I accept the premise only in respect of the science of cosmology, specifically inflation theory.
The currently accepted model that describes the evolution of the universe from its very early moments up to today incorporates inflation theory. It’s a generic prediction of inflation that once the process begins it is future eternal, generating volumes of space like our observable universe exponentially.
Therefore, since we theorise that the process has been running for at least 13.7 billion years and since we have no reason to suppose our universe was the very first one generated by inflation, we can theoretically infer that the number of separate universes generated by inflation is an uncountable infinity.
Such an infinity would contain an infinite number of universes identical to ours in every way. Therefore, our universe could not have failed to exist. But the mechanism this result is achieved by is a purely natural one requiring no supernatural agency to cause it.
However, as I pointed out earlier, these matters are entirely theoretical and are not supported by any body of evidence. That being so I can only answer your question in the context of theory.
That which is unknown or unknowable can only be speculated about.
All I have done so far in this thread is to point out that current cosmological models do not feature a beginning.
I have also invited you to present evidence showing where the Big Bang model unequivocally says that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. Please go back and reread my opening comments.
The onus is upon you as the one making the claim for a creator to first show that the universe had a beginning. Without there being a beginning you cannot make an argument for a creator. One thing relies upon the other.
So, please present your evidence that the universe had a beginning. If you can successfully do that then you can proceed to build your argument for there being a creator. No beginning = no creator.
So, are you actually claiming that the universe has no beginning?
As far as I am aware, inflationary theory remains a theoretical model and has not been conclusively confirmed by empirical or observational evidence.
On what rational basis, then, do you dismiss the possibility of a supernatural cause altogether? Even if inflation did occur, what initiated the inflationary process? What brought it into existence or set it in motion? Simply appealing to inflation does not answer the fundamental question of why the process began in the first place.
Reason requires that claims be accepted only when they are supported by sound empirical and observational evidence. If inflation itself has not been directly confirmed, then using it as a basis to reject the existence of a Creator is speculation rather than a scientifically established conclusion.
All I have done so far in this thread is to show you, via that Wiki page, that our current cosmological model of the evolution of the universe does not feature a beginning.
Therefore, since your argument for a creator seems to be predicated on the universe having a beginning I invited you to present evidence that it did have a beginning.
Once again I must point out that the onus is upon you to first show that the universe had a beginning, which is the starting point for your argument for there being a creator.
As the claim maker here it is up to you to do the work and present the evidence for the universe having a beginning.
What happened “before” the Big Bang (which is a terrible name for it)? Well, it is undefined and unknown. We probably cannot ever know. And that’s the most honest answer to that question. I put “before” in quotes because once we extrapolate back to size scales at the Planck length (~10-35 m) and Planck time (~10-43 s), we do not have the tools to describe the physics. Quantum gravity might tell us more, but we’re not there yet as the theoretical framework does not yet exist. It might even be possible that at such short time scales, spatial sizes, and extreme energies, spacetime (and perhaps even other dimensions) are so tangled up and in such a weird state that our understanding of “before”, “after”, “cause”, and “effect” no longer applies. If so, it would make no sense to talk about “efficient causes” in the classical sense. Do we have evidence for it? No, not directly. Do we have evidence for a creator god as the classical cause? Nope. And it would be an argument from ignorance and wishful thinking to invoke a creator god just because we don’t know. And it leads to infinite regress: What caused the god to poof the universe into existence? What caused the god to exist? A god creator? What caused the god creator to exist and to create the god? A god creator creator? And so on. You cannot resolve it by asserting that the god has always existed, because that presumes that “always” makes sense when you don’t have time and space. You might just as well hold open the possibility that the universe has “always” existed (for some definition or concept of “always”).
TL;DR: The appeal to mystery (“the big bang had to have a cause”) to explain the need for a magical deity that poofs everything into existence does not resolve anything, and leads to infinite regress.
If inflation itself has not been directly confirmed, then using it as a basis to reject the existence of a Creator is speculation rather than a scientifically established conclusion.
