The Big Bang Happened 13.7 Billion Years Ago, Therefore There Must Exist a God!

[LAGC]

Why such resistance to the idea of a definite beginning of the universe? It goes right back to that first argument, the cosmological argument: (a) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause; (b) If the universe began to exist, then (c) the universe must have a cause. You can see the direction in which this argument is flowing--a direction of discomfort to some physicists.

http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9404/bigbang.html

What genius reasoning! There was nothing before the Big Bang, and since we know something can not come from nothing, only a Higher Power could have sparked the initial blast! A supernatural force beyond the realm of science! Nevermind the possibility that science might be able to someday see beyond the Big Bang and explain what may have come before, only a supernatural explanation makes sense!

This guy's reasoning is astounding. I'll never take Stephen Hawking at face value again. (After all his mom was a Communist! That's why he's such a godless heathen!)

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Since modern theory also postulates that universes come and go

...

[nebenaube]

4. agreed...

the big bang theory was simply the beginning of a cycle.

[zbdent]

25. well, the climate deniers all say it's "cyclical", so ...

this probably wasn't the first "big bang" ...

I've heard that the theory is that there have been many "big bangs" and "big contractions" ...

[Orrex]

2. I love the artificial phrase "everything that begins to exist."

Here's a fun game: next time a creationist uses that phrase on you, ask them for an example of something that didn't "begin to exist."

They will, of course, say "God."

Ask them for another example, and they won't be able to give one.

At that point, you are completely correct to tell them that they're simply assuming their conclusion, which is a fallacy.

If they can't identify something other than God that didn't "begin to exist," then they're simply declaring outright that God--and God alone--has always existed. Heck, in addition to begging the question, it's also special pleading--a logically fallacious twofer!

[humblebum]

28. That reasoning is every bit as credible as any other assumptions,

and personally, I think moreso. But of course that's just my opinion.

[Oregone]

3. "Everything that begins to exist must have a cause"

Including God?

And if God can be eternal, it therefore suggests other things can have an eternal nature (such as matter/energy), which would require no beginning

[RandomThoughts]

5. Well the difference is that the big bang was a change in state.

Thereby removing eternal existence from its possiblity.

Because it came from nothing to something, or from something to something else, in the big bang discussions, then something must have created that event.

It is logical to also hold that a supernatural God could exist as always having existed, along side the arguement that the big bang requiers an action to begin its event.

So God is eternal, and always was and always will be, while the big bang shows the begining of some event.



For those that like the 6000 years idea of existence, you are thinking in forms of normal time. It could easily be said the entire history of the big bang, was created 6000 years ago, to create a back story to existence, merging big bang and creation, by understanding different ways of viewing time.

[Oregone]

6. "Because it came from nothing to something"

Not as far as Ive ever been taught. Something banged. It was very dense. It existed.

[laconicsax]

10. How do you know what you claim to know?

"So God is eternal, and always was and always will be,"

You know this how?

[RandomThoughts]

17. I was making the point of the argument.

Although as the first reply says, me saying from nothing to something, is an assumption, his comment of it being something just in another state, would make my comment just about change of state. Although maybe the idea of big bang happening was created as back story to existence for us. Shrug, really we are talking about areas that if supernatural modifications of space time are possible, can not be evaluated in just a science world.


The point is in the equation, God could exist in same state, thereby not needing creation. A change of state needs some action on something. But something with consistent state can be said to always exist. So if you say the state of God is consistent, then there is no need to claim God ever needed a beginning, but it can be said God always existed.

While the change in state of the big bang, requires some action, although there are some that comment on membrane collision moving into a reaction from vibrations within the multiverse, the basic idea I would guess of the guys argument is that the big bang is a state change requiring some interaction.


How do I know God exist, well that is faith not proof. Although the supernatural is proven.

I do however know the supernatural exists, and I know there are certain rules within that context that have never been broken. So my view of supernatural events have a construct to try and gain understanding. My exact view on the form above the supernatural, God, is faith, and I agree it is not something that is within my complete comprehension, so I can not prove my view of existence is correct, only that there is more then just the normal world.

[laconicsax]

18. "Although the supernatural is proven."

What? Where is this proof? What is it?

How do you know what you claim to know?

[RandomThoughts]

20. LOL, I did not say I could explain it to you, I said it was proven.

Ok this is the best way to explain it.

