172 replies to this topic

[Lion6969]

Cybele, on 11 March 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

Actually, you’re jumping to conclusions. I do not have faith in the ideas I am presenting. I know I cannot prove them and scientists have not proved them yet, if they even can. They’re actually just thought exercises and abstract examples which run counter to your claim. I’m agnostic with regards to the origin of the universe, though I’m always willing provide counterexamples and play the devil’s advocate in the interest of debate.

I know you're playing devils advocate. However that does not negate the fact you have to have faith in such theories, they are not established facts. Hence what I propose is based around established facts and what current science points towards empirically, logically and philosophically. Where as what you are proposing are merely mythical tales thought up by mathamaticians to try and justify the fallacy that a universe created itself or is infinite. To propose them as counter arguments towards what I argue, is tantamount to countering with a fairy tale. My argument is established on current understood facts, ie the universe had a beginning which is accepted by all experts, where as you and some fringe physicists (theoretical physicists) are trying to establish that there was no beginning, these arguments mathematically maybe sound, but observationally, empirically we all know it had a start.

Quote

Not all physicists see the origin of our universe in the same way.  Is the model below not indicative of an infinite universe (or series of self-perpetuating universes into infinity)?

Mathematically yes, experientially, empirically data currently shows otherwise. How can something be infinite if it had a beginning? Without turning to creation myths, where in our physical reality is there an export of the infinite?

Quote

http://discovermagaz...e-next-big-bang

Yet Paul J. Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University, two of the heaviest hitters in the field of theoretical cosmology….They propose a “cyclic universe” model, in which our Big Bang is just one act in an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction. A trillion years from now, by their calculations, space, time, and matter will crunch down into another fireball and reemerge as another Big Bang. For eternity, the universe will swing between Big Bang and Big Crunch, a cosmic pendulum clock that never winds down. Instead of the universe accelerating into oblivion as current cosmological thinking predicts, their model regards expansion as just a passing phase.

After you critically analyse the mathamatical creation myth, it begs the question what cause initiated the cycle? What started the first bigbang? Was it a result of an infinite universe collapsing then forming new ones with bigbangs? How does an infinite universe collapse (finish) to create a new one? Is that really infinite?

You see I dont have nothing against these theories, as ling as one understands their place and context in a mathamatical reality only.

Quote

I have great difficulty believing that our limited observations and experiences, restricted as they are to a very specific scale (of size) and an incredibly small part of the universe, are sufficient to allow us to apply our everyday laws to the nature of the entire universe. Common sense as we know it breaks down at the tiny quantum scale.  So why should we be able to apply common sense, rather than relying solely on mathematics and experimental physics, to understand things trillions of times larger than our entire sphere of existence?  

Common sense does not breakdown but mathematics, science, physics etc at singularity. Hence why we have no empirical proof of imaginary previous collapsing universe. They are beyond our physical reality. In all honesty the big crunch is something which reconcilable with my faith and gods existence, it requires the first cause. Although you claI'm these theories don't require a beginning, in reality we know our reality ie the universe did have a beginning, inescapable fact!

Quote

It doesn’t have a beginning…or an end, which is exactly the point I made in a prior post.  I do not think the concept of infinity or an infinite being logically allows for creation.

So it was always there? No. There was a big bang. So it had a beginning, from an eternal process of beginning and collapse (end), is that really infinite? What caused the very first universe to begin which then collapsed to initiate this cycle? It still requires a cause, it still hits infinite regression, and it's a logical fallacy to suggest the universe is infinite.

Quote

See the theoretical model I posted above, which I acknowledge is only one of many.

Big crunch-->Big Bang-->Big crunch-->Big Bang…ad infinitum

Event A-->Event B-->Event C-->Event A-->Event B-->Event C…ad infinitum

There is no beginning; no end. Yes, a circle.

It’s also a fact that some theoretical physicists don’t believe in the notion of time, therefore rendering the idea of something “beginning”, to some, irrelevant---an illusion.

So the circle was always there? That's an infinite universe already in existence, but hey, it then collapsed (ended-not infinite then), to form another one. Come on think critically. I have no problem with god creating the universe which then collapses and begins a new universe, one creation ends and new one starts, but without gods as the initial cause, it makes no logical or philosophical sense at all.

