There was no "before" before the Big Bang

[SkyWriting]

Furthermore, it's special pleading to claim that the universe required a cause that was itself uncaused.

Well, no. Science claims all needs a cause.
So the source must be outside of our rules
that make that requirement.

 

[SkyWriting]

Big Bang cosmology doesn't require a first cause to the universe:

But on this side, we do require causes.
So the source was not on this side.
And thanks to the writer for his support,
God is not subject to time. Our definitions
of God are supported.

 

[davedajobauk]

I still don't understand how nothing turns into something. It makes zero sense.
So something...er... nothing?!? the size of nothing
exploding from nothing into something and formed LOTS of nothing
beyond what we can imagine.

Maybe, the lack of understanding (in man) was the reason that Jesus used 'parables'
~analogous stories, that described things in a way that could-be 'easier grasped'


A BLACK HOLE (singularity) is 'everything' compressed to nothing (incredible gravity)
such, that when unravelled again...... it unwraps so-much of it's previous meals
It is an amazing concept, to perceive, of matter 'turned, inside-out' so that it no-longer exists (exists, in another realm)
Even light, has been swallowed-up 'within' that singularity's extremely powerful gravitational property

Even today, we are unable to see 'black-holes' ie: beyond their event horizon
and-so, until they 'eat', they are NOT THERE (are, NOTHING) ~virtually undetectable

 

[nobdysfool]

Big Bang cosmology doesn't require a first cause to the universe:



Furthermore, it's special pleading to claim that the universe required a cause that was itself uncaused.

And that would be God. God is the only Being in the entire universe whose existence is not caused by something outside Himself. His existence is not dependent on anything or anyone outside of Himself. He is, because He is. That's what He told Moses, saying "I am that I am". That's not "special pleading", that's the Truth.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

"All things that exist need to have a cause."

"Well.... except for this one thing that exists...."

If your rule doesn't apply to everything, then there might be more things that don't have to follow that rule.

 

[Man_With_A_Plan]

I actually posted the following on another website, but since they're my words, I think it's ok if I plagiarize myself.

***

Infinite regress and ex nihilo generation are both logically incoherent, and yet the scientific materialist is reduced to this. In my opinion, neither infinite regress nor ex nihilo existence makes sense. The only conceivable solution to the existence of reality is a "brute fact," an uncaused "inherent existence." Maybe this is also illogical, but it's certainly more reasonable to assume that there is a first cause to reality than ex nihilo birth or infinite regress into the past. (One way the scientific materialist might work around this is with "infinite past universes" or some similarly exotic concept, but this still has the problem of infinite regress.)

If this first cause--a brute fact necessarily lacking a cause--does exist, then its existence is reasonable yet unreasonable, logical yet illogical; the unreasonable and illogical is reasonable and logical out of necessity. The great irony that the scientific materialist has to contend with is that the only reasonable and logical origin of reality--a cause without cause--is, in the fullest sense, "supernatural" or "magical" or whatever contentious word one might use.

Scientific materialism is both justified in that there's possibly nothing beyond physical reality, and illogical insofar as it is impossible for scientific materialism to explain the existence of physical reality itself. Physical reality either exists as an impossibly weird, hopelessly unintelligible brute fact without an ontological cause, or it owes its existence to some manner of supernatural immaterial entity which is itself an impossibly weird, hopelessly unintelligible brute fact. Either option is equally bizarre and outside the realm of nature.

The only "logical" conclusion is non-existence. And yet, here we are.

Terence McKenna had an interesting opinion, which I feel is good to quote here:

"The opposition, which is science – well, first let me say this: Every model of the universe has a hard swallow. What I mean by a hard swallow is a place where the argument cannot hide the fact that there’s something slightly fishy about it. The hard swallow built into science is this business about the Big Bang. Now, let’s give this a little attention here. This is the notion that the universe, for no reason, sprang from nothing in a single instant. Well, now before we dissect this, notice that this is the limit test for credulity. Whether you believe this or not, notice that it is not possible to conceive of something more unlikely or less likely to be believed! I mean, I defy anyone – it’s just the limit case for unlikelihood, that the universe would spring from nothing in a single instant, for no reason?! – I mean, if you believe that, my family has a bridge across the Hudson River that we’ll give you a lease option for five dollars! It makes no sense. It is in fact no different than saying, “And God said, let there be light”. And what these philosophers of science are saying is, give us one free miracle, and we will roll from that point forward – from the birth of time to the crack of doom! – just one free miracle, and then it will all unravel according to natural law, and these bizarre equations which nobody can understand but which are so holy in this enterprise. Well, I say then, if science gets one free miracle, then everybody gets one free miracle."

 

[Yoder777]

Well, no. Science claims all needs a cause.
So the source must be outside of our rules
that make that requirement.

Stephen Hawking and others have already explained how the beginning of the universe is beyond our usual understanding of cause and effect. I don't know a great deal about these things but others do. For example, if particles at the subatomic level are uncaused, there's more to this than what automatically might come to mind.

No matter what others say, it's special pleading to insist that everything which exists has a cause, except for God himself. It doesn't work as a scientific argument.

 

[Steve Petersen]

No matter what others say, it's special pleading to insist that everything which exists has a cause, except for God himself. It doesn't work as a scientific argument.

Who is making the claim that it is a scientific argument?

 

[Yoder777]

The Big Bang is often looked at as an explosion out of nothing that created the universe. The way Hawking and others look at it, however, is that it was an expansion flowing out of infinitely dense matter:

Here are some more words from Stephen Hawking:

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

 

[Yoder777]

Who is making the claim that it is a scientific argument?

Creationist and Intelligent Design folks, I would guess.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Creationist and Intelligent Design folks, I would guess.

IMO, it is more a philosophical argument.

 

[SkyWriting]

Stephen Hawking and others have already explained how the beginning of the universe is beyond our usual understanding of cause and effect. I don't know a great deal about these things but others do. For example, if particles at the subatomic level are uncaused, there's more to this than what automatically might come to mind.

No matter what others say, it's special pleading to insist that everything which exists has a cause, except for God himself. It doesn't work as a scientific argument.

I'm afraid that it does. Suggesting results without a cause is special pleading.
Miracles basically, by any definition. And certainly not scientific and testable.

 

[justlookinla]

I'm afraid that it does. Suggesting results without a cause is special pleading.
Miracles basically, by any definition. And certainly not scientific and testable.

Results without a cause is supernatural.

 

[SkyWriting]

Results without a cause is supernatural.

I'd be happy to test any contrary theory that gives results without cause.

 

[justlookinla]

I'd be happy to test any contrary theory that gives results without cause.

Can't be done. That's why certain scientific claims are supernatural claims.

 

[davedajobauk]

Try 'modelling' two supermassive black holes,
coming together and merging, while spinning in opposite-directions
and 'unravelling' each other .... what a 'barf' that would be

 

[Goatee]

Big bang happened after i had a spicy curry!

 

[Yoder777]

As scientists like Hawking have explained, our usual everyday understanding of cause and effect doesn't apply to the beginning of the universe.

 

[justlookinla]

As scientists like Hawking have explained, our usual everyday understanding of cause and effect doesn't apply to the beginning of the universe.

Thus the introduction of the supernatural.

 

[SkyWriting]

Try 'modelling' two supermassive black holes,
coming together and merging, while spinning in opposite-directions
and 'unravelling' each other .... what a 'barf' that would be

With an endless cosmos, it must be happening constantly somewhere.
We should be able to detect it wherever we look.