Refute this

[predator CA]

I'm an atheist, but I'm a member of Catholic.com for various reasons, ammusment and honing my skill of debate. I will like to see you guys rebute this response I got. Thanks!

My Post - Quote:
Originally Posted by predator CA
So, I was somewhat shocked to see someone claim that the existence of the universe "logically implies a creator."

How is god not just the result of religious peoples' lack of direction and fear of death?

His Rebutal -

Well as to your second point, why would you assume belief in God is a result of lack of direction and a fear of death?

It's much more comfortable to believe that God does not exist if you have a lack of direction and a fear of death. i.e. If there is no God, there are no eternal consequences to consider in determining my actions...so...party on!

Too your 1st point, I personally came to "know" God again first through his creation. (One of those mountain top experience kinda things.) I believe that everyone can come to know "something" of God through his creation, but that's not the "logical" point.

The "logical point" is something like this: Anything that exists must have a cause, and if you keep going back eventually you have to get to a 1st cause and that 1st cause some call God.

Some folks can (and probably soon will in this tread) put this fort as a "proof" for the existance of God.

Once you establish that there is a first cause, then you can start to establish things that "must" be true about that first cause and then eventually you end up with a list of attributes for the first cause that sound like a reasonable approximation of our Human understanding of God's attributes.

Then at some point in the logic train folks will conclude...Therfore God Exists.

I've never thought that the argument "proved" their was a God. (If you could prove it, it wouldn't require faith!)

But it certainly offers a rational reason to accept that there is a 1st cause and that the first cause "might" be a loving God that cares about his creation.

Now I'm sure some Philosophy Phd Types can jump in and explain it all much better than I have.

Chuck

[Matt the Medic]

If a first cause must exist, simply use Ockham's razor on it: The universe just exists. Anything else attributed to the first cause simply assumes the conclusion.

Matt

[JamesBannon]

Yep, the argument is circular. Besides causation is just some relation we humans recognise as a pattern

[TomboyMom]

It's a very old and classically refuted argument which is really just special pleading. Everything needs a cause except...God. Kinda handy, that. You can just as well say everything needs a cause except the universe.

Also, how do you know the universe hasn't always existed?

[GenesisNemesis]

The conservation of mass-energy. Maybe more powerful than the Problem of Evil... :D

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm an atheist, but I'm a member of Catholic.com for various reasons, ammusment and honing my skill of debate. I will like to see you guys rebute this response I got. Thanks!

My Post - Quote:
Originally Posted by predator CA
So, I was somewhat shocked to see someone claim that the existence of the universe "logically implies a creator."

How is god not just the result of religious peoples' lack of direction and fear of death?


It's much more comfortable to believe that God does not exist if you have a lack of direction and a fear of death. i.e. If there is no God, there are no eternal consequences to consider in determining my actions...so...party on!

Do I have a good reason to commit atrocities? No.

Too your 1st point, I personally came to "know" God again first through his creation. (One of those mountain top experience kinda things.) I believe that everyone can come to know "something" of God through his creation, but that's not the "logical" point.

How do you "know" God through his creation? I thought I saw design when I was a New-Ager, but then I "knew" there was no design.

The "logical point" is something like this: Anything that exists must have a cause, and if you keep going back eventually you have to get to a 1st cause and that 1st cause some call God.


SAY HELLO TO MY LIL FRIEND (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass)

Once you establish that there is a first cause, then you can start to establish things that "must" be true about that first cause and then eventually you end up with a list of attributes for the first cause that sound like a reasonable approximation of our Human understanding of God's attributes.

I find it odd that God, the first cause, is an uncaused cause (but is infinite?). It makes no sense.

[Joan of Bark]

And how does your debater know there isn't multiple gods?

[naturalist.atheist]

If a first cause must exist, simply use Ockham's razor on it: The universe just exists. Anything else attributed to the first cause simply assumes the conclusion.

A magical statement if there ever was one.

Just use Ockham's razor then... *poof*.... I am right.

It is amazing.

[naturalist.atheist]

The "logical point" is something like this: Anything that exists must have a cause, and if you keep going back eventually you have to get to a 1st cause and that 1st cause some call God.

This is a good example of the mistakes one makes when one tries to treat the universe as if it were just another object. Using this kind of logic the universe should have an outside because every other object we know about has an inside and an outside. But such concepts don't apply to the universe. If they did then we would not be talking about the universe. Applying knowledge of everyday objects to the universe is nonsense. The only reason we know about everyday objects is because we can and have observed them. But just that simple process informs us that not all objects are the same. And we are still trying to see as much of the universe as we can. And it is not like any other object we know about. To compare it to any other object is nonsense. It is the universe. Just like it doesn't have an outside, it doesn't have a beginning or a first cause. But it does have places and it does have events.

Once you establish that there is a first cause, then you can start to establish things that "must" be true about that first cause and then eventually you end up with a list of attributes for the first cause that sound like a reasonable approximation of our Human understanding of God's attributes.

