Atheism is incompatible with science

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, I do not think we know enough to say whether a universe that has only existed for a finite amount of time is possible without God. However, let’s assume for the sake of argument that the only possible way the universe could exist without God is if it had always existed. There are plenty of theories for how the universe could have existed eternally (such as the Steinhardt–Turok model and the Baum–Frampton model). We will probably never know which model is correct since our ability to see what happened in the past has a lower limit at Planck time. We do weed out theories that don’t work as we discover problems with them just as we do in any field, but unless you have just made some brilliant discoveries, there are still quite a few workable cosmological models that avoid the problem of the second law of thermodynamics. If you think that these models could not possibly be true, please explain why.

assuming that we agree that self causation is impossible, that would leave an eternal universe as the only possible model.

1. they are speculations about unobserved phenomenon, we can only observe the BB leftovers.
2. they are based on variants of the everchanging string theory, string theorists dont have the same number of dimensions from one day to the next. the wiki on frampton talks about membrane theory, something even less sure.
3. they have an actual problem with SLOT, frampton seems to make assumptions trying to avoid SLOT, but then whole new assumptions sets take place. i.e. dark energy, empty universes, etc.

in other words they are guesses based on assumptions, further based on theory that is hardly stable to start with.

SLOT kills them, and when the model is manipulated to framptons, they begin assuming baseless things like matter dissappearing and reappearing fromm universe to universe etc.

further they assume a medium in which to expand and contract, where did this medium come from? what is it?

remember, we dont know of anything that is eternal in any way, it seems alot like a special pleading to say that the universe itself is different and unique. takes alot of evidence to make that case.

eternal universes have alot of problems, they have been bandied around here many times, im sure you can find more about them.

so, to me they are fairy tale. nice stories but alot of holes.

How is time supposed to start a certain amount of TIME after anything?

yes, i think thats silly too, but i m just using their terminology.

If you could provide scientific evidence that atheism is inconsistent than I would agree.

atheism is inconsistent in that it has no foundation in science, no self causation is possible. because of this atheism is an opinion, not a rational position based on any science. all it can really say is “i dont know”, without more than that, without a scientific backing, it has no reason to doubt. without reason, rational motivations, etc. what good is it?

how can one hold a position with no scientific backing? no logical support?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

assuming that we agree that self causation is impossible, that would leave an eternal universe as the only possible model.

1. they are speculations about unobserved phenomenon, we can only observe the BB leftovers.

Exactly! We have no clue what happened before Planck time. You are taking this fact that there is something that we do not know and probably never will and saying that God must have done it. I think the more honest answer is that we just don’t know.

1. they are based on variants of the everchanging string theory, string theorists dont have the same number of dimensions from one day to the next. the wiki on frampton talks about membrane theory, something even less sure.
2. they have an actual problem with SLOT, frampton seems to make assumptions trying to avoid SLOT, but then whole new assumptions sets take place. i.e. dark energy, empty universes, etc.

in other words they are guesses based on assumptions, further based on theory that is hardly stable to start with.

SLOT kills them, and when the model is manipulated to framptons, they begin assuming baseless things like matter dissappearing and reappearing fromm universe to universe etc.

Right, we have no clue what happened before Planck time, so all models must be based on assumptions. Until those assumptions are shown to be invalid, there is no reason to reject the theory. You have not identified any assumption that they made that is invalid, you have merely said that all of these theories are speculative and there is no evidence to support them. Since there is still a lot we do not know about our universe, there is no reason to assume that one specific model is true. Which of these models are true and which are not depend on whether things like string theory reflect reality. Also, I noticed that you did not specifically address the Steinhardt–Turok model. Do you think that it is definitely invalid?

further they assume a medium in which to expand and contract, where did this medium come from? what is it?

No, the big bang theory does not say that the universe expands into space. There is no medium in which it expands and contracts.

remember, we dont know of anything that is eternal in any way, it seems alot like a special pleading to say that the universe itself is different and unique. takes alot of evidence to make that case.

I think you are slightly misusing the term special pleading here, but remember, I am not saying that I know the universe is eternal. All I am saying is that I have no idea what happened before Planck time.

eternal universes have alot of problems, they have been bandied around here many times, im sure you can find more about them.

so, to me they are fairy tale. nice stories but alot of holes.

Which problems do you find most compelling? I have not heard of any problems that rule out an eternal universe.

yes, i think thats silly too, but i m just using their terminology.

Please provide a citation from a credible defender of the big bang theory that has made this claim. I think you might be mistaken about what they are saying.

atheism is inconsistent in that it has no foundation in science, no self causation is possible. because of this atheism is an opinion, not a rational position based on any science. all it can really say is “i dont know”, without more than that, without a scientific backing, it has no reason to doubt. without reason, rational motivations, etc. what good is it?

how can one hold a position with no scientific backing? no logical support?

Science has not proven or disproven the existence of God. I don’t see how that makes atheism unreasonable or inconsistent. Also, a lot of what you said in this paragraph was pretty unclear. If you could present your points again, I can try to reply to them. I will not have access to a computer for some of tomorrow so it might be a little while before I am able to reply to your future posts.

 

[Hokomai]

i noticed another thread on bad apologetics you wrote. i wonder, what are your specific arguments are in support of atheism?

There are no specific arguments in favour of atheism. Theism is the thing which requires arguing. There are arguments in favour of theism which appear to convince some people, but in my experience mainly those who have already decided to ‘believe’. As I recall my scripture, belief in the face of the absence of evidence was specifically praised by Jesus when dealing with the doubts of the Apostle Thomas, so it is no wonder Christians think this sort of thinking is ok. On other subjects, and with other people, they characterise this sort of thinking as mad, but as I recall that was ok with St Paul also. Why do Catholics bother to try to prove that there is a God, when they argue that their ‘belief’ is ‘faith’ based?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Exactly! We have no clue what happened before Planck time. You are taking this fact that there is something that we do not know and probably never will and saying that God must have done it. I think the more honest answer is that we just don’t know.

the argument never mentions G-d. it simply says there is no possible scientific explanation for the origins of the universe.

Right, we have no clue what happened before Planck time, so all models must be based on assumptions. Until those assumptions are shown to be invalid, there is no reason to reject the theory. You have not identified any assumption that they made that is invalid, you have merely said that all of these theories are speculative and there is no evidence to support them. Since there is still a lot we do not know about our universe, there is no reason to assume that one specific model is true. Which of these models are true and which are not depend on whether things like string theory reflect reality. Also, I noticed that you did not specifically address the Steinhardt–Turok model. Do you think that it is definitely invalid?

.

the mere fact that they are assumptions make them suspect, the idea that they are actually guesses, based on assumptions, further based on unproven, often changing string variants, make them hard to swallow. rational thought is ultimately based on the observable world. i am using the same empiricism as any scientist does. im not taking flights of fancy, and thats what the eternal universe theory is a flight of fancy that makes a “special plea” that the universe as a whole is eternal, while its observed parts are not.

in the end though none of that really matters, SLOT kills them…i know iknow, the frampton of 2007 makes assumptions to avoid that. but thats the problem, the theory is especially constructed in order to make a cyclic universe theory possible. i dont see a reason to believe that SLOT is dead.

as to specifics on turok, SLOT kills it dead, that problem is the purpose of the frampton.

No, the big bang theory does not say that the universe expands into space.

true

There is no medium in which it expands and contracts.

i dont know about this.

I think you are slightly misusing the term special pleading here, but remember, I am not saying that I know the universe is eternal. All I am saying is that I have no idea what happened before Planck time.

here is muy understanding of a special pleading from the web

“The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption.”

in this case there is a special pleading that the universe can be eternal, though everything else we know of is not.

Which problems do you find most compelling? I have not heard of any problems that rule out an eternal universe.

