Atheists, do you hope you're right?

[noguru]

Events is only another way to say causes. Events are caused and so are causes and, the role of Science is to assume until it gets to a theory which remains so till it becomes a fact which it only seldom does.

I am ready to discard what you claim that I have a belief based on faith, however, first you must explain to me if the universe caused itself to exist if you can't find possible that it was caused by something that preceded it aka the Primal Cause.

This has been explained to you many times. You simply reject the explanation without sound reason.

 

[noguru]

You misunderstand the nature or role of science. You should withhold firm judgement until you have exhausted the alternatives, and in particular you should resist believing something because you would like it to be true. That is the path to self deceit.

Or one could just be honest with themselves about that, and then in turn they would also be honest with others.

 

[noguru]

I have given you an alternative that you can not reasonably reject without simple assertion.

How can you reject the possibility that the universe just exists? You think that God just exists, so the concept should not be unfamiliar to you.

He never squarely addresses that logical reality. He will probably just continue to ignore it in the future.

 

[Hedshaker]

The Primal Cause is the First to cause.

You are assuming knowledge for which there is no evidence. Beliefs without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

There was no "before" the Primal Cause until He caused it to exist.

How do you know? Who was "He"? And if there was no "before", then from what power source did "He" use to cause it to exist? Are you suggesting the universe was poofed by magic like the bunny from the hat? You do know the bunny from the hat is a parlour trick, right?

I don't know "how" but that the Primal Cause caused the universe to exist I do. Why? Because I am part of the universe and I know that I exist and I did not cause myself to exist. Someone that preceded me did that job for me. If the Primal Cause did not cause the universe to exist, who did it, you?

So, to recap, everything must have a cause except your "He" whom you label the "Primal Cause", and "He" did this by magic without even a power source? Wow, that's impressive, and better yet, there was no energy yet so no light. He performed this magic in the dark, and you know all this because you have parents? You'll forgive me for not buying a word of it. You do know there are many hypothesis relating to the Big Bang event that do not suggest bunny from the hat supernatural magic, right?

Take a few minutes to watch this video I'm not claiming it as some ultimate Truth tm but it sure makes more rational sense than you celestial magician:

What Came Before The Big Bang?

What then caused the big bang to happen? Things don't happen out of absolutely nothing.

Except your bunny from the hat celestial magician, of course, right?

Space is what is defined by the distance between matter and matter. Therefore, space is an accident of matter. It was not caused to exist as the solid elements of the universe were caused to exist. The same is the case with energy.

Then what caused you celestial magician to exist? If , by your own logic,"He" didn't cause himself to exist then another magic "He" must have done it. But if "He" does not require a cause then you are engaging in the logical fallacy of special pleading

special pleading

argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view.

What reason is there to suspect any of that as ever been any different?

The presence or absence of matter in the universe. That's what defines space, time and energy.

So you believe if there was no matter in the universe there would be no space? The trouble with that is we don't have a matter free universe to compare. In short, you're guessing.

Sounds like magic, no?

How about Quantum Mechanics? Do you have any idea about Quantum Mechanics?

I'm no expert on it, you? QM seems to be a robust science theory though and bares little resemblance to magic as far as I can see. Do you have a point?

Non sequitur. We have reality for sure but no evidence for whatever this "Primal Cause" might be. We have no knowledge at all of what preceded the Big Bang event.

If to cause things to exist in the universe is not evidence for the Primal Cause, how did the universe cause itself to exist?

Or, more to the point, how did your celestial magician cause itself to exist. Just labelling it the "Primal Cause" doesn't work because it's special pleading.

Here's a point though, what if there was no beginning? What if there was never this magical "Nothing". We don't have a "nothing" to examine, do we. maybe existence itself is the "Primal brute fact" that as always existed in some form or another. Energy cannot be destroyed or created but can change form, remember"? Or are you denying that, Look it up, it's a well established scientific theory.

Well at least it displays a cordial exchange minus any preaching which is a pleasant change in this thread, so thanks

You ain't seen nothing yet. We are only in the beginning.

Oh trust me I've been here many times before

 

[noguru]

You are assuming knowledge for which there is no evidence. Beliefs without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
....

Oh trust me I've been here many times before

Thanks for the video.

There is a claim among astrophysicists that photons are timeless. If that is the case then this might be true for all sub atomic particles. Which leads to the conclusion that time only exists for energy in the form of matter. If that is true, then cause and effect, which are a byproduct of events in time, would have no meaning in a pre matter universe.

