How did the universe come into existence?

[Ygrene Imref]

The multiverse theory has a concept of always existed. So I have that on my latest list - see post #108. The static universe is a consideration, but science has pretty much proven that the universe is constantly changing and expanding.

Science hasn't proven anything; remember we don't even know more than 10% of what is in our own oceans, so it would be arrogance to assume we know the composition, lifetime, origin and evolution of the universe. Actually, it would be asinine to believe this.

Academia may have come up with a theory on what they have observed, but the science of it needs to be tested in order to be vindicated. And, there is no way to recreate the entire universe, or a scale of such an thing. This is one thing the LHC, and other collides are working towards discovering. But, we aren't there yet.

For a we know, the "cosmos" is a projection of everything here.


Asking these philosophical questions about the universe is tantamount to one of your skin cells trying to determine the dimensions and origin of YOU. It is a problem that is categorically beyond science as we know it.

There is absolutely nothing that necessitates one region of the universe must follow the laws of physics as we know it - except the constraints we have put in place based on our own understanding.

Another theory (besides projection theory) I have heard is that we may be inside of a singularity. There are many theories, but none can be proven until we actually experimentally test these theories and apply them to the nature of the problem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Post #108 has 6 possible solutions to how the universe began to exist. Give me 1 or 2 of your best ideas. Thank you.

I don't know how the universe originated.
And my knowledge concerning cosmology, quantum physics, relativity, etc is far to limited to even be able to have any "good" ideas.

I'll leave the coming up with good ideas, to those people who specialise in exactly that.

 

[Aman777]

I don't know how the universe originated.
And my knowledge concerning cosmology, quantum physics, relativity, etc is far to limited to even be able to have any "good" ideas.

I'll leave the coming up with good ideas, to those people who specialise in exactly that.

You can read of the multiverse in Gen 1:8 and Gen 2:4 which clearly shows that God made 1 Heaven/universe on the 2nd Day and otherS on the 3rd Day. Other references are found in ll Cor 12:2 and Rev 21:1. When you understand, you will see that there were Billions of years BEFORE the big bang of our world.

 

[bling]

Thank you for your thoughts. We will add to the list: It is all not real, we really do not exist.
1) the universe does not exist, it is not real, we are not real.
2) a random chance happening
3) an inevitable happening
4) a Superior Being that has the knowledge and the ability to create.
5) we don't know or understand how it started
6) the multiverse theory (eternally existing universes)

We are getting a larger list than I would have expected. Thank you.

I do not know if (The Universe being one huge Simulation running on some machine means "The Universe does not exist", since it would exist as pure energy/waves in a machine. Even without it being a simulation the matter can be just energy/waves and not actual particles?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Finally, and I've said this over and over, you can't get from something "predicted" in a book to an existent god, because you can't rule out the fact that what's in the book was just a guess, or poetry, or misinterpretation.

False since Gen 1:21 agrees with Science www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life-earth-... that ALL life came from Water.

Gen 1:8 and Gen 2:4 show that we live in a multiverse composed of at least 3 Heavens or universes. Want to see the first picture of another universe beyond ours?

Gen 6:4 shows that today's Humans were produced by the sons of God (prehistoric people) and Humans (descendants of Adam). It explains that evolution had some 6 Billion years and could produce only 1 million prehistoric people, with tiny brains. In the last 10k years, since the Ark arrived, God has produced almost 10 Billion Humans (descendants of Adam) with a mind like God's. History AGREES. That is an example of God's Truth. No guesses, poetry or misinterpretations. God Bless you

Since you're obviously not listening to me, I'll just repeat this for everyone else reading who will listen to it:

All religions have people who point to holy books and say that this passage or that passage proves there is a god because their interpretation of the passage corresponds with something we know about science today. Muslims are famous for doing just that.

Christianity and the Bible, are not unique in this position.

These passages aren't evidence of anything, because of the following:

1. If the passage isn't literally talking about the science it's supposed to represent, it's an interpretation. Interpretations can't be evidence unless there's an objective method to determine that your interpretation is actually what the author meant to say.

2. If the passage is something that could be reasonably assumed by the author, then it's not special knowledge that could have only come from a god.