If he wants to proceed only by scientifically established conclusions then it falls to him show that science has concluded that the universe had a beginning.
You and I know that it hasn’t. Wikipedia shows that it hasn’t.
But this is the corner Smr has painted himself into.
Wikipedia can be a great source for information, but must be used carefully. Wikipedia doesn’t show anything per se, and is not an authorative source. One is better off referring to the sources it refers to, and cross check with other sources. But in a busy conversation or discussion, it is easy to be lazy and just go with Wikipedia. I’m guilty of doing it myself
I merely mentioned Wikipedia in my message to you because I’d cited it earlier in response to Smr.
If I had cited a NASA source, something from Caltech or Princeton or a paper from Arxiv, then I would have mentioned them to you, Goml.
Btw, I’ll be very impressed if Smr can find an authoritative source with sound empirical and observational evidence and a scientifically established conclusion that the universe had a beginning.
But I’m going to bed soon so I might have to wait until I log on here tomorrow to see if he has.
I agree that we don’t know the causes of everything, but–just because we don’t know something–doesn’t mean that we should automatically invoke God.
As an example, syphillis was believed to be God’s punishment for immoral behavior . . . and this was before we understood bacteria.
Now, the syphillitic is given a mildly uncomfortable injection of penicillin in his or her ass, and all is well.
If syphillis is God’s punishment, then how can God’s will be deflected with an injection of a common (and cheap) antibiotic?
Attributing syphillis to God’s will eliminates the need to understand the disease, so religious attitudes toward syphillis could make the syphillis problem worse.
This is what I mean when I say that attributing something to God just because we don’t understand it can be dangerous and counter-productive.
Also, doesn’t it seem a little arrogant and self-important to conclude that only God can be the answer for our lack of understanding?
You seem to confuse claiming X (a supernatural cause) does not exist with not having enough evidence to believe X exists. They are not the same, and you should be careful about which one you are referring to. As far as I can see here, what is being claimed is “not enough evidence to belive X”, not that “X does not exist”. Since you seem to claim that X exists, then the burden of proof or providing evidence is on you.
The “First Cause” argument contains a few subtle, logical flaws.
If we assume that God (or Allah) has no cause, then why not assume that the Universe has no cause, and just skip God?
Why assume that this first cause is Allah? Why not Zeus? Why not Brahma? Why not Osiris . . . or maybe Horus?
If God decides (and knows) everything, then how do we have free will when He knows (and rigged) everything in advance?
There is a philosophical tool called Ockham’s Razor, which means that the simplest explanation that fits the facts is what we assume to be true, pending further data.
Another way of looking at this is to consider that if we hear hoofbeats in the distance, we go looking for horses . . . not zebras.
Ockham’s Razor dovetails neatly with a materialistic view of the Universe, and–from what I understand–Ockham’s Razor has been proven mathematically, although I have to do a little research and get back to you guys here with sources that you can fact-check.
“Occam’s Razor is a philosophical and scientific heuristic rather than a standalone theorem, so it cannot be strictly “proved” like the Pythagorean theorem. However, it can be mathematically justified using Bayesian probability, Information Theory, and Statistical Learning Theory.”
I clipped the above from Wikipedia.
Ockham’s Razor carries a lot of credibility with me . . . certainly more than any holy book.
Indeed, I don’t see anyone here dismissing the possibility of a supernatural cause altogether, it is just that the probabilities are so low that it is hard to distinguish from it not factoring in at all. I don’t say there’s no god, but I live my life as if there’s no god, because I don’t see god as a necessary explanation for anything. There are perfectly satisfying non-religious explanations for human foibles, and perfectly adequate basis for morality and ethics, which in fact become more coherent if they don’t have to be reconciled with conflicting religious teachings, for example.