Once you believe, then you see it.

As far as proof. look around you will find it.



As far as how do I know. I have seen and heard it. Although that requires for me to believe that my eyes and ears actually see and hear. Really even proof is belief.


Even proof that night follows day, and day follows night, is just because it is what has always happened before, and because what you read in a book, and maybe saw in the sky, tells you that would be what happens.

And even your view of what you think is proven is based on your memory, again you can't prove that is accurate, nor can you prove that the sequencing of events to say something is proven is a correct perspective of those events.


Saying prove something, really means, show it to me in a way I will believe it. And many people choose not to believe things no matter what they see or hear.


But either way, no hard feelings, and I hold no ill will to you for having a different view on things, people think differently, I was just adding some of my thoughts on the topic.

[laconicsax]

23. I see. In order to see the proof of the supernatural, I first must convince myself it exists.

I'm reminded of something once said by a well known creationist--that all that is necessary to reconcile creationism and reality is to view reality through the lens of creationism, that is, to make the facts fit the hypothesis rather than the other way around.

Show me something that proves the supernatural and I'll believe it. Ask me to believe something in the absence of evidence and I'll decline.

I'll bet that you don't extend your reliance on faith into other areas of your life.

-If someone comes up to you on the street and tells you that they have a secret map to buried treasure that can be yours for the low price of $1000, would you just take what they say on faith and shell out the money without even seeing that the map exists, let alone that it's genuine?

-If come to a crosswalk at a busy intersection, do you look to make sure it's safe to step out into the road or do you take it on faith that you'll make it across unharmed, close your eyes and start walking?

If faith is good enough for the big questions in life, why isn't it good enough for the little ones like those above? For example, if you're willing to intentionally view existence in a certain way in an absence of evidence, why not willingly reject evidence for everything else?

[RandomThoughts]

If I explained it to you, you would not believe me.

I am not going to argue this, and can accept you believe what you believe. I am not going to argue it.



I also understand that how people view the supernatural is subjective, but some rules or patterns can be seen. I also understand the concept of knowing what is outside of the existence you are in is not possible to comprehend, so much of the conversations on it are metaphoric.

But anyway, I am not going to argue this, because you are asking me to prove something to you by typing in a forum. Which means the tools I have are what you can read as I type. And I figure you will see what you want to see anyway.



Here is a fun one, been wanting to post this clip again, but as metaphor only, I think it is one of the best clips in film. And it can convey the feeling, and even the doubts that all people of faith also have.

But any way, it is good enough to play anytime.
Tears in the rain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_saUN4j7Gw


And it is not meant to be any proof, just a good clip I think on often, reminds me of Dorsai.

[tama]

35. May I offer an analogy?

Regular cell behaving organically:
I have faith that I'm part of a larger intelligent whole, faith being some kind of holistic information that proves it self by giving form and guidance to my actions so that things seem to go rather well. But I cannot prove it to you unless you have faith.

Cancer cell:
No, you just can't prove it and you should prove it by the standards I can understand or keep your mouth shut! There are no higher forms of life and intelligence than cells and we cancer cells are brightest of all because we can spread anywhere in this universe and do what we want, unprevented by your mystical silly believes in what you can't prove.

The only point of this analogy is to prove that there is no need to use the silly word "supernatural". I'm perfectly natural god to all the cells in this organism.

ME:
Sorry lung cells, Big Sky Daddy is going to smoke a cigaret and smoke coming that way, we gods are not allways perfect by your lowly standards... :)

Lung cells:
EEEEK! Another Volcano eruption! Repent, repent, God is angry at us!

Neuro cells with well developed nicotine receptors:
Bout the time! Ahhhhhh...

I&I cells with well developed anandamide receptors:
I&I say de stupid Rasta-God should quit tobacco and just keep puffin da good erb when Jah give.

[darkstar3]

38. So, "belief" is normal behavior while lack of belief is cancerous?

I need a middle finger smiley...

[tama]

46. Nope

Sense of belonging to a larger inclusive whole is organic. Loss of that sense is cancerous.

[darkstar3]

53. Either way,

you're still referring to people who don't share your particular POV as cancerous. I still need a middle finger smiley...

[tama]

65. Cancer

is a good analogy in terms of systemic thinking of how this society is behaving - destroying the carrying capasity of the ecosystem that it depends from. Or do you really deny that about our current way of life?

