Part 3: The Cosmological Argument--

[weedseed]

The Cosmological Argument is the argument from the beginning of the universe. If the universe had a beginning, then the universe had a cause. In logical form the argument goes like this:

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Therefore the universe had a cause.

As I showed in Part 1, for an argument to be true it has to be logically valid, and its premises must be true. This is a valid argument, but are the premises true? Let's take a look at the premises.

Premise 1: Everything that had a beginning had a cause--is the the of Causality, which is the fundamental principle of science. Without the Law of Causality, science is impossible. In fact, Francis Bacon (the father of modern science) said, "True knowledge is knowledge by causes." In other words, science is a search for causes. That's what scientists do--they try to discover what caused what.

If there's one thing we've observed about the universe it's that things don't happen without a cause. When a man is driving down the street, a car never appears in front of his car out of nowhere, with no driver or no cause. We know many a police officer has heard this but it just isn't true. There's always a driver or some other cause behind that car appearing. Even the great skeptic David Hume could not deny the Law of Causality. He wrote, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause."

In fact, to deny the Law of Causality is to deny rationality. The very process of rational thinking requires us to put together thoughts (the causes) that result in conclusions (the effects). So if anyone ever tells you they don't believe in the Law of Causality, simply ask that person, "What caused you to come to that conclusion?"

Since the Law of Causality is well established and undeniable, premise 1 is true. What about premise 2? Did the universe have a beginning? If not, then no cause is needed. If so, then the universe must have had a cause.

Until about the time of Einstein, atheists could comfort themselves with the belief that the universe is eternal, and thus did not need a cause. But since then, five lines of scientific evidence have been discovered that prove beyond reasonable doubt that the universe did indeed have a beginning. And that beginning was what scientists now call "The Big Bang." This Big Bang evidence can be easily remembered by the acronym SURGE.

Every several years or so, the major news magazines--Time, Newsweek, and the like--run a cover story about the origin and fate of the universe. "When did the universe begin?" and "When will it end?" are two of the questions investigated in such articles. The fact that the universe had a beginning will ultimately die is not even up for debate in these reports. Why? Because modern scientists know that a beginning and an ending are demanded by one of the most validated laws of nature--the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

This leads us into Part 4

[sm666]

Cosmological argument is a complete load, and fails.

They argue first that the universe has a beginning at the big bang, wrong. The first law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy cannot be destroyed, thus all the matter that makes up this universe has always existed. Second, the only thing that started at the big bang was time, time can only exist in space, so space(the universe) must have existed before time or else time would have nothing to exist in.

But then you argue, "well you need something to create time", and that again would be wrong, because as I've said before, causality does not exist without time, so time requires no cause or creation.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by weedseed

The Cosmological Argument is the argument from the beginning of the universe. If the universe had a beginning, then the universe had a cause. In logical form the argument goes like this:

1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.

2. The universe had a beginning.

3. Therefore the universe had a cause.

As I showed in Part 1, for an argument to be true it has to be logically valid, and its premises must be true. This is a valid argument, but are the premises true? Let's take a look at the premises.

Premise 1: Everything that had a beginning had a cause--is the the of Causality, which is the fundamental principle of science. Without the Law of Causality, science is impossible. In fact, Francis Bacon (the father of modern science) said, "True knowledge is knowledge by causes." In other words, science is a search for causes. That's what scientists do--they try to discover what caused what.

If there's one thing we've observed about the universe it's that things don't happen without a cause. When a man is driving down the street, a car never appears in front of his car out of nowhere, with no driver or no cause. We know many a police officer has heard this but it just isn't true. There's always a driver or some other cause behind that car appearing. Even the great skeptic David Hume could not deny the Law of Causality. He wrote, "I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause."

In fact, to deny the Law of Causality is to deny rationality. The very process of rational thinking requires us to put together thoughts (the causes) that result in conclusions (the effects). So if anyone ever tells you they don't believe in the Law of Causality, simply ask that person, "What caused you to come to that conclusion?"