Quote

It’s a mathematical theory--a physics-based one that is not capable of being verified experimentally at this time. I acknowledge that and so do physicists. I wish you would acknowledge the same about the premises of your arguments.

My arguments are entirely centred on current established facts which support the philosophical aspects of the argument, ie, current empirical data supports the fact of the beginning, thus philosophical argument surrounding the cause interpret that data support god as a cause. The theories you propose are the counter arguments by physicist who try and establish a infinite or self created universe. Philosophically, empirically they are weak.

Quote

As it stands, with neither of us having “proof”, I think the reasoning and theories I’ve drug up constitute valid logic-based criticisms of your arguments.

I don't think so, logically and philosophically what you dug up does not even scratch my argument. It blue sky thinking, imaginary conclusion based on faith. My argument is based on sound logical and philosophical arguments, supported by current empirical facts.

Quote

There is no first event in this scenario; it's cyclical (i.e.-circular) and self-perpetuating (see above). I think the bottom line is that we can't necessary apply our everyday notions of common sense and how our little world works to the extremes of physics. Time breaks down and things make "no sense" at the quantum scale, for example. Maybe we can't use common logic to intuit things on a scale much, much larger than we are.  

At singularity, time = 0, space = 0, matter = 0 laws of physics breakdown. Any theories proposing prior to singularity are only sound mathematically, but in reality observations and data clearly show a beginning. So as much as you propose the scenario that there is no beginning, mathematically and within that theories framework it requires no beginning, but in reality the empirical data shows otherwise. Therefore it requires a leap of faith to fall on such theories in the hope it will be proven right. It's pure faith!

Quote

Yes, physicists do agree that the Big Bang was the “origin” of the universe as we know it. That doesn’t mean they agree on what came before or if there even was a “before”, but you’ll keep on using one interpretation so long as it suits your needs and reinforces your beliefs in a god.

So they agree it has a beginning, then propose theories that suggest there was no beginning, only for our current universe there was a beginning as a result of past collapsing universe. However the universe (the circle) was always there contracting and expanding....,..seriously is that so contradictive and way out there? On one hand it has a beginning on the other it was always there and needs no start?......

Quote

What, they wonder, was the universe like before the Big Bang?... most astronomers regard the question as either irrelevant or unanswerable http://discovermagaz...e-next-big-bang

typical of them to think its irrelevant. Ask them why the universe exists at all? They say it's irrelevant, it just is! As of that is a tangible response.

I will quote an eastern philosopher Alama Iqbal a renowned poet and philosopher respected by all.

He said " Eastern and western philosophers ponder on the question, does god exist? I have a new question for us all instead, does man exist? "

What he meant was that it was illogical to question the existence of god (for him it was an innate logical truth we are all aware of hence why we question it in the first place), those that ask should reflect on within themselves, does man really exist? Can we really empirically establish we exist? This is obviously a deep philosophical statement which requires critical thinking and analysis.

[Cybele]

Lion6969, on 05 March 2012 - 11:55 PM, said:

So it was always there? No. There was a big bang. So it had a beginning, from an eternal process of beginning and collapse (end), is that really infinite? What caused the very first universe to begin which then collapsed to initiate this cycle? It still requires a cause, it still hits infinite regression, and it's a logical fallacy to suggest the universe is infinite.

No, the idea is that it’s cyclical, i.e.-circular.

Visualize a circle. Does a circle have a beginning or an end? Does it need either one or would these cut points just be needlessly imposed?

Pretend there are abrupt transformations or events (big bangs) occurring periodically along the circumference of a circle. They’ve always been there, in the same places, and always will be. Of course there’s no “first” event, except for arbitrarily imposed ones, because this space isn’t linear as we assume our time and our universe to be.

Linear: starts at A-->B-->ends at C   clear cut points

Circular: A (feeds from C)-->B-->C (feeds to A)  any cut point would be arbitrary

Second, pretend that there is a tiny person between two of these events. If the person finds evidence of the event or transformation that occurs “before” them along the circle (and only evidence of that event), from their limited perspective they might perceive this to be a beginning to all that they know--the entire universe. Really though, it isn’t a beginning at all, but just a transformation along a self-perpetuating cycle.  

