Please not that you failed to address one single word in my post addressing your previous claims, you are riding a thin line between debate and preaching, the latter is not allowed here.
If you will take some friendly advice start answering some of the many questions debunking your claims, with something more than repetition of those claims.
If time as we understand it, is an emergent property of the physical universe we currentlyobserve, and that universe that we currently observe had a point of origin, beyond which our current knowledge cannot penetrative, why would we accept unevidenced assumptions you are making about time and cause and effect beyond that point, and based solely on your bias towards an archaic religion, and an entirely unevidenced deity?
NB That is a question, please answer it honestlyā¦
The real question is: Which position is better supported by reason and evidence? I believe the case for a universe with a beginningāand therefore a transcendent causeāis the more rational conclusion.
Yes. I agree Smr.
You have nailed it by stipulating that we should follow reason and evidence. So, using your own standard, where is the evidence for the universe having a beginning?
You claim that modern cosmology provides a good reason for believing that it did - then you fail to cite any such body of cosmological evidence. Then you commence making philosophical arguments for why there cannot be an infinite past. This is very naughty! 
A philosophical argument for the universe having a beginning is not the same as the very thing you said was required - evidence. Yesterday you said thatā¦
Reason requires that claims be accepted only when they are supported by sound empirical and observational evidence.
You also saidā¦
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.
The standard you have set here is quite clear. The beginning of the universe must be shown to be supported by sound empirical and observational evidence. You further make it clear that speculation will not do and only scientifically established conclusions will do.
So, will you please live up to your own words and your own standard Smr and present such evidence for the beginning of the universe?
Until you do so this thread is going nowhere.
Thank you,
Walter.
With regard to the Kalam Cosmological Argument, the same applies.
It falls to you to show that the universe began to exist.
Having tied yourself to sound empirical and observational evidence and scientifically established conclusions, it is through these that you need to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning.
Please do so.
Thank you,
Walter.
By your own argument, if the creator god has āalwaysā existed (i.e. is infinitely old), then the present moment could never have been reached. Granted, you āsolveā that by defining that your god is ābeyond timeā (whatever that means), meaning that you make special rules about it, excempting it from your other rules, in order to force-fit it into your narrative rather than examine the evidence that is actually at hand. That can go both ways. An equally valid claim is that our āpre-universeā was beyond time and space as we know it (whether that be an multiverse brane collision seeding our universe, or whatever), and through some interaction or event formed spacetime as we know it, cosmic inflation, etc. through an instability or whatever, but in a physically valid way that could in principle be described by physics.
You see, creating special rules that only apply to your deity is counter-productive. It just doesnāt work.
There are other problems with your argument when you cite infinity to claim impossibilities, but that opens a whole other can of worms.
This looks like a form of argument from incredulity;
It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts oneās personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.
Arguments from incredulity can take the form:
- I cannot imagine how P could be true; therefore P must be false.
- I cannot imagine how P could be false; therefore P must be true.
Arguments from incredulity can sometimes arise from inappropriate emotional involvement, the conflation of fantasy and reality, a lack of understanding, or an instinctive āgutā reaction, especially where time is scarce. They are also frequently used to argue that something must be supernatural in origin. This form of reasoning is fallacious because oneās inability to imagine how a statement can be true or false gives no information about whether the statement is true or false in reality.
And noone here, or serious cosmologists, suggest that. However, given the argument of an infinitely old deity as the āsolutionā, one might just as well assume the simpler solution, namely an infinitely old universe that just reflects the normal religious claims, but with less assumptions. For some reason religious apologists way too often refuse to entertain that thought, instead claiming an infinite universe is impossible, but an infinitely old magic sky daddy is. Go figure.
What is suggested (note: not a claim, but rather a suggestion of a possible explanation) is rather that if you go far enough back in time, timespace became so densely packed and energy densities were so extreme that our understanding of space, time, and causality breaks down. In other words, in a realm where both normal quantum mechanics and General relativity break down. Weāre in the realm of quantum gravity or even way beyond. And as for now, we do not currently possess neither the theoretical framework nor the emirical obsevations to progress further. But at least the scientific community is open about this. In contrast to religious apologists who hammer on with their sky daddy assertions.
