A logical, simple truth with profound meaning

[flacaltenn]

Do you believe that the universe has always existed? I believe the evidence that's been presented thus far is that the universe had a beginning.

Once you get over the fact that this infinite void might NEVER have been totally void at all, but waiting for random acts that CAN repeat themselves under the right conditions, ---- SURE -- the void or "realm" always existed..

But just the concept that the Big Bang was SINGULAR and "an only" is pretty arrogant given our time of observance and tools. Could be one bubble in a large "realm" of bang created bubbles.

In fact, in another 1000 years if Cortez isn't right about the death of the Earth in 12 (113), we might observe energy from ANOTHER Big Bang interfering with the energy/matter in this known universe..

So I don't worry about it much... LOL... Never made to sense to me to call this "science settled"..

As for creators, I'm agnostic, but realize that Genesis is amazingly accurate recounting of the Creation given the even tighter limitations on observation time and tools...

What I KNOW --- is that there's not much difference in the amount of FAITH required to rationalize the Big Bang account or the Genesis account...

And before the naked atheists arrive to harangue me about rejecting VALID SCIENTIFIC FACT -- you need to provide a paper to me that suggests HOW all the energy/matter in the known and UNKNOWN universe was contained to the size of pinhead and by what mechanism it got packaged and delivered.... And also a paper assuring me that the universe CAN NEVER AGAIN re-create those conditions..

 

[K9Buck]

Do you believe that the universe has always existed? I believe the evidence that's been presented thus far is that the universe had a beginning.

Once you get over the fact that this infinite void might NEVER have been totally void at all, but waiting for random acts that CAN repeat themselves under the right conditions, ---- SURE -- the void or "realm" always existed..

But just the concept that the Big Bang was SINGULAR and "an only" is pretty arrogant given our time of observance and tools. Could be one bubble in a large "realm" of bang created bubbles.

In fact, in another 1000 years if Cortez isn't right about the death of the Earth in 12 )113), we might observe energy from ANOTHER Big Bang interfering with the energy/matter in this known universe..

So I don't worry about it much... LOL... Never made to sense to me to call this "science settled"..

As for creators, I'm agnostic, but realize that Genesis is amazingly accurate recounting of the Creation given the even tighter limitations on observation time and tools...

What I KNOW --- is that there's not much difference in the amount of FAITH required to rationalize the Big Bang account or the Genesis account...

And before the naked atheists arrive to harangue me about rejecting VALID SCIENTIFIC FACT -- you need to provide a paper to me that suggests HOW all the energy/matter in the known and UNKNOWN universe was contained to the size of pinhead and by what mechanism it got packaged and delivered.... And also a paper assuring me that the universe CAN NEVER AGAIN re-create those conditions..

If atheists were honest, they'd be agnostic, like you. Of course, one could probably and fairly say the same about believers, although most believers will say that they don't know for sure and cannot prove their belief, as I have stated in this thread.

With all that said, the available, scientific evidence is that the universe DID have a beginning. It's also evident to us that everything of which we know about in said universe had a beginning. So, I don't believe that it's illogical to surmise that the universe, did indeed, had a beginning.

There are other theories that speculate a multiverse (which still doesn't escape the first cause principle) or that the universe is eternally expanding and retracting. However, there is ZERO evidence for any of those theories, theories that many atheists joyfully accept as being more reliable than the concept of an intelligent creator.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Do you believe that the universe has always existed? I believe the evidence that's been presented thus far is that the universe had a beginning.

Once you get over the fact that this infinite void might NEVER have been totally void at all, but waiting for random acts that CAN repeat themselves under the right conditions, ---- SURE -- the void or "realm" always existed..

But just the concept that the Big Bang was SINGULAR and "an only" is pretty arrogant given our time of observance and tools. Could be one bubble in a large "realm" of bang created bubbles.

In fact, in another 1000 years if Cortez isn't right about the death of the Earth in 12 )113), we might observe energy from ANOTHER Big Bang interfering with the energy/matter in this known universe..

