A question for creationists

[riley2112]

Actually, a very strong case can be made that if the universe had a beginning it must have created itself.

A Cosmological Argument for a Self-Caused Universe (The Great Debate)

Didn't Aristotle already cover why that is not possible. Or am I missing something?

 

[Tristesse]

Easy. If natural energy existed prior to our universe, then that would suggest that we would have infinite causation. But based on good philosophical arguments against an actual infinity, we can conclude that infinite regression is impossible.

There are three options...

1. Our universe began to exist during a chain of infinite cause and effect relations.

2. The universe created itself.

3. An eternal uncaused cause created the universe.

We have both philosophical and mathematical arguments against #1, and #2 is impossible so it shouldnt even be considered. That only leaves #3. Those are the only three options. If we only have three options, and two of those options are ruled out beyond a reasonable doubt, then the last option wins by default. There are no good arguments against an uncaused cause.

So, it is impossible for there to be natural energy prior to our universe, because that would lead to infinite regression in to the past. But with an uncaused cause there is no infinite regression, there is only a being that freely choose to create the universe some 13.7 biliion years ago.

I'm curious as to how you are able to narrow the options to only 3, but even more curious as to how you came to the conclusion that your second idea is invalid. And that number 3 must be the case. As far as I'm aware time as we know it didn't exist prior to the big bang, so, to say anything before the big bang is almost useless, because before is an application of time. And it may be the case that the universe always existed in some form, which didn't seem to make your list of 3. And why isn't your conclusion also subject to an infinite regress? If you tell me it's because this creator(which I'm not sure if you've defined it yet) is the untimate cause, or some variation on that. Please explain how you came to that understanding. And also define what you mean by creator.

 

[camanintx]

Didn't Aristotle already cover why that is not possible. Or am I missing something?

I don't think Aristotle understood how the universe could be finite yet unbounded. Fortunately, Einstein came along afterwards to explain it.

Chapter 31. The Possibility of a “Finite” and Yet “Unbounded” Universe. Einstein, Albert. 1920. Relativity: The Special and General Theory

 

[riley2112]

I don't think Aristotle understood how the universe could be finite yet unbounded. Fortunately, Einstein came along afterwards to explain it.

Chapter 31. The Possibility of a “Finite” and Yet “Unbounded” Universe. Einstein, Albert. 1920. Relativity: The Special and General Theory

Thank you , I will read this and see if I can learn something, or at least have some different thoughts on it, Thank you again.

 

[riley2112]

I don't think Aristotle understood how the universe could be finite yet unbounded. Fortunately, Einstein came along afterwards to explain it.

Chapter 31. The Possibility of a “Finite” and Yet “Unbounded” Universe. Einstein, Albert. 1920. Relativity: The Special and General Theory

Please excuse my lack of knowledge , But is this also the

believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory of the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe”—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity​

Einstein would later refer to it as the “biggest blunder” of his career. Still, like all cosmological ideas, the expanding universe is just a theory, and a small group of scientists today still subscribe to the old static model

Or am I on the wrong track?​

 

[fantome profane]

Please excuse my lack of knowledge , But is this also the

believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory of the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe”—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity​

Einstein would later refer to it as the “biggest blunder” of his career. Still, like all cosmological ideas, the expanding universe is just a theory, and a small group of scientists today still subscribe to the old static model

Or am I on the wrong track?​

You have really got to stop using the phrase “just a theory”. Yes it is a theory, but it is a scientific theory with lots of good evidence backing it up. When you use the phrase “just a theory” you are lumping these ideas together with ideas like “George Bush is a reptilian alien”. It’s “Just a theory”.

I think Einstein was a little hard on himself. The math did actually call for a cosmological constant, but there was no data at the time to tell him what the value of that constant should be. He knew that if the value of that constant was zero the universe would be unstable, so he plugged in a value that would lead to a stable universe. An error, but an understandable one.

Interestingly enough recent observations had caused come scientists to reconsider the cosmological constant, we may need to put in a value that accounts for not only the fact that the universe is expanding, but that the rate of expansion is accelerating.

p.s. Can you name some scientists today who subscribe to a static model of the universe? Preferably scientists with some expertise in the relevant area. I don’t think there are many, if any at all, who deny the evidence of an expanding universe.

 

[riley2112]

You have really got to stop using the phrase “just a theory”. Yes it is a theory, but it is a scientific theory with lots of good evidence backing it up. When you use the phrase “just a theory” you are lumping these ideas together with ideas like “George Bush is a reptilian alien”. It’s “Just a theory”.

I think Einstein was a little hard on himself. The math did actually call for a cosmological constant, but there was no data at the time to tell him what the value of that constant should be. He knew that if the value of that constant was zero the universe would be unstable, so he plugged in a value that would lead to a stable universe. An error, but an understandable one.

Interestingly enough recent observations had caused come scientists to reconsider the cosmological constant, we may need to put in a value that accounts for not only the fact that the universe is expanding, but that the rate of expansion is accelerating.

p.s. Can you name some scientists today who subscribe to a static model of the universe? Preferably scientists with some expertise in the relevant area. I don’t think there are many, if any at all, who deny the evidence of an expanding universe.

I really will try very hard to stop saying "just a theory" as for the scientists believing in a static universe. No , after looking I can not .

 

[Tristesse]

I really will try very hard to stop saying "just a theory" as for the scientists believing in a static universe. No , after looking I can not .

No, you can say "just a theory" if it makes you feel superior to scientific data. But to be consistent you also have to apply the same "just a theory" position to gravity, heliocentrism etc... Otherwise you have an inconsistent outlook on what scientific evidence you accept.

 

[riley2112]

No, you can say "just a theory" if it makes you feel superior to scientific data. But to be consistent you also have to apply the same "just a theory" position to gravity, heliocentrism etc... Otherwise you have an inconsistent outlook on what scientific evidence you accept.

Makes me feel superior? One thing that you can believe is the fact that I feel superior to no one. I am just now getting smart enough to realizes just how stupid I am. So feeling superior is not my intention.:golf:But , it is just a theory. (humor)

 

[Tristesse]

Makes me feel superior? One thing that you can believe is the fact that I feel superior to no one. I am just now getting smart enough to realizes just how stupid I am. So feeling superior is not my intention.:golf:But , it is just a theory. (humor)

Ok, we're all stupid about certain things. I was just bringing to light the fact if you're going to call evolution or big bang cosmology just a theory, you have to apply that reasoning accross the board to other theories in science. That was my only point.

 

[riley2112]

Ok, we're all stupid about certain things. I was just bringing to light the fact if you're going to call evolution or big bang cosmology just a theory, you have to apply that reasoning accross the board to other theories in science. That was my only point.

point taken. Thank you for bring that to my attention.

 

[camanintx]

Please excuse my lack of knowledge , But is this also the

believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory of the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe”—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity​

Einstein would later refer to it as the “biggest blunder” of his career. Still, like all cosmological ideas, the expanding universe is just a theory, and a small group of scientists today still subscribe to the old static model​

Or am I on the wrong track?​

As pointed out by fantôme profane, Einstein can be forgiven for proposing a static universe. The idea that space itself was expanding wasn't discovered by Edwin Hubble for another decade. That's the beauty of the scientific method, it allows us to build upon the discoveries of others and further refine our understanding of the universe. The idea that people who lived over 2,000 years ago had all of the answers despite evidence to the contrary seems more than a little ridiculous to me.

 

[riley2112]

As pointed out by fantôme profane, Einstein can be forgiven for proposing a static universe. The idea that space itself was expanding wasn't discovered by Edwin Hubble for another decade. That's the beauty of the scientific method, it allows us to build upon the discoveries of others and further refine our understanding of the universe. The idea that people who lived over 2,000 years ago had all of the answers despite evidence to the contrary seems more than a little ridiculous to me.

I agree, people who lived over 2,000 years ago having all the answers seems a little ridiculous to me as well. I am sure that people 2,000 years from now will feel the same way about the people today.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I'm curious as to how you are able to narrow the options to only 3, but even more curious as to how you came to the conclusion that your second idea is invalid.

Well, when you think of a 4th option, enlighten me. And for you to question the 2nd option as if it is plausible, that goes to show we are on two totally different playing fields.

And it may be the case that the universe always existed in some form, which didn't seem to make your list of 3.

If the universe existed in some other form, then it would qualify to be under option #1.

And why isn't your conclusion also subject to an infinite regress?

Because infinite regress is relating to time. The cause cannot be temporal. The cause is timeless, in the sense that time isn't a factor to it.

If you tell me it's because this creator(which I'm not sure if you've defined it yet) is the untimate cause, or some variation on that. Please explain how you came to that understanding. And also define what you mean by creator.

God is a embodied mind, a supernatural and immaterial spirit with enormous power. He is the ultimate source of everything, and has free will and the ability to create from nothing. That is God in a nut shell. Now from a Christian view, we are able to give God even more attributes such as his ominiscence, ominipotence, and omnipresence. From a Christian view he is also the ultimate source of good morality.