This Christian's disappointment with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron in Nightline debate.

Via Crucis
Theist
Via Crucis's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-07-27
User is offlineOffline
This Christian's disappointment with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron in Nightline debate.

I watched some of the debate between the RRS and Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  I love and respect their ministry immensely, but I was disappointed in Ray and Kirk for not knocking the granny toss out of the park!  I’m referring to the idea that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (a.k.a. the Law of Conservation of Energy) somehow “proves” that the universe is eternal and therefore needs no Creator.  It does no such thing.  When one takes into account the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (a.k.a. the Law of Entropy), this notion crumbles.  To avoid debates about my definitions of each law, I’ve provided the definitions from www.physicalgeography.net:

 
CHAPTER 6: Energy and Matter

 

(e). Laws of Thermodynamics
 

The field of thermodynamics studies the behavior of energy flow in natural systems. From this study, a number of physical laws have been established. The laws of thermodynamics describe some of the fundamental truths of thermodynamics observed in our Universe. Understanding these laws is important to students of Physical Geography because many of the processes studied involve the flow of energy.

First Law of ThermodynamicsThe first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. Einstein's famous equation (written below) describes the relationship between energy and matter:

E = mc2

In the equation above, energy (E) is equal to matter (m) times the square of a constant (c). Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. His equation also suggests that the quantity of energy and matter in the Universe is fixed.

Second Law of ThermodynamicsHeat cannot be transfer from a colder to a hotter body. As a result of this fact of thermodynamics, natural processes that involve energy transfer must have one direction, and all natural processes are irreversible. This law also predicts that the entropy of an isolated system always increases with time. Entropy is the measure of the disorder or randomness of energy and matter in a system. Because of the second law of thermodynamics both energy and matter in the Universe are becoming less useful as time goes on. Perfect order in the Universe occurred the instance after the Big Bang when energy and matter and all of the forces of the Universe were unified. 

Third Law of ThermodynamicsThe third law of thermodynamics states that if all the thermal motion of molecules (kinetic energy) could be removed, a state called absolute zero would occur. Absolute zero results in a temperature of 0 Kelvins or -273.15° Celsius.

Absolute Zero = 0 Kelvins = -273.15° Celsius

The Universe will attain absolute zero when all energy and matter is randomly distributed across space. The current temperature of empty space in the Universe is about 2.7 Kelvins.

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6e.html

 This suggests that the universe had a beginning and, therefore, is not eternal.  Here’s an illustration.  When you’re playing pool, kinetic energy is transferred from your arm, to the stick, to the cue ball, to the rack.  For a few seconds, balls scatter all over the table until finally they come to a rest.  Why don’t they scramble across the table for all eternity?  Well, with each transfer of energy, some usable, or kinetic, energy is lost until it is all gone.  No ball rolls as fast as the ball that hit it until no balls roll at all.  That’s exactly what’s happening with the universe on the atomic level. 

Notice I didn’t say that energy is destroyed.  I only pointed out that it is gradually being transferred into an unusable form.  An eternal universe would require a constant supply of usable energy.  However, according to the 2nd law, the universe is LOSING this supply and is headed toward Absolute Zero (see 3rd law), and because of the 1st law, it’s not creating anymore.  Bottom line, the cosmic gas tank is headed toward “E” with no filling station in sight.  Therefore, there had to be a point in time in which the universe began.  Nothing with an end is eternal.  Since the universe has an end, it HAD to have a beginning, and since it had a beginning, it had to have a beginner. 

I wish Ray or Kirk would have explained this briefly, but they didn’t.  Shame. They should have dominated that debate since RRS admitted they would have to call Leonardo da Vinci to prove the Mona Lisa was actually painted. *shaking head*  I don’t fault Ray and Kirk’s position, just their lack of preparedness.

Let me get this straight. The roofing nail is "design," but the bat's sonar capability is an "accident." Hmm... Do you also believe tornadoes build trailor parks?


vexed
vexed's picture
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forums!!

Welcome to the forums!!


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Hi Crucis nice post

Hi Crucis nice post

but you have made some errors

Via Crucis wrote:

Perfect order in the Universe occurred the instance after the Big Bang when energy and matter and all of the forces of the Universe were unified.

Not quite instantly, some unusual stuff happened at the beginning of the universe, I tried to find links on Google to explain this better, unfortunately the first couple of pages were full of religious nonsense, I'll see if I can track down an scientific explanation later

Via Crucis wrote:

The Universe will attain absolute zero when all energy and matter is randomly distributed across space. The current temperature of empty space in the Universe is about 2.7 Kelvins.

The half life of protons, will probably end the universe as we know it, 10 to the power of 32 year approximately, don't forget to turn the light off Smiling

At the moment where we are, the universe is still warm, this is because of the background radiation cause by the Big Bang approximately 3° above absolute zero

Via Crucis wrote:

since it had a beginning, it had to have a beginner

One could say, since there was a beginner, that beginner had to have a beginner and so on indefinitely, now it's getting a bit silly isn't it Smiling


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Via Crucis wrote:

Via Crucis wrote:
The Universe will attain absolute zero when all energy and matter is randomly distributed across space.
Error, as long as there is matter/energy (even in a state of perfect homogenation), 0 Kelvin can never happen else time will end. If time stops, the universe will no longer exist.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Via Crucis wrote: This

Via Crucis wrote:
This suggests that the universe had a beginning and, therefore, is not eternal.
Which universe? Define "begining".

Next thing you'll tell me is that "something" started the universe, right? 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome, Via Crucis. When

Welcome, Via Crucis.

When you get a moment, we'd like to get to know you a little better.  Please hop over to the General Conversation, Introductions and Humor forum and introduce yourself. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
You expect the guy that

You expect the guy that calls the banana the "atheist's worst nightmare," to be able to prepare an argument using the laws of thermodynamics?  Seriously?

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


Via Crucis
Theist
Via Crucis's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-07-27
User is offlineOffline
AiiA wrote: Via Crucis

AiiA wrote:

Via Crucis wrote:
The Universe will attain absolute zero when all energy and matter is randomly distributed across space.
Error, as long as there is matter/energy (even in a state of perfect homogenation), 0 Kelvin can never happen else time will end. If time stops, the universe will no longer exist.