3. Even if the passage is specific enough to warrant a connection to the science it's supposed to represent, and not something that could be reasonably assumed, you can't get from that to "a god exists". It's a non sequitur. The most you can say is "wow, this is unusual how so and so predicted this so accurately". Rebutting that "It had to come from a god" is just an argument from ignorance.

 

[zippy2006]

I deny that we know what goes on externally to the universe.

I wouldn't deny that time and material start "in" the universe at the Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory says that all matter and time begins with the Big Bang. You are welcome to hold the thesis that there is matter and time outside the universe, but there is no evidence for such a thesis.

My theory is that I know virtually nothing about "events that go on" externally to the post big bang universe.

And yet you wish to implicitly claim that something in fact does go on externally to the universe.

You made an argument that there was at-least one cause to the universe that did not depend on the universe, so if we take that to imply that there is at least one thing that exists externally to the universe we are left with the fact that we don't know it's properties aside from that.

According to the definition of "transcend," the cause does in fact transcend the universe. But we can be content with "external" if you prefer.

Well, that definition is less impressive if you simply mean "external to", and don't know the properties of the thing.

What I mean is what the definition says, and if that's unimpressive to you it's only because you didn't know the definition.

Something not in the universe is going to be not normal or outside of the limits of the universe by definition even if it is a tea cup.

I think it's safe to say that a tea cup does not transcend the universe, and that something which does transcend the universe would be unimaginably more impressive than a teacup.


To reiterate, here is the original argument:

The universe began to exist; everything which begins to exist has a cause; therefore the universe has a cause.

A part cannot explain or cause the whole; a part of the universe cannot cause the universe; therefore something which transcends the universe caused the universe.

 

[variant]

The Big Bang theory says that all matter and time begins with the Big Bang. You are welcome to hold the thesis that there is matter and time outside the universe, but there is no evidence for such a thesis.

No, you can either have your cake or eat it.

All matter and time "in the universe", as the theory is one about "the universe".

If the universe comprises "everything" than there is no argument about external causes to be had, so, if we accept such an external cause argument, we have to accept any given possible external thing that can not be ruled out.

So, your argument is a cravat in big bang cosmology, that, if we accept, we can't take statements like "all matter and time begin with the big bang" seriously.

If it is possible for the universe to have an external cause such an externality has to be dealt with apart from big bang cosmology.

And yet you wish to implicitly claim that something in fact does go on externally to the universe.

That was your claim. I think it is at least plausible.

What I mean is what the definition says, and if that's unimpressive to you it's only because you didn't know the definition.

It's unimpressive because it is unimpressive.

I think it's safe to say that a tea cup does not transcend the universe, and that something which does transcend the universe would be unimaginably more impressive than a teacup.

All we know is that it is external to the universe, again, if the rest of the argument is entirely true.

To reiterate, here is the original argument:

And, I can grant the entire thing and notice you've done nothing to demonstrate a God...

Imagine that.

 

[zippy2006]

No, you can either have your cake or eat it.

All matter and time "in the universe", as the theory is one about "the universe".

The universe is simply everything empirically knowable. Matter, space-time, etc.

If the universe comprises "everything" than there is no argument about external causes to be had, so, if we accept such an external cause argument, we have to accept any given possible external thing that can not be ruled out.

But no one said the universe comprises "everything"--that is a strawman. And the need to posit an immaterial being transcending the universe does not create the need to posit matter and time outside the universe, so your argument fails.

So, your argument is a cravat in big bang cosmology, that, if we accept, we can't take statements like "all matter and time begin with the big bang" seriously.

If the being posited were either material or temporal then your response would not be a strawman. Indeed the very reason it is thought to be neither is because of what we know according to the Big Bang.

That was your claim. I think it is at least plausible.

My claim is that there is a cause--"external," as you say--that is neither material or temporal or bound by any other limit imposed by the universe. You somehow jumped to the conclusion that matter and time exist independently of the universe, a claim which is not in evidence.

It's unimpressive because it is unimpressive.

That's very impressive.

All we know is that it is external to the universe, again, if the rest of the argument is entirely true.

Then you grant that there exists something external to the universe?

 

[variant]

The universe is simply everything empirically knowable. Matter, space-time, etc.

