The Causation Argument

[steve_bank]

...If science says that the universe began, I want to know about it. So I asked for citations. Do you have any reason to believe that SCIENCE SAYS SO? Can you share those reasons with me?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...e is 13.8 billion,at such an enormous number?

Determining the age of our universe from ancient stars and relic radiation left over from the big bang etc etc etc.

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

If the universe is flat and composed mostly of matter, then the age of the universe is...
2/(3 H_o)

Again lack of detailed knowledge.

When someone says 'age of the universe' it is the estimated time of the BB event thought to be the genersis of our reality today.

The BB Theory does not start of time zero of The Universe. . No inference of a starting point of universe as in creation.

My cosmology book used universe to refer to our observable universe and Universe to refer to the entire scope of existence both observed and unknown. We have no idea what the Universe is, but we speculate based on we see and what we can test.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...If science says that the universe began, I want to know about it. So I asked for citations. Do you have any reason to believe that SCIENCE SAYS SO? Can you share those reasons with me?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...e is 13.8 billion,at such an enormous number?

Determining the age of our universe from ancient stars and relic radiation left over from the big bang etc etc etc.

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

If the universe is flat and composed mostly of matter, then the age of the universe is...
2/(3 H_o)

That doesn't say that scientists claim the universe began. It is clearly saying that IF the particular model being analysed is true THEN.....

Hells bells, why use the entire universe? We don't even know what the universe is, we just call it the universe. Pick something else. Pick a spoon from your kitchen or a shoelace or a gust of wind or a toad. Lots of possibilities.

 

[Lion IRC]

All methods of calculating the age of the universe result in a statement of how long it has been in existence.
12 billion. 13 billion. 13.7 billion. 13.9 billion. 14 billion.

Can any of the rational clear thinkers here understand that a past-eternal universe isnt 13.7 billion yeas old?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

All methods of calculating the age of the universe result in a statement of how long it has been in existence in its present form.
12 billion. 13 billion. 13.7 billion. 13.9 billion. 14 billion.

FIFY. That makes more sense.

 

[skepticalbip]

That doesn't say that scientists claim the universe began. It is clearly saying that IF the particular model being analysed is true THEN.....

Hells bells, why use the entire universe? We don't even know what the universe is, we just call it the universe. Pick something else. Pick a spoon from your kitchen or a shoelace or a gust of wind or a toad. Lots of possibilities.

Exactly... We don't know what the universe is or how it works so several hypothesis have been generated as possibilities. Analysis of the proposed models only gives a description of what would be true about the universe IF and only IF the model being analyzed is true.

It's sorta like early explorers making guesses about what they will find on an unexplored territory. There are ideas based on their understanding of areas they have explored.

 

[steve_bank]

All methods of calculating the age of the universe result in a statement of how long it has been in existence.
12 billion. 13 billion. 13.7 billion. 13.9 billion. 14 billion.

Can any of the rational clear thinkers here understand that a past-eternal universe isnt 13.7 billion yeas old?

I am coining a new term Argument From Ignorance, AFI.

Yet again the BB time estimate is from the event. The theory does not address how the initial conditions for the event came to be. s such it is not a creation theory. You could say god wound things up and let it go if you like.

Someone is running a time trial and starts running. He passes a sensor that starts a clock and a second sensor that stops a clock. The elapsed time is between the two points and does not reflect what led up to the runner passing the first sensor.

A car crash occurs. A forensic team starts with the debris and runs the clock back reconstructing the accident. The analysis des not go further back than the start of the crash.

 

[Lion IRC]

All methods of calculating the age of the universe result in a statement of how long it has been in existence.
12 billion. 13 billion. 13.7 billion. 13.9 billion. 14 billion.

Can any of the rational clear thinkers here understand that a past-eternal universe isnt 13.7 billion yeas old?

I am coining a new term Argument From Ignorance, AFI...

This is not an argument from ignorance my friend.

If the universe has always existed we dont need to concern ourselves with its age. You cant be 'ignorant' about the age of a past-eternal thing because it has no age. Biblical theists dont argue about how old God is.

Enough with all this disingenuous posturing as to 13.9 billion years being some artificial 'time slice' which simply refers to the recent history of a universe which has always existed.

 

[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.

Defend your Op steve_bank.
You were the one who invoked the past-eternity of God versus the past-eternity of the 13.7 billion year old universe.