SLOT, unstable theoretical foundations, special pleadings to avoid SLOT, lack of any evidence at all. they are just fanciful ideas based on the unproven string variants, how can one take them seriously under those conditions?

like any good researcher, i like empirical evidence, deduction from observation and solid logical foundations. none of which are possessed by cyclic theories, frankly they arent well respected in either the greater physics or metaphysics communities. your mileage may vary on that though.

Please provide a citation from a credible defender of the big bang theory that has made this claim. I think you might be mistaken about what they are saying.

what exact claim are you refering to? when the physical laws gelled from the primordial soup? if so, i cant find the specific number, though i assume that is unimportant. if it is important let me know.

if itsomething else entirely, enlighten me, i didnt sleep last night so i may just be missing the gist of it.

Science has not proven or disproven the existence of God

.

thats not what the argum ent is about, rather that no scientific explanation of our origins is possible, once again, because physical causation is impossible.

I don’t see how that makes atheism unreasonable or inconsistent.

because there can be no scientific basis for it, if an atheist cannot point to science and say that the answer is in there somewhere, then what can he say? he can only say that it is his personal opinion, not that it is a rational position to hold with some verifiable support.

Also, a lot of what you said in this paragraph was pretty unclear. If you could present your points again, I can try to reply to them. I will not have access to a computer for some of tomorrow so it might be a little while before I am able to reply to your future posts.

your not the only one with a lot of work to do, if you post what is specifically unclear, i will try to help you. we spend alot of time arguing with eachother here, most know my base arguments, maybe i am leaving something out

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There are no specific arguments in favour of atheism.

we know

As I recall my scripture, belief in the face of the absence of evidence was specifically praised by Jesus when dealing with the doubts of the Apostle Thomas, so it is no wonder Christians think this sort of thinking is ok.

 

[VociMike]

I haven’t seen any valid proofs that actual infinities cannot exist. I don’t think the existence of God hinges on whether they can exist, but it is an interesting topic and I would like to see any proofs you might have that they cannot exist.

I am not aware of any proofs on either side of the argument, only that the subject is very much under discussion. Search “physical infinities” and you’ll see that the question is far from settled.

 

[VociMike]

I haven’t seen any valid proofs that actual infinities cannot exist. I don’t think the existence of God hinges on whether they can exist, but it is an interesting topic and I would like to see any proofs you might have that they cannot exist.

BTW, what physical entities do you believe can be infinite? Infinite mass or energy (same thing, of course)? Infinite time? Infinite space?

 

[Thing]

Here by “belief” I mean things treated as if they were facts for which there is no observational evidence. All “faith” fits into this. .

A person may observe the divine or a miracle, it then becomes a fact and is treated as a fact. What someone late on the scene has to say about the veracity of that fact is irrelevant. It remains for evermore a fact for a person.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

A person may observe the divine or a miracle, it then becomes a fact and is treated as a fact. What someone late on the scene has to say about the veracity of that fact is irrelevant. It remains for evermore a fact for a person.

nice point

 

[warpspeedpetey]

are you discussing strong atheism or weak atheism?

both, though i know the philosophical diffence, i dont really buy it, weak atheism just says you dont know… then find out!

it though does apply to both, neither can have any possible scientific support for any physical theory of origins.

“it is currently impossible for science to offer any physical explanation for the existence of the universe” You should insert the word “currently” to be more accurate, unless you can show that it will be forever impossible to demonstrate a physical explanation.

ive heard that a couple times, it indicates to me that i am not being clear.

to demonstrate the eternal imossibility of physical explanations we examine the property of causation first.

*something that does not exist cannot act, therefore it cannot act to cause itself. *

that is as true as an axiom gets. self causation is impossible for physical objects, as science only deals with the physical, observeable phenomenon, there can never, at no point, be a scientific explanation of of our origins.

“atheism provides no answers to our existence apart from the sciences”

You seem to be confused about what atheism is. Atheism provides nothing, it is merely a position on one issue.

i dont know about you, but any position that cant be supported with science, logic and observation is really just a baseless personal opinion.

we either have rational reasons to hold a position, or we dont. no scientist, academic, or serious thinker does otherwise.

