Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 6997/7006
(22-Jul-2012 at 09:03)


I see no difference. If the creator is not defined by causality, I see no reason why the Big Bang has to be. Either everything has a cause, and you are into infinite regression, or it doesn't, and there is no need for any creator.

And then there is the problem of where, when there was no universe, your creator lived...

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
#21  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1613/1637
(22-Jul-2012 at 10:36)
Re: The Great Failure of Atheism

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason: View Post
I see no difference. If the creator is not defined by causality, I see no reason why the Big Bang has to be. Either everything has a cause, and you are into infinite regression, or it doesn't, and there is no need for any creator.
The regression towards the big bang is defined by causality, but the event itself cannot be defined by causality. At some point things just went poof.

When you say, 'the big bang did it', that to me is the same as 'the creator did it'. So I think we are on the same page in this regard.

At least we can agree why infinite regress is the worst conclusion one could make.

Quote:
And then there is the problem of where, when there was no universe, your creator lived...
The creator and the big bang are not necessarily two seperate identities. The 'bang' part of the Big Bang is what I am calling the 'creator' part in the universe. It was singular, it was supreme, somehow not defined by causality, and yet absolutely, logically necessary.
#22  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Posts: 3848/3863
(04-Aug-2012 at 17:17)


Re: The Great Failure of Atheism

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung: View Post
The regression towards the big bang is defined by causality, but the event itself cannot be defined by causality. At some point things just went poof.

When you say, 'the big bang did it', that to me is the same as 'the creator did it'. So I think we are on the same page in this regard.

At least we can agree why infinite regress is the worst conclusion one could make.

And yet you cannot explain how the "creator" came into existence.



Quote:
The creator and the big bang are not necessarily two seperate identities. The 'bang' part of the Big Bang is what I am calling the 'creator' part in the universe. It was singular, it was supreme, somehow not defined by causality, and yet absolutely, logically necessary.
Firstly, the word "creator" implies an intelligent entity.
Secondly, there is no evidence for or against the big bang event being singular.
Thirdly, why use the word supreme?
Finally, there is no evidence to suggest whether the big bang had a cause or not.

People, like snowflakes, are all slightly different, but we all follow the same patterns -Stewie
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

Some people are like Slinkies- absolutely useless, but always fun to push down stairs!
#23  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Azure Dragon Add Azure Dragon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1626/1637
(05-Aug-2012 at 05:12)
Re: The Great Failure of Atheism

Big bangs are repeatable, as you say. Which only stands to reasons that the first cause must be unrepeatable and existing as distinguishable to the big bang(s).

Since the first cause must be unrepeatable, it must also be unique. It must also be an uncaused cause as to not infinitely regress. Since it is the unique uncaused cause that does not infinitely regress, it is all powerful over creation. Since all power and all creation is not manifest at once, it must also be deliberate. Such deliberation is what constitutes intelligence.
#24  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Posts: 3849/3863
(06-Aug-2012 at 21:57)


Re: The Great Failure of Atheism

And we're back to arguing the infinite regression. If there is an uncaused cause to the big bang, then it is far less complex to say the big bang had no cause, and again does not require the existence of an intelligence to cause it.

Further, if you take causality to be a fundamental law of the universe; then what evidence is there to suggest that it existed before the universe?

People, like snowflakes, are all slightly different, but we all follow the same patterns -Stewie
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

Some people are like Slinkies- absolutely useless, but always fun to push down stairs!
#25  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Azure Dragon Add Azure Dragon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1628/1637
(10-Aug-2012 at 04:23)
Yes, it does come down to infinite regression and whether that is plausible or not to us.

Strictly, science can only observe so far back into the universe, and anything before that is extrapolation. Indeed, the big bang is a logical extrapolation since we can not observe any evidence that shows that it ever happened.

In the theme of extropolation, I presented to you a logical argument for a creator. It absolutely relies on the assumption that infinite regression isn't plausible. Logically, it's not plausible, but of course it could be reality since nature does not always work logically (since our premises are always incomplete).