That's the point. We're running out of usable energy. Other sources maintain that we will bottom out at just above absolute zero, but the final temperature of the universe is irrelevant. The point is that we are decaying to the point of utter uselessness.

The significance of this is that our universe cannot be eternal, or it would have run out of energy an eternity ago. Since it is continually losing energy, there had to be a point at which it began to exist. Therefore, it needed a cause.

Let me get this straight. The roofing nail is "design," but the bat's sonar capability is an "accident." Hmm... Do you also believe tornadoes build trailor parks?


Via Crucis
Theist
Via Crucis's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-07-27
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin wrote: One

Rev_Devilin wrote:

One could say, since there was a beginner, that beginner had to have a beginner and so on indefinitely, now it's getting a bit silly isn't it Smiling

Actually, that would be silly. I've never said "everything that exists has to have a cause," rather, "everything that begins to exist has to have a cause." For anything to exist, SOMETHING has to be eternal... an uncaused cause. For atheists, that something has to be the universe (see Nightline debate with Comfort and Cameron). What I'm showing is that the universe, again, is NOT eternal and is subject to some other cause.

Now whatever caused our natural world, by necessity, would be outside our laws of nature, or "supernatural."  Whatever created time/space/matter would naturally be superior to and unaffected by the laws of time/space/matter.

When atheists ask, "well, who created God???" they're being inconsistent.  They have no problem believing in something eternal (the uncaused cause) as long as it's the universe.  However, as soon as the universe is shown to need a cause, suddenly ITS cause needs a cause, and so on.

Let me get this straight. The roofing nail is "design," but the bat's sonar capability is an "accident." Hmm... Do you also believe tornadoes build trailor parks?


Via Crucis
Theist
Via Crucis's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-07-27
User is offlineOffline
Roisin Dubh wrote: You

Roisin Dubh wrote:
You expect the guy that calls the banana the "atheist's worst nightmare," to be able to prepare an argument using the laws of thermodynamics?  Seriously?

Actually, yes.

Let me get this straight. The roofing nail is "design," but the bat's sonar capability is an "accident." Hmm... Do you also believe tornadoes build trailor parks?


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Via Crucis wrote:

Via Crucis wrote:
That's the point. We're running out of usable energy. Other sources maintain that we will bottom out at just above absolute zero, but the final temperature of the universe is irrelevant. The point is that we are decaying to the point of utter uselessness.

Over an extremely long period of time though.

Quote:
The significance of this is that our universe cannot be eternal, or it would have run out of energy an eternity ago. Since it is continually losing energy, there had to be a point at which it began to exist. Therefore, it needed a cause.

Perhaps, but this in no way indicates a purposeful creation so to argue that there must be a creator is fallacious.

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Via Crucis

Via Crucis wrote:

Actually, that would be silly. I've never said "everything that exists has to have a cause," rather, "everything that begins to exist has to have a cause."

You need to show that everything that begins to exist needs a cause. From where do you draw this conclusion? It is a wholly unsupported assertion.

I am not speaking of things that are formed from pre-existing matter, as the matter for these already exists, it is just arranged in another way. A painting is is simply re-arranging already existing things into a different configuration. The painter does not actually 'create' anything in the sense of the word create you are using when you say that the universe requires a creator.

I am asking you to provide evidence that existence itself needs a cause, as this is the premise on which your argument that a creator is required is based. To draw false analogies to things that human beings create is not useful.

Quote:
For anything to exist, SOMETHING has to be eternal... an uncaused cause.

Why do you assume this? 

 

Quote:
For atheists, that something has to be the universe (see Nightline debate with Comfort and Cameron). What I'm showing is that the universe, again, is NOT eternal and is subject to some other cause.

If you are using eternal to mean 'encompassing all of time', then if time is contained within the universe, it is most definitely, by definition, eternal. If by eternal you mean 'for an infinite amount of time' then you need to show that time exists separate from the universe so that there could be a pre-universe time in which the universe could have not existed.

I see no reason to think that there need be any pre-universe state from which to create the universe. The universe could very easily have simply existed for all of time and to speak of before time is, as should be obvious, an absurdity.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Via Crucis
Theist
Via Crucis's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-07-27
User is offlineOffline
The Patrician wrote: Via

The Patrician wrote:

Via Crucis wrote:
That's the point. We're running out of usable energy. Other sources maintain that we will bottom out at just above absolute zero, but the final temperature of the universe is irrelevant. The point is that we are decaying to the point of utter uselessness.

Over an extremely long period of time though.

Quote:
The significance of this is that our universe cannot be eternal, or it would have run out of energy an eternity ago. Since it is continually losing energy, there had to be a point at which it began to exist. Therefore, it needed a cause.

Perhaps, but this in no way indicates a purposeful creation so to argue that there must be a creator is fallacious.

1) The length of time is irrelevant.  The fact remains that it is happening.

2)  To exclude the possibility of a creator is fallacious.

3)  I find it quite reasonable to conclude that a personal creator is more apt to create a universe than a mindless force which is unable to choose or purpose to do anything.  Don't you?

Let me get this straight. The roofing nail is "design," but the bat's sonar capability is an "accident." Hmm... Do you also believe tornadoes build trailor parks?


The Patrician
The Patrician's picture
Posts: 474
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Via Crucis wrote: 1) The

Via Crucis wrote:
1) The length of time is irrelevant. The fact remains that it is happening.

No, it may be. The universe may be infinite, for example.

Quote:
2) To exclude the possibility of a creator is fallacious.

Absolutely. However...

Quote:
3) I find it quite reasonable to conclude that a personal creator is more apt to create a universe than a mindless force which is unable to choose or purpose to do anything. Don't you?

The fact that you find the thought that we were created by a personal creator comforting doesn't really amount to a hill of beans. It isn't anymore reasonable to suppose a sentient creator made the universe than it happenedby random chance.

Plus, if everything has to have a cause then what caused the creator?

Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.


Froggy618157725
Theist
Froggy618157725's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Arguements for G_d based on

Arguements for G_d based on the probability of life forming are all flawed.