 

[wasmit]

"it is currently

I agree that your italicised statement holds for things that humans can experience unaided - basically things that range in size from a sand grain to a few kilometres, and range in time from about half a second to a decade. But does this statement hold for the subject at hand; the start of the universe?

To demonstrate that this statement holds when considering this subject, you must show:

-There was nothing that existed “before” the big bang. (Time did not exist “before” the BB, therefore the word “before” has no meaning. But this is the best way that I can describe my point). As far as I know, this is currently undemonstrable.

and

-The BB cannot be self-caused. (Without using extrapolation of unaided human experience to subatomic levels and singularities, which is erroneous.). This also depends on what we mean by “caused” and whether the concept of “caused” has any meaning for this issue, similar to the concept of time discussed above.

“atheism provides no answers to our existence apart from the sciences”

You seem to be confused about what atheism is. Atheism provides nothing, it is merely a position on one issue.

i dont know about you, but any position that cant be supported with science, logic and observation is really just a baseless personal opinion.

we either have rational reasons to hold a position, or we dont.

I agree, this is why I could be called a weak atheist, it is the most rational position imo.

Given your first cause arguments, I would assume that you are a deist, is this true? Going further are you a christian? or a catholic?

How did you rationally move your opinion from deism to christianity to catholocism?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I agree that your italicised statement holds for things that humans can experience unaided - basically things that range in size from a sand grain to a few kilometres, and range in time from about half a second to a decade. But does this statement hold for the subject at hand; the start of the universe?

it would be a logical fallacy called special pleading to exclude things like the universe without reason.

i mean to say that self causation is an impossibility on any scale, the object must first exist in order to act. i dont see how scale could change that.

To demonstrate that this statement holds when considering this subject, you must show:

-There was nothing that existed “before” the big bang. (Time did not exist “before” the BB, therefore the word “before” has no meaning. But this is the best way that I can describe my point). As far as I know, this is currently undemonstrable.

it doesnt matter what existed pre BB, even if we asume there was something contrary to all the observational evidence, a thing must exist in order to act, if doesnt exist, it cant act to cause itself.

no matter the environment, something that doesnt exist simply cant act.

-The BB cannot be self-caused. (Without using extrapolation of unaided human experience to subatomic levels and singularities, which is erroneous.). This also depends on what we mean by “caused” and whether the concept of “caused” has any meaning for this issue, similar to the concept of time discussed above.

the material from the BB cannot be self caused as its physical, if we assume a singularity. the BB itself is the process of expansion.

remember, nothing physical can be self caused in any situation, it cant act if it doesnt exist.

I agree, this is why I could be called a weak atheist, it is the most rational position imo.

Given your first cause arguments, I would assume that you are a deist, is this true? Going further are you a christian? or a catholic?

How did you rationally move your opinion from deism to christianity to catholocism?

a little off topic, but ill live.

im a Catholic. but Catholics and Christains are the same thing.

i didnt start at deism, i started at atheism. it drove my folks nuts.

here are my steps to Catholicism.

1. non-physical cause are the only possible explanation for the physical universe as physical things cant cause themselves.
2. what is the nature of the non-physical event? is it random? or independent actor?
   youll find it here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=311708&highlight=random+non-physical+event

following the thread should give you a general answer on my thinking processes to Christianity

to Catholicism is a step requiring historical research. i did it. so should you

 

[wasmit]

I agree that your italicised statement holds for things that humans can experience unaided - basically things that range in size from a sand grain to a few kilometres, and range in time from about half a second to a decade. But does this statement hold for the subject at hand; the start of the universe?

The reason that the start of the universe is treated differently than normal visible things is that at the sub-atomic level of a singularity, many apparently strange things occur. As one example, sub-atomic particles can appear out of “nowhere”. Visible things, e.g. rocks, don’t appear out of “nowhere”. Therefore, it is not special pleading to exclude the start of the universe - there is a valid reason.

I disagree that self-causation is impossible, it is not self evident. Can you explain in more detail why I should hold this stance?

