the universe has 0 net charge therefore it could have came from nothing

atheist logic

we don't know how the universe was created therefore a invisible man in the sky made it
talking about logic

we know that the universe had a cause, and using deductive reasoning, we can determine certain properties of the cause(immaterialness, timelessness, spacelessness) and therefore we can reasonably conclude that God is the cause.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning

You're retarded.

So that its life may continue.
I am posting it here.

Was that to me.

No, it was just the last one I had.

"I can't explain something, so I'll just define it as unexplainable and try to stop others from figuring it out" -zlamous

I don't even understand what you're trying to say. dmagen was the one saying that the cause of the universe is unexplainable.

The difference is that he doesn't simply shove it off as "Godditit". He acknowledges that there will always be new things that we can discover about the universe, whereas you simply deny the alternate viewpoints and substitute them with your own dead end solution that gets nobody any closer to discovering anything.

I couldn't have worded that any better. You earned my thumb.

yup

I explained why i think the cause is God. If you want to attack my argument, you have to explain why the premises are wrong.

Saying that you used deductive reasoning and not explaining what that reasoning was doesn't count as an explanation.

- since an infinite regress of causes is impossible, there must have been an un-caused cause.

-this cause must be non-temporal, since it caused space and time to exist. if it exists in time and space, then obviously it couldnt have been the origin of time and space.

-if the cause is timeless then it has to changeless. because in order for something to change, it has to be affected by time.

-if the cause is changeless it has to be immaterial because material things are made of particles which constantly change at a atomic level and at a quantum level

- the cause must have had the ability to create, so it must have been extremely powerful

Is it so hard to grasp that there is no "Cause" (For example, the concept of infinity could be such an answer), or at least that with our current knowledge of the universe is not sufficient to comprehend such a cause? inb4 "You're just saying that you don't know, whereas I am providing an answer". I'd rather say with honesty that I don't know everything rather than accept answers that don't make sense to me. But maybe that's just me.

well what are the alternatives? the universe couldnt have began to exist without a cause, the universe couldn't have always existed, and there couldn't have been an infinite number of material causes. an un-caused cause is the only thing that makes sense

"...or at least that with our current knowledge of the universe is not sufficient to comprehend such a cause"

you're sort of right. we can't truly comprehend God and all of his attributes, but by using logic it's possible to know certain things about him, as i've demonstrated.

"the universe couldnt have began to exist without a cause" Why not?
"the universe couldn't have always existed" Why not?
"there couldn't have been an infinite number of material causes" Again, why not? You need to explain these things.

Also, you keep mentioning an uncaused cause. If you can accept that god can be uncaused, why bars other things from being uncaused by that same logic? Finally, assuming that the uncaused cause is a traditional deity, which is difficult enough for me, who's to say that such a deity is yours? Or even anybody else's? For all we know, it could be one completely unimagined by mankind thus far.


P.S. It's getting late for me. Please understand if I suddenly drop the conversation for a few hours.

-if things can begin existing without being caused, why don't we observe things popping into existence all the time? the laws of causality are supported by physics and by logic. denying them is insane

-if the universe always existed, it would have already experienced a heat death due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe also, material objects, by their nature, cannot be eternal

-an infinite regress of causes is logically incoherent. i'd love to see anyone attempt to defend this position

" If you can accept that god can be uncaused, why bars other things from being uncaused by that same logic?"

if something is uncaused it must be eternal, and for something to be eternal it must also be immaterial and timeless. the only things that fit the description(besides God) are abstract objects.

"assuming that the uncaused cause is a traditional deity, which is difficult enough for me, who's to say that such a deity is yours? "

That's a separate issue entirely. the evidence for Christianity is unrelated to the cosmological argument, which i'm using right now.

-Are you suggesting that deities are constantly and possibly infinitely being created? Because that would make an awesome movie or something.

-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch Counter theory time! Discard your theory, and exile it if it uses blue mana. But seriously, the Big Crunch theory very nicely puts the idea of an infinite universe into perspective, as it postulates that our own Big Bang may have been one of many. Neat-o, huh?

- As far as I can tell, infinite regresses mainly apply to propositions and problem solving, not to concepts such as the beginning of the universe. I may be wrong, as this is where I'm starting to get lost.

-Why does it have those definitions? As far as I'm aware, the definition of uncaused concepts and entities is simply that they are without a cause, that they come into existence of their own volition. Please tell me what part of "Something without a cause" implies "Something that is immaterial and timeless", while considering that my argument that the universe itself could possibly be uncaused.

