What do you believe and why?

[Archaeopteryx]

We know of nothing that did not have a beginning, so it is reasonable to presume this is true of the entire Universe. In addition, the apparent evidence from science indicates an origin as some point in time (and the theory is, of course, that time originates then as well). It seems to me that when we go back to the very beginning of the universe, we are left with only two options: either something came from nothing, or there is a Creator. I have not been able to persuade myself that the first option is reasonable.

In what way does a beginning to the universe imply a beginning from nothing?

OK, I'll rephrase: We know nothing within the universe (that is, included in what Christians would call Creation) that did not have a beginning.

That's right: within the universe. What makes you think that our understanding of things within the universe must be apply to the universe itself?

 

[hankroberts]

In what way does a beginning to the universe imply a beginning from nothing?



That's right: within the universe. What makes you think that our understanding of things within the universe must be apply to the universe itself?

"In what way does a beginning to the universe imply a beginning from nothing?"
It doesn't: but as far as I can see, it is one of the only two alternatives available.

"What makes you think that our understanding of things within the universe must be apply to the universe itself?"

Probably the same thing that leads most scientists to that conclusion. Those rules, laws, principles, etc. that apply to everything within the universe are reasonably applicable to the universe as a whole. I see no evidence that those things which apply within the universe do not apply to the universe as a whole. Why: is there something that would lead someone to a different conclusion?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It doesn't: but as far as I can see, it is one of the only two alternatives available.

There's a very narrow view of the alternatives then. There are many models of cosmological origins, and not at all of them assume a beginning from pure philosophical nothingness.

Probably the same thing that leads most scientists to that conclusion. Those rules, laws, principles, etc. that apply to everything within the universe are reasonably applicable to the universe as a whole. I see no evidence that those things which apply within the universe do not apply to the universe as a whole. Why: is there something that would lead someone to a different conclusion?

Yes, there is good reason to question that assumption. How does causality (a rule or principle operant within the universe) work in the absence of matter, energy and spacetime? It's intuitive to say that something caused the vase to fall to the floor when there is a vase, a floor, and physical forces acting on both. We are most familiar with that kind of usage of 'cause'. We are totally unfamiliar with how causality works (if it works at all) in the absence of the matter, energy and spacetime.

I don't think scientists assume what you're suggesting they do. The Large Hadron Collider was constructed, in large part, to recreate the conditions of the very early universe so that we may glimpse how matter and energy behave in those conditions, and thereby gain a better understanding of the universe's origins. It isn't merely assumed that our intuitions about causality scale down to the level of particles interacting in the highly dense state of the early universe. The matter is investigated to examine whether that assumption is justified.

 

[hankroberts]

"There's a very narrow view of the alternatives then. "

Well, those are the only two I know of, given the original criteria.

"Yes, there is good reason to question that assumption."

Not that I've seen.

"How does causality (a rule or principle operant within the universe) work in the absence of matter, energy and spacetime?" ..."We are totally unfamiliar with how causality works (if it works at all) in the absence of the matter, energy and spacetime."

Precisely so. Leaving only one alternative as far as I know. That was exactly the point. It doesn't preclude all kinds of speculation, and the research spawned by that speculation; but until something worthy of note offers a third realistic alternative, I'm stuck with those two.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well, those are the only two I know of, given the original criteria.

As I said, there are other models, and as you yourself noted, a beginning to the universe need not imply a beginning from nothing.

Not that I've seen.

I gave you a reason why it needs to be considered more closely. Our intuitions about causality as it works within the universe need not apply to the universe itself or to a situation where there is no universe at all.

Precisely so. Leaving only one alternative as far as I know. That was exactly the point. It doesn't preclude all kinds of speculation, and the research spawned by that speculation; but until something worthy of note offers a third realistic alternative, I'm stuck with those two.

So you admit that Goddidit is one speculation among others?

 

[hankroberts]

"As I said, there are other models,"

And as I said, not that I've seen (meriting serious consideration, that is).

"and as you yourself noted, a beginning to the universe need not imply a beginning from nothing."

Actually, what I said was that there is an alternative to Spontaneous Generation from nothing: a Creator.

"I gave you a reason why it needs to be considered more closely."

But you seem to be presuming I haven't considered this carefully.

"Our intuitions about causality as it works within the universe need not apply to the universe itself "

Not if we have some justification for presuming they don't. So far, I don't have any such justification.

"So you admit that Goddidit is one speculation among others? "

"Admit" ?? I believe my original statement was that at the very beginning, we have two rational alternatives. A Creator is one.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If the universe is "all that is", what would it mean to say that "all that is" came into being?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Actually, what I said was that there is an alternative to Spontaneous Generation from nothing: a Creator.

Once again then, how does a beginning imply a beginning from nothing? You apparently acknowledge that it doesn't, so there are obviously options other than the ones you've mentioned.

But you seem to be presuming I haven't considered this carefully.

I'm not certain if you have or haven't. I'm only responding to what you have written.

Not if we have some justification for presuming they don't. So far, I don't have any such justification.

Do you have a justification for presuming that they do?

"Admit" ?? I believe my original statement was that at the very beginning, we have two rational alternatives. A Creator is one.

But we have more than two. You want to restrict it to two.

 

[bhsmte]

And of course, that is included in my understanding of Revelation, since information provided by God would fit the definition used in the theory of knowledge and how we acquire knowledge. So a Divine revelation would also be a trusted source of information. But I prefer not to limit myself to a definition that is less than the scholarly community would use, if it isn't necessary. And for me, it isn't.

And incidentally, my definition came from Seminary Theology class notes.