I do not agree with your definition. We have examples of things clearly inside the universe that are not clearly known to be empirically knowable for one.

We do not have any good argument that all empirically knowable things exist within the universe, and by universe I mean (that which was directly caused by the big bang).

But no one said the universe comprises "everything"--that is a strawman. And the need to posit an immaterial being transcending the universe does not create the need to posit matter and time outside the universe, so your argument fails.

You haven't demonstrated any such need.

My argument is that you can't rule much out just because you argued for an external cause to the universe.

You jumped a few steps beyond your premises, such that your conclusion simply does not follow.

If the being posited were either material or temporal then your response would not be a strawman. Indeed the very reason it is thought to be neither is because of what we know according to the Big Bang.

You seem to be just assuming that your conclusion is true without regard for having to actually demonstrate it to be true.

My claim is that there is a cause--"external," as you say--that is neither material or temporal or bound by any other limit imposed by the universe. You somehow jumped to the conclusion that matter and time exist independently of the universe, a claim which is not in evidence.

Not a conclusion. I just pointed out a possibility you didn't deal with or rule out. Which, makes your argument insufficient.

Then you grant that there exists something external to the universe?

If the argument is true, which I am willing to grant for the purposes of demonstration.

 

[zippy2006]

I do not agree with your definition. We have examples of things clearly inside the universe that are not clearly known to be empirically knowable for one.

This is just semantics.

We do not have any good argument that all empirically knowable things exist within the universe, and by universe I mean (that which was directly caused by the big bang).

So you are of the opinion that we might empirically discover something and at the same time say that it is not in the universe? I see no reason to believe such a claim.

You haven't demonstrated any such need.

The argument itself concludes with the need to posit an immaterial being transcending the universe.

My argument is that you can't rule much out just because you argued for an external cause to the universe.

You haven't made an argument, you've made a gratuitous assertion. You assert, contrary to the Big Bang theory and all evidence, that matter and time exist apart from the consequence of the Big Bang. I dismiss your assertion because there is no evidence for it.

You jumped a few steps beyond your premises, such that your conclusion simply does not follow.

What conclusion does not follow? That there is not matter and time apart from the consequence of the Big Bang?

You seem to be just assuming that your conclusion is true without regard for having to actually demonstrate it to be true.

What conclusion?

Not a conclusion. I just pointed out a possibility you didn't deal with or rule out. Which, makes your argument insufficient.

Gratuitous assertions for unevidenced claims are not "possibilities" in any relevant sense. Your "possibility" is on par with Russell's Teapot.

If the argument is true, which I am willing to grant for the purposes of demonstration.

It doesn't take a genius to know that the conclusion follows if the argument is true.

It's time to actually look at the argument and take a stand. Is it sound, or not? If not, why? No more red herrings and beating around the bush.

 

[variant]

This is just semantics.

Nope, the argument you are making for an "immaterial" cause requires the assumption that all material is made in the big bang.

You made sure of that by defining the universe as all of the material things, and then you declared that all material things are in the universe all of which was made by the big bang. Conclusion all material ever was made by the big bang.

If any one of those assumptions is wrong, your argument is unsupported. If there is what we would term material not created by the big bang, your argument for an immaterial thing doesn't demonstrate it's conclusion.

Thus your argument isn't sufficiently supported to demonstrate it's conclusion rationally.

So you are of the opinion that we might empirically discover something and at the same time say that it is not in the universe? I see no reason to believe such a claim.

Well not even the entire universe is available to us "empirically" not even the entire mundane universe. But you have logically decided that there is no material outside the universe by decree. I don't agree that you've demonstrated that.

The argument itself concludes with the need to posit an immaterial being transcending the universe.

And you agree that "external to" the universe is an equivalent idea.

You haven't made an argument, you've made a gratuitous assertion. You assert, contrary to the Big Bang theory and all evidence, that matter and time exist apart from the consequence of the Big Bang. I dismiss your assertion because there is no evidence for it.

I make no such assertions.

Your argument is for "something" external to the universe. And, since I was feeling generous I granted that argument in full.

What I have argued here is that you don't know it's nature because there isn't any evidence for that nature. You have ruled out material, when we really can't rule out anything.