 

[skepticalbip]

All methods of calculating the age of the universe result in a statement of how long it has been in existence.
12 billion. 13 billion. 13.7 billion. 13.9 billion. 14 billion.

Can any of the rational clear thinkers here understand that a past-eternal universe isnt 13.7 billion yeas old?

I am coining a new term Argument From Ignorance, AFI...

This is not an argument from ignorance my friend.

If the universe has always existed we dont need to concern ourselves with its age. You cant be 'ignorant' about the age of a past-eternal thing because it has no age. Biblical theists dont argue about how old God is.

Enough with all this disingenuous posturing as to 13.9 billion years being some artificial 'time slice' which simply refers to the recent history of a universe which has always existed.

When did that butterfly begin? Are you saying that it makes no sense to study the emergence from the cocoon til present? But then what about its time as a pupa, and before that as a caterpillar? But then there is the long span back to when the species evolved. Before that the predecessors.... etc.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This is not an argument from ignorance my friend.

If the universe has always existed we dont need to concern ourselves with its age. You cant be 'ignorant' about the age of a past-eternal thing because it has no age. Biblical theists dont argue about how old God is.

Enough with all this disingenuous posturing as to 13.9 billion years being some artificial 'time slice' which simply refers to the recent history of a universe which has always existed.

When did that butterfly begin? Are you saying that it makes no sense to study the emergence from the cocoon til present? But then what about its time as a pupa, and before that as a caterpillar? But then there is the long span back to when the species evolved. Before that the predecessors.... etc.

It's hard to know if Lion is suffering AFI or just projecting with the "disingenuous posturing" cheapout.

 

[steve_bank]

This is not an argument from ignorance my friend.

If the universe has always existed we dont need to concern ourselves with its age. You cant be 'ignorant' about the age of a past-eternal thing because it has no age. Biblical theists dont argue about how old God is.

Enough with all this disingenuous posturing as to 13.9 billion years being some artificial 'time slice' which simply refers to the recent history of a universe which has always existed.

When did that butterfly begin? Are you saying that it makes no sense to study the emergence from the cocoon til present? But then what about its time as a pupa, and before that as a caterpillar? But then there is the long span back to when the species evolved. Before that the predecessors.... etc.

There are no claims that the processes of science can know everything. Christians attempt to turn that fact into a proof or justification for the god they believe in.

Do you know what extrapolation means? It means projecting beyond the endpoint of the data.

The BB is an extreme extrapolation back in time based on observe of the universe and physics we validate hear on Earth.

It explains most or all of what we see today from particles to galaxies. In that it is a successful theory. That is all it is.

Creationists get bent out of shape because it conflicts with a few ancient lines in Genesis. It undermines the basis of all their thinking.

That is not the problem of science per se. It is an emotional issue Christians have to learn to cope with.

We now know illness s not caused by evil sprits, or illness being a sign from god.

Cosmology and evolution are the last remaking issues of contention.

 

[steve_bank]

All methods of calculating the age of the universe result in a statement of how long it has been in existence.
12 billion. 13 billion. 13.7 billion. 13.9 billion. 14 billion.

Can any of the rational clear thinkers here understand that a past-eternal universe isnt 13.7 billion yeas old?

I am coining a new term Argument From Ignorance, AFI...

This is not an argument from ignorance my friend.

If the universe has always existed we dont need to concern ourselves with its age. You cant be 'ignorant' about the age of a past-eternal thing because it has no age. Biblical theists dont argue about how old God is.

Enough with all this disingenuous posturing as to 13.9 billion years being some artificial 'time slice' which simply refers to the recent history of a universe which has always existed.

You can look up the estimates. There is estimated estimated time line on when the Sun will expand incinerating the Earth.

There is no functional point in the age of the universe. Not being provable it is more philosophy based on science IMO. As Popper put it, to be science it must be testable. Origins of the universe is where religion, science, and philosophy come together.

In the culture and pop science the BB has become a defacto creation myth.

Yu are free to believe god winked Earth into existence, I would not have it any other way. But attacking science does not make your faith true.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

Defend your Op steve_bank.
You were the one who invoked the past-eternity of God versus the past-eternity of the 13.7 billion year old universe.

Again AFI. The causation argument is a long standing creationist proof of god.

AFFI argument from feigned ignorance.

There is no proof of god, or possible proof of any organs of the universe.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

Defend your Op steve_bank.
You were the one who invoked the past-eternity of God versus the past-eternity of the 13.7 billion year old universe.