-Considering that Christianity professes to be a cosmological argument, and I know very well that you subscribe to it, it is rather related.

- no i was just explaining why it's impossible for things to start existing without a cause

-entropy still applies in this model of the universe. unless the universe is somehow recreating order after it 'crunches' and re-expands.

-an infinite regress is a logically incoherent idea, no matter what it applies to. the entire concept is incoherent

-for something to be uncaused, it must have began to exist without a cause or it must be eternal. if it's eternal, it must be timeless and immaterial beucase it's impossible for material objects to be eternal. immaterial objects must be timeless because they are not capable of being changed.

-I'm a bit confused. the kalam cosmological argument only seeks to prove the existence of a deity, it's not meant to prove Christianity.

No offense to you but, what the heck do you do all day.

Same as me, argue with people on the internet over shit we make up off the top of our heads that happens to sound plausible. It's called science. You think anybody studies for this shit? If I had to study, I would at least ask for the test to not be at four in the morning.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpufzJNrZ2Y

>Reply reserves depleted
>Travel back in time to mine the past for all of its replies
Such is the life of the Spiderman thread.

Go to the start of the thread.

Science is dumb anyways.

on the weekends? nothing.

It sounds to me like you read the shit out of whatever books you find.

well thanks. :)

-You implied that things that are uncaused would be able to appear at random, and that your deity was one such uncaused thing (And in fact that this trait was evidence for its existence). Put two and two together, and it seems that you implied that gods could be created like lint. That's actually a pretty cool concept though, so it's not a complete loss.

-That's exactly what I'm implying. Not necessarily order as we know it, but some form of order nonetheless.

-I suppose I'll hand you that, if by no other merit than by my ignorance on the matter.

-eternal=infinity (In a sense time, that is). By saying that the universe may be infinite, I say that in some form, the universe has always existed. I don't believe that material objects by definition cannot be eternal. Unless of course you consider atoms to be immaterial (Which by extension would make the entirety of the universe immaterial). In an infinite universe, those atoms would always have been there, occasionally being broken up and re-bonded into different elements. Also, I believe at one point you listed human ideology as immaterial, and that changes just about every day.

-I assumed that as a Christian you where arguing for the existence of Yahweh specifically. And even if that's not so, the original statement was "Who's to say that such a deity is yours? Or even anybody else's?".

- i don't believe that anything can begin to exist without being caused. i believe that God is eternal, so he can exist without having been caused.

-I don't see how this is possible. how can a random expansion of space-time create order and structure?

-material objects are made of particles. particles constantly move around so they're subject to entropy. if the universe always existed in some form, it must have been completely immaterial at one point. and it's obviously not possible for an unconscious immaterial object to create material

- the argument only proves a that a non-specific deity exists. i've only used it to disprove atheism

-"I don't believe anything can exist without being caused. Also, god can exist without being caused". I'll assume that you meant that god is an exception. As I said, eternal=infinity in a sense of time, and I I'm trying to prove that the universe may be infinite, therefore eternal, thus being acceptably uncaused by your standards.

- Order as we know it isn't an objective thing, what we consider order may very well be considered chaos in another universe, or even on another planet for that matter. If you're asking how elements will form and all that, I'll try to explain. If the Big Crunch happened and triggered another Big Bang, hydrogen would be spread across the universe. Those hydrogen molecules would form molecular clouds. Then through nuclear fusion, those clouds would create helium. Eventually when the density and heat of the clouds are great enough, those clouds would condense into stars, and those stars would use nuclear fusion to create heavier elements that will eventually form planets and other astral bodies, along with most of the things on and around them them. Does that answer anything?

#12962

i really want to address a couple things

first, i said that specific arrangements of atoms and molecules constitute order. i'm contrasting this with things like black holes and supernovae, which do not contain ordered arrangements of particles. they are random, and chaotic. it's seems obvious to me that some things in the universe are demonstrably more ordered than other things

second, i mentioned that the existence of particles is the result of the separation of the 'unified force', at least according to the big bang theory. if another big bang occured, everything could be completely different, maybe material would exist without being made of particles, maybe particles would have completely different properties or maybe material wouldn't exist at all. the possibilities are endless

As far as I know, particles weren't a singular entity, but rather extremely condensed. The Big Bang didn't "Explode" particles into being, but rather violently expanded them apart. A Big Crunch Big Bang cycle wouldn't change the composition of basic atoms as far as I'm aware, although at this point we're delving into very theoretical physics.

