Is this Universe Really Eternal? And why I believe "God did it."

[جوري]

Sis Lily doesn't actually read the posts she responds to...which is why she says the things she does.

Oh I read them, and then I have a hearty guffaw!

You actually read my post which is great. What you should have asked is what logically consistent meant. It means, in a philosophical sense (as per the OP's argument) a proposition that is not inherently absurd (i.e., by its logical form). I have explained why it isn't and what this implies in previous posts.

That is only half correct.. surely you have come across this, if not scroll back:

The 1st point will explain Scientifically why the Multi/Universe cannot be Eternal.

and secondly the 'logic' you introduced came back to bite you, so you abandoned that route-- but came back to self-congratulate on a later page!

Try your own advise here and read before you write!
all the best

 

[Dagless]

Naidamar,

I can say the process of 'creation' requires time because all processes are of some duration. Your critique of this position:



is self-contradictory because you are referring to a point in time at which time was supposed to be brought into existence. Time cannot already exist to provide a point in time when time is supposed to be created. Your use of the phrase 'came into' is also temporally-based, implying that there was a previous state from which the Universe came where there was no time - this is impossible, you cannot have a previous state before time because there is no time to transition you to the point where time 'begins'.

In addition, I didn't stop short of saying the Universe is uncaused. The 'essential framework' is space-time and energy/matter - which are all flip-sides of each other as demonstrated by Einstein. If one is necessary (uncaused), which time is, then all are. The Universe is thus uncaused.

Most believe that time is an aspect of our current universe, and most agree that the universe had a beginning (approx. 15-20 billion yrs ago); therefore time also had a beginning. If you are saying time is independent of the universe then its only your own view and not one held by the majority.

If it has been agreed the universe has a beginning, is finite, and will probably have an end I don't see how you can call it uncaused (uncaused in the sense that it required nothing but itself to exist). This again would be a belief you hold since its impossible to prove (and doubtful given the finite nature of the universe).

naidamar,The Universe cannot, therefore, 'come from' or 'pop out of' anything because such an event would require time in order to enable the transition. If no process or cause can proceed time (which they can't, by definition) then the only conclusion is that time is acausal - it is a necessary feature of reality. If time is necessary, then so is space and energy by the Theories of Relativity.

Thus, the essential framework of the Universe is necessarily uncaused.

Almost this entire quote is supposition. There is no substance. You have not been outside time, as a being living within time I doubt you could even imagine life outside it. You are limited by the dimensions you live in. You say time is a necessary feature of reality, the next man could say its not. It is not something which can be proven or tested. You also say if time is necessary then so is space and energy; once again this is an unfounded assumption.

 

[جوري]

time belongs to God.. it is one of his attributes..
As such if there are 'hints of time' before the big bang it wouldn't disprove God from the Islamic perspective!




Kitaab At-Tawheed, Chapter: 43
Whoever Curses Time Wrongs Allah
Allah (swt ), says:

" And they say: "There is nothing but our life in this world: We die and we live and nothing destroys us except time." And they have no knowledge of it, they only conjecture" (Qur'an 45:24)
​

Allah (swt ), Most Glorified, Most High, informs us in this verse about the disbelieving dahris1 from among the Arabs and others, who do not believe in any life, save the life of this world, nor in the Rabb and Creator, Allah (swt ), Most High. They believe that nothing causes death except the passage of time. Then Allah (swt ), Most Glorified, Most High, refutes their claims, saying that they have absolutely no evidence for what they claim, but instead, depend upon surmise and their own vain opinions.
Benefits Derived From This Verse

1. That attributing good or evil to the passage of time is a sign of atheism.
2. Confirmation of a life after death for mankind.
3. That ad-dahr (time) is not one of Allah's Names.
​

Relevance of This Verse to the Subject of the Chapter
That the verse rejects those who attribute events to time, for they commit a great wrong against Allah (swt ).
Relevance of This Verse to the Subject of Tawheed
That it rejects those who attribute events to time, because in so doing, they are ascribing a partner to Allah (swt ), for it is He, Alone Who decrees what will be and what will not be.

