Uh. Which one is the athiest? Which one is the Christ follower? Are you trying to make a point? The flat voices are confusing. The video ends with "Maybe we can get some answers from the athiest" - which sounds like an endorsement for atheism? Yes, we may one day find out the cause of the big bang.
I don't know what caused it, therefore it must have been God. There seem to be a few steps missing in that train of thought. If you don't know who stole your lunch, do you assume that it was God until proven otherwise?
I don't think you get that the cause and effect principle is contingent upon time. Did time begin with the universe? If so, then there is no feasible way that it could be subject to the cause and effect principle as there couldn't be anything before that moment to cause it as there was no time. There is no such thing as before the beginning of time so the cause and effect principle can't work in this situation.
@sunset261 time is used to help us understand or make the world make sence of our world in that it applies (as far a i know) to physical things moving through space. moments after the big bang there wasn't any physical matter, everything was a form of energy. if this is true then time did not start at the big bang but after it when energy became or transformed into some kind of matter. however there must have been some "time" between the bang and matter < 1 second. god can exist outside of time
@sunset261 if you have ever drawn a time line then you know that there is alwasy the possability for before time. it's the space before start. but by definition what ever could exist before time can't be physicl. god qualifies for this because he is a spiritual being that could have instigated time 0, even if time 0 did happen the instant the big bang occured. because spiritual beings are not bound by time as we know it. when you die your physical body dies but your soul 'steps into' eternity.
@RedLetterChristian No actually, there can be no before time because the very concept of "before" requires time to be present. They very concept of something occuring "before time" is a paradox.
@sunset261 time is a measuring devise. mass over distance. it is possible that there is something that is larger and more complex than the devise it's self that could supersede the devise. a metronome is an example of a time keeping devise. the devise that calibrates the metronome is larger more complex and can set time 0 on the metronome. We are so bound by time that it is hard to think beyond it. a way to think in this manor would be to think of in time and outside of time(would need no mass)
@RedLetterChristian Time is not a measuring device. I mean, we have systems that measure time but time is the name we give to the sequence of events. There can be no events period if there is no time. without time things cannot happen. It's hard to think outside of time because there is no reason to believe there IS a beyond it. I mean the very though of "setting" time is self-contradictory as time would have to already be present in order for that action to begin.
I don't know how we got here exactly, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't because we were all hand crafted by a giant dude in the sky. Even if he is up there, he's a fucking asshole and anyone who follows him should have their heads examined.
Love it . . . "there has to be a first cause, therefore (insert bible here)"
It's like someone saying , "there's a murder victim, therefore - a group of six Koala bears standing on each other's shoulders, wearing a longcoat, thick spectacles and a fake moustache raided the house for eucalyptus leaves and murdered the occupant with a magic potion given to them by the wood elves."
All the while the police are mocked when they say "We don't know who did it. We're still looking."
@GrandSupremeDaddyo no, clearly you weren't listening, all beings are contingent beings. we can't bring ourselves into existance. however the univerce is also contingent because you need stuff for there to be physics, and chemistry. before the big bang you have no stuff and therefor no physics or chemistry because they are contingent on stuff. so you have to have something that is not contingent make things that are contingent. if you don't then we by definition of being contingent don't exist.
@GrandSupremeDaddyo no, what i'm saying is that everything that has substance or mass has a beginning there is a difference. the difference is that god does not have these and so is able to exist outside of and inside of what we understand to be the space time universe that we live in today. this makes him a being that is not contingent and able to create or make contingent stuff.
Why does this non-contingent 'thing' have to be God? Perhaps non-contingency is not so rare outside our understanding of the universe. God seems to have it for no other reason than him being God. So why not imagine that the singularity of the big bang was itself not contingent.
If you have to assume there is something that is not contingent, there is no reason to add a whole other array of attributes such as omni-benevolence. It could be something completely abstract.
@GrandSupremeDaddyo first, it doesn't have to be god, but it just so happens that this being has the charactistics that we would also aply to god. next the bb might not be contingent but for this to be you would have to show how it isn't. your last point about an abstract entity does not hold as pure abstractions only exist in the mind. and don't actually affect or effect anything themselves. true we can give them form (like nubers or definitions) but an abstraction is basicly an idea or ideal
Well the only characteristic you can apply is non-contingency. Everything else is a baseless assumption.
By abstract I simply mean something formless and spontaneous. I am not claiming this is the case, and I am not claiming that the big bang was non-contingent. I am simply asking what is it about God that means only he doesn't have to be contingent. You are the one making the claim here not I.
"the bb might not be contingent but for this to be you would have to show how it isn't"
Well, no I wouldn't. I am not claiming that it isn't. Rather, I am saying there is no reason to rule it out. You are the one not only claiming something is non-contingent but that nothing else is.
"it just so happens that this being has the charactistics that we would also aply to god"
Such as? You have not provided any evidence for any of these characteristics.
If causality is used to prove the existance of God then God is subject to the principle, so like dbes02 says, what causes God? If your only answer to that is that God does not need a cause, why can't the same be said for the big bang, or the universe itself, or even you and I? Either this principle is applied to the existance of God and proves that God does exist, but is not the beginning and end of creation because God must have some cause preceding it, or the principle simply dosn't apply.
@FrowningGORILLA no, clearly you weren't listening, all beings are contingent beings. we can't bring ourselves into existance. however the univerce is also contingent because you need stuff for there to be physics, and chemistry. before the big bang you have no stuff and therefor no physics or chemistry because they are contingent on stuff. so you have to have something that is not contingent make things that are contingent. if you don't then 'we' by definition of being contingent, don't exist.
This doesn't make sense. If everything does need a cause how does that lead to a magic man inthe sky? Then that magic man needs a cause. What is the cause of a god?
@dbes02 no, clearly you weren't listening, all beings are contingent beings. we can't bring ourselves into existance. however the univerce is also contingent because you need stuff for there to be physics, and chemistry. before the big bang you have no stuff and therefor no physics or chemistry because they are contingent on stuff. so you have to have something that is not contingent make things that are contingent. if you don't then 'we' by definition of being contingent, don't exist. but we do
And here are the usual standard return questions: Which god? Why your god? And why does nobody bring up the point that maybe the human brain is just not capable of imagining that there does not necessarily have to be a beginning or first cause?
We can't imagine more than our daily 4 dimensions.. physics states that there have to be at least 11. So, does this mean physics is wrong? Nope, it just means our brains suck.. ;)
@stinkpuppyohno As a theist, I want to say, Stink, GOOD POINT!
Trying to prove God's existence through artfully constructed philosophical syllogisms or this principle of causality just does not work if you are trying to say that it is the Judeo-Christian God. Whose not to see that it is some highly intelligent alien being that doesn't fit the Judeo-Christian perspective, or that it is a Muslim God, etc.? This is why I believe theology and science are on two different playing fields.
@StorminMormin91 In other words, the scientifc method does not seek to prove theology, and theology does not seek to prove science. I look for truth in both. I say that one can give me wonderful temporal, physical evidence and support of something that seems to be true and almost all cases, and the other can give me spiritual affirmation of One whom I believe to be a Divine and loving Being, which of course is a personal and subjective thing.
Can you prove that the universe is eternal? I mean, if a length exists within a 'densed' state, obviously, an infinite densed state implies, "A measure of how much mass is contained in a given unit volume (density = mass/volume). It is usually expressed in kg/m^3. Put simply, if mass is a measure of how much ‘stuff’ there is in an object, density is a measure of how tightly that ‘stuff’ is packed together. Explain how DENSITY existed BEFORE "Mass" came into existence via BB.
@youVSmee at the moment of the bb everything was energy.when that energy became a mass you get density.you can't have mass or density with the universe at an infinitly small point because you would need mas and density at that point and that would require space and time or at the very least space.time only exists, from what i can tell, once you have matter moving through space,and somthing infitely small doesn't have any space to have an 'inside' or an 'outside'. i be like'n that, what think ye?
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye,and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
its not a battle its not a media war,if someone wants to show someone the true path of christ then they should do it by emulating jesus, not arguing semantics,lead a good life,lead a frugal life and be kind to everyone, though sometimes i fall way short of that with muslims and their violent doctrine,i want my children to grow up in a good world
Take a look at all of the causes and effects that have gone on for the last 14 billion years? Was there a supernatural explanation necessary for any of them? Why should the beginning of the universe be any different?
Why is it that the god concept has retreated all the way back to the beginning of the universe? Its as if you are saying "You dont know how it all began, so I get to believe my preconceived conclusions". To which I say whose to say there was a beginning?
What we know for certain is the big bang occured, that we evolved, and that someone wrote the bible.
There is no evidence of a God however, and no reason why God does not require a cause.
The only things that do not require a cause are the laws of physics, as they are not real effects, they simply govern how causality is transformed into effect.
