A former agnostic, with doubts?

[Tobie]

I'm very sceptical of the existance of nothing. Neither physics or metaphysics can even create a well defined concept of nothing, because the moment you define qualifications to it, it becomes "something" by itself.
So in my own opinion, nothing is the same as non-existence, which obviously can't happen. There is always something, even a void is something.
And the fact is, our universe can exist without the necessity of "nothing" before it/preceeding it. Space-time inflation is in itself evidence that even infinite space can be contained within a point, for instance, a black hole is much "bigger" in the inside.

I don't like to get into the semantics of nothing used by some Atheist physicists because it is misleading because as you say it's always something. Theologians seem to be in agreement that there was no time before God's act of creation, since time began at that moment. If time was created by God, there is no before the act of creation. That makes God an ontological first cause, but it doesn't mean there was a time before creation. This was even discussed by old theologians prior to the big bang theory. Now if this is true, whatever first cause in creation that started the universe has no time to precede it. That being the case...why can't this cause be the first cause as it has no time to precede it without an ontological first cause of God?

If God created the universe, it implies that he transitioned from not creating the universe, to creating the universe. A transition between two states imply some time has elapsed, so logically time was passing before the supposed creation of the universe. The only way around this I see is multiple time dimensions, but if you are going to use that as an argument, then all hope is lost for you.

[Mudhammam]

To the OP, I'm currently reading The Miracle of Theism by philosopher J.L. Mackie, in which he deals with all the major arguments for God's existence, including a number of the Cosmological ones. For what it's worth, I highly recommend it.

[Cyberman]

I don't like to get into the semantics of nothing used by some Atheist physicists because it is misleading because as you say it's always something.

Then bring something by Theist physicists and we'll examine that. Then perhaps explain why we are capitalising nouns in this way.

Theologians seem to be in agreement that there was no time before God's act of creation, since time began at that moment.

And they base this consensus on..? Not to mention the presupposition in your statement has not gone unnoticed.

If time was created by God, there is no before the act of creation. That makes God an ontological first cause, but it doesn't mean there was a time before creation. This was even discussed by old theologians prior to the big bang theory. Now if this is true, whatever first cause in creation that started the universe has no time to precede it. That being the case...why can't this cause be the first cause as it has no time to precede it without an ontological first cause of God?

If the scenario is defined in such a way as to render "God" as not unreasonable, then the answer to that question is along the lines of "there's no reason why it can't". However, if the only way to make this work is to define everything in its favour, then by all means knock yourself out; but don't go pretending there's any correlation with reality until you've established one.

[pocaracas]

Argument for first cause:
Universe has a cause - we all agree on that.

Mind if I disagree?

The Universe exists - we all agree on that.

Evidence strongly suggests that the Universe is expanding and, turning the mighty clock back, in the far past, it must have been highly concentrated.

What happened before that? how it came to be like that?... we don't know.

One may dream, one may speculate, one may come up with the most ludicrous possibilities to answer those questions.
Which is actually right is, as yet, beyond our abilities, so... pick your favorite.

1. Space-time has always been there. It is in a constant state of random generation of virtual fields and, with them virtual particles... sometimes, they cross over to real particles. A few times, they do so in so grandiose numbers that a new Universe is spawned. Space-time, in there-when, warps to an extreme due to all the energy that's been unleashed and then happens what we call a big-bang.

2. A mega lonely extra-spacial entity creates universes and puts intelligent life forms on a tiny tiny corner of each, then lays down a few rules those life-forms must follow, but only tells the rules to one or two of them, in the hopes that those will propagate those rules to all of them.

3. The Universe keeps expanding and contracting. It is a bubble of space-time with nothing beyond it. Literally nothing, not even space, nor time. This keeps the overall entropy at the same level. It has been doing this for an eternity and will keep doing it for another eternity. Many intelligences have come and gone. Many gods have been invented to explain existence. Much science has been poured into the problem... yet, none has managed to escape the contraction fate.

4. The matrix.

5. keep dreaming, little boy. When you wake up, this Universe goes back into the nothingness. This is only some entity's thought process.

Pick your favorite or add more... Can we really say for certain that any of these options is impossible?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

According to the Bible what's the oldest physical object in the universe?

If God created the universe and if it's just 14 billion years old did the universe create God? How could God exist before the universe if there was nothing in existence to acknowledge his existence? If God had existed for a trillion trillion years before he created the universe would that indicate that he's incompetent or just imaginary?