All depends how one can determine, it is a trusted source.

Of course a theist, is going to consider information they claim to be from God to be trusted, but for others one would need to show this information is credible and verifiable and backed with objective evidence.

If I am studying germ theory in science, I can trust the source of the information and look to the evidence that supports the findings. With revelation from a God, this objective confirmation, is absent.

Nothing wrong with believing one's personal revelation on faith though, which is why it is called faith to begin with.

 

[Davian]

And of course, that is included in my understanding of Revelation, since information provided by God would fit the definition used in the theory of knowledge and how we acquire knowledge. So a Divine revelation would also be a trusted source of information. But I prefer not to limit myself to a definition that is less than the scholarly community would use, if it isn't necessary. And for me, it isn't.

And incidentally, my definition came from Seminary Theology class notes.

If "Divine revelation would also be a trusted source of information" only for for information that cannot be verified, how then do you know you can trust it?

 

[hankroberts]

"there are obviously options other than the ones you've mentioned."
Not that I know of.

But you seem to be presuming I haven't considered this carefully.
"I'm not certain if you have or haven't. I'm only responding to what you have written."

Well, I agree with Fisher Humphreys. If it is even possible that there is a God, and if we are going to think carefully and seriously about anything at all, then we should think carefully and seriously about God.

Not if we have some justification for presuming they don't. So far, I don't have any such justification.
"Do you have a justification for presuming that they do?"

Already asked and answered.

"Admit" ?? I believe my original statement was that at the very beginning, we have two rational alternatives. A Creator is one.
"But we have more than two."

Not that I know of. (again).

 

[hankroberts]

All depends how one can determine, it is a trusted source.

Of course a theist, is going to consider information they claim to be from God to be trusted, but for others one would need to show this information is credible and verifiable and backed with objective evidence.

If I am studying germ theory in science, I can trust the source of the information and look to the evidence that supports the findings. With revelation from a God, this objective confirmation, is absent.

Nothing wrong with believing one's personal revelation on faith though, which is why it is called faith to begin with.

"All depends how one can determine, it is a trusted source."

Well, of course it is a tautology that a trusted source is only to be trusted if one can properly determine that it is trustworthy. If one cannot, then by definition it is not a trusted source, is it?

"Of course a theist, is going to consider information they claim to be from God to be trusted,"

Oh, not at all. In fact the most rigorous critical evaluation of information within the Theistic community (particularly Christianity but not exclusively) is addressed to supposed divine revelation, and it comes from Christian scholars.

"If I am studying germ theory in science, I can trust the source of the information ..."
And yet how often we uncritically accept a source. The truth is that the majority of things you accept as true were accepted on the basis of someone else telling you. This is the foundation of modern education: we trust teachers to tell us the truth.

"Nothing wrong with believing one's personal revelation on faith though, which is why it is called faith to begin with. "

Really? You must use the term differently than the Biblical use.

 

[hankroberts]

If "Divine revelation would also be a trusted source of information" only for for information that cannot be verified, how then do you know you can trust it?

Why would you think Divine Revelation would be a trusted source "only for information that cannot be verified"? Other Revelation certainly is not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not that I know of.

That's why I gestured toward them, so that you can become aware of it.

Well, I agree with Fisher Humphreys. If it is even possible that there is a God, and if we are going to think carefully and seriously about anything at all, then we should think carefully and seriously about God.

Why? Will it enhance our understanding of cosmology in any way?

Already asked and answered.

I may have missed the answer. Where is it?

Once again, why must our intuitions about causality apply to the universe as a whole or even in the absence of a universe?

Not that I know of. (again).

Which is why I alerted you to it. For someone who has apparently considered the matter carefully you seem to be unaware of it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And yet how often we uncritically accept a source. The truth is that the majority of things you accept as true were accepted on the basis of someone else telling you. This is the foundation of modern education: we trust teachers to tell us the truth.

Yes, we do trust teachers, but not infallibly so. We also trust doctors, but we don't consider them infallible either. We trust them to be proficient in their areas of expertise because they have gone through a (hopefully) rigorous learning process to earn their credentials. We recognise that by our trust. It is earned.

 

[Colter]

Yes, we do trust teachers, but not infallibly so. We also trust doctors, but we don't consider them infallible either. We trust them to be proficient in their areas of expertise because they have gone through a (hopefully) rigorous learning process to earn their credentials. We recognise that by our trust. It is earned.

I found that when I put my full trust in God, he is trust worthy. That trust relationship is apart from the imperfections of middlemen and evolved religion.

You have in your heart a fragment of God but you simply refuse to trust him.

 

[Jesse2014]

nm

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I found that when I put my full trust in God, he is trust worthy. That trust relationship is apart from the imperfections of middlemen and evolved religion.

You have in your heart a fragment of God but you simply refuse to trust him.

You can only trust (or refuse to trust) a being that you believe to exist.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What do you believe to be the source of the universe and why? If you respond that you do not know, please provide an intelligent reason as to why you do not know.

Thank you.

I don't know.

An intelligent reason as to why I don't know?
I don't know, because nobody has solved that riddle yet.
How could I know?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ok, so let's say before the big bang or whatever it is everything is expanding from, there is another form of the universe. Where did it come from? Isn't the entire integrity of science based off of cause and effect? Are you saying the universe is eternal?

1. Exactly the same argument applies to your "eternal" god. Unless you engage in special pleading (next to arguments from ignorance)

2. causality is something that applies in the space-time continuum (and even there it's sketchy at times). At T = 0, physics breaks down. Including causality, wich is part of physics. We don't know what happens there. There is no unified field theory (yet?).