Potentially Big News On The Human Evolution Front

[Succubus]

...We already know the big bang caused the cosmos, so we know they haven't always been here.

We know no such thing. The big bang refers to the expansion of the universe, not the original conditions of the universe. We do not know the state of the universe at T=0.

[Amarok]

...We already know the big bang caused the cosmos, so we know they haven't always been here.

1. No we don't . We know that this one pocket of space time we live in  is expanding and at one point it was condensed . Aside that we don't know crap. 
2. Once again Cosmos is not the same as Universe .

[Minimalist]

Multiverses are a idea in theoretical physics . God isn't even that .So the comparison fails

[Amarok]

Why in the world do you think that yet another change to the human evolution story is a bad thing for creationists?

Because the FACTS of human origins(being slightly modified ) is to creationist. What sunlight is to vampire .

[Whateverist]

And 0 proof of God. 

Yes, I mentioned there is no proof of God. There is no proof of either route you take, that was my point. 

Kudos for claiming at least this much epistemic modesty.

But we know the cosmos exists, so for now, it's more reasonable to believe the cosmos has always been. No need for God.

By "cosmos", you mean the universe, right?

I can see why you ask given the way Grandizer put it. I think cosmos and universe are often conflated. I think of it this way:

The universe is all the galaxies and everything else associated with the big bang. It is generally agreed we lack the means to look beyond this event of which we are part.

The cosmos refers to everything that exists, both as part of our universe and anything there might be beyond it. Whether or not there is anything beyond the universe may not be knowable, but using "cosmos" allows for that possibility where "universe" does not.

If so, then I disagree completely and think it's actually quite the opposite of what you've bolded. Because as I said earlier, there's been 0 evidence that anything in this universe could always have existed. Only evidence to the contrary - that the physical laws of our universe calls for things to have an origin.

We already know the big bang caused the cosmos, so we know they haven't always been here.

As to my bolded, I'd say our experience shows that effects generally are the result of prior causes. I don't understand quantum mechanics and predictability well enough to say how cause and effect relate at that level even within our universe. Of course if the cosmos should actually be larger than our universe, then its prior causes may only make sense within that larger context. We may never be able to ever resolve whether the cause of the universe was divine or a larger natural context. In the meantime I do respect your right to your opinion, especially out here where so little is or can be known.

[LadyForCamus]

And why couldn't that just be the cosmos?  if you're willing to accept that a god could have those attributes, why couldn't our universe have them?  The problem begins when we start asserting other things on top of those qualities, such as agency, will, desires, a plan, and an ability to interact with existence while remaining physically undetectable.

My bold.

Where would the cosmos have come from though?

In the natural, physical world, things have an origin. There is no evidence that anything can materialize out of nothing, only evidence to the contrary.

So, a couple of things:  I do think it's important as others have mentioned, to distinguish between the universe and the cosmos.  As I understand it, the universe represents our local reality so far as we can explore and comprehend it; the space-time that exists, that we're fairly certain exists as the result of the Big Bang and expansion.  The cosmos, on the other hand, represents everything that exists whether we know of it or not, including whatever else may exist "beyond" our universe.  A good example of what would be included in "the cosmos" is the hypothetical multiverse.  

Going forward from there, bold above is mine.  This is a classic composition fallacy, meaning you're applying the known laws of physics that describe how things operate within the universe, to the universe as a whole entity.  A good example of how this argument fails in practice is WLC's scenario of a bicycle appearing out of thin air.  He asserts (I'm paraphrasing), 'bicycles don't just poof into existence out of nothing, so how could the universe?'  The problem with this ofc, is that the molecules in air are not 'nothing'.  Space and time are not 'nothing'. Matter is not 'nothing'.  If a bike did pop into existence right now, it would certainly be from something.  To try and compare the two is simply unsound logic.  

That being said, we can hypothesize pretty much anything our imaginations can come up with, with regard to the origin of existence, including that existence is necessary and eternal, or that a timeless, spaceless, changeless, thinking being created it.  I'm not here to tell anyone what they should believe but I won't concede that these two possibilities are equally probable either, and to assert that the cosmos can't be infinite and necessary, but that a god can, is most definitely special pleading.