Are you still on this shit? It was dealt with several pages ago.

But if you want to give it another go I'll try a different tack... Your only argument is that you claim undeniable certainty of the TRUTH of a "First Cause". Based on what? Someone (you don't know who) wrote it down a few thousand years ago.

It's only fair that I can claim undeniable certainty that the universe did not have a cause. Based on what? Roger Penrose wrote it was so a little over a decade ago.

I know. Both are asinine claims and arguments.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Enough with all this disingenuous posturing as to 13.9 billion years being some artificial 'time slice' which simply refers to the recent history of a universe which has always existed.

So, you can find a place where any physicist EXPLICITLY states that the universe did not exist in any form or state before the BB, AND that the "age if this universe" MUST be read as "the age of all that exists" rather than "the duration, so far, of the iuniverse as we see it?"

Because if you cannot find this explicitly expressed, i have to think you're the one being disingenuous.

 

[Learner]

You said that the physical universe began. You further said that (all-caps in the original) "SCIENCE SAYS SO."I'm interested in that claim. If science says that the universe began, I want to know about it. So I asked for citations. Do you have any reason to believe that SCIENCE SAYS SO? Can you share those reasons with me?

I don't understand the relevance of that. You said that SCIENCE SAYS that the physical universe began. I'm asking you to support the claim that SCIENCE SAYS the physical universe .

Like it says from the exerpt from the link and as Lion was explaining...

"Age may only be a number, but when it comes to the age of the universe, it's a pretty important one. According to research, the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old. How did scientists determine how many candles to put on the universe's birthday cake? They can determine the age of the universe using two different methods: by studying the oldest objects within "


https://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html

Meaning a "beginning" doesn't neccessarilly come from an explosion as conventionally understood - although I do take the side of the BB discussing the universe being estimated to be 14 + billion years old ;

I don't know what you're trying to say here, but I doubt that it's relevant to my question.

I can see now we are talking two different perspectives of beginning.

having a beginning (the theory) to work with, so to speak. This regarding the universe having began at some point. If you type when the universe began in google its usually generally understood by common rhetoric and the links associated to the "age of the universe".

If I do a google search, I can find your claim repeated a lot? Is that your evidence of a scientific consensus?

One link should be suffice.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/21mar_cmb/

Nobody knows what happened before the BB, well yes sure. I DID say science can't prove either way in one of my posts.

You said that SCIENCE SAYS that the physical universe began. I'm interested in why you believe that. I'm asking you to support it so that I too can know what science says.

If I understand, you're now backpedaling, saying that science doesn't say the universe certainly began, but only that it probably began. If that's what you're doing, then my question remains: Why do you believe that science says the universe probably began? How can I believe that too? What support do you have for your claim?

No it's not backpedaling. I have no idea where I'm saying "probably" as you're describing. Unfortunately I didn't pay much attention to the line in bold below (quick browse over) from your first post because I was hastily off to an engagement:

You said: "I found a cosmologist; I asked him whether it was true that there is a scientific consensus that nothing happened before the big bang."

What happened before the BB is irrelevant in context to the BB as being the 'starting point' which is widely used in reference to age. What was needed here I suppose was clarification. By looking at some of the recent posts, some people seem to be "riding-the-wave" or falling into the "philosophy-line" so to speak, that Atrib and Kieth seem to be pushing ...a different angle, analogeous to the example...

"The age of the earth, the trees and other life is not relevent to the argument/discussion because everything was or is energy, which always was!"

Nothing wrong with the above, which is a fine to discuss; only its just a little confusing for either of us talking two different things.

SO what's left then to discuss but propose an idea - being opened to suggestion but ....someone (plural) thought to mstakenly pretend this was my debate for a claim or sumink. [Emphasis added]

If I understand -- and maybe I don't -- you are saying that my question is off topic, that you were discussing something else, and I'm only pretending to be interested in your claim that science says the universe began.

I am prepared to take offense.

Ah, apologies for that, It wasn't meant at you, because you came in later in the discussion. I should have clarified that. It certainly wouldn't be a direct response to your previous post of 1, ... which seemed to me, you were asking questions in a good manner, why would I?

Considering my quote to be offensive anyway, it should look quite tame and lightweight in comparison to other offensive posts people find out there.

You're prepared to take offense... good, we should all be prepared and able to take offense. I often see Lion and Remez take it, like many here too, i'm sure.

In the meantime, I'd like you to address my question. Do you have any support for your claim? Can you share that support with me?

