RE: Christian argued that everything must have a creator
December 6, 2015 at 11:04 am
(This post was last modified: December 6, 2015 at 11:18 am by athrock.)
(December 6, 2015 at 9:55 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo
Also, check out Krauss' book, A Universe From Nothing.
I haven't read this book, but it's my understanding that knowledgeable skeptics cringe when this argument comes up because Krauss equivocates when speaking of "nothing" which he actually defines as a sort of pre-existent something from which the universe was made. IOW, Krauss claims that something (which he calls "nothing") existed before EVERYTHING came into being.
This is not the view of cosmologists who accept the Big Bang Theory and the idea that truly nothing (not even Krauss' nothing) existed prior.
(December 6, 2015 at 11:04 am)Irrational Wrote:(December 6, 2015 at 10:57 am)athrock Wrote: Why should anyone assume that? That's called an infinite regress, and it leads nowhere. And the fact that you've never "witnessed [emphasis added] an eternal watchmaker" does not prove that one does not exist. That's a non sequitur.
That's precisely what leading scientists are saying. It's called the Big Bang.
That's not possible. Science tells us, by reason of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that the universe is slowly running out of usable energy. If the universe "has always been here", then it would have run out of energy long before now. The fact that we still have energy proves that the universe has NOT always been here and that it had a beginning.
This is not religion; this is science.
1. Then apply this reasoning to the watchmaker analogy. The fact that you've never witnessed an eternal object does not mean it is not possible.
2. No, the Big Bang theory isn't about the universe coming out of absolute literal nothing.
3. This particular universe may have had a beginning through the Big Bang singularity ... maybe. But notice that I said cosmos instead to avoid it being confused with this particular universe. There may very well be something beyond just this universe and it doesn't have to be a god.
4. I am not doing science here by the way. I'm using the same logic you're using to show you that God is not necessary.
1. The Big Bang Theory states that everything in the material universe came into being at a single point. Consequently, there was no "eternal object" which existed prior to this event. No one could have witnessed such an object because it is not possible for one to have existed.
2. Yes, it is.
3. Oh? Greater than the material universe but not God? Care to provide more details? Seems to me you're into a faith-based position now that is at least equal to that of the theists.
4. If you're going to apply logic to the arguments, you need to do it well.
(December 5, 2015 at 7:38 pm)Kitan Wrote:(December 5, 2015 at 7:19 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Exactly. Thanks for putting into words what I could not.
What was the cause for the existence of god, or did you miss that logical step?
As I pointed out previously, the Kalam Cosmological Argument states in the first premise that "whatever begins to exist has a cause." Theists grab hold of this cause as their god.
Makes sense, doesn't it? If a supreme being did not begin to exist but has always existed, then it has no cause. An uncaused cause is "god".
That's kinda what "supreme" is all about.
