This is not a philosophical discussion. It's a science discussion. But since we're talking about fairy tales, it's treated as if it were a matter of how you feel about it. You are not applying the scientific method at all. You are taking extremely limited information and reaching far flung conclusions. Applying what we know about space and time to things that happened before space and time existed is like arguing that the sun can't be too hot because it will melt. You are applying human scale and causality to the entire universe. Electrons don't even operate that way. There are particles in the universe that might be in multiple places at the same time. Not only does outside the universe not have to conform to our scale, other parts of this universe don't.
I understand that this thread questions science and death, but it is located in the philosophical board and the arguments and discussions about causation are based on Philosophy, as well as some science.
So, I'm still confused how anything that has been stated thus far is a far flung conclusion. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. The universe has a cause. An entity cannot cause itself to be created. This is limited information? These are all basic scientific and logical observations that no one can deny without resorting to theoretical metaphysics or say we "don't know" so we should never try to know.
"Things that happened before space and time." I'm really confused about this statement. What is this before you speak of? Are you talking about the multiverse theory? If so, you need to be specific. And what is this "outside" of our universe?
There is no evidence whatsoever to support the application of cause and effect on a human scale to the universe as a whole.
Uhm... EVERYTHING we know is based on a human scale... EVERYTHING we know is based on our interpretation of existence. The argument from causation does not undeniably prove God but gives us plausible reason to believe that since the universe came to be, then the universe has a cause for it's existence.
Humans apply what we know to greater things.
See, what you're calling "belief" is actually just ignorance. Instead, we have actual information about how the universe operated in its first few seconds and what implications that might have towards its beginning. We also have higher level mathematics that can describe universes that don't function the same way ours does, and can provide insight into how extra-universal things might operate. But we don't even assume that any of these hypotheses are true at this point. There's just not enough information. So we go with the one that is the closest to our observable data, until we find a better one that is even closer. We do not argue that it has to be any known theory. It probably isn't.
Why are you applying these human theories that are locked on a human scale to the universe as a whole?
You see, with all due respect, the argument that you previously used was weak. I certainly do respect the scientific theories that are out there because they are based on observable data. What we know about the expanding universe could be completely inaccurate in certain areas of existence, but we still build off of theories like the Big Bang because it is all that we know. This is the same thing that theists do in relation to the causation argument. We don't claim that cause and effect is universal, but in our known existence it is, therefore we will believe it to be plausibly rational to apply it to greater things, such as the origin of the universe.
All we are arguing is that based on our current knowledge of the universe, it came into being. Based on our current knowledge of the universe, something that comes into being cannot cause itself to come into being. Therefore we believe there was something that caused our universe to come into being. This entity can be named a magical unicorn, spaghetti monsters, we don't care- but it must have the characteristics of the theistic God.
If you were paying attention, you'd understand that time is a factor of mass and energy. Neither of which necessarily exist outside this universe. Therefore, before and after, and thus cause and effect, do not necessarily govern anything outside this universe. There is no evidence to show that it does. So we cannot assume that it does.
What is this "outside" you speak of? You keep talking about some "Before" or some "Outside" but I need to know what this state of being is. Before is an allusion to some sort of time, is it not? How can there be a "before" of our universe if there is no time?
And most of what you claim to know is demonstrably wrong. Nor is belief a factor at all. You are literally saying "I don't know, therefore god" even though some of the things you don't know, some other people (mostly physicists) do know. All you or Phattonez are doing is invoking an argument from ignorance.
Remember you have to back up your arguments instead of saying that we're just wrong. Based on our current understanding of existence (not guesswork), what is wrong with this claim?
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
There is not only no evidence of a "first cause", there is no evidence that such a cause is necessary. There absolutely no evidence that such a cause is intelligent, and no evidence that such a cause does not itself require a cause, because infinite regression is automatically a problem that such a cause must overcome. Simply declaring that your cause is immune to infinite regression solves nothing.
Evidence? Not even sure what you're going on about now. There is evidence that what begins to exist has a cause for its existence, and there is evidence that the universe began to exist... We can only make the inference from there.
God did not begin to exist. God is eternal, causeless, timeless, spaceless... you know the principles of God. You often speak of this "outside" of the universe... Did you ever think you might be referring to the same characteristics of a God? No, I don't mean any of the human Gods specifically, but just an entity or being that has the characteristics of God?
