Total Posts:77|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists: an uncaused Big Bang is absurd.

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 1:23:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've heard numerous times that the B-theory of time (a universal present) negates the need for the Big Bang to have a cause. This is 100% incorrect. It negates the need for the *universe to have an absolute beginning*. The Big Bang is not to be equivocated with the absolute beginning of the universe.

Was the Big Bang (1) an eternal event or (2) a non-existent event?

In response to (1) no, because the Big Bang was the initial expansion from T=0 of the physical universe and for (2) the answer is no because the Big Bang existed.

It's really that simple. If the Big Bang doesn't entail (1) or (2) it has a cause.

It either had a cause from some thing or from no thing. This this the point that we all should be agreeing on. An uncaused Big Bang is so absurd but I hear it so often. It literally makes no sense at all.
BillionBrainCells
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 1:39:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What is absurd is that you believe there is a big man in the sky who you talk to in your head.

What's more logical? When you die you die and its over or when you die you go to some magical perfect place forever?

You can try to use some tricky wording, but you can never use science to prove God.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 2:12:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2014 1:39:42 PM, BillionBrainCells wrote:
What is absurd is that you believe there is a big man in the sky who you talk to in your head.

What is absurd is a sizeable proportion of atheists actually believing this is what religious people believe. Worse, you say you believed in a religion once. That makes me sad, because it shows how poor a job theistic defenders of faith are in exposing people to the truths behind their religion.

What's more logical? When you die you die and its over or when you die you go to some magical perfect place forever?

Again this is not what the majority of theists believe.

You can try to use some tricky wording, but you can never use science to prove God.

That's because God is not a scientific construct.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
BillionBrainCells
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 2:27:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2014 2:12:34 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/11/2014 1:39:42 PM, BillionBrainCells wrote:
What is absurd is that you believe there is a big man in the sky who you talk to in your head.

What is absurd is a sizeable proportion of atheists actually believing this is what religious people believe. Worse, you say you believed in a religion once. That makes me sad, because it shows how poor a job theistic defenders of faith are in exposing people to the truths behind their religion.
- I don't agree. what is does show is a more intelligent generation (90's) because of the vast amount of information readily available to us.

What's more logical? When you die you die and its over or when you die you go to some magical perfect place forever?
Again this is not what the majority of theists believe.
- False. An overwhelming majority of Theists believe in an after life, stop fooling yourself.

You can try to use some tricky wording, but you can never use science to prove God.
That's because God is not a scientific construct.
- LOL, isn't that convenient? "You can't disprove the likelihood of God with science because Science doesn't apply to God! Ha! And If you can't disprove him, he surely must be real!!!"

2.4% of Americans are atheist.
25% of doctors in America are atheist.
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 3:07:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2014 1:39:42 PM, BillionBrainCells wrote:
What is absurd is that you believe there is a big man in the sky who you talk to in your head.

What's more logical? When you die you die and its over or when you die you go to some magical perfect place forever?

You can try to use some tricky wording, but you can never use science to prove God.

You have not responded to the subject matter of the OP's argument. Just thought I'd point that out.
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 3:09:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
2.4% of Americans are atheist.
25% of doctors in America are atheist.

So 75% of doctors in America aren't atheists? Interesting...
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 3:14:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2014 1:23:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I've heard numerous times that the B-theory of time (a universal present) negates the need for the Big Bang to have a cause. This is 100% incorrect. It negates the need for the *universe to have an absolute beginning*. The Big Bang is not to be equivocated with the absolute beginning of the universe.

Was the Big Bang (1) an eternal event or (2) a non-existent event?

In response to (1) no, because the Big Bang was the initial expansion from T=0 of the physical universe and for (2) the answer is no because the Big Bang existed.

It's really that simple. If the Big Bang doesn't entail (1) or (2) it has a cause.

It either had a cause from some thing or from no thing. This this the point that we all should be agreeing on. An uncaused Big Bang is so absurd but I hear it so often. It literally makes no sense at all.