As many calculations can show the laws of physics lead to a big bang, Religion is simply human invention.
actually what you believe is not so certain. I've got lists of things that easily cause issues for the described "Big Bang Theory." The theory of evolution is also a badly promoted lie, held together by bad scientists(oh no, they exist!) and universities who carefully protect their lie... the majority of evo textbooks have "evidence" that's been proven false, some of it being even falsified over 100 years ago...but it's still in the texts.
All we know now is that the big bang happened and billions of years later here we happen to be through ages of evolution. And we will keep evolving into something we can't even imagine. Who are we to say that we know what or who God is or could be or if God even exists. We are but one of many simple forms of life that exists on many planets across the universe. If your familiar with probabilty and mathematics.
I can understand chemistry and physics and they tell me that EVERYTHING has a cause. An initiation has something to ignite it. What is not possible is something to exist without a cause. We can go on forever discovering what the cause of everything is but that is just being a reductionist. Yes.. something caused the Big Bang. But something caused that. And something caused that.. etc etc. etc..
Your not proving anything. How do you know he is not an effect. EVERYTHING is an effect from something. Your making a lot of suppositions here. One is that he is eternal and he simply is. How do you reach that premise? Where is the evidence? I can easily imagine something that is all existing that is EVIL that created us just to use us for his enjoyment and that he is all existing and nothing created him. I'd do this with the same rational as you which makes your argument ridiculous.
If everything needs a cause, then what casued God? Atheists do not break the law of causality, they just realize that trying to figure out what caused the big bang is being a reductionist. Something caused it, then something caused that and so forth. All we know is the big bang and that whatever caused that had to have a cause too. Therefore god couldn't exist because he breaks the laws of causality. Unless something caused God.
Every effect needs a "cause" that is awesome, FORCHRIST.
You just proved predestination for salvation. Thanks. God didn't choose because he knew what you were going to do, because in order for you to do anything there HAS to be an INITIAL CAUSE. That being God's decree to make you in the fist place, when He decreed and choose, he simultaneously knew what you would do. Cause effect. decree, predestination, knowledge. LOL....
Big bang has nothing to do with atheism.... plus, based on this argument, what is the cause of god? And if you say he doesn't have one then I say the big bang doesn't. What makes your argument any better
Every effect needs a cause. God is the effector, not an effect! No argument, you just percieved the point of the message. Probably watched it with some kind of bias did you? Open your mind & consider...
"Anything that has a beginning must have a cause"
Except that's not true. Radioactive decay, for instance, has no cause. It's also impossible to calculate where the particle will eject. And tunnelling isnt the cause, only the mechanism by which it can occur.
"the first cause must be God"
Why can't the first cause be the universe? The universe is simpler. God is merely an extra step. If you say "then what created the universe" ask yourself that about God. You can't have it both ways.
Don't you mean it has no fuel or catalyst, etc.? It begins at the point of contact & initiation. The cause is it's inability to attract & connect. God didn't have a "cause" to be. He simply is. He is that he is. If you can understand chemistry & physics, why can't you understand that? YHWH that YHWH!!! Blessed & sacred be his name.
Wow, so your argument proving god is that there just HAS to be something before the creation of all things? Because that sounds pretty close to just saying god created himself.
This is so far off from what is taught in the Catholic, and for that matter any Church. Thank you darius, for letting me know that there are still, alot of stupid people on the intranet, perticurally Christians that ignor the Bible.
Let's use your words then: "There must be a first cause. As has been proven, that was God"
Why there must be a first cause? Because we cannot have an infinite regress? Why not? Why is it better to have an unknown first cause than an infinite regress?
Let's say I agree anyway. Where's your proof that the first cause has been proven to be your particular god?
All you did is LABEL the 1st cause, you did not prove anything!
for the evangelical, LABELing is proof, didn't you know?
all you have to do is say you proved it, without actually engaging in the proof. Oh, and ignore all objections and simply throw terms at them like "straw man" without showing how it's a strawman (because in the cases here, they are not).
Wow, I was coming back to answer to you but I see that others did a good job already, and I don't have time to go through to all this...
Your last comment said that your god is uncaused, so causality does not apply to him. This shows that you understood NOTHING of the very first refutations that people presented to your video
The point of your video is that everything has a cause, except God
The point of the rebuttals is that this is SPECIAL PLEADING, and INVALID
This guy is one of those evanglists that just stumbled upon the beauty of philosophy and logic and is on a honeymoon thinking he will go to town with it .
It's great when people discover this. If he does any real debating or engaging - that is, if he's really interested, he'll see that regurgitating these arguments won't get him far, unless self-satisfaction is all he's after.
do you even know what "special pleading" is, FORCHRIST? When someone presents an objection in philosophy, you must, if you're at all interested in credibility, address why this is not special pleading, or if it an exception, the extraordinary evidence why this is the case.
"When someone presents an objection in philosophy, you must, if you're at all interested in credibility, address why this is not special pleading,"
If his argument is a strawman which it is there is no need to go further. But if you have studied logic you would not need me to explain that to you,,,, would you ...
where did you get taught to substitute arrogance for critical thinking?
Um, yes, you do - because you can't just assert that every counter argument is a strawman, you have to show why that is so. But you seem to demonstrate an distinct in ability to respond to the objections put to you. You are good, though, at throwing a philosophical term at it without justification.
It would be nice if Christians new to philosophy would read up on the responses to the cosmological argument before posting it in it's more basic form and claiming some irrefutable win. It makes you guys look silly and unread and, in truth, unconcerned about truth and more so about the Jesus Blankie you think it wins you.
Hum, you sent me a friend invite and the only I looked at is tis video you uploaded.
It's pointless, ridiculous and shows a lack of understanding of what the Big Bang represents.
Let me know if you want more details but I doubt you do as this is such a pointless argument that you made in this video that it shows a lack of understanding of reasoning skills.
I would love for you to recognize when it is refuted, as this one has been many times in the past. It's always nice to see a Christian discover philosophy and get so excited, despite repeating the errors of centuries ago.
I suggest you read David Hume and Spinoza and not just Aristotle, Aquinas, and the Bible.
that's an assertion not a case. Why does this particular cause not need a cause - how does it get it's own escape clause from the logic presented? If you can't articulate this "special exception" (a fallacy you obviously did not research) you have no case, no matter how much your emotions tell you otherwise.
you are mixing metaphors between painters and painting and source and cause. your analogy does nothing for requiring the universe's source, if any, to be some sort of creative god. It simply doesn't follow.
Actually no I did not copy and past that I type it out... People actually study apologetics in college and dont need to copy and past (every painter does not need a painter)
Ha! I can only imagine the name of that college. I would say that tantamount to "copy & pasting" since they don't encourage you do believe anything but one foregone conclusion.
No, Earth is not perfect for life. It's just highly suitable for life. and we, lifeforms had evolved to fit with its flaws simply to survive. We have gotten to a point where we are highly capable of intelligence and can easily imagine a being. Then again, we are getting smarter... defeating our imagination
Scientific theories change from time to time... atheists and scientists are not stupid. We would like to know the answers too... we don't place an imaginary being as the cause of the big bang... we don't know because there is no evidence
But the question remains... "Why put God in the gap?" With the principle of causality God would need a cause too...
I don't wholy agree with the big bang theory... and it's a topic a lot of creationists like to put God into...
What I'm saying is scientific theories change based on what we continue to find. There is evidence suggesting a big bang though, until we gather more evidence to prove otherwise.
I put God in the gap for many reasons.. If you study teleology you can see how intricate this universe is and how perfect the earth is for life. Inductive science tells us that this universe was created.
Since it was created we need creator. By very definition we call that creator God. Look up the definition for God in Merriam Websters dictionary it says creator of the universe.
No, quantum fluctuation are uncaused. They must exist at all points of spacetime and for the same reason spacetime must exist. The chances of truely nothing existing is 0. The uncertainty princible forbids it. Buy a breif history of time its not his pet theory but he acknowledge that it is possible. He's pet theory as I understand it is that time circles back on it's self meaning that there is a finite amount of time,but no begining of end.
Tell me since you are speaking of science theory, I would like you to provide evidence for quantum fluctuations being uncaused.
The inflation theory says that they were caused by the big bang. I noticed in another comment you said your theory does not contradict the theories I have provided. However 3 things you have said contradict modern science
Steven Hawkings believes this is possible. He talked about in "a brief history of time". That's I heard about it. And at least quantum fluctuation have been shown to exist. I said the big bang was one. Google "creation ex nihilo without god" the first result will explain it.
Notice you said it does not contradict but it is clear it does...
Any theory that contradicts our principles are foolish that is why no true scientist hold to that theory... Although the inflation theory is probable for explaining alot of stuff... But none of it explains what caused big bang
That's why I told you to google "creation ex nihilo without god" As I said before yes some scientist think its possible. The big bang was the begining of time it is physicly impossible for the begin of time to have a cause. I'm going to send you PM explaining it.