Human beings are not defined by nor limited to that analogy, but as far as we are products of the conditioning of the society we have been born and raised in, we behave like cancer cells.

And that is just an analogy, to stress the fact that we need to change our way of life towards sustainability, if we want our children and grandchildren to have a decent chance of good life.

Do we have the ability to raise above our conditioning and make consciouss choises, what do you think?

[darkstar3]

67. Referring to a subset of humanity as cancerous in an analogy

merely because they disagree with you is simply indefensible. You can keep trying but you'll only continue to hang yourself with your own words.

[tama]

73. Where is the

actual disagreement? Do you deny that cancer is a valid analogy to the way society is currently behaving in relation to the ecosystem that it is dependent from?

What is indefensible is claiming that I use the cancer analogy because of disagreement with me. That is just outrageous. I use the cancer analogy because it if fitting analogy of how society is acting, not excluding myself from this society.

[darkstar3]

74. HA!

A thorough reading of #35 puts the lie to that claim. Your portrayal of people who disagree with your POV as a cancer may have been a Freudian slip, but it's there in black and white for all to read.

[tama]

77. Twas not

a Freudian slip but a consciouss teaser. I was quite aware that it could be interpreted the way you do.

Now, could you please answer the question, do you disagree that the analogy is valid in the sense I've explained?

[darkstar3]

79. Oh, so you're a master baiter?

I think now it's time for the Daily Show Tabernacle Choir to take this thing home...

[tama]

82. So it would seem

if one swollows the hook. Very relativistic, that way. :)

I'll let you in a little secret. Intentionality isn't allways about aiming and targeting for a certain predictable outcome. It can be also about leaving room for various propabilistic and or fuzzy possibilities and seeing what happens.

And as for the question, I'll take your silence as a yes... :)

[darkstar3]

Actually, my silence is just that, silence.

That is, until I decide to break it. Assume if you will, but you know what that ends up doing.

As for your question, I thought it a crude and pointless attempt to justify your usage of cancer as a descriptor of people who didn't agree with you after the editing period had passed on your post. I still do. You're grasping at straws and trying to legitimize what you said, and you're doing a poor job because your chosen defense of your usage doesn't fit in context with #35.

Human beings, BTW, cannot qualify as a cancer, because human sociological behavior incorporates so much more than simple replication beyond control.

[tama]

87. There's no defence

as you are neither prosecutor nor judge - regardless of how mighty you feel about yourself, that's still just a point of view.

As for analogy, that means that phenomena share similarities, not that they would be identitical. Therefore your answer is both correct (there's allways so much more) and incorrect - it does not address the point, the fact where the analogy refers to. The whole fucking point. The point of being a human being in this age. Meaning of all.

[darkstar3]

89. So now a person need only defend their POV when in court?

Keep digging...:crazy:

[darkstar3]

84. dupe

internet hiccup.

[RandomThoughts]

45. So be it, it will be proven to you.

Be ready.

[tama]

47. No thanks

I don't need nor want any proof of "it", what ever "it" that is.

[RandomThoughts]

24. If I explained it to you, you would not believe me.

I am not going to argue this, and can accept you believe what you believe. I am not going to argue it.



I also understand that how people view the supernatural is subjective, but some rules or patterns can be seen. I also understand the concept of knowing what is outside of the existence you are in is not possible to comprehend, so much of the conversations on it are metaphoric.

But anyway, I am not going to argue this, because you are asking me to prove something to you by typing in a forum. Which means the tools I have are what you can read as I type. And I figure you will see what you want to see anyway.



Here is a fun one, been wanting to post this clip again, but as metaphor only, I think it is one of the best clips in film. And it can convey the feeling, and even the doubts that all people of faith also have.

But any way, it is good enough to play anytime.
Tears in the rain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_saUN4j7Gw


And it is not meant to be any proof, just a good clip I think on often, reminds me of Dorsai.

[darkstar3]

40. Tek ma te, LS.

:thumbsup:

[humblebum]

32. Well reasoned. nt

[darkstar3]

39. Why is it that so many people end a nearly infinite regression,

not with something simple as a regression would suggest, but with one of the most complex things ever imagined?

We know that matter in THIS universe can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only be converted into energy or other forms of matter. We know that energy in THIS universe can neither be created nor destroyed.

