Fighting Two Fronts

[Ben Masada]

Right, so if I can't say that I believe or know the quarter will land heads up, then I have to believe it will be a tails? Yea makes sense...

Yes, it does make sense. What does not make sense is to compare the side the quarter will turn up before you throw it with something that is already before your own eyes. Aren't you part of the universe? What have you learnt about its origin? If you still don't know, why not give the Creator the benefit of the doubt at least till you do?
Now, return the frubals to the pussycat.
Ben

 

[Meow Mix]

The Big Bang did not happen out of the blue or nothing. Something must have been there which caused or was the cause of that cosmic exploson. Where did it come from to result in the formation of the universe? As you can see, I am not discarding your views about the origin of the universe from a Big Bang. But to say that the theory of the Big Bang is much more feasible, you have got questions to answer.
Ben

"Cosmic explosion" is something of an overstatement -- if you converted all the energy from the BBE to mass you'd end up with something about as heavy as a bag of sugar, and that's plus or minus a few pounds. Indeed the universe's current state (post-BBE) might have been the "ultimate free lunch" as Paul Davies put it because the total energy may have been zero.

In any case you're right that it wasn't "nothing" which ignited the BBE, but you're making unwarranted epistemic leaps if you're asserting a God-being caused it.

 

[Meow Mix]

Yes, it does make sense. What does not make sense is to compare the side the quarter will turn up before you throw it with something that is already before your own eyes. Aren't you part of the universe? What have you learnt about its origin? If you still don't know, why not give the Creator the benefit of the doubt at least till you do?
Now, return the frubals to the pussycat.
Ben

Assuming a creator without justification though is unwarranted and strips you of any epistemic consistency; assuming you don't make wild assumptions about all other things you don't know about.

 

[Ben Masada]

Good luck with everyone I'm sure you'll get some takers.

You can't prove the universe was created or not created by God. That doesn't mean God exists. It just means you can't prove it.

You can, however; prove a religion wrong. But I don't feel like going through my hebrew tonight and you'll just say I'm interpeting it wrong.

Maybe somebody else will play.

Stand asside bobhikes and watch the fight going on. The battle has just started.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

I just realized.....

Is this a proselytizing face off.

Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! The Atheists face off with the Theists in a no hold barred contest for Ben Masada's brain(soul) in a chair smashing, ring flying all out face smashing contest. Tune in to the SyFy channel this Tuesday!

No gnomon, Jews do not proselytize. People are too concerned about a good reward in the afterlife and we have nothing to offer them but a cold grave that will turn them into nothing but dust.
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

So, in other words, just because we might not have an answer about how the universe came to be now, we should just make up an answer. I know! Let's just say God did it. Because that worked out so well for explaining rain and thunder and other phenomenen... that was later shown to be caused by natural processes. Oh, darn. I guess just plugging God in didn't work so well.

You are right, it didn't. But because the god you plugged in is too anthropomorphic. That's the one whose death was proclaimed by Nietzsche.
Ben

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Stand asside bobhikes and watch the fight going on. The battle has just started.
Ben

(Sadly, he's not even aware that it was over before it began.)

 

[crimsonlung]

The Big Bang did not happen out of the blue or nothing. Something must have been there which caused or was the cause of that cosmic exploson. Where did it come from to result in the formation of the universe? As you can see, I am not discarding your views about the origin of the universe from a Big Bang. But to say that the theory of the Big Bang is much more feasible, you have got questions to answer.
Ben

Why are you saying something had to of created the big bang? You are assuming you know how the universe works. What if it just appeared? What if the laws of physics and creation aren't the same as here on Earth or what Science has discovered? You don't know, I don't know, but we will find out eventually.

 

[Ben Masada]

Hi Ben. First I'd like to point out that you're making two incorrect or at least epistemologically unsound assumptions: 1) that there was a "where" for the universe to come "from" and 2) that the universe "came" at all.

