[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]forbes wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Except you did not address my question with your questions. What properties must this singularity have in order for the universe to come from it?
Answer mine and I will answer your non-related question.
The universe must be caused because everything it is and is made of is caused. Further, nothing that exists physically or metaphysically exists without cause. Find me one example, and I’ll take it back.
I didn’t apply ‘rules to God’, and one is not like the other. A creation is not like the creator, but is related to the creator.
[/quote]
The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.
You assume to universe is caused, you don’t know this for sure. That you find it more plausible to believe in an unseen, unproven and untestable god instead of an eternal universe, i just don’t get that.
The universe isn’t caused by a creator. It has existed in different shapes and sizes forever.
Our window of life is only a passing instance. Soon, in the eons to come, the universe will change and become inhabitable to life as we know it now.
[/quote]
Let’s just hang with this statement:
“The singularity is the universe pat; just a very condensed one.” So define this sigulariry and what properties it posses. It must, by what you said have all the stuff in it that make up this universe, right? How did it get that way? Where did it come from? “Is” is not an acceptable answer.
Until you prove one thing that isn’t caused there must necessary be one. An uncaused universe is more far fetched than a caused one especially since there isn’t a scintilla of evidence to support it. I understand it’s a theory, but one with no evidence, just a possibility. It just happens to be the theory you hang you hat on.
If all the premises are correct then the uncaused-cause is proven with the cosmological form. Now the burden of proof is on your, you argued an uncaused sigulatiry is the universe. This is not the same as a causer who “sits” outside the universe, completely outside the causal chain. Why? Becuase it has to or it’s not the said Uncaused-cause.
Prove the sigularity exists, further prove it is uncaused.
I have given my arguments to the point of nausea many times. You cannot refute it, so now prove your points.[/quote]
The singularity exists because we exist.
I can’t prove it’s uncaused just like you can’t prove your prime mover exists.
That “is” is not an acceptable answer to you is fine with me. “God” is not an acceptable answer to me either.
Your theoretical proof of an uncaused causer fails because that uncaused causer is not part of the proof; is not part of the logical path. By definition it must exist outside of the causal chain, and because of that falls outside of our scope.
The assertion is not falsifiable, and altough your argument appears logical it’s basic premiss remains unproven.
[/quote]
You mention theoretical proof. Your beliefs are based off of a branch of (what I would like to call) pseudoscience known as theoretical physics, which using mathematical models (i.e a man made concept) to explain phenomena.
You also mention the basic premise of a divine being, though appearing logical remains unproven. Yes, we cannot put God in a vial and say “here he is”. However, though God remains unproven from a scientific point of view, your theories on our existence also remain unproven and doesn’t even make it into “theory” classification but will and always will remain hypotheses.
In the end we both (all of us actually) rely on faith. But according to probability the odds that life, or more accurately the conditions for life to exist, occurring from random chance events or a divine being, I will take the divine being.
[/quote]
-
Theoretical physics are subtly different from cosmology, which is subtly different from astrophysics, etc… That being said, even the most theoretical of physics relies on mountains of evidence and centuries of observation. Contrary to your unfortunately not uncommon, layman’s perspective they aren’t just making shit up.
-
Not all of us rely on faith. No matter how many times you and a number of the other religious posters here say it, it will not be true. There are plenty of people out there who investigate the world and develop an understanding of it without ever calling upon faith. Assumptions, guesses, reasonable expectations, even belief… but, though they may be synonyms of faith, they are not faith. Faith requires specifically a suspension of disbelief where the other cognitive tools I mentioned do not.
-
Given the scope and scale of the universe, random chance looks a lot more probable than a divine being from where I’m sitting… especially when you consider how fundamentally flawed and inefficient our bodies and minds are. If we are the work of a divinity, he’s having a good laugh at our expense.
[/quote]
Well, it depends on how you are looking at faith. I am going to make the assumption that what Forbes meant is that if your really look at it, almost everything we “know” is not known beyond the shadow of a doubt. In other words, when you understand the fact that almost everything we “know” is in fact a belief then he’s right.
That doesn’t mean that mean there isn’t damn good evidence for scientific reason, theoretical physics or most branches of science, it just means, when you get to the core of all matters, there is no “Beyond a shadow of a doubt” knowledge save very few things, everything else is, technically based on faith…It is an important thing to understand though…