If you don't want to support it, just say so. Maybe you misspoke, overstated your case. Or maybe you believe your claim is true, but you don't have any support and don't want to look for any. That's all you have to say.

Support your claim or say that you don't intend to. But, please, no more evasions and insults.

I'm not immune to any of the underlined above but possibly may have 'understated' my proposition too, but thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry about that, I can be a little slow to respond (and to ALL the previous posts), I thought best deal with yours now. I did sort of avoid responding tbh, only to delay a bit, not just leave it and not reply, because I would post too hastily, making a hash of it (often happens) being a little busy.

I can be a tad sarcastic, intention non-offensive but you'll get no insults from me. It just ain't my style!

 

[steve_bank]

The bible derived timeline is about 400 years. That is not possibly be in dispute is it?

The debate is over whether god exists, at least as Christians imagine. And that cosmology from science does not preclude a universe with no beginning or end.

Part f that is the causation argument. Noting we observe occurs without a cause, the fore the universe must have had a first cause, and that is god.

 

[Wiploc]

Like it says from the exerpt from the link and as Lion was explaining...

"... According to research, the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old...."


https://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html

They are calculating the age of the universe since the big bang. That's a convention, like starting the calendar with the year 1 anno Domini. It doesn't mean that nothing happened before that.

One link should be suffice.

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/21mar_cmb/

I followed your link. I read much of what I found there. I see no indication that calling the big bang "the beginning" of the universe is meant as anything other than a conventional shorthand. I see no claim that nothing happened before the big bang.

If I understand, you're now backpedaling, saying that science doesn't say the universe certainly began, but only that it probably began. If that's what you're doing, then my question remains: Why do you believe that science says the universe probably began? How can I believe that too? What support do you have for your claim?

No it's not backpedaling. I have no idea where I'm saying "probably" as you're describing. Unfortunately I didn't pay much attention to the line in bold below (quick browse over) from your first post because I was hastily off to an engagement:

You said: "I found a cosmologist; I asked him whether it was true that there is a scientific consensus that nothing happened before the big bang."

What happened before the BB is irrelevant in context to the BB as being the 'starting point' which is widely used in reference to age. What was needed here I suppose was clarification. ...

I guess I'm still confused.

In post 71, you have Keith saying, "Ok, but where did god come from? Was he, she, or it always was and always will be o? Hmmmm….if so why could the universe itself not have always existed with no beginn9ng or end?"

Then you respond with your claim that science says the universe began.

That doesn't read like you're saying that the big bang is called the beginning because we don't know what happened before that. It reads as if you're saying that the big bang is the ultimate beginning, the first thing that ever happened. It reads as if you're saying that the reason the universe can't be unbegun is because science knows of an actual beginning, a point before which nothing.

So you can see how I was confused.

...
I am prepared to take offense.

Ah, apologies for that, It wasn't meant at you,

Thanks.

 

[atrib]

Like it says from the exerpt from the link and as Lion was explaining...

"Age may only be a number, but when it comes to the age of the universe, it's a pretty important one. According to research, the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old. How did scientists determine how many candles to put on the universe's birthday cake? They can determine the age of the universe using two different methods: by studying the oldest objects within "

In this context, the age of the universe refers to a boundary of the spacetime continuum beyond which we cannot see. This boundary exists because the properties of the early universe were different from the properties of the universe we observe today. This does not imply the universe was created ex nihilo, it is simply a statement about our lack of understanding.

What happened before the BB is irrelevant in context to the BB as being the 'starting point' which is widely used in reference to age. What was needed here I suppose was clarification. By looking at some of the recent posts, some people seem to be "riding-the-wave" or falling into the "philosophy-line" so to speak, that Atrib and Kieth seem to be pushing ...a different angle, analogeous to the example...

It is a starting point only in the context of the fact that we do not presently understand what the visible universe looked like before this boundary. We don't know if the matter/energy that makes up our visible universe had existed before in some other form, or if our visible universe is part of a larger domain, which is what some of our cosmological models predict. Again, we have no evidence that the universe began to exist ex nihilo at this "starting point", which is what the first cause argument asserts.

It is also important to note that we have no experience with matter/energy popping into existence ex nihilo, which is something the first cause argument uses as a fundamental premise. This premise is unsound, and theists who argue for god(s) using the first cause argument deliberately ignore this point.

 

[steve_bank]

In summary, we have once and for all time proven that god does not exist.