-t199.htm

Theorems by Hawking and Penrose show that as long as the universe is governed by general relativity, the existence of an initial singularity-or beginning-is inevitable, and that it's impossible to pass through a singularity to a subsequent state. And there's no known physics that could reverse a contracting universe and suddenly make it bounce before it hits the singularity. The whole theory was simply a theoretical abstraction. Physics never supported it.

WikiAnswers - If the Big Bang came from a singularity where did the singularity come from

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know.

Can anything 'real' be infinite?

Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.

Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite.

Dave
27th May 2010, 11:37 AM
[quote=Tsid502;87675]Certainly. The question we want to have a explanation, is which answer best explains our existence. Since we have no proofs whatsoever to answer this question, its deduction will always be based on faith. It can however be a faith, based and deduced on rational and reasonable thoughts, based on scientific pressumptions and prerrogations. We have advanced scientific knowledge to come close to the truth as never before. [quote]

Faith is the acceptance of something without evidence and this is the religious domain.


[quote]Nope. It can be left to the ones, that search their answers in religion, philosophy, and science. [quote]

The inquiry into what precedes our universe's existence is aquestion for science but faith plays no part.


[quote]A lot. The finding of the truth, and eventually even the reason of our existence. It is a essential question to our existence, a question which every human being should make to itself. [quote]

This gain can only be achieved by evidence not by guessing.

GodwinGrey
27th May 2010, 11:47 AM
I don't really understand the question.

The evidence for the big bang is pretty conclusive. On the other hand, what do you mean by cause? Are you implying some kind of conscious decision? Your last post seems to suggest this. On the other hand, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the big bang occurred as a consequence of the conditions before the big bang, and that although we don't have the ability to know what these were, I would call this a cause. Cause is also very broad. If we could analyse the events leading up to the big bang we could come up with many causes, none of which would be wrong. "This particular particle collided with that particle." "Quantum fluctuations caused an energy gradient" etc.

It's also important to note that the big bang isn't really considered the start of the universe, but the start of the known universe, which may sound predantic, but what it's really saying is that we don't, and probably can't, know what occurred before it because of its nature - it destroyed or pushed away from us any evidence we could have found. There is as much evidence that it was the start of the universe as there is that the universe had no start - and that amount of evdience is none.

I agree, I don't think you can have any bang without a cause.

owheelj
27th May 2010, 11:58 AM
lol, time for a lesson on how to quote?

Tsid502 obviously either knows a lot more about it than I do, or is good at copy pastes. My only knowledge of this subject is from reading pop science a while ago so maybe I'm confused, but I thought Stephen Hawking said that space-time (and thus, time) is almost certainly circular, and Lawrence Krauss in his book Hiding In The Mirror, I think suggested the same thing that i said, but it's years since I've read either of those people.

Although I concede that it's silly in science, especially with these kinds of issues, to go with what seems intuitive, it does seem difficult to understand how literally nothing could turn into the universe we have today, without any kind of cause. I find that as convincing a story as "God did it."

Worldslaziestbusker
27th May 2010, 12:01 PM
Hello Tsid
You mentioned an interest in deducing the ultimate reason for our existence. Are you certain one exists and, if so, why?
WLB


I sense kalamity ahead.

owheelj
27th May 2010, 12:33 PM
Great question WLB. Tsid's profile says that they are a believer rather than an atheist. The purpose of this topic becomes much more clear.

In regards to whether this is an argument for God or not, I agree with Dave said. This is just speculation not based on any evidence. The copy and pasted response to me was also fairly telling. As I just said, science is full of things that are counter-intuitive. Indeed when you look through all the mistakes that science have made, most of them are caused by people just assuming things are true because they appeared that way, without any actual solid evidence. Therefore making conclusions based on our speculation instead what we can actually observe is an easy way of forming false beliefs.

The correct answer to this question is; I don't know, and I don't see any evidence to support any of those positions.

This is why science has achieved so much, while religion and philosophy have achieved so little. In science we try to make conclusions on real observation, not just what "feels" right.

Tsid502
27th May 2010, 01:41 PM
Faith is the acceptance of something without evidence and this is the religious domain.

In a traditional sense , the term is employed in a religious context to refer to belief, ranging from confident to absolute without evidence. But it can also have the meaning of belief, deduced on scientific evidence and a reasonable argument.



The inquiry into what precedes our universe's existence is aquestion for science but faith plays no part.

why not ? science has its limit, specially historical science. deductions of scientific evidence are as well based on faith.

Tsid502
27th May 2010, 01:46 PM
Hello Tsid
You mentioned an interest in deducing the ultimate reason for our existence. Are you certain one exists and, if so, why?
WLB


I sense kalamity ahead.

Sure, i believe it. Based on the fact, that the universe had a beginning, we can deduce, there was a cause.

http://www.everystudent.com/journeys/who2.html

(1) Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it had, there would still be Absolutely Nothing now. But Something Else exists. You, for example.

(2) Since Absolutely Nothing never existed, there was always a time when there was something in existence. This something we can call the Eternal Something. The Eternal Something has no beginning and no end, has no needs that It Itself cannot meet, can do whatever is possible that can be done, and will always be superior to anything It produces.

(3) The Eternal Something is not a machine, controlled or programmed by any force outside Itself. And the Eternal Something will not produce out of necessity, since It has no needs. Therefore, if It produces Something Else, It must decide to do so. That means that the Eternal Something has a will; thus, It is personal. Therefore, the Eternal Something must actually be an Eternal Someone (or Someones).

So this cause must decide to create the universe, and therefore be PERSONAL. If it is personal, it must have had a reason to create our universe.

Tsid502
27th May 2010, 01:51 PM
Great question WLB. Tsid's profile says that they are a believer rather than an atheist. The purpose of this topic becomes much more clear.

In regards to whether this is an argument for God or not, I agree with Dave said. This is just speculation not based on any evidence. The copy and pasted response to me was also fairly telling. As I just said, science is full of things that are counter-intuitive. Indeed when you look through all the mistakes that science have made, most of them are caused by people just assuming things are true because they appeared that way, without any actual solid evidence. Therefore making conclusions based on our speculation instead what we can actually observe is an easy way of forming false beliefs.


I agree with you. The Big Bang Theory stays however on very solid ground, and over 80 years of research has brought a wide consensus in the scientific theory, that it most probably is true. Therefore, if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. From nothing, nothing derives.

Loki
27th May 2010, 02:36 PM
(2) Since Absolutely Nothing never existed, there was always a time when there was something in existence. This something we can call the Eternal Something. The Eternal Something has no beginning and no end, has no needs that It Itself cannot meet, can do whatever is possible that can be done, and will always be superior to anything It produces.

Got any evidence or just making stuff up? This is not even reasonable or logical.

What caused your cause?

owheelj
27th May 2010, 02:45 PM
What do you even mean by cause?

I can't help but notice the contradictions in what you've written too;

There was always a time when there was something in existence

The Big Bang theory states, there was no physical " before ", since there was no time. Time itself began with the Big Bang as well.

Worldslaziestbusker
27th May 2010, 03:20 PM
Sure, i believe it. Based on the fact, that the universe had a beginning, we can deduce, there was a cause.

http://www.everystudent.com/journeys/who2.html

(1) Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it had, there would still be Absolutely Nothing now. But Something Else exists. You, for example.

(2) Since Absolutely Nothing never existed, there was always a time when there was something in existence. This something we can call the Eternal Something. The Eternal Something has no beginning and no end, has no needs that It Itself cannot meet, can do whatever is possible that can be done, and will always be superior to anything It produces.

(3) The Eternal Something is not a machine, controlled or programmed by any force outside Itself. And the Eternal Something will not produce out of necessity, since It has no needs. Therefore, if It produces Something Else, It must decide to do so. That means that the Eternal Something has a will; thus, It is personal. Therefore, the Eternal Something must actually be an Eternal Someone (or Someones).

So this cause must decide to create the universe, and therefore be PERSONAL. If it is personal, it must have had a reason to create our universe.

The cosmological argument, both in standard and jumbo Kalam size, have been argued on this forum previously. I have better things to type today than deal with you mixing up your precepts and conclusions. You've barged in with a question you figure you've already answered, but I've already heard it all before.
Fail
Try again.
WLB

atheist_angel
27th May 2010, 03:55 PM
Sure, i believe it. Based on the fact, that the universe had a beginning, we can deduce, there was a cause.

http://www.everystudent.com/journeys/who2.html

(1) Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it had, there would still be Absolutely Nothing now. But Something Else exists. You, for example.

(2) Since Absolutely Nothing never existed, there was always a time when there was something in existence. This something we can call the Eternal Something. The Eternal Something has no beginning and no end, has no needs that It Itself cannot meet, can do whatever is possible that can be done, and will always be superior to anything It produces.

(3) The Eternal Something is not a machine, controlled or programmed by any force outside Itself. And the Eternal Something will not produce out of necessity, since It has no needs. Therefore, if It produces Something Else, It must decide to do so. That means that the Eternal Something has a will; thus, It is personal. Therefore, the Eternal Something must actually be an Eternal Someone (or Someones).

So this cause must decide to create the universe, and therefore be PERSONAL. If it is personal, it must have had a reason to create our universe.The 'g-d of the gaps' argument is pointless.

Our species has seen 'gaps' since its beginning.... and a huge number of them have already been filled. Should our species survive long enough, we could one day fill them all. We could even one day find a strong hypothesis for the 'what happened before the universe began' question. Because the 'What has happened before' could happen again creating a sister universe. If the phenomena became 'technologically observable' to us ... we could finally observe it.

The 'Gaps' argument is not 'proof' of an entity\intelligent creator.

Logic
27th May 2010, 04:26 PM
A lot. The finding of the truth, and eventually even the reason of our existence. It is a essential question to our existence, a question which every human being should make to itself.

Why? Can't you be happy just knowing you are here and doing kind caring things for your fellow humans and animals on this planet? I don't need a reason for my existence, I just accept that I exist and that when I die I will be gone and that's enough for me.

I'm sure if I was a scientist I'd find the question a great challenge to discover the answer to, but as someone who just ain't smart enough to work it out, interesting as the answer may be, I'm content to just do the right thing while I'm alive.

jdadl1
27th May 2010, 06:11 PM
Originally Posted by Tsid502 http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=87675#post87675)
A lot. The finding of the truth, and eventually even the reason of our existence. It is a essential question to our existence, a question which every human being should make to itself.

I came into existence because my parents had sex. My ultimate purpose is to pass on my DNA. My personal purposes are those that I decide for myself. A knowledge of the why's and wherefore's of science, philosophy, art etc are just icing on the cake. Seems clear enough to me, and omnipotent creators seem to have played no part.

Xeno
27th May 2010, 06:13 PM
how can we best explain our existence ?by being.

what do you think is the cause of the existence of our universe ? FAIL


I think there are 3 options.
<nonsense snipped>
If you agree... I don't.

Have you considered there may be no "explanation of our existence" you can ken, and that this completely fails to mean "therefore god"?

GodwinGrey
27th May 2010, 06:16 PM
First, the singularity did not appear in space. Space did not exist before the big Bang and in fact, had to begin inside the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed. So, where did it come from and why? We don’t know. All we do know is that we exist within space and at one time it did not exist and neither did we.


We do not know that at one time nothing existed.

Beyond the point is nothing. The balloon – space – has simply disappeared. Play this scenario in forward time and it represents the coming-into-being of a universe from literally nothing, with space itself appearing. So it’s not an explosion in a pre-existing space. Space itself appears. And so, for that matter, does time.


What is 'space'? If all of matter/energy is compressed into a singularity why be surprised if nothing is outside? It is known that the Universe is expanding and expected that it will one day contract. Not a big bang but a series of big bangs.

And there's no known physics that could reverse a contracting universe and suddenly make it bounce before it hits the singularity. The whole theory was simply a theoretical abstraction. Physics never supported it.

It's physics jim, but not as we know it.:)

owheelj
27th May 2010, 06:31 PM
I came into existence because my parents had sex. My ultimate purpose is to pass on my DNA. My personal purposes are those that I decide for myself. A knowledge of the why's and wherefore's of science, philosophy, art etc are just icing on the cake. Seems clear enough to me, and omnipotent creators seem to have played no part.

Completely false. Passing on DNA is not a purpose of life, it's just that DNA that can be passed on survives for longer and so is more likely to still be around while DNA that doesn't pass itself on is less likely to be still around. Hence DNA that expresses itself in ways that lead to it being passed on is most common. It has nothing to do with purpose.

Xeno
27th May 2010, 06:56 PM
[It has nothing to do with purpose. Would someone please write that on the wall in large red letters. Thanks.

Edit: Matter of fact, I might adopt it for a while.

Tsid502
27th May 2010, 08:26 PM
Got any evidence or just making stuff up? This is not even reasonable or logical.

What caused your cause?

Is it logical in your view to believe, that nothing caused everything ? Or that the universe is self-caused ? Cause and effect at the same time ? God has no cause, since he is by definition infinite. God had no beginning, and has no end. He simply IS.

Tsid502
27th May 2010, 08:30 PM
What do you even mean by cause?

I can't help but notice the contradictions in what you've written too;

yes, it is in fact a contradiction. I think the site i linked to did put it in this way, to make it easyer to understand for someone, that is not used to think all implications through. The keypoint is however, that God must have always existed, otherwise there would have to be a infinite regress of cause and effect, which does not make sense. To think about time is not easy. Its rather difficult, of difficult comprehension.

Tsid502
27th May 2010, 08:31 PM
The cosmological argument, both in standard and jumbo Kalam size, have been argued on this forum previously. I have better things to type today than deal with you mixing up your precepts and conclusions. You've barged in with a question you figure you've already answered, but I've already heard it all before.
Fail
Try again.
WLB

you already heard it before. So if you reject my explanation, do you have another one, that convinces you better, and if so, why ?

Tsid502
27th May 2010, 08:34 PM
The 'g-d of the gaps' argument is pointless.

Our species has seen 'gaps' since its beginning.... and a huge number of them have already been filled. Should our species survive long enough, we could one day fill them all. We could even one day find a strong hypothesis for the 'what happened before the universe began' question. Because the 'What has happened before' could happen again creating a sister universe. If the phenomena became 'technologically observable' to us ... we could finally observe it.

The 'Gaps' argument is not 'proof' of an entity\intelligent creator.

Where does the argument fill a gap ? btw. i have no proofs. Please lets keep the quest of proofs outside of this discussion, since it makes no sense.

wolty
27th May 2010, 08:37 PM
? btw. i have no proofs. Please lets keep the quest of proofs outside of this discussion, since it makes no sense.


So that would mean.................absolutely nothing. Thanks for that. I needed something to fill up that spare 5 seconds of my life.

You are aware that you are prosletyzing, aren't you?

Tsid502
27th May 2010, 08:39 PM
Why? Can't you be happy just knowing you are here and doing kind caring things for your fellow humans and animals on this planet? I don't need a reason for my existence, I just accept that I exist and that when I die I will be gone and that's enough for me.

IF there is a reason for our existence, and i very much believe so, and you do not care to find it out, you will live a senseless life, despite you could live one full of meaning , and making sense. If there is a creator ( and i VERY strongly believe so ) , then he had a reason to create us. If we neglect these questions, and their implications, it has severe consequences of the track of our life. If we can find out, what the reason of our life is ( if there is one ), then we can live according to that purpose, and that will certainly be infinitely better, than to live a life, that misses the goal.


I'm sure if I was a scientist I'd find the question a great challenge to discover the answer to, but as someone who just ain't smart enough to work it out, interesting as the answer may be, I'm content to just do the right thing while I'm alive.

Why do you believe, science is the tool to find the answer to that question ? why not religion, God's revelation, or philosophy, for example ?

Tsid502
27th May 2010, 08:41 PM
I came into existence because my parents had sex. My ultimate purpose is to pass on my DNA. My personal purposes are those that I decide for myself. A knowledge of the why's and wherefore's of science, philosophy, art etc are just icing on the cake. Seems clear enough to me, and omnipotent creators seem to have played no part.

That " ultimate purpose " is no purpose at all. Our physical world will be gone in a short while, and then, what you did, or did not, does make no difference at all.
Without God, there is no purpose of life.

wolty
27th May 2010, 08:41 PM
It's like a revolving door in this place sometimes.

Same shit, different names.

Tsid502
27th May 2010, 08:42 PM
Have you considered there may be no "explanation of our existence" you can ken, and that this completely fails to mean "therefore god"?

everythink that exists, has a explanation of its existence.
We exist. Our universe exists.
therefore, there is a explanation for our universe.
Since it had a beginning, it had a cause. :)

Tsid502
27th May 2010, 08:44 PM
You are aware that you are prosletyzing, aren't you?

Am I ? Where have you seen me using the bible to make my point ?

Loki
27th May 2010, 08:46 PM
Is it logical in your view to believe, that nothing caused everything ?You are the only one here suggesting there was nothing. Do you have some evidence or logical reason to suppose there was somehow nothing?

Or that the universe is self-caused ? Cause and effect at the same time ? You are the one saying there must be a cause. Why must there?

God has no cause, since he is by definition infinite. God had no beginning, and has no end. He simply IS. So its not ok for the universe to just be but it is ok to add an unneccessary extra step, invent a being and say that he just is. Ever heard of a man named Occam?

Why do you believe, science is the tool to find the answer to that question ? why not religion, God's revelation, or philosophy, for example ?

Religion does not answer questions, religion simply demands unthinking acceptance.

IF there is a reason for our existence, and i very much believe so, and you do not care to find it out, you will live a senseless life, despite you could live one full of meaning , and making sense.

My life is full of meaning and sense thank you. Especially since I stopped believing in fairy stories.

Zen Badger
27th May 2010, 08:46 PM
Let's assume for the sake of argument that there was an intelligent

first cause to the universe.

We cannot afterall prove or disprove that this is the case.

Even it was so, it is quite easy to show that this first

cause isn't the god of Abraham.

Since it would be operating on a time scale of billions of years it could

hardly have a personal relationship with any of us. Or even be aware

of us for that matter.

So, even if there is a god, who cares?

It will hardly care what we do. So our only responsibility is to each other.

wolty
27th May 2010, 08:46 PM
Am I ? Where have you seen me using the bible to make my point ?

I was just getting in early. :)

Sir Patrick Crocodile
27th May 2010, 08:48 PM
I'm starting to think we need some new BBCode here:
[WOLTY'S-LIST]
[FAQ="Fantasy Island"]
[FAQ="Forum"]
[TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS]
At least we most definitely need a Wolty's List BBCode tag.

Praxis
27th May 2010, 09:00 PM
How the feck did I miss this? Five pages, tub-thumping for Jebus and gets an ornage robe all in the one day?

I must've been occupied elsewhere.

Hilarious!

As you were.

wolty
27th May 2010, 09:16 PM
I must've been occupied elsewhere.





