It is indeed speculation. Also, this was already addressed in one of my
first posts in this thread:
Or, we can also say "The universe that supercedes time, never had a beginning, because it is outside of time." Just like the human body as a whole functions differently than its constituent parts, or a solid physical object is composed of quantum states which are definitely not solid, perhaps the universe itself is outside of time, even though "internally" it operates with time.
Again.. everything is based on the most logical opinion. And what I've provided to you is the most logical opinion.
.We believe the Egyptians built the pyramids. We were not present, we don't have video footage of them doing so.. but the most logical opinion based on what we have is that they in fact built them.
Hopefully that helps you understand this a little better.
It's the most logical speculation. You've already demonstrated that you can not deliver one more logical. I've debated this with many and there is no one I've met that can demonstrate one more logical.
ananda, I refuted this post the first time you posted it. Let's try this again..
You would have to prove the universe did not have mass for that theory to even be logical. And we know that is not the case, because here we are. According to general relativity time accelerates mass, and if you have no mass you have not time. For a universe to be eternal, it would have to have no mass. Scientists don't think about that though. It sort of disproves the whole "eternal universe" idea.
That comment refutes your comment sufficiently, but let me include a quotation to remove all doubt- this is from a former athiest converted thiest, and He is a scientist in the hard sciences:
"
The universe is not an adequate cause for its own formation (it would have to pre-exist itself to create itself; this is illogical).
“Nothing” is not an adequate cause for the creation/formation of the Universe.
Natural Laws by themselves are not an adequate cause for the actualization (creation/formation) of the Universe out of Nothing.
---
The Multiverse necessarily invokes either an infinite regress (which is illogical/impossible) or creation of something by itself (the multiverse) out of nothing (which is illogical/impossible).
And therefore the Multiverse is not an adequate cause for the existence of the universe (or the multiverse itself).
---
In addition, if Atheism is true, then the multiverse would have to be infinitely old, and it must have been birthing child universes at finite periods all the way through infinity into the past. And those child universes could themselves be birthing child universes into the past.
Therefore, there must necessarily be an infinity of actual physical universes (that were birthed by the multiverse) as we look back into the past (the infinite past in time). And there must currently be an infinite number of actual physical universes in existence.
---
So, in order to avoid the existence of ONE God, we have to postulate an infinite (into time past) infinite (currently) number of universes.
This is the biggest violation of Ockham’s razor ever (and therefore the biggest violation of any principle of logic, rationality and reason ever).
Law of Adequate Cause
Every effect has a cause. And the cause has to be adequate for the effect.
Logical Example:
A body-builder lifts 400 pounds. The effect is the “rising of the 400 pound weights”. The cause of this effect is the body-builder (who chooses to lift the weights).
So, the effect (rising 400-pound weights) has a cause (body builder lifting them).
The body builder is demonstrably strong enough to lift the 400 pounds. Therefore the cause (body builder) is adequate for the effect (i.e., is strong enough to generate the effect; or is capable of generating the effect). In other words, the body builder is strong enough to lift the 400-pound weight.
Illogical Example (effect = self-cause?):
To insist (or to believe) that the 400-pound-weights lift themselves is illogical.
This (above) would be a situation where the effect is its own cause. We infer then, that it is illogical to believe that an effect can be its own cause.
Illogical Example (inadequate cause):
To insist (or to believe) that random chance caused all the air molecules beneath the weights to push upwards and lift up the weights, is illogical.
Note that this is a logical possibility (that all the air molecules beneath the weights push upwards and lift up the weights)… However, to insist (or to believe) that this is an adequate cause for the rising 400-pound-weights is still illogical. We can calculate the probability of this event happening by random chance. The extremely low probability of its occurrence is a trigger that alerts us to the fact that believing random-chance to be the cause is illogical.
The very low probability of such an occurrence, appears to indicate that the postulated cause (random chance) is not adequate for the effect.
Note: this is apart from the fact that random chance cannot be a cause of anything… random chance is a descriptive term used to describe randomness of events caused by other physical entities. Random chance is not a physical entity that can act upon another physical entity (to cause a physical effect)…
"
above quote from:
God
&
Atheist Objections
(130+ Atheist Objections
with Responses
by an Ex-Atheist Scientist)
By
John M. Kinson
