First Cause

[ant]

Both time and space and all matter only came into existence with the Big Bang

What evidence is there for this claim?

So if there has to be a First Cause, it was the Big Bang.

What was it that actually "banged"?

Saying something called "God" caused the Big Bang only adds an unnecessary layer of complexity for which there is no evidence.

I'd note that you are speculating here to the 10th degree.
And quite frankly, Creation does not need to obey your demands for simplicity.
Your demands for evidence that their was a First Cause no doubt will go unheard.

You seem to be implying here that the Big Bang did its thing with absolutely nothing existing prior to it.

That's a pretty complex act - to make something bang from nothing. Or are you saying that occurrence is a simple one?
Explain the simplicity of that.

I can understand that you are willing to say "It was magic!" that made something bang from nothing. But in the same breath demand evidence that God exists?
That's irrational.

The problem with diehard atheists is that they pretend to be humble when discussing mysteries of creation.
But their act immediately goes south when they assert that something quite possibly beyond our comprehension could NOT have played a vital role.
That's the arrogance of false humility for you.

[geo]

. . . The problem with diehard atheists is that they pretend to be humble when discussing mysteries of creation. .

The Big Bang is a working theory about the beginning of the universe. It's based on the observation that the universe is expanding. We have traced this expansion back in time to when the universe occupied an infinitesimal point in space. I agree it's a highly speculative, but it is most accepted theory for how the universe began.

By the way, the Big Bang theory is not my theory. If you have problems with it, it seems your problem is with science and not atheists.

What I have said all along is that we hardly know anything about the Big Bang and we certainly can't fathom what came before the Big Bang. How is that "pretending" to be humble?

I'm only trying to discuss the First Cause argument. I am not attacking you or theists in general, nor am I making broad generalizations about theists.

You, on the other hand, use terms like "diehard theists." I wonder that you don't catch yourself when you make these incredible generalizations. In your previous rant, you used the following terms :

"Scientism adherents"

"Oracle of Science"

"militant atheist"

"the dishonest and ignorant atheist"

or simply "the atheist."

Everything to you is reduced to an atheist / theist dichotomy. It seems that without a coherent thought of your own, all you can do is create a caricature of atheists. Your brain is stuck.

If you have such disdain for me and other atheists, why do you even bother talking to us. You are simply incapable of expressing a thought without incorporating derision and criticism towards atheists. Why is that?

I can understand that you are willing to say "It was magic!" that made something bang from nothing. But in the same breath demand evidence that God exists?

More caricatural nonsense—classic anting. No one demands evidence for God except in response to someone making the claim that God exists.

[ant]

You actually are speaking of a hypothesis that is losing lots of its flavor due to new discoveries and developed hypothesis. Let me briefly introduce you to something very intriguing that will bring you a bit more up to date on the science of it all.

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blo ... -universe/

The short of it is that what we are seeing from the big bang may actually be an imprint pattern before the big bang. Our very first impressions were that it was the beginning of space and time. But since hypothesis are highly evolutionary, we are still woefully short of confirmatory data. We still don't have a freaking clue. There simply isn't enough evidence, or we are not interpreting the amount of evidence we have to work with properly. Actually, the evidence may in fact turn out NOT to be evidence for what we thought it signified.

I don't think anyone really knows what is going on here. Certainly not you.

But God does not exist because there is no evidence for God.

Maybe one day someone will take a picture of him for all of us to see, Geo.
I mean, if we can't see it, it doesn't exist!
Totally logical!


Also, as another point of interest. I read somewhere that there have been discoveries of objects in the universe that are older than what we estimate the universe to be. We just recently have been able to detect them because our technology as advanced enough to see farther.

We are too limited to fully understand what is going on.

But god does not exist. That much I am sure of.

[geo]

I don't think anyone really knows what is going on here. Certainly not you.

But God does not exist because there is no evidence for God.

Maybe one day someone will take a picture of him for all of us to see, Geo.
I mean, if we can't see it, it doesn't exist!
Totally logical!

Also, as another point of interest. I read somewhere that there have been discoveries of objects in the universe that are older than what we estimate the universe to be. We just recently have been able to detect them because our technology as advanced enough to see farther.

We are too limited to fully understand what is going on.

You don't even know you're doing it. You're creating a caricature of an atheist so you can mock it. Amazing.

Naturally, the Big Bang theory is incomplete and will continue to be revised as more data comes in. I really don't think the theory is "losing its flavor." What does that even mean?

I have no doubt that the age of the universe will also continue to be revised. No one says that we definitely know the age of the universe. It may turn out that we are only one iteration of an infinite number of universes.

I don't know if there's a god or not and, in the absence of evidence, I simply don't believe there is such a thing. In this regard, I completely agree with Hume in that we should "apportion belief to the evidence." Why does that bother you so much?

The bottom line is "God" is a nebulous term that simply doesn't have any meaning for me. If it means something to you, that's really, really great. Well, actually I don't really care.

I completely agree that we don't know what's going on. I never claimed that we did, never claimed that I did. In fact, that's exactly what I've been saying all along. We hardly know nothing about nothing. Which is why the argument that there has to be a First Cause is absurd. Why does there have to be a First Cause? Why does this First Cause have to be "God"? Why does there have to be a beginning? Nobody can answer these questions.

Notice here once again how I don't resort to ridiculing theists or creating caricatures of theists to make my point.

[ant]

Naturally, the Big Bang theory is incomplete and will continue to be revised as more data comes in. I really don't think the theory is "losing its flavor." What does that even mean?

You said that the big bang was the start of it all. You were speaking conclusively, as most atheist do when they are trying to assert some form of certainty.

It actually might not have been. That's what I mean by losing its flavor as it relates to the commonly held sense.

All atheists are not as intelligent as you are.

[geo]

I have always thought of the Big Bang as very nebulous. It really tells us nothing specific about the beginning of the universe. It differs quite a lot in that respect from scientific areas where we do have a lot of specific detail and, therefore, a lot of confidence. For example, you can get vaccinated against the measles. It works and we know why.

People are intelligent or ignorant or somewhere in between. It really doesn't matter if the person is an atheist or a theist. Indeed, it's very limiting to think in such terms. If I come across as arrogant sometimes, it has nothing to do with my being an atheist.

Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. Not all things are black nor all things white. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories. Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. The sooner we learn this concerning human sexual behavior, the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex.

-Alfred Kinsey

[ant]

If I come across as arrogant sometimes, it has nothing to do with my being an atheist.

LMAO!


Okay, thanks.


Nice quote.

Look what you wrote in another thread:

Republicans want to take us directly to a totalitarian state. Look how eager they are to tell us who we can marry, and legislate our drug use (war on drugs). And now watch how eager they are to toss out our constitutional rights. Scary.

Who's doing the pigeon-holing here?

[Interbane]

The short of it is that what we are seeing from the big bang may actually be an imprint pattern before the big bang. Our very first impressions were that it was the beginning of space and time. But since hypothesis are highly evolutionary, we are still woefully short of confirmatory data. We still don't have a freaking clue. There simply isn't enough evidence, or we are not interpreting the amount of evidence we have to work with properly. Actually, the evidence may in fact turn out NOT to be evidence for what we thought it signified.

There's a lot of talk about the Big Bang theory, but my mind is open on the topic. Ever heard of the Big Bounce? http://www.universetoday.com/81648/the-big-bounce/

Or the idea that the Big Bang was the result of our universe spawning as a baby universe from another parallel universe?

They key is that we don't yet know. We have nowhere near enough data to hold any single theory or hypothesis as the truth.

[bionov]

Stephen Hawking, the most famed physicist alive today, once wrote that "the actual point of creation lies outside the scope of presently known laws of physics…"
In a perhaps more telling statement from Hawking he stated that “An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!”

[ant]

The short of it is that what we are seeing from the big bang may actually be an imprint pattern before the big bang. Our very first impressions were that it was the beginning of space and time. But since hypothesis are highly evolutionary, we are still woefully short of confirmatory data. We still don't have a freaking clue. There simply isn't enough evidence, or we are not interpreting the amount of evidence we have to work with properly. Actually, the evidence may in fact turn out NOT to be evidence for what we thought it signified.

There's a lot of talk about the Big Bang theory, but my mind is open on the topic. Ever heard of the Big Bounce? http://www.universetoday.com/81648/the-big-bounce/

Or the idea that the Big Bang was the result of our universe spawning as a baby universe from another parallel universe?

They key is that we don't yet know. We have nowhere near enough data to hold any single theory or hypothesis as the truth.

Yes, I've heard of the Big Bounce, from Smolin and Neil Turok.
I admire what Turok is doing in Africa.

The universe seems to be more like a great thought than anything else.