• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cosmological Argument - Discussion

The Universe *in its current state* has a beginning. Prior to its current state, the universe existed within the Singularity. What existed prior to that, we do not have evidence for. But you notice, nowhere there was anything about "nothing" or "popping into existence" mentioned. The Universe in its current state came from the Universe in another previous state.

You can speculate all you want. Sky's the limit. But....... it'll still have to begin at some point. :shrug:

That's what science says.



All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever.
 
Last edited:
Free fallin', now I'm free fallin', now I'm

Why can't the Universe itself simply take the place of god, as in "The Universe does not have a beginning, it is uncreated and uncaused"?

After all, the Laws of Physics themselves make creating matter/energy (IE the universe) an impossibility.

There's the point. See quantum fluctuation - Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia

"In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[1] as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

"This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge.

"Quantum fluctuations may have been necessary in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of expansive inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure. Vacuum energy may also be responsible for the current accelerating expansion of the universe (cosmological constant)."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

So - possibly we can dispense with the notion of God altogether - the physics are looking convincing, but we're not quite ready to take off the training wheels just yet.
 
You can speculate all you want. Sky's the limit.

But, that's what science says.

Please quote a scientific source claiming the universe came from "nothing" or that it "popped into existence from nothing".

Because you are lying. That is not what science says.
 
Please quote a scientific source claiming the universe came from "nothing" or that it "popped into existence from nothing".

Because you are lying. That is not what science says.

It is what the more prosaic of apologetic literature states scientists posit (e.g. Answers in Genesis for one).
 
Last edited:
Please quote a scientific source claiming the universe came from "nothing" or that it "popped into existence from nothing".

Because you are lying. That is not what science says.

I didn't say that either.
"Popped into existence from nothing," is actually the atheists' position. You're confusing it with creation.


I'm saying............... God created the universe. God is the cause.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say that either.

I'm saying............... God created the universe. God is the cause.

Your argument that science says the Universe had a beginning is based on a pop-culture analysis of the Big Bang Theory. The Universe *as it exists now* began with the Big Bang, but prior to the Big Bang, the Universe still existed in another form as the Singularity.
 
Re: Free fallin', now I'm free fallin', now I'm

There's the point. See quantum fluctuation - Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia

"In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,[1] as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

"This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles. The effects of these particles are measurable, for example, in the effective charge of the electron, different from its "naked" charge.

"Quantum fluctuations may have been necessary in the origin of the structure of the universe: according to the model of expansive inflation the ones that existed when inflation began were amplified and formed the seed of all current observed structure. Vacuum energy may also be responsible for the current accelerating expansion of the universe (cosmological constant)."

(My emphasis - more @ the URL)

So - possibly we can dispense with the notion of God altogether - the physics are looking convincing, but we're not quite ready to take off the training wheels just yet.


If quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, necessary in the origin of the structure of the universe..................


...............where did energy come from?
 
The Universe *as it exists now* began with the Big Bang, but prior to the Big Bang, the Universe still existed in another form as the Singularity.



What happened before the Big Bang? What happened right at the moment of the Big Bang?

We don't know.
To even address these questions we need to have a quantum theory of gravity. We have a quantum theory, and we have a gravity theory, but these two theories somehow need to be combined. We know that our current gravity theory does not apply to the conditions of the earliest moments of the Big Bang.
WMAP Site FAQs


Lol. If science doesn't know what was before the Big bang - how do you know? :lol:
 
[/B]



WMAP Site FAQs


Lol. If science doesn't know what was before the Big bang - how do you know? :lol:

You realize that’s an FAQ designed to dumb scientific explanations down into layman’s terms, yes?

I know a young earth creationist has no idea what the difference is between an actual scientific publication and what amounts to a blog, but suffice it to say, it’s a little more complex than “we don’t know”.
 
Re: Free fallin', now I'm free fallin', now I'm

If quantum fluctuation (or vacuum state fluctuation or vacuum fluctuation) is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space, necessary in the origin of the structure of the universe..................

...............where did energy come from?

We (science) don't know. It may be knowable, it may not. If we have to push back into pre-Singularity, it may not be knowable, this side of the Singularity.

Or possibly - possibly - the energy inflow into what became this universe is simply natural to quantum fluctuation. That's a big maybe, & I'm not sure we're ever going to be able to pin that down.
 