Since the Law of Causality is well established and undeniable, premise 1 is true. What about premise 2? Did the universe have a beginning? If not, then no cause is needed. If so, then the universe must have had a cause.

Until about the time of Einstein, atheists could comfort themselves with the belief that the universe is eternal, and thus did not need a cause. But since then, five lines of scientific evidence have been discovered that prove beyond reasonable doubt that the universe did indeed have a beginning. And that beginning was what scientists now call "The Big Bang." This Big Bang evidence can be easily remembered by the acronym SURGE.

Every several years or so, the major news magazines--Time, Newsweek, and the like--run a cover story about the origin and fate of the universe. "When did the universe begin?" and "When will it end?" are two of the questions investigated in such articles. The fact that the universe had a beginning will ultimately die is not even up for debate in these reports. Why? Because modern scientists know that a beginning and an ending are demanded by one of the most validated laws of nature--the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

This leads us into Part 4

Potentiality is an "accident waiting to happen". If we exist, it had to happen this way. If I said it, I had to. That's why "had" is in the past tense. Basic reality, something already established. An a priori premise.

[weedseed]

Originally Posted by sm666

Cosmological argument is a complete load, and fails.

They argue first that the universe has a beginning at the big bang, wrong.

The Big Bang is supported by fact like it or not. And the Big Bang supports the Cosmological argument.

Big Bang wasn't the beginning? Says who? You? There is already scientific evidence supporting it. Sorry but it's not up for debate...you're a hundred years too late to even try. Unless your studies have unveiled something that Einstein and multiple astrophysicists have missed you have no grounds to make such a claim. Evidence is Evidence...

You cannot have an effect before a cause...it's common sense.

Originally Posted by sm666

The first law of thermodynamics states that matter and energy cannot be destroyed, thus all the matter that makes up this universe has always existed.

You made no sense. matter and energy cannot be destroyed so the universe always existed? lol. destruction has no bearing on creation (or a beginning). The universe is running out of USABLE energy, not energy in general.

Originally Posted by sm666

Second, the only thing that started at the big bang was time, time can only exist in space, so space(the universe) must have existed before time or else time would have nothing to exist in.

1) so there was an explosion of time? LOL!!

2)you do realize we are a part of this universe right? we experience time like anywhere else. if you haven't realized that yet then, there is no hope for you.

3)time and space happened at the same time. you cannot have one without the other.

4)if something exists, then it is subject to time itself...whether you think it to be an infinite amount of time or a finite amount.

Originally Posted by sm666

But then you argue, "well you need something to create time", and that again would be wrong, because as I've said before, causality does not exist without time, so time requires no cause or creation.

According to scientific evidence you are wrong. you have nothing to argue. Time, space, and matter (effects) were brought on by the Big Bang (cause). Time does need a cause. Creation scientists and agnostic scientists alike will tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

Potentiality is an "accident waiting to happen". If we exist, it had to happen this way. If I said it, I had to. That's why "had" is in the past tense. Basic reality, something already established. An a priori premise.

Pontentiality is just another way of saying its all by chance. Thats like saying given enough time and nature could sculpt Mt. Rushmore. Time works against nature...nature has a destructive....nature (entropy). The more time that passes, the less likely it is to happen (naturally speaking).

Look at the evidence. In rewind. You have now...and as you rewind the universe gets smaller (watching this explosion in reverse). eventually get arrive at a point before the time of explosion (the firecracker is still intact)..the firecracker gets smaller and smaller and smaller--until it is nothing! there is no potentiality or chance when you have a bunch of NOTHING. This is supported by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since nothing cannot produce something...there was a Beginner to this beginning. A Cause to this effect. A Designer for this design.


I'm only stating scientific evidences. Having said that--They cannot be argued against. General Relativity has been proven. We know this. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not up for debate either...Evidence is evidence--and these both support a beginning.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by weedseed

The Big Bang is supported by fact like it or not. And the Big Bang supports the Cosmological argument.