Theists don’t have any more certain knowledge than I about many of the things they claim to know all about, but I submit that their claimed knowledge (god created everything, humans are immortal, etc) is in the realm of sheer speculation. They will doubtless counter that it’s in accordance with their holy book, but that is just a (shakily agreed to) basis for the speculation and they can’t agree how to speculate about it anyway. I’m less familiar with Islam than with Christianity, but both have sects with mutually incompatible dogmas and interpretations of their respective holy books. If Muslims and Christians can’t get on the same page about their own deity then I don’t understand why they would expect someone outside the faith to find that impressive or appealing.
I think your conclusion goes beyond the evidence actually shows.
You ask me to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning. I would argue that both philosophy and modern cosmology provide good reasons to believe that it did.
First, if the past were truly infinite, the present moment could never have been reached. An actually infinite sequence of past events cannot be completed by successive addition. Yet we are undeniably here in the present. This strongly suggests that the past is finite and that the universe began to exist. Second, everything we observe within the universe is contingent. Nothing in nature appears to possess the necessity of existence. Things exist, change, and cease to exist. A collection of contingent realities does not suddenly become necessary simply by grouping them together. Therefore, the existence of the universe itself still calls for an explanation beyond the universe.
Third, an infinite regress of dependent causes explains nothing. If every cause depends on a prior cause, and that chain has no first member, then the existence of the entire chain remains unexplained. A First Cause that is itself uncaused is a rational conclusion, not a special pleading.
Fourth, modern cosmology is certainly incomplete, but it is worth noting that the standard Big Bang model points to a finite past for our observable universe. The expansion of space, the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the abundance of light elements are all consistent with this conclusion. While the Big Bang does not by itself prove God’s existence, neither does it support the claim that the universe is eternal.
Finally, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is remarkably simple:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
If you reject the second premise, then the burden is on you to provide evidence that the universe is eternal or that an actual infinite past is metaphysically possible. Simply pointing out that cosmology is incomplete does not establish that the universe has always existed.
Appealing to an uncaused universe while objecting to an uncaused First Cause is not, by itself, a stronger explanation. The real question is: Which position is better supported by reason and evidence? I believe the case for a universe with a beginning—and therefore a transcendent cause—is the more rational conclusion.
With due respect, I believe there are strong philosophical and scientific reasons for concluding that the universe is not eternal, but rather had a beginning.
First, the argument from temporal origination. The universe is characterized by constant change. Stars form and die, galaxies evolve, and physical systems undergo continuous transformation. A reality that passes through successive states cannot be eternal in the absolute sense. Change itself points to the fact that the universe is not a static, self-sufficient reality.
Second, the argument from contingency. Everything we observe within the universe is contingent—it exists, but it could have failed to exist. A tree, a planet, a galaxy, or even the physical constants of nature need not have been exactly as they are. Contingent things do not contain within themselves the reason for their own existence. If all that exists is contingent, then the existence of the whole still requires an explanation. This naturally points toward a Necessary Being whose existence is not dependent upon anything else.
Third, the problem of infinite regress. If every explanation depends upon a prior explanation, and this chain extends infinitely into the past, then the existence of the present reality remains unexplained. An infinite series of dependent causes does not eliminate the need for an ultimate explanation. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer the existence of a First Cause that is itself uncaused.
Fourth, the finitude of the past. If the past were actually infinite, the present moment could never have been reached, because an infinite sequence of prior events could never be traversed. Yet we undeniably find ourselves in the present. This suggests that the series of past events is finite and that the universe had a beginning.
Fifth, contemporary cosmology. While the Big Bang theory does not by itself prove the existence of God, it does indicate that the observable universe emerged from an earlier extremely dense and hot state approximately 13.8 billion years ago. The evidence for cosmic expansion, the cosmic microwave background, and primordial element abundances strongly supports this conclusion. At the very least, modern cosmology is far more consistent with a universe that has a finite past than with one that is eternally unchanged.
For these reasons, I find it more rational to conclude that the universe began to exist and therefore requires a cause beyond itself. Of course, identifying the nature of that cause is a further philosophical discussion, but the claim that the universe had a beginning is not without substantial philosophical and scientific support.