Again, this is just a very simplistic thought exercise.

Edited by Cybele, 11 March 2012 - 09:31 AM.

[absolute zer0]

Cybele posted:

Quote

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."

-Friedrich Nietzsche

I would bet money that when he was eventually 'mumbling' in an insane asylum, he was probably mumbling a few prayers.

He clearly knew where we reside.  He and a lot of 'great thinkers' figured it out, and, it does have a tendency to wreak havoc on the mind.  Nietzsche didn't lose Faith, he lost all hope, and it blew his mind.

His not so famous last words, "I wrote some good books, didn't I?"

He did.  'Thus Spake Zarathustra' was highly criticized, and, not exactly a best seller. It's very informative.

[Leonardo]

Lion6969, on 11 March 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

I know you're playing devils advocate. However that does not negate the fact you have to have faith in such theories, they are not established facts. Hence what I propose is based around established facts and what current science points towards empirically, logically and philosophically. Where as what you are proposing are merely mythical tales thought up by mathamaticians to try and justify the fallacy that a universe created itself or is infinite. To propose them as counter arguments towards what I argue, is tantamount to countering with a fairy tale. My argument is established on current understood facts, ie the universe had a beginning which is accepted by all experts, where as you and some fringe physicists (theoretical physicists) are trying to establish that there was no beginning, these arguments mathematically maybe sound, but observationally, empirically we all know it had a start.

Not 'all experts' agree that this universe had a beginning. In fact, given that time is an attribute of the universe no cosmologist/scientist, etc could logically argue there was a 'beginning' to the universe. Just as no cosmologist/scientist could argue there is a 'centre' of the universe from which it 'expanded'. Without time, there can be no change, and if there is no change then there cannot be a 'beginning'. This leads to the only logical conclusion that the universe is it's own cause.

Your argument relies on a perception of the universe from within itself - which is insufficient in making a case for the universe in toto.

The argument for an 'extra-universal first cause', is neither empirically nor logically sound. I accept that it can be argued to be philosophically sound, but that means little. The 'extra-universal first cause' argument much more a 'fairy tale' than the 'infinitely-cyclical universe' argument is.

Edited by Leonardo, 11 March 2012 - 10:49 PM.

[ChloeB]

Leonardo, on 11 March 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

Not 'all experts' agree that this universe had a beginning. In fact, given that time is an attribute of the universe no cosmologist/scientist, etc could logically argue there was a 'beginning' to the universe. Just as no cosmologist/scientist could argue there is a 'centre' of the universe from which it 'expanded'. Without time, there can be no change, and if there is no change then there cannot be a 'beginning'. This leads to the only logical conclusion that the universe is it's own cause.

Your argument relies on a perception of the universe from within itself - which is insufficient in making a case for the universe in toto.

The argument for an 'extra-universal first cause', is neither empirically nor logically sound. I accept that it can be argued to be philosophically sound, but that means little. The 'extra-universal first cause' argument much more a 'fairy tale' than the 'infinitely-cyclical universe' argument is.

Well if PA's post #2 got hopped on for being "infinite regress," how is the infinitely cyclical universe argument not infinite regress as well?  I mean I guess the clue is in the word infinitely, but I'm confused because when the God people talk like this, they get zapped for a logical fallacy, so why not this infinitely cyclical universe then too?

An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, ... , and the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity.

http://en.wikipedia....nfinite_regress

Compare this to Cybele's explanation:  Circular: A (feeds from C)-->B-->C (feeds to A) any cut point would be arbitrary.

and from the wikipedia link:

Optics

Infinite regress in optics is the formation of an infinite series of receding images created in two parallel facing mirrors.

Edited by ChloeB, 12 March 2012 - 12:36 AM.

[Leonardo]

ChloeB, on 12 March 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

Well if PA's post #2 got hopped on for being "infinite regress," how is the infinitely cyclical universe argument not infinite regress as well?  I mean I guess the clue is in the word infinitely, but I'm confused because when the God people talk like this, they get zapped for a logical fallacy, so why not this infinitely cyclical universe then too?

An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, ... , and the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity.

http://en.wikipedia....nfinite_regress

Compare this to Cybele's explanation:  Circular: A (feeds from C)-->B-->C (feeds to A) any cut point would be arbitrary.

and from the wikipedia link:

Optics

Infinite regress in optics is the formation of an infinite series of receding images created in two parallel facing mirrors.

An 'infinitely regressive' argument is not, by itself, philosophically or logically invalid, unsound or inconsistent. It is only when there is a non-logical, unsound or inconsistent assumption or assertion inserted into the argument that it becomes so.

For example: Everything comes from something (is created); ergo the universe had a creator (god). God did not have a creator.

This argument is unsound because it is inconsistent. It promotes the premise that god exists - is a thing - and therefore must have had a creator. But then asserts god did not have a creator.

This is why those religious-types who make this very argument are 'jumped upon'. If they conceded that god indeed must have had a creator - and so on to infinity - then there would be no issue with their argument. It would be sound and consistent.

Edited by Leonardo, 12 March 2012 - 07:54 AM.

[eight bits]

Leo and Chloe

To which I would add, since it was specifically mentioned, PA's post #2 purports to explain a feature of the natural world, its alleged beginning.

Quote

In our physical world, everything needs to come from something... What started the origin of our universe? It is not an eternal universe, so how did it get here?

Theists argue "God". However, the next question - "ok, so what created God" is an irrelevant question. The idea that something must come from something only applies to our physical world. The supernatural world does not need to follow the same rule...

There is no fallacy here. All that PA asserted may well be true. Our world may have had a beginning, and God may have begun it. But there is nothing in post #2 that shows either one. The post argues by analogy for the Universe having had a beginning, and then there is a more or less literal Deus ex machina to "explain" that.

What's missing from post #2 is any actual explanation, or any demonstration that there is something to explain.

We have high confidence that some real things didn't have an actual beginning. Take the human species. PA is human, so we infer he must have had human parents, and we'd be correct. So their parents must have had human parents... so, on pain of infinite regress, the human race must have had a first cohort, without human parents. By an amazing coincidence, God did that, too.

Induction, arguing from what we have experienced to what we have not experienced, is always fraught.

Nasty example (The sorites, searchable) Definition of a small sand pile:

Base case: one grain of sand is a small sand pile.

Inudctive step: Any pile of sand with just one more grain of sand than a small sand pile is a small sand pile.

Conclude: All sand piles are small sand piles.

There is a "cognitive illusion" here. We see small sand piles, and we see huge sand piles. "There must be" some dividing line between them, which we have never seen. But we have never seen the "missing link" sand pile for the same reason we have never seen the "missing link" apeman. There isn't any.

So, too, the induction that there "must have been" a beginning of everything. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. There is no "must have been," just our imaginative speculations.
-

Edited by eight bits, 12 March 2012 - 08:12 AM.

[ChloeB]

eight bits, on 12 March 2012 - 08:08 AM, said:

Leo and Chloe

To which I would add, since it was specifically mentioned, PA's post #2 purports to explain a feature of the natural world, its alleged beginning.


There is no fallacy here. All that PA asserted may well be true. Our world may have had a beginning, and God may have begun it. But there is nothing in post #2 that shows either one. The post argues by analogy for the Universe having had a beginning, and then there is a more or less literal Deus ex machina to "explain" that.

What's missing from post #2 is any actual explanation, or any demonstration that there is something to explain.

We have high confidence that some real things didn't have an actual beginning. Take the human species. PA is human, so we infer he must have had human parents, and we'd be correct. So their parents must have had human parents... so, on pain of infinite regress, the human race must have had a first cohort, without human parents. By an amazing coincidence, God did that, too.

Induction, arguing from what we have experienced to what we have not experienced, is always fraught.

Nasty example (The sorites, searchable) Definition of a small sand pile:

Base case: one grain of sand is a small sand pile.

Inudctive step: Any pile of sand with just one more grain of sand than a small sand pile is a small sand pile.

Conclude: All sand piles are small sand piles.

There is a "cognitive illusion" here. We see small sand piles, and we see huge sand piles. "There must be" some dividing line between them, which we have never seen. But we have never seen the "missing link" sand pile for the same reason we have never seen the "missing link" apeman. There isn't any.