Big Bang wasn't the beginning? Says who? You? There is already scientific evidence supporting it. Sorry but it's not up for debate...you're a hundred years too late to even try. Unless your studies have unveiled something that Einstein and multiple astrophysicists have missed you have no grounds to make such a claim. Evidence is Evidence...

You cannot have an effect before a cause...it's common sense.



You made no sense. matter and energy cannot be destroyed so the universe always existed? lol. destruction has no bearing on creation (or a beginning). The universe is running out of USABLE energy, not energy in general.



1) so there was an explosion of time? LOL!!

2)you do realize we are a part of this universe right? we experience time like anywhere else. if you haven't realized that yet then, there is no hope for you.

3)time and space happened at the same time. you cannot have one without the other.

4)if something exists, then it is subject to time itself...whether you think it to be an infinite amount of time or a finite amount.





According to scientific evidence you are wrong. you have nothing to argue. Time, space, and matter (effects) were brought on by the Big Bang (cause). Time does need a cause. Creation scientists and agnostic scientists alike will tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about.



Pontentiality is just another way of saying its all by chance. Thats like saying given enough time and nature could sculpt Mt. Rushmore. Time works against nature...nature has a destructive....nature (entropy). The more time that passes, the less likely it is to happen (naturally speaking).

Look at the evidence. In rewind. You have now...and as you rewind the universe gets smaller (watching this explosion in reverse). eventually get arrive at a point before the time of explosion (the firecracker is still intact)..the firecracker gets smaller and smaller and smaller--until it is nothing! there is no potentiality or chance when you have a bunch of NOTHING. This is supported by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since nothing cannot produce something...there was a Beginner to this beginning. A Cause to this effect. A Designer for this design.


I'm only stating scientific evidences. Having said that--They cannot be argued against. General Relativity has been proven. We know this. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not up for debate either...Evidence is evidence--and these both support a beginning.

Ideological viewpoint. You say God can do anything. Thus he may achieve the infinite. Thus, the infinite is within and without all.

[weedseed]

He is infinite. He doesn't achieve it.

I'm a guy. I can't achieve a penis. It's part of my (male's) nature. or

The grass is green. It doesn't achieve its color. The color is in its nature.



Saying that He can achieve something doesn't make it automatically exist.

I can achieve an erection in the next 5 minutes. That doesn't mean I have to or will.



Are you disagreeing for arguments sake or do you actually believe what you are saying?

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by weedseed

He is infinite. He doesn't achieve it.

I'm a guy. I can't achieve a penis. It's part of my (male's) nature. or

The grass is green. It doesn't achieve its color. The color is in its nature.



Saying that He can achieve something doesn't make it automatically exist.

I can achieve an erection in the next 5 minutes. That doesn't mean I have to or will.



Are you disagreeing for arguments sake or do you actually believe what you are saying?

Devil's advocate, always. Have you noticed that I ask many more questions than I give answers? Infinite scale works on the infinite scale. How can you deny such "absolute" relativity?

[Jimbozu]

Theres nothing to sugest that something didn't happen before the big bang. This is why mos (logical) people suggest that science doesnt contradict religion. If a religion claims there god created the universe, according to the big bang theory, it can still be true. Who knows what set of the big bang. First of all, it happened 13 billion years ago, so there was no one around to have a first hand account of it. Second, the big ban created everything we know today. That means that theres nothing around from before the big bang to tell us what was going on.

I know how you hate the suggestion that your god lied to you abou how he created the universe, and even that can be solved with a simple explanation. Perhaps it was not God who erred, but those who wrote and later transcribed the bible. Trying to comprehend the number one million is hard, much less one billion. It wouldn't be a stretch the suggest that, at one point in history, when the computer wasnt invented, and things happened at much smaller scales, the idea that the universe was billions of years old was just unfathumable, even to the "enlightened" thinkers who wrote the bible.

