South Africa Flag logo

South African Skeptics

November 19, 2019, 10:24:43 AM
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
Go to mobile page.
News: Please read the forum rules before posting.
   
   Skeptic Forum Board Index   Help Forum Rules Search GoogleTagged Login Register Chat Blogroll  
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic:

First Cause

 (Read 5427 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
OHA
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« on: February 18, 2009, 11:07:51 AM »

Can anyone please explain to me with proof, the naturalistic explanation for how it all began (cosmos, planets, life etc.)?

Logged
benguela
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 223


An infinitesimal subset of the observable universe


benguela
WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 18, 2009, 11:28:00 AM »

I don't know what caused the big bang. The fact that I don't know doesn't therefor mean that your theory is the correct one.

Welcome to the forums.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3756


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2009, 12:09:53 PM »

Can anyone please explain to me with proof, the naturalistic explanation for how it all began (cosmos, planets, life etc.)?
No, probably not with the kind of direct proof that will satisfy you, and certainly not in a single post.  But the Internet is a good place for those with a genuine interest (as opposed to that feigned by creationists) to start reading up on many of the modern ideas that are relevant to the above question.  As an appetiser, it may be that the total energy content of the universe is zero and that it sprang spontaneously (i.e. without cause) into existence, making it, in the words of Alan Guth, “the ultimate free lunch.”

Be that as it may, here’s a pair of somewhat simpler questions:  (1) Can you see the absurdity of positing a hugely complex entity like a creator-god as an uncaused first cause?  (2) Can you see the self-contradiction in asserting that everything has a cause (a view no longer scientifically viable) and then violating that assertion by saying there’s an uncaused first cause?

'Luthon64
Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2463


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2009, 13:51:28 PM »

Call me old school, but I'm partial to Jatravartid theory that states that the universe was sneezed from the nose of the Great Green Arkelseizure.

(Whatever you do don't let the Pastafarians who lurk on this forum lure you into their ridiculous belief system. In fact there is strong evidence that The Flying Spaghetti Monster could not have existed prior to the invention of the meatball.)

I must admit that the Jatravartid  dogma has no scientific backing, but luckily there are rumours about the existence of ancient manuscripts that confirm these things as true.

Mintaka

Logged
Wandapec
Sr. Member
****

Skeptical ability: +4/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


100% Proud Atheist/Skeptic


« Reply #4 on: February 18, 2009, 20:59:38 PM »

I also don't know, but Dr. Gene Ray, Cubic and Wisest Human is probably the right person to ask.   Wink
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3756


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #5 on: February 18, 2009, 21:42:59 PM »

Oh, crumbs!  Not Timecube again.  *Groan*

Fortunately perhaps, these ideas are so off-the-wall that most people will reject them for the crazy, impenetrable baloney that they are.

Not so religion, however.

'Luthon64
Logged
OHA
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2009, 07:28:13 AM »

Thank you for all the responses; some serious and other less so.

'Luthon64 [it may be that the total energy content of the universe is zero and that it sprang spontaneously (i.e. without cause) into existence]

The operative word there being 'may' - thus there is no sertainty and you have to some extent at least, take it all in faith. Is this not so?

[Can you see the absurdity of positing a hugely complex entity like a creator-god as an uncaused first cause?] No, actually I can't. It makes more sense to believe "In the beginning God..." than "in the beginning nothing...", for if there is no God then, nothing must have become something, by whatever process; or if you don't like that idea, then something simply always existed, which again requires some faith to believe.

[Can you see the self-contradiction in asserting that everything has a cause (a view no longer scientifically viable) and then violating that assertion by saying there’s an uncaused first cause?]

To be honest, no I can't see the self-contradiction, nor do I understand how or why the first cause is no longer scientifically viable - since it seems only logical that everything must have a beginning; simplistic example - a fully made Ford does not just come of a factory - it is the result of a long process of planning, making etc. The car manufacturer begins the deseign, and the rest of the process follows.

Benguela [I don't know what caused the big bang. The fact that I don't know doesn't therefor mean that your theory is the correct one.

Welcome to the forums.]

First of all thanks for the welcome, and for your honesty in acknowledging that you don't know how it all started; may I throw a friendly peble in the bush? How do you know that what you call my theory (God creating all for His glory) is not the correct one?



Logged
Objective
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +1/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 17



« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2009, 07:51:59 AM »

[Can you see the self-contradiction in asserting that everything has a cause (a view no longer scientifically viable) and then violating that assertion by saying there’s an uncaused first cause?]
To be honest, no I can't see the self-contradiction, nor do I understand how or why the first cause is no longer scientifically viable - since it seems only logical that everything must have a beginning;

You guys all seem to have a problem understanding that IF you posit that everything has a cause AND you posit that god is the cause of everthing then god must have a cause.
IF god is not caused then everything does not have a cause (since your god by your own admission is not caused)and your argument contradicts itself.

IF god was not caused then a cause is not required for existence and it may have existed for all time and what requires explanation is not 'the coming into being" of existence but how things change. Science provides various answers to most questions of change.

