Uncaused first cause

[ryanbouma]

Bravo Kenny. You caught me making a mistake and were able to make that the point of your post. Yes, the Big Bang is not a thing, its a description of the beginning of the universe. You're correct. That doesn't change what I said. Your beliefs are falsified.

See Daniels post for your explanation why your beliefs are falsified. Note that Rick added clarification that God didn't begin to exist. You need to look these point straight in the eyes and be honest. No more straw men. Just straight answers. We're not throwing out theological non sense. We're using modern scientific thinking. You are not.

[Kenny]

Your beliefs are falsified.

See Daniels post for your explanation why your beliefs are falsified.

Daniel did about as good of a job falsifying my beliefs as you did! Thus far I have had several people claim my views are falsified but nobody has backed this claim up with any proof! Would you care to be the first?

Ken

[FlawedIntellect]

Ken, I already explained earlier that an eternal singularity CANNOT expand, since matter/energy in an atemporal state CANNOT change. Expansion is a form of change, and cannot happen unless there somehow exists an outside force to act upon it. The force cannot be internal because it would not have been eternally in the form of a singularity but rather temporarily in the form of a singularity. (I.E. it wouldn't have existed for eternity past.) To argue otherwise is absurdity. And as absurdity is irrational by default, then the universe did not eternally pre-exist as a singularity without any external force to act upon it. For this reason, if the universe eternally existed as a singularity, we wouldn't be here.

This is logic, Kenny. The explanation is, once again, provided.

And please forgive Daniel for presenting an inaccurate version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Rick pointed out Daniel's unintended mistake, and then Daniel apologized.

Daniel,

I just wanted to fix something you said, so Kenny won't be confused about what you meant.

We can also conclude that everything that exists begins to exist must have a cause, because this is what we observe from the universe around us, since the universe expanded from the singularity it must have a cause. The cause cannot be nothing because nothing is just well.......nothing and nothing doesn't cause anything, so the singularity must have an external cause.

It's only things that begin to exist that have a cause. Because if God exists, he doesn't have a cause. I was trying to explain this to my son a little while back.

Thanks for the clarification Rick, my mistake.

If you're going to try to answer the cosmological argument, it's better if you answer this version instead of Daniel's unintended mistake:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) [therefore] ∴, the universe has a cause.

(Showing off the "therefore" symbol above. :3)

As for the matter of the Hubble Expansion Rate: It's the rate at which the universe expands. If I remember correctly, if the expansion rate is above 0, then the universe had a beginnin'. Guess what? The expansion rate is above 0. ;3

As for the problem with the universe contracting: Uh, yeah... it's thought by cosmologists that there's this thing called dark energy which is basically a form of "repulsive gravity" (I.E. it's like gravity but it pushes things away from one another.). This is their attempt at explaining an observed phenomenon: why the universe is expanding so rapidly [clusters of galaxies are spreading further and further away from one another] to the point where it's veering towards eventual heat death AKA "maximum entropy", which will be the result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is that entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, which is maximum entropy. Entropy is a measure of unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system, AKA a measure of disorder within said system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law ... modynamics

When referring to the universe, Entropy refers to the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entropy

[1over137]

I have already read the bible. As I explained before, reading the bible is what lead me away from Christianity. Back in my christian days, when I was content with taking everybody elses word for it, I was happy believing in God and believing everything in the Bible was true. It wasn't until I actually put forth an effort to become "saved" and I started praying, and studying the bible with a sincere effort of understanding what I was reading, and learning how the bible came about, I saw the bible for what it truly was and realized I was wrong.

Ken

What specifically there led you away?

[Byblos]

As for the matter of the Hubble Expansion Rate: It's the rate at which the universe expands. If I remember correctly, if the expansion rate is above 0, then the universe had a beginnin'. Guess what? The expansion rate is above 0. ;3

To be more precise, it is the average Hubble expansion rate > 0, which would also cover oscillating universes that theoretically can expand, contract, and expand again. So long as their average Hubble expansion rate is > 0, as per the BVG theorem, they cannot be past eternal.

The other side of the coin is that for a universe to be anthropic (supporting life, any kind of life, not just intelligent or even carbon based) it must have an average expansion rate > 0.

In other words, no expansion, no universe, and by extension no life of any kind. But with expansion comes no past eternality. That's what science is telling us folks.