Getting your eyelashes done..:p

Tsid502
27th May 2010, 09:27 PM
You are the one saying there must be a cause. Why must there?

because everything that begins to exist, has a cause. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause.


So its not ok for the universe to just be but it is ok to add an unneccessary extra step, invent a being and say that he just is. Ever heard of a man named Occam?

Please tell me : are you commited to scientific knowledge, or not ? Science today commonly agrees that the universe began with the Big Bang. The idea, the universe simply " always was " , aka no beginning, is not held serious anymore for over one hundred years.


Religion does not answer questions, religion simply demands unthinking acceptance.

Might be. In my case, i stick to reason . And reasonable thinking says me, it makes most sense to believe in a personal cause of our universe.


My life is full of meaning and sense thank you. Especially since I stopped believing in fairy stories.

How good for you if you think so. Keep going if your actual way of thinking satifies you.

owheelj
27th May 2010, 09:27 PM
yes, it is in fact a contradiction. I think the site i linked to did put it in this way, to make it easyer to understand for someone, that is not used to think all implications through. The keypoint is however, that God must have always existed, otherwise there would have to be a infinite regress of cause and effect, which does not make sense. To think about time is not easy. Its rather difficult, of difficult comprehension.

It's now clear to me that what you originally posted in response to me was things that you copied and pasted and don't actually understand, and I return to the point I made before, which is, in fact, true. The Big Bang is the theory that the known universe that we have today once existed as a singularity - a single point. Because of this, we cannot have any evidence for what existed before this point. We don't know, and don't need to accept that the universe had a beginning, and we don't have to accept that things appeared out of nothing. This also explains why I you didn't respond to me when I brought up Krauss and Hawking to oppose your copy and pasted view.

You say the key point is that God must have always existed and then later you say that you have no proofs. This is obviously another contradiction, which is bound to happen when you're using things you don't understand to try to justify your beliefs that are based on faith rather than evidence. You can't say that god must exist if you don't have a proof. "Must" infers certainty, and certainty infers proof.

Tsid502
27th May 2010, 09:30 PM
Even it was so, it is quite easy to show that this first

cause isn't the god of Abraham.

Ok. Please show it.



Since it would be operating on a time scale of billions of years it could

hardly have a personal relationship with any of us. Or even be aware

of us for that matter.

Why ? In what sense does timescale matter? If God is the creater of time, is the length or timescale eventually a problem for him ?



So, even if there is a god, who cares?
.

Most people do. I do, too. If God exists, what i strongly believe, i want to know him. ;)

Tsid502
27th May 2010, 09:32 PM
You are attributing all that is to the action of your imaginary mate, to sell the idea that your non-existent friend should be glorified.

That, good sir, is proselytising.

Have some help. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Proselytising)

absolute assertions need to be proven. Please prove God is immaginary and non-existent. If you cannot, why do you make things up ?

Tsid502
27th May 2010, 09:36 PM
@Croc: He's been told once.

I'll put the links here in plain sight for him.

Welcome To Fantasy Island (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=899)

Fantasy Island FAQ (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=963)

FAQ Addendum - Wolty's List (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=4784)

He may now consider himself told.

That is the biggest fantasy :

Nothing x Nobody = Everything ;)

wolty
27th May 2010, 09:52 PM
wow.. you're doing good mate. How many points for jesus do you think you've scored now?



Is it jesus we are talking about? Damn I thought it was a different god. Now I gotta go back to the beginning and re-read and insert jesus into the equation.

I really thought we were talking about zues. :eek:

stewiegriffin81
27th May 2010, 10:46 PM
because everything that begins to exist, has a cause. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause.

This assertion is not supported by any plausible theory, or evidence.


absolute assertions need to be proven

No, positive claims require a burden of evidence. Negative claims do not require such a degree of burden, since it is logically impossible to prove a negative. Please do everyone here a favour, and learn some basic logic before you attempt to argue.

Please prove God is immaginary and non-existent. If you cannot, why do you make things up ?

Prove that there aren't invisible pink unicorns flying through the sky as we speak. Prove that there aren't millions of gods. Prove that Xenu is not real. Prove that there isn't a teapot in orbit around the earth. Prove that aliens do not come to earth and probe hapless humans as they sleep.

Good luck disproving all that ;)

Spud Henley
27th May 2010, 11:44 PM
#1 without hessitation. Conservation of energy. The universe is so old and big in both time and space that we can't begin to understand it in terms of start to finish.

What if the big bang was a giant blackhole exploding in our region only. It is possible that there is more out so far away light / radio waves or whatever hasn't reahed us yet?

davo
28th May 2010, 12:21 AM
because everything that begins to exist, has a cause. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause.


The big bang is just a term for the sudden expansion of space time.
Please show us how you can have a cause without time.
No time = no causality.
There is no reason to state that all that is has not always existed in some form.
To state there must be a god is a leap to a conclusion without evidence.

TÐöer
28th May 2010, 12:58 AM
Your deduction is flawed.
You made alot of assumptions without realising it.


(1) Absolutely Nothing never existed. If it had, there would still be Absolutely Nothing now. But Something Else exists. You, for example.

I've a better way of putting this. If nothing exist, then how can things come into existence.


(2) Since Absolutely Nothing never existed, there was always a time when there was something in existence. This something we can call the Eternal Something. The Eternal Something has no beginning and no end, has no needs that It Itself cannot meet, can do whatever is possible that can be done, and will always be superior to anything It produces.

The remainder is when you started writing your own script, and irrelevant to the previous deduction.

Perhaps the eternal something has no beginning, but how do you know it has no end? How do you know, it is something that has needs? How do you know it can meet this needs? How do you know it can do anything that needs to be done? How do you know it will always be superior than anything it produces?


(3) The Eternal Something is not a machine, controlled or programmed by any force outside Itself. And the Eternal Something will not produce out of necessity, since It has no needs. Therefore, if It produces Something Else, It must decide to do so. That means that the Eternal Something has a will; thus, It is personal. Therefore, the Eternal Something must actually be an Eternal Someone (or Someones).

So this cause must decide to create the universe, and therefore be PERSONAL. If it is personal, it must have had a reason to create our universe.
How do you know, it is not a machine? Not programmed outside of itself? Surely, but pointless. How do you know it won't produce out of necessity? As you said earlier, there are no needs it cannot meet. which hints that it does have needs.

How do you know since it has no needs, it must have intention in producing something else?

If you don't know my previous question, how do you know it must have will, and it is personal?

How do you know if it is personal, it has to have reason to create?

And bonus question for hidden answer: How do you know that that reason is love for mankind?

Loki
28th May 2010, 05:05 AM
Please tell me : are you commited to scientific knowledge, or not ? Science today commonly agrees that the universe began with the Big Bang. The idea, the universe simply " always was " , aka no beginning, is not held serious anymore for over one hundred years.

I must have wagged that day in physics class. Could you point out the part of physics theory that shows there was nothing before the big bang?

Turok dissagrees, so do the various bounce theories, so does quantum theory and string theory, so does the background microwave radiation. Nobody knows for sure yet, that's what makes it exciting.

Methinks the gap you are looking for is only in your head.

Xeno
28th May 2010, 09:58 AM
To think about time is not easy. Its rather difficult, of difficult comprehension. You are beginning to recognise this but have not yet got there. You do not appear to have comprehended that time, as you understand it, began with the big bang. As I pointed out earlier, you are making the fundamental mistake of taking the same "time" back through the singularity and imagining our universe is contained "within" another universe differentiated only by being larger and where god is, like a Russian doll.

You fail completely to resolve your own endless-cause question merely by asserting "god is" for you can equally say anything else is, nor does positing this fantasy link it in any respect to any current text on a religion. Can you point out to me where the bible, for example, deals explicitly with the big bang, without interpretation/gap/contradiction of fact?

You have invented god and are now trying to insert this into cosmology and from there into your daily life. god of the gaps.

Other people have already pointed out these things very cogently. I am trying a re-expression to see if it helps you to understand.










fat fucking chance of that

wearestardust
28th May 2010, 10:28 AM
hm. Aquinas and the 1st mover argument, as modifed by someone who's name escapes me for the moment.

Cosmology has come a long way since the 13th Century.

Interestingly, any serious theologians agree that Aquinas' proofs (plus Anselm's) don't prove a thing. The current theological line, I gather, is that they demonstrate the possibility of god. Which is nonsense, of course (a failed argument is just a failed argument, it doesn't demonstrate anything) but that's another issue, I mention it merely for colour and movement.

I have a question for the OP. Do you think that, to fly a plane, one ought undertake training as a pilot, or is it sufficient to have been a passenger in one once and to have perused da Vinci's drawings of a 'helicopter'?.

GodwinGrey
28th May 2010, 11:56 AM
JmEEnWEaeRk&feature=fvst

Quintin
28th May 2010, 12:40 PM
how can we best explain our existence ?
3. The universe had a beginning, and therefore a cause.

There was a cause but it is as relevant as the cause of an earthquake, or what cause the tree to fill in the forest.

In the conditions prior to time it was inevitable for an expansion to happen. This became our Universe.
Occam has all the answers.

jdadl1
28th May 2010, 02:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdadl1 http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?p=87821#post87821)
I came into existence because my parents had sex. My ultimate purpose is to pass on my DNA. My personal purposes are those that I decide for myself. A knowledge of the why's and wherefore's of science, philosophy, art etc are just icing on the cake. Seems clear enough to me, and omnipotent creators seem to have played no part.

Completely false. Passing on DNA is not a purpose of life, it's just that DNA that can be passed on survives for longer and so is more likely to still be around while DNA that doesn't pass itself on is less likely to be still around. Hence DNA that expresses itself in ways that lead to it being passed on is most common. It has nothing to do with purpose.

Alright, alright, bad use of the word "purpose" in trying to make a point. My post isn't completley false though. I might make my living through carpentry but I'm reasonably sure I'm not a virgin birth (and no, I can't provide proof).

Jaar-Gilon
29th May 2010, 12:32 AM
Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite.
Ummm I think you'd need to provide evidence for that champ?
Look forward to seeing that along side the evidence for there being nothing before the big bang.

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 06:56 AM
This assertion is not supported by any plausible theory, or evidence.

Then you should be able to mention plenty of things, that begin to exist without a cause.


No, positive claims require a burden of evidence. Negative claims do not require such a degree of burden, since it is logically impossible to prove a negative. Please do everyone here a favour, and learn some basic logic before you attempt to argue.

I am asking for a positive claim to explain our universe. If you have a better explanation than God, than present it.



Prove that there aren't invisible pink unicorns flying through the sky as we speak. Prove that there aren't millions of gods. Prove that Xenu is not real. Prove that there isn't a teapot in orbit around the earth. Prove that aliens do not come to earth and probe hapless humans as they sleep.

Good luck disproving all that ;)

How boring. That is not the topic of this thread.

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 07:02 AM
The big bang is just a term for the sudden expansion of space time.
Please show us how you can have a cause without time.
No time = no causality.
There is no reason to state that all that is has not always existed in some form.
To state there must be a god is a leap to a conclusion without evidence.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7449

God is timeless sans creation and temporal with (or since the moment of) creation. Again, I don’t hold that God sans creation is immutable, but rather that He is changeless. Changelessness is a de facto, not a modal, property; that is to say, something can be in fact changeless even though it has the capacity or power to change. Since I think God does change in creating the universe, I take His changelessness sans creation to be merely a contingent property which He sheds at the moment of creation.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/omnitemporality.html

It seems to me, therefore, that it is not only coherent but also plausible that God existing changelessly alone without creation is timeless and that He enters time at the moment of creation in virtue of His real relation to the temporal universe. The image of God existing idly before creation is just that: a figment of the imagination. Given that time began to exist, the most plausible view of God's relationship to time is that He is timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation.

mayor of simpleton
29th May 2010, 07:04 AM
how can we best explain our existence ?

what do you think is the cause of the existence of our universe ?


What about 'accumulation/adaptation in time/space'? Isn't that enough? :confused:

What we have is what we have. The Universe is 'built' from energy. This energy does not really come and go. It simply 'changes' form. This means we have 'finite energy' to work with.

The next point is that this 'finite energy' has an infinite number of possiblities or 'infinite potential'. The entire universe is made of this energy and has potential to be anything in the universe. You simply need enough time to do so. (Religions lack patience.)

Do not confuse the two; energy (what is) is not the same as potential (what could be). The only limitation of the potential is that is is confined to the energy (what is) that is. Finite energy does not mean limited potential, nor can it. Infinite potential only exists in the realm of what is; the natural world. There is not infitnite potential in the supernatural, because the supernatural is not. All that is is and is in the natural universe. The supernatural universe must be all that not is. If it is not, why bother... well unless you are writing a fiction or simply dreaming.

If we could calculate the probability of life existing as it is, one could be drawn to the conclusion that it is very improbable (if not almost impossible). The assumption/confusion that it has occured as the result of a 'supernatural act' is not logical. Here is the problem with the entire gig. Low probability does not mean a 'miracle' or anything 'supernatural'. It simply means that the odds are not in the favour of an event occuring, but it did occur. Cool!

To resort to a 'deity' and an 'act of supernatural creation' is a short-cut to find a clarification. What we have is what we have and we are simply part of what we have; nothing more, nothing less. The act of giving a 'deity' (an extension of our needs and desires to recreate things to be as we wish them too be) credit for what simple is would be an act of 'ultimate egotripping'. What makes our protoplasma so special that we are somehow above the universe as it is?

* We can go the direction of 'ethics/morals' and all of this 'good and bad' assumptions of the universe, but it begs the question... does the universe have morals or do we bring this baggage to the table? Nature simply is. There is no fixed points in this flux of energy. Morality is the ability to place artificial fixed points into this flux. Why? So we can have a 'foothold' and an 'orientation'. Morals serve as a personal compass to give one points of reference in the vast non-moral universe. North is yourself.

This rant is going on far too long and I am going a bit astray. Sorry...

Point is the Universe is really big. I mean really really badassed big. It has been here for a long time. A very very get over it long time. Things (energy) is in constant flux (adaptation). It seems to be much more plausible that we are simply a result of the events that have occur up to this point in time and space. The effect from the natural causes all seem to be logically determined. You just need to look before you make a 'leap of faith'. opps! I said the 'f-word'.

OK... if this is too long and too big, we can make it fit into 'bite-sized pieces' called deities and these itty bitty inventions (our ability to limit the universe to fit into our person belief system) can create answers as needed. You will never have any true premises to back these deities. They are all extensions of faith. Faith being that which we believe without the need of fact to support the claim. Where facts are few, faith abounds.

Remember, you need all of your premises to be true to create a sound argument. (Faith is not a true premise) With this issue of 'literal/supernatural/deities' and their possibility of existence, mere validity will not cut it. You need to post true premises leading to the construction of a sound argument; this meaning ALL the premises are true and the logic of the argument valid.

Do you have ANY true premises leading to constuct a sound argument for a deity giving cause for our exisitence? PLEASE... do tell!!!

Meow!

GREG

...circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because... :rolleyes:

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 07:07 AM
I must have wagged that day in physics class. Could you point out the part of physics theory that shows there was nothing before the big bang?

Turok dissagrees, so do the various bounce theories, so does quantum theory and string theory, so does the background microwave radiation. Nobody knows for sure yet, that's what makes it exciting.

Methinks the gap you are looking for is only in your head.

i have already answered to this. There are many theories which try to avoid a absolute beginning of our universe, non is however really convincing.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/evidence-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning-t199.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/science/bigquestions/s460625.htm

Beyond the point is nothing. The balloon – space – has simply disappeared. Play this scenario in forward time and it represents the coming-into-being of a universe from literally nothing, with space itself appearing. So it’s not an explosion in a pre-existing space. Space itself appears. And so, for that matter, does time.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_the_Big_Bang_came_from_a_singularity_where_did_ the_singularity_come_from

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know.

wolty
29th May 2010, 07:24 AM
There are many theories which try to avoid a absolute beginning of our universe, non is however really convincing. Incorrect. What you really mean is that scientists will not insert a god into your equation to fill a gap. Scientists do not start with a hypothesis and then try to find evidence to validate said hypothesis. They have more integrity than that.


Beyond the point is nothing. The balloon – space – has simply disappeared. Play this scenario in forward time and it represents the coming-into-being of a universe from literally nothing, with space itself appearing. So it’s not an explosion in a pre-existing space. Space itself appears. And so, for that matter, does time.
Me thinks you do not understand cosmology. It is a big issue to get your head around. Much easier for you to insert god at this point. It's ok, leave all the serious work to the scientists.

Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know.

Again, by your thinking, it must be a god. How else could it have happened? Prove it.


Edit: I am sure I made an incorrect assumption. Please accept my apologies.

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 07:28 AM
In the conditions prior to time it was inevitable for an expansion to happen.

Why ?

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 07:41 AM
Ummm I think you'd need to provide evidence for that champ?
Look forward to seeing that along side the evidence for there being nothing before the big bang.

there is more than one reason to believe the universe was finite. There are philosophical reasons, and scientific reasons.

One argument is the second law of thermodynamics.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-laws-of-thermodynamics-and-the-universe-t144.htm#881

A formal definition of the second law of thermodynamics is "In any closed system, a process proceeds in a direction such that the unavailable energy (the entropy) increases." In other words, in any closed system, the amount of disorder always increases with time. Things progress naturally from order to disorder, or from an available energy state to one where energy is more unavailable. A good example: a hot cup of coffee cools off in an insulated room. The total amount energy in the room remains the same (which satisfies the first law of thermodynamics). Energy is not lost, it is simply transferred (in the form of heat) from the hot coffee to the cool air, warming up the air slightly. When the coffee is hot, there is available energy because of the temperature difference between the coffee and the air. As the coffee cools down, the available energy is slowly turned to unavailable energy. At last, when the coffee is room temperature, there is no temperature difference between the coffee and the air, i.e. the energy is all in an unavailable state. The closed system (consisting of the room and the coffee) has suffered what is technically called a "heat death." The system is "dead" because no further work can be done since there is no more available energy. The second law says that the reverse cannot happen! Room temperature coffee will not get hot all by itself, because this would require turning unavailable energy into available energy.

Now consider the entire universe as one giant closed system. Stars are hot, just like the cup of coffee, and are cooling down, losing energy into space. The hot stars in cooler space represent a state of available energy, just like the hot coffee in the room. However, the second law of thermodynamics requires that this available energy is constantly changing to unavailable energy. In another analogy, the entire universe is winding down like a giant wind-up clock, ticking down and losing available energy. Since energy is continually changing from available to unavailable energy, someone had to give it available energy in the beginning! (I.e. someone had to wind up the clock of the universe at the beginning.) Who or what could have produced energy in an available state in the first place? Only someone or something not bound by the second law of thermodynamics. Only the creator of the second law of thermodynamics could violate the second law of thermodynamics, and create energy in a state of availability in the first place.

