nothing, nothing, nothing...big bang?

[Tiberius]

Everything that has a begining has had a cause
The universe had a begining
Thus, it had a cause
Since it had a cause something had to give it a cause for its existence

Please prove the assertion that I have marked in bold. If you cannot, then it is merely an assumption being used to support your argument, and we all know how well that usually works out...

[solja247]

Please prove the assertion that I have marked in bold. If you cannot, then it is merely an assumption being used to support your argument, and we all know how well that usually works out...

Simple.
Everything we know has had a beginning. We can speculate and go 'what if' but what if we find a moon made of cheese? So lets not speculate.
Currently everything that has had a beginning has had a cause. Whether that be you, Dawkins, the London Bridge, life itself, galaxies, stars and the universe itself have all had a cause for its existence. Perhaps in the future we will find something which doesnt have a cause for its beginning. We may also find that energy and matter can be created, but lets not speculate...

[fr0d0]

Isn't it the same as the assumption made that everything must be temporal because there is no proof of anything other than temporal?

All we observe has a cause therefore we attribute probability to the unknown having the same cause.

If you adopt one of these conditions you must also adopt the other.

I'm sure someone stated that there were a few thing which existed without cause on here a while back. I'd like to examine those if anyone remembers.

[Tiberius]

Please prove the assertion that I have marked in bold. If you cannot, then it is merely an assumption being used to support your argument, and we all know how well that usually works out...

Simple.
Everything we know has had a beginning. We can speculate and go 'what if' but what if we find a moon made of cheese? So lets not speculate.
Currently everything that has had a beginning has had a cause. Whether that be you, Dawkins, the London Bridge, life itself, galaxies, stars and the universe itself have all had a cause for its existence. Perhaps in the future we will find something which doesnt have a cause for its beginning. We may also find that energy and matter can be created, but lets not speculate...

Not so simple actually, seeing as you didn't prove anything. You say we shouldn't speculate, and then admit that your entire reasoning is speculation. You have no reason for believing that everything that had a beginning also had a cause for that beginning; only that everything we've seen so far does. This is speculation (and also wrong, as theVOID has pointed out on many occasions).

I should also mention that saying "simple" as if you've proved it, and then saying "perhaps in the future..." reveals the contradictory nature of your argument. Next time you think you've proved something, you shouldn't add a conditional on the end...

So I disagree; speculation is very powerful. It stops us from becoming so arrogant we make stupid statements without any proof whatsoever. What if we find a moon made of cheese? Well then we've found some new and interesting in the universe. What if we find that matter / energy can be created? Then we've advanced science further than we thought possible. What if some things can have a beginning without a cause? Then your argument is flawed. Speculation is a good thing.

[solja247]

So I disagree; speculation is very powerful. It stops us from becoming so arrogant we make stupid statements without any proof whatsoever. What if we find a moon made of cheese? Well then we've found some new and interesting in the universe. What if we find that matter / energy can be created? Then we've advanced science further than we thought possible. What if some things can have a beginning without a cause? Then your argument is flawed. Speculation is a good thing.

Speculation is just that. In the 1950s people speculated what the future would be like. Speculation can be wrong. Speculation is not empically evidence based. I can speculate that Jesus is going to come back, it doesnt mean that He is going too, I just speculate that
He will come...
I love how science proves our assumptions wrong, but untill it does, the assumption that everything in the universe has a cause is a present fact, just like the law of gravity, untill it is proven cotrary it is a law...

[Tiberius]

The thing is, a lot of things in quantum mechanics are acausal. This article (written 22 years ago) explains some of it, and points out why the "cause" argument for God is fallacious. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/q...aused.html

Also, I feel the need to point out the contradiction of calling an assumption a "fact". Facts are true; assumptions have no truth value at the time they are referenced.

[little_monkey]

So I disagree; speculation is very powerful. It stops us from becoming so arrogant we make stupid statements without any proof whatsoever. What if we find a moon made of cheese? Well then we've found some new and interesting in the universe. What if we find that matter / energy can be created? Then we've advanced science further than we thought possible. What if some things can have a beginning without a cause? Then your argument is flawed. Speculation is a good thing.

Speculation is just that. In the 1950s people speculated what the future would be like. Speculation can be wrong. Speculation is not empically evidence based. I can speculate that Jesus is going to come back, it doesnt mean that He is going too, I just speculate that
He will come...
I love how science proves our assumptions wrong, but untill it does, the assumption that everything in the universe has a cause is a present fact, just like the law of gravity, untill it is proven cotrary it is a law...

So I presume that you want to ask, what is the first cause? But that question makes no sense, since one can ask, what was the cause of the first cause? And then, what is the cause of the cause of the first cause? Etc. Like one said, it's turtles all the way.

[The Omnissiunt One]

Simple.
Everything we know has had a beginning. We can speculate and go 'what if' but what if we find a moon made of cheese? So lets not speculate.
Currently everything that has had a beginning has had a cause. Whether that be you, Dawkins, the London Bridge, life itself, galaxies, stars and the universe itself have all had a cause for its existence. Perhaps in the future we will find something which doesnt have a cause for its beginning. We may also find that energy and matter can be created, but lets not speculate...

Currently, every mind we know has and is contingent upon a body; every mind we know is finite and has limited knowledge; every mind we know can only act through the medium of the body; every mind we know is incapable of telepathically knowing the thoughts of others, and sending them to an immaterial realm depending on what those thoughts are; every mind we know is incapable of answering others' wishes magically, or suspending the laws of nature.

So let's not speculate.

[solja247]

Also, I feel the need to point out the contradiction of calling an assumption a "fact". Facts are true; assumptions have no truth value at the time they are referenced.

Then facts are never a fact. The North Pole is found in the North is not a fact, because one day what we call the North Pole may become the South Pole...
I called it a present fact, not an absolute fact, which are two different things...

So I presume that you want to ask, what is the first cause? But that question makes no sense, since one can ask, what was the cause of the first cause? And then, what is the cause of the cause of the first cause? Etc. Like one said, it's turtles all the way.

That is why there had to be an uncaused cause, which I call God...

Currently, every mind we know has and is contingent upon a body; every mind we know is finite and has limited knowledge; every mind we know can only act through the medium of the body; every mind we know is incapable of telepathically knowing the thoughts of others, and sending them to an immaterial realm depending on what those thoughts are; every mind we know is incapable of answering others' wishes magically, or suspending the laws of nature.

So let's not speculate.

Thoughts exist in an immaterial realm, some being in another dimension could possibly intercept them? but lets not speculate. This thread isnt about that anyways...

[downbeatplumb]

Thoughts exist in an immaterial realm,

Bollocks do they, thoughts are the fireing of neurons in the brain not some fanciful mysterious thing, you can see 'thoughts' with MRI scanners.