Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[FifthElement]

'infinite regression' is you what to hold onto.

There is fundamentally nothing wrong with infinite regression, never was and never will be, logically you can argue that it is, but physically, there is nothing wrong with it, really

[Rampant.A.I.]

Earlier versions of the cosmological argument did just say "everything that exists has a cause." The Kalam variant was specifically formulated to dodge the infinite regression problem which, to me, is a clear as day signal as to just how mercenary and dishonest this argument is.

No extra information had been discovered, no new thoughts had been thought: the argument just changed, adding in another bare assertion, specifically because there was an objection to the initial version that was irrefutable. It's just moving the goalposts and hoping nobody will notice.

[/hide]'infinite regression' is what you want to hold onto. general relativity describes (there have been 11 independent scientific observations) the movements of bodies in the universe and when this movement is traced on a timeline, it goes to a mathematical zero point: that is; space, time, energy, mass all register zero. so i'm not trying to avoid it, it's dead-on- arrival.
"Because otherwise we ask what created god and the whole argument falls apart". people that understand that God isn't confined to this cosmic timeline don't ask that question because an entity not constrained by time need not have been created. the physical laws only apply to this universe.

As you've pointed out, physical laws, and laws concerning causality only apply to the existent universe.

The same description applies prior to the existence of the observable universe, of which causality is an artifact.

Prior to the existing universe, there is no reason to assume qualities of space time, like cause-effect causality applied.

In fact, linear causality may not always apply within the universe.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physic...he-future/

---

'infinite regression' is you what to hold onto.

There is fundamentally nothing wrong with infinite regression, never was and never will be, logically you can argue that it is, but physically, there is nothing wrong with it, really

It's a non-issue exempt to afraid of the dark types. We have a coherent network of justifiably true beliefs about reality to base knowledge on.

You know, all of this panic about infinite regress is based solely on a guy who had a crisis and rented a cabin to get really drunk, and ponder how he could know he existed, and a bunch of other wildly solipsistic theories on top of that.

And then in the late 90's, some guys got together and produced an action film starring Keanu Reeves, that proposed the same "deeply philosophical questions" as your local Community College intro to Philosophy night class, books were written referencing The Matrix as "the most philosophical movie of all time," and not unlike any other intro to Philosophy course, every idiot exposed to the ideas thought they were the greatest thing ever, and had solutions to propose that "nobody had ever thought of before, man, never!" Without doing any of the reading.

...Not unlike those who "introduce" this forum to ontological arguments, as if no one has ever heard of them before, and there are no objections.

[Tartarus Sauce]

"Because otherwise we ask what created god and the whole argument falls apart". people that understand that God isn't confined to this cosmic timeline don't ask that question because an entity not constrained by time need not have been created. the physical laws only apply to this universe.

How do you know that?

Because it doesn't make sense for an eternal being to need a creator? Sure....according to our universe's logic, but we clearly aren't dealing with that, now are we?

How do you know that a being/entity/force of some sort outside the realm of our universe is not in need of creation? How do you know that a being outside our universe is not subject to any of the same physical laws? Sure, it may no longer be a given, but there is also nothing saying it can't be the case either. We don't know ANYTHING about what is and what is not outside our universe. We don't even know if there IS anything outside our universe.

Your work around the infinite regression problem doesn't solve the main failure of the cosmological argument: its inability to necessitate the need for a creator (which is of course the goal it sets out for to begin with). The infinite regress problem inevitably leads to an invalidation of the "there is no such thing as an uncaused cause" premise. By attempting to avoid special pleading via placing the creator-entity outside our spatial-temporal plane, you have eliminated any means of analyzing its potential attributes. It is now in the realm of epistemological unknowables.