Shall we dig into the Cosmological Argument for a bit?

Here's a very high-level, 5 mile high "bullet point" for what this thread should focus on (at least at the beginning):



Something can't come from nothing. Therefore, if there's something, it was created.

The Universe exists, therefore something created the Universe.

Of course nothing in this argument necessarily states that the cause "must be god".

The argument also tends to fall completely apart when the question gets asked:

Well if something can't come from nothing, then where did "god" come from?

Thoughts?

For starters, science doesn't think something came from nothing. Big bang (not really a bang in the classic sense) was the expansion of matter and energy that was condensed. So nothing was created during big bang, it just expanded. We already know that dying stars can implode and compress matter and energy to a very dense place, or with black holes, completely fold into itself.

Also,, something can't come from nothing is misused because if there was some factor that made something out of nothing (which is not what science believes anyway) what madet hat factor (whether it be god or not)?

It's convenient that those the believe in god created (or something other) can invoke magic and not play by the rules that something can't come from nothing
 
It's the best of all possible arguments for the existence of God.

God is the inference to the best explanation of the existence of the World (universe, life, consciousness).

It falls apart only for shallow thought. As soon as the causal regress reaches God, the proof of God is made. Any further question changes the subject.

Not a single fact is present in what you posted. Not a single argument to prove your claim. Just make statements of facts with nothing to back it up.

God is not he default setting. The concept of god is made up by man, so god doesn't get to be the default fall back, cop out whenver humans don't know the answer to something.

That's the ultimate copout. Making up the answers does not make the answer true, it doesn't make that made up answer legit either,or not even the "best possibility".

To just waive your hand and say "god did it". But of course, what created god? Oh, that's easy, just invoke magic and claim god doesn't have to fit in the rules
 
The Universe *in its current state* has a beginning. Prior to its current state, the universe existed within the Singularity. What existed prior to that, we do not have evidence for. But you notice, nowhere there was anything about "nothing" or "popping into existence" mentioned. The Universe in its current state came from the Universe in another previous state.

This!!!

Great post.

Thank you.
 
Your argument that science says the Universe had a beginning is based on a pop-culture analysis of the Big Bang Theory. The Universe *as it exists now* began with the Big Bang, but prior to the Big Bang, the Universe still existed in another form as the Singularity.

Great stuff.
 
Re: Free fallin', now I'm free fallin', now I'm

We (science) don't know. It may be knowable, it may not. If we have to push back into pre-Singularity, it may not be knowable, this side of the Singularity.

Or possibly - possibly - the energy inflow into what became this universe is simply natural to quantum fluctuation. That's a big maybe, & I'm not sure we're ever going to be able to pin that down.

Push "back int pre-Singularity"? You mean the Oscillating Universe theory? Current evidence indicates the Universe is not only expanding but accelerating in that expansion resulting in a "one-shot" Universe that eventually expand into complete entropy AKA Heat Death AKA "The Big Chill".
 
The Universe *in its current state* has a beginning. Prior to its current state, the universe existed within the Singularity. What existed prior to that, we do not have evidence for. But you notice, nowhere there was anything about "nothing" or "popping into existence" mentioned. The Universe in its current state came from the Universe in another previous state.

"Popping into existence" covers the transition from Singularity into an ever expanding Universe much like opening a can of prank peanuts "popping" into a large spring "snake". Agreed no one knows the origin of the Singularity or why it "popped. Anyone to make a claim on it is guessing.
 
Re: Free fallin', now I'm free fallin', now I'm

Push "back int pre-Singularity"? You mean the Oscillating Universe theory? Current evidence indicates the Universe is not only expanding but accelerating in that expansion resulting in a "one-shot" Universe that eventually expand into complete entropy AKA Heat Death AKA "The Big Chill".

The physics is beyond me, so I can't evaluate the idea. However, I thought it was odd to simply exclude the possibility that mass/energy apparent creation/destruction could be a natural phenomenon. From what we know thus far of quantum fluctuation, the creation/annihilation may simply be a natural aspect of the fluctuation, with no primary cause required.

I thought it was important to raise the point.
 
Shall we dig into the Cosmological Argument for a bit?