How in the world can you do that? And he makes a claim but what exactly automatically follows from assuming a first cause? And the claim about god is interesting. How does a finite universe imply an infinite being? How does anything finite imply an infinite anything? Shouldn't there be at least one specimen of something infinite that we can point to in existence before anyone can even in their wildest dreams jump to the conclusion that something else infinite might exist? But the even more interesting thing is how can a finite being in space and time (us) "prove" that anything that is infinite in space and time exists? And if the answer that god is outside of space and time then how could any human "prove" that?

Then at some point in the logic train folks will conclude...Therfore God Exists.

What logic train? With arguments like this why use logic? Why not just call it what it is, a leap of faith.

But it certainly offers a rational reason to accept that there is a 1st cause and that the first cause "might" be a loving God that cares about his creation.

It does? Only in your prayers.

[achristianbeliever]

First off the people here are misquoting the Christians. I'm sure some Christians say "everything has a cause" but the actual line is "Everything that has a beginning has a cause".

Now I hope you'll at least indulge me with my own view of this statement.

The evidence does indicate that the the universe has a beginning in answer to Tomboymon:

"how do you know the universe hasn't always existed?"

In fact Einstein desperately wanted the universe not to exist. He even tried to fudge his numbers and its considered his biggest blunder. Einstein admitted the idea of the universe beginning bugged him. If you still want to deny the beginning of a universe go right ahead but unlike the resurrection of Jesus Christ there is scientific evidence pointing to it. Both mathematical and observational.

Now the proposal is that if the universe had a beginning then it had a cause.

Now what this cause is we don't know and I would never claim it says that its definitevly God. It may even indicate multiple Gods but Ockham's Razor would indicate that one cause is the default and not two. Now when the Bible says Jesus created the universe you have 2 options: agree that he was this cause or reject it. The atheist chose the latter I chose the former. I'm not saying the universe had a cause points to Jesus I'm going the other way I learned that there was a cause I looked around for this cause found this Bible who makes the claim Jesus is that cause and I've chosen to accept it (for whatever reason) rather than deny it and look towards something else.

Now to come to the conclusion that if the universe had a beginning then it had a cause is not a bad one. Since in general from nothing nothing comes referred to as ex nihilio (I've heard people who come up with ideas of particles or whatever but find the argument reaching). It seems to me the only reason people come to the conclusion that from nothing something comes is because we now have strong reason to believe in the beginning of the universe so to prevent its religious implications we now say, "Well maybe something does come from nothing". But in the end the idea of an uncaused cause seems to me to be against Ochkam's razor. I think its a logical conclusion to the come to the idea of a beginning universe having a cause.

Now the question of well if the universe had a cause then why shouldn't God is an interesting one but ultimately meaningless.

First off whether or not the cause of the universe had a cause is irrelevant. Since we don't know anything about that cause its pointless to speculate anyway. All we know of is in the universe anything outside of it we can only speculate in which case identifying whether the cause of the universe had a cause or not is not possible since by its own nature had its origins outside the universe. So if God did have an origin it doesn't make a difference to its being the cause. The only reason I believe God doesn't have a cause is cause the Bible says God is the alpha and the omega. Now I wouldn't be surprised if the atheists says, "So he only believes because the Bible says so". But that completely misses the point. I'm came to the conclusion of a cause not by the Bible the only thing the Bible does is give me a possible identification of that cause and its up to me decide whether I believe it or not. But again and I can't stress this enough I don't believe God is the cause of the universe because I've come to the conclusion the universe had a cause.

Now maybe God does have a cause and maybe not. But that is a separate question to does the universe have a cause. Only after we've answered the question can we begin to speculate on the nature of that cause.

So the question of if universe has a cause why doesn't God is a question that is irrelevant and misleading.

[OneInFundieville]

It's much more comfortable to believe that God does not exist if you have a lack of direction and a fear of death. i.e. If there is no God, there are no eternal consequences to consider in determining my actions...so...party on!

Oh, if were only so simple to cope with vastness of consciousness in the midst of such limited knowlege of the world.

[Johnny Skeptic]

First off the people here are misquoting the Christians. I'm sure some Christians say "everything has a cause" but the actual line is "Everything that has a beginning has a cause".

Now I hope you'll at least indulge me with my own view of this statement.

The evidence does indicate that the the universe has a beginning in answer to Tomboymon:

"how do you know the universe hasn't always existed?"

In fact Einstein desperately wanted the universe not to exist. He even tried to fudge his numbers and its considered his biggest blunder. Einstein admitted the idea of the universe beginning bugged him. If you still want to deny the beginning of a universe go right ahead but unlike the resurrection of Jesus Christ there is scientific evidence pointing to it. Both mathematical and observational.

Now the proposal is that if the universe had a beginning then it had a cause.

Now what this cause is we don't know and I would never claim it says that its God. It may even indicate multiple Gods but Ockham's Razor would indicate that one cause is the default and not two. Now when the Bible says Jesus created the universe you have 2 options: agree that he was this cause or reject it. The atheist chose the latter I chose the former. I'm not saying the universe had a cause points to Jesus I'm going the other way I learned that there was a cause I looked around for this cause found this Bible who makes the claim Jesus is that cause and I've chosen to accept it (for whatever reason) rather than deny it and look towards something else.