I don't have an issue saying the Big Bang had a cause, and I'm not aware of this being commonly disputed among atheists. If your next step is to state what the cause was when there is no way to know for certain, then that is an argument from ignorance. I believe it is reasonable to state, with 100% certainty, that we don't know by what process the Big Bang started.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 4:18:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2014 1:23:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I've heard numerous times that the B-theory of time (a universal present) negates the need for the Big Bang to have a cause. This is 100% incorrect. It negates the need for the *universe to have an absolute beginning*. The Big Bang is not to be equivocated with the absolute beginning of the universe.

Was the Big Bang (1) an eternal event or (2) a non-existent event?

In response to (1) no, because the Big Bang was the initial expansion from T=0 of the physical universe and for (2) the answer is no because the Big Bang existed.

It's really that simple. If the Big Bang doesn't entail (1) or (2) it has a cause.

It either had a cause from some thing or from no thing. This this the point that we all should be agreeing on. An uncaused Big Bang is so absurd but I hear it so often. It literally makes no sense at all.

1. Take a ruler, a 30 cm one
2. Imagine the cm scale is "time"
3. Mark a random point on the cm scale, that point represents 'now'

With this analogy, the universe is the entire ruler. The past, the 'now' and the future all exist at once, 'simultaneously'. Furthermore, while the ruler has a first moment in time (where the cm graduation is zero) which you can call the 'big bang', the ruler itself doesn't begin to 'exist' with the Big Bang. The Big Bang is just one point along the eternal time axis.

While things may have first-moments along the cm, or 'time axis', which can be called 'temporal beginnings', the ruler itself doesn't have a temporal 'beginning' of its existance, since it consists of every moment in time. If the universe 'began' to exist in this model, then the year 2000AD would have 'began' concurrently with 0AD, 65,000,000 BC, as well as the Big Bang itself, as they are just events within time, and eternalism is true (I.e. The future is just as much a oart of the entire universe as the present, and past.).

It's not an atheist thing either, it's just the implication of eternalism (B series).

Hope that helps.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 4:21:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2014 1:23:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I've heard numerous times that the B-theory of time (a universal present) negates the need for the Big Bang to have a cause. This is 100% incorrect. It negates the need for the *universe to have an absolute beginning*. The Big Bang is not to be equivocated with the absolute beginning of the universe.

Was the Big Bang (1) an eternal event or (2) a non-existent event?

In response to (1) no, because the Big Bang was the initial expansion from T=0 of the physical universe and for (2) the answer is no because the Big Bang existed.

It's really that simple. If the Big Bang doesn't entail (1) or (2) it has a cause.

It either had a cause from some thing or from no thing. This this the point that we all should be agreeing on. An uncaused Big Bang is so absurd but I hear it so often. It literally makes no sense at all.

The critical different between A series and B series is that A series consists of narrow slices of the ruler, 'the present', and the universe only exists in the 'present'. Thus we can go from one point and not have the universe, and then to another and have a universe. However on B series, the entire ruler is the universe, so the very notion you are capable of traversing time, you are already 'within' the universe, thus it is impossible to go from one point with no universe, to a point within the universe temporally, since T0, t1 and t2 are simply different editions of the same universe,
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 4:25:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2014 1:23:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I've heard numerous times that the B-theory of time (a universal present) negates the need for the Big Bang to have a cause. This is 100% incorrect. It negates the need for the *universe to have an absolute beginning*. The Big Bang is not to be equivocated with the absolute beginning of the universe.

Was the Big Bang (1) an eternal event or (2) a non-existent event?

In response to (1) no, because the Big Bang was the initial expansion from T=0 of the physical universe and for (2) the answer is no because the Big Bang existed.

It's really that simple. If the Big Bang doesn't entail (1) or (2) it has a cause.

It either had a cause from some thing or from no thing. This this the point that we all should be agreeing on. An uncaused Big Bang is so absurd but I hear it so often. It literally makes no sense at all.

