Atheists, do you hope you're right?

[Ben Masada]

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

I'll let you the exercise of your neurons to review the post with the unreasonable explanation. You will learn faster that way.

 

[Ben Masada]

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.

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?

I believe I am using Physics and not religion to discuss with atheists in this forum. I hope you grant me that allowance and stop acting as if you are afraid of something under my sleeves. Just answer my questions without appealing to religion with the intent only to force its collapse.

 

[Ben Masada]

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.

No, the concept of Causality will rather confirm the existence of the Primal Cause because It is found at the beginning of the process of Causality. The law of cause & effect cannot extent itself back ad infinitum because the chain of causality must by necessity be broken with the real beginning. The History of the universe used to be taught by classic Philosophers as without a beginning and the idea collapsed in 1922 with the Catholic priest George Lemaitre who succeeded to cause the majority of Scientists and Cosmologists to adopt the big bang's message that finally and after all, the universe did have a beginning albeit the Tanach used to say so for about four thousand years to this day that the universe did have a beginning.

 

[Ben Masada]

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

And I am sure you would love to be the one to do that for me. Wish-thinking my friend! You will need much more than what you have.

No you don't get to switch the burden of proof. You are the one making a claim without evidence.

And you are the one claiming to refute me without evidence. You have got to prove the base of your refutation.

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.

The universe is my evidence and you do not agree though without any evidence to the contrary.

I have not claimed the universe caused it self to exist.

You are contradicting yourself for saying that and refusing to assert what could have caused the universe to exist.

Again with trying to shift the burden, no one but you has mentioned any soup.

How can you ask me to watch a video that you have not watched it yourself? Watch it again. The speaker mentions the "soup" wherefrom, hypothetically, the universe came from.

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.

So, stop guessing and tell me what caused the universe to exist.

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.

I know you guys don't know any thing but what is good to fight the Primal Cause.

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.

It seems to me you guys have a paranoia about gods. You mention more about gods than I do with the Primal Cause.

Please learn how to use the quote editor if you wish to continue. Cheers.

I have tried. No difference from listening to the one I am dialoguing with.

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

The presence of the universe has never been a bald evidence to the Primal Cause. If you doubt me, prove the opposite.

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

There is no dishonesty in my assertion about the beginning of the universe but in you for not being able to refute with commonsense.

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

You cannot claim an ultimate truth. It is against Physics.

What soup? Only you bring up this soup.

Again, watch the video before you ask someone else to do so.

 

[gcthomas]

No, the concept of Causality will rather confirm the existence of the Primal Cause because It is found at the beginning of the process of Causality. The law of cause & effect cannot extent itself back ad infinitum because the chain of causality must by necessity be broken with the real beginning. The History of the universe used to be taught by classic Philosophers as without a beginning and the idea collapsed in 1922 with the Catholic priest George Lemaitre who succeeded to cause the majority of Scientists and Cosmologists to adopt the big bang's message that finally and after all, the universe did have a beginning albeit the Tanach used to say so for about four thousand years to this day that the universe did have a beginning.

Your pop-metaphysics is woefully restricted and simplistic. You are missing a much wider scope of thought by limiting yourself to nothing more than intuition and your naïve physical understanding.

The universe is mathematical, and you completely ignore the wonderful possibilities in the physics.

Please think about the reasons you claim that the universe cannot exist without the actions of a personal god. You wouldn't dream of making conclusions about the origin of a pond on the basis of the behaviour of the tadpoles therein - how have you been able to infer the details of the origin of spacetime simply from a casual observation of the properties of objects embedded in spacetime?

 

[alwight]

No, the concept of Causality will rather confirm the existence of the Primal Cause because It is found at the beginning of the process of Causality. The law of cause & effect cannot extent itself back ad infinitum because the chain of causality must by necessity be broken with the real beginning.

A perceived problem with infinite regression from our end of the time line doesn't somehow magically transform itself into evidence for anyone's favourite notion of "God" because it's an unknown, which is perhaps unknowable, why should it be labelled as a deity?
If this universe is of a finite time then for all we know there is an infinite number of universes and perhaps "gods" too?
Isn't the real problem here one of personal need, simply needing a god to be there, and it may as well be the one of choice rather than of reality?
The primal cause of reality is not "my god" it is simply "unknown".

