| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Stephen" |
| Date: |
29 May 2007 10:12:43 PM |
| Object: |
Does there have to be a first cause? |
I'm an atheist bordering deist.
Everything we know about space, time, physics, the universe, etc.
started with the big bang. What, other than supreme cause (outside of
space/time) could have "started it off"?
I've read a ton of papers by Vic Stenger, and can't get a real answer.
What caused the big bang?
It's basic logic: everything that began has a cause. Our current
universe began with the big bang.
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
30 May 2007 12:23:17 AM |
|
|
"Stephen" <stephen63@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180494763.360101.16710@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I'm an atheist bordering deist.
Good for you. You are trying to understand, then.
Everything we know about space, time, physics, the universe, etc.
started with the big bang. What, other than supreme cause (outside of
space/time) could have "started it off"?
The gods set off the Big Bang. They got a bunch of explosives, and set it
off.
I've read a ton of papers by Vic Stenger, and can't get a real answer.
What caused the big bang?
When all other attempts at understanding fail, we must turn to the ultimate,
the gods and God.
It's basic logic: everything that began has a cause. Our current
universe began with the big bang.
True.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
31 May 2007 12:03:56 AM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, "Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com>
bloodied us up with this:
The gods set off the Big Bang. They got a bunch of explosives, and
set it off.
I thought it was the Angels, with one of their patented seven-run innings.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack. Plonked by Fester.
Member Duke Spanking Club.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
29 May 2007 10:51:26 PM |
|
|
"Stephen" <stephen63@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180494763.360101.16710@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I'm an atheist bordering deist.
Everything we know about space, time, physics, the universe, etc.
started with the big bang. What, other than supreme cause (outside of
space/time) could have "started it off"?
I've read a ton of papers by Vic Stenger, and can't get a real answer.
What caused the big bang?
It's basic logic: everything that began has a cause.
That is basic logic in the same sense that 'the earth
is flat' is basic logic; in the same sense that 'something doesn't get
shorter just by approaching the speed of light' is basic logic.
What caused God?
If God doesn't need a cause why would the
universe need a cause?
Our current
universe began with the big bang.
Not necessarily.
What we can see now allows us to extrapolate
back to a BB quite accurately. What we can see
now does not tell us about before the BB or even
whether there was a before the BB.
What was before the BB if anything is unknown.
People who can't handle that make stuff up.
--
rb
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
30 May 2007 12:18:46 AM |
|
|
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <this@aint.me> wrote in message
news:465cf482$0$9972$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Stephen" <stephen63@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180494763.360101.16710@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I'm an atheist bordering deist.
Everything we know about space, time, physics, the universe, etc.
started with the big bang. What, other than supreme cause (outside of
space/time) could have "started it off"?
I've read a ton of papers by Vic Stenger, and can't get a real answer.
What caused the big bang?
It's basic logic: everything that began has a cause.
That is basic logic in the same sense that 'the earth
is flat' is basic logic; in the same sense that 'something doesn't get
shorter just by approaching the speed of light' is basic logic.
What caused God?
If God doesn't need a cause why would the
universe need a cause?
Because God is all powerful; the universe is not.
There has to be an ultimate.
Our current
universe began with the big bang.
Not necessarily.
What we can see now allows us to extrapolate
back to a BB quite accurately. What we can see
now does not tell us about before the BB or even
whether there was a before the BB.
What was before the BB if anything is unknown.
People who can't handle that make stuff up.
It is warped thinking to think nothing happened before the Big Bang.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
30 May 2007 07:26:57 AM |
|
|
On May 29, 10:18 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Because God is all powerful; the universe is not.
There is absolutely no rational reason to believe this. You might as
well simply say, "because I say so".
There has to be an ultimate.
Even if this were so, it would not be an argument for god. The natural
universe may well be "ultimate" in this sense.
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
30 May 2007 04:53:18 PM |
|
|
"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1180528017.415467.75060@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 29, 10:18 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Because God is all powerful; the universe is not.