The qualities that follow from the rational you gave are: "causes the universe" and "is not the universe".

What conclusion does not follow? That there is not matter and time apart from the consequence of the Big Bang?

Your argument that concludes with a "immaterial" cause for the universe. That conclusion is unsupported.

Gratuitous assertions for unevidenced claims are not "possibilities" in any relevant sense. Your "possibility" is on par with Russell's Teapot.

In order to assert something you have to deny it's opposite. To make the case that your cause for the universe is "immaterial" you would have to understand it better than you do.

Hint: The actual terminology for what you've described is an indefinite external cause.

I don't have to argue for a material cause per say, but you have to argue that it can't be that. Your argument for a quality of a thing that exists external to the big bang created universe is to say that only the big bang created material, and then turn around and say that there isn't evidence of external material to that, well there isn't evidence for any qualities beyond the ones your rational actually argued for.

It doesn't take a genius to know that the conclusion follows if the argument is true.

The premises have to be true and the conclusion must nessisarily follow from the argument.

Your conclusion is a non-sequitur, it does not follow from the argument.

It's time to actually look at the argument and take a stand. Is it sound, or not? If not, why? No more red herrings and beating around the bush.

I granted the entire argument, which leads to the conclusion that there is something external to the universe that causes the universe.

The further tacked on conclusion that the cause of the universe must be immaterial and transcendent is a non-sequitur.

We don't have evidence beyond the argument that I granted that there is ANYTHING outside the universe, that's why I have to grant the argument for the discussion.

You'd like this to be an argument for a God, but you've got to do a bit better to make it one of those.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can read of the multiverse in Gen 1:8 and Gen 2:4 which clearly shows that God made 1 Heaven/universe on the 2nd Day and otherS on the 3rd Day. Other references are found in ll Cor 12:2 and Rev 21:1. When you understand, you will see that there were Billions of years BEFORE the big bang of our world.

Reality tells us that Time is a property of the universe. The big bang happened at T = 0.
There is no logical "before" that point. Let alone, any billions of years.

Having said that, I don't see the point of bending over backwards to consistently "re-interpret" some bronze age story, just to try and reverse-match it with the latest scientific ideas.

Secondly, I don't care what your book says. If it's wrong, it's wrong and if it's right, it's right - and it doesn't matter if the claim comes from your book, from you, from Stephen Hawking or Captain Kirk.

The origin of a claim, does not alter its credibility. Evidence does.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The universe began to exist;

You don't know that.
Contrary to popular belief, big bang theory is not a theory concerning the origins of the universe. Instead, it attempts to explain the development of the universe, starting at Planck Time: the first "moment" of the universe. Which is the lowest possible time "unit" after T = 0.

"before" that point, our knowledge of physics breaks down.
So, really, for all we know, big bang theory simply describes a state-change of something that already existed.

I'm happy to move forward with the idea that it "began to exist" though, for sake of argument. Just remember that there is a red flag here...

everything which begins to exist has a cause

Seems like a statement that you don't know either. Can you even know this? Whenever a truth claim is done that mentions the word "everything", or "nothing" for that matter, again a red flag is waving...

Have we investigated every there is to investigate? No? Then how could you possible "know" that this rule applies to EVERYTHING? Including thus, all the stuff that we have NOT investigated? That we don't know even know about, at all?

Also, even among the things we actually HAVE investigated, particularly in quantum mechanics, there most certaintly are processes there, which puts a question mark to this second premise. There sure is weird stuff going on in the quantum world, many of which completely challenge our intuition and "common sense". And yes, there are quite some types of events that really do question the universality of phenomena like causality.

; therefore the universe has a cause.

2 problems with this one...

First, obviously, a conclusion can only be as good as its premises. Since the premises above are problematic and basically not in evidence, the conclusion is off the same category: problematic.

Second.... there's a category jump here. Premise 2 necessarily talks about stuff IN the universe. It couldn't be talking about something else, because stuff IN the universe is the only stuff that we can actually observe and study.

I could state now, by the way, that IN this universe, nothing really "begins to exist" (conservation laws and all that), but anyway....