I present to you the reasoned position that if the big bang is a logical extrapolation and you accept it on that basis, then it is also possible to accept a creator with the same rigor since it is equally logical and necessary. If, however, you want to accept infinite regression as plausible, then that undermines everything about what we think we know about the early universe. Indeed, the infinite regression idea is much worse logically than the 'god did it' idea, because at least the deist position followers some chain of logic as opposed to the indefensable position of 'it must infinitely regress because it must'.

Infinite regression is illogical.
#26  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Posts: 3850/3863
(11-Aug-2012 at 10:59)


Lets get this clear - the big bang theory deals with the event itself and the aftermath. The big bang theory does not deal with the cause of the event. The logical extrapolation of the Big Bang theory is based on observed evidence of the early universe, and extrapolated back using known physics. It is the current accepted theory of most scientists (by that I mean the people who dedicate their lives to studying the subject) that fits the observed evidence. Suggesting that because one accepts the Big Bang Theory that one must also accept a creator theory is just a very poor attempt at confusing the argument. The two are mutually exclusive theories, and the logic behind one does not justify the logic behind the other.

The logical extrapolation of a creator is based on... imaginative thinking? There is no observed evidence that suggests at a creator. Any logical thinking about a creator relies on the gap theory - that what science hasn't explained is somehow evidence of god.


Quote:
Indeed, the infinite regression idea is much worse logically than the 'god did it' idea, because at least the deist position followers some chain of logic as opposed to the indefensable position of 'it must infinitely regress because it must'.
The idea of a creator, an intelligent agent, frequently called 'god' by some absolutely and completely relies on infinite regression. But thank you for accepting how "indefensible" that thinking is.

People, like snowflakes, are all slightly different, but we all follow the same patterns -Stewie
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

Some people are like Slinkies- absolutely useless, but always fun to push down stairs!

Last edited by Azure Dragon, 11-Aug-2012 at 11:07.
#27  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Azure Dragon Add Azure Dragon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1636/1637
(23-Aug-2012 at 01:57)
Re: The Great Failure of Atheism

Originally Posted by Azure Dragon: View Post
Lets get this clear - the big bang theory deals with the event itself and the aftermath. The big bang theory does not deal with the cause of the event. The logical extrapolation of the Big Bang theory is based on observed evidence of the early universe, and extrapolated back using known physics. It is the current accepted theory of most scientists (by that I mean the people who dedicate their lives to studying the subject) that fits the observed evidence. Suggesting that because one accepts the Big Bang Theory that one must also accept a creator theory is just a very poor attempt at confusing the argument. The two are mutually exclusive theories, and the logic behind one does not justify the logic behind the other.
The Big Bang theory is probably wrong. Science cannot observe it, nor can it make any predictions about what actually happened. It's a deficient idea, and in that moment of weakness you may aswell consider that other things go bang, or that those bangs, being repeatable, must have am absolute cause, the explanation of all matter existing. The Big Bang is just dumb, and for its lack of rigor I punished it and put it on par with creationism. You say, according to observable evidence, the Big Bang happened. Really? I can say the exact same thing about God. Why? Because causality plus repeatable bangs (as exactly as observed) equals creator power, to which there is no further logical necessity for its existance.

Regardless, if you don't like that, that's ok. Forget the big bang. Let's get serious.

A more robust theory for the universe is the Big Freeze. You see, physicists are moving towards more fluid, emergent views of the universe, not ones that rely on things going 'poof', because those theories don't really explain anything. Though, in doing so, science is admitted to itself that it isn't reasonable for matter to emerge without a cause or explanation. It directly follows that things either infinitely regress, which seems impossible, or that there must be a first, immaterial, timeless, unquantifiable (all powerful) cause, that permitted and decided exactly how the universe began, or else nothing would have emerged, and science would not be possible.

As science further studies the emergent universe it is clear that things don't just go poof. They either exist outside of casuality and are unmeasurable (before time began), or are material and quantifiable. The very existance of materal, measurable and causal matter necessitates that what is now matter began as pre-matter, or that somehow the causeless immaterial caused the material. That's not something I imagined. That's scientific. Anything else is invoking things going 'poof'.

