Christian argued that everything must have a creator

[Crossless2.0]

What was the cause for the existence of god, or did you miss that logical step?

Addressed and answered by athrock in post #80.

Yes, but the problem with that answer is that step 2 in the chain of reasoning doesn't take into account that we can only say with confidence that the universe in its present observable state came into being at a certain time, which does not necessarily imply creation from "nothing".  A singularity, after all, is not nothing.  We simply don't have the tools or conceptual framework to describe what the state of the universe was "prior" to the Big Bang.  But that doesn't justify the leap to an intelligent creator outside space/time acting as an eternally existing first cause, a.k.a. "God".  Any honest answer to the question "what caused the universe" must end with an admission of ignorance.  Theists who invoke the cosmological argument wish to give the impression that they have answered the question, when all they have really done is given a sort of name to their ignorance as if that answers anything.

[Excited Penguin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Also, check out Krauss' book, A Universe from Nothing.

[athrock]

The Big Bang Theory states that time, space, matter, etc. all began to exist at a single point in the distant past...approximately 13 billion years ago. Why? What caused or created the big bang? Did everything suddenly come into being out of nothing? If so, why don't we observe this phenomenon happening all the time? If you were to find a watch on the sidewalk, would you assume that is simply appeared there out of nothing, or would you assume that someone dropped it there? And would you further assume that there was a watchmaker who made it to begin with?

Shouldn't you also assume the watchmaker was created? I've never witnessed an eternal watchmaker.

Why should anyone assume that? That's called an infinite regress, and it leads nowhere. And the fact that you've never "witnessed [emphasis added] an eternal watchmaker" does not prove that one does not exist. 

And I don't think anyone here is saying anything came out of absolute nothing.

That's precisely what leading scientists are saying. It's called the Big Bang.

Personally, I think the cosmos has always been, and therefore never really had to "arise" from anything.

That's not possible. Science tells us, by reason of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that the universe is slowly running out of usable energy. If the universe "has always been here", then it would have run out of energy long before now. The fact that we still have energy proves that the universe has NOT always been here and that it had a beginning.

This is not religion; this is science.

[GrandizerII]

Shouldn't you also assume the watchmaker was created? I've never witnessed an eternal watchmaker.

Why should anyone assume that? That's called an infinite regress, and it leads nowhere. And the fact that you've never "witnessed [emphasis added] an eternal watchmaker" does not prove that one does not exist. That's a non sequitur.

And I don't think anyone here is saying anything came out of absolute nothing.

That's precisely what leading scientists are saying. It's called the Big Bang.

Personally, I think the cosmos has always been, and therefore never really had to "arise" from anything.

That's not possible. Science tells us, by reason of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that the universe is slowly running out of usable energy. If the universe "has always been here", then it would have run out of energy long before now. The fact that we still have energy proves that the universe has NOT always been here and that it had a beginning.

This is not religion; this is science.

1. Then apply this reasoning to the watchmaker analogy. The fact that you've never witnessed an eternal object does not mean it is not possible.

2. No, the Big Bang theory isn't about the universe coming out of absolute literal nothing.

3. This particular universe may have had a beginning through the Big Bang singularity ... maybe. But notice that I said cosmos instead to avoid it being confused with this particular universe. There may very well be something beyond just this universe and it doesn't have to be a god.

4. I am not doing science here by the way. I'm using the same logic you're using to show you that God is not necessary.

[athrock]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Also, check out Krauss' book, A Universe From Nothing.

I haven't read this book, but it's my understanding that knowledgeable skeptics cringe when this argument comes up because Krauss equivocates when speaking of "nothing" which he actually defines as a sort of pre-existent something from which the universe was made. IOW, Krauss claims that something (which he calls "nothing") existed before EVERYTHING came into being. 

This is not the view of cosmologists who accept the Big Bang Theory and the idea that truly nothing (not even Krauss' nothing) existed prior.

