Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I got that part.
But my original question stands: what did either of you expect from that exchange?
No, I mean the whole exchange-about the creation of the Universe. Davian gave a pretty good answer, It seemed to me that you were looking for some kind of victory, which seems kind of futile in such a discussion.You'd have to ask him, but I was hoping to stress the ridiculousness of doing it, so maybe he wouldn't in the future.
Now that it has been show to be faulty, is it still sufficient for you? Do you continue to believe anyway?
Even if it were not faulty, the 'first cause' argument does not provide evidence for deites, or a particular deity.
How was it shown to be fauty? You just said it didn't have enough evidence for you. And you never answered how an agent can be anything other than intelligent. Give examples.
No need. You did not show that an agent was required.
Just to interject: that isn't what the Big Bang theory states. The Big Bang theory is the theory that the universe has been expanding for 13.5 billion years (thus placing a minimum age of the universe) from a very small, dense state to its current configuration. That ongoing expansion is what's called the Big Bang.then show how a big bang can cause without itself being caused.
Just to interject: that isn't what the Big Bang theory states. The Big Bang theory is the theory that the universe has been expanding for 13.5 billion years (thus placing a minimum age of the universe) from a very small, dense state to its current configuration. That ongoing expansion is what's called the Big Bang.
What the theory doesn't say is that the start of the Big Bang was the start of the universe - for all we know, the universe could have existed long before the Big Bang began. It doesn't say the Big Bang caused anything, nor does it say what caused the Big Bang.
Not quite. A caused event has a start, but that doesn't mean a started event has a cause. So a thing can be eternal (neither started nor caused), spontaneous (it has a start, but no cause), or caused (it has a start and a cause).all caused means is started,
No - I'm saying we don't know. It might have been, but then again, it might not have. We don't know.so your saying the universe wasn't started by the Big Bang?
We don't know. Quantum fluctuations? The Cosmic Egg of Hinduism? The God of Christianity? At present, we don't know.hah, there it is, you admit. The Big bang was started, and not caused. But you forget.....started IS caused. I just have to rephrase, what started the Big Bang?
I don't know. Do you?all caused means is started, so your saying the universe wasn't started by the Big Bang? Sounds like it was from your description.
hah, there it is, you admit. The Big bang was started, and not caused. But you forget.....started IS caused. I just have to rephrase, what started the Big Bang?
I don't know. Do you?
I think of the Big Bang as the beginning of the current instantiation and expansion of our cosmos. The universe itself may have always existed, just in a different form.So you agree the Big bang was started.
No, it does not. If the universe was at some point a singularity, then cause and effect as we (at least I) understand it does not apply.That means it's caused.
And that point is faulty.That was the entire point.
I don't. Do you?So now is the Big Bang an agent or caused by something else and how do you know?
Science does not do 'proof'. However, I am not making the claim here - you are. The burden of evidence is on you to show that the universe had a beginning, that it required a cause, and that this cause was necessarily a deity.Where is your proof?
I think of the Big Bang as the beginning of the current instantiation and expansion of our cosmos. The universe itself may have always existed, just in a different form.
No, it does not. If the universe was at some point a singularity, then cause and effect as we (at least I) understand it does not apply.
And that point is faulty.
I don't. Do you?
Science does not do 'proof'. However, I am not making the claim here - you are. The burden of evidence is on you to show that the universe had a beginning, that it required a cause, and that this cause was necessarily a deity.
Do you have a clear understanding of quantum physics?where on earth did you get the idea that a singularity means cause and affect don't work anymore?
And what would have caused (or started) that 'something'?Didn't you ever stop to think that something caused the singularity (or started it)?
where on earth did you get the idea that a singularity means cause and affect don't work anymore? Didn't you ever stop to think that something caused the singularity (or started it)?
Do you have a clear understanding of quantum physics?
And what would have caused (or started) that 'something'?
Beware of the turtles.
Quantum physics? Is that so? Then perhaps *you* can explain how cause and effect break down at quantum levels.Physics is easy.
I did not say that. I was only referring to a past size of the universe that has been hypothesized.Again where on earth did you get the idea that singularities have no cause.
Where did you establish that a cause was required?Just because we can't name the cause doesn't mean it didn't have a beginning or start to it.
We are not talking about black holes.for example: with black holes the cause is Gravitational collapse. Which occurs when an object's internal pressure is insufficient to resist the object's own gravity.
What is to say that one is required?What is to say a singularity has no starter or initiation?
Common sense is definitely not science.Simply nonsense.
So now is the Big Bang an agent or caused by something else and how do you know?
Yes.So you agree the Big bang was started.
No.That means it's caused.
We may never know, but I think it reasonable that the universe caused its own expansion. It was in the nature of the universe to expand under the conditions existing at the time. There is no need to locate some external cause, or to regard the universe as a conscious agent. It was entity-causation at work, just as the Earth exerts a gravitational field because it is in its nature to do so, not because it is caused to do so by something else, and not because it is "Gaia", the conscious agent.
I'm not saying that I can prove this, but it is a sensible philosophical stance based on what we know.
eudaimonia,
Mark
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?