Shadowy Man

Did it?

eh

That's just a nice unfounded assumption.

Philosoft

What do you mean by "the universe"? Seriously.

luvluv

Space and energy/matter.

Philosoft

Upon what basis do you assert that energy began to exist?

Wiploc

Saying that god is unbegun "by definition" is not helpful. You aren't impressed when I define the rest of the universe as unbegun; so you can't expect me to be impressed when you define god as unbegun.

If we were talking about made-up gods, then of course we could make them up (define them) any way we wanted. But you are --- I assume --- talking about a god you believe to be real. You don't get to sculpt a real god by defining him. You have to discover his attributes by the use of reason.

So the question remains: Why do you think god is unbegun? You have argued strongly that everything else is begun, but aside from your sleight-of-mouth attempt to "define" god, you haven't done anything to set him apart from those things which you say are begun.

Are you just being arbitrary, or is there a logical way to distinguish god from the rest of the universe in this regard?

luvluv

It would seem to me that energy is just as dependant upon space as is matter. I don't see how it is conceivable that energy could exist in a dimensionless environment. According to my meager understanding of the laws of relativity; matter, energy, and space are so intertwined it is hard to conceive of any of them existing independantly.

I suppose you could argue that the big bang does not establish that energy began to exist. However, this does not have any scientific support that I am aware of and would appear to contradict common sense. Energy would appear to occupy space, so how could all the energy in the universe exist without space? And how, if this energy is eternal, did it only burst forth in the big bang 15 billion years ago, as opposed to 100 billion years ago, or five minutes ago?

wiploc:

I am not inventing God ad hoc. I am using the same defintions that are used on this very forum in attempts to disprove God's existence. I am using the same definitions that Christian philosophers used before they knew that the universe had a begining. The definition of God as eternal and without begining is a part of the REVEALED RELIGION of Judaism/Christianity. Christian philosphers did not modify their God so as to fit Him into scientific or philosophical trends, they brought the God of their fathers wholesale into their scientific and religious discussions.

With all due respect, I think you need to look up the cosmological argument on the II forums or do a wordsearch on the term. Specifically, look over on leader university for some of William Lane Craigs arguments on the position.

This would be a good article to start with:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billc...ocs/smith.html

You cannot use the term "uncaused" for the universe as the universe began to exist. All things which begin to exist have a cause. This is one of the first principles of logic. The universe, as of the big bang, is officially excluded from the category of "uncaused". It is within the realm of possibilty, though in my view incoherent, to believe that energy could be "uncaused" and independant of space/time. But the "universe" as it now is is not a contender, and there are very good reasons why you cannot "define" it as such. Emprical data of an impressive range and scope proves that it began to exist about 15 billion years ago. If there existed similar data on God, then we could remove His name from the list of possible "uncaused" entities. As we do not, and as the God of the major religions has always been considered to have a timeless, eternal, independant existent, His uncausedness is still a possibility.

eh

The problem here lies in the singularity concept. If you we follow general relativity, and follow the expansion back in time, the math says the volume of the universe will reach zero. But we already know that GR cannot be the full story, because it does not take quantum effects into play. Under quantum theory, a singularity is nonsense, and that's why a lot of cosmologists say the universe really begins at the plank era. In that case, there is no zero space situation as described by classic GR.

Shadowy Man

Please list references to these empirical data.

As far as I know, the empirical data only tells you about the status of the universe at the time of last scattering - the furthest back in time we can actually "see". As to what the universe was like before this is in the realm of the hypothetical and theoretical.

So, it is not an established fact that the universe "began to exist about 15 billion years ago."

Shadowy Man

Would it not be more appropriate to say that the density reaches infinity?