..ooOOoo..​

It is authentically reported on the authority of Abu Hurairah (ra ) that the Prophet (saas ) said: "Allah (swt ), Most Blessed, Most High, says: "The son of Adam wrongs Me: He curses time, though I am time: In My Hands are all things and I cause the night to follow the day." 2 In another narration, He (saas ) says: "Do not curse time, for verily, time is Allah (swt )."
Allah (swt ), Most Glorified, Most High informs us in this Hadith Qudsi, that man commits a great wrong against Allah (swt ) when he curses time and attributes the occurrence of events to it, for Allah (swt ) is the Rabb of time and the Disposer of affairs and it is by His Qadr that events take place. Therefore to curse time is to curse the Owner of time.
In the second narration, the Prophet (saas ) forbids us from cursing time, saying that Allah (swt ) is the Owner of time and the Disposer of it and all events and affairs, and this is confirmation of what was reported in the preceding Hadith Qudsi.
Benefits Derived From This Hadith

1. The forbiddance of cursing time.
2. That no actions may be attributed to time.
​

Relevance of This Hadith to the Subject of the Chapter
That it proves that to curse time is to commit a great wrong against Allah (swt ).
Relevance of This Hadith to the Subject of Tawheed
That the Hadithproves that cursing time is a great wrong against Allah (swt ), because those who do so believe that it is time which causes events to take place and this is shirk in Tawheed Ar-Ruboobiyyah, for it is Allah (swt ), Alone Who determines events.
Footnotes
1. Dahris: An atheistic sect among the Arabs, their views are widely held in the West today: There is no God, no Resurrection, no punishment, no reward etc., etc.

2. Narrated by Bukhari.

Top | Prev | Next​

Sponsored by the MSA.

Kitaab Al Tawhid​

 

[Lynx]

Do you have other avenues to introduce to this topic?

and again I ask what other god can there be?

As many as there are religions in the world....?

And as such I have stated there is no point for further discussion if you can't prove to yourself that there is God.. I have already given quite an extensive analogy on the subject before and so hate to repeat myself, even if that is all you have to offer, hammering it two or three times won't yield a different response!

Okay. I responded to the OP which was meant to be a proof for God's existence. It's a failed proof.

Blobs would yield blobs .. can you do better perhaps than blob or 'infinite possibilities' if you desired a civilized dialogue?

No this blob is unlike any other blob. It can produce universes out of its own unknowable being. You still have not shown why it's absurd that the universe can come out of nothing. Read up on the literature surrounding the cosmological argument.

If you were clear then you would be able to defend it not abandon it!

I didn't abandon anything. I think my point was proven in my previous posts. I don;t know what more to say on the topic. The OP is a bad argument for God's existence.

 

[Lynx]

Oh I read them, and then I have a hearty guffaw!
That is only half correct.. surely you have come across this, if not scroll back:

The 1st point will explain Scientifically why the Multi/Universe cannot be Eternal.

and secondly the 'logic' you introduced came back to bite you, so you abandoned that route-- but came back to self-congratulate on a later page!

Try your own advise here and read before you write!
all the best

The 1st part seeks to show that there has to be some sort of first cause. Whether there is or isn't is uninteresting. The second and third part of the OP seeks to prove that God (this is the point of the OP and where the fallacy lies) must be that first cause and the point my of previous posts was to show that this is an unwarranted conclusion.

 

[جوري]

As many as there are religions in the world....?

Go ahead list them and let's have a comparative study if this is the purpose of the thread!

Okay. I responded to the OP which was meant to be a proof for God's existence. It's a failed proof.

The thread states 'why I believe'.. your own 'proof' was by no means a proof, just calisthenics with words!

No this blob is unlike any other blob. It can produce universes out of its own unknowable being. You still have not shown why it's absurd that the universe can come out of nothing. Read up on the literature surrounding the cosmological argument.

Bobs if they had vested interest in their creation should part with an instruction manual of some sort for the creation to examine, can you provide us with the blobs' manifesto so we can determine whether it is truths or a hoax that you strained hard to let out when sitting upon your johns?

I didn't abandon anything. I think my point was proven in my previous posts. I don;t know what more to say on the topic. The OP is a bad argument for God's existence.

If you had proven any points, you still wouldn't be arguing here much ado about nothing -- what say you?

all the best

 

[جوري]

The 1st part seeks to show that there has to be some sort of first cause. Whether there is or isn't is uninteresting.

who determines what is interesting? Do you dismiss science because you were absent on the day they taught everything in your local P.S?

