Big Bang!!!

[Whitney]

Eh. Though I do agree with this 100%. I then have to ask..just to play Devil's advocate. If something can be possibly eternal. Then why can't that something be any god?

It could...but there is no reason to assume one.

[Tank]

Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.

Because for all we know the universe (or possibly even multiverse if new models are correct) could be eternal.  That's why there is no logical reason to assume that there must be some eternal being outside of the universe to jump start it.  Look up Occam's Razor.

And you can't say it's impossible for something to be eternal because then your god can't be either.

Eh. Though I do agree with this 100%. I then have to ask..just to play Devil's advocate. If something can be possibly eternal. Then why can't that something be any god?

It could be a god, but what is the probability that it would be a god? And why should it be a god and not just an eternal entity?

[Sweetdeath]

Can someone explain how a big bang does not need a big banger? Thanks.

If by that somewhat suggestive phrase, you mean a cause of the event, then the simple answer from my understanding of the scientific perspective, is that it is unknown whether there is something that we would understand as a "cause" for the big bang. We haven't observed the origin of any universe, and what can be hypothesized about the origin of our own universe can only go as far back (with current science) as the Planck era. As far as is known, this is a unique event, so to say that we "know" that there was necessarily a "cause" as we understand causality would be unfounded. One way of looking at it is that time, as humans perceive it, didn't exist until the big bang had taken place. Causality as we understand it is a function of time, and if time didn't exist, then neither did causality. Thus the question of what "caused" the big bang actually isn't a reasonable question. That doesn't mean we can't ask it, but  expecting a reasonable answer to an unreasonable question may be a bit much.

Even if that is the case, scientists are still working on it, as you might imagine. One possibility has to do with a hypothesis that something like what we know as space-time has always existed. If that were the case, then the universe might have arisen as a result of what are known as quantum fluctuations; matter appearing out of nothing and returning to nothing. If that were the situation, then all it would take is a quantum fluctuation which happened to be unbalanced in some way, which could have given rise to the primordial singularity.

Science may eventually discover whether it's possible to extend causality to include the big bang, but with the present state of knowledge about the big bang, it would be an unwarranted assumption to say that it is.

Your question, in other words, is about something which science is unable to answer right now.  There may have been a cause, as we understand it, or maybe not. There's nothing wrong with admitting ignorance.

Your first paragraph offered the big bang as "unique". This smells of a miracle. Then you played word gymnastics to make causality subject to time. An uncaused first cause can cause without time. In your second paragraph you pulled the naturalism of the gaps argument implying that scientists have not yet made a discovery you are confident they will make. Then at the end, you clung to ignorance as though this is a viable explanation. To me, a worldview which fails to give an answer is a failed worldview.

... But, you're a theist.  Do you see the hypocrisy in your reply?

[Medusa]

Eh. Though I do agree with this 100%. I then have to ask..just to play Devil's advocate. If something can be possibly eternal. Then why can't that something be any god?

It could...but there is no reason to assume one.

Exactly. But for theists there is no reason to assume the eternal thing is not God either. It's just what you personally decide to believe. In the end, I mean the real end...no one really knows either way. We have to then say this is what I CHOOSE. Not what is true. But what we CHOOSE to be true. The difference between a theist and non is that confession. A theist won't say it's a choice. And alot of hard nose militant non theists won't say so either (Which to me puts them squarely in the same box as the theists. Which I know both hate, but hey the same shoes fits)but some non theists will be ego free enough to say it's a possibility both ways. And I choose to go with my way. It makes more sense. The logic and reason around me points to it. But I also understand logic and reason can only go so far as the human mind wants it to. And seeing that most humans think YELLOW light means SPEED UP tells me we shouldn't tout our smartness so much. Ending with my same assumption as before: A finite mind cannot grasp the truth of the infinite. Whether that being an infinite being or an infinite 'big bang material stuff'. We can only grasp to the finite mind and no more.

[Black36]

And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?

I did not say anything about there being a big banger who posses consciousness and intelligence. You offered this to the conversation.

Since you're a theist, am I correct in assuming that you think it was a 'who' and not a 'what' that caused the big bang? For the sake of this post, I'll assume that the big bang actually did have a cause.