 

[Ben Masada]

You misunderstand the nature or role of science. You should withhold firm judgement until you have exhausted the alternatives, and in particular you should resist believing something because you would like it to be true. That is the path to self deceit.

I have given you an alternative that you can not reasonably reject without simple assertion.

How can you reject the possibility that the universe just exists? You think that God just exists, so the concept should not be unfamiliar to you.

Because something cannot exist without having been caused to exist. That's all. Since it cannot cause itself to exist, it is only obvious that some thing else that preceded it did that job.

 

[Ben Masada]

You misunderstand the nature or role of science. You should withhold firm judgement until you have exhausted the alternatives, and in particular you should resist believing something because you would like it to be true. That is the path to self deceit.

I have given you an alternative that you can not reasonably reject without simple assertion.

How can you reject the possibility that the universe just exists? You think that God just exists, so the concept should not be unfamiliar to you.

Because something cannot exist without having been caused to exist. That's all. Since it cannot cause itself to exist, it is only obvious that some thing else that preceded it did that job.

I don't believe in the existence of the Primal Cause just because I wish It to be true but based on the Logic that without It even we would not be here today discussing this issue.

 

[Ben Masada]

Science does not have to answer everything, before it can answer some things.

Yea! But I wonder why you have a very big "NO" for an answer to a question about the existence of the Primal Cause of the universe. A big "NO" followed by a shredded assumption why could not the universe have had a self-beginning.

 

[Ben Masada]

This has been explained to you many times. You simply reject the explanation without sound reason.

Right, without sound reason by the one giving the explanation.

 

[Town Heretic]

Yea! But I wonder why you have a very big "NO" for an answer to a question about the existence of the Primal Cause of the universe. A big "NO" followed by a shredded assumption why could not the universe have had a self-beginning.

Because it defies our observations of causality and anything but a blind, hopeless faith.

Otherwise it's just peachy.

 

[noguru]

Yea! But I wonder why you have a very big "NO" for an answer to a question about the existence of the Primal Cause of the universe. A big "NO" followed by a shredded assumption why could not the universe have had a self-beginning.

:rotfl:

Wonder all you want.

But it is more like "a question that science cannot currently answer" rather than "a big No" as you put it.

You folks who are always trying to use science as a vehicle to promote a religion are funny. You are absolutely clueless to the transparency of your efforts.

:rotfl:

 

[noguru]

Right, without sound reason by the one giving the explanation.

So in your opinion the explanation is not sound reasoning? What exactly about the explanation is not logically sound?

 

[noguru]

Because it defies our observations of causality and anything but a blind, hopeless faith.

Otherwise it's just peachy.

Are you also claiming that "science must answer everything before it can answer anything"?

 

[Tyrathca]

Because something cannot exist without having been caused to exist. That's all. Since it cannot cause itself to exist, it is only obvious that some thing else that preceded it did that job.

isn't god a "something"? You can't say everything needs a cause and then follow up with something that doesn't need a cause. If good can be an exception then why not other things to? You need a really good explanation for why good can be the ONLY exception.

I don't believe in the existence of the Primal Cause just because I wish It to be true but based on the Logic that without It even we would not be here today discussing this issue.

But you do believe it to be your god because you wish it to be. Let's say we assume there is a primal cause, why should we think it resembles your god instead of just another part of fundamental physics?

 

[Ben Masada]

You are assuming knowledge for which there is no evidence. Beliefs without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

But before you dismiss the universe as the main evidence for the existence of the Primal Cause, please, try to show me your evidence that the universe caused itself to exist without something that preceded it to cause it to exist. So far you haven't moved from square one.

How do you know? Who was "He"? And if there was no "before", then from what power source did "He" use to cause it to exist? Are you suggesting the universe was poofed by magic like the bunny from the hat? You do know the bunny from the hat is a parlour trick, right?

Logic has told me so. He "was" not. He IS. The Primal Cause is not subject to time to be something that was or will be. He always is no matter what. He needs no power source to cause things to happen. I am not suggesting that the universe was poofed by magic but you are that the BB banged out of the hat of the magician. At least show me some decency to share with me who prepared that soup





So, to recap, everything must have a cause except your "He" whom you label the "Primal Cause", and "He" did this by magic without even a power source? Wow, that's impressive, and better yet, there was no energy yet so no light. He performed this magic in the dark, and you know all this because you have parents? You'll forgive me for not buying a word of it. You do know there are many hypothesis relating to the Big Bang event that do not suggest bunny from the hat supernatural magic, right?