 

[gcthomas]

A perceived problem with infinite regression from our end of the time line doesn't somehow magically transform itself into evidence for anyone's favourite notion of "God" because it's an unknown,

Right. Cosmologists are working on Eternal Inflation models, which are certainly all eternal in the future. Whether it is eternal in the past is an open question. All the current attempts to formulate it have a finite past, but that doesn't exclude an infinite past. But even a finite past does not imply a starting event, if you look at the Hartle-Hawking no boundary idea.

Finite but unbounded (with no beginning) sounds odd, but it isn't really. The surface of a sphere is finite in size but has no beginning of end, so the concept is sound. If you head towards the north pole you will run out of 'going north', but don't find the edge of the world.

The creationists here are wedded to a pre-relativity concept of time, where time and space are separate and absolute. No wonder modern cosmology confuses them when they are a century behind in developments.

 

[noguru]

I'll let you the exercise of your neurons to review the post with the unreasonable explanation. You will learn faster that way.

So that's a "No" then.

 

[noguru]

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.

If being perceptive means to you that I am "on a high horse" then so be it. But those are your words, not mine.

 

[Hedshaker]

And I am sure you would love to be the one to do that for me. Wish-thinking my friend! You will need much more than what you have.

Your board formatting, I'm talking about this mess

No you don't get to switch the burden of proof. You are the one making a claim without evidence.

And you are the one claiming to refute me without evidence. You have got to prove the base of your refutation.

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens.
Clearly you are desperate to shift the burden of proof because you have no 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.

The universe is my evidence and you do not agree though without any evidence to the contrary.

I don't need contrary evidence until you back up your claims with evidence first and the universe does not back up your claims.

I have not claimed the universe caused it self to exist.

You are contradicting yourself for saying that and refusing to assert what could have caused the universe to exist.

I don't know what caused the universe to exist and neither do you. Wishful thinking is not evidence.

How can you ask me to watch a video that you have not watched it yourself? Watch it again. The speaker mentions the "soup" wherefrom, hypothetically, the universe came from.

A turn of phrase not everyone uses, take it up with him.

So, stop guessing and tell me what caused the universe to exist.

I don't know what caused the Big Bang event and neither do you. The state of pre Big Bang existence is not known by anyone, least of all you.

I know you guys don't know any thing but what is good to fight the Primal Cause.

What you proposes isn't even original. It's a variation of the Kalam God-of-the-gaps argument. You don't know what caused the universe so you rename your god Primal Cause and claim that he did it. Evidence required, Got any?

It seems to me you guys have a paranoia about gods. You mention more about gods than I do with the Primal Cause.

Well if your claimed Primal Cause isn't a god then what is it? A smart alien with magic powers?

Please learn how to use the quote editor if you wish to continue. Cheers.

I have tried. No difference from listening to the one I am dialoguing with.

this mess is what I was referring to. I would have thought that was obvious.

The presence of the universe has never been a bald evidence to the Primal Cause. If you doubt me, prove the opposite.

Desperate as you are to shift the burden of proof, it's not going to happen. No one is denying the presence of the universe. You are the on claim to know its origin so it's your place to back it up with evidence. Clearly you have none or you wouldn't keep trying to shift your burden of proof.

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

There is no dishonesty in my assertion about the beginning of the universe but in you for not being able to refute with commonsense.

Oh it's common sense you are using, is it? Would that be the same common sense that showed us the Sun going around the Earth? Science relies on evidence not common sense and not intuition. How come your common sense doesn't stretch to your God also needing a cause, other than it invalidating your whole argument.

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

You cannot claim an ultimate truth. It is against Physics.

But you can because you have magic? I see..... :crackup:

Again, watch the video before you ask someone else to do so.

I have never used that term so, your strawman notwithstanding, take it up with him.

Classic Dunning Krugar effect:

The Dunning-Kruger Effect

 

[Hedshaker]

Right. Cosmologists are working on Eternal Inflation models, which are certainly all eternal in the future. Whether it is eternal in the past is an open question. All the current attempts to formulate it have a finite past, but that doesn't exclude an infinite past. But even a finite past does not imply a starting event, if you look at the Hartle-Hawking no boundary idea.

Finite but unbounded (with no beginning) sounds odd, but it isn't really. The surface of a sphere is finite in size but has no beginning of end, so the concept is sound. If you head towards the north pole you will run out of 'going north', but don't find the edge of the world.