Now to come to the conclusion that if the universe had a beginning then it had a cause is not a bad one. Since in general from nothing nothing comes referred to as ex nihilio (I've heard people who come up with ideas of particles or whatever but find the argument reaching). It seems to me the only reason people come to the conclusion that from nothing something comes is because we now have strong reason to believe in the beginning of the universe so to prevent its religious implications we now say, "Well maybe something does come from nothing". But in the end the idea of an uncaused cause seems to me to be against Ochkam's razor. I think its a logical conclusion to the come to the idea of a beginning universe having a cause.

Now the question of well if the universe had a cause then why shouldn't God is an interesting one but ultimately meaningless.

First off whether or not the cause of the universe had a cause is irrelevant. Since we don't know anything about that cause its pointless to speculate anyway. All we know of is in the universe anything outside of it we can only speculate in which case identifying whether the cause of the universe had a cause or not is not possible since by its own nature had its origins outside the universe. So if God did have an origin it doesn't make a difference to its being the cause. The only reason I believe God doesn't have a cause is cause the Bible says God is the alpha and the omega. Now I wouldn't be surprised if the atheists says, "So he only believes because the Bible says so". But that completely misses the point. I'm came to the conclusion of a cause not by the Bible the only thing the Bible does is give me a possible identification of that cause and its up to me decide whether I believe it or not. But again and I can't stress this enough I don't believe God is the cause of the universe because I've come to the conclusion the universe had a cause.

Now maybe God does have a cause and maybe not. But that is a separate question to does the universe have a cause. Only after we've answered the question can we begin to speculate on the nature of that cause.

So the question of if universe has a cause why doesn't God is a question that is irrelevant and misleading.

It doesn't really matter because even if the God of the Bible exists, he is not a moral being, and it has not reasonably been established that he has a right to rule the universe, but since you want to talk about science, consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science;[12] the National Science Teachers Association and others have termed it pseudoscience,[13] and some have termed it junk science.[14] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

http://scienceweek.com/2004/sb040102-1.htm

The authors report "near universal rejection" of the transcendent by NAS natural scientists. Overall, 93 percent of NAS scientists do not profess a belief in God (72.2 percent disbelief, 20.8 agnostic), and 92.1 percent do not profess a belief in immortality (76.7 percent disbelief, 23.3 percent agnostic). Disbelief in God and immortality among NAS biological scientists was 65.2 percent and 69.0 percent respectively, and among NAS physical scientists it was 79 percent and 76.3 percent respectively.

Johnny: Ok, now that that is taken care us, would you like to start a new thread regarding why you believe that God is a moral being, and why he has a right to rule the universe.

You have a habit of making brief appearances in various threads at different forums, and quickly leaving the threads. Why is that? Recently at the BC&H Forum, you asked me what would be reasonable proof for me about the empty tomb. I gave you an answer, but you made no further reply. You must not be confident enough of your arguments to hang around and defend them.

[achristianbeliever]

The consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is not science


Irrelevant. Whether or not the cause of the universe is intelligent has nothing to do with anything I've said. All I did in my post is state why I came to the conclusion that the universe has a cause and why the question if the universe had a cause why doesn't the cause is irrelevant. Where in my post am I talking about intelligent design?

[wiploc]

His Rebutal -

The "logical point" is something like this: Anything that exists must have a cause, and if you keep going back eventually you have to get to a 1st cause and that 1st cause some call God.


That's a self contradiction. If everything that exists has a cause, then you get infinite regress. There cannot be a first cause if every cause has a prior cause.




Once you establish that there is a first cause,

That can never ever happen. There might be an infinite regress of causes; there might be many simultaneous causes; and it might be that the first several things were uncaused.



then you can start to establish things that "must" be true about that first cause and then eventually you end up with a list of attributes for the first cause that sound like a reasonable approximation of our Human understanding of God's attributes.


Wrong again. Putting "must" in scare quotes doesn't make it defensible. No good argument manages to make the first cause resemble the Christian god.




Then at some point in the logic train folks will conclude...Therfore God Exists.


If they want god to exist, and if they indulge in wishful thinking.

crc

[OldYgg]

It's much more comfortable to believe that God does not exist if you have a lack of direction and a fear of death. i.e. If there is no God, there are no eternal consequences to consider in determining my actions...so...party on!



So, if there is no god, there is no responsibility to the human species? This is what he is attempting to argue - it is an argument for them idea that humanity is naturally evil, or simply put it is the original sin argument all over again.

I am a humanist, though I don't subscribe to any group. I simply take it that humanity and humanity's future are what is important. This is much less selfish than the person that believes that their immortal soul and getting it to heaven is what is important.

It is not without selfish points. I have children, and other people have children and I want them all to have good futures. In fact, if my children are to have a good future, that means that other people's children will have to have good futures as well to proivde for a stable society.

