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

[Whateverist]

.. the universe is physically 4 dim's where cause and effect is a scientific principle where no human has ever witness an effect without a cause.

So you admit the idea of a prime mover is unsupported and absurd?

[RobbyPants]

it's not a perception, the universe is physically 4 dim's where cause and effect is a scientific principle where no human has ever witness an effect without a cause.

I'm assuming you're taking this as some sort of proof for God. So, I'll ask the obvious question: "what is God's cause", and I'll assume you'll give an answer saying he has none because he is "timeless", "eternal", or something.

So, if you believe the universe was invoked by an entity that exists outside of space and time, this means by very definition, you believe in things that are not caused as we know them to be. How do you know the universe has a cause, then? You said it yourself: "no human has ever witness an effect without a cause". What human has witnessed the beginning of the universe?

The cosmological argument is nothing but speculation that appeals to people who already make those assumptions.

[snowtracks]

it's not a perception, the universe is physically 4 dim's where cause and effect is a scientific principle where no human has ever witness an effect without a cause.

I'm assuming you're taking this as some sort of proof for God. So, I'll ask the obvious question: "what is God's cause", and I'll assume you'll give an answer saying he has none because he is "timeless", "eternal", or something.

So, if you believe the universe was invoked by an entity that exists outside of space and time, this means by very definition, you believe in things that are not caused as we know them to be. How do you know the universe has a cause, then? You said it yourself: "no human has ever witness an effect without a cause". What human has witnessed the beginning of the universe?

The cosmological argument is nothing but speculation that appeals to people who already make those assumptions.

beginnings only make sense were time is linear like the our cosmic time line that's unidirectional and unstoppable. according the big bang cosmology theory: time, space, energy, matter began 13 billion years ago. if God caused the universe, by necessitate then He has access to at least another time dim. or it's equivalent.

---

fire is greater than burning.
the cause always precedes the effect; therefore the effect is dependent on the cause which makes the cause > effect.

Sheesh, Dolphinetics is so irritating! Your original argument was that the cause was greater than the effect. Now you're leaping to the rather lacklustre deepity about effects following causes, which wasn't the reason I posted my response and you know it. What's that bit about bearing false witness, again..?

---

Regardless, as I understand it (which means I might be wrong) the whole cause and effect thing only really applies to our four-dimensional perception of the Universe. On the quantum scale, that may in fact be what's termed an optional extra.

---

not changing, just adding to dialogue.
if something has the power to 'cause' that makes it greater in all statistical quantitative categories, than an event. also, the 2'nd of law of thermodynamics kicks in during the cause and effect transaction, for instance, a combustion engine exhaust is hot, if it were 100% efficient, the exhaust would be zero temp but the heat (energy on the move) becomes disorganized which is entropy.

[Esquilax]

beginnings only make sense were time is linear like the our cosmic time line that's unidirectional and unstoppable. according the big bang cosmology theory: time, space, energy, matter began 13 billion years ago. if God caused the universe, by necessitate then He has access to at least another time dim. or it's equivalent.

If time began with the big bang, then talking about a "before" it is a nonsensical move. There is no need for a cause before causality had even started, and so adding in a god is an unnecessary added layer of complexity, which Occam's Razor would happily shave away.

not changing, just adding to dialogue.
if something has the power to 'cause' that makes it greater in all statistical quantitative categories, than an event. also, the 2'nd of law of thermodynamics kicks in during the cause and effect transaction, for instance, a combustion engine exhaust is hot, if it were 100% efficient, the exhaust would be zero temp but the heat (energy on the move) becomes disorganized which is entropy.

How are you defining "greater" and why should any of us care how you define "greater?"

[Bad Wolf]

not changing, just adding to dialogue.
if something has the power to 'cause' that makes it greater in all statistical quantitative categories, than an event.

Is a lightning strike greater than the bushfire it causes?
If you are going to answer, please define what you mean by 'greater'.

[RobbyPants]

beginnings only make sense were time is linear like the our cosmic time line that's unidirectional and unstoppable. according the big bang cosmology theory: time, space, energy, matter began 13 billion years ago. if God caused the universe, by necessitate then He has access to at least another time dim. or it's equivalent.