Now, given what we know about THIS universe, which of the following is more likely?
1. Energy, in one form or another, has always existed, and the Big Bang was just a way for that energy to form into this universe.
2. A being with powers of creation far beyond what any human can truly fathom exists outside the normal boundaries of this universe and is responsible for shaping it into what it is today.

A SIMPLE answer is the end of a nearly infinite regression, not a complex one.

[tama]

50. Nearly?

What sounds extremely complex is to say "nearly infinite regression" instead of "finite regression".

What is your problem with infinity, or infinite regression of infinities that mathematicians think about? According to Cantor 'Absolute Infinity', that cannot be rationally defined, is axiomatic/logical requirement of set theory. Halting problem, Gödels theorem etc. are all related.

Gödel didn't say "any formal system containing number theory cannot be proved within *nearly* infinite set of axioms". He said: "any formal system containing number theory cannot be proved within finite set of axioms" (And Gödel, BTW, didn't believe in the 'mind=brain' folly either.)

Now, can you answer this: is mathematics
1) Created in the Big Bang?
2) Mere product of classical mechanisms in the brain?
3) "Was" even "before" Big Bang (just like 'matter' and 'energy' as you say, concepts that are mathematically defined), ie. not dependent from time?
4) Something else?

[darkstar3]

55. Typical...

You can't really argue what I've said, so you latch onto one word and spin-off into a tornado of distraction.

I chose the phrase "nearly infinite regression" because the classical phrase "infinite regression" that everyone uses is incorrect. Deists and any other believers in a sentient "first mover" end such a regression with the concept of a god, and therefore it is no longer an "infinte regression." Scientists also end this regression with the Big Bang, since it is the beginning of the universe as we know it, and therefore even science doesn't truly participate in the "infinite regression."

I have no problem with the concept of infinity. Having been trained very heavily in mathematics and physics I am actually quite comfortable with the proper application of the concept. In this case, because there is a definitive end to both scientific and non-scientific regressions to "the beginning," these regressions cannot be infinite.

Your multi-pronged question in the face of your quotes is pointless. You have clearly convinced yourself that "mathematics" is a separate and infinite entity of some kind. This is, of course, a gross misunderstanding. Mathematics as we know the field is simply a complex set of rules and theories created specifically by man and designed to help us understand and even exploit a form of causality. It is a human construct, not a thing in and of itself.

[tama]

69. Logical consistency

1) "Mathematics as we know the field is simply a complex set of rules and theories created specifically by man and designed to help us understand and even exploit a form of causality. It is a human construct, not a thing in and of itself."

Cf. what is equally true with that statement:

2) "Matter and energy, as we know the field is simply a complex set of rules and theories created specifically by man and designed to help us understand and even exploit a form of causality. It is a human construct, not a thing in and of itself."

You cannot claim 1) without claiming 2). So your line of reasoning sounds like:

1) mathematics reduces causally and time dependently to human mental activity
2) mental activity reduces causally and time dependently to a theory of mathematical physics
3) which reduces causally and time dependently to human mental activity
4) which reduces causally and time dependently to a theory of mathematical physics
5) which reduces causally and time dependently to big bang AND does not, as the theory of preservation of matter and energy is true also before Big Bang

[darkstar3]

70. False parallel.

Incredibly false parallel. There are no fields of study called matter or energy, so your sentence structure doesn't even make sense. Matter and energy are universal phenomena that the human constructs of physics and mathematics attempt to understand, explain, and predict.

[tama]

75. Empty caveat

Matter and energy, in the sense you speak about them (e.g. referring to first law of thermodynamics), are in-theory concepts, "human constructs of physics".

So you are free to replace 'matter and energy' with 'physics' if that pleases you better, but the parallel stands.

[darkstar3]

76. You only think it still stands.

"Matter" may be an English word that describes a physical phenomenon, like "energy", but that doesn't change the fact that they refer directly to universal phenomena.

Will you tell me next that an apple is simply a human construct?

[tama]

81. Your not making any sense

Now you start talking about "universal phenomena". Is that supposed to mean "theory-independent x"? Supposing that is what you mean, the parallel still stands. Or do you claim that math does not refer to universal phenomena?

The only real problem here is your stubborn belief that physics must be somehow more fundamental than math, and that belief is clearly dependent from notion of linear causality - which is based on a geometric notion. If you take math out of mathematical physics, what remains of physics?

It also seems, and these problems are interconnected, that "matter and energy" is your way of saying "substance", which is a philosophical and metaphysical scholastic concept that goes back to Aristotle. It's quite outdated concept, even in philosophy.

[darkstar3]

83. It makes perfect sense.

Matter and energy will continue to exist in their exact states and forms even if we forget everything we know about physics. If we were all as newborn babes and knew nothing of kinetics, dynamics, or other subsets of physics, balls would still roll down hills in exactly the same way.

Now, imagine if we were all newborn babes and knew nothing of mathematics. Would 4+4 still equal 8? Keep in mind as you formulate your answer that 4+4 also equals 10.

Also keep in mind that this entire subthread is a distraction from the fact that you can't answer anything in the post that actually started it, so you've been creating a tempest in a teapot.

[tama]

88. Tempest in a teapot

I like those. :)

Stirred, not shaken.

As for being newborn with knew nothing of math, crucial question. There are tribes with no more math than "today" and perhaps "more" and "less". Linguistically and anthropologically, number theory is not universal. People can and do live without. Same of course for physics. Perhabs both math and physics are evolutionary dead ends. Would not surprise me.

[darkstar3]

90. Tama, "your mouth is talking. You might wanna look to that." n/t

[Ready4Change]

9. Interesting.

If everything that begins to exist must have a purpose, and if God is the only eternal thing (ie: the only thing that never 'began' to exist) does that mean that God may have no purpose?

[Ozymanithrax]

7. Quantum theory requires that for the Universe would be in a state of superpostion a state...

of multiple probabilities until a qualified observer set the postions. For the universe to exist, it would require some inteligence existed at the moment of expansion.

What would have been that first qualified observer?

[mindwalker_i]

11. "Observer" isn't necessarily a thinking entity

To collapse a quantum state, something must measure it, as in something is affected by and reacts to the superposition state, collapsing the wave function from a probability into a real value. Of course, that pushes the system of the measured object and the superposition object possibly into a new superposition state. I think.

It seems like the universe could be in a superposition of all possible states, which leads to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. I really don't like that one because it seems like an overly complex description.

[Ozymanithrax]

14. Actually, consciousness itself is hypothesized as a quantum property...

inherent in the fabric of the universe. One physicist has even show that it is possible that the expansion follow the big bang could have created a sort of consciousness that was the first observer.


Check out the current issue of the magazine EnlightenNext and the article An Exploration of Quantum Consciousness: Finding Spirit in the Fabric of Space & Time about the work of Stuart Hamerof, MD.



It mentions the worked of Paola Zizzi PhD. and Italian astrophysicist, who postulates that "in the split scened after the big bang the universe had a cosmic moment of consciousness."
EnlightenNext: The Magazine for Evolutionaries Spring/Summer 2010 Issue 46.

http://www.enlightennext.org/

It is a very thought provoking article. The rest of the magazine isn't to shabby either.

[mindwalker_i]

15. Couldn't find the article...

I make mead, and the consumption of my work is having an effect :D

This magazine looks like it's trying to blend in science to fit a religious belief. They mention mysticism enough times to catch my attention. I have a problem with people doing that: I've heard people say that quantum nonlocality (entanglement) is supports their idea of telepathy, which is a bad idea.

I'll check this one out in more depth when I'm more able to do so.

[MUAD_DIB]

8. Who knows if in all the universe complex powers exist that may be defined as

godlike or having the powers of a godlike being...or beings?

If I was one of these beings I don't think that I would waste my precious ∞ on earth or its inhabitants until they learned to evolve a little more.

[mindwalker_i]

12. Time may also have been "created" with the big bang

If that's the case, the question of what existed before the big bang or what has always existed (a.k.a the hypothetical invisible friend) is meaningless. Given that time passes more slowly in gravitational fields, it must not pass at all in the infinitely dense pre-big-bang state of the universe.

There are actually some serious people asking whether time is just a persistent illusion but does not, in fact, exist. That still puts it on sturdier ground in terms of evidence than God.

[Sal316]

13. So.......

...something we now know that can possibly be infinite was once confined to a finite space the size of an atom?

How, pray tell, does something go from finite in size to (possibly) infinite in size?

And exactly why can't both God and the Big Bang be congruent? Must one be right and the other wrong? Or is there a possibility, like Hegel, the truth is somewhere in the middle?