And even without children, if I am to have a good future and a long life (hopefully enjoyable as well) I rely on other people having good lives as well. There is no party-on - because the party-on mentality provides no utility for the future. The party-on mentality comes from religion. Specifically, use the Earth as you please because it is yours - which comes from the bible.

Plainly that is not a philosophy for the encouragement of a long good future for humanity.

Also, once you are going to hell, then a person who is a believer has nothing to inhibit them from doing as many bad things as they want. Look at it this way, you have an extra-marital affair and you are going to hell. If Hitler kills millions of people, he is going to hell. There is no different hell. The hell you experience as an adulterer is the same one Hitler is going to experience - and infinite life of torture!

So, once you are going to hell, a Christian is free of any constraints of doing anything moral. They have lost the game and should do whatever they want to make sure they earn as much of hell that they are going to get.

Old Ygg

[naturalist.atheist]

First off the people here are misquoting the Christians. I'm sure some Christians say "everything has a cause" but the actual line is "Everything that has a beginning has a cause".

I frankly don't care what anyone has to say simply because they are a Christian. Just as I don't care what any Muslim has to say just because they are a Muslim. The same goes for Hindu, Sihk, Buddhist, Zarathustrian, Jew or whatever. As far as I am concerned, their supernatural beliefs are between them and their version of their invisible friend.

Now I hope you'll at least indulge me with my own view of this statement.

The evidence does indicate that the the universe has a beginning in answer to Tomboymon:

What evidence is that? The big bang is evidence of an event. But is says nothing about anything before the big bang or even if the big bang is singular in any way. It simply represents the best we have been able to figure out to date for what we can observe.

"how do you know the universe hasn't always existed?"

In fact Einstein desperately wanted the universe not to exist.

This is the stupidest statement I have read to date. It takes the cake for its profound idiocy.

He even tried to fudge his numbers and its considered his biggest blunder. Einstein admitted the idea of the universe beginning bugged him. If you still want to deny the beginning of a universe go right ahead but unlike the resurrection of Jesus Christ there is scientific evidence pointing to it. Both mathematical and observational.

Why do Christians try to turn science into an adjunct to scripture? Is the next step to turn Einstein into a saint? Einstein was an advocate of the steady state model of the universe. He was wrong about that. He was wrong about several things. So what?

Now the proposal is that if the universe had a beginning then it had a cause.

Now what this cause is we don't know and I would never claim it says that its definitevly God. It may even indicate multiple Gods but Ockham's Razor would indicate that one cause is the default and not two. Now when the Bible says Jesus created the universe you have 2 options: agree that he was this cause or reject it. The atheist chose the latter I chose the former. I'm not saying the universe had a cause points to Jesus I'm going the other way I learned that there was a cause I looked around for this cause found this Bible who makes the claim Jesus is that cause and I've chosen to accept it (for whatever reason) rather than deny it and look towards something else.

Propose anything you like. Propose that the universe farts twice daily. But I gotta say this is the finest example of screwed up muddled thinking based on ignorance, presumption and superstition I have ever seen. And the Ockham's razor reference is just classic.

Now to come to the conclusion that if the universe had a beginning then it had a cause is not a bad one. Since in general from nothing nothing comes referred to as ex nihilio (I've heard people who come up with ideas of particles or whatever but find the argument reaching). It seems to me the only reason people come to the conclusion that from nothing something comes is because we now have strong reason to believe in the beginning of the universe so to prevent its religious implications we now say, "Well maybe something does come from nothing". But in the end the idea of an uncaused cause seems to me to be against Ochkam's razor. I think its a logical conclusion to the come to the idea of a beginning universe having a cause.

All it means is that you are unable to conceive of an uncaused first event. That is all it means. But if you are willing to presume that it must have a first cause then why not presume that the first cause doesn't have to have a cause. Wouldn’t that be the meaning of a “first cause”? You are projecting your knowledge of everyday objects onto the universe, but the universe is not an everyday object. Not by a long shot.

Now the question of well if the universe had a cause then why shouldn't God is an interesting one but ultimately meaningless.

I agree. It is as meaningless as your first assertion that the universe had a cause. For some reason you want to treat the universe like an everyday object, which it is not, but you are not willing to treat god like an everyday object. But I will concede that the concept of god is also a mythical concept but the universe is not.

First off whether or not the cause of the universe had a cause is irrelevant. Since we don't know anything about that cause its pointless to speculate anyway. All we know of is in the universe anything outside of it we can only speculate in which case identifying whether the cause of the universe had a cause or not is not possible since by its own nature had its origins outside the universe. So if God did have an origin it doesn't make a difference to its being the cause. The only reason I believe God doesn't have a cause is cause the Bible says God is the alpha and the omega. Now I wouldn't be surprised if the atheists says, "So he only believes because the Bible says so". But that completely misses the point. I'm came to the conclusion of a cause not by the Bible the only thing the Bible does is give me a possible identification of that cause and its up to me decide whether I believe it or not. But again and I can't stress this enough I don't believe God is the cause of the universe because I've come to the conclusion the universe had a cause.