The second and third part of the OP seeks to prove that God (this is the point of the OP and where the fallacy lies) must be that first cause and the point my of previous posts was to show that this is an unwarranted conclusion.

Unwarranted because you choose that avenue not because said possibility doesn't exist.. in fact the odds are against what you proposed.. so if you use your own 'school of logic' as per your previous, we'd have to conclude one thing or the other but not both at the same time.. and the one thing you'd rather seek is an impossibility else put your money where your mouth is and come up with some quality research!

all the best

 

[Lynx]

who determines what is interesting? Do you dismiss science because you were absent on the day they taught everything in your local P.S?

It's uninteresting because 1) the data about pre-big bang conditions is scarce. there isn't a single citation in the op! does he think his conclusion is so uncontroversial that there isn't a need to source anything he has said?? clearly, since scientists themselves have not come to an answer it means there's a ton of debate on the topic. now, don't take me to mean that i don't find the topic important in terms of science; i am only saying the topic is uninteresting in the context of comparative religion because there would be too much speculation on reliance on a yet-to-be mature field of science.

2) even if it was the case that the universe had a first cause (or i should say it was the case that *everything* had a first cause) it doesn't mean anything (this was the implication of my blob analogy or the possibility of everything out of nothing); there would have to be further argument to show that this first cause was *god* and THAT is where the interesting part comes in in terms of importance to anything theological. That's why i focused my attack on the latter 2 parts of the op because the crux of the argument was there. as demonstrated, there is no sound logical argument being made by the OP that proves that any first cause must necessarily be god; all attempts made so far are logical fallacies as discussed. go to google and type in 'cosmological argument' if you are really interested in the details surrounding the over-used & dead argument that is the OP!

If you had proven any points, you still wouldn't be arguing here much ado about nothing -- what say you?

well i didn't feel like i should ignore your responses to my posts. but if it doesn't matter to you i will cease my participation in this thread. both sides have made their case and judging from the unoriginality of the oP if anyone wants to they can just google the literature surrounding the OP's argument. OH & you should grab an introductory book on philosophy of religion if this sort of stuff interests you ! but you must have an open mind to gain any benefit from it ;p I think some introductory reading on a topic before discussing it is a reasonable request so that, if anything, dead arguments won't be rehashed like the OP did from god knows what website.

 

[DuncG]

Dagless,

I am not saying time is independent of the Universe - time is an integral part of the Universe which is why I include it as part of the 'essential framework'

I can call the Universe uncaused because of the nature of causality. Causality is the description attributed to chains of causes and effects. The definition of a cause and its effect describes that the effect follows on from the cause - there is a temporal relationship between the two. If you have no temporal relationship then there cannot be a causal chain and the distinction between cause and effect evaporates. As a result, I hope it is clear that causality requires time because without time no causes and effects can be distinguished and thus causality cannot be said to exist.

Imagine our Universe without time and you should get the point. Without time our Universe would be completely static, every object absolutely frozen in place. No events would take place and thus no causes would ever occur that would then lead to effects. Causality simply would not exist in a Universe without time.

So, it can be observed that causality requires time - time is necessary for causality. If this is the case then it follows that anything that causality relies upon cannot itself be caused (as you obviously need causality before you can cause things). Thus time is uncaused.

In syllogistic form it could be stated:

Premise 1: Causality requires time so that causes and events can be arranged into causal chains.
Premise 2: Anything that causality requires cannot in itself be caused.
Conclusion: Time is uncaused.

I am putting this forward as a proof that an essential component of the Universe is uncaused, in contradiction to your assertion that it is impossible to prove. I would be very happy to read your criticisms of this argument, especially with regard to the premises given above (I don't think there's anything wrong with the logic).

My statement that if time is necessary then so is space and energy is not an unfounded assumption because, as I stated previously, this is derived from Einstein's Theories of Relativity. I can go into this in more detail if you like, but it's not really necessary for my argument - once one 'part' of the Universe is uncaused then there's no reason why it can't then cause all the other 'parts'.

As for being outside of time, I'm not sure the statement makes any intrinsic sense. It's a bit like being 'before' time, 'north' of the north pole or 'square-circle'. The phrase can be constructed, but it doesn't then follow that it has a representation in reality. So, I don't really think there's any 'life outside it' to imagine. If anything, being 'outside' of time might be like the timeless-Universe I described above - completely static and therefore impossible to experience.

