RE: How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard
September 20, 2015 at 12:55 am
From what I understand from my physics courses, 20 years ago, time is a product of the expansion of the universe, literally caused by it and integral with it, as one of the dimensions. Therefore, you cannot say "what came before the Singularity", because "came before" is a product of time. We simply don't have the frame-of-reference to discuss it using the english language, to any effective degree.
It suffices to say that whether or not the mathematical models prove we have "a universe from nothing" (as Krauss and others suggest), or whether we somehow discover a way to posit that there was indeed time before the expansion of the Singularity, I suspect none of these models will incorporate "an eternal timeless being".
In the words of Pierre-Simon LaPlace, "I have no need of that hypothesis."
It suffices to say that whether or not the mathematical models prove we have "a universe from nothing" (as Krauss and others suggest), or whether we somehow discover a way to posit that there was indeed time before the expansion of the Singularity, I suspect none of these models will incorporate "an eternal timeless being".
In the words of Pierre-Simon LaPlace, "I have no need of that hypothesis."
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