What a pile of special pleadings and presumptuous exclusions. Why bother going through all the folderol? Why concoct such a pile of silly illogical nonsense? Why not just admit that you just believe in Jesus because you want to, not because there is any rational reason better than believing in Vishnu.

Now maybe God does have a cause and maybe not. But that is a separate question to does the universe have a cause. Only after we've answered the question can we begin to speculate on the nature of that cause.

So the question of if universe has a cause why doesn't God is a question that is irrelevant and misleading.

Nonsense. It is a special pleading. You want to treat the universe like any other object, which it is not, but you want to give god special treatment. That is your argument.

[OldYgg]

Too your 1st point, I personally came to "know" God again first through his creation. (One of those mountain top experience kinda things.) I believe that everyone can come to know "something" of God through his creation, but that's not the "logical" point.

The "logical point" is something like this: Anything that exists must have a cause, and if you keep going back eventually you have to get to a 1st cause and that 1st cause some call God.



This is the 'ahh look at this, look at that - do you think these things all came about by chance' argument. Yes, there is beauty in this world, and there is much that is ugly as well. Neither provide proof of an external creator or detail anything about the features such an external creator would have.

This is also the argument by design. Look a watch is a designed object, it is complex and it was made by a human!

But this argument is used to prove the existence of a sole creator god, when it would be more suitable for the existence of a polytheistic many gods. A watch is a created thing, yes, but it was not created nor invented by a single person. Everything the person who invented the watch did was based on prior knowledge of a great many people. He used tools, made by other people, he used tools invented by other people. If the analogy is correct, there are a whole horde of gods out there that contributed to the creation of the universe.

It is good to have feelings of spirituality, but these feelings need not originate from a god. Personally, I get that feeling whenever I actually get the chance to see the stars on a clear dark night sky. A feeling is no proof of god.

A feeling is just chemical reactions in your brain. We already know how to induce chemical reactions in the brain by using chemicals. To believe on the basis of emotion, no matter how he attempts to put it - is to believe without proof and to believe with faith, not logic as he claims in his message.

Old Ygg

[Draconis]

"It's much more comfortable to believe that God does not exist if you have a lack of direction and a fear of death. i.e. If there is no God, there are no eternal consequences to consider in determining my actions...so...party on!"

Yes, but whether there is a god or not, there are still immediate (or nearly so) consequences of "evil" actions, eg being put in jail. For many people this is plenty enough deterrent for all sorts of unwise and unpleasant behaviour so why does worrying about theoretical or imagined eternal consequences
make any difference? There is no proof that these "eternal consequences" actually exist, and this being so, gives them a rather shaky and uncertain meaning. Whereas it is easy to prove earthly consequences exist. Just drive past your local jail.

[achristianbeliever]

I frankly don't care what anyone has to say simply because they are a Christian. Just as I don't care what any Muslim has to say just because they are a Muslim. The same goes for Hindu, Sihk, Buddhist, Zarathustrian, Jew or whatever. As far as I am concerned, their supernatural beliefs are between them and their version of their invisible friend.


Completely missing the point. There is a difference between saying everything has a cause and everything with a beginning has a cause.


What evidence is that? The big bang is evidence of an event. But is says nothing about anything before the big bang or even if the big bang is singular in any way. It simply represents the best we have been able to figure out to date for what we can observe.


Irrelevant. We have observational and mathematical logic to point to the universe having a beginning. I didn't even bring up the big bang because its not my point.


This is the stupidest statement I have read to date. It takes the cake for its profound idiocy.


Ok why?


Why do Christians try to turn science into an adjunct to scripture? Is the next step to turn Einstein into a saint? Einstein was an advocate of the steady state model of the universe. He was wrong about that. He was wrong about several things. So what?


Its evidence that there were alterior motives to some people choosing to believe in the steady state model rather than just logical conclusion.


Propose that the universe farts twice daily. But I gotta say this is the finest example of screwed up muddled thinking based on ignorance, presumption and superstition I have ever seen.


Again why?


All it means is that you are unable to conceive of an uncaused first event. That is all it means. But if you are willing to presume that it must have a first cause then why not presume that the first cause doesn't have to have a cause. Wouldn’t that be the meaning of a “first cause”? You are projecting your knowledge of everyday objects onto the universe, but the universe is not an everyday object. Not by a long shot.


Should I take your word for it? Or do you have some actual logical reason to come to the conclusion that the universe didn't have a cause? Your only argument is, "Well the universe is unique so I can propose anything I want".
I'm actually using logical reasons of nothing comes from nothing. Your the one using imagination.


I agree. It is as meaningless as your first assertion that the universe had a cause. For some reason you want to treat the universe like an everyday object, which it is not, but you are not willing to treat god like an everyday object. But I will concede that the concept of god is also a mythical concept but the universe is not.


Again your only using your imagination. I'm using real world logic. Its unfortunate that your such a hypocrite. I'm not allowed to use my imagination on stuff like God but your allowed to come up with any imaginative ideas on the universe.


