Problems With The First Cause Argument

Here is why the First Cause argument is a bad one!

EDIT: To be fair, the argument for the existence of God used by Thomas was not actually to demonstrate the existence of the Christian God outright; he claimed that later in his work, he just wanted to establish the existence of a God.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• atheism
• theism
• god
• argument
• christianity
• First
• Cause
• cosmology
• evolution
• creationism

[geilanderable]

You see. Big bang theorist they argue only with very "plastic" and unconcrete terms.

Fancy terms:

- singularity

- quantum fluctuations (whatever that may be)

- 10-32 second

- inflation (euphemism of explosion)

They make diagrams, lines with "fundamental forces" and pictures that get you a feeling of : you know nothing.

But it is just guessing and making large leaps and assumptions.

They make their own religion, based on "forces of the sky" (demons?)

[lucretius1]

Singularity: A single point (the smallest possible physically meaningful point being a Planck Length) that is of infinite density.

Quantum fluctuation: A result hinted at by the uncertainty principle that tells us that the energy of background space is not constant at zero, but fluctuates around some non-zero value. This is verified by the Casimir Effect.

10^-32 seconds. This is a number... didn't pass basic math?

[lucretius1]

Inflation: An era during the Big Bang of rapid expansion due to the release of potential energy trapped in the inflaton field.

These things are very well defined. IF you took some simple physics courses instead of throwing in the towel when a big word comes your way you might learn a thing or two instead of remaining a simpleton.

[BreakoutLuceal]

@questioningthecosmos

You would also be assuming that it is evidence of a possible past eternal universe. you can't go from A to Z like that. You have to provide evidence or it just becomes your own belief. On the other hand, we have a large amount of evidence showing the universe could not possibly be eternal in the past.

[BreakoutLuceal]

@questioningthecosmo

You are going away from the original point I made about this guy's claim.

I will grant you that the BB singularity has different interpretations in the way its used and then you can claim I am mainly assuming a point in the form of a singularity. However, it doesn't mean its evidence that something could of preceded that point whether its infinite or not.

[questioningthecosmos]

@BreakoutLuceal This is flat wrong. No one questions the existence of black holes. Relativity is an incomplete theory that leads to logical absurdities like singularities when it is inappropriately applied. Quantum mechanics does not allow things like 'infinite density zero-size' to exist. You are only applying half of what is necessary to understand black holes. You can't do that.

[qwertclyde1092]

nice very logical

[BreakoutLuceal]

@questioningthecosmos

Now, this does not mean that every singularity is the big bang, which I think you are confusing with black holes. However, the point is no one’s questioning the existence of singularities anymore than they are questioning the existence of black holes unlike quantum gravity which is questionable and is in its infancy. This could very well be the first time quantum gravity reveals that a singularity is possible in this particular situation regarding the big bang.

[BreakoutLuceal]

@questioningthecosmos

Black holes are collapsed stars that eventually reach zero size and infinite density, which is known as a singularity. So if you are going to question the existence of singularities you are also (questioning empirically) verified black holes because they are synonymous.

[questioningthecosmos]

Singularities are an application of general relativity where it does not apply. The theory is not constructed to handle quantum mechanics (evidenced by the need to create a theory of quantum gravity uniting the two). You need to incorporate quantum mechanics before you go claiming the existence of singularities. And so far every theory of quantum gravity we propose is singularity free. Basically, once you fix relativity to work in these situations, you don't get singularities.

[BreakoutLuceal]

Singularities are at the center of every black hole ,according to basic cosmological principles. Its another way to justify the big bang singularity, so no one's questioning the existence of singularities (except you of course).

As far as quantum theory is concerned, (as you even alluded) we do not know enough about quantum mechanics to even be contemplating the non-existence of singularities (Especially when we have all this evidence for the existence of singularities).