The Origin of the Universe...

[Gordy327]

The external creator does not require a creator.

By that logic, neither does the universe. It seems you want to apply a double standard.

 

[Napoleon]

Why?

Because the creator is eternal.

 

[Napoleon]

By that logic, neither does the universe.

Incorrect. We know that the universe has not always existed and we know that nothing in the universe exists without having been caused.

 

[Maccabee]

Because the creator is eternal.

How do you know?

 

[Napoleon]

How do you know?

Because the source of the created does not require creation.

 

[Maccabee]

Incorrect. We know that the universe has not always existed and we know that nothing in the universe exists without having been caused.

We actually don't know that. We know our current representation of the Universe started 13.8 billion years ago, but we don't know what came before.

 

[Maccabee]

Because the source of the created does not require creation.

How do you know?

 

[Napoleon]

How do you know?

Because an infinite chain of causation is illogical.

 

[Gordy327]

Incorrect. We know that the universe has not always existed and we know that nothing in the universe exists without a cause.

We know the universe as we know it had a starting point of inflation. Not that it never existed before that. We do not know there is a "creator" or that said creator created anything. That is just mere belief. And you still do not apply the same standard to the "cause."

 

[Gordy327]

Because the source of the created does not require creation.

A logical fallacy.

Because an infinite chain of causation is illogical.

Which is why a creator is illogical.

 

[Maccabee]

Because an infinite chain of causation is illogical.

So is an infinite being without a cause.

 

[Napoleon]

So is an infinite being without a cause.

It isn’t. What makes an infinite chain of causation illogical is infinite regression. Everything would require a cause and therefore nothing would exist. But things do exist therefore the chain of causation must ultimately terminate with an uncaused cause, i.e. God.

 

[Maccabee]

It isn’t. What makes an infinite chain of causation illogical is infinite regression. Everything would require a cause and therefore nothing would exist. But things do exist therefore the chain of causation must ultimately terminate with an uncaused cause, i.e. God.

How do you know?

 

[Napoleon]

How do you know?

How do I know what?

 

[NolanVoyd]

Which is more reasonable? To believe that no one created something out of nothing or someone created something out of nothing?

It wasnt "created" in the sense religious people mean that, that is an anthropomorphic term.

 

[Maccabee]

How do I know what?

How do you know an uncaused cause is more logical, or even scientifically accurate, than an infinite chain of causes? How do you know that the universe itself isn't infinite?

 

[pinqy]

The universe cannot create itself. It requires an external creator that is itself uncreated.

Ok, you have just identified 4 groups:

A: Things that can create themselves.
B. Things that are uncreated
C1:Things that require a creator
C2 things that require an uncreated creator.

Groups A and C1 are by implication
How did you determine the universe is not a member of A, B, or C1, but is a member of C2?
How can we confirm that any of these groups are not empty sets?

C1 is the only set where I think it’s possible to prove that it is not an empty set.

 

[Napoleon]

How do you know an uncaused cause is more logical, or even scientifically accurate, than an infinite chain of causes?

I explained that to you in post 887.

How do you know that the universe itself isn't infinite?

The observable universe is finite and the current extent of the total universe is immaterial to its origin.

 

[Napoleon]

Ok, you have just identified 4 groups:

A: Things that can create themselves.
B. Things that are uncreated
C1:Things that require a creator
C2 things that require an uncreated creator.

Groups A and C1 are by implication
How did you determine the universe is not a member of A, B, or C1, but is a member of C2?
How can we confirm that any of these groups are not empty sets?

C1 is the only set where I think it’s possible to prove that it is not an empty set.

A is an empty set. There is nothing in this universe, including the universe itself, that can create itself or otherwise arise from absolute nothingness. So if nothing is A or B and everything is C1 then the existence of C1 can only be explained by a thing which is B and therefore everything is C2.

 

[Maccabee]

I explained that to you in post 887.

It's not an explanation, though. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's illogical. You have to provide evidence that the universe cannot be the result of an infinite chain of causes and all have you done is propped up circular reasoning to fit in your God.

The observable universe is finite and the current extent of the total universe is immaterial to its origin.

And we don't know what happened before the Big Bang.

 

[Maccabee]

A is an empty set. There is nothing in this universe, including the universe itself, that can create itself or otherwise arise from absolute nothingness. So if nothing is A or B and everything is C1 then the existence of C1 can only be explained by a thing which is B and therefore everything is C2.

Your first mistake is assuming the scientific field claims that the universe came from nothing.

 

[Gordy327]

It isn’t. What makes an infinite chain of causation illogical is infinite regression. Everything would require a cause and therefore nothing would exist. But things do exist therefore the chain of causation must ultimately terminate with an uncaused cause, i.e. God.

The fallacy still exists, what created God. You're just making an assumption. Pleased on belief and nothing more.

I explained that to you in post 887.

The observable universe is finite and the current extent of the total universe is immaterial to its origin.

On what basis do you assert the uninverse is finite?

A is an empty set. There is nothing in this universe, including the universe itself, that can create itself or otherwise arise from absolute nothingness. So if nothing is A or B and everything is C1 then the existence of C1 can only be explained by a thing which is B and therefore everything is C2.

Who said the universe came from nothing?

 

[Napoleon]

It's not an explanation, though. Just because it doesn't make sense to you doesn't mean it's illogical. You have to provide evidence that the universe cannot be the result of an infinite chain of causes…

Again, I already answered that. The existence of the universe is that evidence because the outcome of infinite regression is absolute nothingness.

 

[Gordy327]

Again, I already answered that. The existence of the universe is that evidence because the outcome of infinite regression is absolute nothingness.

Again, the exact same thing can be applied to any "creator."

 

[Napoleon]

The fallacy still exists, what created God.

It doesn’t still exist. We know that an infinite chain of causation is not the right answer because things exist so the causation must have a termination point, i.e. an uncaused cause which is God.

On what basis do you assert the uninverse is finite?

What I said is that the observable universe is finite.