 Assuming the probability of there being life at anywhere in the universe at any point to be near zero, you still have all of eternity for life to occur. And while the odds of life appearing to an outside observer might be 1:2^267791, the likelihood from the point of view of the lifeform is 1:1. We exist.

The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.
This sentence doesn't care.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Via Crucis wrote: AiiA

Via Crucis wrote:
AiiA wrote:


Via Crucis wrote:
The Universe will attain absolute zero when all energy and matter is randomly distributed across space.
Error, as long as there is matter/energy (even in a state of perfect homogenation), 0 Kelvin can never happen else time will end. If time stops, the universe will no longer exist.



That's the point. We're running out of usable energy. Other sources maintain that we will bottom out at just above absolute zero, but the final temperature of the universe is irrelevant. The point is that we are decaying to the point of utter uselessness.

The significance of this is that our universe cannot be eternal, or it would have run out of energy an eternity ago. Since it is continually losing energy, there had to be a point at which it began to exist. Therefore, it needed a cause.
You've misconstrued the connotation of my statement else you cannot let go of the creator mindfart, so I'll go backwards from your presupposition of a cause.
The universe is defined as that which contains all of existence. If you disagree, tell me then, where is the cause of the universe if no universe exists?
You're saying something caused the universe, but at the same time there was no universe before it was caused. If there was no universe before the cause started the universe where was it, how did it exist if there is no universe? Unless you consider the universe that which we exist in is inside a bigger universe. If so what evidence do you have for this? A more plausible hypothesis would be that the universe never had a beginning.

The temperature of the universe isn't irrelevant because you brought the subject up, but you seem to think existence will end at absolute entropy or perfect homogenation, but there is not enough evidence to make this conclusion. We do not know what will happen after perfect homogenation. Regardless homosapient will not exist forever. For all we know the universe could have been in a state of perfect homogenation before, perhaps several times, perhaps an infinite amount of times. By the way, 'perfect homogenation' is not an accurate phrase because a state of perfect homogenation could never change. I should have called it near perfect homogenation or maybe maximum homogenation.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Via Crucis
Theist
Via Crucis's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-07-27
User is offlineOffline
Vessel, it's called the Law

Vessel, it's called the Law of Causality, which is the fundamental principle of science.  Scientists try to discover what causes what.  Honestly, this is the first time I've heard someone deny it.  Even David Hume wrote, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause."  The Law of Causality doesn't just apply to the existence of matter, but rather, ANY happening.  Anything that happens must have been caused (cracked glass, loud noise, motion, etc.).

Let's first look at your "re-arrangement" senario.  Even in the re-arrangement of materials to form a painting, there is a cause.  Paintings don't just happen.  The same is true for buildings, books, and bowls of cereal.  In fact, I challenge you to prove otherwise.

If this principle is true for the simple re-arrangement of matter, how much truer is it of the beginning of its existence?

When I said, "for anything to exist, something has to be eternal," you asked why I assume this.  Don't you assume the same thing about the universe?  You said, "I see no reason to think that there need be any pre-universe state from which to create the universe. The universe could very easily have simply existed for all of time and to speak of before time is, as should be obvious, an absurdity."  Show me how my "assumption" is wrong.

Let me get this straight. The roofing nail is "design," but the bat's sonar capability is an "accident." Hmm... Do you also believe tornadoes build trailor parks?


Via Crucis
Theist
Via Crucis's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-07-27
User is offlineOffline
The universe was nowhere,

The universe was nowhere, nothing, zip, zilch.  It was what rocks dream of.  NADA.

 The universe never had a beginning is more plausible?  So it has had a finite amount of energy for an infinite amount of time?  Please explain.

Let me get this straight. The roofing nail is "design," but the bat's sonar capability is an "accident." Hmm... Do you also believe tornadoes build trailor parks?


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Via Crucis wrote: Roisin

Via Crucis wrote:

Roisin Dubh wrote:
You expect the guy that calls the banana the "atheist's worst nightmare," to be able to prepare an argument using the laws of thermodynamics? Seriously?

Actually, yes.

Well, I believe you'll be waiting a lonnnnnggggg time before those expectations are ever met.  Do you agree with SurfBoy's banana argument?

BTW, your signature reveals a gross misunderstanding of evolution.  Are you a creationist? 

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Via Crucis wrote: The

Via Crucis wrote:

The universe was nowhere, nothing, zip, zilch. It was what rocks dream of. NADA.

Who said so?

Quote:
The universe never had a beginning is more plausible? So it has had a finite amount of energy for an infinite amount of time? Please explain.

I think you mean matter/energy or as Carl Sagan called it 'stuff'. The total amount of this stuff is incalculable, so for all practical purposes it is said to be infinite.

Time is not stuff. As temperture is a measure of heat, time is merely a measure of movement of stuff through space.

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Via Crucis wrote:Vessel,

Via Crucis wrote:

Vessel, it's called the Law of Causality, which is the fundamental principle of science.  Scientists try to discover what causes what.  Honestly, this is the first time I've heard someone deny it.  Even David Hume wrote, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause."  The Law of Causality doesn't just apply to the existence of matter, but rather, ANY happening.  Anything that happens must have been caused (cracked glass, loud noise, motion, etc.).

No one is denying the Law of Causality. The Law of Causality actually has nothing to do with it. The Law of Causality is a law that applies to existing matter/energy within the universe. We need not contradict it as without the universe, it has no source; no existence from which to arise nor upon which to apply.

Quote:
Let's first look at your "re-arrangement" senario.  Even in the re-arrangement of materials to form a painting, there is a cause.

Of course. 

 

Quote:
Paintings don't just happen. 

Very good. They certainly do not just happen. 

 

Quote:
The same is true for buildings, books, and bowls of cereal. 

Of course it is. No one has denied this. How exactly do you think this is relevant? 

Quote:
 In fact, I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Why would I want to try an prove otherwise? That would be silly.

Quote:
If this principle is true for the simple re-arrangement of matter, how much truer is it of the beginning of its existence?

And there is your complete non-sequitur. You make a completely unfounded leap here, surely you see that. There is absolutely no reason to think it is truer of the beginning of existence, at all true of the beginning of existence, or even that existence has a beginning in the sense that you are most likely using the term (as a point in a timeline at which something which was previously not there 'begins to be there' ) , or perhaps in any sense at all.