- everything that begins to exist has a cause. since God has always existed he never began to exist, so he didnt need to be caused

-order can be objectively defined. any clear, patterned arrangement of matter is an example of order. obviously arrangements of atoms exist in the form of molecules, and molecules can have very specific arrangements. so these are clear examples of order. also, we know that order exists because we can contrast it with disorder.

i have more questions about the big crunch theory. if the big crunch occurred, wouldn't it destroy every bit of matter down to the atomic and quantum level? if so, why would a new big bang create the exact same types of particles? according to the big bang theory, all the fundamental forces were once combined into one unified force, which randomly separately to form the strong force, the electroweak force and the first particles. but if another big bang happened, why would it happen in the exact same way? maybe the unified force would never separate, or maybe it would separate completely differently

Also, we seem to have run out of replies. I don't want to go back up the thread as it would get too confusing. How about we give this a rest.

-I think that might be a matter of preference,as according to what I'm positing, the universe has always existed as well (In some form).

-All things are made up of elements, and all elements are made up of atoms. Even things you consider to be part of "Disorder" are made of calculable parts. With the right knowledge they can be measured, predicted and controlled as much as any part of "Order".

-The lightest element is always hydrogen, two hydrogens will always make a helium, etc etc. No matter how many times heavier elements are reverted back into lighter ones, those basic principals will likely not change. Meaning that even if a Big Crunch and then a Big Bang happen, the resulting universe will likely consist of the same elements. Just in different densities, locations, arrangements etc etc.

--I'm not exactly up to snuff on the matter of entropy, but as far as I'm aware in the Big Crunch theory, that would be when the "Crunch" would begin (As far as I'm aware). When the universe would start to contract, as it's lost its outward momentum from the initial expansion. Also, the definition of immaterial is rather debatable, as we aren't able to physically observe it. Who's to say that something immaterial and unconscious created matter at some point?

-"Finally, assuming that the uncaused cause is a traditional deity" I forgot to mention that it is also assuming that there even is an uncaused cause, instead of simply infinity or some other explanation circumventing that idea. It should also be noted that the Kalam cosmological argument has been criticized heavily. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kal%C4%81m_cosmological_argument#Reception

Also, hopefully it was worth the wait.

- i said that if the universe is infinite, it couldn't have always been material, because material things constantly break down. if the fabric of the universe itself is material, then it also must be breaking down. the big crunch theory can't solve this problem

-the argument seeks to prove that there is an uncaused cause. that's its purpose. it's not assuming the conclusion, the conclusion follows from the premises.

the criticisms i've heard are not valid. they seem to misrepresent the argument a lot

*what bars other things

my grammar ain't exactly perfect either.

couldn't have begun*

the universe is so huge we cant even start to comprehend it's size.
it was definitely not made for us.
also logic alone isn't the best tool to understand the universe with. it's a good start because we developed evolutionary to understand our surroundings, but from then onward it's flawed to use only logic. the best example is quantum mechanics. your logic says that two things can't be in two different places at once, however experiments show us otherwise.
also if the universe does have a "cause"( something which is an entirely human aspect and has nothing to do with the universe) and "god is the cause" what makes you so sure its your god? for all you know muslims can be right and you are going to hell, or maybe the hindus are right and you are going to be a slug in your next life.
in the end the only thing you can rely on is actual proof, and when it comes to that we have a TON of things to prove the bible wrong.

"the universe is so huge we cant even start to comprehend it's size.
it was definitely not made for us."
first of all, this is a red herring. it's not relevant to my argument. secondly, there's no reason God couldn't have created a massive universe for us to inhabit and explore.

"also logic alone isn't the best tool to understand the universe with"
It's the only tool we have for accurately describing reality. we can't make any valid conclusions about anything without employing logic

"the best example is quantum mechanics. your logic says that two things can't be in two different places at once, however experiments show us otherwise."
If something contradicts well established laws of logic, we should assume that the idea is wrong, we shouldn't assume that the laws of logic(which the scientific method is based on) are wrong

"also if the universe does have a "cause"( something which is an entirely human aspect and has nothing to do with the universe)"
the universe had to have began to exist at some point. therefore it must have had a cause. it is impossible for things to begin to exist uncaused.

"what makes you so sure its your god?"
red herring. there's historical and archeological proof of Christianity, but it's completely unrelated to this discussion.

"in the end the only thing you can rely on is actual proof"
I agree. and this is why i'm not an atheist

" we have a TON of things to prove the bible wrong."
Such as?

wow, you not only said that quantum mechanics is wrong you also contradicted yourself.
you said the only thing we can rely on is logic, and then said that you are not an atheist because you rely on proofs.
wow.
yup definitely a troll.

wow.