 

[Ramadhan]

Dagless,

I am not saying time is independent of the Universe - time is an integral part of the Universe which is why I include it as part of the 'essential framework'

I can call the Universe uncaused because of the nature of causality. Causality is the description attributed to chains of causes and effects. The definition of a cause and its effect describes that the effect follows on from the cause - there is a temporal relationship between the two. If you have no temporal relationship then there cannot be a causal chain and the distinction between cause and effect evaporates. As a result, I hope it is clear that causality requires time because without time no causes and effects can be distinguished and thus causality cannot be said to exist.

Imagine our Universe without time and you should get the point. Without time our Universe would be completely static, every object absolutely frozen in place. No events would take place and thus no causes would ever occur that would then lead to effects. Causality simply would not exist in a Universe without time.

So, it can be observed that causality requires time - time is necessary for causality. If this is the case then it follows that anything that causality relies upon cannot itself be caused (as you obviously need causality before you can cause things). Thus time is uncaused.

In syllogistic form it could be stated:

Premise 1: Causality requires time so that causes and events can be arranged into causal chains.
Premise 2: Anything that causality requires cannot in itself be caused.
Conclusion: Time is uncaused.

I am putting this forward as a proof that an essential component of the Universe is uncaused, in contradiction to your assertion that it is impossible to prove. I would be very happy to read your criticisms of this argument, especially with regard to the premises given above (I don't think there's anything wrong with the logic).

My statement that if time is necessary then so is space and energy is not an unfounded assumption because, as I stated previously, this is derived from Einstein's Theories of Relativity. I can go into this in more detail if you like, but it's not really necessary for my argument - once one 'part' of the Universe is uncaused then there's no reason why it can't then cause all the other 'parts'.

As for being outside of time, I'm not sure the statement makes any intrinsic sense. It's a bit like being 'before' time, 'north' of the north pole or 'square-circle'. The phrase can be constructed, but it doesn't then follow that it has a representation in reality. So, I don't really think there's any 'life outside it' to imagine. If anything, being 'outside' of time might be like the timeless-Universe I described above - completely static and therefore impossible to experience.

your belief does not hold any water, logically or scientifically.
time does not exist without space, matter or energy, and according to GR and quantum mechanics time-space does not exist in singularity, and since it has been proven the universe has the beginning, and so does time. Hence the universe is not uncaused.

 

[جوري]

It's uninteresting because 1) the data about pre-big bang conditions is scarce. there isn't a single citation in the op! does he think his conclusion is so uncontroversial that there isn't a need to source anything he has said?? clearly, since scientists themselves have not come to an answer it means there's a ton of debate on the topic. now, don't take me to mean that i don't find the topic important in terms of science; i am only saying the topic is uninteresting in the context of comparative religion because there would be too much speculation on reliance on a yet-to-be mature field of science.

As opposed to your 'logical debate' which is really cultivated?

2) even if it was the case that the universe had a first cause (or i should say it was the case that *everything* had a first cause) it doesn't mean anything (this was the implication of my blob analogy or the possibility of everything out of nothing); there would have to be further argument to show that this first cause was *god* and THAT is where the interesting part comes in in terms of importance to anything theological. That's why i focused my attack on the latter 2 parts of the op because the crux of the argument was there. as demonstrated, there is no sound logical argument being made by the OP that proves that any first cause must necessarily be god; all attempts made so far are logical fallacies as discussed. go to google and type in 'cosmological argument' if you are really interested in the details surrounding the over-used & dead argument that is the OP!

There is no point in this discussion if you are unwilling to bring 'other possibilities' forth for further examination. Evidence of God whether you choose to believe that or not, is not simply in the universal signs but in the books left for us to examine.. The OP assumes a starting point in common with the reader, hence the title of the thread which I keep pointing out. "Why I believe''

well i didn't feel like i should ignore your responses to my posts. but if it doesn't matter to you i will cease my participation in this thread. both sides have made their case and judging from the unoriginality of the oP if anyone wants to they can just google the literature surrounding the OP's argument. OH & you should grab an introductory book on philosophy of religion if this sort of stuff interests you ! but you must have an open mind to gain any benefit from it ;p I think some introductory reading on a topic before discussing it is a reasonable request so that, if anything, dead arguments won't be rehashed like the OP did from god knows what website.