The point is that the universe itself is a very different beast as opposed to the stuff in the universe.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that physical laws/rules/principles/phemona that we observe IN the universe, will also apply to the universe itself.

In fact, it would be very irrational to assume so... for the simple reason that the physical laws are literally dependend on the universe. They are dependend on an expanding space-time and the physical constants of the universe.

So to be able to make statements about the origination of the universe, you would have to know in what kind of environment a universe can originate.

You can't take physics as it applies in the universe and then pretend that the exact same physics apply to the universe itself.

That simply makes no sense at all.


So, in conclusion, I think this argument is extremely bad and wrong in a multitude of ways.

A part cannot explain or cause the whole; a part of the universe cannot cause the universe; therefore something which transcends the universe caused the universe.

Causality is a physical phenomena wich results from physics as it applies in the space-time continuum. By its very definition and its dependencies, it is invalid to invoke it in a setting where there is no such space-time continuum.

So we arrive at an immaterial cause that transcends the universe

Actually, we just arrive at invalid conclusions based on false premises and ignorance.

I guess we don't have to call it God if you really dislike that name. This obviously provides a measure of explanation via the syllogisms; to deny this is to arbitrarily define "explanation" as excluding certain kinds of causes.

You don't have any explanations or arguments.
All you have here, are fallacies. sorry.

 

[Aman777]

Since you're obviously not listening to me, I'll just repeat this for everyone else reading who will listen to it:

All religions have people who point to holy books and say that this passage or that passage proves there is a god because their interpretation of the passage corresponds with something we know about science today. Muslims are famous for doing just that.

Show us where Muslims show that all life came from water are Gen 1:21 states. I don't think you can.

*** Christianity and the Bible, are not unique in this position.
These passages aren't evidence of anything, because of the following:

www.smithsonianmag.com/.../behold-luca-last-universal-common-ancestor-life-earth-... that ALL life came from Water. Gen 1:21 states the SAME.

*** 1. If the passage isn't literally talking about the science it's supposed to represent, it's an interpretation. Interpretations can't be evidence unless there's an objective method to determine that your interpretation is actually what the author meant to say.

Can you identify the Author? Of course not since it could have only been the Holy Spirit since NO man of the time could have known this. The passage is LITERALLY the same as the evidence announced by Science less than a year ago. You failed to show us HOW ancient men of 3k years ago could have written this.

Gen 1:8 and Gen 2:4 show that we live in a multiverse composed of at least 3 Heavens or universes. Want to see the first picture of another universe beyond ours?


*** 2. If the passage is something that could be reasonably assumed by the author, then it's not special knowledge that could have only come from a god.

The Author is God. It took mankind 3k years to confirm what He told us in Gen 1.+

Gen 6:4 shows that today's Humans were produced by the sons of God (prehistoric people) and Humans (descendants of Adam). It explains that evolution had some 6 Billion years and could produce only 1 million prehistoric people, with tiny brains. In the last 10k years, since the Ark arrived, God has produced almost 10 Billion Humans (descendants of Adam) with a mind like God's. History AGREES. That is an example of God's Truth. No guesses, poetry or misinterpretations. God Bless you

*** 3. Even if the passage is specific enough to warrant a connection to the science it's supposed to represent, and not something that could be reasonably assumed, you can't get from that to "a god exists". It's a non sequitur. The most you can say is "wow, this is unusual how so and so predicted this so accurately". Rebutting that "It had to come from a god" is just an argument from ignorance.

Now, it's your time to tell us HOW ancient men could have possibly known that ALL living creatures came from WATER. Also, HOW did they know that we live in a multiverse? Gen 1:8 and Gen 2:4 Today's science is ignorant of HOW or WHEN prehistoric man evolved his superior intelligence. History shows that it happened when the Ark arrived bringing the superior intelligence of God Gen 3:22 to this Planet of the descendants of the common ancestor of Apes. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE

Comments?

 

[Aman777]

Reality tells us that Time is a property of the universe. The big bang happened at T = 0.
There is no logical "before" that point. Let alone, any billions of years.

The beginning of our Cosmos was late on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4 since it was less than a Billion years before the first Stars lit up on the 4th Day. Gen 1:16 Each of God's Days or Ages is some 4 Billion years in length.