1) i didnt say that quantum mechanics is wrong.

2)you don't believe that logic can prove things? seriously?

1)
"If something contradicts well established laws of logic, we should assume that the idea is wrong, we shouldn't assume that the laws of logic(which the scientific method is based on) are wrong "
hence if quantum mechanics defies logic, as I stated and you acknowledged, quantum mechanics is wrong. if you say otherwise you accept that logic can be wrong.
2) as I said it's a good start since we developed evolutionary to understand our surroundings, but quantum mechanics is living proof that logic alone cant accomplish much. (not that any kind of science can be based on logic alone, but that quantum mechanics is the most radical example)

2)the scientific method is based on logic. science comes from philosophy. if something is logically contradictory or incoherent then it's simply not true

again, false.
the scientific method is based on observations and the creation of a theory based on those observations using logic.
it forbids using logic alone.

only because it's logical to conclude that our observations are an accurate depiction of reality

exactly!
that's why its a theory!
we accept we can always be wrong, and the only to prove it is by repeating the experiments and getting the same results over and over again.

you missed my point. at the foundation of every conclusion we make, we have to use logic

the only foundation we have in science is the acceptance that logic alone is nothing without proof( which include everything I said so far such as repeating results), and that even then we can always be wrong.
I gotta go now, but if you want I will reply to you on that quantum mechanics vs relativity thing tomorrow.

we have to use logic in order to interpret any evidence and proof. You still don't understand my point.

"but if you want I will reply to you on that quantum mechanics vs relativity thing "

they are not 100% compatible. if you think that they are, then you're just wrong.

Ok one last comment before i go.
If you will be so kind to notice I said that we can not use logic alone. You just said something whic I already stated a few comments ago( the one which starts with "again false".
Second it doesnt even matter because the part which defies logic, the " something can be at more than one place at once" is fully proven and is not contradicted by relativity in any way. So even if you are right about the two theories contradicting each other at some points, which you are not, it does nothing to prove my initial point wrong( which was that if something defies logic it is wrong even if its supported by evidence)

i never claimed that we can only use logic to determine things. i said that we have to use logic as the basis for all our arugments. Stop misrepresenting me.

" So even if you are right about the two theories contradicting each other at some points, which you are not, it does nothing to prove my initial point wrong"

you have to be trolling.

1) they absolutely contradict eachother. i provided an example of this.

2) i used this as an example of how we know that quantum mechanics isn't 100% accurate.

"If something contradicts well established laws of logic, we should assume that the idea is wrong, we shouldn't assume that the laws of logic(which the scientific method is based on) are wrong"
hence logic is above observations.
also
"we know that the universe had a cause, and using deductive reasoning, we can determine certain properties of the cause(immaterialness, timelessness, spacelessness) and therefore we can reasonably conclude that God is the cause"
so you are saying that you can use logic alone to prove god...
about the example you brought, it would be easier to explain with this picture.
does the two pieces belong to each other?
well directly not, but when you are looking at the bigger picture, something you can do only when you have other pieces, you see they both belong.
what you said is that there are some cases in which both theories predict different things, even if that's true, it does not make the ton of evidence we have necessarily false. also, again, the point you claimed was wrong, the "one thing can be more than one place at once", is not just hypothetical, it was observed countless times( see double slit experiment). so you cannot place logic at a higher stand than observations.

You are frustratingly stupid. Please don't pretend to understand science.

-_- I really need to go but you keep making me want to reply.
Calling my stupid even though I fully proven you wrong, does not make your initial claim right. I said everything there is to say about why your statements are wrong, and got nothing else to prove to you.

Is a false claim) ( forgot to add it at the end of the () )

1) we know that quantum physics is at least partially wrong because it conflicts with the theory of relativity. this doesn't mean that it's completely wrong though, it does make accurate predictions, so we know a lot of it is true. this is undeniable. the parts that conflict with the laws of logic are probably wrong though.

it does not conflict with relativity in any way.
if Eisenstein had hard time accepting it, it was because it defied pure logic so much.

" it does not conflict with relativity in any way. "

that's factually incorrect do a bit more research.

it does not.

relavitiy describes space as perfectly smooth. quantum physics describes space as chunky, and non-continuous. this is just one example, there's many more. they are not perfectly compatible

if you say otherwise you accept that logic alone can be wrong *

But when the universe is neutral what was the cause? (From the perspective of science, of course)