But none of these things you mention Smr qualify as the very thing you said was required. Sound empirical and observational evidence of the universe having a beginning.
They are indirect indications that it might have had one, but they do not rise to the level of observational evidence of its beginning. Fyi, seeing as you mention the cosmic microwave background background radiation, the CMBR itself is the very reason why the beginning of the universe CANNOT BE observed. I will explain why.
Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia
Referring again to the Tabular Summary on this Wiki page, if we look at the sequence going downwards we see that Recombination is the ninth in order, with eight events preceding it. Recombination is when the universe finally cooled enough for photons to stream freely through space, just as we observe now.
Before the time of Recombination the universe was an opaque, dense, white-hot plasma and any photons were coupled with matter and could not stream freely through space as they do now. This means the CMB blocks our direct view to all eight earlier phases of the universeās evolution. No information can come to us from these earlier periods.
Being unable to observe these earlier phases cosmologists are obliged to shift from observation to inference. Therefore, whatever is listed before the time of Recombination has not been observed by anyone and is only inferred to be so from particle physics, quantum mechanics and general relativity.
So, Iām sorry Smr, but direct observation of anything prior to Recombination is impossible.
Where science cannot proceed by observation it proceeds by inference. But that therefore means that everything from Big Bang Nucleosynthesis to Inflation is based upon what scientists infer to have happened. Not what they have observed to have happened. This means that cosmological science cannot satisfy the standard you set for yourself - sound empirical and observational evidence.
I have kept on asking you for such evidence because I know that you cannot present it. Such evidence does not exist and cannot be gathered. I hope that you will come to understand this and will also come to understand that because you cannot demonstrate (on your own terms) that the universe had a beginning, you therefore cannot argue that it had a creator.
But that understanding will have to come to you in your own time.
Thank you,
Walter.
To further your understanding Smr I suggest that you ask yourself this question.
If the beginning of the universe has actually been observed, then why do scientists continue to formulate theories which posit an eternal universe?
Theories like these.
Ekpyrotic universe - Wikipedia
Conformal cyclic cosmology - Wikipedia
Loop quantum cosmology - Wikipedia
Theories such as these would never be accepted for peer review and publishing in accredited scientific journals if the beginning of the universe had actually been observed.
But since that event hasnāt been observed and cannot be observed, the field is wide open for scientists to theorize about the nature of our universe.
Thank you,
Walter.
Yes it has always been a myth and it always will be so.
This is an interesting point . . . and has been brought up before in a different context as Zenoās Paradox. Please see below:
I asked the question, āCan the beginning of the universe be observed?ā of Google AI. Hereās the answer.
AI Overview
We cannot directly observe the absolute beginning of the universe. Instead, scientists observe the afterglow of this event, known as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), and the oldest existing light from the universeās infancy.
The absolute moment of the Big Bang cannot be seen because the early universe was a plasma so dense and hot that light could not travel freely; it was trapped by free electrons, acting like a fog. It was not until about 380,000 years later that the cosmos cooled enough for atoms to form, allowing the universe to become transparent and light to travel. The Cosmic Microwave Background is that ancient thermal radiation, which can be detected by specialized telescopes.
Beyond the CMB, modern observatories are capturing the era when the first galaxies and stars formed.
The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST): This observatory peers back over 13 billion years to capture highly redshifted light from some of the earliest galaxies and supermassive black holes in the universe.
Ground-based Telescopes: Facilities like the Subaru Telescope continuously identify extremely distant quasars (ancient, bright galactic cores) which help astronomers piece together the conditions of the universeās infancy.
Cosmic Theories: While we can observe light from the early universe, the moments prior to thisāincluding a period of rapid expansion known as Cosmic Inflationāare currently studied through mathematical modeling, particle accelerators, and theories about physics prior to the expansion event.
