No one can possibly witness a theoretical change that takes place over a span longer than any natural life) — Outlander
By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism. However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory. Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's scientific advisor, persuaded the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly, and to stop making proclamations about cosmology. Lemaître was a devout Catholic, but opposed mixing science with religion, although he held that the two fields were not in conflict. — Wikipedia
Not a very accurate characterization of the BBT, but no doubt if that was what it actually described then there may well have been something to all of this. But the BBT describes the evolution of the universe from a hot, dense early state some ~13.8 billion years ago into the cooling and expanding (at an accelerating rate) universe we presently observe. Not only is any absolute beginning or "popping into existence" not a generally accepted part of any cosmological model (including the BBT), we essentially know that GR ceases to be a good description of physical reality once we reach the point where the gravitational field dominates on the quantum scale and so our lack of a theory of quantum gravity means we can't make reliable predictions (and that the predictions we do make- like the hypothetical "t=0" spacetime singularity- are almost certainly wrong, and mere artifacts of a broken theory... or, at least, one pushed well beyond its domain of applicability).because, after all, it does state that the entire vast universe burst into existence from a single, infinitesimally small point in a single instant.
So the supposed convergence or corroboration of the BBT with creationism or theistic cosmologies seems mostly rhetorical and fabricated... — Enai De A Lukal
I think that any mechanism of a purely dumb nature cannot be the first cause - it would have to initiate an action by its own accord — Devans99
...as do attempts to defray the appeal of the ‘fine-tuning argument’ by referring to the possibilities of multiverses, of which ‘this universe’ ‘just happens to be one’. — Wayfarer
Its also probably worth noting here, just for the record, that multiverse models are not in general posited merely to circumvent theistic fine-tuning arguments- this is a caricature at best — Enai De A Lukal
Fundamental constants are finely tuned for life. A remarkable fact about our universe is that physical constants have just the right values needed to allow for complex structures, including living things. Steven Weinberg, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind and others contend that an exotic multiverse provides a tidy explanation for this apparent coincidence: if all possible values occur in a large enough collection of universes, then viable ones for life will surely be found somewhere.
not at the centre of creation — Kenosha Kid
I was reading the other day somewhere that the fact of the earth being at the centre of the Universe was no cause for celebration, as the earth was regarded as being very lowly in the celestial hierarchy, and the centre of the earth was hell. — Wayfarer
Each chain of causes requires a concrete start - the first cause causes the second cause - the second cause doe not exist if it is not caused by the first cause. The nth+1 cause cannot exist if the nth cause does not. So causality without a first cause (IE infinite causality) cannot exist - there is nothing to make any of it concrete. — Devans99
I think that everything in time has a cause. Something must be uncaused about the universe (IE external to time) - else there would be nothing. — Devans99
Devans99
2.6k
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
— Frank Apisa
Why? Knowledge is interesting!
Nothing is certain in this world, so we must resort to probability as our only hope for true knowledge. I find it strange that you will not at least hazard a guess on this important issue. — Devans99
Hmmm. Supertasks are not impossible, Achilles can complete his run — Banno
And then this post, which points out that the supposed Principle of Causation is not amongst the laws of thought, except amongst those who seek to use it as you do. — Banno
Note that the point of this example was to show that causation is more complex than is supposed in the argument presented in the OP. It is only one of many alternate pictures which do not involve a god of one sort or another. The purpose of the example was to help you see that the conclusion only follows if one adopts a narrow understanding of causation. — Banno
Since Information (mind stuff, computer stuff, matter stuff) seems to be the fundamental "substance" of the physical and metaphysical universe, I equate it with Spinoza's "Single or Universal Substance", which he also called "God". — Gnomon
Please see this post, in which I repeat an obvious argument that shows that "everything has a cause" is neither falsifiable nor provable. — Banno
I'll try more. It's still that no fixed object is identical with itself over time, so, well, it's not really a fixed object, or it would still be the same, so, maybe, um, the object goes away and gets replaced with object that has progressed a bit. Enfoldment/infoldment? — PoeticUniverse
There is nothing that just "exists for no reason" — Outlander
The fact that past-eternal and cyclical cosmological models remain viable is of course due precisely to the fact that we know no such thing — Enai De A Lukal
The whole idea of the universe beyond planets, humans, or life itself but rather stars, galaxies, or simply the vastness that is "everything" ie. anything that can be hypothetically or theoretically explored had to have been "made". As in there was a point when "everything" (here) didn't exist or even that is.. just always did eternally. It is a pretty intimidating concept to really think about deeply. The idea of... everything and anything itself. Not much more that can be thought about I suppose. I mean really thinking about it.
So. Timelessness. Is this "outside of the universe" as in there are other "realms" that cannot ever be reached, normally, from this one? Powerful stuff. Truly.
Every event had a cause, essentially. So the Big Bang that "created" the Universe had to have been due or otherwise set into motion by... God? Timelessness? Is God more of a concept to you as in a non entity? What's up. — Outlander
And thus your argument is circular: you assume that only a god can create a universe to defend the conclusion that whatever created the universe must be a god. It is not a separate point. — Kenosha Kid
That doesn't demonstrate that there can't be an infinity of causes. In fact if the (n+1)th cause can't exist without the nth cause there should be a infinity of causes — TheMadFool
Well, why can't that "something" be the universe itself? Why do you have to introduce a nth cause (god) if one takes the universe to the bet (n+1)th cause? — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.