The Moon and Design

Originally posted by chaney3
If you agree that the universe has NOT always existed, then logically, it was caused into existence. .

your use of the word "logically" there is idiotic since that clearly isn't logical (inference) at all since there is no logical contradiction in there something coming into existence without a cause.

Originally posted by chaney3
If you agree that the universe has NOT always existed, then logically, it was caused into existence. You can dispute the 'cause', or a 'causer', but something did come from nothing.

By the way, atheists participate in the spirituality forum....so theists participate here, especially if one feels that God and science co-exist.
Atheists should not hold this forum hostage because of their non-belief.

"If you agree that the universe has NOT always existed, then logically, it was caused into existence. You can dispute the 'cause', or a 'causer', but something did come from nothing."

If you agree that something always comes from something, then where do the designer come from.
Don't give me 'that's an exception' because it makes it illogical and has nothing to do with science, in wich forum you happen to be.

"Atheists should not hold this forum hostage because of their non-belief."

By being here wanting to discuss religion in an non-scientific way, you don't mind that non-spiritual people is frequenting in the spiritual forum, do you?

As long as we are discussing scientific matters in the Science Forum and wou are discussing spiritual matters in the Spiritual Forum anyone should be welcomed wherever they support the title of the Forum. Why do you think this is a problem? Do you think it is appropriate to discuss spiritual matters in the Chess Forum? No, I didn't think so either. Try and you will see the responce.

"By the way, atheists participate in the spirituality forum....so theists participate here, especially if one feels that God and science co-exist."

No, gods and science cannot coexist. Your god is not a part of science. Christians says so. He is above the science, they say. If you say your god is science - then prove his existence scientifically and the thing is settled. Until then...
I say that there is a border between science and religion. They don't meet. Religion cannot be treated with scientific methods.

Let's go on-topic again.
You say that you can see a designer in a chaotic solar system. Because there are solar eclipses on the face of the Earth? My dear friend, every planet having moons have solar eclilpses, even on the lifeless Moon the sun is eclipsed now and then. Your arguments are merely proof of an absent designer.
On the other hand - if there were no eclipses at all - that would be a strong proof of a designer setting the orbital elements very exact top avoid eclipses.

Or you can just say that you are wrong.

Please stay on topic. It's your thread after all.

Originally posted by chaney3
Is this the science forum, or the atheist forum? Please specify.

I already made my case, the universe was caused. I don't believe that the universe has just always existed.

https://phys.org/news/2013-09-goodbye-big-black-hole-theory.html

A new theory about the origin of the universe shows up, implying our universe is a daughter universe from a much much larger maybe infinite universe where a 4th dimension star there collapses to a black hole in that universe but is in fact what created our universe.

It is theory at this point in time. Just pointing out the BB is not the only game in town.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It is theory at this point in time. Just pointing out the BB is not the only game in town.

The Big Bang theory doesn't really state what happened before the big bang, so I don't think that is necessarily an 'alternative'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The Big Bang theory doesn't really state what happened before the big bang, so I don't think that is necessarily an 'alternative'.

That is exactly what this theory tries to formulate. To show our universe came from SOMETHING not nothing. It seems a lot more logical to me but it is scary to think about a real infinite universe, never ending nested universes. It does make plenty of room for the generation of what we would consider gods if one ever showed up here. In reality, a very advanced being who can do wonders and could pass itself off as a god and people would fall over themselves bowing to it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That is exactly what this theory tries to formulate. To show our universe came from SOMETHING not nothing. It seems a lot more logical to me but it is scary to think about a real infinite universe, never ending nested universes. It does make plenty of room for the generation of what we would consider gods if one ever showed up here. In reality, a very adva ...[text shortened]... o wonders and could pass itself off as a god and people would fall over themselves bowing to it.

No matter how you slice it, all possible universes, matter, material, etc., were caused into existence. Universes just don't appear magically, nor have they always existed.....without cause. You guys just don't like the implications, and it shows.

Originally posted by chaney3
No matter how you slice it, all possible universes, matter, material, etc., were caused into existence. Universes just don't appear magically, nor have they always existed.....without cause. You guys just don't like the implications, and it shows.