Here's a very high-level, 5 mile high "bullet point" for what this thread should focus on (at least at the beginning):



Something can't come from nothing. Therefore, if there's something, it was created.

The Universe exists, therefore something created the Universe.

Of course nothing in this argument necessarily states that the cause "must be god".

The argument also tends to fall completely apart when the question gets asked:

Well if something can't come from nothing, then where did "god" come from?

Thoughts?

Though they usually aren't stated that way, Cosmological arguments (of which you've only mentioned one kind in your OP) are really reductio ad absurdem arguments. They show that not al their premises can be true at once, provide a reason to accept all but one of those premises, and also a reason to accept that the premise left out is true of everything we can observe in the universe. Ergo, there must be something of which that premise, whichever one it is, is not true. In turn, that thing, whatever it is, must be very weird in comparison to anything in the universe.
 
"Popping into existence" covers the transition from Singularity into an ever expanding Universe much like opening a can of prank peanuts "popping" into a large spring "snake". Agreed no one knows the origin of the Singularity or why it "popped. Anyone to make a claim on it is guessing.

Except YEC’s like to argue that “popping into existence” means “something from nothing”. It doesn’t.
 
It's the best of all possible arguments for the existence of God.

God is the inference to the best explanation of the existence of the World (universe, life, consciousness).

It falls apart only for shallow thought. As soon as the causal regress reaches God, the proof of God is made. Any further question changes the subject.
. Not a single argument to prove your claim. Just make statements of facts with nothing to back it up.

God is not he default setting. The concept of god is made up by man, so god doesn't get to be the default fall back, cop out whenver humans don't know the answer to something.

That's the ultimate copout. Making up the answers does not make the answer true, it doesn't make that made up answer legit either,or not even the "best possibility".

To just waive your hand and say "god did it". But of course, what created god? Oh, that's easy, just invoke magic and claim god doesn't have to fit in the rules
What's my claim, sport?
By the way, if according to you "not a single fact is present in what posted," then how is it that I "just make statements of facts with nothing to back it up"? Your self-contradiction suggests some confusion on your part. You apparently dislike my post but don't know or can't say why/

So what is my claim?
By the way all concepts, which are ideas in minds, are "made up by man," including the concepts of science. So what?

So what is my claim?
By the way, do you know what an "inference" is? It doesn't seem that you do from your post.

So what is an inference?
By the way, rejecting an answer because it contradicts a belief held blindly by you is the "cop-out" you're so eager to find in the cosmological argument.

So what is an inference?
By the way, I don't "waive [sic]" my hands, I enjoy their use, and only "wave" them when I'm saying Hi or Goodbye.

I'm waving one of them now at you.
 
Re: Free fallin', now I'm free fallin', now I'm

The physics is beyond me, so I can't evaluate the idea. However, I thought it was odd to simply exclude the possibility that mass/energy apparent creation/destruction could be a natural phenomenon. From what we know thus far of quantum fluctuation, the creation/annihilation may simply be a natural aspect of the fluctuation, with no primary cause required.

I thought it was important to raise the point.

I can't explain the physics of it either if my life depended upon it and I'm still a little fuzzy on dark matter and dark energy.....but maybe this will be of interest: The Big Crunch, the Big Freeze and the Big Rip - The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe
...Perhaps the most likely possibility, however, based on current knowledge, is a long, slow decline known as the "Big Freeze" (or the “Big Chill” or “Heat Death”). In this scenario, the universe continues expanding and gradually “runs down” to a state of zero thermodynamic free energy in which it is unable to sustain motion or life. Eventually, over a time scale of 1014 (a hundred trillion) years or more, it would reach a state of maximum entropy at a temperature of very close to absolute zero, where the universe simply becomes too cold to sustain life, and all that would remain are burned-out stars, cold dead planets and black holes....


 
Except YEC’s like to argue that “popping into existence” means “something from nothing”. It doesn’t.

Best to just ask them. OTOH, just like atheists always like to ask "If god made the universe, who made god?" we can ask "Where did the Singularity originate?"
 
Best to just ask them. OTOH, just like atheists always like to ask "If god made the universe, who made god?" we can ask "Where did the Singularity originate?"

To which the correct, logical answer is “We don’t know”, not “Goddidit”
 
Back
Top Bottom