I read the article but I just read through it again... Let me makes some points
1. First is can very well be that it is not spontaneous creation... But spontaneous observation. It could very well be that they were created at the big bang, In that way it does not contradict the fundamental principles we know.
2. I dont know if you noticed in the article but the author equated the vacuum to the big bang as though it were the same or rather occurred at the same time. The article deeply relates to the inflation theory... We are speaking of the same thing however the author of this article has put a little different twist on it. As I shown you in my post that this is continued from. There is no proof that it is being created and destroyed. It very well could just be becoming observable
By definition virtual particles are not observed themselfs so no. Heisenberg's uncertainty princible. BTW how is your god proven if there is another way for the universe to come into being.
The 2nd law means that nothing can exist forever.Your god can't exist forever.Inorder to cause something you have to come before it.If god is outside of time he can't cause anything.Not created made,humans make basket balls is a natural explation since we are part of nature.BTW not ALL scientist say that.
On a side note countries that are more secular have lower crime, abortion, teen pregnancy and divorce rates then other countries. And religious countries have higher rates of all of the above.
Stop avoiding the question. It's very simple nothing can be eternal the 2nd law of thermodynamics forbids it. Denying the 2nd law is like denying 2+2=4 or squares have 4 sides. Also the christian/jewish/islamic god is very hate-able. BTW repent now unbliever and worship my personal god for which there is no evidence for. You know what screw that I'm going to go worship nature. After all when it comes right down to it nature is all that exist, all that ever existed and all that ever will.
Yeah the scientific unknowable. That remained unknowns because they are so vague they could be anything. You would think god would have made they clearer so we would know what he was talking about. You know something ike "At the heart of all matter is the atom which itself is made up of orbiting electrons and a central nuclie" but that would be to clear insightful.
It aslo says that the whole world was flooded. Also in the bible it took longer for an infinitly powerful being to create the Earth then the rest of the universe put together. It doesn't take a god to guess something right from time to time. An alknowing being would be right every time not some. BTW why did god feel it more importent to tell us about underwater springs then to tell of about antibiotics or that bleeding people isn't the cure for everything.
Not only could no one have known this scientific fact(that the earth is suspended on nothing) over 3,000 years ago, but it also can't be ANY CLEARER what is said.
show me someone who actually interpreted that verse as such prior to Galielo. It's quite easy to imagine more applicable readings - that it hands under heaven, which was taken for granted.
metaphysical: without material form or substance; "metaphysical forces" So his made out of nothing. The second law states that the amount of disorder in a closed system (god some how being outside of timespace must be a closed system) must always increase. Saying there is a closed system that defys this law is like saying there is a square with 5 sides. The 1st cause like everything else is part of nature. Time by definition can't have a cause.
Metaphysics (meta) means beyond (physics) physical. God is beoynd that which is physical. So I would ask you to explain to me how the second law applies to that which is beyond the physical..
The bible says god is omnipresent he exist everywhere inside of space according to your book, your wrong. There is no proof of the metaphysical. Time by definition can't have a cause.
A cause must come before the effect.
It must exist in the past from the viewpoint of the effect. Something outside of time can't cause anything.
Since he is infinite and eternal the finite world.. Time space and matter has no bearing on his being. Again that is what metaphysics is... You are confusing the physics and metaphysics..
So his existence doesn't matter if he is out of time he can't cause anything. So let me get this straight, you are trying to keep god from be disproven by hidding him in magic pixy land. To bad for you /screw the laws of physic, logic and reasoning my super daddy has magic/ isn't an arguement it's a surrender.
it's also selective reasoning - the causal argument is one of the natural world which Christians glibly apply to metaphysical entities - only when it's inconvenient is there suddenly a difference.
but since when did religious thinking give a care about consistency?
We didnt say that everything needs a cause; we said everything that has a beginning needs a cause. Only finite, contingent things need a cause. God didnt have a beginning; He is infinite and He is necessary. God is the uncaused cause of all finite things. If God needed a cause, we would begin an infinite regress of causes that would never answer the question. As it is, we cant ask, Who caused God? because God is the first cause. You cant go back any farther than a first.
again, you are merely asserting that god is a beginning - you're begging the question. and we wouldn't necessarily have an infinite regress if your first cause wasn't your god.
not to mention, that again, this is a time/space problem - causality - that certainly can't be thrust onto metaphysics or even "prior" to the big bang because there is no "prior" to time - and as such causality may not be an issue until time is introduced. As such the universe would need no "cause" anymore than god
Um, no you haven't. Simply barfing up the Ontological argument (I might add without giving credit to Anselm or Descartes) you also do so seemingly ignorant of Kant's response to this that "existence is not a predicate." Please educate yourself on the positions you pretend to advocate. You can't just be a parrot for your favorite apologetics propaganda machine.
You defeat your own argument with this - for causality is experienced, therefore NOT metaphysical. So causality only applies to things in space/time. If 2nd thermodynamics don't apply to god, nor does causality. Causality is not an abstraction (Hume, Berkeley) but an inference from experienced events.
as we are you. but you fail to respond with anything articulate.
just curious - why don't you credit the cosmological and ontological arguments you pose. You present this as if you thought it up yourself. you do realize the conversation on these has been going on for 5 centuries or so and you fail to address the objections put forth over the years. That's just bad scholarship and bad philosophy. You're pretending as if there has been no counter claims whatsoever.
Some reason I don't see Foxy's reply that I got in my email. But with the filthy language he used, why take the babbling mouth of an angry fool over anyone else? And no. Bible's author is God. The prophets were used by him like a pen because they were influenced by Holy Spirit, which is God.
Actully based on the different writing style, termology and most importently view points the bible had at least 5 authors. That is why it has so many contradicts and outright falsehoods like Noah's flood.
A book writen by god would be far better writen in fact it would be so well writen that other religion would be almost nonexistent, but 2/3 of the people on Earth don't believe in the bible.
Foxy's reply keeps getting deleted by FORCHRIST for FORCHRIST is a dick and doesn't like people seeing an alternative point of view. Bible written by God... you are an idiot and weak minded for giving up on looking for better answers than a magician in the sky.
We didnt say that everything needs a cause; we said everything that has a beginning needs a cause. Only finite, contingent things need a cause. God didnt have a beginning; He is infinite and He is necessary. God is the uncaused cause of all finite things. If God needed a cause, we would begin an infinite regress of causes that would never answer the question. As it is, we cant ask, Who caused God? because God is the first cause. You cant go back any farther than a first.
The thing is there are other more likely things that could be the first cause. The second law of thermodynamics that the amount of disorder in a closed system always increases means that nothing can last forever except the true vacuum (the lowest state of energy that everything is heading to.
"there are other more likely things that could be the first cause"
Maybe you can enlighten me to what existed before the big bang that caused the big bang. I would love to hear this new product that is beyond space time and matter to cause space time and matter.
You speaking of the vacuum scientist believe that is a by product of the big bang. So you have your order of cosmology wrong. Try again
No, you got it wrong the big bang was the result of the first quantum fluctuation. LIke I said before google "creation ex nihilo without god" it should be the first result.
BTW creation ex nihilo is easier then you would think sense the universe as 0 net energy (+- zero point energy) because binding energy is negative.
Scienctist had to come up with the rapid exapansion from the big bang. The problem was the bang that they believe occured going back 12 billion years could not have caused this expansion they had missing pieces. Thus they believe at the point of the big bang there produced quark soup and dark matter but it also caused a rapid expansion bigger and faster then it was expanding now. That was the purpose of the fluctuation theory.
Look I took the time to study this subject, the theory is called inflation cosmology you can read an article on it on wiki. They say it right their that the fluctuations come seconds after the big bang.
As I have already explain time can not have a cause sense causes must happen before the effect, but saying "before time" is as meaningless as saying "north of the north pole".
Fluctuation always exist they exist today. Wrong fluctuation theory. I,m talking about the uncertainty princible. A cause must exist before the effeect this is the 4 time I had to explain basic causation to you! And by the way I keep on tell you where I found this idea it explains it in full detell there. Stop back with the same arguement I took apart yesterday.
I have already looked at it. 99 % believe the universe had a beginning. The universe is space time and matter. I think you are wrong on cosmology. The inflation theory and the big bang theory is what is held by most scientist's today...
As I shown in my prior post it does contradict... It even contradicts the principle of causality. So there are 4 things it contradicts. That is why no one hold to it. It is not science but philosophy. Science is based on observation and no one has observed that fluctuations are eternal, uncaused and prior to the big bang
Here's the answer to your question, Mr. Theist. Listen closely... Who Cares? It doesn't matter how the universe was created. We will never know exactly. There is absolutely no justifiable reason to worship ANYTHING.
And did you by any chance delete the comment i left on your other video?
lol, there is a reason for well over 2000 years the Bible has called atheists fools.
Their philosophic world view boils down to believing in the scientific impossibility of everything coming from nothing.