What a pile of special pleadings and presumptuous exclusions. Why bother going through all the folderol? Why concoct such a pile of silly illogical nonsense? Why not just admit that you just believe in Jesus because you want to, not because there is any rational reason better than believing in Vishnu.


Wow spouting out of the mouth without using any logic at all. Not surprising considering the rest of your post.


Nonsense. It is a special pleading. You want to treat the universe like any other object, which it is not, but you want to give god special treatment. That is your argument.


Your argument is because the universe is unique apparently we can believe anything we want to about it no matter how crazy or against nature it is.

And exactly what special treatment am I giving God? You've only stated it without giving examples of how I'm doing this. All I've ever said was I read a statement that God created the universe and I've chosen to accept that. It wasn't an argument meant to try and convince anyone else. There's nothing even in there to show that was my intention. I'm simply showing the difference between me saying the universe had a cause and me saying God created the universe. One is based on logic and science and one is based on my own personal conclusion. You really don't read well do you?

You've obviously not paid any attention to my post.

[funinspace]

In fact Einstein desperately wanted the universe not to exist. He even tried to fudge his numbers and its considered his biggest blunder. Einstein admitted the idea of the universe beginning bugged him. If you still want to deny the beginning of a universe go right ahead but unlike the resurrection of Jesus Christ there is scientific evidence pointing to it. Both mathematical and observational.
Scientific understanding flows and ebbs in trying to provide viable models for things that are still not fully within it's grasp. And the understanding of the universe and it's workings only started less than a 100 years ago. It is a very young scientific effort, which Einstein was at the forefront and early staging of creating our working knowledge. I would appreciate knowing what you think mathematically supports any notion of a "beginning"? As far as I know, mathematics has no more capacity to provide evidence for a universe beginning than it does at explaining "true love". If you are using the infinity construct to support your belief, then consider that infinity has been mathematically proven to be a valid mathematical concept. This is a proven item, NOT speculation, observation, theory, or fanciful idea.

Observational information is inconclusive at this point within the scientific world. Gabriele Veneziano, a theoretical physicist at CERN and the creator of String Theory, had this to say:
http://sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00042F0D-1A0E-1085-94F483414B7F0000
Was the big bang really the beginning of time? Or did the universe exist before then? Such a question seemed almost blasphemous only a decade ago. Most cosmologists insisted that it simply made no sense--that to contemplate a time before the big bang was like asking for directions to a place north of the North Pole. But developments in theoretical physics, especially the rise of string theory, have changed their perspective. The pre-bang universe has become the latest frontier of cosmology.
<snip>
So, when did time begin? Science does not have a conclusive answer yet, but at least two potentially testable theories plausibly hold that the universe--and therefore time--existed well before the big bang. If either scenario is right, the cosmos has always been in existence and, even if it recollapses one day, will never end.
The Big Bang theory is about what happens after the exploding universe happens. Quantum mechanics and all other mathematical models break down (aka fails to operate) as time approaches zero. Science only has ideas/notions on what explain things before this. It is something that the scientific world acknowledges that it does not know. Yes, the Big Bang with a fixed beginning was popular even within science 30-40 years ago. But the scientific world has been backing away from this stance for quite some time, due additional understanding.

[achristianbeliever]

infinity has been mathematically proven to be a valid mathematical concept.This is a proven item, NOT speculation, observation, theory, or fanciful idea.


give me an example of it existing in nature.

I notice your speaking of string theory first off that's not a confirmed notion so its still speculation but even so if string theory is true is doesn't affect anything I've said. I wish people would stop bringing up big bang because I didn't even once bring it up myself it was never my point. I find it bizzarre the atheists are having such a hard time getting that.

I'm only talking about a beginning and even string theory pointed to a beginning as your own quote spoke on:

"So when did time begin? Science does not have a conclusive answer yet"

So I see no need to argue against any of this since I didn't point to the big bang. My only point is to point to Ockham's razor which would ask why is more than one fixed event the default position?

[OldYgg]

Current scientific investigation (with or without string theory) indicates that the big bang is an isolated section of space experiencing expansion. That higgs-boson particles/waves exist everywhere and contain huge amounts of energy.

This massive amount of energy inherent in space can sometimes generate two particles, a particle and an anti-particle. Typically they annihilate each other resulting in a net zero energy/matter.

Sometimes they do not annihilate each other resulting in a particle anti-particle pair existing in space.

Eventually, a gathering up of particles which were attracted to each other created a mass that gravitationally became something like a super-nova - expanding space and scattering matter throughout the universe.

Even without string theory this is one of the main ideas in science right now concerning the origins of the universe. This is what they are trying to discover (the higgs-boson particle) in the new supercollider in Europe.

Stephen Hawking had been to a physics event sponsored by the Catholic Church and spent a lot of time talking about what might have existed before the big bang. It was with a little embarrassment when the Pope spoke and said that physics was great, but that the domain of god was reserved for the time before the big bang. This was before Ratzinger's time.

Old Ygg

[OldYgg]

give me an example of it existing in nature.

