First, I don't rankle at any civil, non-insulting rebuttals and never have.
Well, we'll see.
Ok you are claiming the first two premises are not valid. The first that nothing begins to exist without a cause is a valid metaphysical assumption. I am really astonished that anyone would challenge premise 1. ie "Whatever begins to exist requires a cause." Lets have a look at three reasons that validate premise 1. I think there are at least three good reasons that substantiate premise one :
(1) We have a vast experience of causes and effects. As such, it is rational to believe the first premise of the Cosmological Argument on our own experience alone.
(2) Premise one seems to be an intrinsically obvious truth.
This is really nothing more than, "I believe it because I think it's so." Either that or, "I can't imagine it not being true."
(3) Atheists are fond of asserting that injecting God into the mix will result in the breakdown of the scientific method. If this is so, then it is even truer that the postulation that something occurred for no reason would be harmful to science.
Of course, this is completely wrong if in fact something happened for no reason. In this case, beginning with the assumption that there must be a cause for everything would in fact be antithetical to the scientific method.
If we are to declare, "That event happened just because it did", we are certainly not gaining knowledge of how the universe works!
Certainly simply making a declaration does not provide us with knowledge. (This is a curious statement for you to make since your entire argument is nothing more than a series of unsupported declarations, but there you are.) However, if instead of simply declaring, we investigate and come to that conclusion based on the evidence, then we in fact have gained knowledge of how the universe works.
Now for the second premise. I said from the outset that I think the standard model of the big bang is the most accurate model.
One is its the most widely accepted theory by scientists especially 'observational astronomers'.
Any evidence of this fact?
Even if true, science never decides truth by majority vote. And the fact that there are scientists who do not accept it is evidence that the truth of the matter cannot be established.
Second it has the math to support it.
I seriously doubt that this is something you understand yourself. I think it's more likely that you simply prefer to accept the math that supports your preferred belief. In any event, math supporting it doesn't really get very far. Math is only as accurate as the facts that it operates on. If the facts are wrong, the math will be, too.
Third and perhaps most importantly, the SBBM (Standard Big Bang Model)has empirical evidence to support it.
Super. Since I asked you to provide evidence, this would be a good place for you to do so. You don't.
In the final analysis, it really looks like your "argument" can be more accurately stated this way:
quote:
1...[I believe that] Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence
2... [I believe that] The universe began to exist.
3... Therefore [I believe that] the universe had a cause to exist.
Now, if you'd care to accept my restatement of your argument, I'd have precious little to say about it. However, until you do that, I'll continue to point out that you've yet to provide any evidence in support of the two premises. despite my request that you do so and despite my presentation of positive evidence directly refuting the first one.
I hope this reply clarifies my claims a bit.
I think my reply clarifies it a lot more than yours does.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
™ Version 4.2