Rarional Thinker is a theist, and he's done a tonne of debate sin this and explains it better than I do, here is one random example, it should be clearer with his pictures:

http://www.debate.org...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 4:48:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Envisage I appreciate your explanation but it's irrelevant. I'm not referring to the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe. If the Big Bang, not the universe, *began* from T=0 it must have a cause. The debate with Rationalthinker was arguing over the premise that the universe began to exist.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 4:55:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2014 4:48:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Envisage I appreciate your explanation but it's irrelevant. I'm not referring to the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe. If the Big Bang, not the universe, *began* from T=0 it must have a cause. The debate with Rationalthinker was arguing over the premise that the universe began to exist.

Define 'began'
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 4:57:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2014 4:55:47 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:48:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Envisage I appreciate your explanation but it's irrelevant. I'm not referring to the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe. If the Big Bang, not the universe, *began* from T=0 it must have a cause. The debate with Rationalthinker was arguing over the premise that the universe began to exist.

Define 'began'

start; perform or undergo the first part of (an action or activity).
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 5:00:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2014 4:48:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Envisage I appreciate your explanation but it's irrelevant. I'm not referring to the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe. If the Big Bang, not the universe, *began* from T=0 it must have a cause. The debate with Rationalthinker was arguing over the premise that the universe began to exist.

Also define 'Big Bang'

Since if Bing Bang just refers to the first moment of time, then it runs into exactly the same problem posed in eternalism, since it posits that time 'began'. Also you could make exactly the same argument about the period 2100 AD-2200 AD Where it 'began' at 2100AD. Begin here is just an arbitary division of time.

Thus you need an actual definition of 'begin', and also why a 'beginning' of something necessitates a cause,
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 5:07:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2014 5:00:11 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/11/2014 4:48:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
Envisage I appreciate your explanation but it's irrelevant. I'm not referring to the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe. If the Big Bang, not the universe, *began* from T=0 it must have a cause. The debate with Rationalthinker was arguing over the premise that the universe began to exist.

Also define 'Big Bang'

Since if Bing Bang just refers to the first moment of time, then it runs into exactly the same problem posed in eternalism, since it posits that time 'began'. Also you could make exactly the same argument about the period 2100 AD-2200 AD Where it 'began' at 2100AD. Begin here is just an arbitary division of time.

Thus you need an actual definition of 'begin', and also why a 'beginning' of something necessitates a cause,

The Big Bang refers to the initial expansion of the physical universe from the zero-point singularity. Even hawking agrees that time had a beginning in this instant.

Begin: start; perform or undergo the first part of (an action or activity).

Let me ask you: was the Big Bang an eternal or nonexistent event?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 5:58:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2014 1:23:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I've heard numerous times that the B-theory of time (a universal present) negates the need for the Big Bang to have a cause. This is 100% incorrect. It negates the need for the *universe to have an absolute beginning*. The Big Bang is not to be equivocated with the absolute beginning of the universe.

Does it also negate the need for any cause at all? Maybe you can explain a bit about the B_theory of time to those who have not heard of it and explain why some people believe it negates anything.
Are you claiming that the B-Theory of time negates the need for the universe to have an absolute beginning? It seems to me that is what you are saying. I want to know how the B-theory if time negates the need for the universe to have an absolute beginning. I want to know your reasoning behind that statement.
Are you claiming the universe must have always existed and was never created by any supernatural character and also never had any kind of scientific beginning?

Was the Big Bang (1) an eternal event or (2) a non-existent event?

To my knowledge and understanding the Big Bang is not an event of any kind. It is a theory. It is simply a scientific explanation of what might have happened. It is a speculation. I personally see it as science fiction myself but that is my personal perception.

In response to (1) no, because the Big Bang was the initial expansion from T=0 of the physical universe and for (2) the answer is no because the Big Bang existed.

Why talk about it as if it was an event which actually happened when no one knows for sure if it did or not? How do you know the event happened at all? How do you know it is not science fiction? It is an abstract idea which no one can prove or disprove any more than they can prove or disprove God. You need to accept it by faith and believe it or not.

It's really that simple. If the Big Bang doesn't entail (1) or (2) it has a cause.

Does every cause also have a cause?
Does God have a cause? If so, what caused God?