As time goes forward (assuming things continue as they are), the available energy in the universe will eventually turn into unavailable energy. At this point, the universe will be said to have suffered a heat death, just like the coffee in the room. The present universe, as we know it, cannot last forever. Furthermore, imagine going backwards in time. Since the energy of the universe is constantly changing from a state of availability to one of less availability, the further back in time one goes, the more available the energy of the universe. Using the clock analogy again, the further back in time, the more wound up the clock. Far enough back in time, the clock was completely wound up. The universe therefore cannot be infinitely old. One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics.

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 07:45 AM
Do you have ANY true premises leading to constuct a sound argument for a deity giving cause for our exisitence? PLEASE... do tell!!!


Sure. See my argument of the second law of thermodynamics above. the energy of our universe had to be caused in the beginning.

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 07:47 AM
Incorrect. What you really mean is that scientists will not insert a god into your equation to fill a gap. Scientists do not start with a hypothesis and then try to find evidence to validate said hypothesis. They have more integrity than that.


Well, what can be seen, is actually, that many scientist try to avoid a absolute beginning of our universe at any cost, since it implies a cause. Therefore, many try to find a way to explain it with multiverses, oscillating universes, string theory etc. None however has the same back-up as the standard Big Bang theory. Despite what is ofte being asserted, scientists are humans , and biased as well.


Prove it.

This thread has not the goal to prove something.

wolty
29th May 2010, 07:52 AM
The universe therefore cannot be infinitely old. One can only conclude that the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had to have been caused by someone or something operating outside of the known laws of thermodynamics.



Ummm, are we talking about the christian god here, or another one?

God of the gaps.


Over it.

mayor of simpleton
29th May 2010, 07:55 AM
Sure. See my argument of the second law of thermodynamics above. the energy of our universe had to be caused in the beginning.

Thanks! I need a bit of time for this one. With my dyslexia, reading this critically may take about two or three days. I'll be back to you. ;)

Meow!

GREG

wolty
29th May 2010, 07:57 AM
Well, what can be seen, is actually, that many scientist try to avoid a absolute beginning of our universe at any cost, since it implies a cause.

I call bullshit. Assumption on your part. And it implies nothing of the sort.


Therefore, many try to find a way to explain it with multiverses, oscillating universes, string theory etc. None however has the same back-up as the standard Big Bang theory. Despite what is ofte being asserted, scientists are humans , and biased as well.

But the evidence isn't biased. Are you calling scientists, liars?



This thread has not the goal to prove something.

So..........what is the goal? Scoring points for jesus? Testing your intellect against uneducated heathens? Validating your faith? All of the above?

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 08:31 AM
Ummm, are we talking about the christian god here, or another one?

it doesnt matter in the cosmological argument



God of the gaps.

Over it.

why is it a god of the gaps argument ? please explain.

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 08:33 AM
So..........what is the goal? Scoring points for jesus? Testing your intellect against uneducated heathens? Validating your faith? All of the above?

Maibe to show you, how baseless and irrational your godless belief is ;)

wolty
29th May 2010, 08:42 AM
it doesnt matter in the cosmological argument


So then it makes no difference at all. Welcome to the wonderful world of Pascals wager.



why is it a god of the gaps argument ? please explain.

You have stated that there has to be a cause, and then have tried to fit a god into the equation. You still haven't said which god, or described (its) properties.

And you still haven't answered my point about scientists lying.

You are more likely to believe creationist websites than actually learn anything about cosmology from people working in the relevant fields.
You suspend rationality and fit a pre-conceived idea into your world view. That isn't learning, that is mearly blind devotion to your version of a god.

wolty
29th May 2010, 08:44 AM
Maibe to show you, how baseless and irrational your godless belief is ;)


Lol, that is funny. Goddidit is not a rational world view.

Praxis
29th May 2010, 08:55 AM
Maibe to show you, how baseless and irrational your godless belief is ;)
You have just officially won the funniest quote of the week (and there was some stiff competition!). Well done.

owheelj
29th May 2010, 08:59 AM
Tsid you make some ridiculous statements and I want to bring your attention to something.

So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know.

That's from one of the things you copied and pasted. Tell me if that statement is consistent with what you've been arguing - that God created the universe out of nothing - or contradicts it?

owheelj
29th May 2010, 09:04 AM
Well, what can be seen, is actually, that many scientist try to avoid a absolute beginning of our universe at any cost, since it implies a cause. Therefore, many try to find a way to explain it with multiverses, oscillating universes, string theory etc. None however has the same back-up as the standard Big Bang theory. Despite what is ofte being asserted, scientists are humans , and biased as well.

This is a common argument and it's rubbish. The theories you mention are not separate theories to the Big Bang, the Big Bang is part of it. They aren't based on trying to "avoid" an absolute beginning, they're based on long and complicated mathematical proofs.

wolty
29th May 2010, 09:11 AM
Tsid- off to find some more copy and paste locations? Here let me help you out.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Oh hang on, you would rather believe in the magic sky fairy than actually research and learn. Please disregard science then. :rolleyes:

I always find it interesting that theists have to validate their position with science or gaps in science. Why can't they just say "we don't know but it is nice believing in a god"? And leave me the hell alone.

But nooooo, we have to go through all the copy and paste, the snide little remarks about how sad and pathetic we are, the validating of an untenable position just so we can live in the rational world.

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 09:24 AM
You have stated that there has to be a cause, and then have tried to fit a god into the equation. You still haven't said which god, or described (its) properties.

Since matter/energy , space and time where created through the Big Bang, the cause had to be

uncaused
beginningless
timeless
spaceless
immaterial
changeless
inimmaginably powerful
personal.

other properties of god you find here :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-is-god-essence-of-god-t79.htm


You are more likely to believe creationist websites than actually learn anything about cosmology from people working in the relevant fields.

All i have done , is citing cosmologysts working in the relevant fields. I believe them, and the conclusion, they take on the Big Bang theory : our universe had a absolute beginning. Why do YOU not believe them ?


You suspend rationality and fit a pre-conceived idea into your world view. That isn't learning, that is mearly blind devotion to your version of a god.

What do you wish me to do ? Science simply confirms my biblical world view. Why are YOU not changing yours, and fit it into what evidence actually suggests, based on science ?

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 09:28 AM
Lol, that is funny. Goddidit is not a rational world view.

Nobody did it, is more rational ? :D

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 09:32 AM
Tsid you make some ridiculous statements and I want to bring your attention to something.



That's from one of the things you copied and pasted. Tell me if that statement is consistent with what you've been arguing - that God created the universe out of nothing - or contradicts it?

Well, the author confirmed that our universe had a absolute beginning. What makes you contest what mainstream science confirms ?

What was the cause of our universe, is not a scientific question , but a philosophical one. In fact we cannot know, there are no proofs. But we can think about the matter, and deduce reasonable and logical conclusions. And when we take this argument, and add it to other powerful arguments ,then we have a cumulative case for the existence of God, which makes it VERY rational and reasonable to believe, God exists. :)

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 09:34 AM
This is a common argument and it's rubbish. The theories you mention are not separate theories to the Big Bang, the Big Bang is part of it. They aren't based on trying to "avoid" an absolute beginning, they're based on long and complicated mathematical proofs.

So there are proofs for what happened " before " the Big Bang ?

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 09:36 AM
Tsid- off to find some more copy and paste locations? Here let me help you out.

http://www.talkorigins.org/

Oh hang on, you would rather believe in the magic sky fairy than actually research and learn. Please disregard science then. :rolleyes:

I always find it interesting that theists have to validate their position with science or gaps in science. Why can't they just say "we don't know but it is nice believing in a god"? And leave me the hell alone.

But nooooo, we have to go through all the copy and paste, the snide little remarks about how sad and pathetic we are, the validating of an untenable position just so we can live in the rational world.

Nobody is obligating you to debate someone, that has a different world view, than you do. :rolleyes:

you have not yet answered my question. Where do i apply the God of the Gaps argument, and why.

wolty
29th May 2010, 09:37 AM
Since matter/energy , space and time where created through the Big Bang, the cause had to be

uncaused
beginningless
timeless
spaceless
immaterial
changeless
inimmaginably powerful
personal.

other properties of god you find here :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-is-god-essence-of-god-t79.htm

Christian god then. :rolleyes: That took a while. And no, I won't be reading all that crap. I would rather read about veryfiable, repeatable, observable phenomena, than interpretation by someone not even involved in the real world.

All i have done , is citing cosmologysts working in the relevant fields. I believe them, and the conclusion, they take on the Big Bang theory : our universe had a absolute beginning. Why do YOU not believe them ?

Do not put words into my mouth. You need to show me how you got from the big bang to a deity.


What do you wish me to do ? Science simply confirms my biblical world view. Why are YOU not changing yours, and fit it into what evidence actually suggests, based on science ? Science does Not confirm a god. That is only your wishful thinking.

wolty
29th May 2010, 09:43 AM
you have not yet answered my question. Where do i apply the God of the Gaps argument, and why.

Show me, with verifiable data that god caused the big bang. Some scientific reports, papers independently verified would be good.
Thanks

P.S no more creationist stuff. It is not verifiable and comes with a preconcieved bias (eg, that is lying).

Can't do it? That is a god of the gaps. Or goddidit.

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 10:22 AM
Christian god then. :rolleyes: That took a while. And no, I won't be reading all that crap. I would rather read about veryfiable, repeatable, observable phenomena, than interpretation by someone not even involved in the real world.

Then you will have to stick to a universe, that did pop-up into existence out of nothing, without a cause. ;)

Aka Nothing x Nobody = everything.

makes sense to you ?


Do not put words into my mouth. You need to show me how you got from the big bang to a deity.
Science does Not confirm a god. That is only your wishful thinking.

No, its not wishful thinking , since i think, science wheter confirms nor not-confirms God.

But rational and reasonable thinking does make me come to that conclusion.

wolty
29th May 2010, 10:25 AM
Show me, with verifiable data that god caused the big bang. Some scientific reports, papers independently verified would be good.
Thanks

P.S no more creationist stuff. It is not verifiable and comes with a preconcieved bias (eg, that is lying).


Everything else is wishful thinking on yor behalf. it is neither rational nor reasonable.

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 10:29 AM
Show me, with verifiable data that god caused the big bang. Some scientific reports, papers independently verified would be good.
Thanks

I don't need to do that, to show, why God seems to be the best explanation for our existence.


P.S no more creationist stuff. It is not verifiable and comes with a preconcieved bias (eg, that is lying).

Can't do it? That is a god of the gaps. Or goddidit.

That is not a God of the Gaps argument. Science will never be able to make time go back to the beginning of our universe, and prove how exactly the universe was created, and what cause it had . The God of the gaps argument is an example of suppressing the truth because it relegates God to a explanation for those things which cannot yet be explained by natural phenomena. But we see many phenomena in nature, which we DO understand, and because we do understand them, we can deduce, a natural origin is very unlikely. God is a more reasonable explanation. So also the cosmological argument. We DO know with a high degree of certainty, the universe had a absolute beginning, thus must have had a cause. From nothing, nothing derives.

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 10:33 AM
Show me, with verifiable data that god caused the big bang. Some scientific reports, papers independently verified would be good.
Thanks

P.S no more creationist stuff. It is not verifiable and comes with a preconcieved bias (eg, that is lying).


Everything else is wishful thinking on yor behalf. it is neither rational nor reasonable.

All empirical experience shows us, that everything, that begins to exist, has a cause. Otherwise, we would see all the time, things pop up into existence, from literally nothing. That is not the case. Therefore, we do not need peer reviewed papers to understand that our universe must have had a cause.

Reason practically applied. ;)

wolty
29th May 2010, 10:34 AM
I don't need to do that, to show, why God seems to be the best explanation for our existence.





Oh yes you do. You make a claim, you back it up with evidence, peer reviewed, scientific, verifiable evidence.

wolty
29th May 2010, 10:37 AM
All empirical experience shows us, that everything, that begins to exist, has a cause.
Godidit


Otherwise, we would see all the time, things pop up into existence, from literally nothing. That is not the case. Incorrect. Find out for yourself.

Therefore, we do not need peer reviewed papers to understand that our universe must have had a cause.

Reason practically applied. ;)
Of course. I will put my head in the sand. That will explain everything.

owheelj
29th May 2010, 10:39 AM
You grossly misunderstand the theory. That fabric of space-time that we observe was once contained within a singularity. The quote that you gave which ends by saying "we don't know," is saying that we don't know what existed outside and prior to that singularity. It could be nothing, it could be a different fabric of space-time. We have no evidence either way. What we could call "our universe" - the bit that was contained in a singularity and then expanded - is not necessarily the entire universe, or the "multiverse" or whatever you want to call it.

Again, I'd like to recommend Lawrence Krauss's book Hiding In The Mirror, which is about the search for extra dimensions, including dimensions outside of "our" universe.

atheist_angel
29th May 2010, 10:42 AM
Since matter/energy , space and time where created through the Big Bang, the cause had to be

uncaused
beginningless

timeless
spaceless

immaterial
changeless

inimmaginably powerful
personal.

Nope!the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (best available measurements in 2009 suggest that the initial conditions occurred around 13.3 to 13.9 billion years ago), and continues to expand to this day. WIKI say.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang) you not do so well.What do you wish me to do ? Science simply confirms my biblical world view. Why are YOU not changing yours, and fit it into what evidence actually suggests, based on science ?Not even close.

Xeno
29th May 2010, 11:08 AM
What was the cause of our universe, is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one. Fail. did you mean wankosophical?

In fact we cannot know, there are no proofs. That, precisely, is god of the gaps.

gotg means that, wherever we do not currently have a scientific explanation, theists assume goddidit.

Once, this was applied to the winds and the sun crossing the skies.

Science explained that so it became the movement of planets and stars around the earth.

Science explained that so it became a Newtonian universe with a still-celestial god.

Science improved on that with relativity, quantum theory and singularities, so now you believe god is in some time before time, instead of there being four wind gods and a sun god and so on.

Do you see that your god argument has neither worked nor improved since the most primitive times? Whenever your god is able to be tested, it vanishes. Your god is thought bubble you had.

Xeno
29th May 2010, 11:14 AM
The God of the gaps argument is an example of suppressing the truth because it relegates God to a explanation for those things which cannot yet be explained by natural phenomena. You create a god in a gap you perceive. We don't. Thus, you are suppressing opportunities to find a truth.

But we see many phenomena in nature, which we DO understand, and because we do understand them, we can deduce, a natural origin is very unlikely. God is a more reasonable explanation. Examples and citations please.

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 11:15 AM
Oh yes you do. You make a claim, you back it up with evidence, peer reviewed, scientific, verifiable evidence.

What claim did i make ?

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 11:18 AM
Fail. did you mean wankosophical?

That, precisely, is god of the gaps.

gotg means that, wherever we do not currently have a scientific explanation, theists assume goddidit.

Once, this was applied to the winds and the sun crossing the skies.

Science explained that so it became the movement of planets and stars around the earth.

Science explained that so it became a Newtonian universe with a still-celestial god.

Science improved on that with relativity, quantum theory and singularities, so now you believe god is in some time before time, instead of there being four wind gods and a sun god and so on.

Do you see that your god argument has neither worked nor improved since the most primitive times? Whenever your god is able to be tested, it vanishes. Your god is thought bubble you had.

it seems you did not study the God of the gaps argument. how about study it first, and then come back ?

that site would be a good starting point :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosophy-and-god-f14/the-god-of-the-gaps-argument-t147.htm

Praxis
29th May 2010, 11:22 AM
You were born utterly devoid of irony weren't you?

Are you anaemic by any chance?

atheist_angel
29th May 2010, 11:31 AM
What claim did i make ?
Sounds like you're claiming that your diety is the only possible explanation for the universe to exist.


However "nothing" you've presented to support your claim..............actually supports it.
You're basically talking nonsense here.

Xeno
29th May 2010, 12:12 PM
it seems you did not study the God of the gaps argument. how about study it first, and then come back ?

that site would be a good starting point :

...a tendency to postulate acts of God to explain phenomena for which science has yet to give a satisfactory account. The term "God of the gaps" is sometimes used in describing the perceived incremental retreat of religious explanations of physical phenomena in the face of increasingly comprehensive scientific explanations for those phenomena This definition from your site differs in no material respect from the example I spelled out. Later examples in the crap below your definition do not diverge from it. More importantly, you make no attempt to defend your position of having only a discredited gotg and nothing else to say. You have, by your own behaviour, an indefensible position.

It is not entirely clear that you grasp that gotg is not an argument for or against god, but a characteristic behaviour of theists trying to find somewhere they can place their god. It is this merely human behaviour which characterises all god-belief. There is never any evidence for any of it.

You may also [attempt to] answer my question about evidence for natural phenomena explained only by a god. I take it from your reference that you will put up supposed "fine tuning".

In fact, answer the questions of anyone else here. You have yet to do any of it.

Edited to reduce ambiguity

Praxis
29th May 2010, 12:27 PM
The longer this goes on, the more the poor twat will think he's scoring points with Cod.

Out to sea with him I say. Sans lifejacket.

This post has been brought to you by Occam's Razor. Now shaving closer than ever.

wearestardust
29th May 2010, 12:51 PM
here's one, Mr Black.


hm. Aquinas and the 1st mover argument, as modifed by someone who's name escapes me for the moment.

Cosmology has come a long way since the 13th Century.

Interestingly, any serious theologians agree that Aquinas' proofs (plus Anselm's) don't prove a thing. The current theological line, I gather, is that they demonstrate the possibility of god. Which is nonsense, of course (a failed argument is just a failed argument, it doesn't demonstrate anything) but that's another issue, I mention it merely for colour and movement.

I have a question for the OP. Do you think that, to fly a plane, one ought undertake training as a pilot, or is it sufficient to have been a passenger in one once and to have perused da Vinci's drawings of a 'helicopter'?.

Worldslaziestbusker
29th May 2010, 01:52 PM
Sure. See my argument of the second law...

The second law of thermodynamics holds up. To claim that a god (you haven't described how you know it's the one you worship) created the universe goes against the first law of thermodynamics. Are you cherry picking the laws of physics?
WLB

GodwinGrey
29th May 2010, 02:43 PM
@tsid502, You're telling us that the Universe was started by 'God'. Well god's a fine label but what does it mean? Which god, what did it do, how does is it manifest?

What if you could prove that god existed? Would you still worship and pray to a scientific fact?

you speak of your god as creating the Universe. But presuming it's old Abraham's we're told that the earth was made first and the heavens were made on the second day. your god has as much to do with the reality of the big bang as 'turtles all the way down'. Is it not so?

stewiegriffin81
29th May 2010, 03:20 PM
Then you should be able to mention plenty of things, that begin to exist without a cause.