PS. just something to point out. Black holes apear to disobey the law of entropy (I say apear because I dont have any scientific backing besides a 5 minute discussion with my physics professor and logical freethinking). As matter enters a black hole it becomes more orderly, confining to a smaller and smaller space, that it cannot escape from. I'm really just throwing this idea out from the dark recesses of my mind, but perhaps a "big bang" occurs when all the matter in the universe has eventually condensed into a single, ultimate black hole. (I'm sure some scientific theory implies this basic idea, I just don't know what it is.)

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Jimbozu

Theres nothing to sugest that something didn't happen before the big bang. This is why mos (logical) people suggest that science doesnt contradict religion. If a religion claims there god created the universe, according to the big bang theory, it can still be true. Who knows what set of the big bang. First of all, it happened 13 billion years ago, so there was no one around to have a first hand account of it. Second, the big ban created everything we know today. That means that theres nothing around from before the big bang to tell us what was going on.

I know how you hate the suggestion that your god lied to you abou how he created the universe, and even that can be solved with a simple explanation. Perhaps it was not God who erred, but those who wrote and later transcribed the bible. Trying to comprehend the number one million is hard, much less one billion. It wouldn't be a stretch the suggest that, at one point in history, when the computer wasnt invented, and things happened at much smaller scales, the idea that the universe was billions of years old was just unfathumable, even to the "enlightened" thinkers who wrote the bible.

PS. just something to point out. Black holes apear to disobey the law of entropy (I say apear because I dont have any scientific backing besides a 5 minute discussion with my physics professor and logical freethinking). As matter enters a black hole it becomes more orderly, confining to a smaller and smaller space, that it cannot escape from. I'm really just throwing this idea out from the dark recesses of my mind, but perhaps a "big bang" occurs when all the matter in the universe has eventually condensed into a single, ultimate black hole. (I'm sure some scientific theory implies this basic idea, I just don't know what it is.)

Universal Wormhole. Nice thought.

[JesusC]

Originally Posted by weedseed

The Big Bang is supported by fact like it or not. And the Big Bang supports the Cosmological argument.

Big Bang wasn't the beginning? Says who? You? There is already scientific evidence supporting it. Sorry but it's not up for debate...you're a hundred years too late to even try. Unless your studies have unveiled something that Einstein and multiple astrophysicists have missed you have no grounds to make such a claim. Evidence is Evidence...

You cannot have an effect before a cause...it's common sense.



You made no sense. matter and energy cannot be destroyed so the universe always existed? lol. destruction has no bearing on creation (or a beginning). The universe is running out of USABLE energy, not energy in general.



1) so there was an explosion of time? LOL!!

2)you do realize we are a part of this universe right? we experience time like anywhere else. if you haven't realized that yet then, there is no hope for you.

3)time and space happened at the same time. you cannot have one without the other.

4)if something exists, then it is subject to time itself...whether you think it to be an infinite amount of time or a finite amount.





According to scientific evidence you are wrong. you have nothing to argue. Time, space, and matter (effects) were brought on by the Big Bang (cause). Time does need a cause. Creation scientists and agnostic scientists alike will tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about.



Pontentiality is just another way of saying its all by chance. Thats like saying given enough time and nature could sculpt Mt. Rushmore. Time works against nature...nature has a destructive....nature (entropy). The more time that passes, the less likely it is to happen (naturally speaking).

Look at the evidence. In rewind. You have now...and as you rewind the universe gets smaller (watching this explosion in reverse). eventually get arrive at a point before the time of explosion (the firecracker is still intact)..the firecracker gets smaller and smaller and smaller--until it is nothing! there is no potentiality or chance when you have a bunch of NOTHING. This is supported by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Since nothing cannot produce something...there was a Beginner to this beginning. A Cause to this effect. A Designer for this design.


I'm only stating scientific evidences. Having said that--They cannot be argued against. General Relativity has been proven. We know this. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not up for debate either...Evidence is evidence--and these both support a beginning.

You should be careful when being so quick to point out the "mistakes" of anothers beliefs or viewpoints, especially when someone holds beliefs such as yours.