So, too, the induction that there "must have been" a beginning of everything. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. There is no "must have been," just our imaginative speculations.
-

Thanks for trying to explain Eighty (and Leo).  This is always something that kind of makes no sense to me.  When someone tries to say to someone such as was said to PA, that his explanation was infinite regress inferring that it is illogical when someone is asked about God, something supernatural, metaphysical, wouldn't by those very words, supernatural and metaphysical, it be assumed that it defies logic?  So I still don't understand why these kind of things get brought into the discussion really.

[Paranoid Android]

Orcseeker, on 09 March 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

So as far as your memory goes you thought God existed without the knowledge of of his proposed existence from anyone else? I do understand what you are saying and if everyone had a view of God like you do I guess the world would be a happier place.

Hey Orc,

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, I haven't been online.  As to this part, I'm certain I heard about a creator when I was a kid and therefore how can I say with certainty that I gained this proposed knowledge from solely my own experience?  My parents were religious, though not Christian, but they never forced me to believe so I can't say as I ever really believed in a religion.  Whatever the case, it wasn't until I was 19 or 20 that I truly committed to Christianity.  

Orcseeker, on 09 March 2012 - 10:40 PM, said:

I also like the way you put actual analysis and thought to test your own religion unlike most "believers". Who are these people who gave their life for these claims? There has been no evidence to prove the existence of the 12 apostles. Some people can become so deluded they will die for a cause regardless of its integrity.

You are still basing it on assumption as you said yourself "I weighed up the claims made and put them up against the likelihood that they were made up." This is just saying well I reckon it did happen because it seems likely. This isn't really enough to convince someone like myself.

There has been no evidence to disprove the twelve apostles either, and many writings to suggest that they did exist - mid-first century texts written by Paul to the various churches as to how one or another of the apostles were going to be doing such and such at the church to which he was writing.... if they never existed then two questions become of note:  1- why did Paul write in a familiar tone as if the audience knew them personally, and 2- would not the churches eventually begin to wonder where the hell Godot actually was?  But I do understand what you mean about dying for a deluded cause.  I was thinking about those who actually claimed to have seen Jesus, not just those who heard about Jesus from second and third hand sources (and to concede the point, as far as I am aware there is only oral tradition to support the martyrdom of apostles such as Peter).  And yes, I am making an assumption that the Bible is valid.  And so far, in the twelve years that I have been a Christian I have challenged that assumption many times and always found it to be a sound proposition.  Therefore I will continue to hold it until such time as it is no longer a sound assumption (if such a day ever comes).  

I understand that it might not be enough for you to be convinced. In the end, we all have to make our own decisions.  For me, God revealed the truth of his words to me and I cannot deny the truth of those words as I see them, hence I continue to place my trust in those words.  Who knows what tomorrow may bring though, for either of us

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android, 13 March 2012 - 05:03 AM.

[Seeker79]

There never was any kind of a beginning. God or no god. nor will there be any kind of end. The universe byond the BB boundary is in a state of "not as we know it". That dosn't mean it dosnt exist.

Given enough time a universe will evenchually evolve a god like being. Most likely a collective life of concouse brings.  Not unlike you being an evolved multicellular creature which is really a large colony of highly interconnected life forms itself.

If there is not a god like being, then there will be eventually. Which of course means that there probably already is one.

[Nik Xues]

im god(this is my beleif)

that being said god created the universe from his own flesh a "living canvas".
this world operates on the rule of natural selection more importantly "eat or be eaten". this implies when one consumes all matter in this universe they become "god". as this universe is finite the only material to create with comes from the new gods flesh. Thus history repeats itself.

scientifically speaking all "laws" repeat on all levels of existence.

"living canvas" = parents create children from their flesh. planets create life from their bodies. stars create planets from their leftovers. galaxies solar systems, etc, etc.

"eat or be eaten" = celestial bodies eat by drawing in more mass with gravity, plants break down a planets mass into cellulose, herbivores eat plants carnivores eat herbivores, etc etc.

i apologize if i havent worded this in an easy to understand way.

