The Beginning

Then Does Atheism undermine science ?

W.L. Craig Discusses it in context of the Big Bang.

YouTube&feature=related

W.L. Craig discusses how cosmological argument necessarily leads to a personal timeless and spaceless willing Creator.

YouTube&NR=1

Ravi Zacharias argues that no matter how one subdivides the universe to its minutest elements, the source of the universe has to be outside of itself.

YouTube&feature=related

Originally posted by jaywill
You say the premise is incorrect ?
You seem to assert that everything that begins to exist does not have a cause?

No I didn't. Read my post again. I am asserting that there is no reason to believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause. I am perfectly well aware that some things that begin to exist have causes - that is patently obvious.

Okay. But don't then turn around and claim to be for science because if the premise is wrong, I think that goes a long way to destroy doing science.
Thats because you did not take the inverse of the premise as I point out above.

Perhaps. But at least for now the current scientific concensus is that the universe began to exist.
No it isn't. There is insufficient data and no scientific consensus on the matter.

Wouldn't you have to prove that the premise is incorrect ?
You have to disprove that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Formally I don't think it would be sufficient to just say "That's an assumption."
You would have to demonstrate the falsity of the assumption.
In order to achieve what? To prove your conclusion false? To prove your argument cannot be true? I do not seek to do either, I merely seek to show that your conclusion is not proved and is little more than an assumption dressed up in fancy clothes trying to pass itself off as a logical argument.


I am not sure what you mean.
Surely you don't believe in a God who is defined as "God is one for whom a greater cannot be imagined." ?
That would be a somewhat ridiculous belief and based solely on personal preference not on any form of evidential or scriptural grounds.

I think an eternal universe is not as great as an eternal living "Person".
Again I am left wondering how to define 'great'.

So when someone says "Maybe the material universe always was" I have two reactions.
1.) The evidence at this state does not point to an eternally existing universe.
It doesn't point anywhere actually. But even if it did, your conclusion must remain conditional on the 'pointing' being accurate.

2.) Even if it was eternal it is not as great as an eternal living God. Life I regard as on a higher level than non life - "greater".
By one definition God is one for whom a greater cannot be imagined. An existing God is greater than a non-existing God. So if God is non-existent a greater can be imagined.
And the Devil that I can imagine is greater than all the above so he must be God!
The whole 'whatever is greater must be true' argument is ridiculous in the extreme.

I don't know of I am getting to your issue. But in the mean time, I'll wait to see you prove that some things begin to exist yet have no cause.
I do not need to as pointed out above. I can however point out that the vast majority of events in the universe are not known to have causes and as far as we can tell behave as if they don't. In fact quantum mechanics implies that some events are random enough to be indistinguishable from truly random (ie causeless) events.
But most importantly of all, the universe as a whole is in a totally different class from entities within it and it is ridiculous to assume that anything that applies to things in the universe should apply to the universe as a whole. In fact I might go as far as to say that the word 'cause' cannot even correctly be applied to the universe as a whole. It is a Bosse de Nage might say "a Category Mistake".

Originally posted by jaywill
I know that the atheists want God in a test tube so they can examine this "thing".

If I don't hand God over to them in a test tube they will jest about the Speghetti Monster or the Pink Unicorn.[/b]

Hahaha, no kidding. 😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
No I didn't. Read my post again. I am asserting that there is no reason to believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause. I am perfectly well aware that some things that begin to exist have causes - that is patently obvious.

[b]Okay. But don't then turn around and claim to be for science because if the premise is wrong, I think that goes a l as a whole. It is a Bosse de Nage might say "a Category Mistake".

========================
No I didn't. Read my post again. I am asserting that there is no reason to believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
====================================== [/b]

I see no reason to revize my sentence. You saying "I am asserting that there is no reason to believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause,"
and what I said you seem to be asserting is virtually the same.

What I said you seem to be asserting and what you say you are asserting ??There's not a nickel's worth of difference.

=================================
I am perfectly well aware that some things that begin to exist have causes - that is patently obvious.
===============================

In other words "everything" that begins to exist does NOT have a cause. You assert that.


===============================
No it isn't. There is insufficient data and no scientific consensus on the matter.
===========================

If you have a copy of A Brief History of Time by Dr. Stephan Hawking, please read pages 136 to 139. There he says that his thought experiment of "imaginary time" is "just a metaphysical proposal". He says that in real time the universe had a beginning.

He disagrees with you. You say it had no beginning. George Smoot of the University of California at Berkeley, an astronomer and project leader for the COBE satellite, declared of the Big Bang - "What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe."

How much are you grasping in desperation here ? The preent concensus is the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe. I would not doubt that theorists are proposing other scenarios as well they should. I think it is misrepresentative of you to protest that the jury is still out on the Big Bang being the beginning of the universe. That is the most prevailing theory at the moment.

===========================
Wouldn't you have to prove that the premise is incorrect ?
You have to disprove that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Formally I don't think it would be sufficient to just say "That's an assumption."
You would have to demonstrate the falsity of the assumption.

In order to achieve what? To prove your conclusion false? To prove your argument cannot be true? I do not seek to do either,
====================================

In order to achieve what ? In order to demonstrate the error of the initial premise. We don'teven need to go to the conclusion yet. Prove the premise incorrect.