---

Why should anyone assume that? That's called an infinite regress, and it leads nowhere. And the fact that you've never "witnessed [emphasis added] an eternal watchmaker" does not prove that one does not exist. That's a non sequitur.


That's precisely what leading scientists are saying. It's called the Big Bang.


That's not possible. Science tells us, by reason of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, that the universe is slowly running out of usable energy. If the universe "has always been here", then it would have run out of energy long before now. The fact that we still have energy proves that the universe has NOT always been here and that it had a beginning.

This is not religion; this is science.

1. Then apply this reasoning to the watchmaker analogy. The fact that you've never witnessed an eternal object does not mean it is not possible.

2. No, the Big Bang theory isn't about the universe coming out of absolute literal nothing.

3. This particular universe may have had a beginning through the Big Bang singularity ... maybe. But notice that I said cosmos instead to avoid it being confused with this particular universe. There may very well be something beyond just this universe and it doesn't have to be a god.

4. I am not doing science here by the way. I'm using the same logic you're using to show you that God is not necessary.

1. The Big Bang Theory states that everything in the material universe came into being at a single point. Consequently, there was no "eternal object" which existed prior to this event. No one could have witnessed such an object because it is not possible for one to have existed.

2. Yes, it is.

3. Oh? Greater than the material universe but not God? Care to provide more details? Seems to me you're into a faith-based position now that is at least equal to that of the theists.

4. If you're going to apply logic to the arguments, you need to do it well.

---

Exactly. Thanks for putting into words what I could not.

What was the cause for the existence of god, or did you miss that logical step?

As I pointed out previously, the Kalam Cosmological Argument states in the first premise that "whatever begins to exist has a cause." Theists grab hold of this cause as their god.

Makes sense, doesn't it? If a supreme being did not begin to exist but has always existed, then it has no cause. An uncaused cause is "god".

That's kinda what "supreme" is all about. 

[Excited Penguin]

I barely understand what he talks about, so I couldn't defend his position to you. You would have to read his book and decide for yourself.

I don't see the point in defending theistic positions, as you seem to do, though. Care to explain that?

[GrandizerII]

1. The Big Bang Theory states that everything in the material universe came into being at a single point. Consequently, there was no "eternal object" which existed prior to this event. No one could have witnessed such an object because it is not possible for one to have existed.

2. Yes, it is.

3. Oh? Greater than the material universe but not God? Care to provide more details? Seems to me you're into a faith-based position now that is at least equal to that of the theists.

4. If you're going to apply logic to the arguments, you need to do it well.

The Big Bang theory is not about what happened before the Big Bang singularity. You are basically attacking a strawman here.

I don't have sufficient details about the eternal existence of a reality independent of God just as you don't have sufficient details of God. I can only suppose it is possible for the same reason you suppose God's existence is possible.

I think I'm doing ok in the logic department. That you do not see the fallacies in your logic does not mean the flaws are with me.

[athrock]

I barely understand what he talks about, so I couldn't defend his position to you. You would have to read his book and decide for yourself.

I don't see the point in defending theistic positions, as you seem to do, though. Care to explain that?

It never hurts to be able to make the other side's arguments better than they do.

[Excited Penguin]

I barely understand what he talks about, so I couldn't defend his position to you. You would have to read his book and decide for yourself.

I don't see the point in defending theistic positions, as you seem to do, though. Care to explain that?

It never hurts to be able to make the other side's arguments better than they do.

Gotcha.

[Alex K]

The big bang theory as it is understood by cosmologists today, most emphatically, does not state that the universe began in a single point marking the beginning of time or any such thing.

It posits that the universe was very dense and hot, with a certain structure to its flictuations. That is sufficient to explain the creation of matter and subsequent evolution. Anything beyond that is speculation. A nontrivial mechanism such as inflation is required in the early phase in order to explain flatness homogeneity and the roughly scale invariant perturbation spectrum. What happens before inflation and how it gets started, is even more speculative.