Big Bang doesn't imply a beginning to the universe?

[rom]

If someone is asked if they believe in God and say ‘no’, then they are an atheist. If they are asked if God exists and they say ‘no’ then they are an atheist. If they are asked if it’s possible that God exists and they say ‘yes’ then they are agnostic.

Let me contribute my 2 cents on these definitions. I think that an atheist is one who denies the existence of God. It is not just a person who says, “I don’t believe in God.” Because it is possible that this person does not believe in God because he never heard of God or because he never thought about God before. He does not believe in God, but he is not an atheist. But when a person categorically denies that there is a God, then he is an atheist.

Now, an agnostic is one who denies the knowability of God’s existence. It is not the same as a person who merely says, “I’m not sure if there is a God.” Because a person who is in doubt about God’s existence is not necessarily an agnostic nor an atheist. He could be a person who is still in search of the truth. But when a person categorically denies that we could ever know whether or not there is a God, then he is an agnostic.

 

[Anrakyr]

However - as far as even science (not maths) actually knows - Neither Infinity nor Infinitesimals exist in The Physical Realm - due to Known Planckian limits of Mass, Time and Distance

That the joy of other realities. The laws of physics may not apply as you know them two. As a result these buffer chaos universe may make it possible to have pockets of universes where the laws allow for life as we know it.

Frankly I get annoyed by the concept in say the current Flash TV show when they say “Earth 1,2,3,4, ect.” when in truth (even if there were extra earths) Earth 4-43 should be dead barren, chaos places.

If there are infinite universes (which thanks to the recent things we are starting to understand from black holes) should be the case most of them should be barren lawless places where 2+2=5.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I already provided one. I’m a Catholic, but you’re being dishonest in saying that a cyclical universe is impossible. It doesn’t have a beginning by nature, so you can’t ask what the beginning of a cyclical universe is. You’d be rather miffed if an atheist asked about the creation of God, so you must provide the same courtesy to them with cyclical universe theory.

 

[rom]

‘Who caused it?’ implies a supernatural cause. I don’t believe in the supernatural so the question makes no sense. It would be like me asking you which type of magic spells will cure my hangover. So I didn’t ignore it. That would have been rude. I explained why I could not answer it.

“Who or what caused matter?” is a valid and meaningful question, not a meaningless jargon. You may reject a Supernatural Cause as an answer to that question if you want, but the question still comes back: “Then who or what is its natural cause, if it doesn’t have a Supernatural cause?” To be silent at this point, or failure to answer the question in its final form is what I mean by the atheist’s ignoring the issue or evading the question.

And no, I didn’t mean matter when I referred to existence being eternal. I meant existence. My definition doesn’t include God.

Then you need to define existence for me. What is existence, and why is it eternal, if its origin is not God?

And I know ‘nobody knows’ how existence came to be because, apart from religious claims, nobody has come up with an answer yet.

Any religion that posits God as the cause of existence is at least being honest. But to assert that existence is eternal, yet state that nobody knows how existence came to be, is trumpeting a bankrupt philosophy of existence founded on ignorance rather than on reason.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

‘Who caused it?’ implies a supernatural cause. I don’t believe in the supernatural so the question makes no sense. It would be like me asking you which type of magic spells will cure my hangover. So I didn’t ignore it. That would have been rude. I explained why I could not answer it.

“Who or what caused matter?” is a valid and meaningful question, not a meaningless jargon. You may reject a Supernatural Cause as an answer to that question if you want, but the question still comes back: “Then who or what is its natural cause, if it doesn’t have a Supernatural cause?” To be silent at this point, or failure to answer the question in its final form is what I mean by the atheist’s ignoring the issue or evading the question.

And no, I didn’t mean matter when I referred to existence being eternal. I meant existence. My definition doesn’t include God.

Then you need to define existence for me. What is existence, and why is it eternal, if its origin is not God?

And I know ‘nobody knows’ how existence came to be because, apart from religious claims, nobody has come up with an answer yet.

Any religion that posits God as the cause of existence is at least being honest. But to assert that existence is eternal, yet state that nobody knows how existence came to be, is trumpeting a bankrupt philosophy of existence founded on ignorance rather than on reason.

I’m not sure that you are reading my posts. Everything you have noted has already been answered.

Who caused matter to exist, as I said, implies a supernatural answer. I don’t believe in the supernatural so tbe question makes no sense to me.

I have addressed the ‘what’ portion of the question. Nobody has a definitive answer as yet but I have posited that there may have been no cause because existence is eternal. That is, the universe is cyclical so there is no beginning and no end and no infinite number of events. It simply repeats. So it cannot have ‘come to be’. Something that doesn’t have a beginning cannot ‘come to be’.

And the definition of existence? That which is not nothing.

 

[rom]

I’m not sure that you are reading my posts. Everything you have noted has already been answered.

Your answers have been evasive of the issues, and we are not getting anywhere on this. So let’s just agree to disagree.

 

[Welshrabbit]

Uh…I never said anything was impossible. I’m asking for arguments from atheists (not agnostics) as to why they think that the idea of a higher power/creator is not possible…

Even the cyclical universe theory doesn’t completely rule out the possibility of a higher power…unless I’m misunderstanding something.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

You asked for an explanation of why things exist that makes sense. I provided one. I don’t see why it isn’t satisfactory.

 

[Welshrabbit]

Literally the only thing I want is for a true atheist to make a decent argument for why God doesn’t/can’t exist. Not might exist, not could exist, does not exist.

Otherwise, said person is an agnostic, agnostic atheist or other…but not an actual atheist.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

“Who or what caused matter?” is a valid and meaningful question, not a meaningless jargon. You may reject a Supernatural Cause as an answer to that question if you want, but the question still comes back: “Then who or what is its natural cause, if it doesn’t have a Supernatural cause?” To be silent at this point, or failure to answer the question in its final form is what I mean by the atheist’s ignoring the issue or evading the question.