[Silvertusk]

As for the matter of the Hubble Expansion Rate: It's the rate at which the universe expands. If I remember correctly, if the expansion rate is above 0, then the universe had a beginnin'. Guess what? The expansion rate is above 0. ;3

To be more precise, it is the average Hubble expansion rate > 0, which would also cover oscillating universes that theoretically can expand, contract, and expand again. So long as their average Hubble expansion rate is > 0, as per the BVG theorem, they cannot be past eternal.

The other side of the coin is that for a universe to be anthropic (supporting life, any kind of life, not just intelligent or even carbon based) it must have an average expansion rate > 0.

In other words, no expansion, no universe, and by extension no life of any kind. But with expansion comes no past eternality. That's what science is telling us folks.

So essentially what you are telling us is that inflation is a pre-requisite for life and is therefore a fine tuning element in its own right?

[Byblos]

As for the matter of the Hubble Expansion Rate: It's the rate at which the universe expands. If I remember correctly, if the expansion rate is above 0, then the universe had a beginnin'. Guess what? The expansion rate is above 0. ;3

To be more precise, it is the average Hubble expansion rate > 0, which would also cover oscillating universes that theoretically can expand, contract, and expand again. So long as their average Hubble expansion rate is > 0, as per the BVG theorem, they cannot be past eternal.

The other side of the coin is that for a universe to be anthropic (supporting life, any kind of life, not just intelligent or even carbon based) it must have an average expansion rate > 0.

In other words, no expansion, no universe, and by extension no life of any kind. But with expansion comes no past eternality. That's what science is telling us folks.

So essentially what you are telling us is that inflation is a pre-requisite for life and is therefore a fine tuning element in its own right?

Absolutely, positively.

[Silvertusk]

Cool.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Wait a minute, you need to explain this Hubble expansion rate and why it prevents the possibility of the universe constantly expanding and contracting

Read Byblos' post, he knows it better than me or ask Hana as she is a physicist.

How did you conclude that if matter has always existed, we would not be here right now? Please explain

If the universe had no beginning and has an infinite amount of past events how did we ever get to this one, we would have to wait an infinite amount of time to get here and because an infinite number has no end we never ever get to today. It is a logical contradiction that there is an infinite amount of past events. Think about it if there is no beginning to something then there it has no way of getting to where we are now.

First of all, what we know about the Universe is very limited. We barely know everything that goes on with planet Earth let alone all those trillions of stars trillions of light years away! To assume what little bit of the Universe we have been able to test, analyze, & study; and assume it applies to every inch of the Universe is akin to a person going to a library for the first time,picking up the first book he sees which happens to be a Dr Seuss children’s book; studying that book then assuming the entire library consists of children’s books.

Second, if you are going to claim everything that exists must have a cause, then you have to apply that to your God as well if you are going to claim he exist. If you are going to present an exception for your God, then I will present an exception for that vast majority of the Universe that we have no clue about.

Sorry as Rick picked up I misrepresented the argument. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, God never began to exist he always was eternal and timeless.

Do you have anything outside religion that backs this up?

As others have pointed out, science back this up with the Hubble expansion rate and all the other stuff Byblos said that I don't understand. Lol

[Silvertusk]

Kenny

You said

Second, if you are going to claim everything that exists must have a cause, then you have to apply that to your God as well if you are going to claim he exist. If you are going to present an exception for your God, then I will present an exception for that vast majority of the Universe that we have no clue about.

God does have cause or more appropriately an explanation - he exists by necessity.

[Byblos]

Kenny

You said

Second, if you are going to claim everything that exists must have a cause, then you have to apply that to your God as well if you are going to claim he exist. If you are going to present an exception for your God, then I will present an exception for that vast majority of the Universe that we have no clue about.

God does have cause or more appropriately an explanation - he exists by necessity.

An explanation, yes; a cause, no, not even himself for that would lead to a contradiction for nothing (not even God) can be self-caused. God, by definition, is eternal, uncaused.

[Silvertusk]

Kenny

You said

Second, if you are going to claim everything that exists must have a cause, then you have to apply that to your God as well if you are going to claim he exist. If you are going to present an exception for your God, then I will present an exception for that vast majority of the Universe that we have no clue about.

God does have cause or more appropriately an explanation - he exists by necessity.

An explanation, yes; a cause, no, not even himself for that would lead to a contradiction for nothing (not even God) can be self-caused. God, by definition, is eternal, uncaused.