I am sorry, you have failed at understanding even basic logic. If I assert that there is no evidence for your claim that there must have been a first cause for the universe, it does not logically follow that therefore there must be plenty of evidence that there are no causes to things. Please head back to the books and educate yourself.

Interestingly enough though, there are indeed "plenty of things" that begin to exist without a cause. They come into and out of existence all around us, all the time. They are the manifestations of fluctuations in the vacuum, called virtual particles. They are created all the time, everywhere, without a cause. So eat that.

am asking for a positive claim to explain our universe. If you have a better explanation than God, than present it.

A better explanation is one without extraneous complexity. Adding god to the explanation is a perfect example of adding something that we do not know to be necessary. You keep claiming that there must have been a first cause. However, we do not know that a first cause is indeed necessary. We do not know anything about the rules of the nothingness (or whatever it is) external to the universe, and so we cannot make the claims you have been making.


How boring. That is not the topic of this thread.

Stop trying to divert things. It is extremely relevant to the topic, as you demanded proof that god does not exist. As such, I was merely pointing out that proof of anything not existing cannot be done. Again, please learn some logic before you try to argue.

Xeno
29th May 2010, 04:14 PM
Here is my question:

But we see many phenomena in nature, which we DO understand, and because we do understand them, we can deduce, a natural origin is very unlikely. God is a more reasonable explanation. Please provide examples and citations.

Jaar-Gilon
29th May 2010, 07:15 PM
The second law of thermodynamics holds up. To claim that a god (you haven't described how you know it's the one you worship) created the universe goes against the first law of thermodynamics. Are you cherry picking the laws of physics?
WLB
Beat me to it, I knew he would head to the second law. I've seen this type of thinking apologetic plenty of times.
The give away is the arrogant insistence that science agrees with them. It doesn't. It abides by the principle of lex parsimoniae. Succinctly put by stewiegriffin81-

A better explanation is one without extraneous complexity. Adding god to the explanation is a perfect example of adding something that we do not know to be necessary. You keep claiming that there must have been a first cause. However, we do not know that a first cause is indeed necessary. We do not know anything about the rules of the nothingness (or whatever it is) external to the universe, and so we cannot make the claims you have been making.

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 09:39 PM
Sounds like you're claiming that your diety is the only possible explanation for the universe to exist.


However "nothing" you've presented to support your claim..............actually supports it.
You're basically talking nonsense here.

Its not a claim. Its just the answer that makes most sense to me.

Praxis
29th May 2010, 09:49 PM
Its not a claim. Its just the answer that makes most sense to me.
And there it is, folks.

You've answered your very own question to your very own satisfaction, and utterly heedless and wilfully, stubbornly ignorant of every piece of evidence to the contrary.

And it's the reason why you live on Fantasy Island. And will remain there.

Happy god bothering! :rolleyes:

Annie
29th May 2010, 10:06 PM
No reasons from me Black. There's been enough tail chasing here IMO.

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 10:07 PM
This definition from your site differs in no material respect from the example I spelled out. Later examples in the crap below your definition do not diverge from it. More importantly, you make no attempt to defend your position of having only a discredited gotg and nothing else to say. You have, by your own behaviour, an indefensible position.

It is not entirely clear that you grasp that gotg is not an argument for or against god, but a characteristic behaviour of theists trying to find somewhere they can place their god. It is this merely human behaviour which characterises all god-belief. There is never any evidence for any of it.

You may also [attempt to] answer my question about evidence for natural phenomena explained only by a god. I take it from your reference that you will put up supposed "fine tuning".

In fact, answer the questions of anyone else here. You have yet to do any of it.

Edited to reduce ambiguity

In short. God is introduced as a explanation of a phenomena, which is not yet fully understood. When the phenomena however IS fully understood, to deduce God as the most reasonable and logical explanation is NOT a God of the gaps argument. In this sense, the cosmological argument is not a God of the gaps argument, since science quit well understands now that the universe had a beginning. Since everything that begins to exist , has a cause, its a logical deduction that the universe has a cause.

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 10:11 PM
110 posts.

What about we repost some of the unanswered questions, in order that Tsod may answer them or appropriate action may be taken.

Questions again, please, in Bold Red, folks.

Do i suppost to be infringe the rools of this site, of not answering all questions ? is that some sort of entrance fee ? answer all questions , damn it !!

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 10:13 PM
The second law of thermodynamics holds up. To claim that a god (you haven't described how you know it's the one you worship) created the universe goes against the first law of thermodynamics. Are you cherry picking the laws of physics?
WLB

It goes not. Since the natural laws got in place AFTER the Big Bang happened.

Sir Patrick Crocodile
29th May 2010, 10:14 PM
The laws were more or less there all the time. They have been formulated by scientists as an explanation to the physical universe, and are used by engineers, scientists, etc. to help them predict what will happen if ______________.

GodwinGrey
29th May 2010, 10:32 PM
@tsid502, You're telling us that the Universe was started by 'God'. Well god's a fine label but what does it mean? Which god, what did it do, how does is it manifest?

What if you could prove that god existed? Would you still worship and pray to a scientific fact?

you speak of your god as creating the Universe. But presuming it's old Abraham's we're told that the earth was made first and the heavens were made on the second day. your god has as much to do with the reality of the big bang as 'turtles all the way down'. Is it not so?

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 10:59 PM
Which god ?

I believe in the God of the bible.


what did it do, how does is it manifest?

http://www.theologicalstudies.org/page/page/1572381.htm



What if you could prove that god existed? Would you still worship and pray to a scientific fact?

No, i would continue to worship God.


you speak of your god as creating the Universe. But presuming it's old Abraham's we're told that the earth was made first and the heavens were made on the second day. your god has as much to do with the reality of the big bang as 'turtles all the way down'. Is it not so?

No, its not so. The big bang theory is perfectly in accordance with Genesis one.

In the beginning, God created the heavens, and the earth.

This is btw a remarkable phrase. It describes everything that exists, namely

in the beginning - time
God - the power
created - action
the heavens - space
the earth - matter

How could Moses know that and be scientifically correct, about 3500 years ago ?

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 11:08 PM
I am sorry, you have failed at understanding even basic logic. If I assert that there is no evidence for your claim that there must have been a first cause for the universe, it does not logically follow that therefore there must be plenty of evidence that there are no causes to things. Please head back to the books and educate yourself.

Well, again. you might show things, that pop in to existence, out of nothing. If you can, you have a case for our universe might have been able to pop into existence as well, out of absolutely nothing phyiscal, without a cause.


Interestingly enough though, there are indeed "plenty of things" that begin to exist without a cause. They come into and out of existence all around us, all the time. They are the manifestations of fluctuations in the vacuum, called virtual particles. They are created all the time, everywhere, without a cause. So eat that.

Well , i will not eat it, but i aknowledge it . Actually, i know the argument already. And, sorry to tell you, its not a good argument at all.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/quantum-fluctuations-t65.htm

"These subatomic particles the article talks about are called `virtual particles.' They are theoretical entities, and it's not even clear that they actually exist as opposed to being merely theoretical constructs.
"However, there's a much more important point to be made about this. You see, these particles, if they are real, do not come out of nothing. The quantum vacuum is not what most people envision when they think of a vacuum-that is, absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it's a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws. These particles are thought to originate by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum.
"So it's not an example of something coming into being out of nothing, or something coming into being without a cause. The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles. And then we have to ask, well, what is the origin of the whole quantum vacuum itself? Where does it come from?"



A better explanation is one without extraneous complexity. Adding god to the explanation is a perfect example of adding something that we do not know to be necessary. You keep claiming that there must have been a first cause. However, we do not know that a first cause is indeed necessary. We do not know anything about the rules of the nothingness (or whatever it is) external to the universe, and so we cannot make the claims you have been making.

wrong again. Nothingness has no properties at all, since it is the absence of any thing. Inside , or outside the universe, makes no difference at all. You might think a little more , to really understand, what absolute nothingness actually is.


Stop trying to divert things. It is extremely relevant to the topic, as you demanded proof that god does not exist.

Where do i demand such a proof ?


As such, I was merely pointing out that proof of anything not existing cannot be done. Again, please learn some logic before you try to argue.

You are not humble at all, arent you ?

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 11:14 PM
Here is my question:

Please provide examples and citations.

science is quit sure the universe had a beginning - therefore a cause.
science is quit sure the universe is finely tuned to life - god seems to be the best explanation
science is quit sure DNA is a code. Codes are always the result of a mind.
science has a good deal of knowledge about the complexity of a self replicating cell. It is quit known about the little probability, that such a complex cell could be result of random chance.

just to name a few.

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 11:18 PM
A better explanation is one without extraneous complexity.

I guess you mean God as being a extraneous complexity..... i know this argument as well.....

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493

As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that is worth.


Adding god to the explanation is a perfect example of adding something that we do not know to be necessary.

Then i guess, you suggest, the equation nothing x nobody = everything makes sense ?

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 11:20 PM
And there it is, folks.

You've answered your very own question to your very own satisfaction, and utterly heedless and wilfully, stubbornly ignorant of every piece of evidence to the contrary.:

What is the evidence in contrary ? I guess, you mean fantasy land of the atheists ?

its a great fantasy. Nothing x nobody = everything :rolleyes:

Tsid502
29th May 2010, 11:21 PM
Actually, under the rules of Wolty's List, Item 2:

Tsid is a goner!

Any reasons for his continuation here, folks?

This needs to be resolved or finalised soon.

Sure, you are loosing badly, therefore, better close the thread. Than you can live better with your biased world view.

Worldslaziestbusker
29th May 2010, 11:25 PM
In short. God is introduced as a explanation of a phenomena, which is not yet fully understood. When the phenomena however IS fully understood, to deduce God as the most reasonable and logical explanation is NOT a God of the gaps argument. In this sense, the cosmological argument is not a God of the gaps argument, since science quit well understands now that the universe had a beginning. Since everything that begins to exist , has a cause, its a logical deduction that the universe has a cause.

The cosmological argument as I've come to understand it:
Premise 1 - Nothing is infinite (except God)
Premise 2...

Hang on. I see what you did there. By excusing the thing you would most dearly love to include in the conclusion, you've created an incoherent premise. Contradictions are inherently incorrect, so the argument is invalid.

Immanuel Kant disposed of the prime mover argument in his "Critique of Pure Reason" in the late 18th Century. The (few) theological works I've read don't attempt to resurrect it. Perhaps they know it's not a winner. The only place you see it is on the websites of desperate-to-believe apologists and books by William Lane Craig.
WLB (who didn't have better things to type tonight as he is waiting for Godot)

stewiegriffin81
29th May 2010, 11:29 PM
So it's not an example of something coming into being out of nothing, or something coming into being without a cause. The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles. And then we have to ask, well, what is the origin of the whole quantum vacuum itself? Where does it come from?"

You asked for things without a cause, not for things that come from nothing. I gave you objects that come into existence without a cause (and it's false to assert that they are theoretical. They are real, and under the right circumstances they last just as long as non-virtual particles), and they are indeed things that have no cause. There is currently nothing that causes one area of vacuum to produce (or not produce) a virtual particle.


wrong again. Nothingness has no properties at all, since it is the absence of any thing. Inside , or outside the universe, makes no difference at all. You might think a little more , to really understand, what absolute nothingness actually is.

Wrong. You have asserted that outside the universe there is nothing. However, you do not know that. Nobody knows what is external to the universe. It may be "absolute nothingness", as you claim, but it may not be, and we have absolutely no idea what physical laws (if any) exist externally. Which plays exactly into what I have been arguing, which is you cannot make claims about requirements for causes for something that is utterly unknown.



Where do i demand such a proof ?

Right here:Please prove God is immaginary and non-existent. If you cannot, why do you make things up ?

I guess you mean God as being a extraneous complexity..... i know this argument as well.....

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493

As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that is worth.



Then i guess, you suggest, the equation nothing x nobody = everything makes sense ?

Actually, this shows that you know nothing about the argument at all. A model of existence that includes a universe plus a god, is more complex (it has two components) than a model of existence that includes only a universe (one component), regardless of how 'simple' god is. Thus, adding god to the model adds complexity.

Loki
30th May 2010, 12:01 AM
science is quit sure the universe had a beginning - therefore a cause. Bullshit

Many arguments have already been given here, your fatuous assertion that "The idea, the universe simply " always was " , aka no beginning, is not held serious anymore for over one hundred years" shows your ignorance of science in general and physics in particular. One hundred years ago Einstein was a patent clerk and Newtonian mechanics ruled. There has been so much discovered since then it just isn't funny. Even if the universe had a beginning and there was simply nothing before (which is not the current position of the science) it does not imply a fantasy creature is required.

science is quit sure the universe is finely tuned to life - god seems to be the best explanationBullshit

Science is quite sure of no such thing. The "fine tuning" canard has been done to death. The probability of something which has already happened is 1. Life began and evolved in this universe under the conditions which exist in this universe. It's hardly surprising it's well suited to those conditions. This is not "fine tuning", this is reality.


science is quit sure DNA is a code. Codes are always the result of a mind.Bullshit

DNA can be likened to a code, in that it is composed of four distinct units and which contains the template to produce RNA and hence enzymes. If you want to call it a code then it is a code which writes itself. The assertion that codes are always the result of a mind is laughable. Intelligent beings use codes to send messages to each other. What's the message and who is it for?


science has a good deal of knowledge about the complexity of a self replicating cell. It is quit known about the little probability, that such a complex cell could be result of random chance.
Wibble

Random chance has little or nothing to do with ambiogenesis. Ambiogenesis is the result of chemical interactions which are not random but the result of well established chemical principals. Not all the steps have been put together and there are a number of possible paths under investigation which could lead to a self replicating cell. None of this is idle speculation, it is based on rigourous science. It may never be known precisely which mechanism actually produced life on earth (presuming it didn't blow in from elsewhere) but it is currently assumed the mechanism involved is a highly inefficient one. It took a billion years for self replicating organisms to appear so it is highly unlikely the mechanism was very efficient.

Perhaps you should stop getting all your information from extremely biased religious sites and actually read the science and think for yourself.

Logic please
30th May 2010, 01:53 AM
Sure, you are loosing badly, therefore, better close the thread. Than you can live better with your biased world view.

Funny, I thought that people engage in discussion and debate to develop, improve, enhance and share meanings and understanding, more than as some gladatorial-type contest...

Is winning and losing, what this is about for you?

Goldenmane
30th May 2010, 02:15 AM
because everything that begins to exist, has a cause. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause.

Actually, it's not established that the universe had a beginning, let alone a cause. Let, again, an intelligent cause. You're asserting that intelligence is something predetermining a cause.

No Intelligence involved,

davo
30th May 2010, 03:22 AM
There is no evidence whatsoever the universe had a beginning.
The big bang is an incorrect term applied to the sudden expansion of space time.
Please show proof of the statement everything that exists has a cause, this violates the first law of thermodynamics.

davo
30th May 2010, 03:31 AM
science is quit sure the universe had a beginning - therefore a cause.
science is quit sure the universe is finely tuned to life - god seems to be the best explanation
science is quit sure DNA is a code. Codes are always the result of a mind.
science has a good deal of knowledge about the complexity of a self replicating cell. It is quit known about the little probability, that such a complex cell could be result of random chance.

just to name a few.

Hang on that is totally incorrect. Science says no such thing. One good example is hawking spending the past 15 years on concepts built from the initial theory of a singularity that has seen such theories as bubble universes etc.
Where are you getting there assertions? They are wrong.

davo
30th May 2010, 03:39 AM
You also associate DNA to a code, as it is likened to one in science as it lays rules, then extrapolate from there that all codes are designed, which is wrong.
You are using words rather than reality to try and prove your point

Loki
30th May 2010, 03:59 AM
Davo, what he's (or she's) doing is simply parrotting wibble from others. There is no thought here, but simple repetition of dogmatic ideology. Trivially debunked assertions at that, and they have been debunked time after time after time again. This is what is annoying me, there is no dialogue with a person here, just simple repetition of dogma. If the person behind Tsid502 would actually come out and talk we might have a conversation.

GodwinGrey
30th May 2010, 04:02 AM
I believe in the God of the bible.



http://www.theologicalstudies.org/page/page/1572381.htm

1 - what nature reveals is evolution.

2 - God’s providence can be seen in His gracious giving of sunshine and rain to everyone (Matt. 5:45),

Pathetic.

3 - Conscience God has revealed Himself to everyone through an internal sense of right and wrong.
Pity he forgot to give the same sense to everybody.

4 - The Lot The casting of lots, at times, communicated God’s will to man.

Oh I see god runs a lottery for the giving out of religious knowledge? i suddenly feel a wave of disinterest washing over me.



No, i would continue to worship God.

If god was proven god wouldn't be god.




No, its not so. The big bang theory is perfectly in accordance with Genesis one.

In the beginning, God created the heavens, and the earth.


1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

So the first verse is a general summation of the chapter. The next verses show the order of business. First the earth then light and day and next the heavens. this has nothing whatever to do with the big bang theory or any other known to science. this is baloney.


This is btw a remarkable phrase. It describes everything that exists, namely

in the beginning - time
God - the power
created - action
the heavens - space
the earth - matter


How could Moses know that and be scientifically correct, about 3500 years ago
[/QUOTE]

Whatever it is your on i think you should stop it before it's too late.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 04:16 AM
The cosmological argument as I've come to understand it:
Premise 1 - Nothing is infinite (except God)
Premise 2...

Hang on. I see what you did there. By excusing the thing you would most dearly love to include in the conclusion, you've created an incoherent premise. Contradictions are inherently incorrect, so the argument is invalid.

Immanuel Kant disposed of the prime mover argument in his "Critique of Pure Reason" in the late 18th Century. The (few) theological works I've read don't attempt to resurrect it. Perhaps they know it's not a winner. The only place you see it is on the websites of desperate-to-believe apologists and books by William Lane Craig.
WLB (who didn't have better things to type tonight as he is waiting for Godot)

what is incoherent, and why ?

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 04:16 AM
If you really believe that, you'd be better out of here anyway.

Now what have you got apart from that book o' fiction?

how about science, and philosophy ? i have not used one argument of the bible..... what is your point, again ?

mayor of simpleton
30th May 2010, 05:34 AM
@ Tsid502

Let's address this Cosmological Argument issue before we simply get into the nitty gritty. It is a cosmological argument. They all fit more or less this pattern:

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. The universe must have a cause (from 1).
3. Nothing can be the cause of itself.
4. The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3).
5. Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from 2 & 4).
6. God is the only thing that is outside of the universe.
7. God caused the universe (from 5 & 6).
8. God exists.

Is that about right? The details of entropy and 2nd law of theromdynamics are all fine a good, but this is the basis for the argument you present. Let's test the validity and soundness of this before we go on to confuse the masses with a lot of Physics.

I'll be direct here: Who/what caused God?

