1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured First cause

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Unveiled Artist, Apr 16, 2020.

  1. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    3,872
    Ratings:
    +493
    Religion:
    None
    My life has been devoted to science. I "know" how it works, at least, I hope I
    do !!!!!
    My interest is in the abuse of science. When it comes to religion and someone
    says "There's no evidence of any King David" I remind people that doesn't mean
    there's no King David. As it was, we found that evidence.
    The big shock to Western religion came with Columbus and the New World in
    1492. Suddenly the bible didn't seem that authorative any longer because the
    Americas never figured in it. But again, that's not how you judge the bible.
     
  2. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    3,872
    Ratings:
    +493
    Religion:
    None
    It's funny. Some will say, without evidence, that the universe is eternal.
    But when someone asks "Who made God?" and you say that God is
    eternal you are accused to avoiding the question.
     
  3. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    15,597
    Ratings:
    +17,056
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    If God is used as the answer to 'why there is anything', then, yes, it is avoiding the question to not ask the same about God.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Mestemia

    Mestemia Advocatus Diaboli
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    45,167
    Ratings:
    +9,308
    It is though they use science to get to their god, then toss science out like yesterdays trash once they find a spot to stick god into.
     
  5. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    3,872
    Ratings:
    +493
    Religion:
    None
    So here are the two fundamental questions
    1 - why is there something rather than nothing?
    2 - and why?
     
  6. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    15,597
    Ratings:
    +17,056
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    I see the first as the basic one. And, truthfully, I don't think there is an answer. I think existence 'just is'. It isn't caused.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    3,872
    Ratings:
    +493
    Religion:
    None
    We are taught that there's a cause and reason for everything.
    Somehow this doesn't apply to the most fundamental of all
    issues.
     
  8. Unveiled Artist

    Unveiled Artist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Messages:
    26,627
    Ratings:
    +8,812
    Why do you think people need a first cause?
     
  9. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Lightly Seared on the Reality Grill

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    2,449
    Ratings:
    +1,601
    Religion:
    none
    By who?

    How can there be a cause for existence itself? Causes need to exist.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    15,597
    Ratings:
    +17,056
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    You were taught wrong, then. I hope that isn't news.

    Causes happen *in the universe*. To want a cause for the universe as a whole is thereby to ask for a violation of the nature of causality.

    Yes, the *most* fundamental issues *cannot* have explanations or causes simply because they are the most fundamental: any explanation would be based on something *more* fundamental.

    In other words, the *most* fundamental aspects of things 'just are': they simply cannot have explanations, because of the very nature of 'explanation': you don't explain a fundamental issue in terms of less fundamental issues.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. night912

    night912 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    797
    Ratings:
    +293
    Religion:
    Not religious
    That doesn't show or say anything about it being created. By you saying, "The universe is here," it doesn't tell us that the universe was created, let alone by "someone" or "something." The only thing that we do know is that, there is "something" here because that "some thing" is the univers. So basically what we can conclude is that there is something rather than nothing here.

    And it is you, who must define what "created" means. Because your argument have been referencing "created" as being something that exist and doesn't exist.
    You have said,
    So, anything "outside" of the universe cannot be figured out, and yet, you've claimed to figure out that the creator of the universe must be outside of thus said universe. But then you've also said that the universe cannot create itself, so the creator must be outside. But claiming that before the universe, there was nothing. So that would mean that nothing outside the universe exist. Thus resulting in the "creator" being not of the universe is equivalent to being non-existent. So no creator to create the universe means, the universe was not created. So the universe can be said to be infinite or to having an infinite regression. So there is no first cause.
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  12. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    3,872
    Ratings:
    +493
    Religion:
    None
    There's no Rabbit Hole deeper than this one.
    I have no idea what "created" means in this sense, but am stuck for
    a word to define how and why something "happened."
    Photons hitting your eye from natural light mostly were "created" by
    nuclear fusion in the sun. Lightning is "created" by charge differential
    between the earth and the atmosphere.
    This is science, cause and effect, no miracles or magic.
    The universe cannot "form" itself when it didn't exist. That's magic.
    By definition, whatever "formed" the universe lay outside said universe.
    Resorting to the "turtles all the way down" analogy don't answer the
    question of how the turtles came to be. I see it as an academic sleigh
    of hand.

    As it is the universe appears to be expanding at an ever growing rate
    of knots. The "big crunch" theory isn't looking so good. This universe is
    a "one off."
     
  13. night912

    night912 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    797
    Ratings:
    +293
    Religion:
    Not religious
    All that rambling and and you still didn't explained why the universe is/was created. This reply is just a rewording of what you said earlier.

    "The universe is here - so someone or something "created" it.

    I don't see any science being done there.

    And lightening is not the universe. So eventhough you can explain why it was created, that says nothing about the universe being created. We a lot of things that are createf. And we also know lot of things, but don't know whether or not they were created. How did you came to the conclusion that the universe was created?

    You're jumping the gun here. Let's pull it back and look at it again. Since we're talking about the universe here, this is what

    1. The "what" - "the universe exist." - True statement (I'm simply skipping the argument for existence here, so to be distracted from my point).

    2. The "why" - "The universe was created." - Not true statement (at least, not yet. ) you haven't given an explanation as to why the universe must have been created. This step is important because it is where the road usually where road split, and it's where the determination of the direction as to how the truth is sought out, or can end up as being False. The answer need not be scientific, but skipping this step can have you be wrong and not even know it. Or look all the answers in all the wrong places.

