-
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!
Shoe is on the other foot: Prove there is not God.
- Thread starter Archer
- Start date
AK4
Well-Known Member
Not at all. because if there is a law of randomness, then you still have whatever caused that law. Plus just becuase we dont know yet what causes these randomnesses does not not negate the cause and effect. We know that these random acts cause these thing to react, they dont just "happen" as what the word random would mean.
AK4
Well-Known Member
Theres not one flaw in it or false in it. Yet the shoe is on the other foot with that statement in saying there is something before the ultimate cause. In otherwords you say there is no such thing as an ultimate cause
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Special pleading.
And you won't find it, because the Big Bang did happen. But re-read what I wrote: science is currently silent about what existed before the Big Bang. Any claims you make about what existed before the Big Bang are purely speculation.
No, you didn't. You made the claim, but you didn't explain it.
Fine if you want to believe that, but "everything after the first cause requires a cause" is just an unsupported assertion on your part. It'd be more valid to say "everything we've seen requires a cause", but "everything after the first cause" and "everything we've seen" are not equivalent.
You're answering in circles. You make claims like "the universe needs a starting point", and when asked why, you answer it with what amounts to a re-wording of "the universe needs a starting point."
But that's not our job.
Here's the deal with the First Cause Argument: it tries to establish that God is necessary. It can only do this if its premises are correct and its conclusions are validly based on those premises. If it can't be demonstrated that the premises and conclusions are right, then the overall conclusion of the argument is not supported. This leaves you with "God may or may not be necessary". The thing you set out to prove is left unproven. You only get to "God is necessary" once you demonstrate that all the steps that lead to it are correct. If there's any doubt whatsoever, then the conclusion is thrown into doubt as well.
Do you see how it works?
There is no such thing as "a time when there was no time". It's a logical impossibility.
And words like "starting", "when", "began" and "before" all have meanings based in the concept of time. Without time, they're meaningless.
Careful - those goalposts are heavy. You don't want to throw your back out moving them around like that.
And this is all irrelevant. Even if the First Cause Argument were valid, it wouldn't lead you to "a creator-god exists", it would lead you to "all effects originate with uncaused causes". There's absolutely nothing in the argument that suggests that there can only be one uncaused cause.
And you think that these things prove that nothing existed before the Big Bang? How do they prove this? Again, be specific.
AK4
Well-Known Member
But it does require a cause because then you must ask where did the things that are seen come from and these things in quantum mechanics act or react upon each other. For example our whole solar system is dependant on each body in the system to "maintain" it. They all react/act upon each other and no matter how far you break down lets say the planet Jupiter and its gazillion molecules they all act/react within some kinda law. Quantum mechanics basically tells us how thing came to be as we see or observe them, it doesnt say that they came to be without a cause.
AK4
Well-Known Member
Gotcha. And you guys premise doesnt stand then also because you guys say that everything came into being without a starting point, meaning it always existed or is eternal, thus God is not necessary. Everything had the ability to be and do what it needed from the get go. But wait there cannot be a "get go" because then you would have to explain why or how all the things got to be before the "get go" could happen. And so on and so. on never reaching a ultimate starting point or "get go".
No, we don't. We say that you haven't demonstrated that everything did come into being with a starting point.
If you're making the argument, then you're the one with the premises and you're the one with the burden of proof.
Again: there is no "before", "never" or "ultimate" without time.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
I repeat
- Quantum physics is not reliant on the cause/effect laws of Newtonian physics.
- Time/space only exist in our universe. There is no 'before" time. First, time did not always exist; and second, there was no first moment of time. Such are the oddities of quantum physics. (A Brief History of Time)
Nothing.
AK4
Well-Known Member
No thats what it is really.
Them being silent doesnt equal into proof.
How do you explain something so straight forward? You want me to explain were God came from? You cant. Why? Because He didnt come from anything, He is everything. Again, straight forward, you cant say in a god concept that your ultimate supreme being comes from something. You have to say that all comes from Him otherwise if anything help make Him then that thing is superior over your God.
Same difference. The bible teaches that we will see our God [the Father] eventually. Our God is Jesus and Jesus is to represent all that is God [the Father]. So in your own words It'd be more valid to say "everything we've seen requires a cause", when we eventually see our God we will see that "everything we've seen requires a cause". Thank you I couldnt have said it better myself.
Lets go beyond the universe, if there is more than just this universe, everything that has been created needs a starting point. Wheres the circle? Wheres you guys proof that anything created doesnt need a starting point---oh thats rewording again, here wheres you guys proof that something can come from nothing.