So I don't worry about it much... LOL... Never made to sense to me to call this "science settled"..

As for creators, I'm agnostic, but realize that Genesis is amazingly accurate recounting of the Creation given the even tighter limitations on observation time and tools...

What I KNOW --- is that there's not much difference in the amount of FAITH required to rationalize the Big Bang account or the Genesis account...

And before the naked atheists arrive to harangue me about rejecting VALID SCIENTIFIC FACT -- you need to provide a paper to me that suggests HOW all the energy/matter in the known and UNKNOWN universe was contained to the size of pinhead and by what mechanism it got packaged and delivered.... And also a paper assuring me that the universe CAN NEVER AGAIN re-create those conditions..

There aren’t any serious cosmologists who would contend that the Big Bang is a singular event. Nor would any say that no more Big Bangs will happen.

What they would say is that we only have evidence for the one Big Bang and therefore can only assume that it has happened once. To assume otherwise without evidence to support that assumption would be pointless for a professional cosmologist.

It may be that other Big Bangs happen, cosmologists speculate about that being a possibility. It isn’t as if the idea is off the table. Scientists can only work with the evidence they have, not with evidence they don’t have.

There isn’t one paper that shows all the evidence that supports the Big Bang Theory. There are multiple reasons why the vast majority of cosmologists accept the BBT.

I can’t do the research for you but if you Google the Big Bang Theory and stick with credible websites such as a scientific organization, the Smithsonian, or a university website then you will see why it is the most accepted theory. You might still find the theory hard to accept personally, but the evidence is there to support it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Do you believe that the universe has always existed? I believe the evidence that's been presented thus far is that the universe had a beginning.

Once you get over the fact that this infinite void might NEVER have been totally void at all, but waiting for random acts that CAN repeat themselves under the right conditions, ---- SURE -- the void or "realm" always existed..

But just the concept that the Big Bang was SINGULAR and "an only" is pretty arrogant given our time of observance and tools. Could be one bubble in a large "realm" of bang created bubbles.

In fact, in another 1000 years if Cortez isn't right about the death of the Earth in 12 )113), we might observe energy from ANOTHER Big Bang interfering with the energy/matter in this known universe..

So I don't worry about it much... LOL... Never made to sense to me to call this "science settled"..

As for creators, I'm agnostic, but realize that Genesis is amazingly accurate recounting of the Creation given the even tighter limitations on observation time and tools...

What I KNOW --- is that there's not much difference in the amount of FAITH required to rationalize the Big Bang account or the Genesis account...

And before the naked atheists arrive to harangue me about rejecting VALID SCIENTIFIC FACT -- you need to provide a paper to me that suggests HOW all the energy/matter in the known and UNKNOWN universe was contained to the size of pinhead and by what mechanism it got packaged and delivered.... And also a paper assuring me that the universe CAN NEVER AGAIN re-create those conditions..

There aren’t any serious cosmologists who would contend that the Big Bang is a singular event. Nor would any say that no more Big Bangs will happen.

What they would say is that we only have evidence for the one Big Bang and therefore can only assume that it has happened once. To assume otherwise without evidence to support that assumption would be pointless for a professional cosmologist.

It may be that other Big Bangs happen, cosmologists speculate about that being a possibility. It isn’t as if the idea is off the table. Scientists can only work with the evidence they have, not with evidence they don’t have.

There isn’t one paper that shows all the evidence that supports the Big Bang Theory. There are multiple reasons why the vast majority of cosmologists accept the BBT.

I can’t do the research for you but if you Google the Big Bang Theory and stick with credible websites such as a scientific organization, the Smithsonian, or a university website then you will see why it is the most accepted theory. You might still find the theory hard to accept personally, but the evidence is there to support it.

Of course it's "the most acceptable theory", but in the world of science, that's not much until you provide the specifics.

And if it's NOT a singular event that "just happened", then there must be some explanations for estimates of the LIKELIHOOD of it happening close enough to our "neck of the void" to be detected. IF there was a true understanding of how all that pure energy and "pre-matter" was contained and triggered.