    3. The "how" - "the universe was created by something outside the universe - Not true/False (at least not yet) This is when science and pseudoscience comes to play.

    So it doesn't matter whether you assume that the universe was created through magic, miracles, aliens, rabbits, or turtles, etc, by skipping step 2 and assumed that the universe was created, you've set up some problems for yourself when provided your argument.
     
  14. night912

    night912 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages:
    797
    Ratings:
    +293
    Religion:
    Not religious
    Sorry to break it to you, but that's not science. That's a magic trick. What you did here was hold up strawman with one hand in front of you so to distract the audience into thinking it's important and with your other hand wave your magic wand to make your argument special so your own "rules" does not apply to your argument.

    I'll add one more thing there. Like I said about number 2 being important, it really shows how skipping that step can have a huge effect on your way of thinking and understanding regarding the argument.

    After all the explanation that was given, you still haven't and as of right now, cannot grasp the concept of an infinite universe. Having two sides disagreeing with each other because of having their own explanation is one thing. But when you are constantly saying that you understand the concept of infinite universe, then to give counter arguments that only effect the concept of a finite universe, it does give the impression that there's a high probability that you don't understand the concept of infinite universe. In fact, it does break down your own argument. If one is truly capable of understanding the concept, then they know what I'm referring to in the post above
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. PruePhillip

    PruePhillip Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2018
    Messages:
    3,872
    Ratings:
    +493
    Religion:
    None
    Cosmologists talk about the Big Crunch (eternal universe) the Big Rip (universe
    tears itself apart) and the Big Chill (universe expands forever.)
    Currently it's a toss between Ripping and Chilling due to our misunderstanding of
    dark matter and dark energy. But there's acceptance now there was a beginning
    and an end to the universe.
     
  16. Igtheism

    Igtheism Rdwin McCravy

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2020
    Messages:
    150
    Ratings:
    +9
    Religion:
    None
    >>night912<<Before all that, one must first show that it [the universe] was created.

    I claim that the words "the universe was created" can make no sense. Why? Because it's like saying "The Internet came into being because somebody googled 'how to create the Internet' and followed the instructions from that website". That's not a false statement, but an utterance that can't make any sense, because "googling" is defined in terms of the already existent Internet. Before the Internet, "googling" could have made no sense. Same for "creating" and "universe". The only way we learn words is from hearing or reading other people using them, or reading how others use them from the dictionary. So we could only have learned the word "created" -- and therefore can only interpret and understand the word "created" -- in terms of one part of the universe creating another part of the universe. Examples would be "Edison created the light bulb" and "that bird created that nest". In other words, the word "created" is defined in terms of two parts of an already existing universe. That is to say, the universe must already be assumed to exist so that the word "created" could be defined in terms of two parts of the universe, one to create the other. Thus "created the universe" cannot make any sense. I'd like to discuss that point with somebody, if anybody is interested.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    6,243
    Ratings:
    +1,760
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    According to what you accept as a "pretty good start to the definition of 'the universe", spacetime started to exist at a certain point. Is that correct?
    That would mean the universe did not always exist. Or am I missing something... What am I missing, please?

    You never did show any more complete model. Where are those?
    Please don't give me the ones you posted before without showing how they are more complete.

    You are of course speaking only of what is known to man... correct?

    So multiverse does not require a beginning? How so? Please explain.

    Yes. People do imagine a lot of things... like a multiverse generator, or a *createdless* creation.
     
  18. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    15,597
    Ratings:
    +17,056
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    That time also began at that point.

    Well, the main contenders are string theory and quantum loop gravity. They are more complete because they include quantum mechanics in the formulation.

    No, I mean literally, that time started at some point and that it is *meaningless* to talk about causality without time.

    If it always existed, there there was no point when it did not exist, so it didn't require a cause.

    Or a creator deity, or a flying spaghetti monster, or a supernatural, etc.
     
  19. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    6,243
    Ratings:
    +1,760
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    I did not miss that... at all.
    What is the universe again.
    Therefore, that has nothing to do with any existence outside the universe.
    In order for your multiverse to exist, there must be an existence outside of them. Not so?

    I'll get back to this, when I have more than five minutes.

    Again, time from what, or whose perspective.

    If... but your ifing must include a creator, if ifs are so important in your argument. Okay?

    Why imagine such things?
    You don't need to imagine something that has been given by reliable observers.
    Come on Polymath. Why deny reliable documents. Do you think that's wise.
     
  20. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    15,597
    Ratings:
    +17,056
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Correct. Not so.

    Time in the sense of coordinate time. Sort of like latitude and longitude on a globe. Latitude starts at the south pole and continues to the north pole.

    WHY must they include a creator?

    Like I said, there are two possibilities:

    1. Time goes only finitely far into the past.
    2. Time goes infinitely far into the past.

    In the second, the universe/mutiverse existed for all time. In the first, it *also* existed for all time.

    In neither was there a *time* when nothing existed. You asked about the mutiverse and whether it needs to be caused (this is assuming the second scenario). And the answer is NO, it would not be cause because it would have always existed: no cause required.

    In the first scenario, there is also no need for a cause. Causes, like time, are *part* of the universe. So causality, the universe, time, matter, energy ALL started at the same point.

    Like a universe that was not created? I can find reliable physicists who say this is possible.

    What reliable documents? I don't find *any* religious documents to be reliable. There is no human who has an ability to detect a supernatural because any ability to detect it means that it is natural.
     
Loading...