The creationists here are wedded to a pre-relativity concept of time, where time and space are separate and absolute. No wonder modern cosmology confuses them when they are a century behind in developments.

Right on :thumb:

Even Roger Penrose has now changed his mind on the notion of there being "nothing" before the Big Bang. I tend to lean in that direction but no one knows really,

 

[Ben Masada]

1 - Your pop-metaphysics is woefully restricted and simplistic. You are missing a much wider scope of thought by limiting yourself to nothing more than intuition and your naïve physical understanding.

2 - The universe is mathematical, and you completely ignore the wonderful possibilities in the physics.

3 - Please think about the reasons you claim that the universe cannot exist without the actions of a personal god. You wouldn't dream of making conclusions about the origin of a pond on the basis of the behaviour of the tadpoles therein - how have you been able to infer the details of the origin of spacetime simply from a casual observation of the properties of objects embedded in spacetime?

1 - How did you expect me to speak, as one Scientist to another? We are here lay people talking about the existence of the universe in relation to the existence of the Primal Cause.

2 - Do I have any need for Mathematics to establish that the universe could not have caused itself to exist? I don't think so.

3 - I never even talked to you about a personal god. You guys keep raising posts addressed to different people and getting the wrong information.

4 - I don't know but I feel almost sure you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[alwight]

Your board formatting, I'm talking about this mess

The only rational conclusion here is that those fickle fallible format fairies failed famously. lain:

 

[Ben Masada]

A perceived problem with infinite regression from our end of the time line doesn't somehow magically transform itself into evidence for anyone's favourite notion of "God" because it's an unknown, which is perhaps unknowable, why should it be labelled as a deity?
If this universe is of a finite time then for all we know there is an infinite number of universes and perhaps "gods" too?
Isn't the real problem here one of personal need, simply needing a god to be there, and it may as well be the one of choice rather than of reality?
The primal cause of reality is not "my god" it is simply "unknown".

You are totally mistaken about your psychological intention to cause confusion into my mind as of psychic need for a god. I am ready to discard my version of God as all atheists just can't stop talking about, if you explain right now to me that the universe caused itself to exist which would cause me to dispense with the Primal Cause. If you want to take the challenge, I am all ears and ready to pay homage to the best. All you have to do is to tell me if the universe caused itself to exist or something that preceded it, caused it to exist. I am waiting.

 

[PureX]

Atheists enjoy that aspect of human experience as much as anyone, and none dismiss it AFAIK. But to assume that internal thoughts always correspond to a reliable description of reality is madness. The inconsistencies involved make it likely that they are figments of individual mind and not of the external reality that you seem to deny exists. The variability of subjective experiences tell us about brain functions but not the properties of the universe as a whole.

Atheists assume that because they can't establish an external physical source for such human experiences that they must then be misperceptions of some sort: intellectual illusions. And this is their irrational bias.

The misperceptions happen when we confuse the myths we create to help us articulate these experiences with the phenomenological experiences, themselves. And we then make false idols of the myths. I agree with the atheists about this. But then the atheists refuse to separate the phenomenological experiences from the mythical idols that some/many people make of them, and they then dismiss them both as being 'unreal', and essentially as being delusional. But the phenomena is not unreal, and dismissing it as myth-based delusion doesn't change that. In fact, it misrepresents both the value and purpose of mythology, and the real source of these kinds of human experiences.

 

[alwight]

You are totally mistaken about your psychological intention to cause confusion into my mind as of psychic need for a god. I am ready to discard my version of God as all atheists just can't stop talking about, if you explain right now to me that the universe caused itself to exist which would cause me to dispense with the Primal Cause. If you want to take the challenge, I am all ears and ready to pay homage to the best. All you have to do is to tell me if the universe caused itself to exist or something that preceded it, caused it to exist. I am waiting.

What you don't seem to be understanding is that atheists are not even hinting at or considering supposing any kind of god entity actually being the primal cause because atheists typically accept that the answer is currently an unknown, even if a god actually did do it. The primal cause argument is a theistic argument for the existence of a god, which usually very quickly becomes a very specific God replete with ancient doctrine and a long list of dos and don'ts.