Hereās what Copilot AI had to say about the same question.
When astronomers look at distant objects, they are effectively looking back in time because light takes time to travel across space. For example, light from the most distant galaxies observed by JWST left those galaxies over 13 billion years ago, showing them as they were a few hundred million years after the Big Bang, not as they are today NASA+1. This is possible because JWST observes infrared light, which is stretched from visible light due to the expansion of the universe
NASA.
The universe began approximately 13.8 billion years ago in a hot, dense state known as the singularity, which rapidly expanded in the Big Bang Wikipedia+1. In the first few minutes, subatomic particles formed, followed by the creation of the first atoms after about 380,000 years. This early light, known as the cosmic microwave background (CMB), is the oldest light we can detect directly
The Conversation+1. Before this, the universe was opaque due to a dense plasma, so no light could travel freely.
After the CMB, the universe entered the ācosmic dark ages,ā a period with no stars or galaxies. The first stars and galaxies began forming a few hundred million years later, and this is the era JWST can observe in detail umbc.edu+1. By studying these early galaxies, astronomers can learn how the universe evolved from simple structures into the complex galaxies we see today
NASA.
Even the most advanced telescopes cannot see the exact moment of the Big Bang because light could not escape the dense, hot plasma of the early universe. The earliest observable light comes from the CMB, which provides a snapshot of the universe 380,000 years after its formation The Conversation+1. Observing earlier than this requires indirect methods, such as studying particle physics and cosmological models.
While we cannot see the universe at the instant of its creation, modern telescopes like JWST allow us to observe galaxies and stars forming within the first few hundred million years, giving us a window into the universeās earliest observable history and helping scientists understand its evolution from the Big Bang to the present
this so-called ānecessaryā allah (or god or yaweh or great architect or whatever) deity seems to be very petty. if you look at the size of the universe, and the life span of human beings, they seem to have no problem torturing people forever in jahanam.
In Surah At-Tawbah (9:80), Allah states that even if the Prophet Muhammad asks for forgiveness for the hypocrites seventy times, they will not be forgiven.
so much for the āAll Mercifulā huh?
I donāt see any coherence in the argument that if the universe is infinite we would never have reached the present moment. By that absurd argument, NO moment would ever be reached, and thereās no concept of time at all.
But itās drop-dead obvious that we ARE here, in this present moment, which followed the one immediately previous and precedes the one immediately subsequent, so whether the timeline is infinite in either direction is irrelevant to that.
In fact, most Abrahamic theists would have zero problem with the future being infinite, now why, pray, would they suddenly have a problem with the past being infinite? Well, because it violates their cherished assumptions, while an infinite future validates them.
That didnāt answer any of my direct questions. So I think your āwith all due respectā lead into your response is perfunctory.
Hereās something else you might like to consider, Smr.
The Big Bang is not the only thing in the skies which astronomers can never directly observe. Every black hole conceals its interior from investigation. Something called a singularity is theorized to exist beyond a black holeās event horizon. But we have no way of observing it. All we can do is to observe the exterior of the black hole and then try and infer and deduce what lies inside it.
This is a direct parallel to the situation astronomers face when trying to observe the Big Bang event. In both cases neither the Big Bang nor the interiors of black holes can be directly observed. There is no empirical data or evidence to work with. All we can do is infer, deduce, suppose or speculate.
What lies beyond the edge of the observable universe is something else that can never be observed by any telescope. Due to the expansion of the universe the further we look into the distance the faster the expansion of space carries the galaxies away from us. Look far enough and the galaxies appear to us to be moving away from us at the speed of light.
There is no violation of general relativity here. GR only forbids physical objects from travelling through space at the speed of light. But if space itself is expanding as fast c, or light speed, then the galaxies themselves are not moving through it. They are being carried along for the ride. This is permitted by GR. There are no paradoxes or problems involved with space expanding at ANY speed. Only movement through space at light speed is forbidden.
