Dear Resident Theists

[Ronkonkoma]

Most things happen because of a cause.[...]

Well - if "most things" happen "because of a cause", that means not all things have a cause. Why can't Big Bang be one of those few things, that - as you claim - don't have a cause?

Who said I'm 100% precise in my choice of words. I'm just like you, trying to figure things out. Should I have said all things have a cause? In science, the word "all" we use with caution. But I am not a scientist. I'm a doctor. And I realize that one of the most painful things in life is seeing no reason for events, as though we were pawns in the cruel tides of entropy. Nevertheless, even without any background in philosophy or religion, it can be reasoned that most things in life have a cause, so its is likely to think that all things have a cause. We are human beings with an incredible capacity to search for a cause. It is our job to find it.

---

Most things happen because of a cause. Science is always looking for a cause. The more answers we get, the more questions come up. To say the big bang had no cause is like giving up on science.

And that might be an option because the big bang is the beginning of space and time, and our scientific method fails when we go beyond space and time. Beyond that, we go into philosophy.


Or we can propose other sci-fi versions of reality like multiple universes. Who knows?

But then if you say god did it then you have to account for a cause to God. If you say god had no cause then why not use occams razor and slice out God entirely and say the universe had no cause?

I don't know what Ocam's razor is. I use gilette. I did not mention God. All I said was a cause beyond space and time, above matter. It seems to me that some astronomers are faced with a great problem. In the past twenty years hey have become confronted with the possibility of the existence of God, based on their work. So they go to great lengths to circumvent that.  Why does Stephen Hawkins talk so much about God? Because his wife is Christian? Or because he himself proved that time had a beginning. He has problems dealing with the implications of his own work. He must have interesting conversations with his wife.

---

Most things happen because of a cause. Science is always looking for a cause. The more answers we get, the more questions come up. To say the big bang had no cause is like giving up on science.

And that might be an option because the big bang is the beginning of space and time, and our scientific method fails when we go beyond space and time. Beyond that, we go into philosophy.

I agree that what takes place beyond the level of the universe of which we are a part certainly seems beyond the reach of science at this point, and quite likely for all time.  Perhaps someone will propose an indicator which would be, for theoretical reasons, an indicator of a multiverse.  I don't know, but I doubt there will ever be an entirely satisfying conclusion which will convince all parties.

So we can call the alternatives philosophy but really, aren't we just spitballing possibilities?  What I think you really must give up saying is that the universe, space and time had a beginning before which there was absolutely nothing.  There is no more reason for thinking that than for thinking there is a multiverse or for thinking something supernatural.  

Nothing is the one thing we can all rule out.  There was never nothing.  As far back as we can investigate, there are always pre-existing conditions which meld with what follows.  (That was what I wished to imply by the 'turtles all the way down' analogy.)  Even if you choose to believe time, space and everything had a beginning, you still believe there was a God capable of bringing all that into being.  So you really do not believe in a true nothingness.

Or we can propose other sci-fi versions of reality like multiple universes. Who knows?

Indeed, who?  Not me.  Not you.  But we are all free to speculate.  For me it is impossible to imagine that there is not a level of description -perhaps with its own timeline- wherein big bangs are a dime a dozen and their expansion and contraction are like a big pile of frothy bubbles.  That anything happens in isolation is beyond the power of my imagination.

Sure, and that's great to speculate, also it's very interesting to think about what's out there. And even what's in here in our twisted little minds. For example, did you consider the vast expanse of space inside our atoms? It seems like the more we zoom in, in the more the scenery begins to resemble the vast expanse of outer space!

Either way, we have to go on living. Should I get up this morning? Why? Why do good when its more convenient to do evil? Are there good and evil? And who is to define it?.... We need answers to these now, and science might be great for that, the only problem is that it is very very SLOOOOW. And our lives are short. So we do in fact need philosophy to answer these. Philosophy is supposed to be reasonable. Reason is a tool we have other than science. Religion itself should be reasonable, and it should fit with science.