 

[PureX]

I think arguing "primal cause" relative to the Big Bang is a waste of time. And the reason is that the idea of a "primal cause" is not time relative. It's not a question of what came first, it's a question of order: what is the source of the order being expressed by existence? The 'multi-verse' theory doesn't matter. Even the 'eternal universe' theory doesn't matter. Because the question of primal cause isn't about what came first. Its about how it came to be, at all.

Order (limitation) is being expressed through physical existence. In fact, existence itself seems to depend on it. So what is the origin of that order? Why can't ANYTHING happen, any way, at any time?

And since there is order within existence, what is it's intent? Does it have a purpose beyond enabling existence? What would that purpose be?

These are the questions associated with the question of a "primal cause". And these are the questions that science cannot address, because science depends upon that order to function. It cannot explore beyond it. That leaves us with philosophy, and art, and religion: all imagination-based methods of exploration, as opposed to physics-based methods.

 

[PureX]

What you don't seem to be understanding is that atheists are not even hinting at or considering supposing any kind of god entity actually being the primal cause because atheists typically accept that the answer is currently an unknown, even if a god actually did do it. The primal cause argument is a theistic argument for the existence of a god, which usually very quickly becomes a very specific God replete with ancient doctrine and a long list of dos and don'ts.

I actually agree with this observation, and I applaud you for your insight. But I think it's why I tend to feel that the atheists are sticking their heads in the sand, even as they want to disparage those theists who have their heads in the clouds.

 

[bybee]

I actually agree with this observation, and I applaud you for your insight. But I think it's why I tend to feel that the atheists are sticking their heads in the sand, even as they want to disparage those theists who have their heads in the clouds.

Perfect analogy! Kudos!

 

[Ben Masada]

Clearly you are desperate to shift the burden of proof because you have no evidence.

Perhaps you do not understand what an evidence is. Pity!

I don't need contrary evidence until you back up your claims with evidence first and the universe does not back up your claims.

So, how was the universe caused to exist if it could not have caused itself to? You cannot escape from this one because the universe exists and since it could not cause itself to exist, some thing did it and, only something of the "size" of the Primal Cause could have done it. That's an evidence, mother of all evidences, and you won't have a second one until you come down from your high horses and deliver to me your guns.

I don't know what caused the universe to exist and neither do you. Wishful thinking is not evidence.

I do, the problem is that you have a neck stiffer than the Rock of Gibraltar. I wonder why so much fear to give in or to find a possibility for me among all your stupid guesses.

A turn of phrase not everyone uses, take it up with him.

I saw this coming. They usually do. It means desertion from the battle field.

I don't know what caused the Big Bang event and neither do you. The state of pre Big Bang existence is not known by anyone, least of all you.

Don't mind if I don't. I don't care to. It is to me just another of your guesses or hypotheses whatever you like it.

What you proposes isn't even original. It's a variation of the Kalam God-of-the-gaps argument. You don't know what caused the universe so you rename your god Primal Cause and claim that he did it. Evidence required, Got any?

You yourself is a live evidence for the Primal Cause which I KNOW caused the universe to exist. Evidence? The universe itself. The evidence is before your own eyes but you are too afraid to open them.

Well if your claimed Primal Cause isn't a god then what is it? A smart alien with magic powers?

It is the Entity that caused the universe to exist.

this mess is what I was referring to. I would have thought that was obvious.

I was not the one who woke up the "mad dog" but you. Now, you have got to have stronger legs than my words to flee. If you can't deliver, the only way out is to ignore.

Desperate as you are to shift the burden of proof, it's not going to happen. No one is denying the presence of the universe. You are the on claim to know its origin so it's your place to back it up with evidence. Clearly you have none or you wouldn't keep trying to shift your burden of proof.

And your place to acknowledge the mother of all evidences I have provided but things have turned bad because of your fear.

Oh it's common sense you are using, is it? Would that be the same common sense that showed us the Sun going around the Earth?

You can take that to the religious people. I am not one of them.

Science relies on evidence not common sense and not intuition. How come your common sense doesn't stretch to your God also needing a cause, other than it invalidating your whole argument.

The only thing I have learned of you in this dialogue is the strong paranoia atheists have about god or gods. You act worse than Christian missionaries. The more I try to escape them the more their "gods" chase me. You might want to change that tactic next time. Not too good for atheistic credibility.