[Leonardo]

ChloeB, on 13 March 2012 - 03:00 AM, said:

Thanks for trying to explain Eighty (and Leo).  This is always something that kind of makes no sense to me.  When someone tries to say to someone such as was said to PA, that his explanation was infinite regress inferring that it is illogical when someone is asked about God, something supernatural, metaphysical, wouldn't by those very words, supernatural and metaphysical, it be assumed that it defies logic?  So I still don't understand why these kind of things get brought into the discussion really.

As I said previously, the infinitely recursive argument is not illogical, but it is moot in the sense it cannot provide any 'proof of claim'.

However, in the case of the 'universe creator' argument put forth by religion the believer argues that god must exist because the universe must have been created - it cannot spontaneously exist. However, a person's definition of what 'supernatural' means aside, the logic behind that argument suggests god cannot spontaneously exist either. This is where the logical fallacy occurs, but this is not critical to the argument of infinite recursiveness.

Because if god did not have a creator, then the argument that something cannot spontaneously exist is false, and so the assertion the universe cannot spontaneously exist is also false.

The religious believer circumvents this hole in their logic by proposing that the logic which can be applied to whatever is natural, cannot be applied to whatever is supernatural. Ergo, god can 'spontaneously exist' even if nothing else can. The difficulty with this, of course, is that we don't know what logic is applicable to the supernatural - because being able to apply a logic to it would suggest it [the supernatural] is capable of being known through a form of scientific (or scientific-like) enquiry. This would call into question whether what is claimed to be supernatural really is supernatural.

Caught in such a dilemma, the religious argument for a 'spontaneously existing god' ignores any counter-argument, claiming a 'divine mystery' in the matter - which is unsatisfactory to all other parties.

Essentially, the relgious argument for a spontaneously existing god who has to exist to create a universe which cannot spontaneously exist, boils down to "I'm right, so there - ner!"

Edited by Leonardo, 16 March 2012 - 10:14 AM.

[Cybele]

ChloeB, on 12 March 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

Well if PA's post #2 got hopped on for being "infinite regress," how is the infinitely cyclical universe argument not infinite regress as well?  I mean I guess the clue is in the word infinitely, but I'm confused because when the God people talk like this, they get zapped for a logical fallacy, so why not this infinitely cyclical universe then too?

An infinite regress in a series of propositions arises if the truth of proposition P1 requires the support of proposition P2, the truth of proposition P2 requires the support of proposition P3, ... , and the truth of proposition Pn-1 requires the support of proposition Pn and n approaches infinity.

http://en.wikipedia....nfinite_regress

Compare this to Cybele's explanation:  Circular: A (feeds from C)-->B-->C (feeds to A) any cut point would be arbitrary.
and from the wikipedia link:


Optics

Infinite regress in optics is the formation of an infinite series of receding images created in two parallel facing mirrors.

With regard to the bolded text, it says that “n” approaches infinity.  I am interpreting this to mean that all propositions after P1, P2, P3 are discrete propositions, i.e.- P4, P5, P6….Pn-1, Pn. In this example, n= near infinity, in mine, n=3.

This would be similar to the questions “Well, what created God?”, “What created God’s creator?” and so on, in that it would require an infinite number of different explanations and entities.

Is a circular feedback loop requiring only a finite number of unique events (entities) infinitely regressive as well?  I've found most definitions to be fairly unclear.

Edited by Cybele, 16 March 2012 - 11:42 AM.

[JayMark]

Nik Xues, on 16 March 2012 - 04:45 AM, said:

im god(this is my beleif)

that being said god created the universe from his own flesh a "living canvas".
this world operates on the rule of natural selection more importantly "eat or be eaten". this implies when one consumes all matter in this universe they become "god". as this universe is finite the only material to create with comes from the new gods flesh. Thus history repeats itself.

scientifically speaking all "laws" repeat on all levels of existence.

"living canvas" = parents create children from their flesh. planets create life from their bodies. stars create planets from their leftovers. galaxies solar systems, etc, etc.

"eat or be eaten" = celestial bodies eat by drawing in more mass with gravity, plants break down a planets mass into cellulose, herbivores eat plants carnivores eat herbivores, etc etc.

i apologize if i havent worded this in an easy to understand way.

This is quite interesting.