*** Having said that, I don't see the point of bending over backwards to consistently "re-interpret" some bronze age story, just to try and reverse-match it with the latest scientific ideas.

Correction. God told us He would pour out His Spirit of Truth in the last days before Jesus returns. The "increased knowledge" of Science, in the last days, is HOW this is begin accomplished. Dan 12:3

*** Secondly, I don't care what your book says. If it's wrong, it's wrong and if it's right, it's right - and it doesn't matter if the claim comes from your book, from you, from Stephen Hawking or Captain Kirk.

Amen.

*** The origin of a claim, does not alter its credibility. Evidence does.

Now, you've got it. Unless God's Truth AGREES in every way with every discovery of Science and History, then it is NOT God's Truth. ONLY the people of the last days can possibly understand. God Bless you

 

[zippy2006]

If there is what we would term material not created by the big bang, your argument for an immaterial thing doesn't demonstrate it's conclusion.

Feel free to provide evidence for matter existing apart from the universe. Until you do so, your contention is a species of Russell's Teapot.

And you agree that "external to" the universe is an equivalent idea.

No, I never agreed to that. This is simply a misrepresentation.

The qualities that follow from the rational you gave are: "causes the universe" and "is not the universe".

And it follows that things which are caused by the Big Bang do not enter into the constitution of the cause of the Big Bang. It is commonly accepted that matter and time are both caused by the Big Bang, and there is no evidence that these things exist apart from our universe.

In order to assert something you have to deny it's opposite.

Amen. You ought to talk to @ToddNotTodd about this!

To make the case that your cause for the universe is "immaterial" you would have to understand it better than you do.

You think I would need more evidence than the scientific consensus that matter arose with the Big Bang? In reality my thesis enjoys wide support and evidence, whereas your thesis enjoys neither. You are free to assert that matter exists apart from the universe, but making claims without any evidence is generally taken to be irrational.

Hint: The actual terminology for what you've described is an indefinite external cause.

So are you conceding that an indefinite external cause exists?

I don't have to argue for a material cause per say, but you have to argue that it can't be that. Your argument for a quality of a thing that exists external to the big bang created universe is to say that only the big bang created material, and then turn around and say that there isn't evidence of external material to that, well there isn't evidence for any qualities beyond the ones your rational actually argued for.

I have given arguments: the Big Bang theory and scientific consensus. Now you can present your arguments for the existence of matter apart from the universe, and we can determine which thesis enjoys better support.

The premises have to be true and the conclusion must nessisarily follow from the argument.

Your conclusion is a non-sequitur, it does not follow from the argument.

So you think my conclusion does not follow because Russell's Teapot is floating around in space somewhere? (i.e. because matter exists apart from the universe)

I granted the entire argument, which leads to the conclusion that there is something external to the universe that causes the universe.

The further tacked on conclusion that the cause of the universe must be immaterial and transcendent is a non-sequitur.

Okay.

We don't have evidence beyond the argument that I granted that there is ANYTHING outside the universe, that's why I have to grant the argument for the discussion.

Except you're apparently dogmatic about there being matter outside the universe, and the motive is something like denying that God exists.

You'd like this to be an argument for a God, but you've got to do a bit better to make it one of those.

I think the average person can see that whatever caused the universe transcends the universe, and that matter and time arise with the universe. I think this is an example of irrational skepticism. You have some grand desire to deny the conclusion of the argument, but you don't seem to have any good reasons for doing so.

 

[Peter1000]

Science hasn't proven anything; remember we don't even know more than 10% of what is in our own oceans, so it would be arrogance to assume we know the composition, lifetime, origin and evolution of the universe. Actually, it would be asinine to believe this.

Academia may have come up with a theory on what they have observed, but the science of it needs to be tested in order to be vindicated. And, there is no way to recreate the entire universe, or a scale of such an thing. This is one thing the LHC, and other collides are working towards discovering. But, we aren't there yet.

For a we know, the "cosmos" is a projection of everything here.


Asking these philosophical questions about the universe is tantamount to one of your skin cells trying to determine the dimensions and origin of YOU. It is a problem that is categorically beyond science as we know it.