But there really isn't an explanation for containing and triggering that incomprehensible explosion in the middle of fucking nowhere -- or how to go about replicating it or modeling it.. We always seem to get these Hollywood versions of "hotter than imaginable", smaller than an atom, with phrases like "somehow" scattered thru the plot lines. THAT's why there's a lot of "faith" involved.

 

[K9Buck]

flacaltenn

If there is indeed a creator and life after death, I imagine we'll come to learn the answers to your questions. And if there is no creator or afterlife, then I guess we'll just cease to exist.

 

[Darkwind]

There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.

Ah..the first cause theory. Which states, just because.

*nods sagely*

The prevailing theory is that the first event to occur in our universe was the "big bang". Who or what caused it?

First Cause - New World Encyclopedia


Yes, it is part of the philosophy dictated by Newtonian physics in which movement is caused by the movement of some other form of matter and that all movement is a chain reaction from the very first collision i.e., God.

 

[ding]

There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.

Ah..the first cause theory. Which states, just because.

*nods sagely*

Actually science tells us that space and time were created from nothing. Spirit is no thing. So even science tells us there was a first cause and that the first cause must be no thing.

It isn’t possible for matter or energy to exist outside of space and time.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.

Ah..the first cause theory. Which states, just because.

*nods sagely*

Actually science tells us that space and time were created from nothing. Spirit is no thing. So even science tells us there was a first cause and that the first cause must be no thing.

It isn’t possible for matter or energy to exist outside of space and time.

Actually, it isn’t accurate to say that Science tells us that space and time were created from nothing.

There is a lot of speculation about what was before the Big Bang, but nothing is only one assumption.

Really we have no idea what was “before” the Big Bang” if before is meaningful in that context.

It could be that at the near to complete entropy of the previous universe quantum tunneling spontaneously caused another Big Bang. Or something so far removed from the human ability to comprehend that we may never even get close to understanding what was “before” the Big Bang.

 

[Chuz Life]

There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.

Why? Why is an infinite regression any less plausible than an uncaused cause?

Ours is just one of many "big bangs."

There are an infinite number more that will follow ours.

 

[dblack]

There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.

Why? Why is an infinite regression any less plausible than an uncaused cause?

Ours is just one of many "big bangs."

There are an infinite number more that will follow ours.

Maybe. I was just curious about the premise - that there "must" be a single, uncaused cause. The OP seemed to think it was obvious, but I don't see why. To me, the uncause cause seems about as inconceivable as an infinite regression.

 

[K9Buck]

There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.

Why? Why is an infinite regression any less plausible than an uncaused cause?

Ours is just one of many "big bangs."

There are an infinite number more that will follow ours.

There is ZERO evidence for your claim.

 

[Chuz Life]

There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.

Why? Why is an infinite regression any less plausible than an uncaused cause?

Ours is just one of many "big bangs."

There are an infinite number more that will follow ours.

There is ZERO evidence for your claim.

Lol.

Wait and see.

 

[ding]

There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.

Ah..the first cause theory. Which states, just because.

*nods sagely*

Actually science tells us that space and time were created from nothing. Spirit is no thing. So even science tells us there was a first cause and that the first cause must be no thing.

It isn’t possible for matter or energy to exist outside of space and time.

Actually, it isn’t accurate to say that Science tells us that space and time were created from nothing.

There is a lot of speculation about what was before the Big Bang, but nothing is only one assumption.

Really we have no idea what was “before” the Big Bang” if before is meaningful in that context.

It could be that at the near to complete entropy of the previous universe quantum tunneling spontaneously caused another Big Bang. Or something so far removed from the human ability to comprehend that we may never even get close to understanding what was “before” the Big Bang.

It isn’t possible for energy and matter to exist for infinity without reaching thermal equilibrium. So the quantum tunneling event from a pre-existing universe is not possible without energy and matter being created from nothing at some point before that. There is no way around it. Space and time were created from a quantum tunneling event but it was created from nothing.