E.g. radioactive decay seems to me to be self-caused, or uncaused. Particles are emmitted from radioactive elements at apparently random times, for no apparent reason.

To demonstrate that this statement holds when considering this subject, you must show:

-There was nothing that existed “before” the big bang. (Time did not exist “before” the BB, therefore the word “before” has no meaning. But this is the best way that I can describe my point). As far as I know, this is currently undemonstrable.

it doesnt matter what existed pre BB, even if we asume there was something contrary to all the observational evidence, a thing must exist in order to act, if doesnt exist, it cant act to cause itself.

no matter the environment, something that doesnt exist simply cant act.

It does matter what existed “before” the start of the universe. For example, if there was some sort of Background Ether, in which universes randomly occured, similar to the creation and annihilation of matter/antimatter subatomic particles in a vaccuum, that would invalidate your argument. If the Steinhardt–Turok model is true, that also invalidates your argument. For your argument to hold, you must show that these possibilites are impossible.

-The BB cannot be self-caused. (Without using extrapolation of unaided human experience to subatomic levels and singularities, which is erroneous.). This also depends on what we mean by “caused” and whether the concept of “caused” has any meaning for this issue, similar to the concept of time discussed above.

the material from the BB cannot be self caused as its physical, if we assume a singularity. the BB itself is the process of expansion.

remember, nothing physical can be self caused in any situation, it cant act if it doesnt exist.

You haven’t demonstrated the bolded.

1. non-physical cause are the only possible explanation for the physical universe as physical things cant cause themselves.

You haven’t demonstrated the bolded. I would be interested to read your demonstration.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

The reason that the start of the universe is treated differently than normal visible things is that at the sub-atomic level of a singularity, many apparently strange things occur. As one example, sub-atomic particles can appear out of “nowhere”. Visible things, e.g. rocks, don’t appear out of “nowhere”. Therefore, it is not special pleading to exclude the start of the universe - there is a valid reason.

virtual particles or vacuum fluctuations are dependent on a vacuum or vacuum energy already existing, they are dependent therefore on the universe already existing

they dont appear then from nowhere, thats a pretty common idea though.

I disagree that self-causation is impossible, it is not self evident. Can you explain in more detail why I should hold this stance?

if something does not exist it cannot act. not even in secret. it simply does not exist. therefore it cannot cause itself.

E.g. radioactive decay seems to me to be self-caused, or uncaused. Particles are emmitted from radioactive elements at apparently random times, for no apparent reason.

by the same token as above with the virtual particles, these are all dependent ona universe already existing.

It does matter what existed “before” the start of the universe. For example, if there was some sort of Background Ether, in which universes randomly occured, similar to the creation and annihilation of matter/antimatter subatomic particles in a vaccuum, that would invalidate your argument.

that would simply be a pre existing universe, where you have renamed vacuum, back ground ether, and your randomly occuring universes would then be contingent on that ether in the same manner that vacuum fluctuations are ultimately dependent on a pre existing universe.

here, it seems only the names change not the actors

If the Steinhardt–Turok model is true, that also invalidates your argument. For your argument to hold, you must show that these possibilites are impossible.

turok is dependent on the membranes of m-theory, an unproven and controversial idea. a variant of the everchanging string theory. they too can not cause themselves to exist.

You haven’t demonstrated the bolded.

You haven’t demonstrated the bolded. I would be interested to read your demonstration.

if something doesnt exist, how can it then act? it would seem that something must exist in order to act.

if i did not exist, how could i cause myself, especially considering that there would be no me here to even consider the idea, and not being here, i couldnt act on it any case, by the virtue that i simply dont exist.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

BTW, what physical entities do you believe can be infinite? Infinite mass or energy (same thing, of course)? Infinite time? Infinite space?

You’ll love this answer: I don’t know. But seriously, I see no reason to think that time cannot be infinite.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

the argument never mentions G-d. it simply says there is no possible scientific explanation for the origins of the universe.