Exactly. Now, prove that the universe began. No one witnessed its beginning. For all we know, the universe as we know it began with the big bang. How do you know there isn't some portion of the universe that exists outside of time that we cannot observe? Now, yes, this is speculative, but so is God. At the end of the day, I'll say "I don't know" when you asked me how it started, but you'll smugly say "God", like you've somehow solved the problem.

While the notion of the universe having no beginning may seem stupid do you, remember: you're totally fine with a god that has no beginning. You're just picking an unsupported "solution" to the cosmological argument that happens to match the narrative you already have.

[snowtracks]

beginnings only make sense were time is linear like the our cosmic time line that's unidirectional and unstoppable. according the big bang cosmology theory: time, space, energy, matter began 13 billion years ago. if God caused the universe, by necessitate then He has access to at least another time dim. or it's equivalent.

Exactly. Now, prove that the universe began. No one witnessed its beginning. For all we know, the universe as we know it began with the big bang. How do you know there isn't some portion of the universe that exists outside of time that we cannot observe? Now, yes, this is speculative, but so is God. At the end of the day, I'll say "I don't know" when you asked me how it started, but you'll smugly say "God", like you've somehow solved the problem.

While the notion of the universe having no beginning may seem stupid do you, remember: you're totally fine with a god that has no beginning. You're just picking an unsupported "solution" to the cosmological argument that happens to match the narrative you already have.

most of the cosmos's effects over the 13 billions haven't been observed by humans. now, angels that's might be different: God asked Job, “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation … and all the angels shouted for joy?

"How do you know the universe has a cause, then?"
have accepted that there is duel revelation: book of nature, book of scripture which will always be in harmony with no possibility of contradiction - this is stated in the belgic confession:
Article 2: The Means by Which We Know God
•We know him by two means:
First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20.
All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse.
Second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own.

however science in not the same as nature, and systematic theology is not the same as the words of scripture. like science , theology involves human interpretation which may be inaccurate. if there is discord between these two, there exist an incomplete understanding or faulty interpretation that will be resolve with a more complete knowledge. these are the two basic tools for the detectability of the divine.

[RobbyPants]

most of the cosmos's effects over the 13 billions haven't been observed by humans. now, angels that's might be different: God asked Job, “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation … and all the angels shouted for joy?

---

"How do you know the universe has a cause, then?"
have accepted that there is duel revelation: book of nature, book of scripture which will always be in harmony with no possibility of contradiction - this is stated in the belgic confession:
Article 2: The Means by Which We Know God
•We know him by two means:
First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20.
All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse.
Second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own.

however science in not the same as nature, and systematic theology is not the same as the words of scripture. like science , theology involves human interpretation which may be inaccurate. if there is discord between these two, there exist an incomplete understanding or faulty interpretation that will be resolve with a more complete knowledge. these are the two basic tools for the detectability of the divine.

---

So, my take home from all that is two things:

1) You seem to be implying that the cosmological argument is not a good one, as you seem to have abandoned it (yet you haven't explicitly said this).

2) The new way you're now defending knowing God's existence is a combination of trusting one particular book of mythology over all the others combined with lots of presupposition.


Am I right? Are you abandoning the cosmological argument as a valid way to assert God's existence?

[Cato]

“Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation … and all the angels shouted for joy?

Busy dancing with Ewoks celebrating the long overdue demise of Emperor Palpatine.

[The Grand Nudger]

First, by the creation, preservation, and government of the universe, since that universe is before our eyes like a beautiful book in which all creatures, great and small, are as letters to make us ponder the invisible things of God: his eternal power and his divinity, as the apostle Paul says in Romans 1:20.
All these things are enough to convict men and to leave them without excuse.

Except that you've failed to establish even so much as a correlative relationship between god and the creation, preservation, or government of the universe. Meanwhile, god isn't required to explain any of it.

Second, he makes himself known to us more openly by his holy and divine Word, as much as we need in this life, for his glory and for the salvation of his own.

We know god because of the bible. We know the bible because of god. We know god because of the bible - ad infinitum.

Your "tools" are poorly conceived and inadequate. You could not detect the "divine" with these tools - even if it were there.