"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice." -Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale, 2004.
I read the first one that came up... It was a joke. It spoke about the big bang... How can you have a bang without a cause. Sub atomic particles need a cause to. The fact that we cant really observe them does not change the fact that they still need a cause. You have to find out a way to get past the principle of causality which is not possible
Quantum fluctuations aren't caused. At the begining of time (by definition nothing can exist before this) quantum fluctuations created every possible universe infinity time is impossible because that would make uncertainty in time infinite. infinity * any number doesn't equal 1/2 of plank's reduced constant. Zero time is impossible for the same reasons. Do some reading up on physics.
Quantum fluctuations don't need a cause the same way "2+2=4" doesn't need a cause they are always and will always be there untill the end of time which will happen when the universe becomes as disordered as possible.
They are both mathematical. Uncertainty in energy times uncertainty in time equal 1/2 of Plank's reduced constant. BTW gravity is a form of negative energy so the universe has zero energy.
What a load of tripe. Just because a question appears syntactically correct doesn't mean it is valid or reaonable question (cf. "What is the meaning of life") - physics does not necessarily demand that matter had a cause, it always existed. A bit like the usual argument of where God came from "he always existed" - atheists just remove that extra unnecessary layer. kthxbye
Yeah... you can measure it by faith. They don't have the technology to do it accurately. They are going on a whim... aka theory. Same thing with big bang. What scientist was actually there? Did they actually witness it? NO. There for its just and educated GUESS... aka theory.
If you see a blownup building you know there was an explosion. The cosmic background radiation, the fact the universe is still expanding and the ratio of heilium to other elements. Eistein didn't like the big bang theory he tried to disprove it any way he could but he couldn't Oh, yeah, BTW eye witness is the least reliable form of evidence.
Which is a good point you prove. Eye witness isnt the best form of evidence. The scriptures were written by many hands sure. But influenced by one Spirit. If you knew that the old testament is a shadow and the new testament is it's reality. And knew what the parables were about, you'd know that the bible does not contradict itself at all.
But reading it with 'blind eyes' front to back, a person couldn't possibly understand it too well.
1 The new testiment has contradict in and of its self.
2 Same thing with the old testiment.
3 Once again if the bible were writen by god then more then 1/3 of the world would believe it. I tried to make excuses for these contradictions it just doesn't work.
Uh. Which one is the athiest? Which one is the Christ follower? Are you trying to make a point? The flat voices are confusing. The video ends with "Maybe we can get some answers from the athiest" - which sounds like an endorsement for atheism? Yes, we may one day find out the cause of the big bang.
This is a poor video.
arthurjeremypearson 1 month ago
I don't know what caused it, therefore it must have been God. There seem to be a few steps missing in that train of thought. If you don't know who stole your lunch, do you assume that it was God until proven otherwise?
THEHAR0LD 6 months ago
Why not have an infinite (if in different forms) universe?
logicalmind4 8 months ago
I don't think you get that the cause and effect principle is contingent upon time. Did time begin with the universe? If so, then there is no feasible way that it could be subject to the cause and effect principle as there couldn't be anything before that moment to cause it as there was no time. There is no such thing as before the beginning of time so the cause and effect principle can't work in this situation.
sunset261 11 months ago
@sunset261 time is used to help us understand or make the world make sence of our world in that it applies (as far a i know) to physical things moving through space. moments after the big bang there wasn't any physical matter, everything was a form of energy. if this is true then time did not start at the big bang but after it when energy became or transformed into some kind of matter. however there must have been some "time" between the bang and matter < 1 second. god can exist outside of time
RedLetterChristian 9 months ago
@sunset261 if you have ever drawn a time line then you know that there is alwasy the possability for before time. it's the space before start. but by definition what ever could exist before time can't be physicl. god qualifies for this because he is a spiritual being that could have instigated time 0, even if time 0 did happen the instant the big bang occured. because spiritual beings are not bound by time as we know it. when you die your physical body dies but your soul 'steps into' eternity.
RedLetterChristian 9 months ago
@RedLetterChristian No actually, there can be no before time because the very concept of "before" requires time to be present. They very concept of something occuring "before time" is a paradox.
sunset261 9 months ago
@sunset261 time is a measuring devise. mass over distance. it is possible that there is something that is larger and more complex than the devise it's self that could supersede the devise. a metronome is an example of a time keeping devise. the devise that calibrates the metronome is larger more complex and can set time 0 on the metronome. We are so bound by time that it is hard to think beyond it. a way to think in this manor would be to think of in time and outside of time(would need no mass)
RedLetterChristian 9 months ago
@RedLetterChristian Time is not a measuring device. I mean, we have systems that measure time but time is the name we give to the sequence of events. There can be no events period if there is no time. without time things cannot happen. It's hard to think outside of time because there is no reason to believe there IS a beyond it. I mean the very though of "setting" time is self-contradictory as time would have to already be present in order for that action to begin.
sunset261 9 months ago
I don't know how we got here exactly, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't because we were all hand crafted by a giant dude in the sky. Even if he is up there, he's a fucking asshole and anyone who follows him should have their heads examined.
CitizenCage 11 months ago
Love it . . . "there has to be a first cause, therefore (insert bible here)"
It's like someone saying , "there's a murder victim, therefore - a group of six Koala bears standing on each other's shoulders, wearing a longcoat, thick spectacles and a fake moustache raided the house for eucalyptus leaves and murdered the occupant with a magic potion given to them by the wood elves."
All the while the police are mocked when they say "We don't know who did it. We're still looking."
GrandSupremeDaddyo 11 months ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo no, clearly you weren't listening, all beings are contingent beings. we can't bring ourselves into existance. however the univerce is also contingent because you need stuff for there to be physics, and chemistry. before the big bang you have no stuff and therefor no physics or chemistry because they are contingent on stuff. so you have to have something that is not contingent make things that are contingent. if you don't then we by definition of being contingent don't exist.
RedLetterChristian 9 months ago
@RedLetterChristian
Think about what you're saying.
"Everything has a beginning, therefore there is something that has no beginning."
GrandSupremeDaddyo 9 months ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo no, what i'm saying is that everything that has substance or mass has a beginning there is a difference. the difference is that god does not have these and so is able to exist outside of and inside of what we understand to be the space time universe that we live in today. this makes him a being that is not contingent and able to create or make contingent stuff.
RedLetterChristian 9 months ago
@RedLetterChristian
Why does this non-contingent 'thing' have to be God? Perhaps non-contingency is not so rare outside our understanding of the universe. God seems to have it for no other reason than him being God. So why not imagine that the singularity of the big bang was itself not contingent.
If you have to assume there is something that is not contingent, there is no reason to add a whole other array of attributes such as omni-benevolence. It could be something completely abstract.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 9 months ago
@GrandSupremeDaddyo first, it doesn't have to be god, but it just so happens that this being has the charactistics that we would also aply to god. next the bb might not be contingent but for this to be you would have to show how it isn't. your last point about an abstract entity does not hold as pure abstractions only exist in the mind. and don't actually affect or effect anything themselves. true we can give them form (like nubers or definitions) but an abstraction is basicly an idea or ideal
RedLetterChristian 9 months ago
@RedLetterChristian
Well the only characteristic you can apply is non-contingency. Everything else is a baseless assumption.
By abstract I simply mean something formless and spontaneous. I am not claiming this is the case, and I am not claiming that the big bang was non-contingent. I am simply asking what is it about God that means only he doesn't have to be contingent. You are the one making the claim here not I.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 9 months ago
@RedLetterChristian
"the bb might not be contingent but for this to be you would have to show how it isn't"
Well, no I wouldn't. I am not claiming that it isn't. Rather, I am saying there is no reason to rule it out. You are the one not only claiming something is non-contingent but that nothing else is.
"it just so happens that this being has the charactistics that we would also aply to god"
Such as? You have not provided any evidence for any of these characteristics.
GrandSupremeDaddyo 7 months ago
first cause was me raping gods mom and i dont need a cause because i called no tag backs and im standing in the safety square!
drinkmoresoda 1 year ago
If causality is used to prove the existance of God then God is subject to the principle, so like dbes02 says, what causes God? If your only answer to that is that God does not need a cause, why can't the same be said for the big bang, or the universe itself, or even you and I? Either this principle is applied to the existance of God and proves that God does exist, but is not the beginning and end of creation because God must have some cause preceding it, or the principle simply dosn't apply.
FrowningGORILLA 1 year ago
@FrowningGORILLA no, clearly you weren't listening, all beings are contingent beings. we can't bring ourselves into existance. however the univerce is also contingent because you need stuff for there to be physics, and chemistry. before the big bang you have no stuff and therefor no physics or chemistry because they are contingent on stuff. so you have to have something that is not contingent make things that are contingent. if you don't then 'we' by definition of being contingent, don't exist.