I told you that I don't need to have wasted my life in useless philosophy courses to cut through the crap.. All one needs is a strong background in science and a good head on their shoulder.. If you find the argument dead, and your points valid, then I keep wondering what are you still doing here? Folks should have been convinced of your 'millions of possibilities' and the three laws of logic you introduced which you believe are so applicable to the points you raised!

all the best

 

[Dagless]

Imagine our Universe without time and you should get the point. Without time our Universe would be completely static, every object absolutely frozen in place.

We don't really know. I am not trying to be difficult but I could say that everything happens in one go. Each of our scenarios (frozen and start to finish in an instant) require a frame. We don't know there would even be a frame to look at things frozen, since the nature of time is not fully understood.

Premise 1: Causality requires time so that causes and events can be arranged into causal chains.
Premise 2: Anything that causality requires cannot in itself be caused.
Conclusion: Time is uncaused.

Premise 1 is only valid for our universal laws. At the instant of the big bang our laws were not in effect.
Premise 2 is an opinion. Creationism would say God made them (God being outside of the closed system being described).

I am putting this forward as a proof that an essential component of the Universe is uncaused, in contradiction to your assertion that it is impossible to prove. I would be very happy to read your criticisms of this argument, especially with regard to the premises given above (I don't think there's anything wrong with the logic).

Criticisms are above. In addition, what do you think will happen once the universe ends and time no longer exists (since it is only a property of the universe). For me the term 'uncaused' should be applied to something which does not end.

My statement that if time is necessary then so is space and energy is not an unfounded assumption because, as I stated previously, this is derived from Einstein's Theories of Relativity. I can go into this in more detail if you like, but it's not really necessary for my argument - once one 'part' of the Universe is uncaused then there's no reason why it can't then cause all the other 'parts'.

The theory of relativity, etc. are only descriptions of this universe. You cannot apply them outside of it. You can say time is necessary for x, but x has to be a property of this universe. Your argument is describing things outside of the universe. The bottom line is for you to say what caused/uncaused the universe you have to describe something you cannot. The most you can describe are properties of this universe. Cause, effect, time, etc. are only valid here (after the big bang, and until now). You don't know and can't claim to know what's outside of that bubble.

 

[Justufy]

If God designed the universe, then why is 99.99% of it inhabitable? sounds like a pretty big design flaw to me.

 

[Dagless]

If God designed the universe, then why is 99.99% of it inhabitable? sounds like a pretty big design flaw to me.

Did He design it only for you?

Only humans are this arrogant.

 

[DuncG]

naidamar,

The fact that time does not exist without space, matter and energy is part of my argument. It demonstrates that if one 'part' is uncaused then all are uncaused.

... and since it has been proven the universe has the beginning, and so does time. Hence the universe is not uncaused

As I've previously pointed out, the 'beginning' of the Universe is qualitatively different from the common beginnings that we see embedded within (and not at the boundary of) space-time. This is because the beginnings we experience and observe in our daily lives are always preceded by a period of time in which the process(es) that constitute their cause(s) can be carried out. This is not true of the 'beginning' of the Universe (I keep using inverted commas because of this qualitative difference - it's not really a beginning in the common, everyday sense). At the space/time boundary that is implied by the Big Bang Theory there is no time preceding it in which a cause can be carried out that then correctly leads (temporally) to the effect of the Universe coming into existence.

Your statement above should really read that 'it has been proven that the Universe has a space-time boundary in the finite past'. Your conclusion is unsound, as demonstrated in the above paragraph.

As for my argument not being logical or scientific: I've already provided the syllogistic form, the logic of which you have not critiqued. Similarly, I've described which scientific Theories my argument rests upon - as my first sentence in this response reinforces. If you're going to assert that my argument is not logical nor scientific, then please accompany your assertion with an argument that addresses both the logic and the science.

 

[DuncG]

Dagless,

Thanks for the detailed response.

We don't really know. I am not trying to be difficult but I could say that everything happens in one go. Each of our scenarios (frozen and start to finish in an instant) require a frame. We don't know there would even be a frame to look at things frozen, since the nature of time is not fully understood.

