Why is it more absurd to posit that there is no exception to the rule of cause and effect than it is to posit that there is an exception?
Ignoring for the moment the absence of any real "law of cause and effect", this is the classic category error of these cosmological arguments. Cause and effect, in as much as it exists, is a function of the space-time structure of the Universe. How then can cause and effect have anything remotely to do with the space-time structure itself? It is like asking "Any point on Earth has a point west of it. So which point is west of the Earth?"
Only read the thread about logical fallacies, suggested by Designtheorist if you want to learn how someone's tries to wriggle out of the fact they are guilty of committing said logical fallacies.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
Interesting debating style. It's looks like you're determined to just continue banging your point home while ignoring any rebuttals.
More accurately again, some theists, atheists and agnostics think the Big Bang "smacks of divine intervention" or "is compatible with or supportive of the idea of a Universe Designer or Creator God." Some don't.
You're again bogging down in arguments about what people say and who we should believe when the discussion should be about evidence.
Would be nice if you switched to discussing the evidence.
By the way, I am preparing for a thread on Hawking's new book. I'm certain you will want to be around for that one!
Well, that depends. Since what some people think is all that seems to matter to you, will you actually be discussing Hawking's book, or just people's opinions of Hawking's book.
For example, most people would agree that the big bang is at least compatible with the "idea" of a creator God. But the same could be said for a steady state model.
The idea of sudden creation ex nihilo is compatible with one specific god, namely the God of the Old Testament, but both the Big Bang and Steady State models seem consistent with the idea of a creator God. The Big Bang is creation of all matter at once, while Steady State is gradual and consistent creation of matter throughout all time.
Some might say that you are committing the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority with "smacks of divine intervention" in quotation marks obviously referning to Hawking, again.
Well, it's worse than that, since Hawking was describing the views of people other than himself. It's as though you said "Dr Adequate thinks there is no God", and someone quoted you as saying "There is no God". Which you did ... just after the words "Dr Adequate thinks".
It's not just an appeal to authority, it's deeply dishonest, since Hawking himself thinks the exact opposite of the view designtheorist wishes to ascribe to him.
The Big Bang is creation of all matter at once, while Steady State is gradual and consistent creation of matter throughout all time.
The steady state model is not incompatible with an Old Testament creator God.
The steady state model deals with gradual creation for some definition of the word gradual. Steady state could still accommodate, for example, creation of galaxies in a billion years time frame. That might not be compatible with a YEC interpretation of the Old Testament, but not much of reality is.
Yes, but that is a sustaining cause, maintaining the depression, rather than a creative cause bringing the depression into existence. And given a real cushion creating the depression would require time, which is not available. The argument I am dealing with clearly requires a creative cause (and it is an argument for a creative cause). Thus, a sustaining cause is not relevant (and would require a different argument).
Well, it does all that I required of it: it's something that we would wish to call a cause without a sequence where cause precedes effect.
It's not exactly like God sitting outside time and creating the universe, but then what is?