Atheism

[Non sequitur]

I got that part.

But my original question stands: what did either of you expect from that exchange?

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.

 

[TScott]

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.

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.

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

 

[Davian]

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.

 

[createdtoworship]

No need. You did not show that an agent was required.

then show how a big bang can cause without itself being caused.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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. Indeed, we don't even know if the Big Bang had a cause - if the universe did begin with the Big Bang (and we don't know if it did), who's to say it wasn't a spontaneous, uncaused event?

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

all caused means is started, so your saying the universe wasn't started by the Big Bang? Sounds like it was from your description.

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.

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?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

all caused means is started,

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).

So you have to be a bit careful - while caused events have a beginning, it's not necessarily true that an event with a beginning had a cause.

so your saying the universe wasn't started by the Big Bang?

No - I'm saying we don't know. It might have been, but then again, it might not have. 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?

We don't know. Quantum fluctuations? The Cosmic Egg of Hinduism? The God of Christianity? At present, we don't know.

 

[Davian]

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?

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't know. Do you?

So you agree the Big bang was started. That means it's caused. That was the entire point. So now is the Big Bang an agent or caused by something else and how do you know?Where is your proof?

 

[Davian]

So you agree the Big bang was started.

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.

That means it's caused.

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 was the entire point.

And that point is faulty.

So now is the Big Bang an agent or caused by something else and how do you know?

I don't. Do you?

Where is your proof?

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.

 

[createdtoworship]

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.

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)?

 

[Davian]

where on earth did you get the idea that a singularity means cause and affect don't work anymore?

Do you have a clear understanding of quantum physics?

Didn't you ever stop to think that something caused the singularity (or started it)?

And what would have caused (or started) that 'something'?

Beware of the turtles.

 

[TScott]

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)?

What is a singularity, and what does it have to do with the Creation of the Universe? I thought a singularity was a black hole.

 

[createdtoworship]

Do you have a clear understanding of quantum physics?

And what would have caused (or started) that 'something'?

Beware of the turtles.

Physics is easy. Again where on earth did you get the idea that singularities have no cause. Just because we can't name the cause doesn't mean it didn't have a beginning or start to it. 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 a singularity has no starter or initiation? Simply nonsense.

 

[Davian]

Physics is easy.

Quantum physics? Is that so? Then perhaps *you* can explain how cause and effect break down at quantum levels.

Again where on earth did you get the idea that singularities have no cause.

I did not say that. I was only referring to a past size of the universe that has been hypothesized.

Just because we can't name the cause doesn't mean it didn't have a beginning or start to it.

Where did you establish that a cause was required?

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.

We are not talking about black holes.

What is to say a singularity has no starter or initiation?

What is to say that one is required?

Simply nonsense.

Common sense is definitely not science.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Physics is easy.

Then you don't understand it.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

So now is the Big Bang an agent or caused by something else and how do you know?

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

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So you agree the Big bang was started.

Yes.

That means it's caused.

No.

As I said, just because something had a beginning doesn't mean it had a cause. Even if you disagree with the science that demonstrates uncaused events, it's simply enough to point out that we don't know all events must have a cause. Causality is a 'common sense' idea, and the universe doesn't really pay much attention to those.

Maybe the Big Bang had a cause. Maybe the Big Bang was the start of the universe. Or, maybe the universe is far older. Or, maybe the universe began without a rhyme or reason.

 

[createdtoworship]

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

only agents can cause their own expansion (without being caused). Not a normal cause. This would mean that the originator of the universe was an agent. Secondly, gravity is caused by tension or distortion of space-time by the presence of the earth in it. Even gravity has a cause.