[LAGC]

19. Where did God exist when the universe was the size of an atom?

Was God inside the atom? Did God exist outside of the atom in some alternate dimension?

Of course, it could be the universe as we know it is one of many out there, part of a multi-verse, each of them having their Big Bang moments in the beginning.

If we posit that God always existed, couldn't it be possible that matter itself always existed instead?

Infinity is a hard concept for us finite beings to accept, but if we assume that every effect has a cause, how could it be possible for there to be a first effect (God) that wasn't caused by something before it?

Of course none of that explains consciousness, or how we can be self-aware. That's probably the biggest conundrum that science will have to eventually tackle. But I believe someday it will, and the very mystery of life will be explained.

[tama]

36. Singularity

Space and time are mathematical forms, just like finity and infinity.

We could think of singularity as no-form containing all possible forms.

That way there is no space nor time "outside" the singularity, as there is no outside-form in relation to no-form containing all forms.

And then as well, why not, singularities could be the insides of black holes in other universes and what not, a speck of sand, a photon, a prime number with infinite inner structure.

The only certain truth about Absolute Infinity is that it cannot be rationally understood.

[AmericaIsGreat]

16. Direction of discomfort to physicists?

Why? Physicists study physics, not what caused the universe to "begin to exist." If they do talk about it they're fully aware they're speculating, and there's nothing uncomfortable when you're honest with yourself about what you know, what you don't know, and what you're speculating about.

The discomfort comes when people are dishonest; when they claim in certainty about things in which they have only faith but try to pass it off as science.

[Angry Dragon]

21. There is a force in the universe greater and more powerful

than man. That is proven because man could not create the universe. What you call this force is up to debate. Is it just energy or does it have an intellect?? God can not be proven so all that can be said about god is that he exists in the minds of man to explain existence.

[pokerfan]

22. A physicist experiencing doubt and uncertainty

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeCHiUe1et0#t=3m18s

[rug]

26. You have convinced me with empiricism, not speculation.

"the possibility that science might be able to someday see beyond the Big Bang and explain what may have come before".

I reverently await the Coming of this Knowledge.

[trotsky]

27. Your theological predecessors told us...

* that demons caused disease
* that the earth remains stationary while the sun, planets and stars move around it
* that an invisible, undetectable being created the earth in literally 7 days (yes, even your advanced Catholic theologians at one time believed this)
* that same being also created each species of animal individually and they did not evolve from earlier forms
* and hundreds of other ridiculous things which science then went on to prove wrong.

Given their respective track records, I'm gonna put my money on science this time too.

[rug]

29. If human scientific knowledge ever becomes capable of fully explaining the universe,

your bet would be long forgotten.

[trotsky]

30. As would your feeble attempts at witty one-liners, sadly. n/t

[rug]

31. I'm flattered you equate my jokes with cosmology.

[trotsky]

34. Hey, you provided the compliment to me first.

It was the least I could do to return it.

[darkstar3]

42. Nothing fully explains the universe.

It is a incredibly possible that nothing ever will. But there is only one thing that we are currently capable of that increases our difinitive knowledge and understanding of that universe, and it is scientific inquiry.

[rug]

43. "only one thing" sounds rather dogmatic.

I'd ask you to prove it but I'm not really interested.

[darkstar3]

44. The proof is in the pudding.

Science has provided thorough understanding of a truly dizzying number of natural phenomena. If you can name another method by which analytical and thorough knowledge is acquired, I'm all ears.

[tama]

48. There is important difference

between "that" universe you objectify and externalize and "this" universe we live in and participate with.

[darkstar3]

57. From this,

I don't think you know what "universe" means.

Not that it matters. Your claimed "difference" is something you could never show to me anyway, so I care nothing for your baseless assertions.

[darkstar3]

41. Time itself as we know it in this universe began with the Big Bang.

Therefore, from all current views of the word "before", there is no "before the Big Bang."

[tama]

49. Time "began"? n/t

[darkstar3]

56. Did "space" begin?

Yes.

Since space and time must exist together, if one began then so did the other.

[tama]

66. To quote silent3:

"2) If time itself in a character of the universe, and "exist" means to be embedded in a framework that involves time, talking about beginnings and things coming into existence is an misapplication of terminology when applied to the universe as a whole."