The argument you present has the built in fallacy of 'Passing the Buck'. God is a suggested to solve some problem (i.e. the 2nd law of Thermodynamics), but then leaving unanswered that very same problem when applied to God himself.

You have to admit that you have a bit of a contridiction going on here.

First premise (everything that exists must have a cause) implys that the conclusion (God exists) must be an act that needs a cause. One could insist, 'but god is outside of the Universe and there you do not need a cause?'. How can you prove that? How are you aware of any evidence that is outside of our Universe? ASSUMPTION? This is not a true premise.

Let's consider the third premise (nothing can be the cause of itself) God is self-caused? Again, God receives and exemption clause and is 'outside the Universe', but on what foundation of evidence? FAITH? Not a true premise.

OK...If not so, god must be caused, thus god is not any more than a link in the chain (of Universal Flux). Why the idolatry?

Either/or, God receives at least one exception, but is not explaining why God must be the unique exception. Aside from asserting God's unique mystery via faith (the Fallacy of Using One Mystery To Pseudo-Explain Another), the argument does not have a leg to stand on.

This really begs the question, why God and not the Universe? The universe itself can either exist without a cause, or else can be self-caused . If the buck has to stop somewhere, why not with the universe instead of God? We have the Universe. God is redundant.

Another problem is the notion of "cause" is by no means clear, but our best definition is a relation that holds between events that are connected by physical laws.

'If my kittens knocking my laptop off the table caused it to break into bits or driving the wrong way on the road caused an auto crash...' We know of what we speak of here.

To apply this concept of cause to the Universe itself is to misuse the concept of cause. Please check out David Hume. You will see that you are extending cause into a realm in which we have no idea how to use it. This line of skeptical reasoning, based on the incoherent demands we make of the concept of cause. You might as well try to nail jello to the wall. :p

Why is there something rather than nothing?

All of these types for arguments are expressing this sentiment.

The late philosopher Sydney Morgenbesser once said: "And if there were nothing? You'd still be complaining!" :D

I still find that Accululation/Adaptation within Time/Space can provide a better answer. It is less confusing and complex. Future evidence I can not take into account as of yet, but all evidence we have to date can support this claim.

Thanks for the exercise. I have not had to deal with Cosmological Arguments for quite some time.

Meow!

GREG

atheist_angel
30th May 2010, 05:38 AM
No, its not so. The big bang theory is perfectly in accordance with Genesis one.

In the beginning, God created the heavens, and the earth.

This is btw a remarkable phrase. It describes everything that exists, namely

in the beginning - time
God - the power
created - action
the heavens - space
the earth - matter

How could Moses know that and be scientifically correct, about 3500 years ago ?Then, Moses had it wrong. :rolleyes: Things aren't really THAT separate. There is space inside of matter, There is matter inside of space. There is action inside of matter. Power (or what grownups may call "energy") and matter are two different states of the same thing. Time is relative. Time is not influenced by g-d, but time is influenced by gravity. Here.....-Would you like to Read something (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation))? science is quit sure the universe had a beginning - therefore a cause. A "cause" meaning an event that put the big bang in to motion.......................NOT a "cause" meaning a purpose or intent.science is quit sure the universe is finely tuned to life - god seems to be the best explanation Not finely tuned enough for to be able to say "We're shhhhpecial"and "a g-ddidit".............We need spacesuits to go into space..........We need a breathing apparatus to stay underwater........We need craft to be able to fly. (We don't flap our wings and explore mars.)

Believers may try to explain that away by saying, "Oh, but in heaven we can do all those things"

Apparently heaven is supposed to be finely tuned, or maybe just finely tuned fiction.

Sometimes I think they really invented heaven just to explain away their own g-d's flaws........to themselves.science is quit sure DNA is a code. Codes are always the result of a mind. Genes are full of flaws.........and don't go telling me that "original sin" created genetic diversity. :p science has a good deal of knowledge about the complexity of a self replicating cell. It is quit known about the little probability, that such a complex cell could be result of random chance.See Above. If a g-ddidit, he didn't do a very good job. ;) just to name a few. You haven't named Any! Tell me, what would it do to you psychologically if you discovered that there were no g-d? :(

.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 07:28 AM
There is no evidence whatsoever the universe had a beginning.

do you actually know, what you are talking about ? have you ever studied the Big Bang theory ? it seems not.


The big bang is an incorrect term applied to the sudden expansion of space time.
Please show proof of the statement everything that exists has a cause, this violates the first law of thermodynamics.

why ?

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 07:39 AM
You asked for things without a cause, not for things that come from nothing. I gave you objects that come into existence without a cause (and it's false to assert that they are theoretical. They are real, and under the right circumstances they last just as long as non-virtual particles), and they are indeed things that have no cause. There is currently nothing that causes one area of vacuum to produce (or not produce) a virtual particle.

Well, that's actually not true. These virtual particles are caused through that vacuum quantum field, and have therefore a cause.


Wrong. You have asserted that outside the universe there is nothing.

Have I ? where ?


Which plays exactly into what I have been arguing, which is you cannot make claims about requirements for causes for something that is utterly unknown.

What i have said, is that according the standard Big Bang theory, our universe had a absolute beginning, and must therefore have a cause.


Actually, this shows that you know nothing about the argument at all. A model of existence that includes a universe plus a god, is more complex (it has two components) than a model of existence that includes only a universe (one component), regardless of how 'simple' god is. Thus, adding god to the model adds complexity.

So what ? If it makes sense to you , to believe, our universe could have self-caused itself, aka being cause and effect at the same time, shall be it. It makes however to me no sense at all. Its a irrational, and unreasonable hypotheses. From nothing, nothing derives.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 08:07 AM
Bullshit

Many arguments have already been given here, your fatuous assertion that "The idea, the universe simply " always was " , aka no beginning, is not held serious anymore for over one hundred years" shows your ignorance of science in general and physics in particular. One hundred years ago Einstein was a patent clerk and Newtonian mechanics ruled. There has been so much discovered since then it just isn't funny. Even if the universe had a beginning and there was simply nothing before (which is not the current position of the science) it does not imply a fantasy creature is required.

really ?

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-208.htm

We get rid of the God of the Bible, we get rid of the God of Genesis, we get rid of the Creator and then we've got chance. Now this is a pretty interesting thing to think about. I have read this word "chance" over and over and over again in reading the writings of these people and the myth that drives the whole evolutionary process, this entire unbiblical, irrational, immoral idea of evolution, the myth that drives it is the myth of chance...chance. Chance is the cause. In contemporary science, chance takes on new meaning. They don't want God to be the cause, but something has to be the cause so the cause is chance.

Now when I say the word "chance" we take it back to its etymology, it once was largely restricted to describing mathematical probability. Where we could say, "Well, if I go over there there's a chance I might see her because she may be coming this way." Or, "If I put this money in this account there's a chance this might happen and I'll make this amount of money." "If I...if I move into that community and begin to meet some people there's a chance there that I might develop some interest in my business." There's a mathematical probability. That's what chance basically used to mean. And then it kind of got broadened a little bit and it took on broader application to include any unpredictable event, any sort of probability no matter how remote or any coincidence no matter how seemingly impossible.

But let me tell you about chance. Chance doesn't exist, it's nothing...it's nothing. Chance is a word used to explain something else. But chance isn't anything. It's not a force. Chance doesn't make anything happen. Chance doesn't exist. It's only a way to explain something else. Chance didn't make you meet that person, you were going there when she was going there, that's why you met her. Chance didn't have anything to do with it because chance doesn't exist. It's nothing. But in modern evolution its been transformed into a force of causal power. It's been elevated from being nothing to being everything. Chance makes things happen. Chance is the myth that serves to undergird the chaos view of reality.

I mean, this is so fraught with problems from a rational or philosophical viewpoint you hardly know where to begin. How do you get the initial matter upon which chance operates? Where does that come? You would have to say, "Well, chance made it appear." You know what? This sounds so ridiculous and yet this is the undergirding philosophy behind evolution. It is completely incoherent and irrational. But the new evolutionary paradigm is chance. And it's the opposite of logic.

You see, when you abandon logic and logic says, "Oh, there's a universe. Hum...somebody made it." What else would logic say? "There's a building, somebody made it. There's a piano, somebody made it. There's a universe, more complex than a building, infinitely more complex than a piano, somebody...somebody who is very, very powerful and very, very intelligent made it."

You say, "No, no, chance made it." Listen, folks, that's rational suicide, that's not logical. Logic abandoned leaves you with myth and the enemies of mythology, the enemies of mythology are empirical data and God-given reason. So in order to be an evolutionist and believe that chance makes things happen, you have to do two things: reject the empirical data, and be irrational. But if you love your sin enough, you'll do it. You see, if you can just eliminate the empirical data, the evidence, and get rid of God-given logic and those two things are the essence of pure science, if you can get rid of those things then mythology runs wild. And as one writer said, "Chance is the new soft pillow for science to lie down on." Arthur Kessler said, "As long as chance rules, God is an anachronism." If chance rules, God can't rule. Chance deposes God. The very existence of chance rips God from His sovereign throne.


Science is quite sure of no such thing. The "fine tuning" canard has been done to death. The probability of something which has already happened is 1.

Thats truly a fallacious thinking. You have a infinite number of options, but life permitting constants in the universe have been chosen, and we are here. The chance is not 1:1.For some of the constants, like the cosmological constant, the range of life permitting values is incomprehensibly tiny in comparison with the range of values we see that it could have, so that the chances of the constant’s having the value it does is virtually next to impossible.


Life began and evolved in this universe under the conditions which exist in this universe. It's hardly surprising it's well suited to those conditions. This is not "fine tuning", this is reality.

Nope, its actually REALLY surprising that the constants are in the life permitting range. There is no physical need these to be so.


DNA can be likened to a code, in that it is composed of four distinct units and which contains the template to produce RNA and hence enzymes. If you want to call it a code then it is a code which writes itself. The assertion that codes are always the result of a mind is laughable. Intelligent beings use codes to send messages to each other. What's the message and who is it for?

If you know a other origin than a mind , to send a specific, complex message, than please mention it.


Random chance has little or nothing to do with ambiogenesis. Ambiogenesis is the result of chemical interactions which are not random but the result of well established chemical principals.

What principals are these, and how did they came to be ?



Not all the steps have been put together and there are a number of possible paths under investigation which could lead to a self replicating cell. None of this is idle speculation, it is based on rigourous science. It may never be known precisely which mechanism actually produced life on earth (presuming it didn't blow in from elsewhere) but it is currently assumed the mechanism involved is a highly inefficient one. It took a billion years for self replicating organisms to appear so it is highly unlikely the mechanism was very efficient.

then you might be keen about homochirality, and have a explanation, how left and right handed molecules could form by chance. ;)


Perhaps you should stop getting all your information from extremely biased religious sites and actually read the science and think for yourself.

You forget, that religious sites have their information and base for argument in secular science as well. What's your point thow ? Are atheist sites not biased as well ? And you, are you biased, or not ?

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 08:44 AM
[quote=Tsid502;88054]because everything that begins to exist, has a cause. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause.

Actually, it's not established that the universe had a beginning, let alone a cause. Let, again, an intelligent cause. You're asserting that intelligence is something predetermining a cause.

No Intelligence involved,

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/evidence-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning-t199.htm

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_the_Big_Bang_came_from_a_singularity_where_did_ the_singularity_come_from

Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know.

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm

[justify]Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.

Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite.

http://thoughtlife.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-part-1-scientific-observations/

Stephen Hawking writes, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.



just to cite a few....

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 08:45 AM
There is no evidence whatsoever the universe had a beginning.
The big bang is an incorrect term applied to the sudden expansion of space time.
Please show proof of the statement everything that exists has a cause, this violates the first law of thermodynamics.

how could it violate the firt law of thermodynamics, if the natural laws where created AFTER the Big Bang.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 08:46 AM
You also associate DNA to a code, as it is likened to one in science as it lays rules, then extrapolate from there that all codes are designed, which is wrong.
You are using words rather than reality to try and prove your point

What i said is, that all codes have a mind as origin. If you know a complex and specific code, which has not a mind as origin, please show it.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 09:33 AM
God has revealed Himself to everyone through an internal sense of right and wrong.

Pity he forgot to give the same sense to everybody.

You can ask whoever you want, from whatever culture , if it is the same thing, to eat a icecream, and to rape a baby, and kill it brutally.
If there is no moral code, it makes no difference whatsoever, between option one, and two. All of us, even cannibals, know to differentiate between right and wrong.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/evidence-of-god-the-moral-argument-t186.htm

The moral argument begins with the fact that all people recognize some moral code (that some things are right, and some things are wrong). Every time we argue over right and wrong, we appeal to a higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not free to arbitrarily change. Right and wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawgiver. Because the Moral Law transcends humanity, this universal law requires a universal lawgiver. This, it is argued, is God.

In support of the moral argument, we see that even the most remote tribes who have been cut off from the rest of civilization observe a moral code similar to everyone else's. Although differences certainly exist in civil matters, virtues like bravery and loyalty and vices like greed and cowardice are universal. If man were responsible for that code, it would differ as much as every other thing that man has invented. Further, it is not simply a record of what mankind does—rarely do people ever live up to their own moral code. Where, then, do we get these ideas of what should be done? Romans 2:14-15 says that the moral law (or conscience) comes from an ultimate lawgiver above man. If this is true, then we would expect to find exactly what we have observed. This lawgiver is God.

To put it negatively, atheism provides no basis for morality, no hope, and no meaning for life. While this does not disprove atheism by itself, if the logical outworking of a belief system fails to account for what we instinctively know to be true, it ought to be discarded. Without God there would be no objective basis for morality, no life, and no reason to live it. Yet all these things do exist, and so does God. Thus, the moral argument for the existence of God.


So the first verse is a general summation of the chapter. The next verses show the order of business. First the earth then light and day and next the heavens. this has nothing whatever to do with the big bang theory or any other known to science. this is baloney.

You might study a little better this issue, before make a judgement. Acutally, yours is a preconception.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/SepOct08/GenesisOrderofEvents.html

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 09:38 AM
I'll be direct here: Who/what caused God?

Who designed the Designer?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-created-god-t77.htm

Everything we observe in nature has a beginning. God however is in a different category, and must be so. God is different from all nature and humanity and everything that exists, in that he has always existed, independent from anything he created. God is not a dependent being, but self-sufficient, self-existent. And this is exactly how the Bible describes God, and how God has revealed himself to be. Why must God be this way?

Our universe cannot be explained any other way. It could not have created itself. It has not always existed. And it could not be created by something that itself is created. Why not?

It isn't coherent to argue that the universe was created by God, but God was in turn created by God to the second power, who was in turn created by God to the third power, and so on. As Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused (or, a being that moves but is itself unmoved). Why? Because if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin.

The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 09:44 AM
We need spacesuits to go into space..........We need a breathing apparatus to stay underwater........We need craft to be able to fly. (We don't flap our wings and explore mars.

We might be designed to live on earth, not in space, or on the moon etc...:rolleyes:

atheist_angel
30th May 2010, 09:46 AM
Do you believe in a deity that created the heavens and the earth all in one day? :confused:

1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang) & 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Stelliferous_Era) ....plus one that zooms-in showing the eras of the Earth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_our_universe)

Praxis
30th May 2010, 09:46 AM
Are you STILL blithering on with this shit? Using *cough" facts from sites with names like "heaven forum" to back yourself up? I can't believe it. (That we've actually allowed you to says a lot about us too, but DAMN you're a pain in the bloody arse)

You're a monumental waste of bandwidth and guess what? You're not scoring any points with your mythical master either.

I'll try and make this polite as possible. You can either walk the plank of your own accord or you will be pushed.

In short, take your fallacious nonsense and shove it.

mayor of simpleton
30th May 2010, 10:07 AM
Who designed the Designer?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does-god-exist-origin-of-god-metaphysical-reality-f10/who-created-god-t77.htm

Everything we observe in nature has a beginning. God however is in a different category, and must be so. God is different from all nature and humanity and everything that exists, in that he has always existed, independent from anything he created. God is not a dependent being, but self-sufficient, self-existent. And this is exactly how the Bible describes God, and how God has revealed himself to be. Why must God be this way?

Our universe cannot be explained any other way. It could not have created itself. It has not always existed. And it could not be created by something that itself is created. Why not?


It isn't coherent to argue that the universe was created by God, but God was in turn created by God to the second power, who was in turn created by God to the third power, and so on. As Aristotle cogently argued, there must be a reality that causes but is itself uncaused (or, a being that moves but is itself unmoved). Why? Because if there is an infinite regression of causes, then by definition the whole process could never begin.

The question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, “What does blue smell like?” Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated—He simply exists.

How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.

OK... so in short text, your answer to why god exists is "BECAUSE". :confused:

Use your illusion if you need it. As for me, my house is not build out of trump cards.

The rules do not apply to god. This simply means you get to make things up as you go. Let's just throw out logic and sound arguments and replace them with 'whatever suits your fancy'? :confused:

I think I seriously over estimated this dialogue.

You never even addressed my suggestion that Accumulation/Adaptation within Time/Space is a better fit to answer such questions. Oh well... have fun continuing to nail jello to the wall or perhaps better said nailing the wall to the jello.

Meow!

GREG

Praxis
30th May 2010, 11:49 AM
And as a special send-off, the Fantasy Island Band (with showgirls), wil strike up the apologists' favourite send-off tune "Nearer My Dog To Thee".

Now please excuse me, I have to iron my grass skirt and polish the coconut bra before festivities commence :)

GodwinGrey
30th May 2010, 12:01 PM
You can ask whoever you want, from whatever culture , if it is the same thing, to eat a icecream, and to rape a baby, and kill it brutally.
If there is no moral code, it makes no difference whatsoever, between option one, and two. All of us, even cannibals, know to differentiate between right and wrong.

usury - right or wrong? euthanasia - right or wrong. Growing the economy - right or wrong?

You cannot answer these questions with simplistic notions. Many people face moral dillemas every day of their working lives. Moral dillemas are decided by reason, not by any inbuilt sense of right and wrong. People like you decide from what is written in a bible and your decisions are frequently bloody awful.



To put it negatively, atheism provides no basis for morality, no hope, and no meaning for life. While this does not disprove atheism by itself, if the logical outworking of a belief system fails to account for what we instinctively know to be true, it ought to be discarded. Without God there would be no objective basis for morality, no life, and no reason to live it. Yet all these things do exist, and so does God. Thus, the moral argument for the existence of God.