RedLetterChristian 9 months ago
This doesn't make sense. If everything does need a cause how does that lead to a magic man inthe sky? Then that magic man needs a cause. What is the cause of a god?
But does everything needa cause?
dbes02 1 year ago
@dbes02 no, clearly you weren't listening, all beings are contingent beings. we can't bring ourselves into existance. however the univerce is also contingent because you need stuff for there to be physics, and chemistry. before the big bang you have no stuff and therefor no physics or chemistry because they are contingent on stuff. so you have to have something that is not contingent make things that are contingent. if you don't then 'we' by definition of being contingent, don't exist. but we do
RedLetterChristian 9 months ago
The usual bogus argumentation of believers.
And here are the usual standard return questions: Which god? Why your god? And why does nobody bring up the point that maybe the human brain is just not capable of imagining that there does not necessarily have to be a beginning or first cause?
We can't imagine more than our daily 4 dimensions.. physics states that there have to be at least 11. So, does this mean physics is wrong? Nope, it just means our brains suck.. ;)
24darh24 1 year ago
so how do you prove what the cause is?
stinkpuppyohno 1 year ago
@stinkpuppyohno As a theist, I want to say, Stink, GOOD POINT!
Trying to prove God's existence through artfully constructed philosophical syllogisms or this principle of causality just does not work if you are trying to say that it is the Judeo-Christian God. Whose not to see that it is some highly intelligent alien being that doesn't fit the Judeo-Christian perspective, or that it is a Muslim God, etc.? This is why I believe theology and science are on two different playing fields.
StorminMormin91 1 year ago
@StorminMormin91 In other words, the scientifc method does not seek to prove theology, and theology does not seek to prove science. I look for truth in both. I say that one can give me wonderful temporal, physical evidence and support of something that seems to be true and almost all cases, and the other can give me spiritual affirmation of One whom I believe to be a Divine and loving Being, which of course is a personal and subjective thing.
StorminMormin91 1 year ago
What if the Universe has no beginning and no end?
It never began.
There is no beginning.
It always was.
"I am the Alpha and the Omega."
tomken8dy 1 year ago
@tomken8dy
Can you prove that the universe is eternal? I mean, if a length exists within a 'densed' state, obviously, an infinite densed state implies, "A measure of how much mass is contained in a given unit volume (density = mass/volume). It is usually expressed in kg/m^3. Put simply, if mass is a measure of how much ‘stuff’ there is in an object, density is a measure of how tightly that ‘stuff’ is packed together. Explain how DENSITY existed BEFORE "Mass" came into existence via BB.
youVSmee 1 year ago
@youVSmee
If the Universe is curved through all (11? 17? infinite?)
dimensions then yes, it's infinite even if finite.
But if finite, what lies beyond?
Finite implies containment within a larger frame.
tomken8dy 1 year ago
@youVSmee at the moment of the bb everything was energy.when that energy became a mass you get density.you can't have mass or density with the universe at an infinitly small point because you would need mas and density at that point and that would require space and time or at the very least space.time only exists, from what i can tell, once you have matter moving through space,and somthing infitely small doesn't have any space to have an 'inside' or an 'outside'. i be like'n that, what think ye?
RedLetterChristian 9 months ago
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye,and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
its not a battle its not a media war,if someone wants to show someone the true path of christ then they should do it by emulating jesus, not arguing semantics,lead a good life,lead a frugal life and be kind to everyone, though sometimes i fall way short of that with muslims and their violent doctrine,i want my children to grow up in a good world
if im off to hell for that so be it
MrMiister 1 year ago
Take a look at all of the causes and effects that have gone on for the last 14 billion years? Was there a supernatural explanation necessary for any of them? Why should the beginning of the universe be any different?
Why is it that the god concept has retreated all the way back to the beginning of the universe? Its as if you are saying "You dont know how it all began, so I get to believe my preconceived conclusions". To which I say whose to say there was a beginning?
Raptor302 1 year ago
What we know for certain is the big bang occured, that we evolved, and that someone wrote the bible.
There is no evidence of a God however, and no reason why God does not require a cause.
The only things that do not require a cause are the laws of physics, as they are not real effects, they simply govern how causality is transformed into effect.
As many calculations can show the laws of physics lead to a big bang, Religion is simply human invention.
Chewy427 1 year ago
@Chewy427
actually what you believe is not so certain. I've got lists of things that easily cause issues for the described "Big Bang Theory." The theory of evolution is also a badly promoted lie, held together by bad scientists(oh no, they exist!) and universities who carefully protect their lie... the majority of evo textbooks have "evidence" that's been proven false, some of it being even falsified over 100 years ago...but it's still in the texts.
"big bang" is also a human invention.
droptozro 1 year ago
All we know now is that the big bang happened and billions of years later here we happen to be through ages of evolution. And we will keep evolving into something we can't even imagine. Who are we to say that we know what or who God is or could be or if God even exists. We are but one of many simple forms of life that exists on many planets across the universe. If your familiar with probabilty and mathematics.
MegaJbomber 1 year ago
I can understand chemistry and physics and they tell me that EVERYTHING has a cause. An initiation has something to ignite it. What is not possible is something to exist without a cause. We can go on forever discovering what the cause of everything is but that is just being a reductionist. Yes.. something caused the Big Bang. But something caused that. And something caused that.. etc etc. etc..
MegaJbomber 1 year ago
Your not proving anything. How do you know he is not an effect. EVERYTHING is an effect from something. Your making a lot of suppositions here. One is that he is eternal and he simply is. How do you reach that premise? Where is the evidence? I can easily imagine something that is all existing that is EVIL that created us just to use us for his enjoyment and that he is all existing and nothing created him. I'd do this with the same rational as you which makes your argument ridiculous.
MegaJbomber 1 year ago
If everything needs a cause, then what casued God? Atheists do not break the law of causality, they just realize that trying to figure out what caused the big bang is being a reductionist. Something caused it, then something caused that and so forth. All we know is the big bang and that whatever caused that had to have a cause too. Therefore god couldn't exist because he breaks the laws of causality. Unless something caused God.
MegaJbomber 1 year ago
Every effect needs a cause. Not every thing! Every effect! The creator is not an effect but he is the effector!
sthnwatch 1 year ago
Every effect needs a "cause" that is awesome, FORCHRIST.
You just proved predestination for salvation. Thanks. God didn't choose because he knew what you were going to do, because in order for you to do anything there HAS to be an INITIAL CAUSE. That being God's decree to make you in the fist place, when He decreed and choose, he simultaneously knew what you would do. Cause effect. decree, predestination, knowledge. LOL....
thor2me 1 year ago
is that Edge from U2?
akaichisaizubon 2 years ago
I love how your advertising your religon with a video that shows one of the people in a cage, and the other at the controls.
fadeHappy 2 years ago
Big bang has nothing to do with atheism.... plus, based on this argument, what is the cause of god? And if you say he doesn't have one then I say the big bang doesn't. What makes your argument any better
Prior23 2 years ago
Every effect needs a cause. God is the effector, not an effect! No argument, you just percieved the point of the message. Probably watched it with some kind of bias did you? Open your mind & consider...
sthnwatch 1 year ago
What the fuck is the video about??
(The actual visual stuff)
Some weird guy with a beard keeping some blue deformed chick in a cage above blue-yellow lava in his secret lair / space station?
rwjscaper 2 years ago
What does the Big Bang have to do with Atheism?
Should all Atheist be able to answer questions about science?
Should all Christians discard science as certain fields teach positions that do not agree with the bible?
locouru 2 years ago
@locouru No.
abaneyone 2 years ago
Ummmmmmm, what? This has to be the most retarded thing I have ever seen on you tube.
TinkXFD 2 years ago
"Anything that has a beginning must have a cause"
Except that's not true. Radioactive decay, for instance, has no cause. It's also impossible to calculate where the particle will eject. And tunnelling isnt the cause, only the mechanism by which it can occur.
"the first cause must be God"
Why can't the first cause be the universe? The universe is simpler. God is merely an extra step. If you say "then what created the universe" ask yourself that about God. You can't have it both ways.
gradius12 2 years ago
Don't you mean it has no fuel or catalyst, etc.? It begins at the point of contact & initiation. The cause is it's inability to attract & connect. God didn't have a "cause" to be. He simply is. He is that he is. If you can understand chemistry & physics, why can't you understand that? YHWH that YHWH!!! Blessed & sacred be his name.
sthnwatch 1 year ago
Why can't you understand that the universe simply is? It is that is. There is no need or even evidence for a God.
gradius12 1 year ago
Wow, so your argument proving god is that there just HAS to be something before the creation of all things? Because that sounds pretty close to just saying god created himself.
dariusblag 2 years ago
This is so far off from what is taught in the Catholic, and for that matter any Church. Thank you darius, for letting me know that there are still, alot of stupid people on the intranet, perticurally Christians that ignor the Bible.
orbitofdoom16 2 years ago
Let's use your words then: "There must be a first cause. As has been proven, that was God"
Why there must be a first cause? Because we cannot have an infinite regress? Why not? Why is it better to have an unknown first cause than an infinite regress?