[darkstar3]

68. And now you've hit the problem in the OP.

Premise A from the OP requires linear causality. Linear causality requires time. Time requires space. Space as we know it has not always existed, but at some point in the distant past "became" what it is today through a mechanism science describes as the Big Bang. The infinite regression of "that which exists must have a cause" breaks down at the cessation of causality, namely the moments surrounding the Big Bang.

Of course, that's part of what Silent3 was trying to say in his response to someone else.

It is somewhat of a logical paradox, but such is the concept of time. You see, time as we know it exists now. At one point in the past, time did NOT exist. Therefore, time must have "began". But then, nothing can "begin" without time and causality, unless there are such things in this universe as acausal phenomena, and time is one of those. Ergo, there are acausal phenomena, and premise A from the OP is flawed.

[tama]

71. Yup

The logical inconsistency is linked to psychological notions of time and causality. It's very hard to think time-indepent, and math seems to be a way for time-independent thinking, as mathematical constructs of geometric time of QT, space-time of RT and even multidimentional mathematical constructs of strigy and other approaches to unificatory theory show.

Causal reduction in linear psychological time is same beast as logical reduction. To me more logically consistent reduction seems logical reduction of our psychological and theoretical notions of time and causality to mathematics, ie. some form of mathematical realism - so I'm with Gödel in this issue. In that case the question where does mathematics reduce to, is not rationally meaningfull. Especially given that math does not reduce to finite set of logical axioms.

[darkstar3]

72. Assuming that I'm reading your cut up word salad correctly,

that was an awfully long way to go to say "I'm choosing to ignore everything you have to say."

[tama]

78. If so,

that is what logical consistency compells. Your posts say "I'm choosing to ignore logical consistency".

[darkstar3]

80. Only if you're redefining "logical consistency" to mean "whatever rules make me sound right". n/t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. Then who was phone?

[Silent3]

37. A plane crashes killing 200 passengers. One survives...

...with severe burns and may never walk again, but he's alive. It's a miracle!

Therefore God exists. :)

[Jim__]

51. What error do you see in his logic?

The claim that is in your excerpt is logically correct:

All A is B.
The universe is A.
Therefore the universe is B.

There is no error in reasoning. The claim that the cause must be god, is embedded in other claims in the article; and mostly depends upon linguistic assumptions.

Kant, of course, ripped the assumptions in the premises apart over a hundred years ago, and nothing science has learned since has refuted Kant's argument.

[Silent3]

52. It's an error in reasoning to use a faulty premise

"Everything that begins to exist must have a cause" is a faulty premise. First of all, although expecting that kind of causality is a very useful approach in scientific reasoning, there's no proof that there aren't acausal phenomena -- if fact, the idea of "vacuum fluctuations", where particles and their corresponding antiparticles randomly and briefly spring into existence, quickly self-annihilating, with no apparent cause, is an important concept in modern particle physics.

Apart from that, if a rule like "everything that begins to exist must have a cause" is going to have an exception then the beginning of everything is exactly where one should expect to encounter an exception. The favorite alternative seems to be insisting that there can't be exceptions, then inventing a new exception without acknowledging that it's an exception to supposedly rid yourself of a distasteful exception.

[Jim__]

54. He supports his premises with quotes from experts.

From the article cited in the OP:

Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called "the necessity for a beginning" and eventually to "the presence of a superior reasoning power." But he never did accept the reality of a personal God.

...

A somewhat more sober assessment of the findings was given by Frederick Burnham, a science-historian. He said, "These findings, now available, make the idea that God created the universe a more respectable hypothesis today than at any time in the last 100 years."

I have a feeling that these quotes may not survive serious scrutiny; but that means that his premises can be attacked. That is the way to refute his claims. I maintain that his reasoning - his conclusion (again within linguistic constraint) - follows from his premises. To refute his claim, you have to refute his premises, not his reasoning.

[darkstar3]

58. That's called an argument from authority.

His premise A is still unprovable and as Silent3 stated it stands on a house of cards.

[Jim__]

59. Actually it's not.

The statement given in the OP is just a restatement of the cosmological argument. He is supporting the premises with quotes from experts. "Argument from authority" is proclaiming that an argument is correct because it was made by an expert. He is not making such a claim. The fact that his premeses have not been proven, does not mean that they are invalid to use in an argument. It just means that,given the correctness of the argument, the conclusion is based on the correctness of the premise. The argument is logically correct. The correctness of the premise is an open question.