But if I get you right, this universe would then be the only thing there is which I think is wrong.

I also think there is much more than simple causality and/or natural selection involved in our reality.

Also how could one consume all matter of the universe?

And how can you be God if you say that God is the whole universe? What about me and the others? How can you be equal to the sum of all?

Feel free to anwser those questions.

Edited by JayMark, 16 March 2012 - 06:57 PM.

[Lion6969]

Leonardo, on 11 March 2012 - 10:28 PM, said:

Not 'all experts' agree that this universe had a beginning. In fact, given that time is an attribute of the universe no cosmologist/scientist, etc could logically argue there was a 'beginning' to the universe.

Wow now that's a ridiculous notion. You suggest that because time started with the beginning of the universe it cannot be argued it had a beginning? That's the most absurd thing I have read on here so far. Time space matter everything began, it's empirically clear to all experts, this is no longer the argument if it had a beginning, the arguments now are whether if created itself, it's always been there, and the last logical option is it was created. I believe in this post you are being quite disengenious towards me and what I said, I will show this later.

Quote

Just as no cosmologist/scientist could argue there is a 'centre' of the universe from which it 'expanded'. Without time, there can be no change, and if there is no change then there cannot be a 'beginning'. This leads to the only logical conclusion that the universe is it's own cause.

Wow, so the universe which is physical, had it's own physical cause, if so, this would be empirically proven, why? Well the whole reason our physics, maths, time, space, energy, matter all break down at singularity because there is no further physical plane for it to function upon. Thus before it there was nothing! If the universe had it's own cause, then that would also be a physical cause, which is then reachable by us on an empirical level, unlike a metaphysical cause, add to this the fact if the universe had a physical cause, then the cause for that cause must have been physical too and so on until you infinitely regress! For example, the universe had it's own cause (which logically has to be physical), no these causes have been goin on for infinite as your fallacious theory suggests, therefore a history of infinite past events and physical causes, thus our universe would take an infinity to actualise. That's how ludicrous your theory is.

Quote

Your argument relies on a perception of the universe from within itself - which is insufficient in making a case for the universe in toto.

You see here you are being  disengenous saying my argument relies upon a perception of the universe within. If I say beyond the universe is creator, that's not good enough too, if I give an argument based upon current empirical data pointing towards a beginning, then you claim it's a wrong perception, but hey it backed by observable, empirical, mathamatical evidence, but now that perception is wrong too, what's your alternative, the universe caused itself or it's infinite. Well we have seen how absurd such notions are!

Quote

The argument for an 'extra-universal first cause', is neither empirically nor logically sound. I accept that it can be argued to be philosophically sound, but that means little. The 'extra-universal first cause' argument much more a 'fairy tale' than the 'infinitely-cyclical universe' argument is.

lmao!!!

Infinite cyclical universe has no current empirical data to support it, Its flawed logically and philosophically, yet you claim it's stronger than arguing based on current data which clearly shows a beginning, it's logically and philosophically sound, yet you dismiss it. Surely it's not on the grounds that you claim in such a shallow manner ie there is no empirical support for my argument. Really, I am
Basing my argument entirely upon the beginning of the universe, I suggested that we know the universe had a beginning regardless of your assumption thar because time began too you cant really call it a beginning, that's ridiculous, because scientific data clearly shows that all the sum if matter, time and space began and came into existence, we can even observe it's early stages after the big bang, yet you claim it's not a beginning. At the same time you claim it had it's own cause, if so, then why do you hypothesise with metaphysical concepts like cyclical universes. Multiverses etc. If the universe cause was itself, then it's a physical cause thus it's reachable empirically therefore our physics and maths, matter, time etc, should not breakdown at singularity, they should function prior to it too since the cause would physical and laws of physics would be apply on that physical plane too.

It really does not matter how you try and dress it up, the facts are the universe began, therefore, it's created itself, or it's infinite or it was created!

To reach the latter conclusion is not just squeezing god in there as I made clear in past posts I don't believe in a god of the gaps. You reach that conclusion based on current scientific understand, solid philosophical and logical foundations. My argument has them all, yours has no empirical support, no philosophical support or logical sense. It's you who seems to follow mythical propositions about our beginning!