You might study a little better this issue, before make a judgement. Acutally, yours is a preconception.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/SepOct08/GenesisOrderofEvents.html


Your 'explanation' is that verse 1 states god created the heaven and earth. and that the subsequent verses speak of things being made. Your explanation is that when things are 'made' that's a man thing but when things are 'created' it's a god thing.

your explantion not mine has its foundation in preconception. It is a totally convoluted reading of the plain facts as presented. the concept of a first sentence broadly stating what follows is a convention in writing that is followed to this day. Nothing could have been 'made' by man because man did not yet exist, and even if he had existed he wouldn't have had to make it because god already had according to you in the first verse.

your stated reading displays the same unreason shown throughout the New Testament. 'This is the way it happened because the Old Testament says so. We can prove it happened this way because the Old Testament says it would happen'. It's the daftest form of reasoning ever recorded by humans and is reliant on the total abdication of of intellectual responsibility by the listener.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 12:15 PM
Do you believe in a deity that created the heavens and the earth all in one day? :confused:

1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang) & 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Stelliferous_Era) ....plus one that zooms-in showing the eras of the Earth. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_our_universe)


There is a controversy , if the creation week in Genesis is meant literally, or if it might be interpreted as long periods of time. I have no defined opinion yet.

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/sixdays.html

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 12:17 PM
Are you STILL blithering on with this shit? Using *cough" facts from sites with names like "heaven forum" to back yourself up? I can't believe it. (That we've actually allowed you to says a lot about us too, but DAMN you're a pain in the bloody arse)

You're a monumental waste of bandwidth and guess what? You're not scoring any points with your mythical master either.

I'll try and make this polite as possible. You can either walk the plank of your own accord or you will be pushed.

In short, take your fallacious nonsense and shove it.

the heaven forum is actually my personal virtual library , a site created by me.

You might do better, present a more convincing worldview than mine, if you can. That is what this thread is all about. ;)

stewiegriffin81
30th May 2010, 12:19 PM
Well, that's actually not true. These virtual particles are caused through that vacuum quantum field, and have therefore a cause.

Like I already said before, what causes one part of the field to produce or not produce a particle as opposed to another part? There is no cause. Sheesh, learn some basic physics.



Have I ? where ?

This is twice now, that you have pretended to not have said stuff. This is a thread, and the stupid shit you say, doesn't get deleted or forgotten.

You say it here:

wrong again. Nothingness has no properties at all, since it is the absence of any thing. Inside , or outside the universe, makes no difference at all. You might think a little more , to really understand, what absolute nothingness actually is.

Your answer in context to mine implies that there can only be nothingness.


What i have said, is that according the standard Big Bang theory, our universe had a absolute beginning, and must therefore have a cause.

And yet again, you have utterly falied to address the fact that we have no reason to believe that causality is a physical law in whatever preceded the universe. You are making an unfounded assumption.



So what ? If it makes sense to you , to believe, our universe could have self-caused itself, aka being cause and effect at the same time, shall be it. It makes however to me no sense at all. Its a irrational, and unreasonable hypotheses. From nothing, nothing derives.

It is not irrational or unreasonable. What is irrational and unreasonable, is claiming that there must have been a cause. Causality may or may not exist external to the universe.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 12:20 PM
You never even addressed my suggestion that Accumulation/Adaptation within Time/Space is a better fit to answer such questions.

And what caused time/space, accumulation/adaptation ? you might try to answer this question in first place.

GenericBox
30th May 2010, 12:21 PM
It's a controversy?

That's the exact question I asked my RE teacher in Grade 6 of Primary School when I was 10 years old.

"Are the days in genesis like real 24 hour days or just like metaphorical days really far apart?"

Mrs. Dempsey (my RE teacher):

"They are real days."

Me:

"So how come there is evidence that Dinosaur fossils are from periods millions of years a part?"

Mrs. Dempsey:

"I would like to see that evidence."


So I brought in my little dinosaur books... and never got an answer the entire Grade 6.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 12:28 PM
And if your aunt had balls, she might well be your uncle.


CALL TO NON-ISLANDERS:
The Moderators have met and discussed the case of Tsid502.

It has been decided that he is a waste of time, a regurgitator of half-understood factoids from believer sites.

Unless any members have good reason why this person should not be terminated, the evasions and whiny blather will be finished in approximately twelve hours, by termination of Tsid502's access.

I am amused to see, how reasonable and rational arguments are simply dismissed as a waste of time.

What i can deduce from such a behavior is, the moderators are not interested in actually find the truth, but to find a way to confirm their preconceptions and bias. There shall be no God. Lets rape our intellect, and let us find even unreasonable arguments, to hold with our belief construct and intellectual illusions.

Atheism over all !! lets open a champagne and celebrate :D

atheist_angel
30th May 2010, 12:28 PM
There is a controversy , if the creation week in Genesis is meant literally, or if it might be interpreted as long periods of time. I have no defined opinion yet.

http://www.everystudent.com/wires/sixdays.htmlThe bible clearly says it took a week.

The evidence clearly says it took eons.

And you have noooo opinion.... Can you say cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)? :p

Darwinsbulldog
30th May 2010, 12:31 PM
Ah, the canard of the intentional stance-something from our evolution. ;)

To be sure, the intentional stance serves the evolving animal well. A fucking large sabre-tooth tiger may ruin your day, so it is a safe bet to assume that the said pussy is on your case at all times. But this is in fact, inaccurate. Most predators do not hunt 24/7. They fuck, they sleep, they drink at the waterhole.

So, some fine tuning of the prey animal is needed. You too need to drink and fuck. An organism with too much of a flight-fight reaction to threat stimuli is not going to do very well against one that reacts by calibrating the threat, and its own reaction. So when the predatory pussy is far off, it is probably best to continue to drink or fuck, rather panic all the time and over-react.

Creationists are panickers. Not only do they want and receive glib [and inaccurate answers] to the puzzles of life, but they automatically imbibe ALL objects with intent and purpose. With no evidence at all. Interesting. And a severe failure of the intellect.

NB. In part, this post contains some intellectual property of friend Goldenmane as per our telephone conversation a while back. Any errors or omissions, are my own.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 12:31 PM
The bible clearly says it took a week.

The evidence clearly says it took eons.

And you have noooo opinion.... Can you say cognitive dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)? :p

i have no opinion now , just means, i have not yet studied all arguments indepth, to have a own opinion and conclusion YET. ;) that does not mean, i will never have a opinion on that subject.

Loki
30th May 2010, 12:33 PM
I am amused to see, how reasonable and rational arguments are simply dismissed as a waste of time.

Perhaps you's like to provide links to peer reviewed papers in reputable journals (say 4 or 5 star) backing up your assertions. Your arguments are not reasonable or rational, if they were they would have been dealt with in a reasonable and rational manner by the scientific community.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 12:44 PM
Causality may or may not exist external to the universe.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/theism-origin.html

The problem with saying that the Big Bang is an event without a cause is that it entails that the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing, which seems metaphysically absurd. Philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider remonstrates,

"If taken seriously, the initial singularity is in head-on collision with the most successful ontological commitment that was a guiding line of research since Epicurus and Lucretius," namely, out of nothing nothing comes, which Kanitscheider calls "a metaphysical hypothesis which has proved so fruitful in every corner of science that we are surely well-advised to try as hard as we can to eschew processes of absolute origin."

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 12:48 PM
That would be the ones with peer-reviewed scientific papers, then?

Gee, I'd like to see you in one of those arguments!

So far it's all been guesses and circular reasoning from you, Tsid.

Since when only science should be a valid base to form our world view ?
Science is limited in its ability to answer the foremost questions about our existence. Why should religion and philosophy not be a valid ground, to form our beliefs ? Please show me, that active atheism isnt more than a guess and belief system. Please show me as well, where my argument is circular reasoning :)

Xeno
30th May 2010, 12:48 PM
Power failure from the coastal storms has kept me off the net all morning. Still, my final few words to Tsid502.

When the phenomena however IS fully understood, to deduce God as the most reasonable and logical explanation is NOT a God of the gaps argument. No, it's fucking stupid. You do not understand gotg because you excuse yourself from its implications, just like you arbitrarily excused god-thing when pinned by mayor-simpleton.

science is quit sure the universe had a beginning - therefore a cause.
science is quit sure the universe is finely tuned to life - god seems to be the best explanation
science is quit sure DNA is a code. Codes are always the result of a mind.
science has a good deal of knowledge about the complexity of a self replicating cell. It is quit known about the little probability, that such a complex cell could be result of random chance. I asked, in bold, for citations. you do not have a single scientific citation for your "explanations", of course. You cherry-pick the bits that seem to reinforce your fantasies, usually not even understanding them at the time (vide thermodynamics, as mentioned by others).

Loki, davo, atheist-angel and others I may have missed have already dealt with the nonsense intrinsic in the statements listed in the above quotation from you. You even fall for the random chance shit.

Bye-bye. Come back when you start to understand just how weak a grab-bag of arguments you attempted this time around.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 12:53 PM
Perhaps you's like to provide links to peer reviewed papers in reputable journals (say 4 or 5 star) backing up your assertions. Your arguments are not reasonable or rational, if they were they would have been dealt with in a reasonable and rational manner by the scientific community.

Peer reviewed papers can provide answers of the natural world. Our divergence is not in regard of the scientific findings, but about their interpretation. To me, scientific discoveries are a very clear demonstration, random chance ( which is all that is left to atheists ) is a very BAD explanation for the existence of our universe, and existence of life. The reasons have been clearly exposed at this thread. It is needed a big leap of faith, to believe that our universe had no cause at all, that the fine tuning to life of the universe has pure chance as origin, and that the DNA code has not a mind as origin as well, but random chance mechanisms.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 12:57 PM
...... usually not even understanding them at the time (vide thermodynamics, as mentioned by others).

what exactly do i not understand in regards of thermodynamics ?

davo
30th May 2010, 01:14 PM
You idiot.
The big bang was given that name by an opponent of the Theory of Expansion. Have you even read anything not creationist misinformation on the subject?
That is WHY there are theories like bubble universes and singularities

stewiegriffin81
30th May 2010, 01:14 PM
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/theism-origin.html

The problem with saying that the Big Bang is an event without a cause is that it entails that the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing, which seems metaphysically absurd.

Since when is it absurd? As I have already said, causality may or may not be a rule/requirement to whatever is external to the universe. We do not know.

The only absurdity here, is that you think that you can presume what rules/requirements govern whatever is external to the universe.

ps. Please learn some metaphysics while you're at it. You have spectacularly failed at it so far.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 01:23 PM
You idiot.


By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

I stop answering who insults me.

Bye.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 01:27 PM
Since when is it absurd? As I have already said, causality may or may not be a rule/requirement to whatever is external to the universe. We do not know.

The only absurdity here, is that you think that you can presume what rules/requirements govern whatever is external to the universe.

ps. Please learn some metaphysics while you're at it. You have spectacularly failed at it so far.

What you might not understant, is, that according to the standard Big Bang Model, there was nothing physical external to the Universe. Energy/Matter, space and time where created through the Big Bang. So by definition, if you excluse a meta-physical cause of our universe, you have the only alternative to believe, the universe was cause and effect of itself. How could it cause itself, if it did not exist " before " the Big Bang ? that makes no sense.

davo
30th May 2010, 01:41 PM
By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

I stop answering who insults me.

Bye.

Hateful? You totally showed not only ignorance on the subject, but when I pointed it out, you just denied it flat out.

stewiegriffin81
30th May 2010, 01:43 PM
What you might not understant, is, that according to the standard Big Bang Model, there was nothing physical external to the Universe. Energy/Matter, space and time where created through the Big Bang. So by definition, if you excluse a meta-physical cause of our universe, you have the only alternative to believe, the universe was cause and effect of itself. How could it cause itself, if it did not exist " before " the Big Bang ? that makes no sense.

Wrong. The big bang model says nothing about what is external to the universe. The big bang model cannot say anything about what is external to the universe, since it is currently empirically unverifiable, and thus cannot be determined by science.

Some physicists like to speculate on what might be external, such as other universes which give birth to new universes, but they simply remain theoretical.

I am going to say this again, since it appears you still do not understand this:

Nothing is known about what is external to the universe. It may be 'nothing'. It may be other universes. It may be something else.

As such, you cannot claim that causes are required for the universe.

davo
30th May 2010, 01:48 PM
What you might not understant, is, that according to the standard Big Bang Model, there was nothing physical external to the Universe.

The universe is a word for 'all that is' it is not an object.


Energy/Matter, space and time where created through the Big Bang. So by definition, if you excluse a meta-physical cause of our universe, you have the only alternative to believe, the universe was cause and effect of itself.


Please show how the universe needs a cause.


How could it cause itself, if it did not exist " before " the Big Bang ? that makes no sense.

How can you have a cause without time?

No time = no causality.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 01:52 PM
Wrong. The big bang model says nothing about what is external to the universe. The big bang model cannot say anything about what is external to the universe, since it is currently empirically unverifiable, and thus cannot be determined by science.

Some physicists like to speculate on what might be external, such as other universes which give birth to new universes, but they simply remain theoretical.

I am going to say this again, since it appears you still do not understand this:

Nothing is known about what is external to the universe. It may be 'nothing'. It may be other universes. It may be something else.

As such, you cannot claim that causes are required for the universe.

you are again wrong.

http://thoughtlife.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-part-1-scientific-observations/

Stephen Hawking writes, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.

If it had a beginning, there was nothing physical " prior " the Big Bang. That is obvious. It remains irrational to believe, the Universe was cause of itself. Therefore, the universe had a cause ;)

owheelj
30th May 2010, 01:54 PM
Tsid, I have a non hateful question for you.

Imagine that we live in a world where scientists don't actually think that the Big Bang was the actual creation of the universe out of nothing. If we lived in this world, what evidence would it take to convince you of this point. Please be as specific as possible in your answer.

IVPITER
30th May 2010, 01:55 PM
Since when only science should be a valid base to form our world view ?
Science is limited in its ability to answer the foremost questions about our existence. Why should religion and philosophy not be a valid ground, to form our beliefs ?
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this thread about our origin? Science is the only method so far that has given the best answers for how we came to be. Atomic, evolution and the big bang theory come from science and shit all has come from religion so if you what to say god created the universe show some scientific research otherwise your theory is meaningless.

owheelj
30th May 2010, 01:56 PM
you are again wrong.

http://thoughtlife.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-part-1-scientific-observations/

Stephen Hawking writes, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.

If it had a beginning, there was nothing physical " prior " the Big Bang. That is obvious. It remains irrational to believe, the Universe was cause of itself. Therefore, the universe had a cause ;)

He's talking about the observable known universe, he's not talking about everything that exists in every dimension.

stewiegriffin81
30th May 2010, 01:59 PM
you are again wrong.

http://thoughtlife.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-part-1-scientific-observations/

Stephen Hawking writes, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.

If it had a beginning, there was nothing physical " prior " the Big Bang. That is obvious. It remains irrational to believe, the Universe was cause of itself. Therefore, the universe had a cause ;)

I am having trouble believing how ignorant you are. By the statement that "nothing physical" exists prior to the big bang, they are referring to nothing physical pertinent to this universe. They are not referring to what may or may not be external to the universe.

So yes, time and other physical aspects did not exist prior to the universe, because time and other physical aspects is a component of this universe. Again, we don't know what is external to this universe, and the big bang model acknowledges this.

Edit:

What Owheelj said.

wearestardust
30th May 2010, 02:02 PM
Unless any members have good reason why this person should not be terminated, the evasions and whiny blather will be finished in approximately twelve hours, by termination of Tsid502's access.

I would like an answer to my question as to whether it is suffiecient to have looked at some da vinci drawings and been inside an aeroplane one to be a pilot,but I shan't insist - it is probaby fruitless. I note that he also hasn't answered Xeno's questions (I note Xeno has noted it too:)) but our antagonist seems to want to assert that mere assertion is sufficient.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 02:05 PM
Tsid, I have a non hateful question for you.

Imagine that we live in a world where scientists don't actually think that the Big Bang was the actual creation of the universe out of nothing. If we lived in this world, what evidence would it take to convince you of this point. Please be as specific as possible in your answer.

there could be many reasons to deduce, the universe was eternal. but there are philosophical reasons , which make it difficult to believe, the universe had no beginning, in whatever form.

The argument goes basically like this :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosophy-and-god-f14/philosophy-of-time-t178.htm

A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.

The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.

Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

davo
30th May 2010, 02:06 PM
you are again wrong.

http://thoughtlife.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-part-1-scientific-observations/


Oh the Kalam eh .. so, please show how the universe has to have a beginning.


Stephen Hawking writes, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang.

Actually no he didn't, even the wording is out of context. It's a failed quote mine by De'Souza. It's also a quote from 1994, the past 15 years he has spent working on these concepts, including bubble universes, which are totally opposite to what you are trying to assert.

He wrote :

"So in the end our [Hawking and Penrose] work became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a Big Bang singularity."

However, the very next sentence Hawking writes:

"It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe – as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account." (p. 50 The Nature of Space & Time)

He is actually talking about theories, and a singularity has never been claimed had to have a 'cause', it could always have existed.


If it had a beginning, there was nothing physical " prior " the Big Bang. That is obvious. It remains irrational to believe, the Universe was cause of itself. Therefore, the universe had a cause ;)

It's not obvious. The big bang just means the sudden expansion of space time, it has nothing to do with cosmogenesis, which is an aspect outside it, just as evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

RealityRules
30th May 2010, 02:07 PM
[quote=Tsid502;89439... the only alternative to believe, the universe was cause and effect of itself. How could it cause itself, if it did not exist " before " the Big Bang ? that makes no sense.[/quote]

Try this, which I think is fantastic: the proposed 'principle" starts at about 50 sec in - "starting with something in 10(-99) cubic cm with a mass of 1/100,00th of a gram"

http://www.youtube.com/watch_videos?more_url=%2Fmy_favorites&video_ids=fxNbXjBbzEo%2Cv4HoixOCZWY&type=7&no_autoplay=1 here -

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/fxNbXjBbzEo&hl=en_GB&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/fxNbXjBbzEo&hl=en_GB&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 02:10 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this thread about our origin? Science is the only method so far that has given the best answers for how we came to be. Atomic, evolution and the big bang theory come from science and shit all has come from religion so if you what to say god created the universe show some scientific research otherwise your theory is meaningless.

Science cannot explain and answer, why there is something, rather than nothing. Science can explain how some things happened, but not , why.
Science cannot answer, why there actually was a Big Bang, rather than no Big Bang. Science cannot answer why the universe is finely tuned to life. It can only observe, and say it seems it is finely tuned to life. Science can find out about the complexity of a cell, and of the existence of DNA, but it cannot explain its origin. That is left to our interpretation. Its left to philosophy, and religion. The answers of ultimate truth about our existence relies not in the realm of science, but religion, and philosophy.