I'll say one last thing on the nature of existence, and I suppose it's more of a personal philosophical position than anything else, though it's rooted in logic.   I find the phrase, "something coming from nothing" to be an internally logically inconsistent statement.  When we say, 'something can't come from nothing,' or 'existence can't arise out of non-existence,' we are unconsciously assigning attributes of existence to non-existence.  We are illogically speaking of "nothing" as though it is a state or condition of being that things could potentially come from.  Absolute nothingness, by its very definition, cannot exist; cannot be anything.  'No-thing' cannot be any type of thing, lol.  The existence of non-existence It's like saying 'square circle' or 'married bachelor'.  In short, I think existence exists because that's what it is, and what it does.  What's the logical alternative?  😋  

My head hurts...

[Brian37]

I don't care if someone wants to claim the cosmos and universe are separate things. I'd say they are different words for the same thing, but regardless, neither the "cosmos" or "universe" need a magic factory boss making them or anything in it like Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory.

It amounts to for me, that history has been consistent in that the more we get answers, the more the super natural gets it's ass kicked.

But they are different. You have read Carl Sagans work on subject ?

Pale Blue Dot is what I know him from. I do need to read more of his stuff though. That speech made me cry. 

Ok, you are saying they are different. Still, a tree is not a forest either, and neither would require the Keeebler Elf to make a forest or a tree.

[Minimalist]

Leave Jeff Sessions out of this.

[Edwardo Piet]

In the natural, physical world, things have an origin. There is no evidence that anything can materialize out of nothing, only evidence to the contrary.

Not only is there no evidence of it but it's logically impossible and applies to supernatural things just as much as natural things. Something can't come from nothing because a existence cannot emerge from nonexistence. That applies to both natural things and supernatural things. An existent supernatural thing cannot emerge out of a nonexistent supernatural thing anymore than an existent natural thing can emerge out of a nonexistent natural thing. Because there's literally no such thing as a nonexistent thing whether it's a nonexistent natural thing or a nonexistent supernatural thing. Saying that there's a such thing as a thing that is nonexistent is just talking nonsense. It's like saying there's a such thing as a thing that there's no such thing as or that something that doesn't exist exists. Or that X is not X. It's just a nonsensical contradiction. And don't misunderstand me because of course people often use "nonexistent" as a snonym for "unreal" and "unreal" as a synonym for "imaginary" but remember we're not talking about something that has an imaginary existence we're talking about something that has no kind of existence at all. Even fictional or imaginary things like Superman at least exist as fiction and even things that haven't been written about or put on the TV but are at least conceivable at least have some sort of imaginary existence in the sense that we can conceive of such a thing even if such a thing is not present in reality outside of our minds. No, we're not talking about imaginary existence we're talking about absolute nonexistence. As in literally nothing. Or not something. Not empty space teeming with quantum activity, not space that has some sort of empty void-like existence, but literally nothing, absolute nonexistence. Not a thing at all, in any sense. A nonexistent thing in this sense is not a thing at all. Nothing can come from that because there is no that for anything to come from if that 'that' refers to nothing at all.

And not only is there no evidence of it, but there's no evidence of God either, and no reason to believe that supernatural things don't require causes just as much as natural things. I mean, fair enough if you say "A supernatural thing such as God by definition doesn't require a cause" but that supernatural thing/God you have defined is still just a definition of something that there is absolutely no evidence of. We can apply that kind of special pleading to anything. I can say that ghosts by definition don't require evidence to rationally believe in, because if it's a ghost that requires evidence to rationally believe in then that's not really a ghost as I mean it, because I define ghosts as not only spooky invisible paranormal beings that can go through walls, but spooky invisible paranormal beings that can go through walls and don't require evidence for us to rationally believe in. I can define ghosts that way, and you can define God as a being that doesn't require a cause. But why should either of us be taken seriously?

The problem there is that we're both making logical arguments that are valid but not remotely sound because our premises are unrealistic regardless of the fact that the conclusion follows from them.