Quote:
When I said, "for anything to exist, something has to be eternal," you asked why I assume this.  Don't you assume the same thing about the universe?

No, I don't. I know that if time is contained within the universe then it is necessarily true that the universe has existed for all of time and that there can be no such thing as before (which is time referential) the universe. If time is not contained within the universe then it would seem that something must exist outside the universe and, were we able to find out what it was and by what laws its existence was governed, then we might be able to form an informed opinion as to how it might have contributed to the existence of our universe. Anything else seems to simply be guesswork and unsupported assumptions, not evidence or proof of a creator.

 

Quote:
You said, "I see no reason to think that there need be any pre-universe state from which to create the universe. The universe could very easily have simply existed for all of time and to speak of before time is, as should be obvious, an absurdity."

  Show me how my "assumption" is wrong.

I didn't say your assumption is wrong. Please be careful to not read into my comments what is not there. You contend that the existence of the universe leads one to the existence of a creator. I am simply showing how this contention is nothing but an unsupported assertion. There is nothing that says an unsupported assertion can not be true. There is simply no good reason to believe it to be true.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


richard955
Posts: 69
Joined: 2007-07-20
User is offlineOffline
Hi Via Crucis, I think

Hi Via Crucis,

I think there are 2 arguments against your position.

If time and space begins at the Big Bang (the beginning of the universe) then to talk about "What caused the Big Bang?" or "What was before the Big Bang?" is nonsensical as "caused" and "before" are concepts that require time. So, unless we find evidence and expand our language into some form of "time" or "universe" outside the reality we know, talking about what was before the beginning of time is inherently nonsense. (Personally I don't like this argument, but I have to accept it because it looks valid)

 

If we discount the above argument and start talking about a reality outside our universe everyone starts making assumptions (because there is no evidence to go on). Most theist and atheist assume something eternal and uncaused.

The theist assumes a personal creator (extremely complex entity) which plans and starts the universe.

The atheist assumes a 'meta-universe' with some fundamental laws which lead to the creation of universes. One theory states that universes appear out of nothing due to some form of "uncertainty principle" and most collapse back to nothing, but sometimes they get to grow as large as the universe we are in.

If I am to choose between these stances I find the 'atheist' version more compelling because it resembles the vast impersonal universe we are in.

 

A side note, the theist position I presented is called "deism" and I don't think most atheist have a problem with that. When the theist makes claims (and tries to impose them on others) about the creator intervening in this universe (writing certain books, impregnating certain women, listening to prayers, etc.) we start having problems because the evidence always is weak or nonexistent.

 

Cheers,

Richard

P.S. Via Crucis if your signature is you opinion on evolution, please read more biology to understand it better.

A mystic is someone who wants to understand the universe, but is too lazy to study physics.


Via Crucis
Theist
Via Crucis's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-07-27
User is offlineOffline
Vessel, I have yet to put

Vessel, I have yet to put forward an arguement for a Creator.  I've only questioned the eterality of matter and the universe which was asserted by RRS.  Furthermore I've maintained that if the universe is not eternal, it must be caused.  Unlike anyone here, my arguements don't exclude the possibility of a Creator.  Of course I believe in the Creator, I only haven't referred to Him for the sake of arguement.  Your last post seems to say you somewhat agree with me that the universe was caused.  Did I read that correctly?

While the amount of matter/energy in the universe may be incalcuable, we can know two things about it: 1) Whatever the amount is, it's finite  2) It is in a constant state of decay.  Since no finite amount of something can decrease infinitely, the universe cannot have been here for an infinite amount of time.  There must be a point at which it was caused by something else.  Do you agree?

If one maintains that our universe has just always existed, that person would have to show how its finite amount of matter can de-energize for all eternity.  Do you agree?

Let me get this straight. The roofing nail is "design," but the bat's sonar capability is an "accident." Hmm... Do you also believe tornadoes build trailor parks?


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Via Crucis wrote:Vessel,

Via Crucis wrote:

Vessel, I have yet to put forward an arguement for a Creator.  I've only questioned the eterality of matter and the universe which was asserted by RRS.

Okay. 

 

Quote:
Furthermore I've maintained that if the universe is not eternal, it must be caused. Unlike anyone here, my arguements don't exclude the possibility of a Creator.  Of course I believe in the Creator, I only haven't referred to Him for the sake of arguement.  Your last post seems to say you somewhat agree with me that the universe was caused.  Did I read that correctly?

No, I have not said that I agree that the universe is caused. I am not sure where you got that impression. I agree that it is a possibility, but not that it is necessarilly so.

 

Quote:
While the amount of matter/energy in the universe may be incalcuable, we can know two things about it: 1) Whatever the amount is, it's finite  2) It is in a constant state of decay.

We can operate from this understanding for the purposes of this discussion.

 

Quote:
Since no finite amount of something can decrease infinitely, the universe cannot have been here for an infinite amount of time.

Though there are legitimate scientists who would probably disagree with the last half of your statement it is not necessary to do so for the purposes of this discussion. Why must the universe be restricted to either being infinitely old or caused by something else? You never offer your reasoning for restricting the conversation to this strict dichotomy. You offer the law of causality but we know that physical laws break down as we approach the singularity. There are more possibilities than the ones you present.

 

Quote:
There must be a point at which it was caused by something else.  Do you agree?

No. It is possible, but it is not necessarilly so. In order to say that the universe was caused by something else you have to assume that there was a pre-universe state, and pre-universe time, and pre-universe existence. These are not necessary assumptions.

If the universe is simply all that has ever been or ever will be (including time) then any discussion of before the universe is non-sensical. This is not to say that the universe has existed infinitely, simply that it has existed for all of time and there is no 'before time'. This would be an eternal universe (in the sense that it has existed for all of time) that is not at odds with physical laws such as the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. 

Quote:
If one maintains that our universe has just always existed, that person would have to show how its finite amount of matter can de-energize for all eternity.  Do you agree?