There is absolutely no rational reason to believe this. You might as
well simply say, "because I say so".
Conversely, there is no reason to believe what you just said.
God is by definition all powerful.
There has to be an ultimate.
Even if this were so, it would not be an argument for god. The natural
universe may well be "ultimate" in this sense.
If you call the universe ultimate, you have just created a God out of it, to
you, and so
have a deity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
31 May 2007 12:52:12 PM |
|
|
Mark Earnest wrote:
"David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1180528017.415467.75060@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 29, 10:18 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Because God is all powerful; the universe is not.
There is absolutely no rational reason to believe this. You might as
well simply say, "because I say so".
Conversely, there is no reason to believe what you just said.
God is by definition all powerful.
There has to be an ultimate.
Even if this were so, it would not be an argument for god. The
natural universe may well be "ultimate" in this sense.
If you call the universe ultimate, you have just created a God out of
it, to you, and so
have a deity.
That's what Aquinas called the uncaused cause. Thank's for admitting that
calling the universe a god is as good as any other god.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
30 May 2007 11:27:19 PM |
|
|
On May 30, 2:53 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1180528017.415467.75060@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 29, 10:18 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Because God is all powerful; the universe is not.
There is absolutely no rational reason to believe this. You might as
well simply say, "because I say so".
Conversely, there is no reason to believe what you just said.
I'm not making a claim.
God is by definition all powerful.
That is a meaningless claim. Can he do the impossible? Can he "smee"
even though "smee" is not a word?
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tokay Pino Gris" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
31 May 2007 09:40:13 AM |
|
|
David Schwartz wrote:
On May 30, 2:53 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1180528017.415467.75060@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 29, 10:18 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Because God is all powerful; the universe is not.
There is absolutely no rational reason to believe this. You might as
well simply say, "because I say so".
Conversely, there is no reason to believe what you just said.
I'm not making a claim.
God is by definition all powerful.
That is a meaningless claim. Can he do the impossible? Can he "smee"
even though "smee" is not a word?
DS
Isn't "Smee" a name? Gollums original name?
;-)
Tokay
--
It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in
rats.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
31 May 2007 09:51:28 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007 16:40:13 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris
<tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:
David Schwartz wrote:
On May 30, 2:53 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1180528017.415467.75060@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 29, 10:18 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Because God is all powerful; the universe is not.
There is absolutely no rational reason to believe this. You might as
well simply say, "because I say so".
Conversely, there is no reason to believe what you just said.
I'm not making a claim.
God is by definition all powerful.
That is a meaningless claim. Can he do the impossible? Can he "smee"
even though "smee" is not a word?
DS
Isn't "Smee" a name? Gollums original name?
That was Smeagol. Smee was Captain Hook's bosun.
;-)
Tokay
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tokay Pino Gris" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
31 May 2007 10:13:02 AM |
|
|
Christopher A.Lee wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007 16:40:13 +0200, Tokay Pino Gris
<tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote:
David Schwartz wrote:
On May 30, 2:53 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1180528017.415467.75060@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 29, 10:18 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Because God is all powerful; the universe is not.
There is absolutely no rational reason to believe this. You might as
well simply say, "because I say so".
Conversely, there is no reason to believe what you just said.
I'm not making a claim.
God is by definition all powerful.
That is a meaningless claim. Can he do the impossible? Can he "smee"
even though "smee" is not a word?
DS
Isn't "Smee" a name? Gollums original name?
That was Smeagol. Smee was Captain Hook's bosun.
;-)
Tokay
Ah, of course. Smeagol.
;-)
Tokay
--
It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in
rats.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
31 May 2007 01:44:11 AM |
|
|
On 30 May 2007 21:27:19 -0700, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1180585639.426201.31210@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
On May 30, 2:53 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote in message
news:1180528017.415467.75060@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On May 29, 10:18 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Because God is all powerful; the universe is not.