Maybe not specifically, but we both know what you’re getting at. Defining scientific as any explanation that does not involve a transcendent supernatural entity and arguing that it could not have a scientific explanation is essentially saying some kind of God must have caused it.

the mere fact that they are assumptions make them suspect, the idea that they are actually guesses, based on assumptions, further based on unproven, often changing string variants, make them hard to swallow.

I do not agree that just because they are assumptions makes them suspect. Consider a situation where everything hinged on one assumption (let’s say string theory). If string theory were true, we would know that the universe formed by natural process A, and if it were false, the universe formed by natural process B. Both A and B hinge on assumptions, but we would still know that the universe formed naturally. By your logic, we would reject both natural explanations since they both rely on assumptions.

Now we are not in a scenario exactly like that. We have a number of different things like string theory that have not yet been shown to be true or false. We do not yet have a theory for the universe’s creation for every combination of those things; but we have theories for quite a few of them. Unless you have good evidence that all of those combinations that we have theories for are incredibly unlikely to be true, we have no problem at all. And even if you did, this would not be good evidence of God. This is still a somewhat new field, and it is very unlikely that we already know all the ways the universe could have started. But that lack of knowledge does not imply that there can be no scientific reason any more than the lack of a reason why the sun moved across the sky for early man meant that the only possibility was that some supernatural entity was guiding it.

rational thought is ultimately based on the observable world. i am using the same empiricism as any scientist does. im not taking flights of fancy, and thats what the eternal universe theory is a flight of fancy that makes a “special plea” that the universe as a whole is eternal, while its observed parts are not.

In some ways I agree; all of these theories are speculative and I think it is unscientific to assert that one of these theories is the true one.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

here is muy understanding of a special pleading from the web

“The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption.”

in this case there is a special pleading that the universe can be eternal, though everything else we know of is not.

By your logic, it would be special pleading to say that it God is all powerful when everything that we know of is not, or that Jesus was born of a virgin when everyone we know of was not.

what exact claim are you refering to? when the physical laws gelled from the primordial soup? if so, i cant find the specific number, though i assume that is unimportant. if it is important let me know.

You said that “the standard BB theory says time started around 1x10(-34) seconds after the BB.” This doesn’t seem like a claim that a credible defender of the big bang theory would make and I was just wondering where you heard that claim.

thats not what the argum ent is about, rather that no scientific explanation of our origins is possible, once again, because physical causation is impossible.

You are making a huge assumption that if we don’t currently have a scientific explanation, there can be no possible scientific explanation. Also, you have still not shown that we currently have no scientific explanations.

because there can be no scientific basis for it, if an atheist cannot point to science and say that the answer is in there somewhere, then what can he say? he can only say that it is his personal opinion, not that it is a rational position to hold with some verifiable support.

Sure, I do not claim that science does or ever will have all the answers. All I can do is adopt the position that seems to fit best with the evidence I do have, and to me that position is atheism.

your not the only one with a lot of work to do, if you post what is specifically unclear, i will try to help you. we spend alot of time arguing with eachother here, most know my base arguments, maybe i am leaving something out

You said that “all it can really say is “i dont know”, without more than that, without a scientific backing, it has no reason to doubt. without reason, rational motivations, etc. what good is it?” Would you mind rewording this because I’m not sure exactly what you’re getting at?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

You keep talking about self-causation being impossible. It makes sense to me that something cannot cause itself because for it to do that it would have to exist prior to existing. However, we do not know whether something can be uncaused. All of our experience and laws are within the context of our universe, and we don’t know whether things can be uncaused in other contexts, and there is some evidence of uncaused things within our own universe.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Maybe not specifically, but we both know what you’re getting at

.

of course, this is, after all a religious forum. but that still doesnt make Him part of the argument concerning sciences ability to offer an explanation. i would be quite happy never to metnion the Holy Name in the course of this argument, it simply has nothing to do with it.

Defining scientific as any explanation that does not involve a transcendent supernatural entity and arguing that it could not have a scientific explanation is essentially saying some kind of God must have caused it.

i havent defined science in that way. science simply deals only with physically observable, empirical phenomenon, thats the way i would define if asked. you are assuming that the non-physical equals G-d, it doesnt, thats a theological leap from metaphysical ideas to theological knowledge.

