Big Bang Atheist’s bane
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-11-2010, 12:23 AM
 
Big Bang Atheist’s bane
The big bang almost single handily turns the table on the atheist by pointing very strongly towards a Designer. How let me explain using three points.

1 - Everything that has a beginning has a cause
This means that when something has a beginning e.g. and explosion it has to have a cause though not necessarily a man made one.

2 - The universe has a beginning
The big bang proves this

3 - The universe had a beginning and therefor a cause

Now this means that the cause of the universe must be eternal as everything with a beginning must have a cause.

Now if we follow it through we discover that the cause of the universe must be outside of time. Because if something has an infinite past then there would have been an infinite number of events in its past, there for its the past can't be infinite.

now if the universe was natural or caused by something other than intelligence then the universe would be eternal, this is why. If for example you said that the temperature was zero for eternity past then you would have all water frozen all the time, there would be no time when the water has started to freeze, so the cause of the universe must be Intelligent.
Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2010, 03:36 AM
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
Wow. That was....well......terrible.
You're using "god logic" instead of logic. Logic is when you follow a path of information until you reach an answer. What you are doing is choosing an answer, then attempting to create a path to it. That's "god logic". I especially got a kick out of the "water freezing" bit. As though the natural state of H2O must be liquid, and that to reach the solid state it must first be liquid then freeze. Too funny.

Just visiting.

-SR
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2010, 04:52 AM
 
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
(08-11-2010 03:36 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  Wow. That was....well......terrible.
You're using "god logic" instead of logic. Logic is when you follow a path of information until you reach an answer. What you are doing is choosing an answer, then attempting to create a path to it. That's "god logic". I especially got a kick out of the "water freezing" bit. As though the natural state of H2O must be liquid, and that to reach the solid state it must first be liquid then freeze. Too funny.
I will admit my logic isn't perfectly sound because I am trying to abbreviate something someone else has said.
As for "God Logic” it’s only that because it reach the conclusion of god I didn't direct it there. It doesn't even matter how you reached the conclusion as long as the logic works.
For the water freezing it’s a metaphor saying that if the cause of the universe was nature AKA without a conscience being then it couldn't have a beginning and would always be causing the universe to exist. this would mean there wouldn't be a start to the universe just as there would be no point i my "Water freezing bit" when the water started freezing.
Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2010, 08:04 AM
 
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
(08-11-2010 12:23 AM)Emperor Paradox Wrote:  1 - Everything that has a beginning has a cause

Oh boy step one and you're off track. This is not a statement of fact we simply don't know this to be true. Oh and if it is true, then I'll start another argument that God is the bane of theists, and step one will be Everything has a cause.
Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2010, 08:56 AM
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
Quote:Now this means that the cause of the universe must be eternal as everything with a beginning must have a cause.
Ummm... What means that the cause of the universe must be eternal?

Correct me when I'm wrong.
Accept me or go to hell.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2010, 09:13 AM
 
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
Theists "Big Bang" paradox explanation supporting creationism aka/ Intelligent Design by proxy to Intelligent Designer...Translation as heard by this atheist...

God farted!


I'm happy to let you believe that. Big Grin
Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2010, 09:13 AM
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
This is the Kalam argument for the existence of God. It fails on several points. First, it is NOT true that everything which exists has a beginning of that existence; according to the laws of thermo-dynamics, nothing begins to exist. Everything exists eternally but simply changes form.

Consider the car. The car did not begin to exist. Before it was a car it was the component parts; chassis, tires, fender, seat, engine, etc. Now, let's take one of those parts and follow it backward. Prior to being a fender, it was sheet metal. Prior to that, it was molten steel. Prior to that it was molten iron and other elements. Prior to that it was ore. Prior to that it was space debris. Prior to that it was what Sagan called star-stuff. Prior to that it was helium. Prior to that it was singularity. Prior to that there is no prior because there was no such thing as time (as we understand it) prior to the singularity.

So, yes, the universe has a beginning, but so does time, therefore to argue that the universe has a cause is nonsensical.

So, why then was there a singularity? We don't know. Nobody does. But there is no reason to default to a causal agent nor a designer, and even if there is a causal agent and a designer, that is not actually the definition of God. God - as man has always understood the concept - is concerned with our existence, made everything for us, loves us, and wishes for us to join Him. The causal agent you imagine for the singularity would in no wise fit that description. It would be a deistic causal agent. As Omar Kayam said, "the moving finger writes and having writ moves on."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2010, 10:10 AM
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
(08-11-2010 12:23 AM)Emperor Paradox Wrote:  1 - Everything that has a beginning has a cause

Bare assertion. You have absolutely no evidence to base this on. Nothing in the universe has a beginning (the laws of conservation ensure that), so you can't point to anything inside the universe to support you. As for the universe itself, you have no idea. You're just making stuff up.

In addition, even if one accepts the events in the universe as evidence of your claim, you still have no basis for claiming that the universe itself needs a cause. All you have is stuff that happens inside the universe. The laws inside the universe are not necessarily the same as the laws outside. Causality does not necessarily apply.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2010, 10:11 AM
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
(08-11-2010 04:52 AM)Emperor Paradox Wrote:  I will admit my logic isn't perfectly sound because I am trying to abbreviate something someone else has said.

You misunderstand. The Kalam argument is flawed. It isn't just your post.

"Sometimes it is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
- Terry Pratchett
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-11-2010, 03:04 PM
 
RE: Big Bang Atheist’s bane
Let's assume for a second that the Universe was created by God (it wasn't as explained above). Who created God? He must have had a cause for origin as well, must he not? Well, what created the entity or process that created God, and so on and so forth? You will end up trying to find cause for existence for an infinite number of causes.

There must at one point (not even in time because time itself does not exist) where non existence turned into existence for no reason at all. The singularity just was, and if it wasn't, then we wouldn't be here to question why it was there. You can be a Deist and say that God was the cause of the singularity, but you are making it unnecessarily complex because A) there is no evidence to prove this statement and B) As I explained above, it then is necessary to explain what or who created God.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: