cause-and-effect: "cause" require evidence too

[TagliatelliMonster]

The adherents to the BB beginning of the universe are eventually obliged to explain either, what existed before, or how the nothing to something creation process works?

Neither are within the scope of big bang theory.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Speculation also.

It's not.

Point to any point in time.
A universe existed then.

At no point in time did no universe exist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why could not a god "just exist"?

The universe demonstrably exists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So if religion says that the spiritual energy is omnipresent, and science says dark energy is omnipresent, is this not common ground.

No.

First, it's (like usual) post hoc reinterpretation to vaguely match scientific findings.
Secondly, ask any theist to describe what he means by "spiritual energy".
Then put that next to science's description of "dark energy".

I guarantee you that they are nothing alike.

Religion accepts the 5% material universe that science studies, so there is common ground there too.

Except when the science contradicts their a priori religious beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If a god is supernatural, above nature, always existing,,, space nor time nor space-time is of no meaning.

Actually, to term "to exist" is actually rather meaningless without a space time to exist in.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The universe demonstrably exists.

That is philosophy. In methodological naturalism it is an unproven assumption. So are we doing philosophy or science now?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Define "nothing"

If energy and matter can't be created or destroyed, then they both always existed...they both existed pre-expansion.
Now some will argue there is no "pre" because our science breaks down and we can't understand it... yet everything that exists in our universe always existed, just in different form.

What did it come from?
What did it exist in?

The total energy of the universe, is actually 0.

The idea is that you can take 0 and split it in for example +2 and -2.

Positive and negative energy. They cancel eachother out.

You idd can't "create or destroy" the "+2". But the sum of all of it, is zero.

This is off course an extremely simplistic representation of it. But the basic idea is there. And it makes sense to me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Actually, to term "to exist" is actually rather meaningless without a space time to exist in.

Well, the term exist has no observable properties as it comes from philosophy. Again, are we doing philosophy or science?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

With that said, every bit of matter that makes up everything in our universe today, already existed before the universe did.

No.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The total energy of the universe, is actually 0.

The idea is that you can take 0 and split it in for example +2 and -2.

Positive and negative energy. They cancel eachother out.

You idd can't "create or destroy" the "+2". But the sum of all of it, is zero.

This is off course an extremely simplistic representation of it. But the basic idea is there. And it makes sense to me.

That relies on the cosmological principle. That is philosophy and not science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, natural science cannot engage with supernatural

Tell us why also.

Forget it, I'll say it....

The reason it cannot, is because the supernatural has no detectable manifestation whatsoever. There is nothing there to engage with.

It's almost like it doesn't exist. Almost...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God is a completely different ball game to the universe and maybe the energy in the tiny nothing that expanded to be the universe came from God's power or maybe God created it.

Why would that be the case?

Honestly now...other then you already believing it... why would you even suggest such a thing?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Two problems with the statement
1 - you can't prove an Intelligent Designer doesn't physically exist
2 - You can' prove an Intlligent Designer doesn't exist outside of the physical universe.

It's upto the one who proposes a designer to provide evidence for it.
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I don't need to "disprove" your evidenceless assertions. All I need to do is point out the lack of evidence. That is enough to reject it.

If you disagree, then you should give 5kg of gold or I'll send my undetectable dragon to come and feed on your children and / or loved ones.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

'Making universes' is not the issue. It's who made the first universe that our 5 dimensional beings emerged from - that grand effect that had no cause.

If there is no cause, then that thing isn't an effect.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's upto the one who proposes a designer to provide evidence for it.
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I don't need to "disprove" your evidenceless assertions. All I need to do is point out the lack of evidence. That is enough to reject it.

If you disagree, then you should give 5kg of gold or I'll send my undetectable dragon to come and feed on your children and / or loved ones.

No, that doesn't follow.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The point if the analogy is that if you ever find a watch you woudl conclude that a designer created that watch even if you dont have prior evidence for the existance of the designer.

We have plenty of evidence of watchmakers...
What are you talking about...

Forget watches even... we have plenty of evidence of human manufacturing. That's how we recognize it. By signs of manufacturing. That's how we recognise a watch as being manufactured as opposed to a natural occurence. Because we understand what manufacturing is and how to recognize it.

For example if you find a watch in Mars, you will conclude that an intelligent designer did it

Yes. A human that lived in the last 100 years, to be specific.

, even if you have no prior evidence for any intelligent life living On Mars

Don't need to. We would know it came from earth and was made by a human.
Even if we had no clue how it ended up on mars.

 

[We Never Know]

No.

Yes

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you what to argue that the universe is uncaused (eternal) you would have to invoke things that we don’t know they exist anyway……….. for example you would have to invoke the existence of “something” before the big bang

Precisely the opposite, actually.
The universe would be uncaused exactly because there is NO BEFORE for that cause to occur in.

, and there is no evidence for anything before the big bang

More then that. Time is an inherent part of the universe.
The universe started at T = 0.

Not only is there no evidence of a "before". There actually is evidence for "NO before".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...


Don't need to. We would know it came from earth and was made by a human.
Even if we had no clue how it ended up on mars.

No, we wouldn't. It could be an alien. Now it is reasonable to assume that it is man made but we don't know.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Precisely the opposite, actually.
The universe would be uncaused exactly because there is NO BEFORE for that cause to occur in.



More then that. Time is an inherent part of the universe.
The universe started at T = 0.

Not only is there no evidence of a "before". There actually is evidence for "NO before".

Observational evidence of that, please.