If by always they mean infinitely, then yes. I believe that there are those who think the universe is infinitely eternal who present hypotheses that do not conflict with the laws of thermodynamics but I don't have any reference material on hand. I am sure you can find such material if you are truly interested in researching theories of the origins of the universe and not simply attempting to use something you have an incomplete knowledge of as support for something.  

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Via Crucis, Even if matter

Via Crucis,

Even if matter has a beginning it does not mean that God caused it.

Allow me to show you a deductive form:

All a's are b's

c is an a

Therefore

c is a b

Applied:

All physical events (a) are caused by physical causes (b)

The Big Bang (c) is a physical event (a)

Therefore The Big Bang (c) was caused by a physical cause (b)

Now let's bring a supernatural creator into the argument. It is often the case that many theists will say that God is supernatural, not a physical/natural being and that is why we can't test or see any forces of God scientifically. God cannot be physical.

All a's are b's

c is an a

d is not a b

therefore c is not a d

Applied:

All physical events (a) are caused by physical causes (b)

The Big Bang (c) was a physical event (a)

God (d) is not a physical cause (b)

Therefore The Big Bang (c) was not caused by God (d)

 

I will openly admit that there is a flaw in this and that is that the assumption all physical events have physical causes is based on induction (all science is).

There have been no events investigated by science that have not had physical causes. This does not mean necessarily that there never will be. However until such an event occurs, there is no reason whatsoever to suggest that there actually are such supernatural causes at all, never mind whole-heartedly believing and even worshipping such a thing as the supernatural.

The sentence: 'all the swans so far discovered are white, therefore all swans are white' is a fallacy. There may be black swans (in fact I think there actually are). However, if we say that: 'all the swans we have so far discovered are white, therefore all the swans we know of are white' then there is no fallacy. On top of that we might get a very strong probability that all the swans we are ever likely to encounter will be white. There is no point speculating about red swans or black swans or mauve swans or magenta swans until such swans are discovered in which case our sentence can be ammended and our knowledge increased.

When something has been tested hundreds and thousands of times with exactly the same result. We can assume that this always happens. Water always boils at 100 C. We can speculate that perhaps under certain conditions water will not boil until 150 C. But until that is tested there is no reason for us to believe such a thing is likely to happen.

There is nothing to suggest the existence of God. No one has ever touched or smelt. No one has ever experienced the supernatural. There is no reason to believe it possible.


Via Crucis
Theist
Via Crucis's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-07-27
User is offlineOffline
Vessel, I must have

Vessel, I must have misunderstood you. I said that for anything to exist, something has to be eternal. Then I asked, "Don't you believe this about the universe?" Maybe my question was unclear, and if so, I apologize. What I meant was, "Don't you believe the universe is eternal?" Appearantly you do. If that is the case, the burden of proof is on you to show how our finite universe can decay infinitely.

Let me get this straight. The roofing nail is "design," but the bat's sonar capability is an "accident." Hmm... Do you also believe tornadoes build trailor parks?


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Via Crucis wrote: That's

Via Crucis wrote:
That's the point. We're running out of usable energy. Other sources maintain that we will bottom out at just above absolute zero, but the final temperature of the universe is irrelevant. The point is that we are decaying to the point of utter uselessness.

You have a point here. We ARE running out of useable energy! We'd better stockpile before the sun burns out

Hurry! We've only got 3 or 4 billion years of light and energy left!

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


Via Crucis
Theist
Via Crucis's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-07-27
User is offlineOffline
I'm having the hardest time

I'm having the hardest time figuring out these blasted quote tags   lol   so please bear with me Undecided

Jacob, you said, "Even if matter has a beginning it does not mean that God caused it."  I haven't said that yet.  I've only shown that the universe is not eternal and is in need of a cause.  I've also said it is fallacious to automatically exclude God as a possible cause simply because one doesn't like the sound of it for whatever reason. Science should approach all possibilities without bias.  Agree?

You also said, "The sentence: 'all the swans so far discovered are white, therefore all swans are white' is a fallacy."  However, you promptly contradict yourself by writing, "There is nothing to suggest the existence of God. No one has ever touched or smelt. No one has ever experienced the supernatural. There is no reason to believe it possible."  Would you admit it's at least possible that there is evidence for God outside your knowledge?  And are you saying you have intimate knowledge of everyone's experiences?  Will you concede there is at least the smallest chance you simply don't know of compelling evidence of an intelligent designer? (I'm not saying that would be sufficient evidence for God, I'm just trying to show the falacy in your last comment)

Obviously I would disagree with your final comment.  I used to be an atheist... until I lost faith  Cool

Let me get this straight. The roofing nail is "design," but the bat's sonar capability is an "accident." Hmm... Do you also believe tornadoes build trailor parks?


Via Crucis
Theist
Via Crucis's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-07-27
User is offlineOffline
Little Roller Up First

Little Roller Up First wrote:

Via Crucis wrote:
That's the point. We're running out of usable energy. Other sources maintain that we will bottom out at just above absolute zero, but the final temperature of the universe is irrelevant. The point is that we are decaying to the point of utter uselessness.

You have a point here. We ARE running out of useable energy! We'd better stockpile before the sun burns out

Hurry! We've only got 3 or 4 billion years of light and energy left!

Well, at least I've convinced Little Roller that the universe isn't eternal  Cool

Let me get this straight. The roofing nail is "design," but the bat's sonar capability is an "accident." Hmm... Do you also believe tornadoes build trailor parks?


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Via Crucis wrote: Well, at

Via Crucis wrote:
Well, at least I've convinced Little Roller that the universe isn't eternal Cool

ROTFROTFROTFROTFROTFROTF

I like you, man. You're cool.

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


theotherguy
theotherguy's picture
Posts: 294
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
already posted, but let me

already posted, but let me have a go.

 

You are correct, the universe hasn't existed for "eternity" and will come to an end.

 You are not correct that it had to have been "caused". Here's why:

Given: For something to be "caused", there must be an entity "causing" it in the past. 

Given: Time is an intrinsic property of space. Einstein showed that time and space are the same entity, and cannot exist without each other.

Given: The universe has a finite "beginning" in a finite "place". This has been shown by multiple areas of astronomy and cosmology.

 Therefore: The universe began at a point in time and space and expanded in both time and space.

