Summations Only

I'll make a few points:"compatible with" is not the same as "supports". Which did you mean ?It's a big step from saying that our universe had a cause to saying that that cause was a god, as the term is usually understood. Your OP does not include any support for making that leap.The notion of "beginning" used in your argument would seem to require that there was a prior state where the object in question did not exist. We do not know that to be the case for our universe - and if it is not the case then there is neither need, nor room, for a cause.

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.

quote:

---

This does not follow. Theoretical physics does get pretty close to philosophy very early on. You must build your scientific construct (or philosophical construct) on solid ground.

---

If the universe has existed for all time, why would it need a cause ?Wouldn't you agree that we only need to invoke causes to account for changes and that changes only happen in time ?

quote:

---

Here's what we know. The universe exists. The universe began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago.

---

Hold on, what we don't know is if the Universe had a beginning as we understand it, or whether 13.7 billion years ago simply represents the first moment of time. We can't say that the universe came into existence at that point if it always existed.

quote:

---

Something or someone caused the universe to come into existence, because universes do not just happen on their own.

---

But if there is no time before the universe existed, how can you say that the universe "happened" ?

quote:

---

This person or thing acted before space and time were created.

---

Which only goes to support my point. You are assuming a state "before" time when the universe did not exist. However there cannot be a state before time, because "before" is a temporal term. It is logically impossible.So, we cannot have anything acting "before" time existed. At this point you have a number of alternatives:1) You can propose that time precedes the universe, thus losing your argument that the cause must be outside of spacetime.2) You can propose that our universe is embedded in a larger spacetime, again losing your argument that the cause must exist outside spacetime.3) You can try and come up with some other way to make sense of your position. One that doesn't come across as a "contrived theory" since you have such a negative opinion of such things. Good luck. You'll need it.

quote:

---

Right now you are holding two mutually exclusive ideas in your head at the same time. They cannot both be right. This is called "double-think" and it happens to all of us at one time or another. Either the universe always existed OR it began 13.7 billion years ago.

---

Actually I am not holding to both ideas. I assert that both are possible, but I do not hold that both are true. You are the one who seems to hold both simultaneously.

quote:

---

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, people thought the earth always existed. This was the Steady State Theory. Big Bang Theory changed all of that. I wrote a little about the history of Big Bang Theory in the top post. Big Bang Theory has become the standard cosmology. People are working on other theories, but none have really been accepted like Big Bang.

---

This is completely irrelevant. My point is very simple. If the universe has existed for all of time, then it has always existed. If there is a time prior to the universe's existence than it has not. Which alternative do you choose ?

quote:

---

You are right, of course. PaulK's comment confused me. It seemed to me that he was struggling with the idea both were true.

---

I would say that you were already confused, because you hadn't seen the problem with your argument. Also my argument should have been clearer in context with the other points made - which you did not address.(e.g.) So, we come to the question of which position you are going to take. Are you going to argue that the universe has existed for all time and also needs a cause ? If so, we need to see that argument because it is certainly not obvious that something that has always existed would need a cause.Or are you going to find a different argument for your claim that the cause of the universe must be outside of spacetime ? Or drop that argument altogether ?

quote:

---

You are confusing me again, Paul. I have never argued the universe has existed for all time. This is the view of the static universe. It was common in the 19th and early 20th century. This view was overthrown by the big bang.

---

No, you are confused again And ignoring points which would clarify what I am saying. I am not talking about a static universe, I am talking about the idea that there is no time preceding the existence of the universe.Here's where you argue it: Message 59

quote:

---

If the universe has a beginning (and the big bang says it does), then it has a cause.

---

However, as I have already pointed out if there is no time before the universe existed it did not have a beginning as we understand it, and it is questionable whether it needs a cause.

quote:

---

So what happened before the big bang? Most physicists will not speculate because how can you speak of time before time began?

---

Actually you can't because it is logically incoherent. And physicists don't speak of that at all (they will sometimes speak of time extending before the Big Bang, but that is different). As Son Goku has pointed out in this thread the reason why we are forced to speculation is because our current understanding of Physics is not adequate to deal with anything past a certain point (and as I understand it the singularity blocks observation of any hypothetical preceding state)

quote:

---

Therefore it is logically consistent to say cause of the big bang had to exist prior to spacetime,

---

And you call ME confused ? No, it is not logically consistent. "Prior" is a temporal term which requires time.Let us also note that this disposes of your argument about conservation of mass and energy - if all of the mass/energy of the universe existed at the Big Bang, with no prior state where it did not exist, then there is no violation.

quote:

---

which means the Big Banger is both timeless (eternal) and immaterial (not part of the physical universe). I quoted Paul Davies who also agreed the cause of the big bang could not be physical.

---

Actually according to your quote Davies says: It seems to me that he is not suggesting that it had a supernatural cause, but that there was NO cause. Note also that Davies expressly agrees with my point that it is logically incoherent to speak of anything before the Big Bang, if we accept that the Big Bang is the start of time.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If the universe had a beginning in the big bang (the standard view of cosmology)
The universe must have a cause.

---

If there was no time preceding the universe - the view you were putting forward - we are speaking of something different from our intuitive idea of a "beginning". It is certainly questionable whether our intuitive ideas about "beginnings" can be applies in this situation.
I would say not, for the reason I have already given:Only changes require causes, and there is no change outside of time.Or put another way - if, as you are proposing, the universe has always existed there is no reason to suppose that there must be a cause of that existence. (Just to forestall your repeated confusion, this is NOT speaking of a static universe, just your proposal that there was no time preceding the universe).

quote:

---

The cause cannot be physical because it happened before the physical universe was created. (See Paul Davies book Cosmic Jackpot - Davies will not speculate on non-physical causes because he limits himself to mathematical physics)

---

This is a misrepresentation of Davies. Davies states that the concept of "before" time is meaningless. In the quote given, Davies does not even consider the possibility of a non-physical cause, which suggests that we are dealing with something of a quote-mine here. If Davies really proposed a non-physical cause, why not quote him saying so ?
It seems more likely that Davies is rejecting the notion of a cause of the Big Bang altogether.

quote:

---

And the cause happened before time was created. (See Paul Davies book)

---

Davies does NOT say this. Davies states that such talk is meaningless.

quote:

---

Therefore it is internally consistent to believe the cause of the big bang (Big Banger) is both immaterial and timeless.

---

Since you have gone against your own source and assumed a logical contradiction (that Davies rejects) this only follows in the degenerate sense that anything may be derived from a falsehood. Misrepresentation is in no way a substitute for actually dealing with the problems of timeless causation at the least.There is no need to say more. Your case rests on misrepresentation and logical falsehood. Therefore it fails.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Name me one thing that has begun to exist, and always existed.

The initial claim of this thread ha not been supported. What we have seen from the proponents is:A failure to think about the arguments. Proposing that time began with the universe is not just an excuse to label the hypothetical cause as "timeless", it has profound consequences.The abuse of quotes and misrepresentation (e.g. Davies rejects talk about "before the Big Bang" as meaningless, but this is ignored).An amazing failure of imagination. The inability to imagine a non-personal cause for the universe is a severe mental limitation, not an argument ! The more so when such a cause - one actually proposed as a serious scientific proposal - has already been presented in the thread !If that's what religion does to you, I'm glad I don't have it.