There is absolutely no rational reason to believe this. You might as
well simply say, "because I say so".
Conversely, there is no reason to believe what you just said.
I'm not making a claim.
God is by definition all powerful.
That is a meaningless claim. Can he do the impossible? Can he "smee"
even though "smee" is not a word?
But "smee" *is* a word.
Viewer's of Red Dwarf know that it the abbreviation for "Smeg-Head".
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
31 May 2007 05:28:06 AM |
|
|
On May 30, 11:44 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
That is a meaningless claim. Can he do the impossible? Can he "smee"
even though "smee" is not a word?
But "smee" *is* a word.
Viewer's of Red Dwarf know that it the abbreviation for "Smeg-Head".
God just made "smee" a word. See?
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
31 May 2007 06:48:44 PM |
|
|
On 31 May 2007 03:28:06 -0700, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1180607286.034772.151960@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
On May 30, 11:44 pm, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
That is a meaningless claim. Can he do the impossible? Can he "smee"
even though "smee" is not a word?
But "smee" *is* a word.
Viewer's of Red Dwarf know that it the abbreviation for "Smeg-Head".
God just made "smee" a word. See?
Kryten is God?
Wow!
Wait 'til I tell the lads.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
31 May 2007 05:15:24 PM |
|
|
On May 30, 2:53 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Even if this were so, it would not be an argument for god. The natural
universe may well be "ultimate" in this sense.
If you call the universe ultimate, you have just created a God out of it, to
you, and so have a deity.
Conversion by definition. Find something everyone has to believe in,
call it god, and pronounce victory over atheism. Just paper over all
the real differences, such as that theists believe in a bunch of
nonsense that they justify by recourse to faith.
DS
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nosterill" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
30 May 2007 02:07:35 AM |
|
|
On May 30, 6:18 am, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <t...@aint.me> wrote in messagenews:465cf482$0$9972$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Stephen" <stephe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180494763.360101.16710@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I'm an atheist bordering deist.
Everything we know about space, time, physics, the universe, etc.
started with the big bang. What, other than supreme cause (outside of
space/time) could have "started it off"?
I've read a ton of papers by Vic Stenger, and can't get a real answer.
What caused the big bang?
It's basic logic: everything that began has a cause.
That is basic logic in the same sense that 'the earth
is flat' is basic logic; in the same sense that 'something doesn't get
shorter just by approaching the speed of light' is basic logic.
What caused God?
If God doesn't need a cause why would the
universe need a cause?
Because God is all powerful; the universe is not.
There has to be an ultimate.
Why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
30 May 2007 04:11:20 AM |
|
|
On May 30, 8:07 am, Nosterill <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On May 30, 6:18 am, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <t...@aint.me> wrote in messagenews:465cf482$0$9972$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
"Stephen" <stephe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180494763.360101.16710@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I'm an atheist bordering deist.
Everything we know about space, time, physics, the universe, etc.
started with the big bang. What, other than supreme cause (outside of
space/time) could have "started it off"?
I've read a ton of papers by Vic Stenger, and can't get a real answer.
What caused the big bang?
It's basic logic: everything that began has a cause.
That is basic logic in the same sense that 'the earth
is flat' is basic logic; in the same sense that 'something doesn't get
shorter just by approaching the speed of light' is basic logic.
What caused God?
If God doesn't need a cause why would the
universe need a cause?
Because God is all powerful; the universe is not.
There has to be an ultimate.
Why?
'Cos Marks says so, and he knows the mind of God, because he talks to
him.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
30 May 2007 09:00:30 AM |
|
|
"Stephen" <stephen63@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1180494763.360101.16710@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I'm an atheist bordering deist.
Everything we know about space, time, physics, the universe, etc.
started with the big bang. What, other than supreme cause (outside of
space/time) could have "started it off"?
I've read a ton of papers by Vic Stenger, and can't get a real answer.
What caused the big bang?
It's basic logic: everything that began has a cause. Our current
universe began with the big bang.