IVPITER
30th May 2010, 02:12 PM
Science cannot explain and answer, why there is something, rather than nothing. Science can explain how some things happened, but not , why.
Science cannot answer, why there actually was a Big Bang, rather than no Big Bang. Science cannot answer why the universe is finely tuned to life. It can only observe, and say it seems it is finely tuned to life. Science can find out about the complexity of a cell, and of the existence of DNA, but it cannot explain its origin. That is left to our interpretation. Its left to philosophy, and religion. The answers of ultimate truth about our existence relies not in the realm of science, but religion, and philosophy.
Why does there need to be a why?

davo
30th May 2010, 02:14 PM
there could be many reasons to deduce, the universe was eternal. but there are philosophical reasons , which make it difficult to believe, the universe had no beginning, in whatever form.

The argument goes basically like this :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosophy-and-god-f14/philosophy-of-time-t178.htm

A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.

The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.

Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.

The universe is not a part of the collection of itself. You are trying to assert that the universe as a collection, is subject to the properties of itself.

Secondly, disproving infinity disproves the existence of an infinite god.

thirdly if your god is the only thing in a set of things that do not begin to exist, then you are begging the question.

GenericBox
30th May 2010, 02:16 PM
Science cannot explain and answer, why there is something, rather than nothing. Science can explain how some things happened, but not , why.
Science cannot answer, why there actually was a Big Bang, rather than no Big Bang. Science cannot answer why the universe is finely tuned to life. It can only observe, and say it seems it is finely tuned to life. Science can find out about the complexity of a cell, and of the existence of DNA, but it cannot explain its origin. That is left to our interpretation. Its left to philosophy, and religion. The answers of ultimate truth about our existence relies not in the realm of science, but religion, and philosophy.


No truer words of ignorance.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 02:16 PM
I am having trouble believing how ignorant you are. By the statement that "nothing physical" exists prior to the big bang, they are referring to nothing physical pertinent to this universe. They are not referring to what may or may not be external to the universe.

I don't accept name calling. Once again, and i will not answer you anymore, either. sorry.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/evidence-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning-t199-15.htm

Translated into the contemporary physicist's terms, the spatio-temporal world was created by God's word at the Big Bang, the beginning event and initial cosmic singularity (which has been dubbed t=0 or to). Astronomers John Barrow and Joseph Silk state that science points to "the traditional metaphysical picture of creation out of nothing, for it predicts a definite beginning to events in time, indeed a definite beginning to time itself."11 "Before" this initial singularity, space, time, matter, and motion did not exist. There was simply nothing (the simpler term for "infinite density").12 It must be added that when we speak of nothing, we must not imagine "nothing" as empty space or "an area of non-existence alongside of or over against the existence of God which would thereby be reduced to an existence with limitations."

What do you not understand specially bold marked ?

davo
30th May 2010, 02:18 PM
I don't accept name calling. Once again, and i will not answer you anymore, either. sorry.

One sec, either you interact on the boards or get off them. I'm serious.

You cannot just claim 'name calling' gives you the right to not have to deal with the members of the AFA or the mod team.

owheelj
30th May 2010, 02:18 PM
there could be many reasons to deduce, the universe was eternal. but there are philosophical reasons , which make it difficult to believe, the universe had no beginning, in whatever form.

The argument goes basically like this :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosophy-and-god-f14/philosophy-of-time-t178.htm

A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.

The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition.

Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite.


Sorry, you've somehow misunderstood my question, let me rephrase it.

If in reality we are right, and you are wrong, what hypothetical evidence could we present to convince you of this?

davo
30th May 2010, 02:22 PM
Tsid502 if you feel you have been unduly 'attacked' by someone saying 'you idiot' or 'I am having trouble believing how ignorant you are' report the posts to the mods using the feature.

If the infractions are deemed to be worthy the individuals (including myself as a moderator) can be given time off the board.

But seriously, stop whining at the slightest appearance of a 'slight' to yourself.

stewiegriffin81
30th May 2010, 02:24 PM
I don't accept name calling. Once again, and i will not answer you anymore, either. sorry.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/evidence-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning-t199-15.htm

Translated into the contemporary physicist's terms, the spatio-temporal world was created by God's word at the Big Bang, the beginning event and initial cosmic singularity (which has been dubbed t=0 or to). Astronomers John Barrow and Joseph Silk state that science points to "the traditional metaphysical picture of creation out of nothing, for it predicts a definite beginning to events in time, indeed a definite beginning to time itself."11 "Before" this initial singularity, space, time, matter, and motion did not exist. There was simply nothing (the simpler term for "infinite density").12 It must be added that when we speak of nothing, we must not imagine "nothing" as empty space or "an area of non-existence alongside of or over against the existence of God which would thereby be reduced to an existence with limitations."

What do you not understand specially bold marked ?

I am not name calling. I am stating a fact. Yet again, those astronomers are referring to aspects specific to this universe. Space, time, matter and motion are specific attributes to this universe, and this universe alone. Hence, of course they did not exist prior to this universe, since they are part of this universe.

However, this has nothing to do with aspects external to this universe. Something that physicists occasionally discuss (as Davos mentioned, Hawkings worked on universes spawing baby universes), but is nothing more than theoretical.

Again, please reconsider your position. Nowhere in the big bang theory, nor anywhere else in science, are aspects of the external universe actually verified or even more than just speculated upon. As such, claiming that causality is necessary is an unsupported claim.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 02:28 PM
Sorry, you've somehow misunderstood my question, let me rephrase it.

If in reality we are right, and you are wrong, what hypothetical evidence could we present to convince you of this?

if someone would prove, Jesus Christ did not arise from the death, my faith would be worthless, and i would stop to be a christian.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 02:30 PM
I am not name calling. I am stating a fact. .

Then i guess, you should search somebody that is more educated, and less ignorant, than i am, to debate. At least you will not loose your time, and might learn something from the counterpart. Or what do you expect to learn from somebody, that is ignorant in your view ?

davo
30th May 2010, 02:30 PM
if someone would prove, Jesus Christ did not arise from the death, my faith would be worthless, and i would stop to be a christian.

meh this is like trying to 'prove' there are no leprechauns.

stewiegriffin81
30th May 2010, 02:31 PM
Then i guess, you should search somebody that is more educated, and less ignorant, than i am, to debate. At least you will not loose your time, and might learn something from the counterpart. Or what do you expect to learn from somebody, that is ignorant in your view ?

What I am trying to do is teach you some basic principles of science, and a basic understanding of physics.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 02:32 PM
Ok. Participants are starting to insult me, and calling me a idiot, and ignorant. The level of discussion is becoming lower. I see a soon end of my participation coming at this board.....

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 02:33 PM
What I am trying to do is teach you some basic principles of science, and a basic understanding of physics.

Sorry, that is not the way to do it. Be polite, or search someone else to debate with.

thanks.

davo
30th May 2010, 02:33 PM
Then i guess, you should search somebody that is more educated, and less ignorant, than i am, to debate. At least you will not loose your time, and might learn something from the counterpart. Or what do you expect to learn from somebody, that is ignorant in your view ?

Stop playing the hurt fawn defence.

Stewie pointed out how you were ignorant on a point.

Not knowing something is not a crime, or bad. Just because you are ignorant on a point does not make you wholly ignorant on everything.

Please get a grip and stop whining, please, and let's dicsuss the issues presented rather than just pick out emotive words in the discussion to focus on, or just deny further discussion based on

wearestardust
30th May 2010, 02:37 PM
At least you will not loose your time,

wut??



(Edit: I am not concerned about spelling per se, I am rolling around the floor, foaming at the mouth, at the appearance here of what seems to be a special spelling of "lose" en vogue in certain parts of the net. Its use indicates the possibility not of poor spelling, but perverse and wilful poor spelling).

(Edit 2: why won't you answer my question?)

Sir Patrick Crocodile
30th May 2010, 02:39 PM
if someone would prove, Jesus Christ did not arise from the death, my faith would be worthless, and i would stop to be a christian.Do you know anything about your faith?

RealityRules
30th May 2010, 02:46 PM
Science cannot explain and answer, why there is something, rather than nothing. Science can explain how some things happened, but not , why.

Rubbish. Science can explain why hybridization occurred inGergor Mendel's mumerous pea experiments, and science can explain why DNA works; why fossils form, etc

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 02:49 PM
wut??



(Edit: I am not concerned about spelling per se, I am rolling around the floor, foaming at the mouth, at the appearance here of what seems to be a special spelling of "lose" en vogue in certain parts of the net. Its use indicates the possibility not of poor spelling, but perverse and wilful poor spelling).

(Edit 2: why won't you answer my question?)

sorry, i english is not my native language, so i might spell some words wrong.

davo
30th May 2010, 02:52 PM
It is one thing to claim that the universe has a cause, it is another to extrapolate that cause as being something that is intelligent, and further, the christian god.

These are leaps to a conclusion with no evidence. The christian god is a logical impossibility in it's common form.

IVPITER
30th May 2010, 02:56 PM
if someone would prove, Jesus Christ did not arise from the death, my faith would be worthless, and i would stop to be a christian.

Your faith is worthless. Of course you wouldn't believe that I rose from the dead or my daughter was born from my head fully formed, yet you believe a man nailed to the cross was god and came back from the dead because it is in a 1900 year old book

davo
30th May 2010, 02:59 PM
you are again wrong.

http://thoughtlife.wordpress.com/2008/07/25/the-kalam-cosmological-argument-part-1-scientific-observations/


OK here's something, Bertrand Russell, in his 1948 debate with Copleston, touched on one of the problems with the first premise of the Kalam Cosmological argument you are presenting.

This is the Kalam :

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

William Lane Craig, then states : "The logic of the argument is valid and very simple; the argument has the same logical structure as the argument: 'All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal.' So the question is, are there good reasons to believe that each of the steps is true? I think there are." (Craig, Reasonable Faith, p. 72.)

Here is Bertrand's approach to the first flaw in the argument :

"I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all. . . . I can illustrate what seems to me your fallacy. Every man who exists has a mother, and it seems to me your argument is that therefore the human race must have a mother, but obviously the human race hasn't a mother--that's a different logical sphere."

This is what you are trying to do with regard 'cause'. It is not logical and has a serious flaw just in that, let alone the others I mentioned above.

RealityRules
30th May 2010, 03:04 PM
if someone would prove, Jesus Christ did not arise from the death, my faith would be worthless, and i would stop to be a christian.

Apaert from the 4 gospels stories, all derived from just one or two sources, there is no credible proof Jesus existed. The references in the non-Gospel literature is a few references to a Jesus, a brother James, the Christians, and the Chrestus in later writings of Josephus, Tacticus, etc.

There is so little reference to his time on Earth after the Resurrection - supposedly the greatest event in human history - that it has to be a later additon to the narratives around the confabulated charcter.

Moreover, Codex Sinaiticus - the 4th C bible that is the earliest found - has no post-resurrection accounts in Mark, also suggesting they were later additions (ie added after the 4th C)

davo
30th May 2010, 03:07 PM
Apaert from the 4 gospels stories, all derived from just one or two sources, there is no credible proof Jesus existed. The references in the non-Gospel literature is a few references to a Jesus, a brother James, the Christians, and the Chrestus in later writings of Josephus, Tacticus, etc.


R6THwSYY_aU

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 03:08 PM
Apaert from the 4 gospels stories, all derived from just one or two sources, there is no credible proof Jesus existed. The references in the non-Gospel literature is a few references to a Jesus, a brother James, the Christians, and the Chrestus in later writings of Josephus, Tacticus, etc.

There is so little reference to his time on Earth after the Resurrection - supposedly the greatest event in human history - that it has to be a later additon to the narratives around the confabulated charcter.

Moreover, Codex Sinaiticus - the 4th C bible that is the earliest found - has no post-resurrection accounts in Mark, also suggesting they were later additions (ie added after the 4th C)

you might read this article, and then rethink your position.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

davo
30th May 2010, 03:11 PM
Dr Sten Odenwall (http://www.astronomycafe.net/vita.html) on the misconception creationists latch onto regarding the universe coming from 'nothing'.

When physicists say 'nothing' they are being playful with the English language, because we often think of the vacuum as being 'empty' or 'nothing' when in fact physicists know full well that the vacuum is far from empty.

The primordial 'state' at the Big Bang was far from being the kind of 'nothingness' you might have in mind. We don't have a full mathematical theory for describing this 'state' yet, but it was probably 'multi-dimensional', it was probably a superposition of many different 'fields', and these fields, or whatever they were, were undergoing 'quantum fluctuations'.

Space and time were not the things we know them to be today because our world is a lot colder than the way it started out.

Nothingness was not nothing, but it was not anything like the kinds of 'somethings' we know about today. We have no words to describe it, and the ones we borrow (that are listed in the Oxford English Dictionary) are based on the wrong physical insight.

davo
30th May 2010, 03:14 PM
you might read this article, and then rethink your position.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

That is an error of reasoning called a logical fallacy, a circular argument. It is using the bible to try and prove that what the bible says is true.

Please watch the video I posted. There is major problems with the gaps between when jesus supposedly existed and pauls (Saul) revelations, which then have been added too in further gospel.

Just like a myth.

RealityRules
30th May 2010, 03:18 PM
This is the Kalam :

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

William Lane Craig, then states : "The logic of the argument is valid and very simple; the argument has the same logical structure as the argument: 'All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal.' So the question is, are there good reasons to believe that each of the steps is true? I think there are." (Craig, Reasonable Faith, p. 72.)



There are at least a couple of possible separate un-related errors here

1. The second premiss may not be true.

2. The first may be answered as being an oscillation rather than "a cause per se" as per the video I posted @ , 02:07 PM [# 198]

davo
30th May 2010, 03:25 PM
Yea there are a lot of problems with the argument all the way thru.

The supposition that anything caused must have a cause is flawed logic when one creates the answer 'therefore god', as this leads to the logical conclusion, that this god must have a cause, in infinite regress.

Craig, the foremost proponent of the argument today, makes the supposition that time has specific formats that fit his model. Where for causality to occur, there must be time. Where there is no time, there is no causality. It is a paradox of creation. The problem for Dr Craig, is he has to prove that which no scientist yet knows, is the version of time that he defines it as AND explain how something effectively comes from nothing, with no causality.

It also leaves one having to make the leap to explaining how one gets from this 'creation' to the concept of a god as put forward by christianity, explaining how one understands something that is beyond all that can be known. It is a leap from what looks to be simple, to explaining how this 'force' would be the massively complex one described, and not extremely simple, as we see with any other process within the universe.

RealityRules
30th May 2010, 03:36 PM
you might read this article, and then rethink your position.

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

It doesn't matter what Ireaneus, Justin Matyr, or whoever, else including NT Wright, say - they were all alluding to the Gnostic notions of a spiritual, mythical figure that became a legend of a physical figure through Paul's epistles.

Those epistles are just an extension of those Gnostic writings which is why he never gives an account of Jesus' life, and just narrates his supposed experience, and encompasses the promise of a second coming in the near future, as well as relaying the other teachings. Paul's attempts at spreading the concept were captured more than the other stories, whcih were deemed retrosectively to be heretical, when the real heresy was the canonising of the resurrection stories.

davo
30th May 2010, 03:37 PM
The basis of the arguments being used in this thread is the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

I recommed the Atheist Experience shows on this topic for the average reader

YlPwbd5NHaQ

FpZIVF2dlHE

Also Dan Barker has a nice write up about the problems with the argument here :

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html

RealityRules
30th May 2010, 03:41 PM
Dr Sten Odenwall (http://www.astronomycafe.net/vita.html) on the misconception creationists latch onto regarding the universe coming from 'nothing'.

We don't have a full mathematical theory for describing this [primordial] 'state' yet, but it was probably 'multi-dimensional', it was probably a superposition of many different 'fields', and these fields, or whatever they were, were undergoing 'quantum fluctuations'.

Those 'quantum fluctuations' are explained in the video I posted in # 198.

Annie
30th May 2010, 03:51 PM
you might read this article, and then rethink your position.


Oh my Goodness!! You are still floggin the same dead horse??? It's over. You lost. Several times in fact. :eek: Do yourself a favour and stop making a utter twit of yourself.

davo
30th May 2010, 03:55 PM
Here is James Still talking about the problems with the current apologists arguments regarding eternity and time in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, specifically as put forward by Dr Craig.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/kalam.html

owheelj
30th May 2010, 04:07 PM
if someone would prove, Jesus Christ did not arise from the death, my faith would be worthless, and i would stop to be a christian.



So let me get this straight; your assertion that the universe had a beginning 14.7 billion years ago and that before that beginning there was literally absolutely nothing can only be disproved by proving that a particular person 2000 years ago didn't rise from the dead?

Xeno
30th May 2010, 05:06 PM
I was rather struck by that magnificent leap as well owheelj. If that is the touchstone then why does Tsid502 ever bother to refer to any science at all?

Your question of me, Tsid502, what exactly do i not understand in regards of thermodynamics ? On page 3 WLB in #114, reinforced by Jaar-Gilon in #118 To claim that a god (you haven't described how you know it's the one you worship) created the universe goes against the first law of thermodynamics. Are you cherry picking the laws of physics?
or as davo asked on p4 in #142 Please show proof of the statement everything that exists has a cause, this violates the first law of thermodynamics No answers have been seen other than blind assertion or your puzzled query. It goes with your failure to understand SG81's oft-repeated point about lack of knowledge of states prior to the big bang, which equivalently takes us back to your abysmal failure to comprehend your gotg problem.

You prove the position with your above requirement that a resurrection be disproved before you will accept scientific results (including the ones you don't like). You have already chosen a god. The rest of this interminable ramble is you trying to stick him somewhere you imagine science will permit it, based on your sometimes poor reading of already crapulous web sites.

Not a citation in sight, just a swallowing of other fools' quote-mines and logical follies.

mayor of simpleton
30th May 2010, 06:32 PM
And what caused time/space, accumulation/adaptation ? you might try to answer this question in first place.

Simple... cause is redundant.

Cause is our invention. We view things as having a beginning and an end. We are limited to a finite perspective of events and can only be aware of a finite number of the infinite possibilities.

A step back for a moment...

The universe is made of energy. This energy is finite. This energy cannot be made nor can it be destroyed. It simply 'changes' form/direction/dynamic, but what there is simply is and it will not be more or less.

The potential of this energy (its possible 'application', a word connotating 'use'... this valuation is meaningful to use, but nonsense for the universe... more later) infinite. The are no bounds as to what this energy can 'do', 'become', 'be' within the universe.

Here is the problem of language. Our language is descriptive and is built upon a foundation of 'value accessments'. To say words such as 'do', 'be', 'change', 'act', 'become', 'application', 'use'... they are all terms of our limited understanding of infinite potential. Things (energy) must be created. Really? Why? :confused:

Creation is our naive perception that something somewhere; that is really nothing and nowhere, made a first action; though did nothing, and everything came into being thereafter.