I notice your speaking of string theory first off that's not a confirmed notion so its still speculation but even so if string theory is true is doesn't affect anything I've said. I wish people would stop bringing up big bang because I didn't even once bring it up myself it was never my point. I find it bizzarre the atheists are having such a hard time getting that.

I'm only talking about a beginning and even string theory pointed to a beginning as your own quote spoke on:

"So when did time begin? Science does not have a conclusive answer yet"

So I see no need to argue against any of this since I didn't point to the big bang. My only point is to point to Ockham's razor which would ask why is more than one fixed event the default position?

Please note that even the concept of time is being questioned in modern physics. It may be a matter that we perceive time, but that in fact time does not exist. This would render ideas such as there being a beginning of time moot as time itself might not exist.

Old Ygg

[naturalist.atheist]

Completely missing the point. There is a difference between saying everything has a cause and everything with a beginning has a cause.

You missed my point. I don't care what you have to say simply because you are saying it as a Christian.

Irrelevant. We have observational and mathematical logic to point to the universe having a beginning. I didn't even bring up the big bang because its not my point.

Really? I'm a trained physicist. I must have missed it. What is it pray tell?

Ok why?

Because Einstein was a scientist. He was trying to explain the universe as he knew of it. He was not trying to explain the universe out of existence. The statement you made is just breathtaking in its profound stupidity and ignorance of both science, and Einstein.

Its evidence that there were alterior motives to some people choosing to believe in the steady state model rather than just logical conclusion.

What logical conclusion is that? Do you know much about the universe? You realise that in 1932 astronomers were still not sure if there was such a thing as a galaxy. In the last 80 years there has been a breathtaking amount of new knowledge and information learned about the universe. For you to make such statements simply indicates how profoundly ignorant you are of not just what was known back in 1932 but what is known now.

You really should not pretend that ignorance is knowledge. It doesn't make you look very bright.

Again why?

Because argument from ignorance is just ignorant. You have no idea how the universe is ultimately put together. No one does. Certainly you can presume anything you want, but who cares? If your presumptions led to new discoveries then I would be interested, but if it just allows you to believe in your particular version of the supernatural then so what? Why go to all that trouble. Just have "faith". You do claim to be a Christian after all.

Should I take your word for it? Or do you have some actual logical reason to come to the conclusion that the universe didn't have a cause? Your only argument is, "Well the universe is unique so I can propose anything I want".
I'm actually using logical reasons of nothing comes from nothing. Your the one using imagination.

What? You are using lack of imagination. You have no idea if something can come from nothing or not. That is not logic. That is a presumption. You might support your assumption by appealing to common experience, but experiencing the entire universe is not common at all. No one has done it. Scientists are trying to experience as much as they can and they will be the first to admit they have a long way to go.

Do not talk to me about imagination. All you are doing is confusing ignorance with knowledge.

Again your only using your imagination. I'm using real world logic. Its unfortunate that your such a hypocrite. I'm not allowed to use my imagination on stuff like God but your allowed to come up with any imaginative ideas on the universe.

I am a hypocrite? I see. So I see all human claims of god as mythical and you see all human claims of god as mythical except for your favorite god and you call me a hypocrite? The more you post the more obvious it is that the only argument you have is from ignorance.

[Gwen]

Everything that we have observed in the universe that began to exist has had a cause. (We think.) Because that's how we've observed the universe to work.

Outside the universe, all bets are off.

[funinspace]

give me an example of it existing in nature.
You made a point of bringing up mathematics, and then alluded that it supports a "beginning". These are all theoretical items of discussion, so I don't see your point here. Either you have mathematics to support your notion or not. I'm just asking you to elaborate on your previous statements. I wasn't the one making an unsubstantiated claim here. There are some philosophical logic arguments for finite time with a beginning, but this is not mathematics.

I notice your speaking of string theory first off that's not a confirmed notion so its still speculation but even so if string theory is true is doesn't affect anything I've said. I wish people would stop bringing up big bang because I didn't even once bring it up myself it was never my point. I find it bizzarre the atheists are having such a hard time getting that.
Of course string theory is still speculative, just like the first few microseconds of the Big Bang are speculative. That was the point. We and science don't know. So you are operating under another theory outside of the Big Bang, for notions of a "beginning" of the universe? It's not bizarre to mention these 2 words, once you say the universe had a "beginning", they are intertwined. Or maybe you think your God just poofed the universe into existence 10,000 years ago, looking just like it does today?

I'm only talking about a beginning and even string theory pointed to a beginning as your own quote spoke on:
The article only talks about a "beginning" within the discussion of several possible explanations. String theory is a postulation about a whole set of mathematics, not "a beginning of a universe". Using the construct of string theory, has allowed theoretical physicists to consider the plausibility of an infinite cyclical universe; in addition to prior notions of a universe with a beginning.
"So when did time begin? Science does not have a conclusive answer yet"

So I see no need to argue against any of this since I didn't point to the big bang. My only point is to point to Ockham's razor which would ask why is more than one fixed event the default position?
You talked of a beginning universe that was supported by observation and mathematics. If you don't want to discuss this, then I would recommend not bringing up the notion that there is mathematical support for the idea of a beginning universe, nor Einstein quandries, nor observational information of beginnings. Especially, when you just throw it out there without any supporting information. Either way, my queries and challenges stand the same whether one uses the words "Big Bang" or "beginning of universe".