From a technical perspective I agree that we don't really know - in fact, I don't think a 'Universe without time' actually makes any intrinsic sense as it would, by definition, have no duration. However, as a thought experiment to attempt to understand why a timeless Universe has no causality I find it interesting that your version also serves to make the point. If everything happens in one go then there are no causal chains - none of the events that happen in that instant can be sorted into causes and effects due to their instant simultaneity. No event can be described as a causal process that temporally leads to an effect. So, no matter which way you conceive (for the sake of argument) of a timeless Universe, I think it would still demonstrate that causality cannot operate there.

Premise 1 is only valid for our universal laws. At the instant of the big bang our laws were not in effect.

Please can you describe the evidence or argument that leads to your assertion. As far as I am concerned the laws of the Universe operate at every point of space-time, including that of the space-time boundary (the instant of the Big Bang). I know people often state that 'the laws of the Universe break down as we approach the Big Bang', but they should really be more specific: our understanding of the interactions and transitions of energy/matter breaks down as we approach the Big Bang. This doesn't mean that space-time stops being space-time or that the amount of energy changes, for example.

If 'our' laws were really not in effect then any that were in effect are unknown. This would lead to an agnostic position and would serve to kill any argument regarding the boundary conditions of the Big Bang. Such a 'doomsday option' does, of course, take down all 'First Cause' theological arguments with it.

Premise 2 is an opinion. Creationism would say God made them (God being outside of the closed system being described).

I would actually describe premise 2 as an analytic statement - in other words it is self-evidently true from the meanings of the words. To cause something you must have causality. If anything is required in order to have causality in the Universe, then that thing cannot itself be the subject of causality (as causality cannot exist prior to the existence of the other thing in order to cause it).

Creationism can assert that God made the required things for causality, but what backs up such an assertion? In addition, such an assertion begs the question by already including causality within itself. If you make something then the process of making precedes and is the cause of the made thing (the effect).

Furthermore, if God is 'outside' of the Universe (which I hesitate to describe as a closed system as that implies it can be opened to something further from itself, which is as yet unevidenced) and thus 'outside' of space-time then, by definition, God must be without volume or duration. 'Things' that don't exist also share the 'properties' of being without volume and duration (inverted commas because things that don't exist aren't actually things and don't have actual properties) without volume or duration. So, by similarity, if God is defined as being 'outside' of space-time, then it's effectively being defined out of existence.

In addition, what do you think will happen once the universe ends and time no longer exists (since it is only a property of the universe). For me the term 'uncaused' should be applied to something which does not end.

Judging by the current evidence of distant galaxies accelerating in their expansion away from us it looks like there will be no 'Big Crunch' in the future. Thus, at present, it looks like space-time will not be bounded in the future and thus will never come to an end.

The theory of relativity, etc. are only descriptions of this universe. You cannot apply them outside of it. You can say time is necessary for x, but x has to be a property of this universe. Your argument is describing things outside of the universe. The bottom line is for you to say what caused/uncaused the universe you have to describe something you cannot. The most you can describe are properties of this universe. Cause, effect, time, etc. are only valid here (after the big bang, and until now). You don't know and can't claim to know what's outside of that bubble.

How am I applying the laws we know outside of the Universe? I am saying that time is necessary for causality and causality is a property of this Universe. None of the 'parts' I use in my argument (causality, time, space, energy, matter, space-time boundaries) are things that are outside of the Universe - they are all components of the Universe.

As for not being able to describe what uncaused the Universe, I would agree. I don't see there being a 'what' that uncaused something, as uncausing is not an actual activity - there can be no uncausal process, by definition! There is nothing there to describe - that's a fundamental part of why I'm an atheist.

However, if you're going to stand by the other version of your statement, "The bottom line is for you to say what caused the universe you have to describe something you cannot," then this is a conclusion that needs to be laid at the door of the theists. If you cannot describe something that caused the Universe then you cannot claim God did it, which appears to coincide with what Lynx has been arguing in this thread.

 

[Dagless]

Dagless,Please can you describe the evidence or argument that leads to your assertion. As far as I am concerned the laws of the Universe operate at every point of space-time, including that of the space-time boundary (the instant of the Big Bang). I know people often state that 'the laws of the Universe break down as we approach the Big Bang', but they should really be more specific: our understanding of the interactions and transitions of energy/matter breaks down as we approach the Big Bang. This doesn't mean that space-time stops being space-time or that the amount of energy changes, for example.