Take a few minutes to watch this video I'm not claiming it as some ultimate Truth tm but it sure makes more rational sense than you celestial magician:

What Came Before The Big Bang?

Except your bunny from the hat celestial magician, of course, right?



Then what caused you celestial magician to exist? If , by your own logic,"He" didn't cause himself to exist then another magic "He" must have done it. But if "He" does not require a cause then you are engaging in the logical fallacy of special pleading





So you believe if there was no matter in the universe there would be no space? The trouble with that is we don't have a matter free universe to compare. In short, you're guessing.



I'm no expert on it, you? QM seems to be a robust science theory though and bares little resemblance to magic as far as I can see. Do you have a point?




Or, more to the point, how did your celestial magician cause itself to exist. Just labelling it the "Primal Cause" doesn't work because it's special pleading.

Here's a point though, what if there was no beginning? What if there was never this magical "Nothing". We don't have a "nothing" to examine, do we. maybe existence itself is the "Primal brute fact" that as always existed in some form or another. Energy cannot be destroyed or created but can change form, remember"? Or are you denying that, Look it up, it's a well established scientific theory.





Oh trust me I've been here many times before

 

[rexlunae]

You have no grounds to stand upon if you discard the Primal Cause of having caused the universe to exist. The universe could not have caused itself to exist. And that's reality.

Any possible first cause, whether you call it "God" or not, is going to defy the ordinary understanding of causality. That you want to name the first cause God, and assign all sorts of additional attributes is merely special pleading.

Now, you can see why you cannot be right with myself around?

Um...

 

[Ben Masada]

You are assuming knowledge for which there is no evidence. Beliefs without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

But before you dismiss the universe as the main evidence for the existence of the Primal Cause, please, try to show me your evidence that the universe caused itself to exist without something that preceded it to cause it to exist. So far you haven't moved from square one.

How do you know? Who was "He"? And if there was no "before", then from what power source did "He" use to cause it to exist? Are you suggesting the universe was poofed by magic like the bunny from the hat? You do know the bunny from the hat is a parlour trick, right?

Logic has told me so. He "was" not. He IS. The Primal Cause is not subject to time to be something that was or will be. He always is no matter what. He needs no power source to cause things to happen. I am not suggesting that the universe was poofed by magic but you are that the BB banged out of the hat of the magician. At least show me some decency to share with me who prepared that soup mentioned by the Science-fiction video you asked me to watch.

So, to recap, everything must have a cause except your "He" whom you label the "Primal Cause", and "He" did this by magic without even a power source?

No magic involved when something has every thing needed already within Itself. Hence, the Primal Cause.

Wow, that's impressive, and better yet, there was no energy yet so no light. He performed this magic in the dark, and you know all this because you have parents?

Matter was caused to exist first. Then, energy and light followed as an accident of matter. Not the other way around.

You'll forgive me for not buying a word of it. You do know there are many hypothesis relating to the Big Bang event that do not suggest bunny from the hat supernatural magic, right?

Forgiven already if you can produce a word I can buy. Hypothesis! Yea, the endless guesses of Science-fictions? I am aware of them.

Take a few minutes to watch this video I'm not claiming it as some ultimate Truth but it sure makes more rational sense than you celestial magician: "What Came Before The Big Bang?"

Of course you couldn't claim it as ultimate truth. Guesses are guesses; nothing more than guesses. Hypothetical statements that make Science-fiction kids jump up and down from the roof.

Except your bunny from the hat celestial magician, of course, right?

Or your "soup" wherefrom the universe puffed.

Then what caused you celestial magician to exist? If , by your own logic,"He" didn't cause himself to exist then another magic "He" must have done it. But if "He" does not require a cause then you are engaging in the logical fallacy of special pleading.

I have told you before but it seems to me it hasn't arrived "there" yet. The Primal Cause by definition is the "Primal" Cause and not the cause after.

So you believe if there was no matter in the universe there would be no space? The trouble with that is we don't have a matter free universe to compare. In short, you're guessing.

That's why space is everywhere and growing with Expansion. In short, I have never been so certain.

I'm no expert on it, you? QM seems to be a robust science theory though and bares little resemblance to magic as far as I can see. Do you have a point?

Have you read "Out of My Later Years" by Albert Einstein? I have the same opinion he had about Quantum Mechanics.

Or, more to the point, how did your celestial magician cause itself to exist. Just labelling it the "Primal Cause" doesn't work because it's special pleading.

You still do not know the impossibility of something to cause itself to exist. If you find it possible, I am all ears. Oh! BTW, I am pleading with you to explain it to me how.

Here's a point though, what if there was no beginning? What if there was never this magical "Nothing". We don't have a nothing to examine, do we.

You again with your hypotheses. I don't like to work on hypotheses. Waste of time for nothing. Give me the word. If it makes any sense to me, we will shake hands.

maybe existence itself is the "Primal brute fact" that as always existed in some form or another. Energy cannot be destroyed or created but can change form, remember"? Or are you denying that, Look it up, it's a well established scientific theory.

That's why I don't like hypotheses. There is no existence without a cause for any thing to exist. Why is it so hard to understand such a simple thing?

 

[Hedshaker]

You really need to sort your formatting out.....

You are assuming knowledge for which there is no evidence. Beliefs without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

But before you dismiss the universe as the main evidence for the existence of the Primal Cause, please, try to show me your evidence that the universe caused itself to exist without something that preceded it to cause it to exist. So far you haven't moved from square one.

No you don't get to switch the burden of proof. You are the one making a claim without evidence. The state of existence pre Big Bang is not known at this time and may never be known. Not by you, not by anyone. So your Primal Cause "He" is a claim to knowledge for which you provide no evidence. I have not claimed the universe caused it self to exist.

Logic has told me so. He "was" not. He IS. The Primal Cause is not subject to time to be something that was or will be. He always is no matter what. He needs no power source to cause things to happen. I am not suggesting that the universe was poofed by magic but you are that the BB banged out of the hat of the magician. At least show me some decency to share with me who prepared that soup

Again with trying to shift the burden, no one but you has mentioned any soup. You are reading what you want to hear into what has been said. You need to present your evidence for why the cause of the BB should be your "Who". Your logic is based on what you wish to believe. No one knows anything about existence pre Big Bang so no one knows what might have caused the Big Bang event to occur. Cherished beliefs are not evidence.

Did you watch the video? It appears not. There are plenty of hypothesis regarding the issues bring up that do not include a celestial magician. But no one can claim to "Know" because pre Big Bang knowledge is not available at this time.

It's that simple. But you won't accept that because you dearly want it to be your God that did it. Bald assertion is not evidence.

Please learn how to use the quote editor if you wish to continue :noid:

Cheers

Ah you've re-done your post. But anyway, a quick scan appears to show more of the same.....

No magic involved when something has every thing needed already within Itself. Hence, the Primal Cause

.

Then please explain, with evidence, how this Primal Cause "He" did it. Bald assertion is not evidence.

Matter was caused to exist first. Then, energy and light followed as an accident of matter. Not the other way around.

Bald assertion is not evidence.

Forgiven already if you can produce a word I can buy. Hypothesis! Yea, the endless guesses of Science-fictions? I am aware of them.

At least an hypothesis is honest. You should take note!

Of course you couldn't claim it as ultimate truth. Guesses are guesses; nothing more than guesses. Hypothetical statements that make Science-fiction kids jump up and down from the roof.

You're right, I don't claim any ultimate truth. That would be your job. You just miss the evidence part is all.

Or your "soup" wherefrom the universe puffed.

What soup? Only you bring up this soup.


....... honestly this is just more of the same. Come back when you can present real falsifiable evidence for this Primal Cause that just happens to be your God (what luck!). As is you have nothing but wishful thinking.

Out!

 

[Ben Masada]

Because it defies our observations of causality and anything but a blind, hopeless faith.

Otherwise it's just peachy.

The opposite is rather true. Causality is another concept I use to prove the veracity of the Primal Cause. The universe is composed of elements of matter in a so-called chain-reaction of cause & effects pointing to Infinity aka the Primal Cause, though not ad infinitum.

 

[Ben Masada]

:rotfl:

Wonder all you want.

But it is more like "a question that science cannot currently answer" rather than "a big No" as you put it.

You folks who are always trying to use science as a vehicle to promote a religion are funny. You are absolutely clueless to the transparency of your efforts.

:rotfl:

I love to disappoint you but I don't have a religion but a way of life based on Logic and not on faith. So, you can come down from your high horses because you will find nothing in there.