Why is this necessary for us? :confused:

Perhaps our limited perspective of the wholeand us simply being part of a whole leads us to this orientation. Perhaps it is our built in 'obcession' to have purpose and value to everything we encounter. Perhaps it is our egotistical drive to make everything fit to our needs rather than be part of simpyl what it is. Perhaps it is the only way we can feel 'empowered' and be 'masters of our own destiny'.

There are a lot of perhaps lines we can add here, but the point is, we dicate what is purpose, intent, value, cause, moral, sense, application and so one... These are all relative terms and cannot be applied the the universe as some sort of list of demands as to how the universe should play by a set of rules.

The universe does not play games. We do.
The universe has no intent. We do.
The universe establishes no value. We do.
The universe is not moral. We are.
The universe has no reasoning. We do.
The universe has not purpose. We establish purpose.
The universe simply is. We look for cause.
The universe demands nothing. We demand everything.

If you simply rules out our naive demand that the universe MUST be created, you open a door where you once thought a wall to be. Stop banging your head against the door. We'll open it for you, but you have to go in yourself. ;)

By the way...the noise is giving us all a headache. :p

Meow!

GREG

wearestardust
30th May 2010, 06:55 PM
sorry, i english is not my native language, so i might spell some words wrong.

I see you've noticed my existence. How about answering my question?

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 08:19 PM
Simple... cause is redundant.

Cause is our invention. We view things as having a beginning and an end. We are limited to a finite perspective of events and can only be aware of a finite number of the infinite possibilities.

A step back for a moment...

The universe is made of energy. This energy is finite. This energy cannot be made nor can it be destroyed. It simply 'changes' form/direction/dynamic, but what there is simply is and it will not be more or less.

The potential of this energy (its possible 'application', a word connotating 'use'... this valuation is meaningful to use, but nonsense for the universe... more later) infinite. The are no bounds as to what this energy can 'do', 'become', 'be' within the universe.

Here is the problem of language. Our language is descriptive and is built upon a foundation of 'value accessments'. To say words such as 'do', 'be', 'change', 'act', 'become', 'application', 'use'... they are all terms of our limited understanding of infinite potential. Things (energy) must be created. Really? Why? :confused:

Creation is our naive perception that something somewhere; that is really nothing and nowhere, made a first action; though did nothing, and everything came into being thereafter.

Why is this necessary for us? :confused:

Perhaps our limited perspective of the wholeand us simply being part of a whole leads us to this orientation. Perhaps it is our built in 'obcession' to have purpose and value to everything we encounter. Perhaps it is our egotistical drive to make everything fit to our needs rather than be part of simpyl what it is. Perhaps it is the only way we can feel 'empowered' and be 'masters of our own destiny'.

There are a lot of perhaps lines we can add here, but the point is, we dicate what is purpose, intent, value, cause, moral, sense, application and so one... These are all relative terms and cannot be applied the the universe as some sort of list of demands as to how the universe should play by a set of rules.

The universe does not play games. We do.
The universe has no intent. We do.
The universe establishes no value. We do.
The universe is not moral. We are.
The universe has no reasoning. We do.
The universe has not purpose. We establish purpose.
The universe simply is. We look for cause.
The universe demands nothing. We demand everything.

If you simply rules out our naive demand that the universe MUST be created, you open a door where you once thought a wall to be. Stop banging your head against the door. We'll open it for you, but you have to go in yourself. ;)

By the way...the noise is giving us all a headache. :p

Meow!

GREG

well, your noise makes me actually not comprehend anything you are writing.... you might want to be more clear about the point you want to make. :rolleyes:

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 08:24 PM
I was rather struck by that magnificent leap as well owheelj. If that is the touchstone then why does Tsid502 ever bother to refer to any science at all?

Your question of me, Tsid502, On page 3 WLB in #114, reinforced by Jaar-Gilon in #118 or as davo asked on p4 in #142 No answers have been seen other than blind assertion or your puzzled query. It goes with your failure to understand SG81's oft-repeated point about lack of knowledge of states prior to the big bang, which equivalently takes us back to your abysmal failure to comprehend your gotg problem.

You prove the position with your above requirement that a resurrection be disproved before you will accept scientific results (including the ones you don't like). You have already chosen a god. The rest of this interminable ramble is you trying to stick him somewhere you imagine science will permit it, based on your sometimes poor reading of already crapulous web sites.

Not a citation in sight, just a swallowing of other fools' quote-mines and logical follies.


I have responded already to that point. As said, the natural laws became effective after the Big Bang. So the fact of the universe having a beginning ,and the creation of energy/matter , do not violate the first law of thermdynamics. Which part of what i said you do not understand ?

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 08:25 PM
So let me get this straight; your assertion that the universe had a beginning 14.7 billion years ago and that before that beginning there was literally absolutely nothing can only be disproved by proving that a particular person 2000 years ago didn't rise from the dead?

there is no reason to interconnect the two quests. I was asked what would make me renounce to my christian faith. I answered this question, without regard of the quest of the beginning of the universe. So dont mix up things, please.

davo
30th May 2010, 08:31 PM
You seem to be totally avoiding my commentary, I wonder why :rolleyes:

davo
30th May 2010, 08:31 PM
I have responded already to that point. As said, the natural laws became effective after the Big Bang. So the fact of the universe having a beginning ,and the creation of energy/matter , do not violate the first law of thermdynamics. Which part of what i said you do not understand ?

Where is your evidence for this?

Loki
30th May 2010, 08:36 PM
there is no reason to interconnect the two quests. I was asked what would make me renounce to my christian faith. I answered this question, without regard of the quest of the beginning of the universe. So dont mix up things, please.

So are you saying there are two gods, one a nameless and vague sort of "originator" and the other the nameless Abrahamic god? Where did the second one come from?

I have responded already to that point. As said, the natural laws became effective after the Big Bang. So the fact of the universe having a beginning ,and the creation of energy/matter , do not violate the first law of thermdynamics. Which part of what i said you do not understand ?

And this nameless and vague "originator" god exists outside of the natural universe, in effect outside of reality. I think we can both agree on that.

mayor of simpleton
30th May 2010, 09:29 PM
well, your noise makes me actually not comprehend anything you are writing.... you might want to be more clear about the point you want to make. :rolleyes:

Might I suggest that in furture debates, especially those addressing logic, cosmology, relativity, phenonology and philosophy of language, you come better prepaired for such a debate.

My points are not cryptic, illogical nor do they lack qualities of lucid clarity. I will not make the claimof being an 'authority' on the issue (though I actually have a B.S. in Philosophy/Religion, not a statement of authority, but statement of a vaild basis to speak from).

I would highly suggest that you actually read bit and pieces from David Hume and Ludwig Wittgenstein, then you may have an understanding of what we are really dealing with here. There are many many more good writer on this topic, but I do not wish to overwhelm you. A good foundation in the topic cannot hurt.

Your argument is hardly new. Only the the attachments with regard to the 2nd law of thermodynamics are from the 20th century. We are now in the 21st Century, but the format of the Cosmological Argument is really really old hat. There are so many logical fallacies one does not know really where to begin.

The argument is not vaild. Logic cannot help you there. I did not make the rules of logic. I just obey them like we all have too. No one has the right to simply bend logic to their own wants and needs.

If you would say to me that god created the universe and you believe this on the grounds of faith, I have no problem with that. :)

If you insist that this faith is founded upon a personal perception that you hold personally to be valid, I'll give you that. This is your choice to believe what you wish. :(

If you futher insist that the faith is a sound argument and via faith we must say this is true, then I need to act. :eek:

The assumption of a creator is pure speculation. You have not truths to back this as a universal true. If do did assume that you have fact, then faith would be rendered redundant. Where fact beings, faith disappears. Even the Biblical Text insists that the believers must have faith to understand this concept. Fact is not an issue in the dynamics of faith.

Why do you trivialize your own beliefs by insisting upon facts to support a position of faith? :confused:

I'll give you a theologian for this one. Check out Paul Tillich, 'Dynamics of Faith'. To grasp what we are discussing here, please read the chapter 'What Faith is not'. Tillich is a Christian Theologian and not an atheist. :)

It would help you to know the difference between knowledge of a low degree of evidence and faith. It might help you with your faith. That was Tillich's intent. ;)

Meow!

GREG

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 09:43 PM
Might I suggest that in furture debates, especially those addressing logic, cosmology, relativity, phenonology and philosophy of language, you come better prepaired for such a debate.

Is that one of the several already cheap attacks, to discredit my view and knowledge, or do you have concrete reasons to make this criticism ?


I would highly suggest that you actually read bit and pieces from David Hume and Ludwig Wittgenstein, then you may have an understanding of what we are really dealing with here.

" We " , or " you " ? Btw, i am the thread starter, if you forgot....



Your argument is hardly new. Only the the attachments with regard to the 2nd law of thermodynamics are from the 20th century. We are now in the 21st Century,

i have not claimed to have a new argument. Fact is that it makes no difference, when the law was first discovered. It has universal value up until today. These laws have not changed since discovered.


but the format of the Cosmological Argument is really really old hat. There are so many logical fallacies one does not know really where to begin.

So you might start to point them out.



The argument is not vaild. Logic cannot help you there. I did not make the rules of logic. I just obey them like we all have too. No one has the right to simply bend logic to their own wants and needs.

i am waiting you to point out why the argument is not valid.


If you would say to me that god created the universe and you believe this on the grounds of faith, I have no problem with that. :)

Well, i embrace that not only by faith, but also backed up with scientific evidence.


The assumption of a creator is pure speculation.

whatever answer we will accept as sound, it will always be a matter of faith.
Your atheistic view isnt more than speculation as well. So we are both on the same ground.


Why do you trivialize your own beliefs by insisting upon facts to support a position of faith? :confused:

We as christians do have a REASONABLE faith. That means, we do base our faith also on reasonable and rational ground. Our faith is backed up by science, and philosophy.


It would help you to know the difference between knowledge of a low degree of evidence and faith. It might help you with your faith. That was Tillich's intent. ;)

I back up my faith on HIGH degree of evidence ;) , aka a abundant knowledge on hand of scientific discoveries, based on which i interprete reality, and base my faith on. :)

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 09:44 PM
So are you saying there are two gods, one a nameless and vague sort of "originator" and the other the nameless Abrahamic god? Where did the second one come from?



And this nameless and vague "originator" god exists outside of the natural universe, in effect outside of reality. I think we can both agree on that.

Nope. I believe in the trinitarian God of the bible ;)

Sir Patrick Crocodile
30th May 2010, 09:45 PM
Nope. I believe in the trinitarian God of the bible ;)Do you know much about your faith? Just asking this because most people who come in here believing in God actually don't know a lot about their faith.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 09:46 PM
Where is your evidence for this?

http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/1law.html

Matter cannot create itself and, in the real world, cannot arise from nothing. Within the bounds of natural law all effects must have a cause.6 Because of this fact, the spontaneous appearance of hydrogen atoms out of nothing (ex nihilo creation) is a definite breach of the First Law of Thermodynamics which asserts that matter, under natural circumstances, can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, since it is not a natural event, it is by definition a supernatural event-a miracle! This is, we believe, a rather weak starting point for a materialistic scenario to begin.

Since matter is not eternal, we are left with only one option- it arose out of nothing at a finite point in the past! Ironically, the scientific materialist who argues that all matter in the universe arose out of nothing is in agreement with the biblical creationist. However, biblical creationists readily admit that the appearance of matter out of nothing was a miracle, performed by a "First Cause" that transcends the physical universe. The scientific materialist, who believes, as Carl Sagan does, that "the Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be," is forced to conclude that the Cosmic egg arose from nothingness apart from any causal agent.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 09:48 PM
Do you know much about your faith? Just asking this because most people who come in here believing in God actually don't know a lot about their faith.

If i would not know much about my faith, would we still be here discussing ?

Sir Patrick Crocodile
30th May 2010, 09:51 PM
If i would not know much about my faith, would we still be here discussing ?Some people have been known to barge in here not knowing anything about their own god, and claiming it as scientifically accurate. So is there any benefit of performing the ceremony specified in Leviticus 14:1 then?

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 10:11 PM
Some people have been known to barge in here not knowing anything about their own god, and claiming it as scientifically accurate. So is there any benefit of performing the ceremony specified in Leviticus 14:1 then?

today not. It was meant to be a law for the jews, living in the time of the old testament.

mayor of simpleton
30th May 2010, 10:21 PM
Is that one of the several already cheap attacks, to discredit my view and knowledge, or do you have concrete reasons to make this criticism ?



" We " , or " you " ? Btw, i am the thread starter, if you forgot....




i have not claimed to have a new argument. Fact is that it makes no difference, when the law was first discovered. It has universal value up until today. These laws have not changed since discovered.



So you might start to point them out.




i am waiting you to point out why the argument is not valid.



Well, i embrace that not only by faith, but also backed up with scientific evidence.



whatever answer we will accept as sound, it will always be a matter of faith.
Your atheistic view isnt more than speculation as well. So we are both on the same ground.



We as christians do have a REASONABLE faith. That means, we do base our faith also on reasonable and rational ground. Our faith is backed up by science, and philosophy.



I back up my faith on HIGH degree of evidence ;) , aka a abundant knowledge on hand of scientific discoveries, based on which i interprete reality, and base my faith on. :)

I was trying to be nice. Oh well...

Goes to show you, often cannot help the helpless.

I'm not going to conduct a class in Basic Philosophy, Linguistic Phenomonlogy or Systems of Logic. I get paid for that.

I'm done here.

Meow!

GREG

Goldenmane
30th May 2010, 10:26 PM
citing cosmologysts working in the relevant fields. I believe them, and the conclusion, they take on the Big Bang theory : our universe had a absolute beginning.

That's bullshit of the first water, and your supposed citing of them makes bullshit of the second water. You can't even spell 'cosmologist' for fuck's sake. Big Bang Theory doesn't posit that the universe has an absolute beginning, and doesn't even pretend to it. It deals only with the current instantiation, and says nothing regarding anything beyond the first Planck instant. It manifestly can't, and doesn't even pretend to do so.

I'm not even going to bother to go into why "Big Bang Theory" is a non-sequitur (or however you spell it).

Loki
30th May 2010, 10:26 PM
today not. It was meant to be a law for the jews, living in the time of the old testament.

So it worked back then did it?

Sir Patrick Crocodile
30th May 2010, 10:29 PM
today not. It was meant to be a law for the jews, living in the time of the old testament."It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 10:35 PM
That's bullshit of the first water, and your supposed citing of them makes bullshit of the second water. You can't even spell 'cosmologist' for fuck's sake. Big Bang Theory doesn't posit that the universe has an absolute beginning, and doesn't even pretend to it. It deals only with the current instantiation, and says nothing regarding anything beyond the first Planck instant. It manifestly can't, and doesn't even pretend to do so.

I'm not even going to bother to go into why "Big Bang Theory" is a non-sequitur (or however you spell it).

Its understandable that atheists do have a hard time to accept our universe had a absolute beginning. This is however where the evidence leads, no matter, if they want to accomplish this, or not. So its in my opinion the most reasonable position, to deal with this fact, that most probably the universe had a absolute beginning. This finds evidence in science,and philosophy.

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What%20is%20infinity.htm

Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.

Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/evidence-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning-t199.htm

Alexander Vilenkin is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from nothing.

Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

;)

davo
30th May 2010, 10:35 PM
http://members.tripod.com/~Black_J/1law.html

Matter cannot create itself and, in the real world, cannot arise from nothing. Within the bounds of natural law all effects must have a cause.6 Because of this fact, the spontaneous appearance of hydrogen atoms out of nothing (ex nihilo creation) is a definite breach of the First Law of Thermodynamics which asserts that matter, under natural circumstances, can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, since it is not a natural event, it is by definition a supernatural event-a miracle! This is, we believe, a rather weak starting point for a materialistic scenario to begin.

Since matter is not eternal, we are left with only one option- it arose out of nothing at a finite point in the past! Ironically, the scientific materialist who argues that all matter in the universe arose out of nothing is in agreement with the biblical creationist. However, biblical creationists readily admit that the appearance of matter out of nothing was a miracle, performed by a "First Cause" that transcends the physical universe. The scientific materialist, who believes, as Carl Sagan does, that "the Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be," is forced to conclude that the Cosmic egg arose from nothingness apart from any causal agent.

No you are wrong, or more correctly Missler is wrong, just as he is wrong about peanut butter disproving evolution.
The first law of thermodynamics is about energy, not matter.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 10:39 PM
"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

sorry, but i will not answer everything by myself.

What does it mean that Jesus fulfilled the law, but did not abolish it?

http://www.gotquestions.org/abolish-fulfill-law.html

Sir Patrick Crocodile
30th May 2010, 10:40 PM
Can you explain to me what you just linked? It is not a bad idea to use other documents as a base every once in a while, but at least explain the document a bit too.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 10:41 PM
No you are wrong, or more correctly Missler is wrong, just as he is wrong about peanut butter disproving evolution.
The first law of thermodynamics is about energy, not matter.

Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. So whats your point again ?

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 10:41 PM
Can you explain to me what you just linked? It is not a bad idea to use other documents as a base every once in a while, but at least explain the document a bit too.

Sorry no. i choose to which questions i answer by my own.

Sir Patrick Crocodile
30th May 2010, 10:42 PM
Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. So whats your point again ?When? From what I understand that specifically relates to his statement that if matter was moving >=c (speed of light is c) then some of the energy which is being used to move the object would convert into more mass for it, slowing it down.

The laws of thermodynamics relate specifically to isolated thermal systems.

Tsid502
30th May 2010, 11:10 PM
When? From what I understand that specifically relates to his statement that if matter was moving >=c (speed of light is c) then some of the energy which is being used to move the object would convert into more mass for it, slowing it down.

The laws of thermodynamics relate specifically to isolated thermal systems.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/legacy.html

On the most basic level, the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing. Under the right conditions, energy can become mass, and vice versa.

basically, this does not change anything about the point i made before. The universe is a isolated thermal system. Since energy/matter , space and time, did be created at the Big Bang, the first law of thermodynamics got in place at the moment of the Big Bang. So this is in my view evidence of a metaphysical ( external ) source or origin of all matter. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause. The universe had a absolute beginning, therefore a cause ;)

davo
30th May 2010, 11:15 PM
Energy can become mass.
Kinda knocks the idea you put forward about hydrogen atoms eh?

davo
30th May 2010, 11:19 PM
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/legacy.html

On the most basic level, the equation says that energy and mass (matter) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing. Under the right conditions, energy can become mass, and vice versa.

basically, this does not change anything about the point i made before. The universe is a isolated thermal system. Since energy/matter , space and time, did be created at the Big Bang, the first law of thermodynamics got in place at the moment of the Big Bang. So this is in my view evidence of a metaphysical ( external ) source or origin of all matter. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause. The universe had a absolute beginning, therefore a cause ;)

Read what i posted a lot earlier about the problems with that statement .... It's the kalam cosmological argument and i went thru the problems with your assertion.