AK4
Well-Known Member
see post 972. The erroneous King James versions versus a literal translation of the word eons which means ages. Especially 2 Tim 1:9I repeat
So the proper answer to "What happened before the big bang? " is.....
- Quantum physics is not reliant on the cause/effect laws of Newtonian physics.
- Time/space only exist in our universe. There is no 'before" time. First, time did not always exist; and second, there was no first moment of time. Such are the oddities of quantum physics. (A Brief History of Time)
Nothing.
Sure... and that's special pleading.
I know. But you need them to provide proof if you want your argument to be valid.
I agree that it's a difficult or impossible task. However, you took it on when you decided to present the First Cause Argument.
Assumes facts not in evidence. We're talking about the First Cause Argument, not the Bible. Once you establish that the Bible is true, maybe we can revisit it. Until then, bringing the Bible into the argument just brings in more unsupported assertions, which does nothing to get you closer to showing that the argument is correct.
No, again. It's not about us having to prove that something can come from nothing; it's about you having to prove that something can't come from nothing, while simultaneously proving that God can.
Again, assumes facts not in evidence. In any case, it's irrelevant. A time "before the ages/eons" would still be actually time, in which case it's not "a time before time".
Nope. More like "all effects originate with at least one uncaused cause." The argument tries to establish a lower limit for the number of causes (one) but doesn't say anything at all about an upper limit.
Okay, then the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of the universe. How does this change the problem?
No more bunk than the eternal God concept, IMO.
You keep on saying this, but you don't give any support for it besides your assertion.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
I repeat
So the proper answer to "What happened before the big bang? " is.....
- Quantum physics is not reliant on the cause/effect laws of Newtonian physics.
- Time/space only exist in our universe. There is no 'before" time. First, time did not always exist; and second, there was no first moment of time. Such are the oddities of quantum physics. (A Brief History of Time)
Nothing.
Biblical translations have nothing to do with time/space.
Your cause/effect argument is erroneous for many reasons.
- Special pleading. (God is eternal, needs no cause)
- Quantum physics is not reliant on the cause/effect laws of Newtonian physics
- The uncertainty of Quantum spontaneity is not simply a result of our ignorance, it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of Quantum reality. .
- Space, time, matter, mass, and the Laws that govern them are part of the physical universe.
- Time/space did not always exist, there was no first moment of time.
Demonic Kitten
Active Member
It was probably breached 50 pages ago. All I'm seeing now is a great big circle...
Yes AK explained that to us too....:run:
Simply put AK conservation of Mass-Energy in the 19th century were split between two disparate laws. the law of the conservation of Mass and the law of the conservation of energy. the law of the conservation of mass stated that mass (matter) cannot be created or destroyed, but can be changed from one form of matter into another. In other words mass can be neither created nor destroyed.
The law of conservation of energy was essentially the same but is more difficult to visualize.
"Stephen Hawking expanded this understanding a bit further and explained how mass-energy's seemingly bizarre properties actually solve the riddle of cosmic origins. Hawkings described a naturally occurring phenomenon known as "vacuum fluctuation in which matter is created out of what appears to be perfectly empty space i.e. out of a perfect vacuum. Scientists have discovered that even in a perfect vacuum, in which all traditionally understood forms of matter and energy are absent, random electromagnetic oscillations are present. These oscillations actually represent a form of energy now called vacuum fluctuation energy, which can be converted into matter in complete harmony with the mass-energy conservation laws. In other words, the "nothingness" of a perfect vacuum in empty space can adn does spontaneiously produce matter in full agreement with Einstein's long-established laws."
This information comes from David Mills who wrote the Athiest Universe. I found it to be quite interesting.
The law of conservation of energy was essentially the same but is more difficult to visualize.
"Stephen Hawking expanded this understanding a bit further and explained how mass-energy's seemingly bizarre properties actually solve the riddle of cosmic origins. Hawkings described a naturally occurring phenomenon known as "vacuum fluctuation in which matter is created out of what appears to be perfectly empty space i.e. out of a perfect vacuum. Scientists have discovered that even in a perfect vacuum, in which all traditionally understood forms of matter and energy are absent, random electromagnetic oscillations are present. These oscillations actually represent a form of energy now called vacuum fluctuation energy, which can be converted into matter in complete harmony with the mass-energy conservation laws. In other words, the "nothingness" of a perfect vacuum in empty space can adn does spontaneiously produce matter in full agreement with Einstein's long-established laws."
This information comes from David Mills who wrote the Athiest Universe. I found it to be quite interesting.