Let's say I agree anyway. Where's your proof that the first cause has been proven to be your particular god?
All you did is LABEL the 1st cause, you did not prove anything!
hugopelland 2 years ago
for the evangelical, LABELing is proof, didn't you know?
all you have to do is say you proved it, without actually engaging in the proof. Oh, and ignore all objections and simply throw terms at them like "straw man" without showing how it's a strawman (because in the cases here, they are not).
yogurtking 2 years ago
"for the evangelical, LABELing is proof, didn't you know?"
Well at least I "learned" something ;)
hugopelland 2 years ago
Wow, I was coming back to answer to you but I see that others did a good job already, and I don't have time to go through to all this...
Your last comment said that your god is uncaused, so causality does not apply to him. This shows that you understood NOTHING of the very first refutations that people presented to your video
The point of your video is that everything has a cause, except God
The point of the rebuttals is that this is SPECIAL PLEADING, and INVALID
God = concept in your head
hugopelland 2 years ago
It does not suprise me you bring a straw man arguement to the table...
I said every effect needs a cause not that everything needs a cause...
Please think before you speak it is embarrassing when an argument has to be hand fed to you because you dont understand what is said..
By the way if you do have a mental disorder and cannot understand arguments because of it I apologize...
FORCHRST 2 years ago
Ridiculous...
What "things" do you consider to be part of the "everything" group but not part of the "effects" group?
These things are causeless? like your god?
Or perhaps your god is not the creator of everything? What a lame god, lol
hugopelland 2 years ago
This guy is one of those evanglists that just stumbled upon the beauty of philosophy and logic and is on a honeymoon thinking he will go to town with it .
It's great when people discover this. If he does any real debating or engaging - that is, if he's really interested, he'll see that regurgitating these arguments won't get him far, unless self-satisfaction is all he's after.
yogurtking 2 years ago
do you even know what "special pleading" is, FORCHRIST? When someone presents an objection in philosophy, you must, if you're at all interested in credibility, address why this is not special pleading, or if it an exception, the extraordinary evidence why this is the case.
i.e., repeating yourself (or rather, your mentors) doesn't strengthen your argument.
yogurtking 2 years ago
"When someone presents an objection in philosophy, you must, if you're at all interested in credibility, address why this is not special pleading,"
If his argument is a strawman which it is there is no need to go further. But if you have studied logic you would not need me to explain that to you,,,, would you ...
FORCHRST 2 years ago
where did you get taught to substitute arrogance for critical thinking?
Um, yes, you do - because you can't just assert that every counter argument is a strawman, you have to show why that is so. But you seem to demonstrate an distinct in ability to respond to the objections put to you. You are good, though, at throwing a philosophical term at it without justification.
And thanks for entirely avoiding the point made.
yogurtking 2 years ago
It would be nice if Christians new to philosophy would read up on the responses to the cosmological argument before posting it in it's more basic form and claiming some irrefutable win. It makes you guys look silly and unread and, in truth, unconcerned about truth and more so about the Jesus Blankie you think it wins you.
yogurtking 2 years ago
Lol, my professor has been teaching philosphy for 40 years.... How long has your professor been studying philosophy >?
FORCHRST 2 years ago
so now we're engaging in an appeal to authority?
yogurtking 2 years ago
Hum, you sent me a friend invite and the only I looked at is tis video you uploaded.
It's pointless, ridiculous and shows a lack of understanding of what the Big Bang represents.
Let me know if you want more details but I doubt you do as this is such a pointless argument that you made in this video that it shows a lack of understanding of reasoning skills.
hugopelland 2 years ago
I would love for you to refute my argument
FORCHRST 2 years ago
I would love for you to recognize when it is refuted, as this one has been many times in the past. It's always nice to see a Christian discover philosophy and get so excited, despite repeating the errors of centuries ago.
I suggest you read David Hume and Spinoza and not just Aristotle, Aquinas, and the Bible.
yogurtking 2 years ago
Yes, you are right God does not need a cause. because he caused all he is the first cause...
FORCHRST 2 years ago
that's an assertion not a case. Why does this particular cause not need a cause - how does it get it's own escape clause from the logic presented? If you can't articulate this "special exception" (a fallacy you obviously did not research) you have no case, no matter how much your emotions tell you otherwise.
yogurtking 2 years ago
Every cause does not need a cause...
Does every painter need a painter ? No
Does every painting need a painter ? Yes
FORCHRST 2 years ago
um, wrong again. The painter needs his parents. Nice mixing of metaphors though.
so each has a cause. perhaps the painter came from a plumber and a seamstress.
all that being said, what is possible doesn't establish that it is so. if you're going to do logic you'll have to be more stringent than that.
not to mention this sounds like it came straight out of an apologetic tract or book. copy and paste much?
yogurtking 2 years ago
Parents ... ? Hmmm
A painter does not need another painter to paint... What does parents have to do with the person being able to paint ?
FORCHRST 2 years ago
you are mixing metaphors between painters and painting and source and cause. your analogy does nothing for requiring the universe's source, if any, to be some sort of creative god. It simply doesn't follow.
yogurtking 2 years ago
We are talking about painting the cause of the painting is the painter. But you dont need another painter to cause the painter to paint ...
FORCHRST 2 years ago
You need another analogy. Coherence is a necessity for sound rationality. Who's on 1st?
yogurtking 2 years ago
Actually no I did not copy and past that I type it out... People actually study apologetics in college and dont need to copy and past (every painter does not need a painter)
FORCHRST 2 years ago
Ha! I can only imagine the name of that college. I would say that tantamount to "copy & pasting" since they don't encourage you do believe anything but one foregone conclusion.
yogurtking 2 years ago
;) lol
FORCHRST 2 years ago
As I said, every painter does not need a painter... Every cause does not need a cause. There must be a first cause. As has been proven, that was God
FORCHRST 2 years ago
No, Earth is not perfect for life. It's just highly suitable for life. and we, lifeforms had evolved to fit with its flaws simply to survive. We have gotten to a point where we are highly capable of intelligence and can easily imagine a being. Then again, we are getting smarter... defeating our imagination
izovire 2 years ago
Scientific theories change from time to time... atheists and scientists are not stupid. We would like to know the answers too... we don't place an imaginary being as the cause of the big bang... we don't know because there is no evidence
izovire 2 years ago
@izovire
The principle of causality says it must be so...
FORCHRST 2 years ago
But the question remains... "Why put God in the gap?" With the principle of causality God would need a cause too...
I don't wholy agree with the big bang theory... and it's a topic a lot of creationists like to put God into...
What I'm saying is scientific theories change based on what we continue to find. There is evidence suggesting a big bang though, until we gather more evidence to prove otherwise.
izovire 2 years ago
@izovire
I put God in the gap for many reasons.. If you study teleology you can see how intricate this universe is and how perfect the earth is for life. Inductive science tells us that this universe was created.
Since it was created we need creator. By very definition we call that creator God. Look up the definition for God in Merriam Websters dictionary it says creator of the universe.
FORCHRST 2 years ago
The Earth (not earth) is not perfect for life. Viruses. Watch zuke696's video stupid design.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
@SuperMerlin100
You have overlook all the positive proof
FORCHRST 2 years ago
No, quantum fluctuation are uncaused. They must exist at all points of spacetime and for the same reason spacetime must exist. The chances of truely nothing existing is 0. The uncertainty princible forbids it. Buy a breif history of time its not his pet theory but he acknowledge that it is possible. He's pet theory as I understand it is that time circles back on it's self meaning that there is a finite amount of time,but no begining of end.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
@SuperMerlin100
Tell me since you are speaking of science theory, I would like you to provide evidence for quantum fluctuations being uncaused.
The inflation theory says that they were caused by the big bang. I noticed in another comment you said your theory does not contradict the theories I have provided. However 3 things you have said contradict modern science
1. Fluctuations always existed
2. Fluctuations are uncaused
3. Fluctuations are prior to the big bang
According to
FORCHRST 2 years ago
Heisenberg's uncertainty princible.
Steven Hawkings believes this is possible. He talked about in "a brief history of time". That's I heard about it. And at least quantum fluctuation have been shown to exist. I said the big bang was one. Google "creation ex nihilo without god" the first result will explain it.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
@SuperMerlin100
Notice you said it does not contradict but it is clear it does...
