Quick Poll - Do you believe in God?

[Erinome]

Why do you think there wasn't matter in space before the known universe began it's expansion? We don't know that a big bang didn't happen today somewhere mind fuckingly far off in the universe. If some kind of intelligent species evolves because of that hypothetical occurrence, I wonder what kind of god they would dream up to explain how they got there.

[Napoléon]

okay the meat and potatoes of my evidence is such that cause and effect always applies, if it doesn't you have magic

Prove it.

[Rev. Rye]

I don't believe.

[Minimalist]

cause and effect always applies

I don't have a problem with that.


I have a problem with you apparently inventing some sky-daddy to be the "cause."

[mastertrell]

Okay since I know you didn’t read my post I will summarize it again so please if your going to try and debate me, actually attack my premise or fault it’s logic otherwise your spouting off random garble that has nothing to do with my layout. I believe in logic, I am a classically trained computer science major and physics minor, I know a tremendous amount of how the universe works and it is the most beautiful machine that was ever existed.

Take any cosmological model you wish, big bang, continuous inflation, m-brane, steady state, or cyclical model, all of these theories share one common trait, they must conform to innate internal laws of operation governed by logic. They must adhere to causality, cause must come before effect and can’t break it’s own internal properties, such as entropy is seen as increasing and can’t decrease unless another law counters it, in the absence of said law entropy can’t decrease logically. I want to make one last point, presenting formal logic is proof needed for a theory, most people call it math. Math is the quantification of observed theory with logical reasoning used to test validly and used to make new conjectures and to structure complex ideas so we can work with them. In my article I never said it was a sky-daddy or god, but I never excluded that possibility either just that it was an illogical event. Now with this said here is my evidence for an illogical event that set the universe in motion.

There are two main thoughts to the creation of the universe, logical and illogical. By illogical, I define that as properties that break internal laws or don’t follow causality, in this illogical state, it is impossible to argue that a god does not exist, because essentially you have magic for nothing follows consistent law, you have spontaneous creation, 1 to 1 correlations no longer apply, just pure chaos in the traditional sense, an omnipotent being could easily exist in such a state. Because everyone here does not believe in this state, we will assume the universe was created in and follows logic. So in doing so we can group ALL cosmological models into 2 mutually exclusive groups. The first being a finite creation point such as big bang or certain aspects of M-brane, it happened 13.7 billion years ago. The second group is an infinitely existing process such as cyclical or continuous inflation theory.

The first group has a major flaw due to causality, since time linear we can go back to the first point of time, plank time and we see that we would have to start with a void, and I mean a complete void, no spatial dimensions, no mass or energy of any kind, no internal laws since nothing was created yet. It is not logical to have a singularity appear out of utterly nowhere without a cause, as there isn’t anything in existence that can spark mass/energy into being (not to mention that pesky matter can’t be created or destroyed law). In fact the big bang needs what is called the cosmological egg, which is the infinitely dense singularity of matter and energy that because our universe, to be there without explaining how it gets there. The big bang is just an explanation of events that happen from the cosmological event onward but does not cover why such an “egg” should be there for a big bang to happen. It violates cause and effect and is such not LOGICAL for this model to be correct. Even m-brane needs a parent dimensional wall and to have gravity in existence and then zero field potential energy supposedly creates the spark of this universe(also violates the uncertainty principle, because a zero field in space you will know it’s value and rate of change as they both be zero)

The second group is even easier to point out the illogical nature of it’s existence. Take cyclical theory, it states that what ever the logical mechanism is to reset the universe, bring entropy back down and recreate space and mass/energy. In order for this to work, the universe either loops around or has existed forever. This is fallacy and let me point it out. We exist right now in the immediate present and we have recorded the passage of time so we know the universe is not static. If you counted backwards by a standardized unit of temporal measurement like say 5 years, you would never get to the begging because you can’t count to infinity. Since we exist in the now, it is IMPOSSIBLE for an infinite amount of events to have passed to get to this point. This implies the universe has a beginning and the cyclical approach in all forms is INVALID.

Now here’s where I want you to exercise your minds, I know many people will say we don’t know everything human understanding is limited and I will give you that, but here is why a framework is valid to start from. Since we assume all explanations are logical, no matter how complicated they get or how much our understanding becomes of the universe, we have to group our starting point into one or the other category, which I have shown can’t start logically. Also I have heard some people say well the initially state was created by the universe itself or was a random flux, no matter how small that illogical push was to get your logical model working, you still must acknowledge that oddity and that is why I believe in an uncaused cause, you can define it as a process, an interaction or a god whatever, but something greater then logical existence exists.

Unless you address my fundamental argument or point out a flaw in reasoning, I won’t accept well that impossible or that doesn’t make sense as a valid response because I have brought out deductive reasoning and scientific principle to support my argument.

[downbeatplumb]

Here is another explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH-GmZaJxLY

its from a bbc programme 'what happened before the big bang' which had a lot of potential explanations for the big bang. God was not one of the options.

[William42]

Not at all. I was raised to, but I don't anymore. It just doesn't add up. The burden of proof should be satisfied.

[reverendjeremiah]

cause and effect always applies

I don't have a problem with that.


I have a problem with you apparently inventing some sky-daddy to be the "cause."

Why does the cause always have to be some mirror image of humanity..because suggesting anything LESS than a human loving cause is met with disagreement...even though it is JUST as likely that a Beetle god, or a roach god started everything.

[IATIA]

Take any cosmological model you wish, big bang, continuous inflation, m-brane, steady state, or cyclical model, all of these theories share one common trait, they must conform to innate internal laws of operation governed by logic. They must adhere to causality ...

That is an unproven assumption. Just because one can demonstrate a number of cause and effect situations does not mean (or prove) that every instance adheres to this assumption.

[ElDinero]

For instance, the possible recent discovery of particles moving faster than the speed of light. Nobody thought this was possible until a few weeks ago. If confirmed, it will force further examination of a theory that has appeared rock solid for a century.