Which ironically is what atheistic scientists are looking for anyway.

[Byblos]

Wait a minute, you need to explain this Hubble expansion rate and why it prevents the possibility of the universe constantly expanding and contracting

Who said it prevents it? But then again, who said that an expanding/contracting universe is not subject to the average expansion rate as well? See my previous post.

How did you conclude that if matter has always existed, we would not be here right now? Please explain

Because you would have a very hard time explaining why it arbitrarily decided to expand 13.5 billion years ago. Why did the expansion not start from eternity past? Expansion is change and change does not simply just decide to expand from dormant eternity, it needs an agent of causation.

First of all, what we know about the Universe is very limited. We barely know everything that goes on with planet Earth let alone all those trillions of stars trillions of light years away! To assume what little bit of the Universe we have been able to test, analyze, & study; and assume it applies to every inch of the Universe is akin to a person going to a library for the first time,picking up the first book he sees which happens to be a Dr Seuss children’s book; studying that book then assuming the entire library consists of children’s books.

We know a whole lot more than you're giving us credit for. But wait a minute, before, in a different thread, I gave you the choice of two main topics, metaphysics and science. You had chosen science (I presume because of your inexperience in metaphysics but I could be wrong). Now you seem to undermine even science. Is there anything we can actually use to convince you? I rather doubt it.

Do you have anything outside religion that backs this up?

Huh? Who is using religion? What on earth are you talking about? I, for one, have not one single time referred to anything religious or scriptural. All, I repeat, ALL my arguments have been either metaphysical (proof from pure reason) or scientific (evidence from).

You need to start actually paying attention and stop formulating excuses.

[Kenny]

Ken, I already explained earlier that an eternal singularity CANNOT expand, since matter/energy in an atemporal state CANNOT change. Expansion is a form of change, and cannot happen unless there somehow exists an outside force to act upon it. The force cannot be internal because it would not have been eternally in the form of a singularity but rather temporarily in the form of a singularity. (I.E. it wouldn't have existed for eternity past.) To argue otherwise is absurdity. And as absurdity is irrational by default, then the universe did not eternally pre-exist as a singularity without any external force to act upon it. For this reason, if the universe eternally existed as a singularity, we wouldn't be here.

This is logic, Kenny. The explanation is, once again, provided.

I didn’t mean to give you the impression the singular was in a constant state of singular before expanding, as I said before it could have been in constant motion, a constant state of expansion and contraction, or something else we never thought of.

If you're going to try to answer the cosmological argument, it's better if you answer this version instead of Daniel's unintended mistake:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) [therefore] ∴, the universe has a cause.

How ‘bout #4, the universe was caused by the singular that expanded to become the Universe. What caused the singular? Who knows! It may have existed forever! But before we go jumping to conclusions, make sure we have our explanation backed up by science.

As for the matter of the Hubble Expansion Rate: It's the rate at which the universe expands. If I remember correctly, if the expansion rate is above 0, then the universe had a beginnin'. Guess what? The expansion rate is above 0. ;3

Of course if the expansion rate was 0% that would mean a stagnant Universe which would mean no big bang, nobody is disputing that. The fact that the universe is expanding at a rate of 3% is not disputed either, my question was how does this fact make it impossible for the Universe to be in a constant state of contraction and expansion

As for the problem with the universe contracting: Uh, yeah... it's thought by cosmologists that there's this thing called dark energy which is basically a form of "repulsive gravity" (I.E. it's like gravity but it pushes things away from one another.). This is their attempt at explaining an observed phenomenon: why the universe is expanding so rapidly [clusters of galaxies are spreading further and further away from one another] to the point where it's veering towards eventual heat death AKA "maximum entropy", which will be the result of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in action.

Are you saying there is a thought amongst cosmologists the possibility of the Universe contracting?

Ken

[Kenny]

I have already read the bible. As I explained before, reading the bible is what lead me away from Christianity. Back in my christian days, when I was content with taking everybody elses word for it, I was happy believing in God and believing everything in the Bible was true. It wasn't until I actually put forth an effort to become "saved" and I started praying, and studying the bible with a sincere effort of understanding what I was reading, and learning how the bible came about, I saw the bible for what it truly was and realized I was wrong.

Ken

What specifically there led you away?

It had to do with some of the stories of the Bible, some of the actions of the God of the old testament, and how the bible came to be as it is today.

Ken