 Therefore: Time began at a certain time and place.

Therefore: There is no "before" the universe.

Therefore: The universe has existed for all time. (Note: NOT infinity)

Therefore: The universe could not have been caused.

 

Invoking a creator is simply begging the question. You would have to assume that there is a time outside of the universe (not proven), you would also have to assume that the universe had a physical cause in this extra-universal metaverse, and if you were to invoke a creator you would have the same problem: how could this creator have existed eternally? You're just adding on extra, unneeded regressions to a problem that is much more simply and effectively solved by saying the universe needs no cause.


askseekknock
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-08-02
User is offlineOffline
hey guys i want to get in

hey guys i want to get in this too, i was an atheist who lost faith about five months ago so heres my question

well it looks like progress is being made because you now beleive the universe BEGAN, wich means that it indeed is not infinite therefore needs a cause. the universe consists of space and time  well Keep in mind that if time is infinite but the universe is not, then the universe wouldn't be here in the first place. It would have taken an infinite amount of time for the Big Bang to happen and it would also mean that the universe has already existed forever wich we know isnt true because of the fact that we know the universe is still expanding because there is still energy and likee veryone agrees theres still a decay in energy, meaning it wouldn't have happened at all if time/space (the known universe) existed forever.


so in other words time did not exist before the point of creation we have to assume creation because time did not exist forever and the mechanism that preludes time can exist forever because it isnt even limited by time wich does not exist before its beggining.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
askseekknock wrote: hey

askseekknock wrote:

hey guys i want to get in this too, i was an atheist who lost faith about five months ago so heres my question

You can't be serious.

You WERE an atheist who LOST faith? What in the world are you talking about?

You mean you WERE an atheist and NOW you have faith..... right? 


askseekknock
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-08-02
User is offlineOffline
hopefully that made sense

hopefully that made sense im kinda new to this whole debate thing anyway if my previous point cannot be proven wrong then use deductive reasoning and logic to conclude that

1) the universe exists in space and time
2) time did not always exist
3)the universe had to have started because we know that it has not existed forever for reasons stated above
3) space did not always exist because space cannot exist without time.

4)matter did not always exist because matter exists within time

5) before the universe there was not time nor space therefore something had to cause time and space

6) the cause of this can exist forever because techniquely forever isnt even a factor when time is not present therefore the mechanism that creates time needs no cause

7) An Ultimate creator needs no cause but must exist!!!


askseekknock
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-08-02
User is offlineOffline
  Quote: You can't be

 

Quote:

You can't be serious.

You WERE an atheist who LOST faith? What in the world are you talking about?

You mean you WERE an atheist and NOW you have faith..... right?

 

ya i find that i had more blind faith in nothing being an atheist than having faith as a product of logic as a christian


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
The problem with this

The problem with this thread is that the theists are trying to use science to prove a need for a 'creator'.

A creator that they believe to be supernatural and outside of science.

A creator that they are supposed to have 'faith' in, which does not require evidence.

A creator that according to christian dogma CHOOSES to be ambiguous and vague.

A creator that according to the bible endorses blind faith and blind devotion.

 

 

Why try to prove your god with science? Are you in fact afraid that that every day with new scientific findings your 'god' is becoming less and less useful as a method of explaining the universe and our existence? Isn't it sad that your god has become marginalized, one that is outside of everything observable?

 

Just my thoughts, what do I know anyway, you are the guys with 'faith'.

 

 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
askseekknock wrote:   ya i

askseekknock wrote:
 

ya i find that i had more blind faith in nothing being an atheist than having faith as a product of logic as a christian

Well, that is your error then. An atheist does not have 'faith' in nothing, rather we lack 'faith'.

You on the other hand need all the faith you can get because your god is not provable through logic, science or reason. 


askseekknock
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-08-02
User is offlineOffline
can you come up with a

can you come up with a response to my argument because if not then well go into a discussion of faith and what it is that i beleive in.listen to what the apostle paul said in the BIBLE "14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."

Paul clearly denounces blind faith here i dont beleive in something that i have not tested and found to be true unlike you who simply beleives in nothing unless you can prove my earlier statments to be wrong.you should be a bit more cautious when assuming that people have blind faith. my faith is a result of logic as i said earlier and irrefutable proof that ive found.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
askseekknock wrote:

askseekknock wrote:
can you come up with a response to my argument because if not then well go into a discussion of faith and what it is that i beleive in.listen to what the apostle paul said in the BIBLE "14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men."

Paul clearly denounces blind faith here i dont beleive in something that i have not tested and found to be true unlike you who simply beleives in nothing unless you can prove my earlier statments to be wrong.you should be a bit more cautious when assuming that people have blind faith. my faith is a result of logic as i said earlier and irrefutable proof that ive found.

Based on your lengthy biblical quote, I assume the basis of your faith is in the bible and christian doctrine. Why? The bible is nothing more than mythology and it's historical accuracy is debatable. You state that you have tested your beliefs - in what way? What exactly made you a believer? (This topic can be moved to a different thread if you choose to pursue it. My apologies to the OP - I do not want to derail this thread but I will wait until askseekknock responds before starting a new thread.)

{Edit - reading comprehension} 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
askseekknock wrote: 1) the

askseekknock wrote:

1) the universe exists in space and time

2) time did not always exist
3)the universe had to have started because we know that it has not existed forever for reasons stated above
3) space did not always exist because space cannot exist without time.

4)matter did not always exist because matter exists within time

5) before the universe there was not time nor space therefore something had to cause time and space

6) the cause of this can exist forever because techniquely forever isnt even a factor when time is not present therefore the mechanism that creates time needs no cause

7) An Ultimate creator needs no cause but must exist!!!

Your understanding of physics is flawed and it seems you have stolen your arguments from an apologetics playbook.

Time began at the big bang. Matter can exist without time but time cannot exist without matter (movement).

You are assuming there had to be a supernatural eternal cause to start things off but that is a poor rationalization.

Maybe you should read a little from scientists who actually are doing the research, like here:

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/14770?fulltext=true

 


Via Crucis
Theist
Via Crucis's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2007-07-27
User is offlineOffline
theotherguy, we have two

theotherguy, we have two choices.  Either nothing causes something, or something causes something.  You believe the first one, but I just don't have that much faith.  I have to agree with the Law of Causality.