If you want to prove the necessity of something in a given scenario, there must be attributes for you to work with. You must ideally be able to observe it, will most likely rely on logical parsing of the topic, and must at the very least be able to ascribe conceivable attributes that you can justify. None of these can be done if your subject is an epistemological unknowable outside our realm of space-time, for if any such analysis could be thrust upon the entity, it would cease being an epistemological unknowable, a status which is unavoidable for any supposed "thing" located outside our universe. Hence, your very specific claims about what qualities this entity does and does not posses, what forces it can and cannot be subjected to, are both extremely suspicious and incapable of being backed by justified reasoning, and your other claim that such an entity is "understood" by some people COMPLETELY negates the epistemological position you have situated said entity. You have no objective foundational structure or framework to either seek for or to attach supporting evidence to, for that requires the entity to be capable of being subject to some sort of analysis (regardless of the type), which as I have said before, is basically the only quality known to NOT be possessed by epistemological unknowables by definition.

The cosmological argument attempts to accomplish an impossible task. Either the original premises are invalidated, or in an attempt to circumvent this, any means of justifying the necessity of the creator in the equation are removed. It never manages to raise the concept of god/creator outside the realm where all other answers to the question of "where did the universe come from" dwell: that of speculation and possibilities.

This is just one of the many manifestations of the futility of attempting to demonstrate the obligatory existence of any deity through objective means. It inevitably falls into the realm of subjective belief.

[Tonus]

'infinite regression' is what you want to hold onto. general relativity describes (there have been 11 independent scientific observations) the movements of bodies in the universe and when this movement is traced on a timeline, it goes to a mathematical zero point: that is; space, time, energy, mass all register zero. so i'm not trying to avoid it, it's dead-on- arrival.

You are trying to avoid it by pretending that god is the starting point, even though he would be far more complex than the universe you claim he created, and even though there is no evidence that he even exists, much less that he created the universe.

"Because otherwise we ask what created god and the whole argument falls apart". people that understand that God isn't confined to this cosmic timeline don't ask that question because an entity not constrained by time need not have been created. the physical laws only apply to this universe.

Curious, though, that no one "understood" that god existed outside of space and time until that "understanding" was required to explain why he could not be accounted for in the physical universe. People that "understand" that god exists outside of space and time have dealt with the question of infinite regress by slathering their god in magic until they feel the question no longer applies.

[Esquilax]

"Because otherwise we ask what created god and the whole argument falls apart". people that understand that God isn't confined to this cosmic timeline don't ask that question because an entity not constrained by time need not have been created. the physical laws only apply to this universe.

See, this right here is exactly what I was talking about earlier, with regards to Kalam. This is precisely the demonstration of how intellectually vapid it is: how the fuck do you know any of what you just said?

You don't have any evidence of that, anything you can point to that demonstrates what you're saying is true; you're just inventing ad hoc excuses here, just like when Kalam added "begins to exist" to the beginning of the Cosmological argument. An objection to it comes up, and so the theist just asserts some property to negate the objection, sight unseen, and with no additional information or evidence to justify that addition. It's just fantasy layered upon fantasy, designed to make theists feel like they've got some simplistic gotcha answer; there is no difference between the increasingly altered Cosmological argument and a child playing pretend with his friends and saying he has an "everything-proof shield" when one of them mimes shooting at him.

And I guarantee you that if scientists discovered that time exists beyond the universe tomorrow, this argument would change yet again and your imaginary crap about "cosmic timelines" would vanish like the useless vestigial limb it is. Don't try to con us, Snowy; your crap is as transparent now as it was the day you started posting here.

[Mystical]

"Because otherwise we ask what created god and the whole argument falls apart". people that understand that God isn't confined to this cosmic timeline don't ask that question because an entity not constrained by time need not have been created. the physical laws only apply to this universe.

How do you know that?

Because it doesn't make sense for an eternal being to need a creator? Sure....according to our universe's logic, but we clearly aren't dealing with that, now are we?

How do you know that a being/entity/force of some sort outside the realm of our universe is not in need of creation? How do you know that a being outside our universe is not subject to any of the same physical laws? Sure, it may no longer be a given, but there is also nothing saying it can't be the case either. We don't know ANYTHING about what is and what is not outside our universe. We don't even know if there IS anything outside our universe.

Your work around the infinite regression problem doesn't solve the main failure of the cosmological argument: its inability to necessitate the need for a creator (which is of course the goal it sets out for to begin with). The infinite regress problem inevitably leads to an invalidation of the "there is no such thing as an uncaused cause" premise. By attempting to avoid special pleading via placing the creator-entity outside our spatial-temporal plane, you have eliminated any means of analyzing its potential attributes. It is now in the realm of epistemological unknowables.

If you want to prove the necessity of something in a given scenario, there must be attributes for you to work with. You must ideally be able to observe it, will most likely rely on logical parsing of the topic, and must at the very least be able to ascribe conceivable attributes that you can justify. None of these can be done if your subject is an epistemological unknowable outside our realm of space-time, for if any such analysis could be thrust upon the entity, it would cease being an epistemological unknowable, a status which is unavoidable for any supposed "thing" located outside our universe. Hence, your very specific claims about what qualities this entity does and does not posses, what forces it can and cannot be subjected to, are both extremely suspicious and incapable of being backed by justified reasoning, and your other claim that such an entity is "understood" by some people COMPLETELY negates the epistemological position you have situated said entity. You have no objective foundational structure or framework to either seek for or to attach supporting evidence to, for that requires the entity to be capable of being subject to some sort of analysis (regardless of the type), which as I have said before, is basically the only quality known to NOT be possessed by epistemological unknowables by definition.

The cosmological argument attempts to accomplish an impossible task. Either the original premises are invalidated, or in an attempt to circumvent this, any means of justifying the necessity of the creator in the equation are removed. It never manages to raise the concept of god/creator outside the realm where all other answers to the question of "where did the universe come from" dwell: that of speculation and possibilities.

This is just one of the many manifestations of the futility of attempting to demonstrate the obligatory existence of any deity through objective means. It inevitably falls into the realm of subjective belief.

Such a smart little kitty *pets kitty

That is all, carry on gentlemen

[snowtracks]

"Because otherwise we ask what created god and the whole argument falls apart". people that understand that God isn't confined to this cosmic timeline don't ask that question because an entity not constrained by time need not have been created. the physical laws only apply to this universe.

---

See, this right here is exactly what I was talking about earlier, with regards to Kalam. This is precisely the demonstration of how intellectually vapid it is: how the fuck do you know any of what you just said?

You don't have any evidence of that, anything you can point to that demonstrates what you're saying is true; you're just inventing ad hoc excuses here, just like when Kalam added "begins to exist" to the beginning of the Cosmological argument. An objection to it comes up, and so the theist just asserts some property to negate the objection, sight unseen, and with no additional information or evidence to justify that addition. It's just fantasy layered upon fantasy, designed to make theists feel like they've got some simplistic gotcha answer; there is no difference between the increasingly altered Cosmological argument and a child playing pretend with his friends and saying he has an "everything-proof shield" when one of them mimes shooting at him.

And I guarantee you that if scientists discovered that time exists beyond the universe tomorrow, this argument would change yet again and your imaginary crap about "cosmic timelines" would vanish like the useless vestigial limb it is.

---

Don't try to con us, Snowy; your crap is as transparent now as it was the day you started posting here.

not trying to convert, especially not interesting in conning anyone, just having a conversation.
ps: kudos to you for looking after your fellow ('us') atheists by protecting them like a mother hen protecting her baby chicks.

[Esquilax]

not trying to convert, especially not interesting in conning anyone, just having a conversation.
ps: kudos to you for looking after your fellow ('us') atheists by protecting them like a mother hen protecting her baby chicks.

Trying to have a conversation by slipping in unsupported and dishonest premises all the which way; if you didn't want to convince us of your deeply incorrect positions- conning us- then why bother having the conversation at all?

And I don't need to look after anyone here; my peeps are smart enough to speak for themselves. I just thought I'd say what we were all thinking, and you notice how nobody is disagreeing with me on that?

[Mystical]

's funny how you (snowtracks) ignore anyone besides Esquilax then call him protective. Is it because his name is written in green ink, or is it because you literally have nothing to bat him down with?

[Cinjin]