[Whateverist]

Or perhaps indecisive and a procrastinator. Of course, easy for me to judge never having walked an eternity in such big shoes.

[Esquilax]

Argument for first cause:
Universe has a cause - we all agree on that.

Not necessarily. Again, it's entirely possible you're forcing a temporal framework upon a system that is incompatible with it. What if causation began with the big bang? What then?

Not to mention that, in cases like this where we don't have sufficient evidence to make a determination about causes and what have you, the honest answer to give is "I don't know," not "I know there was a cause."

Now what i'm transposing too, is that whatever created the universe, let's call it multiverse, either had a cause(begin), or always existed. By infinite regression, we'll either have a systematically continuously transcending infinite of causation, or an eternal "supreme" entity that created everything. Either way, one of them has to be the answer if we suppose every statement is correct.

What is the justification for asserting that the cause need be an "entity"? Couldn't an unconscious cause work just as well within the framework you've suggested?

Existance of eternity:
I'm assuming here the impossibility to there have been a moment "outside" the universe where "nothing" existed. Well, mainly because of the logical impossibility of nothing creating something. So i'm basically assuming something always existed.

Why make that assumption, instead of just admitting that you don't know?

Our own "time" was created in the big bang, but nothing contradicts that time exists outside the universe, and the fact that we know both space and time can infinitely distort, and they behave like something we call "branes"/dimensions, and also according to string theory, these dimensions and more exist outside the universe, and created our universe the same way as it "probably" created infinitelly more. We're just on our own spacetime distortion "bubble".

And again, no evidence= I don't know, regardless of the speculation.

Life:
What i'm arguing here is that basically "life" is as much of a "law"/consequence of the universe as water, i think it's illogical to actually think anything in the universe isn't a natural consequence from the start.
So i can't help but wonder how come life seems to be a systematic of the universe in itself, at least in ours, probably spread through the universe.
In conclusion, i think it's acceptable to find this brilliant organization of matter into life as suspicious as a determination to the universe.

We do know that life evolves, however. There's no need to invoke a designer to reach our current levels of complexity, when we know it developed over time from incredibly simple forms.

[Alex K]

Yeah, the whole string braneworld and landscape granola is fun and interestimg, but completely hypothetical. You can use it in an argument to illustrate e.g. how anthropic selection could work without a god, but you cant make hard conclusions from the fact that it exists, cause you don't know.

[RobbyPants]

Welcome!

- The universe requires a cause.
...
- Whatever primary cause the universe has, it must be eternal.
...
- The primary cause, created everything.

As soon as you decide that you're okay believing in things that are eternal or "outside of time", I have to ask you: how do you know the universe isn't eternal? I certainly have no proof that it is, but we have no proof of any gods, either. You have to assume them in your premise to reach them as a conclusion with the cosmological argument.

We know there is a universe. We don't know there are any gods. Why add extra assumptions to the equation?

- Intelligence/Determination
...
There's just one way i would adjectivate the complex organization of our universe: brilliantly suspiciously organized.

Yes, the universe has a lot of amazing, predictable qualities which can be described using systems. Note: we are intelligent and we can create predictable systems. That does not necessarily mean that any predictable system must have been created by some intelligent thought.

Framing it that way is easy and comfortable from our point of view, but that's not a valid logical conclusion to make.

What do you guys think? xD. I think i've fallen to theism disease

One of the most important things you can remember: there's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know". I feel this is far more honest and superior to making something up to try and get to an answer. Also, if your answer requires some presupposition and it raises more questions than it answered, of what use is it?

Now, I certainly can't prove that no gods exist, and I'll never try, but I see no reason to assume they do exist, either.

[Simon Moon]

What do you guys think? xD. I think i've fallen to theism disease

So far, all I can tell is you're leaning toward belief based on bad reasons.

The Cosmological Argument is fallacious and flawed.

It's also, logically impossible for the cause-effect system we observe in the universe to not require a primary cause for everything, since that's the foundation and cause for everything that follows.

I find it ironic that you use a logical fallacy (fallacy of composition) to illustrate that something is logically impossible.

All I can see so far, is that you are being convinced for bad reasons. Hopefully you have some better reasons for believing that fallacious ones.

I will read with interest your other posts.