You're right on one thing: to assume the universe had a physical cause would present a problem.  You presuppose that the only thing that exists is matter.  In which case, matter could not create matter before matter exists.  Therefore, the cause of the universe must have been immaterial, meaning, the cause was non-physical (one doesn't HAVE to assume a physical cause as you suggested).  I can see no reason to believe this cause would "have the same problem" as the universe.  It would have existed before our natural laws, and therefore, would not be affected by them (i.e. the 2nd law of therm.).  The reason we know the universe is not eternal is because its matter is decaying.  This would not apply to an entity not composed of matter.

The cause of time, space, and matter would exist independent of the three.  It would be eternal.  As I said before, for anything to exist, something has to be eternal.  You part with many atheists who assume the universe is eternal.  You understand the universe is not and simply say, "nothing (rather, "no thing&quotEye-wink exploded into everything."  I don't have enough faith to believe either.

Let me get this straight. The roofing nail is "design," but the bat's sonar capability is an "accident." Hmm... Do you also believe tornadoes build trailor parks?


askseekknock
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-08-02
User is offlineOffline
Your understanding of

Quote:
Your understanding of physics is flawed and it seems you have stolen your arguments from an apologetics playbook.

Time began at the big bang. Matter can exist without time but time cannot exist without matter (movement).

You are assuming there had to be a supernatural eternal cause to start things off but that is a poor rationalization.

Maybe you should read a little from scientists who actually are doing the research, like here:

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/14770?fulltext=true



well i apologize(hope i spelled that right) for my grammatical and spelling errors, if it realy made it that difficult, but it seems that you got the grasp of what im saying since you agree that time space and matter were created, so the only thing we disagree on is the cause you say i have a poor rationality because i beleive that the cause had to be supernatural but enlighten me on what you feel is the rational cause then because we do know there was a cause.


askseekknock
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-08-02
User is offlineOffline
 o and jce i would love to

 o and jce i would love to share my testimony with you and i would also like to ask you the same question what made you decide to be an atheist??? start another thread and gimme the link


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Via Crucis

Via Crucis wrote:

theotherguy, we have two choices.  Either nothing causes something, or something causes something.  You believe the first one, but I just don't have that much faith.  I have to agree with the Law of Causality.

You're right on one thing: to assume the universe had a physical cause would present a problem.  You presuppose that the only thing that exists is matter.  In which case, matter could not create matter before matter exists.  Therefore, the cause of the universe must have been immaterial, meaning, the cause was non-physical (one doesn't HAVE to assume a physical cause as you suggested).  I can see no reason to believe this cause would "have the same problem" as the universe.  It would have existed before our natural laws, and therefore, would not be affected by them (i.e. the 2nd law of therm.).  The reason we know the universe is not eternal is because its matter is decaying.  This would not apply to an entity not composed of matter.

The cause of time, space, and matter would exist independent of the three.  It would be eternal.  As I said before, for anything to exist, something has to be eternal.  You part with many atheists who assume the universe is eternal.  You understand the universe is not and simply say, "nothing (rather, "no thing&quotEye-wink exploded into everything."  I don't have enough faith to believe either.

No offense Via but you are apparently having a serious problem understanding the responses you are receiving. It might be in your best interest if you read some on this subject from a source that is not only attempting to support their theistic beliefs and then, when you have a better grasp of the arguments and concepts you are going to encounter, the discussion might prove much more productive.

At any rate, I see no reason to continue typing the same response over and over. Maybe theotherguy will have more patience.

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
askseekknock wrote: well i

askseekknock wrote:

well i apologize(hope i spelled that right) for my grammatical and spelling errors, if it realy made it that difficult, but it seems that you got the grasp of what im saying since you agree that time space and matter were created, so the only thing we disagree on is the cause you say i have a poor rationality because i beleive that the cause had to be supernatural but enlighten me on what you feel is the rational cause then because we do know there was a cause.

You are wrong I do not agree that time, space and matter were 'created' as you say. I do not believe anyone on this planet knows where all matter and energy came from but science continues to look for answers instead of saying, "we don't know, it must be a creator". It is rather arrogant to assume a book written by primitive men living in caves, scared by the power of nature and the unpredictability of it all, could somehow explain the origins of the universe. 

Your assumption of a creator is a logical fallacy called 'appeal to consequences'. You assume the premise because of the outcome when the true premise is not known as of yet.

Appeal to consequences

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin: argument to the consequences), is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view.

In logic, appeal to consequences refers only to arguments which assert a premise's truth value (true or false) based on the consequences; appeal to consequences does not refer to arguments that address a premise's desirability (good or bad, or right or wrong) instead of its truth value.

 


askseekknock
Posts: 7
Joined: 2007-08-02
User is offlineOffline
hey why are we going in

hey why are we going in circles with that argument i agreed to discuss how and why i beleive the bible to be true on another thread, i beleive the purpose of this thread was to determine what we think the origin of the universe. forget the word created then because i guess that sounds a little biased doesnt it. lets use the term mechanism, i like that term its neutral.

so we all agree that the universe started with the big bang right??

at the very least i think its scientifically acurate to say this much

the universe is expanding!!!!!!!!
if the universe was infinite which i think most atheists hold to be true although i am starting to get confused by this thread, then the universe would have existed infinite years ago and we wouldnt even be able to see the stars in the sky because they would have drifted so far away from each other if the universe is infinite. the word infinite means existed FOREVER!!!! Big Bang implies that it started the Big Bang is Scientific FACT!!!if the universe had a beginning then it hasnt existed forever so what is it atheists can i get an answer to my question??

well in either case the notion that the universe is infinite is proposterous, so we know the universe had a beggining, if you dont agree with the word "created" than can you agree that some mechanism would have had to have triggered(not create) the events that would lead to the induction of time and space *cough cough* the big bang.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
askseekknock wrote: hey why

askseekknock wrote:
hey why are we going in circles with that argument i agreed to discuss how and why i beleive the bible to be true on another thread, i beleive the purpose of this thread was to determine what we think the origin of the universe. forget the word created then because i guess that sounds a little biased doesnt it. lets use the term mechanism, i like that term its neutral.

so we all agree that the universe started with the big bang right??

at the very least i think its scientifically acurate to say this much

the universe is expanding!!!!!!!!
if the universe was infinite which i think most atheists hold to be true although i am starting to get confused by this thread, then the universe would have existed infinite years ago and we wouldnt even be able to see the stars in the sky because they would have drifted so far away from each other if the universe is infinite. the word infinite means existed FOREVER!!!! Big Bang implies that it started the Big Bang is Scientific FACT!!!if the universe had a beginning then it hasnt existed forever so what is it atheists can i get an answer to my question??

well in either case the notion that the universe is infinite is proposterous, so we know the universe had a beggining, if you dont agree with the word "created" than can you agree that some mechanism would have had to have triggered(not create) the events that would lead to the induction of time and space *cough cough* the big bang.

