jaej

hehe...Thanks so much.

__________________
Μολὼν Λαβέ

Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate

lauraclay

Since when is the God of the Bible the only one that speaks of the beginning and matches some of the science?

__________________

The purpose of a fish trap is to catch fish,
and when the fish are caught, the trap is forgotten.

The purpose of a rabbit snare is to catch rabbits.
When the rabbits are caught, the snare is forgotten.

The purpose of words is to convey ideas.
When the ideas are grasped, the words are forgotten.

Where can I find a man who has forgotten words?
He is the one I would like to talk to.

sisterX

Yeah the Torah and the Quran also speak about the beginning of creation.

__________________
"But as for me (I believe) that He is Allah, my Lord, and I shall associate none as partner with my Lord." Surah Al-Kahf verse 38. Holy Quran

Kham

There are multiple reasons as to why 4 is a false conclusion. Mostly it is non sequitir.

If we say that everything must have a cause, then god as well must have a cause. This is not a new idea, it dates back as far as Plato. That being the case, god as an answer is not helpful and is indeed superfluous, and simply results in an infinite regression. It is just as likely that the universe does not have a first cause than that god does not have a cause. Here, William of Occam's razor is handy "multiply no entity beyond necessity," god is effectively sheared away as non-essential.

You may say that god does not need a cause because he's outside of nature's laws, etc. And thus he answers the question. Well, this is blatant fideism and simply too easy, it does not logically follow at all that god (or an entity like god) in particular is the cause. We must suspend everything we know about science to reach that conclusion. Richard Dawkins has long pointed out that we now know that complex entities have basic beginnings (evolution). Meaning, if the universe has a first cause, science indicates that it would be a basic, simple cause. God would have to be infinitely complex to attribute omniscience, omnipotence, etc. to it. In sum, it is scientifically improbable for the first cause you speak of to be a complex entity (god).

So no, I reject 4, it simply does not follow from the premises you supply.

sisterX

So what is this ' basic, simple' cause you talk about that could have created this great intelligible universe and created it with any intelligence?

__________________
"But as for me (I believe) that He is Allah, my Lord, and I shall associate none as partner with my Lord." Surah Al-Kahf verse 38. Holy Quran

Kham

I'm not sure, there are many theories, as I'm sure you know. I do not prescribe to any one in particular yet. I would like to let those with the capacity to answer these sorts of questions have a chance to find the answer.

However, not having the answer does not preclude me from eliminating improbable or ostentatiously wrong answers.

Og

#2 is not a principle of science that applies universally. Causality breaks down in our understanding of a singularity (such as the big bang's source and black holes). Time has no meaning in these environments. The phrase "before the big bang," while it may sound correct to you is a gibberish statement where the current cosmological science (general relativity) is concerned.

The "first cause" argument is not supported by what we know about singularities. It's not something that one can easily wrap their mind around giving our place in space/time, but it's a verified phenomena (general/special relativity). It has been empirically demonstrated to match the way the universe works.

So the notion of a first cause argument is a product of our little place lodged in the middle of space time. It's that perspective creating a flawed understanding of what we know about deep space (i.e. the cosmic background radiation and the big bang event).

My point is that saying that there is a cause for the universe is NOT supported by the current scientific understanding for the universe.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

debdodd

Another "WOW" for you today! You are on a roll! Keep 'em coming .. I haven't heard such interesting conversation in a while ... we've had about all the bible and quran thumping around here than some of us can stand!! It's Saturday! Entertain us with your words this evening .... it think "hell" has erupted and is sitting outside my front door so no outdoors for me tonight. I guess I'll just for wait for new words of wisdom out of you ... no good books ... hate TV ... and it's too hot outside ... so you're the entertainment for tonight!

__________________
"Ubi dubium ibi libertas."

"We are all lone souls. It pays to know humility, lest the delusion of control, of mastery, overwhelms. And indeed, we seem a species prone to that delusion, again and ever again ....."

Tomasz

One of the things that creationism is trying to explain is complexity of life on earth. It says that complexity of living things can't be accidental, it's statistically improbable to be an accident. So someone had to create it and we call it God.
The problem is that someone who were capable of creating the universe and life has to be far far more complex than what he had created, so creationism doesn't explain complexity in general because in order to explain some complexity it invokes another bigger complexity of a designer.

Dawkins says it's not even a candidate explanation because of the regression built into it I've mentioned. Creationists say that God is declared outside of natural order, that's why he doesn't require the same explanation himself as life on earth, he's a grant of explanation.
Dawkins answers with the question : Isn't that just too easy ?

__________________
It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts - Sherlock Holmes