Sure if God and supernatural beings don't require causes by definition then they obviously don't by defintion. That's just a tautology. But why should we take that seriously? It begs the question. And sure if paranormal beings like ghosts by definition can be rationally believed in without requiring evidence, then paranormal beings like ghosts by definition can be rationally believed in without requiring evidence. Again, that's just a tautology. But why should we take that seriously? It begs the question.

Until you provide something of more substance than merely asserting that God and supernatural beings don't require causes then your claim is no better than my ghost claim.

---

 As I understand it, the universe represents our local reality so far as we can explore and comprehend it; the space-time that exists, that we're fairly certain exists as the result of the Big Bang and expansion.  The cosmos, on the other hand, represents everything that exists whether we know of it or not, including whatever else may exist "beyond" our universe.  A good example of what would be included in "the cosmos" is the hypothetical multiverse.  

On a side note it makes me happy that you have noticed this because this is exactly the point I am getting at when I say that the concept of 'time' that scientists study is ultimately the mathematical details of our and their experience of 'time' and not time itself and not the philosophical concept of 'whatever time itself is outside of our experience of it if it even exists outside of our experience at all'.

In the same way, the 'universe' you speak of, our local reality, is the phenomenon of the universe that scientists study and what science is all about. Whereas the 'cosmos' you speak of is outside of science, and is about philosophy, it's about 'whatever exists outside of the universe (or multiverse) that science can detect, if anything exists outside of that all'.

True, scientists may eventually find more evidence about the big bang or whatever happened before the universe, and science might not call that the universe. But still, really, that's still the universe (or multiverse) in the sense that it's still going to be reality as us humans can detect in some way (otherwise human scientists wouldn't be able to detect it). Scientists are never going to be able to detect whatever exists outside of what they are able to detect because that by defintion is whatever exists outside of what science can detect. And maybe some things do exist outside of what science can detect. Maybe not. But it's certainly possible and just because we are unable to detect or experience or study something or have evidence of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Maybe it doesn't exist in what we call 'the real world', the practical reality which we live in, because if it's impossible for us to ever experience it then it not only can't hurt us but we can never discover it by definition and it's therefore so useless that it may as well not exist (which is probably why people often feel philosophy is useless and pointless because philosophy is about thinking about even useless things that may be completely undiscoverable and beyond our experience.) . . . but does that mean that there may be things outside of 'the real world'? Yes. And time itself, as I suggest, may either be an illusion or the present may be all that exists or the time travel we speak of in science fiction may indeed be logically impossible as I suggest, and the concept of time that scientists speak of may indeed only be about the experience of time, because science deals with our experience of reality (what we call "the universe"), rather than 'reality itself whether we can experience it or not' (and remember even being able to discover things through microscopes or telescopes or even mathematical equations is still an indirect type of experience because it requires out experience for us to make sense of it and if it was completely outside of experience we wouldn't be able to even have the experience of making sense of it) . . . and I may indeed be right that time travel as conceived of in the movies, is logically impossible, even forwards, and when scientists talk about time travel being possible but only fowards, I may indeed be right that the kind of 'time travel' we're talking about is not the time travel of the movies, which is indeed impossible, any more than the scientific concept of an atom is an atom like the indivisible original ancient Greek definition of an atom, or any more than Lawrence Kraus's concept of 'nothing' is actually nothing. As far as I am concerned the type of 'time travel' scientists talk about isn't time travel that we normally think of. And not only that, it's so unlike it that we're going to be massively disappointed if scientists actually discover time travel. Remember, space and time are said to be one thing, space-time, so travelling through space is travelling through time. Would it impress you if I told you that I travel through time all the time, but only forwards, and at the same speed as everyone else?

I know you said your head hurts, and hopefully I didn't contribute to that further. I hope you enjoyed my post.

[Amarok]

But they are different. You have read Carl Sagans work on subject ?

Pale Blue Dot is what I know him from. I do need to read more of his stuff though. That speech made me cry. 

Ok, you are saying they are different. Still, a tree is not a forest either, and neither would require the Keeebler Elf to make a forest or a tree.

Oh of course neither requires the supernatural . I'm just pointing out myself Sagan and other people  regard them as two different things.