There is absolutely nothing that necessitates one region of the universe must follow the laws of physics as we know it - except the constraints we have put in place based on our own understanding.

Another theory (besides projection theory) I have heard is that we may be inside of a singularity. There are many theories, but none can be proven until we actually experimentally test these theories and apply them to the nature of the problem.

So do you have any theory to add to the list. We have not come to the solution yet?

 

[variant]

Feel free to provide evidence for matter existing apart from the universe. Until you do so, your contention is a species of Russell's Teapot.

Your argument relies on the unsupported assertion that It does not.

And it follows that things which are caused by the Big Bang do not enter into the constitution of the cause of the Big Bang. It is commonly accepted that matter and time are both caused by the Big Bang, and there is no evidence that these things exist apart from our universe.

It is commonly accepted that material things in this universe are caused by the Big Bang, we don't know about the nature of these other things that you are arguing about.

You just asked me to prove they aren't material with evidence, so I suppose I should ask you to prove they are immaterial with evidence.

Amen. You ought to talk to @ToddNotTodd about this!

Feel free to point me in the right direction.

You think I would need more evidence than the scientific consensus that matter arose with the Big Bang? In reality my thesis enjoys wide support and evidence, whereas your thesis enjoys neither. You are free to assert that matter exists apart from the universe, but making claims without any evidence is generally taken to be irrational.

I am not making claims other than saying yours aren't sufficiently supported like you think they are.

I don't believe there is anything like a wide scientific consensus to call all things existing pre- big bang definitively "immaterial" in nature, or to rule out material things from existing outside what we consider the universe.

I don't believe there is ANY consensus about what happened during the very early parts of the Big bang let alone theorizing what happened "before". We don't even have the math to describe things like that and our physics tends to break down there too.

I think these are your descriptions.

So, the model goes back to the point where physics doesn't describe things so well anymore within the model, or in any other way, and, at some point before that (a point of incredible ignorance for humanity) your argument comes in to assert some things about the nature of what is going on based upon your understanding of causation and what should be properly termed "material", "transcendent" or "God".

Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical.

So are you conceding that an indefinite external cause exists?

That is what I think the conclusion is if you grant all the premises of the argument you were using true and think about what conclusion is demonstrated by them.

I have given arguments: the Big Bang theory and scientific consensus. Now you can present your arguments for the existence of matter apart from the universe, and we can determine which thesis enjoys better support.

The big bang theory simply doesn't actually contain anything like your assumptions. It is a model of the early universe going back to the point where physics falls in on itself.

It's a theory to describe the beginning of the universe, and no one, anywhere is going to tell you they "get" it from a "before" standpoint enough to start talking about the nature of it's cause beyond conjecture.

So you think my conclusion does not follow because Russell's Teapot is floating around in space somewhere? (i.e. because matter exists apart from the universe)

I think your conclusion is unsupported because you can't ferry in an assumption.

Except you're apparently dogmatic about there being matter outside the universe, and the motive is something like denying that God exists.

I am not dogmatic at all, the idea that there is not matter outside the universe is just an unsupported conclusion of yours.

I think the average person can see that whatever caused the universe transcends the universe, and that matter and time arise with the universe. I think this is an example of irrational skepticism. You have some grand desire to deny the conclusion of the argument, but you don't seem to have any good reasons for doing so.

I have every reason to not allow you to assert things not shown by your argument.

 

[zippy2006]

Your argument relies on the unsupported assertion that It does not.



It is commonly accepted that material things in this universe are caused by the Big Bang, we don't know about the nature of these other things that you are arguing about.

You just asked me to prove they aren't material with evidence, so I suppose I should ask you to prove they are immaterial with evidence.



Feel free to point me in the right direction.



I am not making claims other than saying yours aren't sufficiently supported like you think they are.

I don't believe there is anything like a wide scientific consensus to call all things existing pre- big bang definitively "immaterial" in nature, or to rule out material things from existing outside what we consider the universe.

I don't believe there is ANY consensus about what happened during the very early parts of the Big bang let alone theorizing what happened "before". We don't even have the math to describe things like that and our physics tends to break down there too.

I think these are your descriptions.