To claim that certain speculative claims is equivalent to making a faith claim in order to imply that FAITH is somehow a valid means to knowledge is nothing more than a strawman. Faith is conceptually a third order concept ( it is only possible once you already hold specific primary concepts such as "existence"; "cause"; "effect"; "entity" and so forth, and the term 'faith' is used to express the expectation of an effect when both cause and effect is known. To treat the concept 'faith' as some floating (not related to anything else)abstraction simply means that it has no meaning NOT that is a means to knowledge or a method of knowing.

Logged
Rigil Kent
Clotting Factor
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +19/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 2463


Three men make a tiger.


« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2009, 08:28:25 AM »

Quote
The operative word there being 'may' - thus there is no sertainty and you have to some extent at least, take it all in faith. Is this not so?

You will find that a hallmark of scepticism is taking nothing on faith. Why, I am not even 100% sure that, should my pen roll off my desk, it will DEFINATELY hit the floor. But I'm pretty damn confident that it would, and may even bet some money on my expectation.

Faith, as so eloquently defined by Objective in the previous post, implies absolute conviction, which I don't see as an option in the sceptic world. A sceptic may support and think a hypothesis correct if s/he is satisfied that the evidence to support the  hypothesis is sufficient. This is a wonderfully liberating state of mind. The sceptic is not shackled by any faith or dogma, he is free to change his mind. He does not have to defend any viewpoint from an emotional or sentimental angle.

One thing a sceptic won't do, however, is to embrace just any old hypothesis simply because the explanation of a phenomenon or event is still unknown. The sceptic does not have a compulsive need to have absolute certainties. We are happy to wait until evidence becomes available. Sometimes in our lifetimes, perhaps never.

So taking current evidence into account, the Biblical creationist God hypothesis and the Arkelseizure sneeze hypothesis, in my mind, carries equal weight, and I am undecided between the two. I'm simply partial to the Arkelseizure because as a human being, I am not devoid of emotion, and he seems an altogether nicer god.

Mintaka

« Last Edit: February 19, 2009, 09:26:45 AM by Mintaka » Logged
benguela
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 223


An infinitesimal subset of the observable universe


benguela
WWW
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2009, 09:04:04 AM »


Benguela [I don't know what caused the big bang. The fact that I don't know doesn't therefor mean that your theory is the correct one.

Welcome to the forums.]

First of all thanks for the welcome, and for your honesty in acknowledging that you don't know how it all started; may I throw a friendly peble in the bush? How do you know that what you call my theory (God creating all for His glory) is not the correct one?


Let's finish the first point before moving onto the next one, do you agree that me not knowing what caused the big bang does not mean that you can conclude that your creation theory is correct?


Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3756


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2009, 10:29:46 AM »

The operative word there being 'may' - thus there is no sertainty and you have to some extent at least, take it all in faith. Is this not so?
But we have physical, repeatable, directly observable evidence today (specifically, the expanding universe and the cosmic microwave background radiation) that is far, far more coherently accounted for not by any creator-god, but by the Big Bang theory of cosmogony.



It makes more sense to believe "In the beginning God..." than "in the beginning nothing...", for if there is no God then, nothing must have become something, by whatever process; or if you don't like that idea, then something simply always existed, which again requires some faith to believe.
Not so.  You cannot define “nothing” without reference to “something” and this problem thwarts every attempt to give physical meaning to “nothing.”  Simply saying that it is the total absence of anything is an empty definition because it tells us nothing useful about, say, the conditions in which this “nothingness” exists, and therefore it can mean whatever you like.  The idea of an eternally existing, infinitely complex, miracle-working creator-god makes far less sense than any naturalistic versions in the light of what science has revealed about the world, the evidence in support of those versions and the total absence of compelling reason and/or evidence for such a god.



To be honest, no I can't see the self-contradiction, nor do I understand how or why the first cause is no longer scientifically viable - since it seems only logical that everything must have a beginning; simplistic example - a fully made Ford does not just come of a factory - it is the result of a long process of planning, making etc. The car manufacturer begins the deseign, and the rest of the process follows.
I did not say “the first cause is no longer scientifically viable.”  I said that it is no longer scientifically viable to hold that “everything has a cause” – i.e. that whatever happens depends for its happening on some prior happening.  For example, radioactive decay events are completely spontaneous, as are virtual particles.  There is no “cause” in either, not in any traditional sense of that word.  Thus, we know of natural phenomena that arise uncaused.

If I say “all crows without exception are black” and then try to convince you that this white bird that I have is a crow, then I am clearly contradicting myself.  Similarly, to say that “everything has a cause” and then say that a creator-god is uncaused is to be self-contradictory because at least one thing is then uncaused.  Your Ford example is a bad analogy.  A car is clearly the product of thought and deliberation towards fulfilling a certain purpose.  We have no reason to suppose that the universe is in any way comparable, especially in terms of any purpose.  This is what is known as the “Argument from Design” and is no longer convincing, although it is frequently used by believers.

'Luthon64
Logged
bluegray
Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +9/-3
Offline Offline

Posts: 1107



saskeptics
WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2009, 12:23:08 PM »

This might be of interest:
http://forum.skeptic.za.org/science-and-technology/prof-malcolm-longair-talks-in-cpt/
Logged
OHA
Newbie
*

Skeptical ability: +0/-2
Offline Offline

Posts: 27


« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2009, 17:18:41 PM »

[For example, radioactive decay events are completely spontaneous, as are virtual particles.  There is no “cause” in either, not in any traditional sense of that word.]

Wouldn't the second Law of Thermodynamics in some way apply to this? while also disproving that lifeforms and systems left to themselves would tend towards disorder (breakdown) rather that improvement (evolution)?

[Let's finish the first point before moving onto the next one, do you agree that me not knowing what caused the big bang does not mean that you can conclude that your creation theory is correct?]

I don't quite know how to answer that one, but if I firmly believe (yes, I know Faith), that the God of the Bible exist and created everything, then either one of us is wrong, for we can't be both right.

[Similarly, to say that “everything has a cause” and then say that a creator-god is uncaused is to be self-contradictory because at least one thing is then uncaused.]

I agree, the "uncausedness" of God is a wonderful mystery, and one I don't tend to break my head over, since if I could completely understand Everything, including God's "beginning" He would no longer be God - How can a finite human being like myself totally grasp an infinite Being like God?

Thank you all for the mostly polite feedback - really appreciate it. Appologies if I was not able to satisfactory answer all questions.
Logged
Mefiante
Defollyant Iconoclast
Hero Member
*****

Skeptical ability: +61/-9
Offline Offline

Posts: 3756


In solidarity with rwenzori: Κοπρος φανεται


WWW
« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2009, 20:00:35 PM »

Wouldn't the second Law of Thermodynamics in some way apply to this?
No.  The second law of thermodynamics (SLT) is a statistical law that applies to aggregates of particles.  In essence, it says that some form of energy input is necessary to maintain (or increase) the usable recoverable energy fraction (usually referred to as “order”) of such a system, and that the energy input quantity will always exceed the quantity of recoverable energy.  On Earth, we get that energy input from the Sun.  The SLT does not address itself directly to virtual particles or to radioactive decay, and even if it did, it does not describe any cause-effect relationship.



while also disproving that lifeforms and systems left to themselves would tend towards disorder (breakdown) rather that improvement (evolution)?
Not so.  The SLT is a favourite creationist canard that seeks to show evolution and increasing complexity to be impossible.  The presence of an external energy source, namely the Sun, destroys the argument.  But even if creationists were correct and also were consistent in their claims, they would have to agree that the world is inevitably falling apart materially, and that nothing can be done about it – a patently absurd and demonstrably erroneous implication.



I agree, the "uncausedness" of God is a wonderful mystery,…
Oh dear me!  Quite apart from the completely unwarranted and unproven supposition of a creator-god, the implication here is that we should resign ourselves to an insoluble riddle by calling it a “wonderful mystery” whenever we are stumped.  All I can say is that I am deeply grateful to those individuals – past, present and future – who refuse to subscribe to such a cognitive fatalism and choose instead to confront their ignorance by probing deeper, and in that way increase human knowledge and the potential for improved welfare.  If we resigned ourselves thusly every time we failed to grasp some problem, we’d still pretty much be living in the Stone Age.
 


… and one I don't tend to break my head over, since if I could completely understand Everything, including God's "beginning" He would no longer be God
Is a deeper understanding of the universe, how it is and how it may have come about not a worthy aspiration?  Even in the complete absence of any immediately practically usable knowledge, I think that a desire for such knowledge for its own sake is what gives humanity much of its sense of purpose.  It’s just sad that so many people, instead of honestly admitting that they don’t know, choose to vest their belief in some god or other, pretending that such an entity answers all questions when, really, it only provides excuses and obfuscation.  True humility lies in acknowledging what we do not know and earnestly resolving to seek honest answers wherever they may lead, not in prostrating oneself abjectly before a wilfully ineffable and cruel taskmaster.



How can a finite human being like myself totally grasp an infinite Being like God?
You can’t because whenever understanding is forthcoming, the goalposts are quite deliberately shifted.  The only function of a god is to serve as a receptacle for the things we are unwilling to task ourselves with understanding properly.

'Luthon64
« Last Edit: February 19, 2009, 20:23:57 PM by Anacoluthon64 » Logged
benguela
Full Member
***

Skeptical ability: +3/-0
Offline Offline

Posts: 223


An infinitesimal subset of the observable universe


benguela
WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2009, 10:07:21 AM »

[Let's finish the first point before moving onto the next one, do you agree that me not knowing what caused the big bang does not mean that you can conclude that your creation theory is correct?]

I don't quite know how to answer that one, but if I firmly believe (yes, I know Faith), that the God of the Bible exist and created everything, then either one of us is wrong, for we can't be both right.

Unfortunately I'm rather limited to logical reasoning. If 1 + 1 does not equal 3 that does not mean that 2 + 2 = 3. I fail to understand why you could not agree with my statement.  Cry
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  All   Go Up
  Print  


 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.818 seconds with 24 sceptic queries.
Google visited last this page April 27, 2019, 21:49:25 PM
Privacy Policy