Summations Only

I appreciate everyone's participation. Please bear with me as I have a busy schedule today and will not be able to spend as much time responding as I might like. I will try to respond tonight to as many comments as possible.

quote:

---

My second general post focused on information which supports the view a pre-existing (eternal) and immaterial being was the First Cause of the big bang. Essentially, because spacetime was created at the big bang, the cause of the big bang has to be outside of spacetime.

---

If spacetime begins with the Big Bang then there is no time before the Big Bang, no time when the universe does not exist and therefore no reason to think that the universe has a cause.

What suggests the cause was a "being"?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : changed subtitle

With all due respect, what implies that it wasn't? I have yet to read a better suggestion....do you have one? I understand that this is not considered a valid argument, but it is food for thought, nonetheless, no? However, I will grant that the word "being" is perhaps too limited a word for a force/Person so powerful that it/He transcends all forces and contsraints of our universe. It may be the "best" word we as humans can come up with, and may be far too limited to encompass all that God is; perhaps He allows it because He knows well our limitations. But, I digress. Because we are mere humans made of matter and bound by senses and reason, we look to the evidence we can perceive. We might even think that such a transcendent cause might leave no evidence at all, because it wouldn't be vital to the survival of the system, so why would said creating force bother (unless it was intelligent and interested in its creation), yet there is evidence. No argument has surfaced that adequately explains the fine-tuning, for example, of the expansion rate of the universe (were it any different, life would not be possible, which I'm sure you already know). There IS evidence of design and fine-tuning, which happen to be consistent with words attributed to the "Being" Himself. While you may argue that the evidence is flawed or insufficient, it is present nonetheless, which makes this theory unique....others lack evidence. All things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the best, yes? Since a Designer is the "Big Bang Cause" argument with the largest body of evidence, it is the default unless new information comes to light.

This is not correct. In the standard cosmology, the universe has period about 13.7 billion years ago that would look like an explosion to a human being. At the earliest parts of this period, the universe is very small. What happened before that is unknown.

No i dont please enlighten me of how life cannot exist whiteout this particular expansion rate?

The burden of proof is on someone asserting the positive. Anyone claiming that he knows why the Big Bang went bang doesn't get a free pass just because his conjecture is too vague and nebulous to be susceptible of falsification.Anyone could do that sort of thing. If I claimed (for example) that Jimmy Hoffa was murdered by a redheaded man, then there's nothing whatsoever to imply that he wasn't. But if I'm going to claim that he was, I have to put up some sort of argument to suggest that that is the case, not just ask "what implies that he wasn't?" That was ... muddled. Perhaps you could expand on it a little.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Sorry, but your argument that the it seems like the universe is consistent with Design Theory because Design Theory was invented by humans because it seems like the universe is consistent with Design Theory because Design Theory was imagined by humans is a bit on the circular side...Ok. Matter can't be created or destroyed in our universe..we agree on this, at least. So...I will try to put this into words the best I can. As soon as the universe was created, matter was created in the universe. In other words, simultaneously, the universe began and universal laws took effect. So for matter to have been "spontaneously created" in the Big Bang is impossible. The instant it was created it could not be created...a paradox. Unless there is a supernatural..oops, dirty word! Excuse me ... Unless there is a TRANSCENDENT explanation.

As I said, that isn't an argument; just "food for thought." I'm aware. Still, hard to ignore.

I find it easy to ignore things that aren't arguments.

I'll try something a bit different, it might be stupid, but anyway....As we all know the Roman Empire expanded over history, there are some periods of rapid expansion (conquest of Gaul and Britain) and slower ones (Iberia). Played in reverse we see the empire slowly shrink in size until it contracts to the hilly region around the Seven Hills of Rome.Now one could continue this extrapolation until Rome contracts to a single point of infinite Roman density on the Capitoline hill, which must have been Romulus and Remus, the semi-devine beings of myth.Or maybe the social dynamics change and you shouldn't apply the expansion rules of an empire to a small Iron Age settlement.

As far as we know, beings exist within the Universe, not outside of it. Even the notion of "existing" implies being within the Uni-verse, i.e. all that exists. The singularity is just one point on the 4D manifold that is spacetime. It no more requires a cause than any other particular point. It "just is". Sort of, but not really. Assuming god and then asking "why not god?" isn't all that thought-provoking for me. Excepting "inanimate" beings (I assume you don't think god is inanimate), the word "being" implies its something that is alive. I don't think its a good description and its really only came up after all the Intelligent Designer nonsense. People are trying to disguise the religious aspects of the argument so god gets dumbbed down to being a "being". We can't really look to the evidence we can't perceive, can we? There is no "fine-tuning". Life can only exist where it can. The argument is the same as looking at a puddle and concluding the pothole was fine-tuned to fit around the water. I wouldn't expect people to attribute words to the "Being" Himself that were inconsistent with what they could observe. You have to assume god first, to get that "largest body of evidence" to suggest god, so it is not the default unless you make it so.

I haven't the inclination to parse out that particular serving of word salad to try to determine if there's a point in there or not. If you'd like to have another go at it, I'll take another look. In other words, you don't understand this apparent paradox, therefore god. Color me unimpressed.

I'm sorry if I was not clear. I will try again. I'm not a scientist, just someone who likes to learn, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong when I say that if the universe expanded much more quickly or more slowly, life would not be possible. I've heard one scientist/philosopher assert that it is fine-tuned to one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion, and that were changed by one part the universe would not support life. Is that incorrect? If it is, I would really like to know, since I don't wish to use it again if it is. And if it is correct, one could certainly argue that it points toward design.In any case, my bottom line is this: We don't know of any other transecendent force capable of creating matter (not to speak of life) from nothing. The only force we know even POTENTIALLY exists is a supernatural Being, and there is some body of evidence that points toward His existence.I want to clarify my thoughts further, and answer you better, but I have to go pick up my daughter from school. I will try to get back online a bit later and continue the discussion.