(July 22, 2015 at 10:19 pm)Magilla Wrote:(July 22, 2015 at 9:02 pm)Cephus Wrote: Actually, modern formulations of the first cause argument will list the first premise as "everything that BEGINS to exist needs a cause", then they will declare that God never began to exist. Really? Prove it. We have no evidence of anything that didn't begin to exist. Therefore, until you can present your uncaused cause for examination, it's just a load of bullshit.
The universe has always existed. Through the history of the universe, going backwards, there was always some material existence and a series of causal relationships. What existed before the big bang is discussed by Lawrence Krauss and other cosmologists. This is equally as logical as "God" has always existed, but is based on evidence, logic, deduction mathematics etc. Do we understand it all fully? NO, but we oughtn't to plug the gap with goddidit.
God of the gaps <=> We don't know <=> God of the gaps <=> We don't know <=> God of the gaps <=> We don't know <=> God of the gaps . . .
It depends on how you define the universe. Our particular universe had a beginning, what lies beyond it, may or may not have, we just have no way of knowing. I agree, we should never propose an explanation for anything without evidence that explanation is valid and "goddidit" is not a valid explanation because there is no evidence it is real.
There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide mankind that cannot be achieved as well or better through secular means.
Bitch at my blog! Follow me on Twitter! Subscribe to my YouTube channel!
Bitch at my blog! Follow me on Twitter! Subscribe to my YouTube channel!