4 ms·

Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing. You say that the universe is and that it came from nothing. That means you believe the exist

• gnaritas 15y ago
  > Ah, I see that you do believe that the universe came from nothing. No, I don't and I just told you that. The question is invalid; the Universe didn't come from anything. Even the visible universe, which we know was born from the big bang, no one believes came from nothing; Big bang theory says it came from an infinitely dense energy and the bang converted some of that into matter. No where does the theory state it all came from nothing. > You say that the universe is and that it came from nothing. No, I did not. The rest of your rebuttal fails because you've setup a straw man to knock down while ignoring what I actually said; I expected as much. > It's also remarkable that you posit that a first cause is an absurdity, yet then postulate that the universe has the properties of a first cause. I did no such thing. > I find a logical contradiction in that the universe is known to have had a beginning. False. We know there was a big bang; we explicitly do not know that it was the beginning, or the only big bang, or that the visible universe it applies to is the only one, or that big bangs aren't cyclical. We just don't know. > Or perhaps you think it more scientific to suppose that things can happen without a cause (e.g. universes). No, I believe there are answers we don't yet have. You are the one that believes things happen without a cause (e.g. gods), the universe at least is known to exist undeniably.
  • wbhart 15y ago
    I'm sorry, I'm completely lost. So now you are trying to tell me the universe may not have been the beginning, but that it did not come from anything. You are aware of the scientific issues with the cyclical universe model I take it? There are issues with entropy, fine tuning, the fact that information cannot leave our universe through the event horizon of black holes (singularities), that universes of the size of our own are almost infinitely less probable than much smaller universes, that our universe does not look to be headed for a "big crunch", etc. You also say, "You are the one that believes things happen without a cause". So now are you trying to tell me that you believe things cannot happen without a cause and that I am the only one asserting that? If so, then do you not see that an infinite number of prior causes (e.g. your cyclical universe theory) leads to an actual infinity of prior events and that we never get to this point because there are an infinite number of events that must precede it? (This is but one of many absurdities implied by such a presupposition.) The only escape from your argument is to suppose that there is a first cause which is uncaused, outside of the physical universe whose existence is necessary but which is sufficient to explain the existence of the universe. If you do not accept that, then your position seems to be that our universe does not have a reason for its existence (a cause) and that it does not need one (you seem to have claimed that, regardless, quite apart from my deduction from your claims). I claim only that things which do not have a beginning need no cause. And I claim that it logically follows that such things are changeless. If not, you have to accept the existence of an actual infinity, something which leads to a multitude of mathematical contradictions (look up Hilbert's Hotel). You can't argue with a deductive argument by saying that it is wrong but we just haven't figured out any workable alternative yet but that we are working on it. You have to either refute the premises or demonstrate a self contradiction in the argument. Without that, the argument stands. You are welcome to your opinion that you are suspicious of the premises.
    • gnaritas 15y ago
      You haven't made a deductive argument yet. In fact you've made no argument at all. If you think you have, please do point it out, as I've seen nothing but a series of questions trying to pin down what I think and not a one making an actual argument as to what you think and why it must be. Other than your original statement which was an assertion, not an argument for why it must be true. Your tactic appears to be an attempt to bait me into making an argument that you can dismantle without actually making your own case hoping that I don't notice you haven't actually made your case. I'm not biting. I don't need to explain the presence of the universe to say that claiming gods did it isn't logical nor do I need to provide a counter argument. If you believe gods did it, you must make that case; you haven't.