For the rest of this thread, without saying anything to the contrary, I’ll be playing devil’s advocate.

Matter doesn’t need a cause. It’s always existed. The universe is in a state of perpetual, cyclical expansion and contraction. There is no beginning. There is no end. There only is.

But to assert that existence is eternal, yet state that nobody knows how existence came to be, is trumpeting a bankrupt philosophy of existence founded on ignorance rather than on reason.

Nobody can know how something that had no beginning began. There was no start to existence, it just has always been this way.

Literally the only thing I want is for a true atheist to make a decent argument for why God doesn’t/can’t exist. Not might exist, not could exist, does not exist.

I was under the impression (from your original post) that you wanted an explanation for existence without God.

 

[Welshrabbit]

True. If you’re saying the cyclical universe theory is a decent explanation of existence without God, I will need to look into it more. Is that what you’re saying?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Pretty much, yes. It provides for existence without the need for a creator, and it’s inherently non-disprovable (since everything about older universes is destroyed when they collapse).

 

[Welshrabbit]

Looks like I’ve got some reading to do.

Let me ask you this: why hasn’t this theory convinced you that God doesn’t exist?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

1. My faith is formed from the blood of martyrs. I do not believe they’d all die for a lie.
2. I believe God has revealed Himself and spoken to me, albeit cryptically. Same way He speaks to everybody, really. Signs.
3. Cyclical Universe Theory is a cop-out proposal that exists only to provide a non-Divine origin for the universe.

 

[Welshrabbit]

Well sir, thank you for the conversation and the challenge. I find it a bit funny that the only serious answer as to why anyone could ever be a true blue atheist (not a mere agnostic) came from a fellow Catholic…

 

[Freddy]

True. If you’re saying the cyclical universe theory is a decent explanation of existence without God, I will need to look into it more. Is that what you’re saying?

It doesn’t exclude God. Nothing can. You can’t prove a negative. You were asking what caused matter not a proof of the non-existence of God.

 

[rom]

For the rest of this thread, without saying anything to the contrary, I’ll be playing devil’s advocate.

Sounds like a good plan. Game.

Matter doesn’t need a cause. It’s always existed. The universe is in a state of perpetual, cyclical expansion and contraction. There is no beginning. There is no end. There only is.

If the universe is changing or moving, then it needs a cause. And if it is changing perpetually, then it needs a perpetual cause. The fact that it is changing perpetually does not remove the need for a cause of change.

But why must any object that changes require a cause? Because change is a transition from one state (State1) to a different state (State 2). Now, State 2 has to be different from State 1, otherwise there would be no change. This means that the object in State 2 must have characteristics and qualities not present in State 1. If there was no cause of change, what would explain the origin of the new characteristics present in State 2 but were absent in State 1? This is the reason why, if matter and the entire universe are changing, they both need a cause of change.

OK, but how does the argument above prove that matter needs a Creator or Cause of its being or a cause of its existence? The reason is because if anything is capable of change, then it is capable of losing its characteristics in its present state (State 1). One of those characteristics is existence. Anything that is capable of change is also capable of losing its existence. So, for matter or the universe to remain in a state of existence, it needs a Cause to sustain it in existence.

Then how did it start to exist? Why is it existing in the first place? Good question. Since it is capable of losing existence, it means that it is not a “necessary" being. In other words, it is not a being that cannot but exist. So, if it exists, then the reason for its existence cannot be found in itself, but in something other than itself, which is its Cause. Therefore, matter – and the Universe at large – needs a Cause of being.

The above arguments do not prove that the whole world had a beginning in time. It is possible that matter always existed, if it was created from eternity and sustained from eternity by its Creator/Cause. Imagine an enclosed room that has a lamp in it. The room is bright because the switch is on. The room could have been bright forever, if the switch has always been on forever. The existence of the world is like the illumination in the room, and the switch and the lamp represent God’s creative and conserving power. If God were to remove His conserving Power (switch off), the entire world will be annihilated or cease to be.

 

[Freddy]

Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman:

For the rest of this thread, without saying anything to the contrary, I’ll be playing devil’s advocate.

Sounds like a good plan. Game.

Matter doesn’t need a cause. It’s always existed. The universe is in a state of perpetual, cyclical expansion and contraction. There is no beginning. There is no end. There only is.

If the universe is changing or moving, then it needs a cause. And if it is changing perpetually, then it needs a perpetual cause.

No. The end of the universe is the cause of it’s rebirth. It’s cyclical. There is no such thing as a perpetual cause. Only something that is started has a cause. And if it didn’t start then it has no cause.

Look, I appreciate that it’s physically impossible to get one’s head around this. Just like trying to imagine more than 4 dimensions. But you can’t claim there aren’t more than 4 because you can’t hold that concept in your head. Likewise, you can’t deny a cyclical uni erse simply on the basis that you can’t imagine it.

To be honest, the physics, the cosmology and the maths are waaaaay above the paygrade of anyone posting on this forum. And how we get around that, excepting posting links to people who do actually understand this stuff, is a problem for us all.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

The cyclical universe is an infinite series of causes. It’s an embracing of the infinity, not an explanation of why it isn’t needed. Once again, this removes the need for an uncaused cause because there’s no beginning of the cycle. The cycle was, is, and will always be. Beyond space and time. Expanding and collapsing. Birth and rebirth.

 

[LeonardDeNoblac]

this removes the need for an uncaused cause because there’s no beginning of the cycle.

I don’t think it does. There’s still the problem of an infinite regress - wich is logically impossible in a causal chain.