So, the model goes back to the point where physics doesn't describe things so well anymore within the model, or in any other way, and, at some point before that (a point of incredible ignorance for humanity) your argument comes in to assert some things about the nature of what is going on based upon your understanding of causation and what should be properly termed "material", "transcendent" or "God".

Yeah, I'm pretty skeptical.



That is what I think the conclusion is if you grant all the premises of the argument you were using true and think about what conclusion is demonstrated by them.



The big bang theory simply doesn't actually contain anything like your assumptions. It is a model of the early universe going back to the point where physics falls in on itself.

It's a theory to describe the beginning of the universe, and no one, anywhere is going to tell you they "get" it from a "before" standpoint enough to start talking about the nature of it's cause beyond conjecture.



I think your conclusion is unsupported because you can't ferry in an assumption.



I am not dogmatic at all, the idea that there is not matter outside the universe is just an unsupported conclusion of yours.



I have every reason to not allow you to assert things not shown by your argument.

1. All matter comes into existence with the Big Bang. (Zippy's thesis)
2. Some matter exists apart from the Big Bang and apart from the universe. (Variant's thesis)

So we have these two theses. I have presented evidence for (1), but you have presented no evidence for (2). In fact we simply have no evidence of matter existing apart from the Big Bang and our universe. There may be such matter despite the lack of evidence, but supporting (2) is like supporting Russell's Teapot.

You claim that because I haven't definitively refuted (2) that I have no case for (1). But my case is the evidence we have for (1), and the lack of evidence we have for (2).

Given that (1) is widely accepted, I will content myself with the claim:

If (1), then the cause of the universe is immaterial.​

You are free to reject (1), despite the fact that you have no rational case. Regardless of this, we have agreed that there exists a cause external to the universe which caused the universe.

Using some basic reasoning (which you will deny with all your skeptical willpower), we can infer that the thing which caused the universe transcends the universe, for nothing is bound by that which it causes. This allows us to arrive at an immaterial being which transcends the universe (and also transcends temporality). Thus the cause begins to look a lot like God. Obviously you dispute this "basic reasoning," but I believe most people who are not skeptics would accept it, which is why I point it out.

I think there is little more to say.

 

[variant]

1. All matter comes into existence with the Big Bang. (Zippy's thesis)
2. Some matter exists apart from the Big Bang and apart from the universe. (Variant's thesis)

So we have these two theses. I have presented evidence for (1), but you have presented no evidence for (2). In fact we simply have no evidence of matter existing apart from the Big Bang and our universe. There may be such matter despite the lack of evidence, but supporting (2) is like supporting Russell's Teapot.

Your evidence for 1 is a theory you clearly don't understand, as it has lead you to rule out all material causes from the period before we have a real understanding.

You actually a few posts ago defined the universe as that which is empirically available to us, which is funny because the big bang theory models that earliest part big bang where we don't know if we can even model, would already have material qualities. So, I really don't think your assumption IS one of the big bang according to your own definition, let alone a consequence of the theory.

The "big bang theory" is a model for which NO living person claims an adequate understanding down to time 0, much less "before". We describe and model the universe after this point with theoretical physics, a modeling system for the universe as a material system.

The big bang is a model from theoretical physics, and thus a theory that can't rule out material from any proposed "cause" that you propose originates before the model breaks down.

If we were to draw the timeline of the universe as a line each - representing some non zero amount of time:

???(you are arguing about here)-(material starts here)-(or,you are arguing about here and that first dash was wrong)----(theoretical physics stops making sense here)-------------(Billions of years where physics makes sense)-----(we are here).

Why would you suppose that you can use a theory which doesn't yet adequately cover the area you are speaking of as evidence to buttress what you want to claim about what it specifically doesn't understand yet?

Further the big bang theory isn't "evidence" it is the theory which attempts to explain the evidence we actually have and predict new features.

You claim that because I haven't definitively refuted (2) that I have no case for (1). But my case is the evidence we have for (1), and the lack of evidence we have for (2).

You haven't refuted anything. Your case depends on the "big bang theory" which doesn't include or require your assumption.

So, even if we grant that your argument shows a necessity for an external cause to the universe, we wouldn't be able to throw out whole classes of ideas and assert other ones.

(1) is unsupported.