Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[nihilistcat]

First I did not say "God made everything"  I simply said that according to the logic there must be a single cause without cause and that cause must be proactive (not reactive).  It just happens to be we already have a term for that which is the single proactive cause without cause and that term has been God.

It is true that we cannot describe the uncaused-cause of of Aquinas. But then ... it's really not that simple. First of all, we don't know if space is finite or infinite. You may hear scientists say something like space is not "nothing" -- it has attributes, and we have no way to describe space beyond our universe (some would say, IMO erroneously, it doesn't make sense to think in terms of a space beyond our universe).

And it gets tricky, because physicists like to use confusing terminology when answering this question (mostly because there's no consensus on this issue, but also, we see a shift between old physics and new physics, and terms like "particle space" and "non-particle space" are now being used by some physicists, while others are still beating what appears to be an outdated mantra), but there are many hypotheses that postulate something beyond our universe, and indirect evidence that points to spontaneous universe formation (which would tend to support the multiverse hypothesis). For example, the Casimir effect for creation of virtual particles under zero point energy, provides indirect evidence that VPs can form in a vacuum or vacuum like conditions (indicating that particles can spontaneously form from nothing -- a vacuum).

Here's a great video that you might enjoy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxNbXjBbzEo

Another point of confusion here is the use of language like "created out of nothing." Quantum foam is theorized to be created by virtual particles. We can observe virtual particles when running experiments (like the experiment ran by Hendrik Casimir), and these experiments perform best when calculated in terms of zero point energy (essentially, mimicking a vacuum). But is a vacuum nothing? That would seem to be more of a philosophical question, and while there hasn't been enough of a consensus to produce dogma on this issue, physics is running away from this position, and not only younger physicists, but many leading theoretical physicists. The implications of the Lambda-CDM model are a multiverse, implying the existence of a "beyond our universe" ... and so I'm glad to see physicists giving this property a description.

"It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse." Alan Guth (theoretical physicist who was an early pioneer of inflation theory, which btw is remarkably consistent with measurements taken from the NASA WMAP mission).

But honestly, I'm not really sure why people still argue these points. Even if through our study of dark matter, quantum gravity, etc., we find evidence supporting these theories, and we're able to point to an uncaused-cause; that would not rule out the possibility of a god (although I suppose the arguments would become considerably more strained, but that hasn't stopped religionists before, so I don't expect very much to change in that regard). After all, proclamations by prominent physicists like Stephen Hawking saying stuff like "god wasn't necessary" for the formation of our universe, hasn't swayed religious apologists in the least.

Nonetheless, most of these questions have NO concrete answer, and so sure, there's a gap where you can fit a god. But then again, I remind everyone of the pattern. As the gaps where you can fit a god have narrowed, the story has continually changed (pivoting from literal to figurative interpretation).

But there is one tasty irony that you (and other religious apologists) might find amusing. My position here is at direct odds with what I view as the philosophically extreme position that if you can't measure it ... it isn't real. So maybe that gives you a gap the size of a swimming pool where you can fit a god, or gods, or some sci-fi version of creation. So it's not as if I'm not open minded enough to accept the possibility of the existence of something we can't detect, measure, etc. I would just say that in the case of at least the Abrahamic faiths, we have a long long track record that we can analyze