We are going towards things which may never be proven either way so I think people are free to hold either belief. As far as I know (and I do not study the big bang for a living so I'm sure someone out there can answer this better) the mainstream belief is that at the moment of, and for a while after, the big bang; space, time, matter, the 4 forces, etc. did not exist in the way that we know them, it took time for them to come into their current existence (more milliseconds than years but nevertheless not the instant of the bang).

I would actually describe premise 2 as an analytic statement - in other words it is self-evidently true from the meanings of the words. To cause something you must have causality. If anything is required in order to have causality in the Universe, then that thing cannot itself be the subject of causality (as causality cannot exist prior to the existence of the other thing in order to cause it).

God is not inside this system and so can be the uncaused causer. If you line up lots of dominoes and push one so they all fall, and then one domino thinks about why it was pushed... it'll think its domino's all the way back and that you must be a domino and another domino must have pushed you for you to push the next. You were not part of the system and needed nothing to push you. But being a domino all it knows are dominoes, because that's all its ever seen. Likewise we only know what we've seen and everything is based upon that. Yeah its a really bad example but its 0340 and I'm missing sleep to type this so if you don't like it, think of another one yourself

Furthermore, if God is 'outside' of the Universe (which I hesitate to describe as a closed system as that implies it can be opened to something further from itself, which is as yet unevidenced) and thus 'outside' of space-time then, by definition, God must be without volume or duration. 'Things' that don't exist also share the 'properties' of being without volume and duration (inverted commas because things that don't exist aren't actually things and don't have actual properties) without volume or duration. So, by similarity, if God is defined as being 'outside' of space-time, then it's effectively being defined out of existence.

Once again this is your opinion. Terms like 'volume', 'duration', etc. only make sense in this universe. You cannot say they are requirements outside this universe. You are assuming this is the only existence or is the only way things can exist. You cannot compare God to His creation. I think you already know this since its not disputed that we don't experience everything. There are dimensions we cannot see, that have no volume or duration we can measure, yet we do not say they are out of existence... only out of our existence.

Judging by the current evidence of distant galaxies accelerating in their expansion away from us it looks like there will be no 'Big Crunch' in the future. Thus, at present, it looks like space-time will not be bounded in the future and thus will never come to an end.

Big crunch, big freeze, new discoveries are being made all the time: we just don't know. Although I agree it is fun to speculate and there is a lot to be learnt, I don't think you can confirm or deny faith based solely upon it.

How am I applying the laws we know outside of the Universe? I am saying that time is necessary for causality and causality is a property of this Universe.

Firstly you said that time was uncaused, that is why I said you were applying them to before space-time. Secondly, it would be more correct to say "time is necessary for causality in this universe and causality is a property of this universe". It has to be that detailed because we need to understand we cannot apply any of these rules or logic to things outside of this universe (God).

As for not being able to describe what uncaused the Universe, I would agree. I don't see there being a 'what' that uncaused something, as uncausing is not an actual activity - there can be no uncausal process, by definition! There is nothing there to describe - that's a fundamental part of why I'm an atheist.

However, if you're going to stand by the other version of your statement, "The bottom line is for you to say what caused the universe you have to describe something you cannot," then this is a conclusion that needs to be laid at the door of the theists. If you cannot describe something that caused the Universe then you cannot claim God did it, which appears to coincide with what Lynx has been arguing in this thread.

You'll find that this is just a part of many things which make theists become theists. It is not all based on this one big bang argument. I don't often read Lynx's posts (no offence to Lynx) but I may take a look in a bit. I also think this would be a good topic in general if the objective was not to prove/disprove God. Perhaps someone will open up a similar/related thread in the general section.

 

[Ramadhan]

As for my argument not being logical or scientific: I've already provided the syllogistic form, the logic of which you have not critiqued. Similarly, I've described which scientific Theories my argument rests upon - as my first sentence in this response reinforces. If you're going to assert that my argument is not logical nor scientific, then please accompany your assertion with an argument that addresses both the logic and the science.

Actually, as br. Dagless also have pointed out, I mentioned in earlier post that your premise #1 is flawed, hence the rest of your so called "theory" fall apart.
You cannot apply the law of this universe to the creation process of this universe, because the universe did not exist as yet.

 

[Pygoscelis]

So at the end of the day, nobody proved anything in this thread. Can we all just admit we don't know some things, and that how/if the universe began is one of them?

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

What is time anyway?

Eternal has to do with our notion of time.

If we think of this - we do not know much about time to begin with.