===========================
I merely seek to show that your conclusion is not proved and is little more than an assumption dressed up in fancy clothes trying to pass itself off as a logical argument.
=============================

So the opposite assumption that some things begin to exist yet were not caused, I should just take from you without any argument ?

At least refer me to a publication which shows the invalidity of the premise of the argument. I want to see the counter argument that some things begin to exist without a cause.

==============
I am not sure what you mean.
Surely you don't believe in a God who is defined as "God is one for whom a greater cannot be imagined." ?
That would be a somewhat ridiculous belief and based solely on personal preference not on any form of evidential or scriptural grounds.
=========================

There is scriptural ground. For example - "But to Him who is able to do superabundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power which operates in us" (Eph. 3:20)

God is able to do superabundantly above all that we ask or think. That amounts to God being one for whom a greater cannot be thought or imagined.

Do you need more references?

============================
Again I am left wondering how to define 'great'.
==================================

I think these definitions of the word "great" will do:

" remarkable in magnitude, degree, or effectiveness <great bloodshed>
4 : full of emotion <great with anger>
5 a : eminent, distinguished <a great poet> b : chief or preeminent over others —often used in titles <Lord Great Chamberlain>
6 : long continued <a great while>
7 : principal, main <a reception in the great hall>
8 : more remote in a family relationship by a single generation than a specified relative <great-grandfather>
9 : markedly superior in character or quality; especially : noble <great of soul>
10 a : remarkably skilled <great at tennis> b : marked by enthusiasm

God is one for whom a more "remarkable in magnitude," "eminent," "distinguished," "long continued," "priniciple," "markedly superior in character or quality," "remarkedly skilled" cannot be imagined.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]========================
No I didn't. Read my post again. I am asserting that there is no reason to believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause.
====================================== [/b]

I see no reason to revize my sentence. You saying "I am asserting that there is no reason to believe that everything that begins to exist ...[text shortened]... lity," "remarkedly skilled" cannot be imagined.[/b]

🙂😀😉😏😲

Time is an "ACT OF MEASUREMENT" and therefore relative to each 'measurer'. Of course those that don't measure are not subject to the influence of time...

Originally posted by 667joe
If everything requires a cause, what was the cause of god? If god does not require a cause and has always been here, then why can't the universe have always been here also?

not everything requires a cause.

Originally posted by jaywill
I see no reason to revize my sentence. You saying "I am asserting that there is no reason to believe that everything that begins to exist has a cause,"
and what I said you seem to be asserting is virtually the same.
What I said you seem to be asserting and what you say you are asserting ??There's not a nickel's worth of difference.

There is a very significant difference and I suspect you know it as your argument relies solely on that difference.
Lets take an analogy:
1. twhitehead: Not all cows are known to be brown.
2. jawill: You are claiming that cows are never brown!
Do you see the difference? If you don't then read them over very very carefully until you get it, otherwise there is no point continuing the discussion.



You say it had no beginning.
No I didn't. Again, you are not reading what I am writing.

How much are you grasping in desperation here ? The preent concensus is the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe.
Two people is not a consensus. I could find you plenty of scientist who say that the Big Bang may not have been the start of the universe. To give just one example of an alternative:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce


I think it is misrepresentative of you to protest that the jury is still out on the Big Bang being the beginning of the universe. That is the most prevailing theory at the moment.
A prevailing theory does not equal a consensus.

In order to achieve what ? In order to demonstrate the error of the initial premise. We don'teven need to go to the conclusion yet. Prove the premise incorrect.
I have no desire to prove the premise incorrect. It is sufficient to point out that it is an unwarranted assumption (which I have).

So the opposite assumption that some things begin to exist yet were not caused, I should just take from you without any argument ?
No, I have not asked you to do so. I have merely pointed out that it is a possibility. If you want to claim to have proved anything then you must prove the assumption first (ie rule out the possibility that some things are uncaused).


There is scriptural ground. For example - [b]"But to Him who is able to do superabundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power which operates in us" (Eph. 3:20)

God is able to do superabundantly above all that we ask or think. That amounts to God being one for whom a greater cannot be thought or imagined.[/b]
No it doesn't. Your comprehension of English is appalling. Nearly every sentence this post so far has been a clear indication that you cannot understand what I write nor what the Bible says.

I think these definitions of the word "great" will do:

" remarkable in magnitude, degree, or effectiveness <great bloodshed>
4 : full of emotion <great with anger>
5 a : eminent, distinguished <a great poet> b : chief or preeminent over others —often used in titles <Lord Great Chamberlain>
6 : long continued <a great while>
7 : principal, main <a reception in the great hall>
8 : more remote in a family relationship by a single generation than a specified relative <great-grandfather>
9 : markedly superior in character or quality; especially : noble <great of soul>
10 a : remarkably skilled <great at tennis> b : marked by enthusiasm

God is one for whom a more "remarkable in magnitude," "eminent," "distinguished," "long continued," "priniciple," "markedly superior in character or quality," "remarkedly skilled" cannot be imagined.
I strongly suspect that that is logically impossible.