What caused the big bag was certainly not a 1st-century Jew's 'Father' who
was himself in mortal form and who came to be that way by 'begetting'
himself via his 'virgin' mother. (That was 'vulgar', I know. But so are the
people who believe that stuff and treat non-believers with utter contempt
and derision for not doing so.)
Did some alien life-form detonate something that resulted in the big bang?
If so, where's the proof of that? And where is that alien life-form? Killed
in the blast?
Who or what creates each and every volcanic explosion or the thermonuclear
explosion of a supernova? It surely isn't a former 1st-century Jew said to
have withered a fig tree to death for not bearing its fruit out of season.
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
30 May 2007 08:39:12 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On 29 May 2007 20:12:43 -0700, Stephen
<stephen63@gmail.com> let us all know that:
I'm an atheist bordering deist.
Everything we know about space, time, physics, the universe, etc.
started with the big bang. What, other than supreme cause (outside of
space/time) could have "started it off"?
The universe was there in some weird quantumness.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
30 May 2007 04:24:15 AM |
|
|
In article <1180494763.360101.16710@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Stephen <stephen63@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm an atheist bordering deist.
Everything we know about space, time, physics, the universe, etc.
started with the big bang. What, other than supreme cause (outside of
space/time) could have "started it off"?
I've read a ton of papers by Vic Stenger, and can't get a real answer.
What caused the big bang?
It's basic logic: everything that began has a cause. Our current
universe began with the big bang.
Yes, there has to be a first cause. But think on this -- that first
cause does not have to be an intelligent entity, and most likely isn't,
since an intelligent entity would also require a cause, making said
intelligent entity NOT the first cause after all.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
30 May 2007 06:20:49 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 May 2007 09:24:15 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote:
- Refer: <nemo0037-C14185.05241430052007@news.west.earthlink.net>
In article <1180494763.360101.16710@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Stephen <stephen63@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm an atheist bordering deist.
Everything we know about space, time, physics, the universe, etc.
started with the big bang. What, other than supreme cause (outside of
space/time) could have "started it off"?
I've read a ton of papers by Vic Stenger, and can't get a real answer.
What caused the big bang?
It's basic logic: everything that began has a cause. Our current
universe began with the big bang.
Yes, there has to be a first cause.
I hate to break this to you, but that is not necessarily true.
But think on this -- that first
cause does not have to be an intelligent entity, and most likely isn't,
since an intelligent entity would also require a cause, making said
intelligent entity NOT the first cause after all.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
30 May 2007 04:22:05 PM |
|
|
In article <menq531e3aqs2k1d2n6emvfvuogou8bsmk@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007 09:24:15 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote:
- Refer: <nemo0037-C14185.05241430052007@news.west.earthlink.net>
In article <1180494763.360101.16710@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Stephen <stephen63@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm an atheist bordering deist.
Everything we know about space, time, physics, the universe, etc.
started with the big bang. What, other than supreme cause (outside of
space/time) could have "started it off"?
I've read a ton of papers by Vic Stenger, and can't get a real answer.
What caused the big bang?
It's basic logic: everything that began has a cause. Our current
universe began with the big bang.
Yes, there has to be a first cause.
I hate to break this to you, but that is not necessarily true.
I think you misunderstand. A cause is often a natural event. Even a
quantum event that isn't itself caused, is itself a cause of other
events. So the Big Bang, while it was probably an event that started off
very small and weak (as current theories suggest) was most likely the
First Cause of events in the universe. But as I said in my initial
response, a cause for any event is not necessarily a intelligent thing.
And in the case of the Big Bang, it almost certainly couldn't have been,
because intelligence pretty much does require an earlier cause.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
30 May 2007 08:26:18 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 May 2007 21:22:05 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote:
- Refer: <nemo0037-530A7D.17220430052007@news.west.earthlink.net>
In article <menq531e3aqs2k1d2n6emvfvuogou8bsmk@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007 09:24:15 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote:
- Refer: <nemo0037-C14185.05241430052007@news.west.earthlink.net>
In article <1180494763.360101.16710@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Stephen <stephen63@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm an atheist bordering deist.