Quote:
The idea of a creator, an intelligent agent, frequently called 'god' by some absolutely and completely relies on infinite regression. But thank you for accepting how "indefensible" that thinking is.
The idea of a creator is the only thing possible that doesn't infinite regress.
#28  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Posts: 3851/3863
(24-Aug-2012 at 00:28)


Re: The Great Failure of Atheism

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung: View Post
The Big Bang theory is probably wrong.
There is a very high possibility that it's not 100% correct. But that's why it is a theory not a fact.

Quote:
Science cannot observe it, nor can it make any predictions about what actually happened.
You might have heard of the Large Hadron Collider. It "will produce tiny patches of very high energy by colliding together atomic particles that are travelling at very high speed. The more energy produced in the collisions the further back we can look towards the very high energies that existed early in the evolution of the Universe. Collisions in the LHC will have up to 7x the energy of those produced in previous machines; recreating energies and conditions that existed billionths of a second after the start of the Big Bang."

Now... you were saying that science can't make any predictions about what actually happened?



Quote:
It's a deficient idea, and in that moment of weakness you may aswell consider that other things go bang, or that those bangs, being repeatable, must have am absolute cause, the explanation of all matter existing.
There is no evidence that big bang isn't repeatable, so you can't say for sure that it isn't.


Quote:
The Big Bang is just dumb, and for its lack of rigor I punished it and put it on par with creationism. You say, according to observable evidence, the Big Bang happened. Really? I can say the exact same thing about God. Why? Because causality plus repeatable bangs (as exactly as observed) equals creator power, to which there is no further logical necessity for its existance.
You my friend, are simply rambling here. You make false assumptions and have jumped on gaps in scientific knowledge to somehow come up with this idea that it all somehow equals god.


Quote:
It directly follows that things either infinitely regress, which seems impossible, or that there must be a first, immaterial, timeless, unquantifiable (all powerful) cause, that permitted and decided exactly how the universe began, or else nothing would have emerged, and science would not be possible.
"“Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.”

We have already established that an intelligent agent would cause an infinite regress. Why do you perpetuate this argument?

Further, why do you assert that any cause would have to be all powerful simply on its nature of being an uncaused cause? Because it has one 'ability', does not mean it has ominipresence or omnipotence.




Quote:
As science further studies the emergent universe it is clear that things don't just go poof. They either exist outside of casuality and are unmeasurable (before time began), or are material and quantifiable. The very existance of materal, measurable and causal matter necessitates that what is now matter began as pre-matter, or that somehow the causeless immaterial caused the material. That's not something I imagined. That's scientific. Anything else is invoking things going 'poof'.
So remind me again... how did your "creator" come into existance?


Quote:
The idea of a creator is the only thing possible that doesn't infinite regress.
Repeating a thing time and time again does not make it anymore true than the first time you said it, and were resoundly rebuffed with your own logic.

As VoR put it:

Quote:
Just to make this clear, your argument is:

* The Big bang is illogical because it 'just happened', but everything has to have a cause.

* That means that there must have been a creator to cause the universe

* It is not infinite regression because the creator was caused by... it just happened, without a cause.

People, like snowflakes, are all slightly different, but we all follow the same patterns -Stewie
Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.

Some people are like Slinkies- absolutely useless, but always fun to push down stairs!

Last edited by Azure Dragon, 24-Aug-2012 at 00:45.
#29  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Azure Dragon Add Azure Dragon to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Let's Ban Atheism! Krazilac Religious Discussions 101 20-May-2004 21:11
Atheism: Is it evil? PornDog Polls Heaven 25 07-Sep-2003 05:17
Atheism, a religion or not? Nimon Religious Discussions 65 18-Aug-2003 18:00
Atheism ultimaelement Religious Discussions 41 29-Mar-2003 01:40
"Catastrophic Failure" / "Unexpected Failure" Mynath Report Bugs and Problems 53 08-Mar-2002 04:35


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 21:57.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.