I do not agree that just because they are assumptions makes them suspect. Consider a situation where everything hinged on one assumption (let’s say string theory). If string theory were true, we would know that the universe formed by natural process A, and if it were false, the universe formed by natural process B. Both A and B hinge on assumptions, but we would still know that the universe formed naturally. By your logic, we would reject both natural explanations since they both rely on assumptions.

ok, then let me exclude things like virtual particles, or vacuum fluctuations because they are contingent on a vacuum already existing, i. e. they require a universe to already exist.

even were string theory, which has undergone several permutations in just the last decade, were correct, it still cant account for the existence of the universe for that reason too.

Now we are not in a scenario exactly like that. We have a number of different things like string theory that have not yet been shown to be true or false. We do not yet have a theory for the universe’s creation for every combination of those things; but we have theories for quite a few of them. Unless you have good evidence that all of those combinations that we have theories for are incredibly unlikely to be true, we have no problem at all. And even if you did, this would not be good evidence of God.

first, this theory has nothing to do with being evidence of G-d.

that said, no matter the theory, if something doesnt exist it cant act to cause itself, not knowing the causal factors of radiation, virtual particles, vacuum fluctuations, etc doesnt matter, they are all still dependent on a universe already existing.

This is still a somewhat new field, and it is very unlikely that we already know all the ways the universe could have started. But that lack of knowledge does not imply that there can be no scientific reason any more than the lack of a reason why the sun moved across the sky for early man meant that the only possibility was that some supernatural entity was guiding it.

lack of knowledge isnt the problem here.

the central tenet that must be overcome is self causation, no matter the theory, the first physical thing to exist coud not have caused itself, if it did not exist, it couldn’t act to cause its own existence.

In some ways I agree; all of these theories are speculative and I think it is unscientific to assert that one of these theories is the true one.

further, its important that we understand that string theory and its variants have repeatedly changed over the last few decades, the number of dimensions, the geometry of the strings, even the strings themselves have morphed to m-theory.

basing anything on such unstable foundations is suspect, next year they may change the theory yet again.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

By your logic, it would be special pleading to say that it God is all powerful when everything that we know of is not, or that Jesus was born of a virgin when everyone we know of was not.

yet again you bring up G-d.

special pleading requires the plea to have no or insufficient reason, in this case i would say that a theologian could offer such a reason, froma metaphysical view, i would offer the G-dheads non-physical nature.

but that is a completely differrent subject, one best left to theology

You said that “the standard BB theory says time started around 1x10(-34) seconds after the BB.” This doesn’t seem like a claim that a credible defender of the big bang theory would make and I was just wondering where you heard that claim.

more than likely from a physicist, its one of the many odd numbers floating around my skull. the point is that the physical laws all gelled at a certain point after the beginning of the expansion

You are making a huge assumption that if we don’t currently have a scientific explanation, there can be no possible scientific explanation. Also, you have still not shown that we currently have no scientific explanations.

i base that conclusion on this

no physical thing can self causate…true?

science only deals with physical things…true?

if they are true, then science can offer no explanation of how the first particle began to exist.

Sure, I do not claim that science does or ever will have all the answers. All I can do is adopt the position that seems to fit best with the evidence I do have, and to me that position is atheism.

ok.

You said that “all it can really say is “i dont know”, without more than that, without a scientific backing, it has no reason to doubt. without reason, rational motivations, etc. what good is it?” Would you mind rewording this because I’m not sure exactly what you’re getting at?

if i believed the sun circled the earth, but could give no reason, then i would just be another person with an unfounded opinion, that doesnt qualify it as a philosophy.

in the same way atheism, without the possiblity of a scientific explanation of existence becomes simply an opinion.

whats left? people who would claim atheism because they dont agree with some theological ideal?

no, a rational person holds positions for sufficient reason. i am pointing out that no sufficient reason can be found in science, to support atheism.