If religion can start with something that has no cause or was uncaused yet always existed, why can't science do the same?
We are all brainwashed to believe that every effect must have a cause but is that concept always true? Is there anything at all in this life that just exists without a cause?

It either had a cause from some thing or from no thing. This this the point that we all should be agreeing on. An uncaused Big Bang is so absurd but I hear it so often. It literally makes no sense at all.

Every effect I can think of has a cause and the effect in turn becomes the cause of another effect. It is a ripple effect which ends up being the same old philosophical argument regarding which came first, the cause or the effect which ultimately becomes a cause of another effect etc etc etc It always ends up in a cyclic argument no matter how you look at it.

Even if you want to believe the universe began in an event known as the "big bang" and that event needs a cause or a creator of an event and want to call the cause God, you still need to ask the same question about God, who or what caused God? If you don't, you are being biased toward religion having an uncaused cause while objecting to science having an uncaused cause.

Ultimately our choice is to believe that once upon a time the universe did not exist and was caused by something or we can believe the universe has always existed and no cause or beginning can ever be found in reality. It can only ever be speculated about the same as any "end" can also only ever be speculated about.

In the end our beliefs are based on speculation regardless of whether it is religious or scientific speculation.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:05:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2014 2:12:34 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/11/2014 1:39:42 PM, BillionBrainCells wrote:
What is absurd is that you believe there is a big man in the sky who you talk to in your head.

What is absurd is a sizeable proportion of atheists actually believing this is what religious people believe. Worse, you say you believed in a religion once. That makes me sad, because it shows how poor a job theistic defenders of faith are in exposing people to the truths behind their religion.

What's more logical? When you die you die and its over or when you die you go to some magical perfect place forever?

Again this is not what the majority of theists believe.

If that is not what they believe maybe you can explain what they do believe?
Do they not believe in Heaven as being a location where they go after they die? Do they not believe Heaven is a perfect place where they live happily ever after, free from pain and suffering and all the negative things they experience in their mortality ?

You can try to use some tricky wording, but you can never use science to prove God.

That's because God is not a scientific construct.

What kind of construct is God in your opinion?
A mental construct? An imaginary construct? An abstract construct?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:07:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2014 3:07:57 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/11/2014 1:39:42 PM, BillionBrainCells wrote:
What is absurd is that you believe there is a big man in the sky who you talk to in your head.

What's more logical? When you die you die and its over or when you die you go to some magical perfect place forever?

You can try to use some tricky wording, but you can never use science to prove God.

You have not responded to the subject matter of the OP's argument. Just thought I'd point that out.

I would like to point out that you haven't either.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:34:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2014 4:18:34 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 12/11/2014 1:23:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I've heard numerous times that the B-theory of time (a universal present) negates the need for the Big Bang to have a cause. This is 100% incorrect. It negates the need for the *universe to have an absolute beginning*. The Big Bang is not to be equivocated with the absolute beginning of the universe.

Was the Big Bang (1) an eternal event or (2) a non-existent event?

In response to (1) no, because the Big Bang was the initial expansion from T=0 of the physical universe and for (2) the answer is no because the Big Bang existed.

It's really that simple. If the Big Bang doesn't entail (1) or (2) it has a cause.

It either had a cause from some thing or from no thing. This this the point that we all should be agreeing on. An uncaused Big Bang is so absurd but I hear it so often. It literally makes no sense at all.

1. Take a ruler, a 30 cm one
2. Imagine the cm scale is "time"
3. Mark a random point on the cm scale, that point represents 'now'

With this analogy, the universe is the entire ruler. The past, the 'now' and the future all exist at once, 'simultaneously'. Furthermore, while the ruler has a first moment in time (where the cm graduation is zero) which you can call the 'big bang', the ruler itself doesn't begin to 'exist' with the Big Bang. The Big Bang is just one point along the eternal time axis.


Why use a linear ruler as the analogy? Why not use a circle? A ruler has a visible beginning and an end. A circle does not. You can place a random point on a circle and the same point would become the beginning and end of where you visualize the circle might start and end. If that circle represented time, the beginning and end of time would be in exactly the same location. In reality time does begin and end at exactly the same split second. It is constantly "dying" ( passing away) and "coming again" simultaneously.

While things may have first-moments along the cm, or 'time axis', which can be called 'temporal beginnings', the ruler itself doesn't have a temporal 'beginning' of its existance, since it consists of every moment in time. If the universe 'began' to exist in this model, then the year 2000AD would have 'began' concurrently with 0AD, 65,000,000 BC, as well as the Big Bang itself, as they are just events within time, and eternalism is true (I.e. The future is just as much a oart of the entire universe as the present, and past.).


We can begin with what we observe in reality today. We know things exist in reality and also in human imagination because we are aware of them. There was obviously a time when we were not aware of anything before we were born yet we can logically assume the universe still existed before we were born. The same applies to after we die. We can logically assume that the universe and life on Earth will go on after we die even though we personally will no longer be aware of it. Life was in the past and IS in the present and is to come in the future. Life has many different cycles today so it is logical to assume it must also have had many different cycles in the past and will continue to have many different cycles in the future. In my mind it is illogical to presume all of life and all we see on Earth and in the universe came from only one source or only one event.
Variety does not come from any singularity or any single source. Variety comes from variety.

If we combined all we experience, all matter, all energy, all time, all events of the past present and future into one body and call that the source, then we end up with the effect being the source and the source being the effect.
That makes sense in my mind. I am not sure if I have explained it clearly enough for it to make sense in anyone elses mind though.

It is like understanding that all that happens today is the source of what will happen tomorrow and all that happened today was the effect of what happened yesterday. The eternal "NOW" is both the cause and the effect of the past, present and the future.

I know that will be WAY over many peoples heads but its the best way I can explain it.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 6:53:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/11/2014 5:07:18 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 12/11/2014 5:00:11 PM, Envisage wrote:

Also define 'Big Bang'

Since if Bing Bang just refers to the first moment of time, then it runs into exactly the same problem posed in eternalism, since it posits that time 'began'. Also you could make exactly the same argument about the period 2100 AD-2200 AD Where it 'began' at 2100AD. Begin here is just an arbitary division of time.

Thus you need an actual definition of 'begin', and also why a 'beginning' of something necessitates a cause,

The Big Bang refers to the initial expansion of the physical universe from the zero-point singularity. Even hawking agrees that time had a beginning in this instant.

Begin: start; perform or undergo the first part of (an action or activity).

It makes no difference what Hawking says or claims or agrees with. Time in general consists of past present and future so it is illogical to claim time began at any finite point since the past has no beginning and the future has no end, not in any stretch of anyones imagination. When talking about a finite area of time we can say a day begins at sunrise and ends at sunset or we can make a week or a year or a century according to how we humans decide to measure these things but measuring time itself as a whole is impossible. It has no beginning or end. That is how we end up with the concept of eternity in the first place. Anyone who implies time has a beginning and end is not thinking logically or sensibly. Time has always existed regardless of whether we are aware of it or not. It existed before we were born and has a past present and future before we were aware of it and it will continue to exist and continue to have a past present and future when were in our graves and unaware of it again.

To claim you found the "beginning of time" is like claiming you have found the beginning of "NOW". It is impossible to find a beginning or end to it. The split second in which it begins and "comes again" is the same split second in which it ends and "passes away".

Human awareness is what comes and goes. It begins when you become aware and ends when you are no longer aware. Time continues on regardless of who is aware and who is not. It always had, has, and will have, a past present and future. It is illogical to believe it once did not exist.
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 8:13:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 6:07:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/11/2014 3:07:57 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/11/2014 1:39:42 PM, BillionBrainCells wrote:
What is absurd is that you believe there is a big man in the sky who you talk to in your head.

What's more logical? When you die you die and its over or when you die you go to some magical perfect place forever?

You can try to use some tricky wording, but you can never use science to prove God.

You have not responded to the subject matter of the OP's argument. Just thought I'd point that out.

I would like to point out that you haven't either.

Response: I do not disagree with it.
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 8:18:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 8:13:55 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:07:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/11/2014 3:07:57 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/11/2014 1:39:42 PM, BillionBrainCells wrote:
What is absurd is that you believe there is a big man in the sky who you talk to in your head.

What's more logical? When you die you die and its over or when you die you go to some magical perfect place forever?

You can try to use some tricky wording, but you can never use science to prove God.

You have not responded to the subject matter of the OP's argument. Just thought I'd point that out.

I would like to point out that you haven't either.

Response: I do not disagree with it.

Does that mean you agree with it? If so, why don't you share why you agree?
If not, please share why you do not disagree or agree with it.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 8:37:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 1:23:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I've heard numerous times that the B-theory of time (a universal present) negates the need for the Big Bang to have a cause. This is 100% incorrect. It negates the need for the *universe to have an absolute beginning*. The Big Bang is not to be equivocated with the absolute beginning of the universe.

Was the Big Bang (1) an eternal event or (2) a non-existent event?

In response to (1) no, because the Big Bang was the initial expansion from T=0 of the physical universe and for (2) the answer is no because the Big Bang existed.

It's really that simple. If the Big Bang doesn't entail (1) or (2) it has a cause.

It either had a cause from some thing or from no thing. This this the point that we all should be agreeing on. An uncaused Big Bang is so absurd but I hear it so often. It literally makes no sense at all.

This is a very good point to make, but to tell the truth I think that proving causation through science is pretty-much a lost cause. The greatest evidence for an intelligently caused universe lies in what we see all around us, not in some abstract scientific data which we've no way of accessing to any worthy degree.
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 8:49:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 8:18:07 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/11/2014 8:13:55 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:07:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/11/2014 3:07:57 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/11/2014 1:39:42 PM, BillionBrainCells wrote:
What is absurd is that you believe there is a big man in the sky who you talk to in your head.

What's more logical? When you die you die and its over or when you die you go to some magical perfect place forever?

You can try to use some tricky wording, but you can never use science to prove God.

You have not responded to the subject matter of the OP's argument. Just thought I'd point that out.

I would like to point out that you haven't either.

Response: I do not disagree with it.

Does that mean you agree with it? If so, why don't you share why you agree?
If not, please share why you do not disagree or agree with it.

I agree that the big bang must have had a cause. There is nothing more to be said. The topic of the post was big bang causation.
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 9:10:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 8:49:23 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/11/2014 8:18:07 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/11/2014 8:13:55 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:07:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/11/2014 3:07:57 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/11/2014 1:39:42 PM, BillionBrainCells wrote:
What is absurd is that you believe there is a big man in the sky who you talk to in your head.

What's more logical? When you die you die and its over or when you die you go to some magical perfect place forever?

You can try to use some tricky wording, but you can never use science to prove God.

You have not responded to the subject matter of the OP's argument. Just thought I'd point that out.

I would like to point out that you haven't either.

Response: I do not disagree with it.

Does that mean you agree with it? If so, why don't you share why you agree?
If not, please share why you do not disagree or agree with it.

I agree that the big bang must have had a cause. There is nothing more to be said. The topic of the post was big bang causation.

The thing that caused the big bang was the imagination of a person named Georges Lema"tre 1927. The concept did not exist before he created it.
It was caused by human imagination.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 9:55:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 6:05:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/11/2014 2:12:34 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/11/2014 1:39:42 PM, BillionBrainCells wrote:
What is absurd is that you believe there is a big man in the sky who you talk to in your head.

What is absurd is a sizeable proportion of atheists actually believing this is what religious people believe. Worse, you say you believed in a religion once. That makes me sad, because it shows how poor a job theistic defenders of faith are in exposing people to the truths behind their religion.

What's more logical? When you die you die and its over or when you die you go to some magical perfect place forever?

Again this is not what the majority of theists believe.

If that is not what they believe maybe you can explain what they do believe?
Do they not believe in Heaven as being a location where they go after they die? Do they not believe Heaven is a perfect place where they live happily ever after, free from pain and suffering and all the negative things they experience in their mortality ?

They believe Heaven is being near God forever and Hell is seperation from God forever.

You can try to use some tricky wording, but you can never use science to prove God.

That's because God is not a scientific construct.

What kind of construct is God in your opinion?
A mental construct? An imaginary construct? An abstract construct?

A metaphysical construct. Disproving metaphysical constructs using science is like taking a historical thesis and saying there's no scientific evidence for it, therefore it's false. Ignoratio elenchi.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 10:16:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 9:55:18 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:05:04 PM, Skyangel wrote:

If that is not what they believe maybe you can explain what they do believe?
Do they not believe in Heaven as being a location where they go after they die? Do they not believe Heaven is a perfect place where they live happily ever after, free from pain and suffering and all the negative things they experience in their mortality ?

They believe Heaven is being near God forever and Hell is seperation from God forever.


Yet they think they need to wait till after they die to be near God forever?
Can they be in Heaven near God before they die?
How is it even possible to not be "near God" or be separated from God when God is everywhere at all times? Is your God not everywhere at all times?

You can try to use some tricky wording, but you can never use science to prove God.

That's because God is not a scientific construct.

What kind of construct is God in your opinion?
A mental construct? An imaginary construct? An abstract construct?

A metaphysical construct. Disproving metaphysical constructs using science is like taking a historical thesis and saying there's no scientific evidence for it, therefore it's false. Ignoratio elenchi.

No Atheists deny the concept or metaphysical construct exists. They only deny the supernatural character exists in the same way they deny fairies exist.
They actually understand the concept a lot better than you give them credit for.
Religion in this world proves the concept of God exists. However, it does not prove a supernatural character exists or gives anyone a reason to worship the character any more than you would have a reason to worship Santa by understanding the concept of Santa.

Atheists have come to realize "they" are "god" in the sense of humans being gods who create gods in their own image, in the same way adults come to realize they are Santa when they stop believing in the magical character.
The "force" which motivates you is within you.
When that motivating force is good it is perceived as being "from God". When it is evil or selfish it is perceived as being "of the devil".
That still doesn't mean the characters God and the devil are supernatural invisible characters. They are simply personifications of human motivations and actions.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 10:43:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 1:23:28 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I've heard numerous times that the B-theory of time (a universal present) negates the need for the Big Bang to have a cause. This is 100% incorrect. It negates the need for the *universe to have an absolute beginning*. The Big Bang is not to be equivocated with the absolute beginning of the universe.

Was the Big Bang (1) an eternal event or (2) a non-existent event?

In response to (1) no, because the Big Bang was the initial expansion from T=0 of the physical universe and for (2) the answer is no because the Big Bang existed.

It's really that simple. If the Big Bang doesn't entail (1) or (2) it has a cause.

It either had a cause from some thing or from no thing. This this the point that we all should be agreeing on. An uncaused Big Bang is so absurd but I hear it so often. It literally makes no sense at all.

Why are you calling the Big Bang an event? The Big Bang is really just a name given to the general evolution of the universe from the earliest instant of time when our understanding of physics makes sense. The Big Bang is no more an event than at any other arbitrary time in the history of the universe.
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 10:56:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 9:10:17 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/11/2014 8:49:23 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/11/2014 8:18:07 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/11/2014 8:13:55 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/11/2014 6:07:20 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 12/11/2014 3:07:57 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/11/2014 1:39:42 PM, BillionBrainCells wrote:
What is absurd is that you believe there is a big man in the sky who you talk to in your head.

What's more logical? When you die you die and its over or when you die you go to some magical perfect place forever?

You can try to use some tricky wording, but you can never use science to prove God.

You have not responded to the subject matter of the OP's argument. Just thought I'd point that out.

I would like to point out that you haven't either.

Response: I do not disagree with it.

Does that mean you agree with it? If so, why don't you share why you agree?
If not, please share why you do not disagree or agree with it.

I agree that the big bang must have had a cause. There is nothing more to be said. The topic of the post was big bang causation.

The thing that caused the big bang was the imagination of a person named Georges Lema"tre 1927. The concept did not exist before he created it.
It was caused by human imagination.

Do you posit an alternative theory?
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.