Yes MM, assumptions. That's what we have been exchanging so far. Yours are no less than mine. You assume that the universe has come out of nothing as the first assumption. For the second, you even doubt the universe exists at all, as if you were not part of it.

Before we can engage in any sort of meaningful discussion I must ask that you explain the basis for these hidden assumptions, as they're quite vital to where this discussion can take us.

I hold no hidden assumptions. They are based in the atheistic assumptions that either creation has created itself or that creation is possible without a Creator.

I'm a cosmology student and I can assure you that even though the mass media (and even physicists like Stephen Hawking) like to talk about the universe "coming from nowhere" that this is actually a "dumbing down" of terms to be distributed to a public with dubious scientific understanding. There is nothing about modern physics that suggests the universe "came" or that it came from "nowhere" or even "somewhere." In truth, the evidence (in terms of piecing together events backwards in time) stops shortly after the Big Bang Event (BBE); namely at the first Planck time after the BBE.

You speak of the BB event as if it were not a theory but a fact. The other day I caught Kacco, that Japanese Scientist or Cosmologyst saying that the BB can never be proved. It will remain a theory and and it could even die as a theory. My argument with Atheists is derived from the fact that they think we Theists are morons for believing in the Logic that creation stands for the work of a Creator. At least, in its protoplasm or cytoplasma as the universe is concerned. That's what Philosophers, people with powerful ability to think refer to as Primal Cause or Primal Mover. At least, they don't discard the possibility of Something out there esoterically independent of the universe to explain that matter cannot come out of nothing.
Ben

Any assertions that it was a creation ex nihilo by a deity or by a quantum accident from nothingness are utterly baseless. There are indications that the universe -- though it definitely entered a new state with the BBE -- may have always existed, and when taken with a pinch of Occam's Razor compared to creation ex nihilo it's reasonable to at least withhold judgement and at best assert that it's more rational that it has existed in other forms rather than appeared from nothing.

 

[PolyHedral]

The other day I caught Kacco, that Japanese Scientist or Cosmologyst saying that the BB can never be proved. It will remain a theory and and it could even die as a theory

Well, Dr. Kaku would say that the BB can never be proven, because he is using "proof" in the mathematical sense. It is true that the Big Bang cannot be deductively shown to be a property of the universe. Indeed, it would be discarded immediately if anyone could come up with a theory that better fits all available evidence. However, it is for non-cosmologists' purposes, a fact. It is the simplest, best explanation we have, and fits all available evidence. It would be nigh-impossible to debase, and even if you could debase it, it wouldn't get you any closer to answering "Where did the universe come from?"

Also, you appear to be working on the assumption that the universe needs a cause, whether it be God, itself, or whatever. This is wrong. It is possible for the entire universe to have simply appeared, entirely spontaneously. (so long as certain things about it are true, like the total energy summing to zero)

 

[Ben Masada]

"Cosmic explosion" is something of an overstatement -- if you converted all the energy from the BBE to mass you'd end up with something about as heavy as a bag of sugar, and that's plus or minus a few pounds. Indeed the universe's current state (post-BBE) might have been the "ultimate free lunch" as Paul Davies put it because the total energy may have been zero.

In any case you're right that it wasn't "nothing" which ignited the BBE, but you're making unwarranted epistemic leaps if you're asserting a God-being caused it.

You see? You are struggling to swim in the same waters which you think I am, when you charge me with making "unwarranted epistemic leaps" by asserting creation as an act of God. You are making the very same mistake by asserting or assuming that
creation either created itself or magically come out of nothing.

Regarding your analogy of the energy generated by the BB as heavy as a "bag of sugar" holds no water. First of all, you are basing your assertions on a theory that could die as a theory and never be proved. Then, energy is an accident of matter; a by-product of motion. Assuming Science ever proves the BB theory, that "bag of sugar" of energy was caused by the matter in the BB. Where did the matter come from?
Ben

 

[Twilight Hue]

In any case you're right that it wasn't "nothing" which ignited the BBE, but you're making unwarranted epistemic leaps if you're asserting a God-being caused it. -MM-

True enough. People tend to start at positions (Maintaining a conclusive answer first) then trying afterwards to find answers that suggest, lead up to, and fit in with that predetermined position. Starting off with a set answer already concluded as a fact is never practicable. Rather I suggest working on what is already well known and observe where it takes you, keeping pre-determinism at a minimum.

 

[Ben Masada]

Assuming a creator without justification though is unwarranted and strips you of any epistemic consistency; assuming you don't make wild assumptions about all other things you don't know about.

That's the point my dear. I am no longer assuming, but using Logic to assert my views on two counts. First, by default based on the fact that Atheists are sure of nothing. And second, that being the universe a creation, it is only obvious that the Creator becomes justified. Otherwise, which action would you find easier to perform, to discard the watchman or to deny the watch?
Ben

 

[Ben Masada]

(Sadly, he's not even aware that it was over before it began.)

What was that for, to save the Atheist's face or your way to say, "I am out" to avoid any further embarrassment?

Ben

 

[sandy whitelinger]

..the miracle of science...

Is that an oxymoron?

 

[PolyHedral]

Is that an oxymoron?

Yes, unless Carl Sagan is God...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What was that for, to save the Atheist's face or your way to say, "I am out" to avoid any further embarrassment?

Ben

Unfortunately, it's going to be hard to avoid feeling further embarrassment for you, as long as you keep talking.

 

[Meow Mix]

Yes MM, assumptions. That's what we have been exchanging so far. Yours are no less than mine. You assume that the universe has come out of nothing as the first assumption. For the second, you even doubt the universe exists at all, as if you were not part of it.

I'm sorry, you must be misunderstanding what I wrote. You say I'm assuming that the universe has come out of nothing; but that's the opposite of what I was saying. Please re-read carefully what I typed. Secondly, I never implied that I doubt the universe "exists at all," and I'm not sure where you got that connotation. All I can do is implore you to read my post once more and hopefully that will clear up this confusion.

I hold no hidden assumptions. They are based in the atheistic assumptions that either creation has created itself or that creation is possible without a Creator.

You just did it again, see? You called it a "creation" as if that's a given, as if all parties already agree to that concept and as if that concept even has any justification to be asserted. Asking "How was the universe created" is as stacked a question as asking "Do you still beat your wife?"

The question shouldn't be "How was the universe created," the first question should be "Was the universe created?" or "Does the universe have a beginning?"

Your assumption is that indeed the universe had a beginning. That isn't a defensible position. The BBE marked the beginning of the current timeline and the current state of the universe, but nothing about the BBE suggests it was the beginning of the ontological existence of the universe. You must first defend your assumption that the universe began before we can start talking about who or what caused a beginning. However, I don't expect you to get that far -- as there is no evidence that the universe began. The furthest back the evidence goes is to the first Planck time after the BBE.

You speak of the BB event as if it were not a theory but a fact. The other day I caught Kacco, that Japanese Scientist or Cosmologyst saying that the BB can never be proved. It will remain a theory and and it could even die as a theory.

You're misunderstanding Kaku (if you're referring to Michio Kaku). Gravity is also a theory... so is optic theory (which you are employing to even read these words). I doubt you would fail to consider the germ theory of disease a fact, and suppose you've taken antibiotics at least once in your life.

"Theory" doesn't mean "guess" in science. Often, theories are facts. You can't equivocate the scientific use of the word "theory" to how it's often employed in everyday life because they're simply completely different terms.

It is indeed a fact that the BB occurred, though some minute details are being worked out such as whether or not inflation occurred and to what extent -- but that's like working out whether the butler had wound his watch or not before slaying the guest with a hatchet in the dining room when it's already known that the butler did indeed slay the guest with a hatchet in the dining room (mere details).

My argument with Atheists is derived from the fact that they think we Theists are morons for believing in the Logic that creation stands for the work of a Creator. At least, in its protoplasm or cytoplasma as the universe is concerned. That's what Philosophers, people with powerful ability to think refer to as Primal Cause or Primal Mover. At least, they don't discard the possibility of Something out there esoterically independent of the universe to explain that matter cannot come out of nothing.
Ben

I hold no assumption that you're a moron just for holding theistic beliefs, though I may question the epistemic soundness of said beliefs. Nor do I discount brilliant philosophers who made credible arguments as you describe such as Aquinas, Kalam, Craig, I think maybe Plantinga and Maydole also had "first-cause" arguments -- but I'm engaging with you about the downfall of first-cause arguments in this thread. They have a hidden assumption: that the universe began at all, which is an unfounded, unjustifiable (with current data) assumption. A chain of logic must have solid and unbroken links, but the very first link of the argument you allude to isn't founded on anything; not even a house of cards: there isn't even weak justification that the universe began to exist.

 

[LuisDantas]

That's the point my dear. I am no longer assuming, but using Logic to assert my views on two counts. First, by default based on the fact that Atheists are sure of nothing. And second, that being the universe a creation, it is only obvious that the Creator becomes justified. Otherwise, which action would you find easier to perform, to discard the watchman or to deny the watch?
Ben

The clockmaker argument has been refuted quite a while ago.

Watchmaker analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It suffers from many serious flaws which basically make it worthless, not least among them that it is self-contradictory and reliant on human bias.

More specifically, it begins with a false premise (that the Universe was created) to reach a conclusion that is both premature and self-contradictory (that there was a godlike entity that created the Universe).

Yet, that only makes the situation more difficult to explain. If a Universe "must have been created", then what can we say about a Universe-Creator God?

Ultimately it is simply an aesthetic appeal to the belief in a Creator God. Legitimate, but unconvincing except to those who want to believe in the first place.

 

[Meow Mix]

You see? You are struggling to swim in the same waters which you think I am, when you charge me with making "unwarranted epistemic leaps" by asserting creation as an act of God. You are making the very same mistake by asserting or assuming that
creation either created itself or magically come out of nothing.

Regarding your analogy of the energy generated by the BB as heavy as a "bag of sugar" holds no water. First of all, you are basing your assertions on a theory that could die as a theory and never be proved. Then, energy is an accident of matter; a by-product of motion. Assuming Science ever proves the BB theory, that "bag of sugar" of energy was caused by the matter in the BB. Where did the matter come from?
Ben

I'm sorry, but your understanding of scientific terminology and of what energy is are both incorrect.

Theories are the highest attainable status of a collection of ideas in science. Observation -> Hypothesis -> Laws -> Theory

To even become a theory, a collection of facts, laws, observations, and confirmed hypotheses (hypotheses which couldn't be falsified via experiment) come together to form a cohesive, explanatory and predictive body known in science as a "theory." It's not a matter of "it might die as a theory, never to be proven," as that can't be said of a scientific theory -- that might be said of an hypothesis which can't be tested, for instance, but not of a scientific theory.

Gravity is "still" a theory, that organisms are made of cells is "still" a theory, you're reading these words because your computer monitor operates on optic theory, so on -- you simply misunderstand the heirarchy of scientific terms, I think; and you're equivocating "scientific theory" with the layman definition that's closer to "guess."

As for energy, it isn't a "by-product" of matter (though it is an attribute of matter), and the total energy from the BBE is calculatable by reversing the clock on the universe. Even though there were much greater temperatures and pressures in the much denser early universe there was still a huge amount of potential energy, which counterbalances the kinetic and other types of energy: the end result (with everything we observe today, including dark matter and dark energy) is that the total energy involved in the BBE would weigh about as much as a bag of sugar plus or minus a bag of sugar: it might even have been zero.