A genuine cause is recognized only when it is truly a cause, not its opposite.
Furthermore, if human beings have no free will, then absolute determinism necessarily follows. Such a notion is not befitting the majesty and perfection of the First Cause.
We don’t know this, unless you are claiming to know everything, is that what you’re claiming? Also nothing we understand the cause of requires or evidences any deity. So that’s very poor reasoning.
That’s a claim, I see zero evidence presented, you’re consistent I will give you that much.
I have never ever claimed this, if you learn anything from this visit here, let it be the difference between disbelieving a claim, and making a contrary claim. Also what atheism and agnosticism mean.
I don’t, I just can’t invest credulity in a claim that is entirely unsupported by any objective evidence.
Hahahhahhahahah…uh..ohoh, ah damn it, another irony overload.
Oh oh oh me me me, I know this one!
You’re just fucking with us now…
Actually science (philosophy is not objective evidence) only demonstrates that the universe we currently observe had a point of origin. Since time itself (as we understand it) is a characteristic of the physical universe, beginning is the wrong word, as it is defined as a point in time.
So much for an eternal deity. So what cause this deity then? You can’t make a rule then break it, this is a fallacy called special pleading, and yes that includes making up unevidenced assumptions abut a deity to do that, which is also a fallacy called begging the question.
No and no, see above.
Our understanding is not infinite, thus you don’t know this applies to everything.
We certainly can’t assume that characteristics of the universe we currently observe apply prior to it’s point of origin.
God did it has no explanatory powers, none.
It doesn’t evidence it at all, nor does any other scientific fact.
You’re making the mistake of assuming the universe we currently observe could not have existed in some other form, now when will you be evidencing that assumption?
And deeply flawed, there are countless threads here debunking it, and all you need do is Google criticisms of the KCA to find any number of sound arguments tearing it apart. It also is a first cause argument, even were it not flawed, demonstrating that cause to be a deity is nothing more than unevidenced assumptions, William Lane craig uses it to argue for the Christian deity.
No, whatever we currently observe and have understood seems to have a cause, you are using an absolute claim without knowing the quantity of our ignorance, that’s looks an awful lot like a hasty generalisation fallacy to me.
No that’s inaccurate, the universe we currently observe had a point of origin, and we don’t know and cannot assume anything beyond that point.
Pure unevidenced assumption.
Wrong, this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
No, but then no one is claiming that, merely pointing out that the contrary claim that you’re making is equally unevidenced.
It is an objective fact that natural phenomena exist, there is no objective evidence that any deity or anything supernatural exists, a child could see the former must therefor be more probable than the latter.
Neither, you are now using a fallacy called a false dichotomy, a third option is we don’t know, and I don’t believe claims when I don’t know whether they are true, and nor should anyone who enters a forum like this with grandiose claims to be pursuing the truth (note it is not a proper noun and should not be capitalised.
You can believe the moon is made of cheese if it makes you happy, you have failed to offer anything approaching objective evidence for this claim, and since theoretical physicists have not answered this why would anyone here believe you can?
If you really can’t see the hilarity of that “and therefore” it’s hard to know what to say.
More comedy gold, since your arguments like the KCA are riddled with known logical fallacies, like question begging, false dichotomies, and argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Is this really all you have the KCA?
Nope, you are marvelling that water fits the contours of the puddle exactly, and assuming the hole must be designed, you are of course putting your wheezy clapped out old pony behind your cart. It is an objective fact that random events can combine with natural phenomena to create enormous complexity. See species evolution, and nothing in that scientific theory requires or evidences any deity.
No it isn’t and a first cause wouldn’t evidence a deity anyway, and a deity wouldn’t necessarily evidence the one you have chosen to believe exists from the countless deities humans have imagined.
You’re not even pretending to offer cogent argument now, let alone objective evidence, just blatantly subjective opinion.
)