Everything we know about space, time, physics, the universe, etc.
started with the big bang. What, other than supreme cause (outside of
space/time) could have "started it off"?
I've read a ton of papers by Vic Stenger, and can't get a real answer.
What caused the big bang?
It's basic logic: everything that began has a cause. Our current
universe began with the big bang.
Yes, there has to be a first cause.
I hate to break this to you, but that is not necessarily true.
I think you misunderstand. A cause is often a natural event. Even a
quantum event that isn't itself caused, is itself a cause of other
events. So the Big Bang, while it was probably an event that started off
very small and weak (as current theories suggest) was most likely the
First Cause of events in the universe. But as I said in my initial
response, a cause for any event is not necessarily a intelligent thing.
And in the case of the Big Bang, it almost certainly couldn't have been,
because intelligence pretty much does require an earlier cause.
Lemme get this straight:
You are defining a "first cause" to be the first uncaused event that
caused another event?
That sounds terribly circular to me, and of very little value.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
31 May 2007 04:53:18 AM |
|
|
In article <2u8s53tacc9bem92r3np3sfcl3it1143c0@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Lemme get this straight:
You are defining a "first cause" to be the first uncaused event that
caused another event?
That sounds terribly circular to me, and of very little value.
I don't see the problem here. I think we agree that the universe is
finite and had a first event. Whatever the nature of that first event
was, is it not reasonable to consider it a first cause?
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
31 May 2007 06:54:59 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 31 May 2007 09:53:18 GMT, *nemo*
<nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote:
- Refer: <nemo0037-38AC9F.05531731052007@news.west.earthlink.net>
In article <2u8s53tacc9bem92r3np3sfcl3it1143c0@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
Lemme get this straight:
You are defining a "first cause" to be the first uncaused event that
caused another event?
That sounds terribly circular to me, and of very little value.
I don't see the problem here. I think we agree that the universe is
finite and had a first event. Whatever the nature of that first event
was, is it not reasonable to consider it a first cause?
Except that we do *not* agree that the universe is finite.
It could well be a bounded but infinite loop.
This recent letter to New Scientist puts it more succinctly than I
could do in a short time:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426040.100-before-everything.html
"Peter White
You mention the issue of whether time is infinite or whether it has a
beginning and an end. These possibilities both assume that the
structure of time is analogous to a straight line. There is another
possibility, that time might have a structure analogous to a loop:
everything happens only once, but time is not infinite and has no
beginning or end.
One model of the universe with which this would be compatible is one
in which the expansion phase after the big bang is followed by a
contraction phase leading to a big crunch. The singularity at the big
crunch would not be similar to the singularity at the big bang; it
would be the same one.
Time has a loop structure, and the singularity is just another point
on the loop. I don't know whether this is compatible with any of the
models discussed, but it is at least a logical possibility and a way
out of the dilemma.
Cardiff, UK"
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
30 May 2007 07:33:25 AM |
|
|
On May 30, 4:20 am, Michael Gray <mikeg...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Yes, there has to be a first cause.
I hate to break this to you, but that is not necessarily true.
Since there do exist causes, and those causes can be located in time,
there must either be a first cause, a literally infinite succession of
causes (with each cause having an infinite number of prior causes), or
perhaps multiple concurrent first causes each with equal claim to
being first.
I believe that pretty much exhausts the possibilities unless you come
up with some really weird ones. For example, perhaps causes of states
prior to the big bang can't really be located in time the same way
current causes can.
However much you assail physical time and argue you can't track if
through the big bang, I don't think you can avoid the notion of
successive states of the universe. While you can't measure time
through the big bang, there is no reason there can't have been states
of the universe prior to the big bang, although you can't measure how
long before the big bang they were.
DS
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
30 May 2007 12:32:06 AM |
|
|
In article <1180494763.360101.16710@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Stephen <stephen63@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm an atheist bordering deist.
Everything we know about space, time, physics, the universe, etc.
started with the big bang. What, other than supreme cause (outside of
space/time) could have "started it off"?
I've read a ton of papers by Vic Stenger, and can't get a real answer.
What caused the big bang?
We don't know that it had a cause. Quantum physics allows uncaused
events. If it had a cause we don't know what that that was or what
caused that cause. However, we have no demonstrable evidence that
anything supernatural was involved.
It's basic logic: everything that began has a cause. Our current
universe began with the big bang.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
30 May 2007 12:35:48 AM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-87CD90.22320629052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <1180494763.360101.16710@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Stephen <stephen63@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm an atheist bordering deist.
Everything we know about space, time, physics, the universe, etc.
started with the big bang. What, other than supreme cause (outside of
space/time) could have "started it off"?
I've read a ton of papers by Vic Stenger, and can't get a real answer.
What caused the big bang?
We don't know that it had a cause.
Yes we do. It is you that do not know.
Quantum physics allows uncaused
events. If it had a cause we don't know what that that was or what
caused that cause. However, we have no demonstrable evidence that
anything supernatural was involved.
Yes we do. Just look at the vastness of the perfect universe.
It had to have been supernaturally made. To say it wasn't is to
say a watch could somehow form itself on the beach.
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
30 May 2007 06:04:07 PM |
|
|
In article <135q39hfcev5458@corp.supernews.com>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-87CD90.22320629052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <1180494763.360101.16710@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Stephen <stephen63@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm an atheist bordering deist.
Everything we know about space, time, physics, the universe, etc.
started with the big bang. What, other than supreme cause (outside of
space/time) could have "started it off"?
I've read a ton of papers by Vic Stenger, and can't get a real answer.
What caused the big bang?
We don't know that it had a cause.
Yes we do. It is you that do not know.
I'll admit what I do not know, not make up fairy tales.
Quantum physics allows uncaused
events. If it had a cause we don't know what that that was or what
caused that cause. However, we have no demonstrable evidence that
anything supernatural was involved.
Yes we do. Just look at the vastness of the perfect universe.
It had to have been supernaturally made. To say it wasn't is to
say a watch could somehow form itself on the beach.
Who says the universe is perfect? Rev. Paley is dead so is that argument.
--
John #1782
"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be
white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."
- Saint Ignatius Loyola (1491-1556) Founder of the Jesuit Order.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Earnest" |
|
| Title: Re: Does there have to be a first cause? |
30 May 2007 06:11:58 PM |
|
|
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-F41A84.16040730052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <135q39hfcev5458@corp.supernews.com>,
"Mark Earnest" <gmearnest@yahoo.com> wrote:
"johac" <jhachmann@remove.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jhachmann-87CD90.22320629052007@news.giganews.com...
In article <1180494763.360101.16710@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Stephen <stephen63@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm an atheist bordering deist.
Everything we know about space, time, physics, the universe, etc.
started with the big bang. What, other than supreme cause (outside
of
space/time) could have "started it off"?
I've read a ton of papers by Vic Stenger, and can't get a real
answer.
What caused the big bang?
We don't know that it had a cause.
Yes we do. It is you that do not know.
I'll admit what I do not know, not make up fairy tales.
Thinking facts are fairy tales is precisely why it is that you don't know.
Quantum physics allows uncaused
events. If it had a cause we don't know what that that was or what
caused that cause. However, we have no demonstrable evidence that
anything supernatural was involved.
Yes we do. Just look at the vastness of the perfect universe.
It had to have been supernaturally made. To say it wasn't is to
say a watch could somehow form itself on the beach.
Who says the universe is perfect? Rev. Paley is dead so is that argument.
Watch the planets with their moons spin around the Sun in total symmetry,
like a dance. That is perfection.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