Why?

[Tank]

And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?

I did not say anything about there being a big banger who posses consciousness and intelligence. You offered this to the conversation.

Since you're a theist, am I correct in assuming that you think it was a 'who' and not a 'what' that caused the big bang? For the sake of this post, I'll assume that the big bang actually did have a cause.

Why?

Why what?

[Black36]

And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?

I did not say anything about there being a big banger who posses consciousness and intelligence. You offered this to the conversation.

Since you're a theist, am I correct in assuming that you think it was a 'who' and not a 'what' that caused the big bang? For the sake of this post, I'll assume that the big bang actually did have a cause.

Why?

Why what?

Why are you willing to assume a cause for the sake of this post?

[xSilverPhinx]

And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?

I did not say anything about there being a big banger who posses consciousness and intelligence. You offered this to the conversation.

Since you're a theist, am I correct in assuming that you think it was a 'who' and not a 'what' that caused the big bang? For the sake of this post, I'll assume that the big bang actually did have a cause.

Why?

Why what?

Why are you willing to assume a cause for the sake of this post?

To give you an edge.

[Tank]

And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?

I did not say anything about there being a big banger who posses consciousness and intelligence. You offered this to the conversation.

Since you're a theist, am I correct in assuming that you think it was a 'who' and not a 'what' that caused the big bang? For the sake of this post, I'll assume that the big bang actually did have a cause.

Why?

Why what?

Why are you willing to assume a cause for the sake of this post?

Why not?

[Black36]

And there we have it "To me, a worldview which fails to give an answer is a failed worldview." thank you B36 for demonstrating so explicitly the problem with theism. Theism gives an answer, irrespective of the accuracy of the answer. Ignorence is not a problem as long as one recognises one's ignorence and grabbing any answer just for comfort is a pointless, useless waste of time.

Not true. Theism gives the most logical answer to ultimate causation. There are 2 types of causation: agent causation and event causation. If I set up up a row of dominoes and then knock the first one down, it then falls knocking the second, and so on. If I asked you what caused the last domino to fall, you would answer, "the second to last domino which fell into it." I would then ask, "did the second to last domino choose to knock into the last domino?" You would then answer, "No, of course not." Right! A domino cannot make choices. So the second to last domino is an example of event causation. Event causation is an example of causation which Does not choose to cause and is just one causal link within a chain of event causes. So then I would ask you, "What ultimately caused the last domino to fall?" The correct answer would be, "you," meaning me, because I set up and then set into motion the chain of events. The ultimate causer is an agent causer. The agent causer is the one who sets up the chain and puts the chain into motion. Theism simply acknowledges the agent causer of everything, and refers to the agent causer as God.

[Black36]

And why must there be a 'big banger'? Why must it be a conscious and intelligent 'big banger'?

I did not say anything about there being a big banger who posses consciousness and intelligence. You offered this to the conversation.

Since you're a theist, am I correct in assuming that you think it was a 'who' and not a 'what' that caused the big bang? For the sake of this post, I'll assume that the big bang actually did have a cause.

Why?

Why what?

Why are you willing to assume a cause for the sake of this post?

To give you an edge.

Thanks

[Tank]

And there we have it "To me, a worldview which fails to give an answer is a failed worldview." thank you B36 for demonstrating so explicitly the problem with theism. Theism gives an answer, irrespective of the accuracy of the answer. Ignorence is not a problem as long as one recognises one's ignorence and grabbing any answer just for comfort is a pointless, useless waste of time.

Not true. Theism gives the most logical answer to ultimate causation.

Something may be logical but need not be true.

There are 2 types of causeation: agent causation and event causation. If I set up up a row of dominoes and then knock the first one down, it then falls knocking the second, and so on. If I asked you what caused the last domino to fall, you would answer, "the second to last domino which fell into it." I would then ask, "did the second to last domino choose to knock into the last domino?" You would then answer, "No, of course not." Right! A domino cannot make choices. So the second to last domino is an example of event causation. Event causation is an example of causation which Does not choose to cause and is just one causal link within a chain of event causes. So then I would ask you, "What ultimately caused the last domino to fall?" The correct answer would be, "you," meaning me, because I set up and then set into motion the chain of events. The ultimate causer is an agent causer. The agent causer is the one who sets up the chain and puts the chain into motion. Theism simply acknowledges the speculates that there is an agent causer of everything, and refers to the agent causer as God.

