• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why the Cosmological Argument Fails

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
So you're not able to cite even a single scientist who has proposed that the laws of nature are eternal?

Obviously you are not able to deduce that proposition from any fact.

And obviously the eternalness of the our universe cannot be deduced from any fact.

You missed the biggest point there is no way possible to falsify a hypothesis conclusively one way or another.

. . . but nonetheless:

From: Endless Universe - Ask the Authors

Endless Universe

The Cyclic Theory agrees that there was some violent event 14 billion years ago – we still call it a "big bang" – but this was not the beginning of space and time. The key events causing the creation of matter, radiation, galaxies and stars occurred billions of years before the bang. Furthermore, there was not just one bang. The evolution of the universe is cyclic with big bangs occurring once every trillion or so, each one accompanied by the creation of new matter and radiation that forms new galaxies, stars, planets, and presumably life. Ours is only the most recent cycle.

There are several reasons why everyone should care. First, we are all curious about where the universe came from and where it is headed. Our book shows that there is an exciting and radical alternative worth considering that changes our conception of where we stand in the history of the cosmos.

Second, the answer will determine whether our universe is comprehensible or not. In both theories, the part of the universe we observe is tiny patch of a much larger, perhaps infinite space. In the conventional Big Bang theory, different parts of the universe have widely different physical properties and, some theorists believe, different laws. According to this idea, the properties of the region of the universe we observe are highly atypical of the universe on average and are set by random chance. Hence, our ability to understand the universe as a whole is limited by the fact that we can only see a small part of it.

In the Cyclic Theory, the universe is the same almost everywhere, so the laws and properties we see are typical of the whole. Hence, the Cyclic Theory restores the hope that the universe is simple and comprehensible to us even though we are only able to observe it from a limited vantage point.

How can you test the “Cyclic Theory”?

Answer:
There are several ways. For example, the Cyclic Theory leaves a distinctive pattern of gravitational waves that is very different from the one expected in the Big Bang Theory, as described in Chapter 9 of our book. A number of experimental groups throughout the world are now starting to search for these waves using detectors on satellites, high altitude balloons and on mountaintop observatories, and may prove or disprove our theory within the next few years.

Why write this book now before the theory has been tested?

Answer:
Most science books are written after ideas have been around for many years and already well established. We thought it would be interesting to write about a radically new scientific idea with far-reaching implications at a time when it is first emerging and before it is proven. This provides to capture science as it is happening through the eyes of scientists directly involved. We not only describe the ideas, but also the real struggles and risk-taking involved in developing new scientific ideas. In this way, we hope the book not only conveys the new ideas themselves, but also gives the reader an insider’s view on how science really works.

I would advise you to stop looking for rabbits in Cambrian rocks to justify your agenda.

Again, again and again . . .

Concerning the question of whether the greater cosmos is eternal or temporal or other wise cannot be falsified nor deduced as fact, but a cyclic universe can be possibly eternal.
 
Last edited:

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You missed the biggest point there is no way possible to falsify a hypothesis conclusively one way or another.
Wow. You are just so far removed from logic and the scientific method.

So scientists' ideas about the falsification of the theories of phlogiston and the body operating according to the 4 humors are just wrong, according to you. Got it.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Wow. You are just so far removed from logic and the scientific method.

So scientists' ideas about the falsification of the theories of phlogiston and the body operating according to the 4 humors are just wrong, according to you. Got it.

No, but not responding to the post is a problem. The three Stooges; Duck, Bob and Weave.

Try again . . .

You requested a reference of scientific hypothesis for an eternal universe, I responded and you ducked. GOT IT!!!!

The theories of phlogiston and the body operating according to the 4 humors failed the tests of falsification in the standards of contemporary science.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Why would this five-year-old alien kid care about what I think?

I would be as insignificant to him as a fungal spore floating in the air is to you or me. Do you bother to check which spores around you are suitably deferent before you decide which ones you should inhale?

Isn't that goal post shifting? I may be mistaken, but I would think the question has to do with when the alien (God, or a small alien) requests obeisance. Again, I hear people talk a lot of nonsense, as I find they really are few atheists in trenches!
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Isn't that goal post shifting? I may be mistaken, but I would think the question has to do with when the alien (God, or a small alien) requests obeisance.
It's not shifting goalposts; it's questioning your assumptions: why is this "god or small alien" requesting things from humans?

Again, I hear people talk a lot of nonsense, as I find they really are few atheists in trenches!
I doubt you've been in a trench in your life.

I've faced death a couple of times. Do you know what I was thinking about at the time? Figuring out how not to die. No gods at all even entered my mind.

I think you - like many religious people - overestimate the importance of your religion. If you get meaning and solace out of it, fine, but your god just doesn't matter to most of humanity. Most people get by just fine with some other god(s) or no gods at all.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Isn't that goal post shifting? I may be mistaken, but I would think the question has to do with when the alien (God, or a small alien) requests obeisance. Again, I hear people talk a lot of nonsense, as I find they really are few atheists in trenches!

Any consideration of aliens involved in an argument for 'Intelligent Design' is not relevant and in reality kicking the can down the road bringing up the question; Who created the aliens.

This not really relevant to the 'Cosmological argument.'
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It's not shifting goalposts; it's questioning your assumptions: why is this "god or small alien" requesting things from humans?


I doubt you've been in a trench in your life.

I've faced death a couple of times. Do you know what I was thinking about at the time? Figuring out how not to die. No gods at all even entered my mind.

I think you - like many religious people - overestimate the importance of your religion. If you get meaning and solace out of it, fine, but your god just doesn't matter to most of humanity. Most people get by just fine with some other god(s) or no gods at all.

The atheist in the 'trenches' is one of oldest anecdotal fallacious arguments for Theism there is. I personally know atheists who became atheists in the trenches in Viet Nam.

I agree that individual religions, churches, and other belief system over estimate the importance their particular belief in God(s), which is a primary weakness in their argument for their belief system, particularly for claim of the exclusiveness of their belief.
 
Last edited:

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You requested a reference of scientific hypothesis for an eternal universe, I responded and you ducked. GOT IT!!!!
Why don't you try quoting what I asked for, and respond to that, rather than misrepresenting what I asked for?

From what fact does one deduce that "the cyclical universe" had no beginning? What you quoted about an untested "theory" says that the "key events causing the creation of matter, radiation, galaxies and stars occurred billions of years before the bang." So, accordingly "matter, radiation, galaxies and stars" were not without a beginning.

And what happens with the second law of thermodynamics in the "cyclical universe" theory? It doesn't make sense to claim that that law of nature is "eternal," without a beginning. Correct?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Why don't you try quoting what I asked for, and respond to that, rather than misrepresenting what I asked for?

From what fact does one deduce that "the cyclical universe" had no beginning? What you quoted about an untested "theory" says that the "key events causing the creation of matter, radiation, galaxies and stars occurred billions of years before the bang." So, accordingly "matter, radiation, galaxies and stars" were not without a beginning.

And what happens with the second law of thermodynamics in the "cyclical universe" theory? It doesn't make sense to claim that that law of nature is "eternal," without a beginning. Correct?

First, the nature of a cyclic universe as endless is the conclusion of the scientists not me.

Second, you need to read the reference, which deals with the problem of the second Law of Thermodynamics.

Third, the question is not whether you agree with the hypothesis or not, nor the facts, nor math that the scientists used to develop they cyclic universe hypothesis. The question was you asked for references of scientists that developed hypothesis and published that our universe is 'endless, or eternal,' and I provided the reference.

Moving the goal posts, because you disagree gets you nowhere. I doubt your qualifications are up to par to deal with the science, math, and questions concerning the Second Law of these hypothesis. You could directly refer to the publication in detail and present a point by point refutation of the math and science behind his hypothesis, but I doubt you are able.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
It's not shifting goalposts; it's questioning your assumptions: why is this "god or small alien" requesting things from humans?


I doubt you've been in a trench in your life.

I've faced death a couple of times. Do you know what I was thinking about at the time? Figuring out how not to die. No gods at all even entered my mind.

I think you - like many religious people - overestimate the importance of your religion. If you get meaning and solace out of it, fine, but your god just doesn't matter to most of humanity. Most people get by just fine with some other god(s) or no gods at all.

I've faced death a few times, yes. I have a testimony that during one of those times, post-salvation, I felt the presence of God and was calm, peaceful, aware, ready.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Any consideration of aliens involved in an argument for 'Intelligent Design' is not relevant and in reality kicking the can down the road bringing up the question; Who created the aliens.

This not really relevant to the 'Cosmological argument.'

But space seed/alien design is a argument today on the skeptics'/evolutionary side as well.

Also, you are begging the question of infinite regression unto God...
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
But space seed/alien design is a argument today on the skeptics'/evolutionary side as well.

No it is not. The only scientific hypothesis involve the extraterrestrial source of the amino acid basic building blocks of life, and this is well documented by the evidence. Scientists do not seriously proposes a falsifiable hypothesis of an alien created origin of life on earth.

Also, you are begging the question of infinite regression unto God...

Needs explanation, because there is not a sound coherent argument concerning actual infinities, and the question of whether our physical existence is eternal, infinite, temporal nor finite. There is no falsifiable evidence to provide a falsifiable definitive conclusion either way. There are only well grounded hypothesis that describe our physical existence as potentially [potential infinity by definition] endless or eternal.
 
Last edited:

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
Take away the "felt the presence of God" bit and that describes my experience as well.

Okay, to what do you ascribe this peace? Remember, the Bible says that for the righteous, God makes even their enemies have peace with them, blesses us in the presence of enemies/threats, and causes us to love our enemies.

I've met skeptics who say they forgive/forget their enemies, I've never met a skeptic who loved an enemy.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Okay, to what do you ascribe this peace?
Epinephrine and oxytocin.

Remember, the Bible says that for the righteous, God makes even their enemies have peace with them, blesses us in the presence of enemies/threats, and causes us to love our enemies.

I've met skeptics who say they forgive/forget their enemies, I've never met a skeptic who loved an enemy.
Love for enemies seems in pretty short supply among Christians, too.

I take a different approach: if I love someone, I don't consider them my enemy.
 

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
No it is not. The only scientific hypothesis involve the extraterrestrial source of the amino acid basic building blocks of life, and this is well documented by the evidence. Scientists do not seriously proposes a falsifiable hypothesis of an alien created origin of life on earth.



Needs explanation, because there is not a sound coherent argument concerning actual infinities, and the question of whether our physical existence is eternal, infinite, temporal nor finite. There is no falsifiable evidence to provide a falsifiable definitive conclusion either way. There are only well grounded hypothesis that describe our physical existence as potentially [potential infinity by definition] endless or eternal.

It must be upsetting, then, when famous and influential scientists who specialize in evolution claim they find space seed and alien planting quite possible--as well as having great explanatory power for what mechanistic evolution cannot do.

If there's no falsifiable evidence "either way" on our physical existence, why is it that almost 100% of cosmologists reject any Steady State or eternal universe theory and all accept a singularity (and usually, a multiverse injecting to here)?
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
It must be upsetting, then, when famous and influential scientists who specialize in evolution claim they find space seed and alien planting quite possible--as well as having great explanatory power for what mechanistic evolution cannot do.

Not upsetting at all, because scientist do not make this foolish version of what scientist have found concerning Amino Acids found in association with meteorites. First this would a matter of the origin of chemicals for abiogenesis, and second it is not a claim(?), it is simply a very natural observed fact of the known origin of these chemicals.

By the way, evolution does not 'do nor cannot do anything.' It is simply the descriptive science is demonstrated as valid beyond a reasonable doubt concerning the history of life on earth.

Again scientists do not seriously consider alien origin for anything.

If there's no falsifiable evidence "either way" on our physical existence, why is it that almost 100% of cosmologists reject any Steady State or eternal universe theory and all accept a singularity (and usually, a multiverse injecting to here)?

This is not a coherent description of how scientists consider whether our physical existence is eternal or not. There is no such thing as 100% in science. Yes, the steady state theory is no rejected, but a cyclic universe has been proposed that is possibly endless and eternal, as previously cited.

Endless Universe - Ask the Authors

Your sarcastic misinformed response is misrepresenting the variations of the Big Bang and the multiverse hypothesis. Neither hypothesis nor the versions there of make a definitive predictions whether our physical existence is ultimately eternal or not.

What is upsetting is the fact that many apologists and you ridicule, misquote and misrepresent science and scientists from the clueless perspective that you are not qualified to understand nor make a coherent argument.
 
Last edited:

atanu

Member
Premium Member
This would be the advocates of 'Intelligent Design.

The bold perpetuates and either or of an anthropomorphic concept of what you would consider blind. As far as I know no one advocates the 'first cause is blind,; Where are you getting this?!?!?!

Actually, I meant what you prove in your second para above.

If the first cause of the universe is intelligent then it is eligible to be called god. And in my opinion your assumption that such a god implies anthromorphism is not correct.
 
Top