You should add: "This is my opinion that ... and if you don't have the same opinion I will respect that."

Originally posted by chaney3
No matter how you slice it, all possible universes, matter, material, etc., were caused into existence. .

how could you possibly know this?
What is you premise?

Universes just don't appear magically,

and nobody here but you are suggesting they did (assuming other universes exist; how do you know this? ). Isn't it your opinion that a god magically created our universe?

nor have they always existed.....without cause

Again, how could you possibly know this?

Just asserting your opinion without evidence nor logical argument will convince nobody here of your opinion.

Originally posted by sonhouse...
In reality, a very advanced being who can do wonders and could pass itself off as a god and people would fall over themselves bowing to it.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Arthur C. Clarke

Originally posted by humy
how could you possibly know this?
What is you premise?

I guess I'm with chaney on this. If a universe could begin existence without being caused, then couldn't a giant space turtle with four elephants on its back supporting a discworld where magic is real pop into existence as well?

Originally posted by apathist
I guess I'm with chaney on this. If a universe could begin existence without being caused, then couldn't a giant space turtle with four elephants on its back supporting a discworld where magic is real pop into existence as well?

You have a point there - if (and only if) you can explain from where the turtle and the four elephants magically came into existence.

You are pushing the question one step back in time, exactly like chaney. If nothing can come from nothing, then how can designers, gods, turtles, or elephants came from nothing?
"Well, it just happend!" or "Well, that is an exception!" or "Goddidit!" is just not a good explanation.

How the universe came into being is a scientific question in the Science Forum and a spiritual question in the Spiritual Forum. But you cannot ever discuss science in religious terms and religion in scientific terms.

See what happened with chaneys opinion that solar eclipses is designed by someone...

Originally posted by apathist
I guess I'm with chaney on this. If a universe could begin existence without being caused, then couldn't a giant space turtle with four elephants on its back supporting a discworld where magic is real pop into existence as well?

No. One doesn't follow from the other.

Absent causation does not imply 'anything is possible'. The universe appears to follow certain very strict rules of conservation. But within those rules, it seems anything is possible, and there is no direct causation going on. So giant space turtles would only come into being if they could do so without violating all the conservation rules.
The very fact that you bring up the example suggests you believe it is not possible.

We could dig in to what is meant by 'causation' and what is meant by 'universe', but it appears you abandoned the thread on causation.

Originally posted by apathist
I guess I'm with chaney on this. If a universe could begin existence without being caused, then couldn't a giant space turtle with four elephants on its back supporting a discworld where magic is real pop into existence as well?

I take the word "magic" as meaning whatever we have reason to think cannot happen or doesn't exist so "magic" almost equates with "causally impossible" although it is hard to say exactly what it does mean because its meaning is rather vague and means different things to different people. We have no evidence of giant space turtles and we have no reason to think they exist. So the reason why it would be "magic" to have giant space turtles isn't because such a thing would be causeless but rather we have absolutely no reason to believe such a thing exists or even merely probably exists. So "magic" doesn't equate with "causeless". In contrast, we DO have evidence that the universe exists and had a beginning so it isn't "magic" that it began or exists. So, given "magic" doesn't equate with "causeless", why would it be any more "magic" if it began without cause than with cause?

The biggest problem with the whole discussion is it is far from clear what is meant by 'universe' in given contexts.

As far as we know, space and time are properties of the universe, not properties of some container the universe is in. Now it is possible that what we call the universe is some subset of a larger entity with similar properties, or it could be the properties are continuous across the larger entity and the observable universe. But its far from being a given. Anyone who talks of causation with respect to the whole of reality, is being incoherent. Its rather like asking how tall the sun is. Height is a concept that only applies to objects on earth. Time an causation are properties of the universe and do not apply to the universe as a whole. Its a category error.

Originally posted by twhitehead
...
We could dig in to what is meant by 'causation' and what is meant by 'universe', but it appears you abandoned the thread on causation.

I have been following that thread, and my point there will be something a bit different than the current topic here. I've been involved elsewhere and am about ready to shift gears.