Any theory that contradicts our principles are foolish that is why no true scientist hold to that theory... Although the inflation theory is probable for explaining alot of stuff... But none of it explains what caused big bang
FORCHRST 2 years ago
That's why I told you to google "creation ex nihilo without god" As I said before yes some scientist think its possible. The big bang was the begining of time it is physicly impossible for the begin of time to have a cause. I'm going to send you PM explaining it.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
@SuperMerlin100
I read the article but I just read through it again... Let me makes some points
1. First is can very well be that it is not spontaneous creation... But spontaneous observation. It could very well be that they were created at the big bang, In that way it does not contradict the fundamental principles we know.
cont>
FORCHRST 2 years ago
@FORCHRST
2. I dont know if you noticed in the article but the author equated the vacuum to the big bang as though it were the same or rather occurred at the same time. The article deeply relates to the inflation theory... We are speaking of the same thing however the author of this article has put a little different twist on it. As I shown you in my post that this is continued from. There is no proof that it is being created and destroyed. It very well could just be becoming observable
FORCHRST 2 years ago
By definition virtual particles are not observed themselfs so no. Heisenberg's uncertainty princible. BTW how is your god proven if there is another way for the universe to come into being.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
We know that these virtual particles are "really there" in empty space because they leave a detectable trace of their activities. So yes...
They can very easily be comming unto observation.
Also the idea of God fits with the prinicple of causality. So again all the scienctist agree the universe had a begining. Second law states so..
Let me ask you a question....
If you are walking through the forest and come across basket ball do you believe it was created ?
FORCHRST 2 years ago
The 2nd law means that nothing can exist forever.Your god can't exist forever.Inorder to cause something you have to come before it.If god is outside of time he can't cause anything.Not created made,humans make basket balls is a natural explation since we are part of nature.BTW not ALL scientist say that.
On a side note countries that are more secular have lower crime, abortion, teen pregnancy and divorce rates then other countries. And religious countries have higher rates of all of the above.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
typical of a God hater trying to bring up arguments irrelevant to the Truth of Christianity.
that have absolutely no bearing on if something is true or not.
yes, Islam and Catholicism are 2 huge cults.
Islam is a death cult and Catholicism is a slave cult.
what's new?
I'd just like to see your explanation for those scientific unknowables in the Bible.
repentNOWunbelievers 2 years ago
Stop avoiding the question. It's very simple nothing can be eternal the 2nd law of thermodynamics forbids it. Denying the 2nd law is like denying 2+2=4 or squares have 4 sides. Also the christian/jewish/islamic god is very hate-able. BTW repent now unbliever and worship my personal god for which there is no evidence for. You know what screw that I'm going to go worship nature. After all when it comes right down to it nature is all that exist, all that ever existed and all that ever will.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
Yeah the scientific unknowable. That remained unknowns because they are so vague they could be anything. You would think god would have made they clearer so we would know what he was talking about. You know something ike "At the heart of all matter is the atom which itself is made up of orbiting electrons and a central nuclie" but that would be to clear insightful.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
@SuperMerlin100
In the Book of Job, chapter 38, God demonstrates his power and Knowledge, making it CLEAR WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT.
God demonstrates this in chapter 38 by saying multiple things that ONLY GOD could have known at this time.
This was written over 3,000 years ago.
Job 38:16 Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea?..
Job 38:16 talks about "springs of the sea." It wasn't until 1977 that scientists discovered that there were springs in the sea.
repentNOWunbelievers 2 years ago
It aslo says that the whole world was flooded. Also in the bible it took longer for an infinitly powerful being to create the Earth then the rest of the universe put together. It doesn't take a god to guess something right from time to time. An alknowing being would be right every time not some. BTW why did god feel it more importent to tell us about underwater springs then to tell of about antibiotics or that bleeding people isn't the cure for everything.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
Job 26:7 ...and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
Job 26:7 says God hangs the earth upon nothing.
Not only could no one have known this scientific fact(that the earth is suspended on nothing) over 3,000 years ago, but it also can't be ANY CLEARER what is said.
repentNOWunbelievers 2 years ago
The Earth hangs on the sun's gravitional pole. The bible got it wrong.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
show me someone who actually interpreted that verse as such prior to Galielo. It's quite easy to imagine more applicable readings - that it hands under heaven, which was taken for granted.
thanks for playing try again!
yogurtking 2 years ago
Hmmm, can you show me where in the second law it says God cant exist. ? Maybe you should take some time to understand what Christians believe.
Lets start with this... God is metaphysical,,,, So how would the second law have bearing on a metaphysical being ?
FORCHRST 2 years ago
metaphysical: without material form or substance; "metaphysical forces" So his made out of nothing. The second law states that the amount of disorder in a closed system (god some how being outside of timespace must be a closed system) must always increase. Saying there is a closed system that defys this law is like saying there is a square with 5 sides. The 1st cause like everything else is part of nature. Time by definition can't have a cause.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
Metaphysics (meta) means beyond (physics) physical. God is beoynd that which is physical. So I would ask you to explain to me how the second law applies to that which is beyond the physical..
God is beyond space time and Matter....
FORCHRST 2 years ago
The bible says god is omnipresent he exist everywhere inside of space according to your book, your wrong. There is no proof of the metaphysical. Time by definition can't have a cause.
A cause must come before the effect.
It must exist in the past from the viewpoint of the effect. Something outside of time can't cause anything.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
Since he is infinite and eternal the finite world.. Time space and matter has no bearing on his being. Again that is what metaphysics is... You are confusing the physics and metaphysics..
FORCHRST 2 years ago
So his existence doesn't matter if he is out of time he can't cause anything. So let me get this straight, you are trying to keep god from be disproven by hidding him in magic pixy land. To bad for you /screw the laws of physic, logic and reasoning my super daddy has magic/ isn't an arguement it's a surrender.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
As I said when you brought up that point... You should understand what we believe about God before trying to refute what you think we believe.
FORCHRST 2 years ago
Why are you still arguing? You already gave up.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
What ????????
FORCHRST 2 years ago
Therefore your argument from the second law is a strawman because it does not represent what Christians believe... We believe in a metaphysical God
FORCHRST 2 years ago
Like I said before /Screw the laws of physics our super daddy lives in magic pixy land!/ isn't an arguement it's a surrender.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
Beyond space time and matter... Metaphysical....
Your second law argument is self refuting, it is a strawman... I am just pointing it out.....
FORCHRST 2 years ago
it's also selective reasoning - the causal argument is one of the natural world which Christians glibly apply to metaphysical entities - only when it's inconvenient is there suddenly a difference.
but since when did religious thinking give a care about consistency?
yogurtking 2 years ago
We didnt say that everything needs a cause; we said everything that has a beginning needs a cause. Only finite, contingent things need a cause. God didnt have a beginning; He is infinite and He is necessary. God is the uncaused cause of all finite things. If God needed a cause, we would begin an infinite regress of causes that would never answer the question. As it is, we cant ask, Who caused God? because God is the first cause. You cant go back any farther than a first.
FORCHRST 2 years ago
again, you are merely asserting that god is a beginning - you're begging the question. and we wouldn't necessarily have an infinite regress if your first cause wasn't your god.
not to mention, that again, this is a time/space problem - causality - that certainly can't be thrust onto metaphysics or even "prior" to the big bang because there is no "prior" to time - and as such causality may not be an issue until time is introduced. As such the universe would need no "cause" anymore than god
yogurtking 2 years ago
"again, you are merely asserting that god is a beginning "
Yes, I am... I have already proved he exists...
1. If God exists, we conceive of Him as a necessary Being.
2. By definition, a necessary Being must exist and cannot not exist.
3. Therefore, if God exists, then He must exist and cannot not exist.
Therefore since God does exist he cannot not exist and must be the first cause
FORCHRST 2 years ago
Um, no you haven't. Simply barfing up the Ontological argument (I might add without giving credit to Anselm or Descartes) you also do so seemingly ignorant of Kant's response to this that "existence is not a predicate." Please educate yourself on the positions you pretend to advocate. You can't just be a parrot for your favorite apologetics propaganda machine.
yogurtking 2 years ago
and again, if you put him in the realm of metaphysical your argument falls apart, as it only applies to what's experienced in the natural universe.
yogurtking 2 years ago
and again - beyond causality, i.e., beyond being a physical effect OR a physical cause. Nice self-refutation you have there.
yogurtking 2 years ago
I like what you said here, you proved my point for me
FORCHRST 2 years ago
um, points finger back and says, "no."
You see, in philosophy, we have this thing called "articulation." It's sort of required, FYI.
yogurtking 2 years ago
You defeat your own argument with this - for causality is experienced, therefore NOT metaphysical. So causality only applies to things in space/time. If 2nd thermodynamics don't apply to god, nor does causality. Causality is not an abstraction (Hume, Berkeley) but an inference from experienced events.
yogurtking 2 years ago
Yess God is uncaused causality does not apply to him ...
FORCHRST 2 years ago
and again, you simply ignore what is given to you explicitly to comment on. So much for 1 Peter 3:15 -> FAIL.
if outside causal sequence, as God is, he cannot MAKE ANYTHING HAPPEN EITHER. Clear now?
yogurtking 2 years ago
U am going offf of what you clearly said. You can change your statement if you like.