Fixed it for you.

[xSilverPhinx]

If you're saying that theism is the most logical answer to ultimate causation, then there must be something there to help you differentiate between the first cause being caused by an agent (who) and not an event (what). What would that be?

[Melmoth]

Exactly. But for theists there is no reason to assume the eternal thing is not God either. It's just what you personally decide to believe. In the end, I mean the real end...no one really knows either way. We have to then say this is what I CHOOSE. Not what is true. But what we CHOOSE to be true. The difference between a theist and non is that confession. A theist won't say it's a choice. And alot of hard nose militant non theists won't say so either (Which to me puts them squarely in the same box as the theists. Which I know both hate, but hey the same shoes fits)but some non theists will be ego free enough to say it's a possibility both ways. And I choose to go with my way. It makes more sense. The logic and reason around me points to it. But I also understand logic and reason can only go so far as the human mind wants it to. And seeing that most humans think YELLOW light means SPEED UP tells me we shouldn't tout our smartness so much. Ending with my same assumption as before: A finite mind cannot grasp the truth of the infinite. Whether that being an infinite being or an infinite 'big bang material stuff'. We can only grasp to the finite mind and no more.

I agree with you. In fact I think theists are a lot more willing to raise this point than atheists a lot of the time, which is odd, because it's one of the main freeways to epistemological nihilism. Starting from the claim that we cannot know everything it's easy to conclude that we cannot know anything, since all information now necessarily lacks context. More importantly, we can't even measure our own intellectual limits because to do so would require us to see beyond them, and if we could do that they wouldn't be limits. We might see (or think we see) the flawed reasoning in others, for example, but our own is always totally invisible to us. Since that is the case, and the personal element cannot be removed, we have no ultimate way of gauging who is in the right and who is in the wrong, who is rational or irrational etc. and all these concepts become, if not totally fictitious, extremely unreliable at best.

I think there's a danger here though. If you draw a line somewhere out in the abstract to separate 'the finite, where conventional logic applies' from 'the infinite, where it does not, being beyond comprehension' then you render any discussion of the latter a complete waste of time. Fine if you can admit that, of course, but most theists who posit the idea cannot. I could say that circular squares exist in realms beyond our comprehension, where conventional logic does not apply, and there would be nothing you could do with that statement. I could say that the universe was born out of a cosmic bowl of ambrosia, then say that I'm speaking allegorically of course, in limited human terms, of something that's really beyond our understanding - cosmic bowls of ambrosia is just the most accessible way to think about it. Literally anything goes. If you place God in such a category then you condemn him to being totally pointless.

[Tank]

And there we have it "To me, a worldview which fails to give an answer is a failed worldview." thank you B36 for demonstrating so explicitly the problem with theism. Theism gives an answer, irrespective of the accuracy of the answer. Ignorence is not a problem as long as one recognises one's ignorence and grabbing any answer just for comfort is a pointless, useless waste of time.

Not true. Theism gives the most logical answer to ultimate causation. There are 2 types of causation: agent causation and event causation. If I set up up a row of dominoes and then knock the first one down, it then falls knocking the second, and so on. If I asked you what caused the last domino to fall, you would answer, "the second to last domino which fell into it." I would then ask, "did the second to last domino choose to knock into the last domino?" You would then answer, "No, of course not." Right! A domino cannot make choices. So the second to last domino is an example of event causation. Event causation is an example of causation which Does not choose to cause and is just one causal link within a chain of event causes. So then I would ask you, "What ultimately caused the last domino to fall?" The correct answer would be, "you," meaning me, because I set up and then set into motion the chain of events. The ultimate causer is an agent causer. The agent causer is the one who sets up the chain and puts the chain into motion. Theism simply acknowledges the agent causer of everything, and refers to the agent causer as God.

And yet again you apply human expectations to the non-human world of sub-atomic particles and forces, presuming that there must be a first cause and worst still that the first cause is, to quote from Richard Dawkins "the most unpleasant character in all fiction ... a misogynist, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully".