What is "FAITH"

[Esquilax]

My theory about the origin of the universe says that an infinite, immaterial being is responsible for it.

If it's a theory then it's not a scientific theory. In fact from the POV of science, it qualifies more like a speculation than a theory.

And how weird does it feel to be on the other side of one of these "X is just a theory!" conversations?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

What I am trying to say is that if I made a lightbulb right now, I could not claim to have invented the lightbulb.

---

The creator of the lightbulb is and can only be a man who did not have access to the lightbulb. A man who came before the lightbulb. He would have done his work by lamplight.
That's an objective, provable fact. I can build a table and take it to a patent office with similar results.

You really could've just said that. i wouldn't dispute the lightbulb thing with you.

your entire premise is dependent upon:
a) the universe being created by an intelligent being
b) this is the first universe ever to come into existence, so the creator of this (granting (a)), must be the inventor of the universe

evidence for a) and b) please.

FYI there's a model of the universe in astronomy that has the universe cycle from big bang, to an end, and then another big bang, and so on. you can find it on wikipedia. if you read a little more on wikipedia you'll find that time only exists after the big bang. so when you say before the universe, you want to clarify what on earth you mean.

[Foxaèr]

Can you invent the lightbulb?

Certainly. Patent aside, a man who has never before heard of a lightbulb, has no knowledge of lightbulbs, and has never had access to viewing a lightbulb could technically by definition invent the lightbulb.

[little_monkey]

If it's a theory then it's not a scientific theory. In fact from the POV of science, it qualifies more like a speculation than a theory.

And how weird does it feel to be on the other side of one of these "X is just a theory!" conversations?

I know the feeling. But one way to get what the correct idea across is -- well, gravity is just a theory, you wanna jump off from the 15th floor of a building just to test that theory?

[Consilius]

What I am trying to say is that if I made a lightbulb right now, I could not claim to have invented the lightbulb.

---

The creator of the lightbulb is and can only be a man who did not have access to the lightbulb. A man who came before the lightbulb. He would have done his work by lamplight.
That's an objective, provable fact. I can build a table and take it to a patent office with similar results.

You really could've just said that. i wouldn't dispute the lightbulb thing with you.

your entire premise is dependent upon:
a) the universe being created by an intelligent being
b) this is the first universe ever to come into existence, so the creator of this (granting (a)), must be the inventor of the universe

evidence for a) and b) please.

FYI there's a model of the universe in astronomy that has the universe cycle from big bang, to an end, and then another big bang, and so on. you can find it on wikipedia. if you read a little more on wikipedia you'll find that time only exists after the big bang. so when you say before the universe, you want to clarify what on earth you mean.

1. All things are caused.
2. The cause of all things must, therefore, be uncaused.
If the cause (Edison or whoever), truly invented the lightbulb, it is only possible that he worked by lamplight. Objective, testable fact.

This does not need to be the first universe for this to be true. The first universe would have to attribute its existence to its cause, which would still have to be uncaused. If such cause could sustain itself infinitely before the creation of that universe, why couldn't it do so after? Nothing can be infinite on one end and not on the other. Provable fact.
But say two of the uncaused causes existed anyway. Neither of them would have the absolute authority required to bring absolutely everything into existence, because a conflicting will exists that is not subject to the other's will. It exists on its own accord, and is therefore free from the authority of the other one. With more than one of these causes, another cause, singular in nature, is required to have authority over both of them; an ultimate will. Two rulers cannot rule together unless one allows the other to rule or a greater authority asked the two of them to rule together. Provable fact.
The cause of the universe brought about the universe at a finite point in time. It always had the ability to do so, so why isn't there an endless stream of universes that go on into the past? Why don't universes continually pop into existence every day? I can do or not do any activity without the physical need to do so because, I, as a human, can freely act. Provable fact. Therefore, the uncaused cause freely made the decision to bring about the universe because it never had anything preventing it from beginning a universe, and it will never have anything forcing it to begin a universe.

[genkaus]

1. All things are caused.
2. The cause of all things must, therefore, be uncaused.

These two statements are mutually contradictory and therefore cannot be true simultaneously. If all things are caused, then the cause of all things would also be a things which must be caused.

And with that, the rest of your argument becomes a failure.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

genkaus has replied to your first few mistakes, i'll just take on the rest. which is, in case anyone is unclear, completely dreamed up by you (or other people you got this from).

This does not need to be the first universe for this to be true. The first universe would have to attribute its existence to its cause, which would still have to be uncaused. If such cause could sustain itself infinitely before the creation of that universe, why couldn't it do so after? Nothing can be infinite on one end and not on the other. Provable fact.

go ahead and prove it. you're making an absolute statement, go ahead, prove it.

But say two of the uncaused causes existed anyway. Neither of them would have the absolute authority required to bring absolutely everything into existence, because a conflicting will exists that is not subject to the other's will. It exists on its own accord, and is therefore free from the authority of the other one. With more than one of these causes, another cause, singular in nature, is required to have authority over both of them; an ultimate will. Two rulers cannot rule together unless one allows the other to rule or a greater authority asked the two of them to rule together. Provable fact.

These "causes" sound very human with very human ideas of cooperation and authority. Also, go ahead and prove that, keeping in mind again, you're proving an absolute statement.

The cause of the universe brought about the universe at a finite point in time. It always had the ability to do so, so why isn't there an endless stream of universes that go on into the past? Why don't universes continually pop into existence every day? I can do or not do any activity without the physical need to do so because, I, as a human, can freely act. Provable fact. Therefore, the uncaused cause freely made the decision to bring about the universe because it never had anything preventing it from beginning a universe, and it will never have anything forcing it to begin a universe.

while i'm thrilled that you brought up another one of your Provable fact this time i'm completely lost as to how it applies to your already sufficiently crazy theory.

i'm not even going to bother doing your homework for you this time and list all the baseless assumptions you've made. Partly for the fear of bringing up more baseless assumptions.

[Consilius]

1. All things are caused.
2. The cause of all things must, therefore, be uncaused.

These two statements are mutually contradictory and therefore cannot be true simultaneously. If all things are caused, then the cause of all things would also be a things which must be caused.

And with that, the rest of your argument becomes a failure.

The cause of all things is not a material thing itself. That is yet another qualification for the cause of the universe.
All natural forces are caused, along with everything else, and therefore, the cause of the universe muct be supernatural, or not subject to the laws of nature, for the reason that this cause instituted the laws of nature itself.

[Esquilax]

The cause of all things is not a material thing itself. That is yet another qualification for the cause of the universe.
All natural forces are caused, along with everything else, and therefore, the cause of the universe muct be supernatural, or not subject to the laws of nature, for the reason that this cause instituted the laws of nature itself.

Do you honestly think that blatant special pleading will fly here?

[little_monkey]

TROLL ALERT... TROLL ALERT


EDIT: The funny and sad thing is that these theists REALLY, REALLY think we've never heard these arguments before.