[darkstar3]

61. Um...

He is supporting the premises with quotes from experts.
"Argument from authority" is proclaiming that an argument is correct because it was made by an expert.

Read those two together again. And as for the correctness of the premise itself, Silent3 has that covered below.

[Jim__]

63. Supporting a premise is not the same as proclaiming that the support is necessarily correct - n/t

[darkstar3]

64. Wow.

That is truly an asinine statement. Are you somehow unclear as to what the word "support" means?

[Jim__]

85. Hardly. It is not an "argument from authority" to use an expert opinion to support your assertion.

It becomes an "argument from authority" to claim that the expert can't be wrong. He doesn't make that claim in the article. He merely cites expert opinion to support his claim. Support by experts does serve to bolster an opinion. And Citing such expert support is a legitimate form of argument.

[darkstar3]

86. It becomes an argument from authority

when expert opinion is all you have to support your premise.

Premise A is grossly flawed, and any argument stemming from it will be so as well, and no help from Einstein will stop that.

ETA: Argument from authority also falls under the same heading as appeal to authority, which means it is still a fallacy to say "you should agree with me or believe me because this supposedly authoritative person on the subject says so."

[Jim__]

91. "It becomes an argument from authority ..." - Nonsense.

Specifically: It becomes an argument from authority when expert opinion is all you have to support your premise. - Nonsense.

Most of our ("our" meaning everyone's) arguments are based on expert opinion. We are not all committing an "argument from authority" fallacy all the time. "Argument from authority" means accepting the experts' opinion as conclusive.

[darkstar3]

92. And you think using only quotes from supposed authorities to support a premise

is not "accepting the experts' opinion as conclusive"?

Whatever. I don't really care, it's already been shown in this thread that Premise A from the OP is flawed, and therefore the argument made in the OP and anything stemming from it flawed and pointless as well.

[Silent3]

60. That's taking a very narrow view of reasoning.

There are plenty of examples of "good" reasoning, where the reasoning is good in a narrow sense, such as:

1) All men like football.
2) Fred is a man.
3) Fred must like football.

OK, yes, that's a properly constructed syllogism, but I'd hardly call anyone who truly believes Premise 1 is a valid premise a "reasonable" person.

What's even worse about this syllogistic construction:

1) All things that exist must have a cause.
2) The universe exists.
3) Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

...is that the first premise isn't merely debatable like all men's supposed affinity for football, but that the first premise isn't even a simple statement, but a statement that leads to a self-referential paradox, like "The barber who shaves all men who don't shave themselves".

Einstein (much less Burnham), whatever his opinions might have been (especially opinions of his that we never experimentally verified) can't save you from the problems of logic here. Further, Einstein's statement about the necessity for a beginning doesn't say anything about a causal beginning.

There are only two solutions I can see to the ultimate origin problem:

1) Something must exist, be it a God or just the physical universe itself, capable of either spontaneous acausal existence, or that is inherently eternal. The physical universe is the more economical solution which does not require "needlessly multiplying entities".

2) If time itself in a character of the universe, and "exist" means to be embedded in a framework that involves time, talking about beginnings and things coming into existence is an misapplication of terminology when applied to the universe as a whole.

[Jim__]

62. It's taking a formal view of a formal argument.

Specifically:

(a) Everything that begins to exist must have a cause;
(b) If the universe began to exist, then
(c) the universe must have a cause.

is a formal argument, and, as such, it is correct.

If someone were asked to evaluate the correctness of the syllogism in your first example (ignoring the use of the word "must"), then they would be wrong to say that the syllogism is wrong. It's always valid to question the premises. The power of logic is that, say, a correct syllogism can greatly simplify a task. The premises may be far easier to prove than a direct proof of the conclusion.

The claim in the paper does not say anything about there "having to be a beginning." It says that science has found that there is a beginning to the universe. The need for a cause then follows from the premises.

I don't accept his claim, I'm just saying that his reasoning is correct. I don't believe his premise is correct.

[RagAss]

93. Hey...you don't even own your own thoughts !... Go ahead and try to stop them !

Get back to me on how that worked out !

[Beringia]

94. thanks for posting n/t

[RagAss]

95. This is the Big Bang.