And I didn't try to debate Ockham's razor, either. You have plenty of people already hashing this about with you; as well as it doesn't particularly interest me.

[OldYgg]

Everything that we have observed in the universe that began to exist has had a cause. (We think.) Because that's how we've observed the universe to work.

Outside the universe, all bets are off.

And the causes for the things in the universe do not all appear to have been caused by a consciousness. While they have causes that doesn't imply or direct the observer to think that something caused it.

Old Ygg

[Johnny Skeptic]

Irrelevant. Whether or not the cause of the universe is intelligent has nothing to do with anything I've said. All I did in my post is state why I came to the conclusion that the universe has a cause and why the question if the universe had a cause why doesn't the cause is irrelevant. Where in my post am I talking about intelligent design?

But intelligent design is where you eventually will have to go because I am certain that you will not be content to convince people that the universe has a cause and just leave it at that. What good is knowing that the universe has a cause if we do not know what the cause is? Since I am an agnostic, I do not rule out a reasonable possibility that the universe has a cause, so where does that leave us, and the billions of non-Christian theists who already believe that the universe has a cause?

[steamer]

There is a difference between saying everything has a cause and everything with a beginning has a cause.

So if you imagine god and imagine that god has no beggining then you feel justified that the thing you imagine must exist?

Couldn't I do the same thing for just about any imagined thing? I imagine a pixie and I imagine that pixie does not have a begining, therefore the pixe exists? Is that about it? I suppose I would have to imagine pixies having universe creation skills as well, oh, no problem, there, it is imagined. Do pixies now exist?

Lets call the thing that always existed a proto-universe. It is stupid, yet being unevolved, it isn't expected to be very smart and since it isn't necessary that it be sentient it suffices to explain all we see in this universe.

[naturalist.atheist]

Everything that we have observed in the universe that began to exist has had a cause. (We think.) Because that's how we've observed the universe to work.

Outside the universe, all bets are off.

I am not sure the idea of "outside the universe" has any meaning. It could very well be nothing more than gibberish.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Message to achristianbelieve: I just went to Google and typed in "Does the universe have a cause?" Many people believe that the universe might have always existed. It would be best if you start a new thread on this issue at the Science and Skepticism Forum. Due to the scholarship of some of the participants at that forum, it would quickly become obvious how inept you are at debating issues about science. Some participants have Ph.D.'s in science, or are doing post-doctoral work in science.

Keep trying, you might eventually find a topic that you know something about.

[The Path of Needles]

I think it would be best to define "universe" first.

How about "all that exists". There might be more than some uses of "universe" (such as the multiverse) but we'll just lump everything under universe.

Now if god caused the universe to be, and if everything within the universe needs a cause, then what caused god? God must then be outside the universe. But if god is outside "all that exists", then god must not exist. Problem solved.

[Nil Desperandum]

In fact Einstein desperately wanted the universe not to exist. He even tried to fudge his numbers and its considered his biggest blunder. Einstein admitted the idea of the universe beginning bugged him. If you still want to deny the beginning of a universe go right ahead but unlike the resurrection of Jesus Christ there is scientific evidence pointing to it. Both mathematical and observational.
What...the...fuck?!

Talk about ignorance.

Einstein desperately wanted an ordered Universe. His foundations for his works were that of localistic determinism; i.e. the statement that no information could ever exceed the speed of light, and that all of this world was deterministic in nature. He forked in his genius because of his beliefs. Even the great fucking Einstein held on to an irrational belief that was later proven to be wrong via Quantum Mechanics; and why, you ask?

Because "God doesn't play dice with the Universe."

Yes, well, apparently the dice play a very, very significant role in this Universe, and that is why Einstein was wrong, and that is why YOU are wrong.

So take this ignorant-ass statement trying to bend scientific facts, rethink it with some TRUTH, and come back into this thread with a new perspective on things.

[show_no_mercy]

"Everything that has a beginning has a cause".

Even that's not true if we start going into quantum mechanics.

[OldYgg]

Even that's not true if we start going into quantum mechanics.

Makes me wonder about the Higgs-Boson and the creation of particle/anti-particles.

Old Ygg

[Awmte]

The cosmological argument has been refuted by whole boatloads of philosophers, from Hume to Kant to Russell. Here’s a nice linky (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument)to a brief summary.
For those too lazy to click a mouse, a few brief points:
The cosmological argument depends implicitly on the Principal of Causation. Hume pretty much proved that we only have, at best, pragmatic justification for induction. Thus, we can’t have a “logical” (syllogistic) proof that depends on causality. Not to mention that QM demonstrates that causality is a macroscopic phenomenon.

To infer from the constituent parts of the universe the properties of the universe is to commit the Fallacy of Composition. To steal an example from another thread: water is wet; does that imply that the hydrogen atom is wet?