You are making a faulty assumption. We can only observe THIS universe, we cannot observe before this universe, or another universe if you hold to the multiverse theory.

You are assuming that because THIS universe began 14.5 billion years ago there had to be a creator. No one is stating this universe is infinite, matter and energy MAY be infinite but we do not know.

AGAIN, because we do not know does not mean your answer automatically becomes correct. I am not going to infer 'god' because I don't know. I am going to infer nature and physics because we can observe these things. 

Try as you might the lack of knowledge regarding the state of matter prior to the big bang does not support your presupposition, it only supports a 'lack of knowledge', not 'god'.

 

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
    No the universe

    No the universe existed inside the singularity (at least from my understanding) compressed, which at some point in time (what we are calling the beginning of time) expanded out from this singularity, from an explosion or other form of expulsion. Hence the universe may have existed always, but in a different form, this universe that we see is the result of the matter/enegry of this singularity being explused outwards.

    Now how this all came to be is a matter of physics and quantum mechanics in it's explanation. If one can begin to understand even the smallest bit of quantum mechanics (mine is so rought i still don't comprehend it at all) is that at the subatomic level it has been observed to see particles do to things in random order and for no known cause. But again this is just one observed event, as such it can also show that at this level no cause or causer is required for an action to occur. However i could be completely wrong of this, if anyone that understand it better can explain it, it would be appreciated.

      Second if time does not exist, which is merely an observation of change, then the idea of an eternal deity that is outside of time and space is baffeling, especially if you believe it can affect this universe. a being that is outside of time and space affecting time and space yet it cannot change at all because any form of change requires time (again time is merely a measurement of change) Basically the unmoved mover arguement. So either god is part of this universe or is not, if god is not part of this universe it cannot affect or do anything in this universe, if it is part of this universe then we can and should be able to detect it and no faith is really required as god would be a natural force/being/element of this universe.

    So which one is it?? 


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
askseekknock wrote: hey

askseekknock wrote:

hey why are we going in circles with that argument i agreed to discuss how and why i beleive the bible to be true on another thread, i beleive the purpose of this thread was to determine what we think the origin of the universe. forget the word created then because i guess that sounds a little biased doesnt it. lets use the term mechanism, i like that term its neutral.

so we all agree that the universe started with the big bang right??

at the very least i think its scientifically acurate to say this much

the universe is expanding!!!!!!!!
if the universe was infinite which i think most atheists hold to be true although i am starting to get confused by this thread, then the universe would have existed infinite years ago and we wouldnt even be able to see the stars in the sky because they would have drifted so far away from each other if the universe is infinite. the word infinite means existed FOREVER!!!! Big Bang implies that it started the Big Bang is Scientific FACT!!!if the universe had a beginning then it hasnt existed forever so what is it atheists can i get an answer to my question??

well in either case the notion that the universe is infinite is proposterous, so we know the universe had a beggining, if you dont agree with the word "created" than can you agree that some mechanism would have had to have triggered(not create) the events that would lead to the induction of time and space *cough cough* the big bang.

If I'm not mistaken, the current consensus is that the Big Bang happened about 14 billion years ago, and was the begining of the universe's current period of expansion. Scientists are curently lokking into what happened during the first fraction of a nanosecond after the Big Bang, what the universe was like before the Big Bang, and if the universe even existed before the Big Bang.

I don't know what really happened at the beginning. Perhaps the Big Bang was the first event to ever occur in the history of the universe. Maybe it was the latest in a long series of Big Bangs. Maybe the author of this one bumper sticker I saw one time got it right -

Some Bumper Sticker Writer wrote:
The Big Bang - God Spoke And BANG It Happened

Or maybe George Carlin was right - there was no Big Bang, only a Big Handjob (I don't remember his exact words, which is why I didn't use the quote function).

In any event, I do not know the First Event. So I'll just stick with the idea with the most supporting evidence - the idea that the universe is expanding, and the Big Bang was the beginning of this period of expansion.

Like I said, I don't know what happened 14 billion years ago. I'm not old enough to remember.

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
You are confused because

You are confused because time started to occur at the big bang. The word forever doesn’t just mean “for a limitless amount of time” it also means “for all the time that existed”. If spacetime started to occur at the big bang then the universe is infinite because it was there for all the time that existed. To ask what happened before the event is asking for a point in time while conceptualizing a state where time does not exist. It would be a meaningless question like “what’s north of the north pole?” once you reach the north pole your use of the concept of north has been exhausted. You could go anywhere you wanted from there but it wouldn’t be north.  

 Nobody said that the universe has been expanding for an infinite amount of time except you because you think that would help with your god argument. Nothing will help you win this argument (that I’ve ever heard of anyway) but a first year astronomy class would at least put everyone on a level where we could have a discussion. As far as I know nobody knows what happened before 10^-44 seconds after the big bang occurred. You can’t just say “well, the universe is here so my magic thing must have made it” that is specious and it’s not what a person would say that was thinking critically.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Little Roller U...
Superfan
Little Roller Up First's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-27
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote: As far as I

Gauche wrote:
As far as I know nobody knows what happened before 10^-44 seconds after the big bang occurred.

Before anybody gets confused, THIS is the fraction of a nanosecond I was talking about in my previous post. I knew it was small, I didn't know it was that small.

Good night, funny man, and thanks for the laughter.