[BubbleFunker]

The great chasms in the logic here make me feel as though I've stumbled into a Bill O'Reilly rant

"He is infinite. He doesn't achieve it."
Who the hell is He? He, . . . .that's a joke, right?

I'm a guy. I can't achieve a penis. It's part of my (male's) nature.
They have meds for that now.

Next.

[sm666]

Originally Posted by weedseed

The Big Bang is supported by fact like it or not. And the Big Bang supports the Cosmological argument.

Big Bang wasn't the beginning? Says who? You? There is already scientific evidence supporting it. Sorry but it's not up for debate...you're a hundred years too late to even try. Unless your studies have unveiled something that Einstein and multiple astrophysicists have missed you have no grounds to make such a claim. Evidence is Evidence...

You cannot have an effect before a cause...it's common sense.

You completely misunderstand the big bang, all it covers is the history of the universe from t=0, but as I've said time is a property of space, so to even have a t=0 you would require space to already have been there.

The big bang isn't a moment of creation in science, only the moment TIME BEGAN (t=0).

And since you cannot have cause without time(i.e you need some kind of progression of events to even have causality) to say time could have a cause is completely irrational.

Originally Posted by weedseed

You made no sense. matter and energy cannot be destroyed so the universe always existed? lol. destruction has no bearing on creation (or a beginning). The universe is running out of USABLE energy, not energy in general.

Have you ever seen an instance of creation, ever? No. Have you ever seen an instance of absolute destruction of matter and energy, ever? No. Is there any indication that you could ever destroy or create matter, ever. No. This is all in the laws of thermodynamics, so your kind of cherry picking your science to prove your point.

Originally Posted by weedseed

1) so there was an explosion of time? LOL!!

Ummm, there was no explosion, ever. There was the start of time, and there was inflation... you want to try to at least not play word games.

Originally Posted by weedseed

2)you do realize we are a part of this universe right? we experience time like anywhere else. if you haven't realized that yet then, there is no hope for you.

Umm, yes I do, you do realize time can function differently based on the geometric configuration of the space around it right?

Originally Posted by weedseed

3)time and space happened at the same time. you cannot have one without the other.

4)if something exists, then it is subject to time itself...whether you think it to be an infinite amount of time or a finite amount.

Again, your now making claims about time that even our top scientists can't make.. NICE SCIENCE. The truth is we really don't understand time that well.

Originally Posted by weedseed

According to scientific evidence you are wrong. you have nothing to argue. Time, space, and matter (effects) were brought on by the Big Bang (cause). Time does need a cause. Creation scientists and agnostic scientists alike will tell you that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I find this funny, since most serious physicists have a good scoff at the cosmological argument for creation, your twisting scientific evidence to suit your own crazy need to find a higher authority.

[xBongman420]

Where have you found an accepted model of the big bang theory that goes all the way to 0. Everything I've seen has only gone to 10^-43 seconds, or around there...

Which doesn't bring you to the actual beginning, "the cause," it brings you to some of the first reactions from said "cause." The question therefore is: What's before that? and, Is it even possible to know what happened?

[Zylark]

Originally Posted by weedseed

the Big Bang supports the Cosmological argument.

That is just a blatant lie. Relativity supports no notion of any creator god. Especially not the christian one, who amongst other things got the sequence out of order.

In essense the cosmological argument is one of the last "god of the gaps" arguments believers still cling to. The logic goes something like this: Since no explanation exist with any definite proven answer, goddidit.

That is not a reasonable argument. It is akin to pre enlightened times when believers thought disease was vengance from god, and not caused by microscopic entities or genetics.

The actual answer to what caused the Big Bang is: We do not know yet. Claiming anything else is just dishonest, arrogant and delusional. Even worse, it by implication stymies actual research on this questions if taken serious.

There are many plausible hypothesis (pulsating universe, M theory and many, many more) to the cause of Big Bang (if indeed there is a cause as such. That nothing can come from nothing, is another lie believers tout quite often), and these all have in common one thing, no god needed.