The only thing we know that existed before that were the laws of nature because that quantum tunneling event followed quantum laws and conservation laws. Laws of nature are no things. They don’t exist as mass or energy so we have an example of a no thing that existed before space and time. Lastly, it is not possible for matter and energy to exist outside of space and time. The very existence of matter and energy creates space and time. So since we know that our space and time had a beginning and since we know that matter and energy cannot exist outside of space and time and since we know that matter and energy cannot exist an infinite time without reaching thermal equilibrium we know that space and time were created from nothing.

 

[yidnar]

there are several reasons that i believe the universe is a divine creation ,1st science explains we all came from single cell organisims that came from the same primordial soup.if that were so why are their so many different species of animal and plant life ? 2nd and most convincing to me is the sense of self and consciousness ,self awareness ,of wonder ,of asking why instead of just instinctive existence . i find it impossible that reality is just some random cosmic accident.

 

[ding]

There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.

Why? Why is an infinite regression any less plausible than an uncaused cause?

Ours is just one of many "big bangs."

There are an infinite number more that will follow ours.

Maybe. I was just curious about the premise - that there "must" be a single, uncaused cause. The OP seemed to think it was obvious, but I don't see why. To me, the uncause cause seems about as inconceivable as an infinite regression.

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging. This rules out matter and energy which means it must be no thing. Spirit is no thing. The closest I can come to relating to this is consciousness without a body. No thing (i.e. spirit) can exist outside of space and time because no thing is not made up of matter or energy. Us being things we can’t comprehend no things. It is a wholly unique phenomenon that has no parallel inside of space and time.

 

[ding]

there are several reasons that i believe the universe is a divine creation ,1st science explains we all came from single cell organisims that came from the same primordial soup.if that were so why are their so many different species of animal and plant life ? 2nd and most convincing to me is the sense of self and consciousness ,self awareness ,of wonder ,of asking why instead of just instinctive existence . i find it impossible that reality is just some random cosmic accident.

The account of Genesis tells us that spirit created the material world and that we are products of the material world. As near as I can tell this is 100% correct.

 

[Picaro]

Thomas Aquinas covered this ground thoroughly, and then some; no one has ever rebutted him, despite the claims they did so, but they only refined words to suit themselves, not any genuine refutation of his formal logic. And, that was not even his good[/stuff he developed in his great teaching work. No need to reinvent the wheel, it's already been done, and with thoroughness nobody has surpassed yet.

 

[dblack]

There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.

Why? Why is an infinite regression any less plausible than an uncaused cause?

Ours is just one of many "big bangs."

There are an infinite number more that will follow ours.

Maybe. I was just curious about the premise - that there "must" be a single, uncaused cause. The OP seemed to think it was obvious, but I don't see why. To me, the uncause cause seems about as inconceivable as an infinite regression.

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Why is that the only solution?

 

[ding]

There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.

Why? Why is an infinite regression any less plausible than an uncaused cause?

Ours is just one of many "big bangs."

There are an infinite number more that will follow ours.

Maybe. I was just curious about the premise - that there "must" be a single, uncaused cause. The OP seemed to think it was obvious, but I don't see why. To me, the uncause cause seems about as inconceivable as an infinite regression.

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Why is that the only solution?

Because all others lead to infinite regression. Can you name one that doesn't?

 

[ding]

There cannot be an infinite regression of causes; there must be a single, uncaused cause.

Why? Why is an infinite regression any less plausible than an uncaused cause?

Ours is just one of many "big bangs."

There are an infinite number more that will follow ours.

Maybe. I was just curious about the premise - that there "must" be a single, uncaused cause. The OP seemed to think it was obvious, but I don't see why. To me, the uncause cause seems about as inconceivable as an infinite regression.

The only solution to the first cause conundrum is something which is eternal and unchanging.

Why is that the only solution?

Besides the science literally tells us that the solution is space and time were created from nothing.