In the earlier thread you tried to argue that the Big Bang supported god (even thought you didn't have any valid argument for the cause being a "being"). One of the premesis was that "everything that beings to exist has a cause". This thread was opened to question that premis and have support for it provided to find out if it really squared with the Big Bang or not.
Here's the main part from the OP:
quote:Now consider the case of the first moment of time. For everything that exists at that moment of time there is no prior state when it did not exist, and if a cause is needed it is not needed to bring the object into existence, for that simple reason that it already exists. Thus if we take these objects to have a beginning it is one different from the every day beginnings - and in a way that would seem to remove the need for a cause.
Here's your paraphrasing of the argument:
quote:1. Given the possible existence of an immaterial (and otherly timed or timeless) realm where a Universe Designer or Creator God may be said to be active prior to the big bang. 2. Nothing that exists at the first moment of time came into existence AT ALL because it was never the case that they did not exist. (This is a false premise from the perspective of the immaterial realm you have postulated for argument's sake.) 3. If we take these objects to have a beginning, then it is one different from everyday beginnings. (This does not follow) 4. Therefore, the claim "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" is suspect, false or needs a more rigorous definition. (Again, this does not follow.)
As you can see, the argument is not logically consistent.
Let me explain how you go wrong:
2. Nothing that exists at the first moment of time came into existence AT ALL because it was never the case that they did not exist. (This is a false premise from the perspective of the immaterial realm you have postulated for argument's sake.)
We're talking about the Big Bang here... the theory says that the first moments of the existence of space were also the first moments of time itself. That means that there was never a point in time where space did not exist.
Now, you can say that's its "possible" that god is outside of time in some other realm, but then were not really talking about the Big Bang anymore.
3. If we take these objects to have a beginning, then it is one different from everyday beginnings. (This does not follow)
Where "everyday beginnings" are in points in time prior to the happenstance, the Big Bang is certainly different because there is no point in time prior to it.
What you're doing to defeat the argument is making it out to be assuming that there's no god so you can call it circular reasoning, or forcing it to allow for some hypothetical situation like a god outside of the universe, so that you can make it look like a contradiction.
But these things are not a part of the argument, you're adding them to it. The Big Bang does not assume god doesn't exist, it doesn't address things that aren't evidenced. There's no need to posit some other realm without spacetime, unless you're trying to find a place to squeeze god into. But the Big Bang does say that time, itself, has a first moment and that, therefore, there can be no point in time before that in which to have a cause.
You haven't really addressed this argument other than: "Nuh-uh, there could be a god realm, you're just assuming there isn't"
I quoted Davies mainly because I wanted to make clear that a singularity cannot exist as a singularity for any moment in time because it will immediately begin to rapidly expand.
The singularity did not "exist" as some "thing" that had no options but to go bang. Its mearly an assumptote in the maths that describe the early universe.
From the very first moment of the big bang, we had matter, energy and expansion of space-time.
No, matter did not exist until some amount of time after the Big Bang.
"Prior" has no meaning inside our universe, but logically speaking it can have meaning from a perspective outside our universe.
Yeah, and "Invisible Pink" has no meaning inside our universe, but logically speaking it can have meaning from a perspective outside our universe. So what?
That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that the Big Bang doesn't support god because there's nowhere and nowhen for him to exist within. Dancing around that issue with "logical possibilities" is not addressing it.
A few things here: 1. this is a written discussion site and we don't debate by link, write it down in your own words. 2. I'm at work and don't want to be sitting here watching vidoes, but I can read and write all I want. 3. I've already seen that video.
which uses electrons and atoms in the double slit experiments.
High energy helium atoms... not bowling-ball-stuff. My point stands: QM does not apply to large massive objects.
Also, the bowling balls only exist because the initial quantum particles during that first 1X10^143 sec of the Big Bang was seen by that Observer who we therefore call the Creator.
That is simply an unevidence false assertion that I can dismiss just as easily as you made it up.
Once all matter appeared with the quantum particle wave collapse,
That's not really how it works, but regardless, not all matter would have appeared then anyways. The heavy metallic elements that are present in my bowling ball were fused within the cores of stars much much later.
bowling balls were merely Cause and Effect between natural phenomenon.
Actually, when humans create things, like bowling balls, we refer to those as artificial rather than natural. Nature doesn't make bowling balls.
Would it be correct to say that the bowling balls do behave in the same way... it's just that the bowling balls are constantly being "observed" by many things. Like the air particles all around them and colliding and such, or the machine or wood they're resting on, or even all the particles of the bowling balls themselves running into each other?
I don't think so. Large massive objects just don't exhibit that wave-like propagation. And I think the observation comes when you actually measure one of the properties of the behavior. The light still interacts with the double-slit screen, and that's why it shows the diffraction patterns, its only when we measure its position with the detector, that the wave-function collapses. ABE: sort of, but not really. You can still see the diffraction pattern of a laser on a wall being shone through a double slit, even thought there's no detector there. ABE2: I guess it after the light reflects off that wall and then gets detected by our eyeballs that the wave-function collapses.
A sufficiently large double-slit screen would never cause a bunch of bowling balls to create a diffraction pattern.