The Causation Argument

[Lion IRC]

... snip ...
And while these models should be considered speculative until we can develop experiments to test all aspects of these models, many or even most cosmologists tentatively agree that our visible universe is not all that is.

All the many cosmological models are speculative.

You mean atheistic models right? They are speculative. Tentative. Many are literally unfalsifiable.

All have serious problems.

Citation needed.

None are known to be true.

We don't know^TM if its true that universes spontaneously pop into existence.
Neither do we know what happened <13.9 billion years before the Big Bang.

Some fit our currently known physics better than others.

Agreed. Biblical cosmology is well-corroborated by science.

https://talkfreethought.org/search.php?searchid=1005195

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Not to mention the fact that if a being as complicated, ineffable and omnicapable as the one most cult members are referring to can simply pop into existence, then there is no logical reason why a far less complicated, knowable and largely inert universe couldn't do the same.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Biblical cosmology is well-corroborated by science.

Argument by fiat. Came earlier than usual.

 

[Lion IRC]

Ive never heard a classical theist propose that God spontaneously popped into existence.

 

[Lion IRC]

Biblical cosmology is well-corroborated by science.

Argument by fiat. Came earlier than usual.

The bible says the universe is expanding.

 

[Lion IRC]

Correct me if I am wrong, but god created the universe did he, she, or it not?

You invoke god as creator without considering the op question, which as always you sidestep.. You have to believe god always was and will be. God can not die or run out of energy, can god? A yes/no question.

It's groundhog day. We're discussing a past-eternal universe again.

The only way to defeat the First Cause argument is to argue that the universe either did not come into existence or that it popped into existence spontaneously, inexplicably - unexpectedly.

"The First Cause" is a theological term, not a cosmological term. And there are models that have an eternal universe (see Brane cosmology and others), an eternal cyclic universe (see Penrose's CCC), and models that have the universe "pop into existence spontaneously, unexpectedly" but explicable (see "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss)

I dont accept that the ontological category of cause, caused, causation, contingency...is a theological construct.
Uncaused is not a theological term. Spontaneous is not a theological term.

 

[skepticalbip]

You mean atheistic models right? They are speculative. Tentative. Many are literally unfalsifiable.

No I didn't mean that. I meant what I wrote. Cosmological models are primarily philosophy but are 'tested' mathematically for self consistency and for violations of physical laws.

All have serious problems.

Citation needed.

WTF? you expect a course on physics and cosmology in a chat room?

None are known to be true.

We don't know^TM if its true that universes spontaneously pop into existence.
Neither do we know what happened <13.9 billion years before the Big Bang.

I have no idea what you mean by that.

Some fit our currently known physics better than others.

Agreed. Biblical cosmology is well-corroborated by science.
https://talkfreethought.org/search.php?searchid=1005195

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Ive never heard a classical theist propose that God spontaneously popped into existence.

Then where did it come from? Do tell!

 

[steve_bank]

The way I look at it cosmology, philosophy, and religion all converge on the question of origins of the universe.

There is no provable hypothesis subject to test.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Biblical cosmology is well-corroborated by science.

Argument by fiat. Came earlier than usual.

The bible says the universe is expanding.

It doesn't, but is that it? That's the extent of Biblical cosmology being "well-corroborated by science"?

 

[skepticalbip]

Not to mention the fact that if a being as complicated, ineffable and omnicapable as the one most cult members are referring to can simply pop into existence, then there is no logical reason why a far less complicated, knowable and largely inert universe couldn't do the same.

And if something popping into existence requires a god then that is one busy dude because things are continually popping into existence throughout the universe (demonstrated by quantum fluctuations and the casimir effect). Either the dude is damned busy or there are one hell of a lot of gods staying busy.

 

[skepticalbip]

"The First Cause" is a theological term, not a cosmological term. And there are models that have an eternal universe (see Brane cosmology and others), an eternal cyclic universe (see Penrose's CCC), and models that have the universe "pop into existence spontaneously, unexpectedly" but explicable (see "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss)

I dont accept that the ontological category of cause, caused, causation, contingency...is a theological construct.
Uncaused is not a theological term. Spontaneous is not a theological term.

What you are capable of accepting is irrelevant. The term "First Cause" was introduced by theists as a synonym for "god' so they could sound like they were making sciency sounding arguments. However they typically capitalize the words because they know what they really mean by the term. The terms; cause, caused, causation, and contingency are a different matter and are used freely in science.

 

[remez]

The universe must have had a first causation, and that was god. Primarily because of a few lines in an ancient text.

Straw man.
Since this is an atheist board I don't have to support my assertions.
Your objection fails.



That was so much easier.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Ive never heard a classical theist propose that God spontaneously popped into existence.

Then where do ghosts come from?

ETA: Fucking Koy beat me to it.

 

[atrib]

Correct me if I am wrong, but god created the universe did he, she, or it not?

You invoke god as creator without considering the op question, which as always you sidestep.. You have to believe god always was and will be. God can not die or run out of energy, can god? A yes/no question.

It's groundhog day. We're discussing a past-eternal universe again.

Not necessarily. We don't enough about our universe to conclusively state either way.

The only way to defeat the First Cause argument is to argue that the universe either did not come into existence or that it popped into existence spontaneously, inexplicably - unexpectedly.

The first cause argument is deeply flawed, as it is based on unstated premises that are either false, or untestable. If you want to debate this argument, you should state this argument in full, along with its underlying premises, and I will show why that is the case.

More importantly, cause and effect is an emergent phenomenon that we perceive at the macroscopic level, driven by the arrow of time. There is nothing in the underlying physics that alludes to, much less dictates cause and effect.

As far as the science is concerned, neither premise can be ruled out (the universe has always existed in some form, or that the universe formed spontaneously out of nothing). The simple answer is we don't know. What we do know is that there is no evidence to suggest that a sentient, supernatural entity was involved in the creation of the visible universe.

 

[atrib]

You mean atheistic models right? They are speculative. Tentative. Many are literally unfalsifiable.

All have serious problems.

Citation needed.

None are known to be true.

We don't know^TM if its true that universes spontaneously pop into existence.
Neither do we know what happened <13.9 billion years before the Big Bang.

Some fit our currently known physics better than others.

Agreed. Biblical cosmology is well-corroborated by science.

https://talkfreethought.org/search.php?searchid=1005195

This is what I posted:

There is no empirical test at the present time. Our empirical knowledge allows us to rewind the universe to a point in its past, but no further. As the Wiki page on the Big Bang states:

The Big Bang theory is a cosmological model of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3] The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of very high density and high temperature,[4] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, large-scale structure, and Hubble's law – the farther away galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from Earth. If the observed conditions are extrapolated backwards in time using the known laws of physics, the prediction is that just before a period of very high density there was a singularity. Current knowledge is insufficient to determine if anything existed prior to the singularity.

So the correct answer is that we cannot definitively answer the question one way or another, based on the empirical evidence available to us today.

However, while we may not have a definitive answer to the question, cosmologists have developed models to describe the physics of the universe at the singularity, and beyond. Many of these models predict the existence of what cosmologists call the multiverse, which is a bigger realm outside the domain of the visible universe. And while these models should be considered speculative until we can develop experiments to test all aspects of these models, many or even most cosmologists tentatively agree that our visible universe is not all that is.

Where are you getting all the other lines you posted?

 

[steve_bank]

The universe must have had a first causation, and that was god. Primarily because of a few lines in an ancient text.

Straw man.
Since this is an atheist board I don't have to support my assertions.
Your objection fails.



That was so much easier.

The original forum few iterations back and decades back was a place for those reconverting to communicate and find support.

The forum is about freethought or freethinking, which is not necessarily atheist. A thread for philosophy. Unlike Christian forums both atheist and theist are free to express ideas and debate without penalty. Like being banned for being contrary.

 

[steve_bank]

The 'science is atheist' rant again. A recurring FOX News theme.

'atheist science' like evolution and cosmology. Science out to destroy Christianity. Science as another imagined Christian enemy doing the work of Satan.

 

[skepticalbip]

Not necessarily. We don't enough about our universe to conclusively state either way.

The only way to defeat the First Cause argument is to argue that the universe either did not come into existence or that it popped into existence spontaneously, inexplicably - unexpectedly.

The first cause argument is deeply flawed, as it is based on unstated premises that are either false, or untestable. If you want to debate this argument, you should state this argument in full, along with its underlying premises, and I will show why that is the case.

... snip ...

The best I can figure, "The First Cause" argument seems to be the book of Genesis since he refuses to state the argument and has dropped clues like using terms like "Biblical cosmology."

 

[Learner]

Energy more so could have always existed, the physical universe part would fit the continous cycle bit e.g. matter breaks-down to its base energy or matter gets reconstituted into other matter.

Yes, matter and energy seem to be two forms of the same thing, all adding up to The Universe. So, why treat the two forms as distinct on the question of 'eternal existance'?

I'm only treating them distinctively because for example, the Earth and stars as physically formed, have estimated dates/ ages to them.. not eternal.

I would ponder on the idea (outside theism)...If energy has always exited why wouldn't it evolve (for lack of better contextual word) with endless time advantage, into a conscious-thinking creative entity like humans have evolved as conscious-thinking creative entities in the natural physical world?

because energy needs something physical to hold data. Forget the completely non-corporeal energy-beings in Star Trek, you need matter to store a pattern for memory, thoughts, locker combinations, and math calculations.
What evolves is matters ability to hold and use energy.

If matter is uniform throughout the universe then there should be pattern-for-memory as you put it, in the energy itself, e.g. matter (being energy) to be able to hold its particular shape and form - and with all the varieties of elements that have their own individual properties consistent and uniform throughout the cosmos. I'd say logically there'd be pattern-storage of sorts on many different levels within the multitudes of energy (fields if you will) to the physical level where humans are able to do math calculations and locker combinations etc..