The consequences of this expansion of space are profound. It means that no matter how big we make our telescopes they will never be able to see beyond the edge of the observable universe. The light leaving galaxies beyond that limit can never reach us. It would have to exceed c to outrun the speed at which space is carrying those galaxies away from us. And GR is quite explicit in forbidding anything moving faster than c through space.
So you see Smr, just like the Big Bang and just like the interior of black holes, observing these galaxies is impossible. There will never be any empirical data or evidence from these three things. All we can do is to theorise, suppose, speculate, deduct and infer what they might be like.
Iām sorry, but this is not just the way the cookie crumbles - its the way the universe works. Please bear this in mind when formulating arguments for the existence of a god.
Thank you,
Walter.
A point to consider about Zenoās Paradox.
Specifically, the paradox concerning the arrow that never reaches its target. Zeno could have tested his paradox in the real world by standing between the target and the archer. Should he have done this (and survived) his real world experience should have caused him to revise his argument.
This is one of the major problems with philosophy. When it detaches itself from reality like this.
Since we can perform no real-world testing on an infinite regression an assertion that it is an impossibility should be viewed with caution.
Once again we are back in the grey zone of the Big Bang, black holes and the edge of the universe. That which cannot be observed cannot be tested. That which cannot be tested must remain in limbo. It cannot be afforded the status of ātrueā or ārealā or āpossibleā or āimpossibleā.
We just donāt know and in all probability we can never know.
Thank you,
Walter.
So all @Smr has to offer is a shambolic collection of unevidenced claims based on failed first cause arguments. He neednāt have even started a thread, just searched for all the failed and debunked first cause arguments that litter this place already.
Also dishonest of him to pretend his thread is predicated on a question, when it clearly is a claim, even a collection of claims, that he knows he cannot support with any objective evidence.
We can sum up the failure of first cause arguments in a few sentences:
āEverything that begins to exist, has a cause.ā
Well here is why this fails for me:
Quod erat demonstrandumā¦
If I may add to this, Sheldon.
Smr cites the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
The first premise can be accepted because everything that begins to exist within the universe appears to have a cause. If you were to trace the chain of causes and effects backwards through time you would eventually arrive at the Big Bang, which could then be considered as the ultimate cause of everything within the universe. No problem there.
But the second premise is problematical because, like the first, it is a truth claim. No truth claim should be accepted without supporting evidence. So, is there observational evidence for the claim that the universe began to exist?
The answer is a resounding NO.
The jury is still out on that question and there is no way that we can obtain empirical evidence to settle the question. It is impossible to directly observe if the universe had a beginning or not. The best we can possibly do is to obtain indirect evidence that it might or might not have had a beginning and then make inferences and deductions from that. But the data which would allow us to do that hasnāt come in either. Until it does we canāt even make indirect inferences and deductions from the paucity of data we have.
Therefore, the second premise of the KCA can be dismissed. It is a truth claim about the nature of the universe that is not supported by any body of sound empirical and observational evidence. And if it is valid, then it needs to be. As usual, the onus is upon the claim makers to verify the validity of the KCA. If they cannot do that the truth claim of the second premise fails.
Therefore the entire KCA fails and cannot be used by theists to do anything.
Thank you,
Walter.
Two questions for you.
Most of the universe is deterministic, based on the four forces, Electromagnitism, Strong nuclear, Weak nuclear and Gravity. It is merely a matter of solving the mathematic equations to know what happens next.
However, there is something else. We could call that the fruits of āGodā if you want. That thing is non deterministic, instead it is probabilistic. It happens when virtual particles pop into and out of existence. It happens with quantum tunnelling. It happens with radioactive decay. It happens with the random mutations part of the Evolution process.
We cannot know with certainty when these will happen, but we have a pretty good understanding of what these probabilities are.
Einstein, despite his amazing achievements got it dead wrong when he said that God doesnāt roll dice. The God (if there is one), the one that does things outside the deterministic four fundamental forces, is rolling these probabalistic die. Thatās all that god does, doesnāt make decisions, doesnāt will things to happen, just keeps on rolling these dice, over and over and over at a constant rate.