FORCHRST 2 years ago
as we are you. but you fail to respond with anything articulate.
just curious - why don't you credit the cosmological and ontological arguments you pose. You present this as if you thought it up yourself. you do realize the conversation on these has been going on for 5 centuries or so and you fail to address the objections put forth over the years. That's just bad scholarship and bad philosophy. You're pretending as if there has been no counter claims whatsoever.
yogurtking 2 years ago
Some reason I don't see Foxy's reply that I got in my email. But with the filthy language he used, why take the babbling mouth of an angry fool over anyone else? And no. Bible's author is God. The prophets were used by him like a pen because they were influenced by Holy Spirit, which is God.
icebeam23860 2 years ago
Actully based on the different writing style, termology and most importently view points the bible had at least 5 authors. That is why it has so many contradicts and outright falsehoods like Noah's flood.
A book writen by god would be far better writen in fact it would be so well writen that other religion would be almost nonexistent, but 2/3 of the people on Earth don't believe in the bible.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
Foxy's reply keeps getting deleted by FORCHRIST for FORCHRIST is a dick and doesn't like people seeing an alternative point of view. Bible written by God... you are an idiot and weak minded for giving up on looking for better answers than a magician in the sky.
FoxyFreddie 2 years ago
@FoxyFreddie
I dont know what you are talking about.. You just posted didnt you... ?
FORCHRST 2 years ago
It's not about the alternate view. It's your filthy language. It always sounds like you're ranting rather than discussing.
icebeam23860 2 years ago
Then god is also an effect. And what is the cause of god?
qmaqdk 2 years ago
We didnt say that everything needs a cause; we said everything that has a beginning needs a cause. Only finite, contingent things need a cause. God didnt have a beginning; He is infinite and He is necessary. God is the uncaused cause of all finite things. If God needed a cause, we would begin an infinite regress of causes that would never answer the question. As it is, we cant ask, Who caused God? because God is the first cause. You cant go back any farther than a first.
FORCHRST 2 years ago
The thing is there are other more likely things that could be the first cause. The second law of thermodynamics that the amount of disorder in a closed system always increases means that nothing can last forever except the true vacuum (the lowest state of energy that everything is heading to.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
@SuperMerlin100
"there are other more likely things that could be the first cause"
Maybe you can enlighten me to what existed before the big bang that caused the big bang. I would love to hear this new product that is beyond space time and matter to cause space time and matter.
You speaking of the vacuum scientist believe that is a by product of the big bang. So you have your order of cosmology wrong. Try again
FORCHRST 2 years ago
No, you got it wrong the big bang was the result of the first quantum fluctuation. LIke I said before google "creation ex nihilo without god" it should be the first result.
BTW creation ex nihilo is easier then you would think sense the universe as 0 net energy (+- zero point energy) because binding energy is negative.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
@SuperMerlin100
you are wrong...
Scienctist had to come up with the rapid exapansion from the big bang. The problem was the bang that they believe occured going back 12 billion years could not have caused this expansion they had missing pieces. Thus they believe at the point of the big bang there produced quark soup and dark matter but it also caused a rapid expansion bigger and faster then it was expanding now. That was the purpose of the fluctuation theory.
FORCHRST 2 years ago
continued
Look I took the time to study this subject, the theory is called inflation cosmology you can read an article on it on wiki. They say it right their that the fluctuations come seconds after the big bang.
You are incorrect in the order of your cosmology
FORCHRST 2 years ago
As I have already explain time can not have a cause sense causes must happen before the effect, but saying "before time" is as meaningless as saying "north of the north pole".
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
@SuperMerlin100
Space time and matter does not
1. Cause itself
2. Is not uncaused
3. It must be caused by another since we have no other option..
It cannot be uncaused then it would be eternal but we know that it is not b/c it began at a certain point )big bang(
FORCHRST 2 years ago
Fluctuation always exist they exist today. Wrong fluctuation theory. I,m talking about the uncertainty princible. A cause must exist before the effeect this is the 4 time I had to explain basic causation to you! And by the way I keep on tell you where I found this idea it explains it in full detell there. Stop back with the same arguement I took apart yesterday.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
@SuperMerlin100
I have already looked at it. 99 % believe the universe had a beginning. The universe is space time and matter. I think you are wrong on cosmology. The inflation theory and the big bang theory is what is held by most scientist's today...
FORCHRST 2 years ago
My idea doesn't contradict those theories.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
@SuperMerlin100
As I shown in my prior post it does contradict... It even contradicts the principle of causality. So there are 4 things it contradicts. That is why no one hold to it. It is not science but philosophy. Science is based on observation and no one has observed that fluctuations are eternal, uncaused and prior to the big bang
FORCHRST 2 years ago
Here's the answer to your question, Mr. Theist. Listen closely... Who Cares? It doesn't matter how the universe was created. We will never know exactly. There is absolutely no justifiable reason to worship ANYTHING.
And did you by any chance delete the comment i left on your other video?
SuperTasm 2 years ago
I don't see how "the universe needs a cause" implies "god caused the universe."
andrew11235 2 years ago
@ andrew1135
The cause is a creator; a creator of the universe is by dictionary definition God.
FORCHRST 2 years ago
hey bro!
lol, there is a reason for well over 2000 years the Bible has called atheists fools.
Their philosophic world view boils down to believing in the scientific impossibility of everything coming from nothing.
"The fact that life evolved out of nearly nothing, some 10 billion years after the universe evolved out of literally nothing is a fact so staggering that I would be mad to attempt words to do it justice." -Richard Dawkins, The Ancestor's Tale, 2004.
repentNOWunbelievers 2 years ago
The universe has 0 energy. Gravity is a form of negative energy. Google "creation ex nihilo without god".
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
I read the first one that came up... It was a joke. It spoke about the big bang... How can you have a bang without a cause. Sub atomic particles need a cause to. The fact that we cant really observe them does not change the fact that they still need a cause. You have to find out a way to get past the principle of causality which is not possible
FORCHRST 2 years ago
Quantum fluctuations aren't caused. At the begining of time (by definition nothing can exist before this) quantum fluctuations created every possible universe infinity time is impossible because that would make uncertainty in time infinite. infinity * any number doesn't equal 1/2 of plank's reduced constant. Zero time is impossible for the same reasons. Do some reading up on physics.
Our idea doesn't need magic to work.
Google creation ex nihilo without god
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
So you are saying that quantum fluctuations are not an effect >? Do they cause themselves or are they caused by another ?
FORCHRST 2 years ago
The same could be said about your god.
Quantum fluctuations don't need a cause the same way "2+2=4" doesn't need a cause they are always and will always be there untill the end of time which will happen when the universe becomes as disordered as possible.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
how do you compare a transcendent concept such as mathematics with something that creates an entire universe out of nothing...quantum fluctuations?
simple475 2 years ago
They are both mathematical. Uncertainty in energy times uncertainty in time equal 1/2 of Plank's reduced constant. BTW gravity is a form of negative energy so the universe has zero energy.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
@supermerlin100
That did not answer simple 475's question
FORCHRST 2 years ago
What question?
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
What a load of tripe. Just because a question appears syntactically correct doesn't mean it is valid or reaonable question (cf. "What is the meaning of life") - physics does not necessarily demand that matter had a cause, it always existed. A bit like the usual argument of where God came from "he always existed" - atheists just remove that extra unnecessary layer. kthxbye
FoxyFreddie 2 years ago
@FoxyFreddie I do love the "kthxbye" typically used when someone felt they've proven a point with a tad of arrogance.
All of these things scientists prove are only at the extent of human knowledge. Scientists don't know much of anything about the universe.
Yet most have faith in this "Dark Matter" concept which is something they can't "prove" nor do they have the technology to "prove".
icebeam23860 2 years ago
WE can measure dark matter that's a form of proof.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
Yeah... you can measure it by faith. They don't have the technology to do it accurately. They are going on a whim... aka theory. Same thing with big bang. What scientist was actually there? Did they actually witness it? NO. There for its just and educated GUESS... aka theory.
icebeam23860 2 years ago
If you see a blownup building you know there was an explosion. The cosmic background radiation, the fact the universe is still expanding and the ratio of heilium to other elements. Eistein didn't like the big bang theory he tried to disprove it any way he could but he couldn't Oh, yeah, BTW eye witness is the least reliable form of evidence.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago
Which is a good point you prove. Eye witness isnt the best form of evidence. The scriptures were written by many hands sure. But influenced by one Spirit. If you knew that the old testament is a shadow and the new testament is it's reality. And knew what the parables were about, you'd know that the bible does not contradict itself at all.
But reading it with 'blind eyes' front to back, a person couldn't possibly understand it too well.
icebeam23860 2 years ago
1 The new testiment has contradict in and of its self.
2 Same thing with the old testiment.
3 Once again if the bible were writen by god then more then 1/3 of the world would believe it. I tried to make excuses for these contradictions it just doesn't work.
SuperMerlin100 2 years ago