SRB

SRB
I don't even believe that, let alone know it! If you followed up the links I mentioned, you would see why.

Adolf Grunbaum has written "no supposed earlier cause, either creative or transformative, could possibly have been operative before t=0."

Richard Gott says: "The standard answer to what happened before the Big Bang singularity has been that time was created at the singularity, along with space, and that there was no time before the Big Bang."

There are lots of others.

I don't agree that it is necessary that the universe had a cause. I see no reason to believe that. I agree that the Big Bang might have had a prior cause. However, if t=0 was the very first moment of time, as some scientists think, then there cannot possibly have been a prior cause.

Whether the universe was caused to exist or not, both ideas are quite compatible with the nonexistence of God, and with it not being the case the the universe "popped into existence from nothing." There is nothing resembling any support for theistic contentions here.

SRB

luvluv

Give me a break! Really, this is pathetic. Stop it.

Those guys are operating WITHIN THE ASSUMPTION that this universe is the only one there is. I want you to find me someone who says, even given a multiverse which has other universes with both space and matter, why it is impossible for time to have begun in those other universes until the Big Bang occured in this universe.

Come off it!

I've already stated that before you even got into the thread. My point was that it works AGAINST naturalistic contentions.

SRB

If there are other dimensions of time, they are not BEFORE time as we know it. They are instead, simply separate to it. Your idea that there may be a time before time is incoherent. I have already proved this. Try to follow what is going on.

That's funny because earlier you said "I'm not arguing that the C.A. provides a sound proof of the existence of the Christian God, but it is evidence in favor of theism/deism in general." Now you agree that "there is nothing resembling any support for theistic contentions here." One wonders what your position actually is.

In any case, whether the universe was caused to exist or not, both ideas are quite compatible with naturalism, and with it not being the case the the universe "popped into existence from nothing." There is nothing resembling any support for anti-naturalistic contentions here.

SRB

luvluv

They do indeed exist before our time in a quite literal sense, and there is nothing incoherent about saying that. You haven't proved anything other than Big Bang Models do not consider the possibility of time in other universes.

And before you said that all time must begin with the Big Bang, I guess you are now conceding that this isn't so.

Inasmuch as it is an argument against naturalism, it argues in support of at least deism.

SRB

Let me be clear. Here is a list of the contentions I am prepared to defend:

(a) Luvluv has contradicted himself numerous times, about numerous things, in this thread.

(b) No cosmological argument for theism has been presented by Luvluv in this thread.

(b) No cosmological argument against naturalism has been presented by Luvluv in this thread.

(c) Atheists can, and some do, believe without contradiction that there was a Big Bang but yet that the universe did not "pop into existence from nothingness."

(d) Naturalists can, and some do, believe without contradiction that there was a Big Bang but yet that the universe did not "pop into existence from nothingness."

So tell me Luvluv, which of these, if any, do you dispute? If you don't dispute any of them, I doubt there is any more for us to discuss or debate here.

I have shown how nontheistic proponents of Big Bang theories can, without contradiction, believe that the universe did not pop into existence from a prior state of nothingness. So I have shown that (c) and (d) are true. I did this by showing that one could maintain that there were no times prior to the Big Bang, or that there were such prior times when things existed. You responded by pointing out that naturalistic proponents of Big Bang theories could instead believe that there were times prior to the Big Bang when nothing existed at all. My response is "so what." What, precisely, is supposed to follow from that? They could hold that view, but they are certainly not committed to it! Propositions (c) and (d) are true nonetheless.

SRB

SRB

For the umpteenth time, what you say is flat-out false. It's obviously false to anyone who actually reads what has been said. Why do you keep doing this? If I had ever said anything like that you could quote me, but I didn't so you can't.

I never said that all time must begin with the Big Bang. I said that according to some Big Bang theories, all time began with the Big Bang. That is something quite different!

SRB

Sandslice

Actually, I'll try, usin' only some common sense and street-level logic, to support Cosmological Against Naturalism.

DEFINED: "Existence" (Y) as the sum total of matter and energy, which by Special Relativity must be constant in a closed system;
DEFINED: "Closed system" shall refer to all possible worlds simultaneously;
DEFINED: "Moment of Origin" as the exact moment before which an entity did not exist, and after which the same entity did exist;
DEFINED: Creation "ex nihilo" is the increase in Y which violates Special Relativity, and is currently regarded as supernatural, until and unless it can be shown to naturally occur.
GIVEN: That the moment of origin for Y (Y-MOO) must have occured in a moment either finitely removed from the present, or infinitely removed.

Now, first, the Infinite Y-MOO concept must be analysed. Infinite Y-MOO, in effect, states "Y has always been in existence," a position that stands beyond reasonable testing and is therefore logically untenable. Until and unless empirical data may be taken from moments preceding the Big Bang, Infinite Y-MOO is little more than a religious creed.

Now for Finite Y-MOO. By definition, a finite Y-MOO requires a period of time before which there was no Y, and after which there was Y. However, for this to be true, a creation ex nihilo must occur, since Y cannot manifest in non-Y without increasing the sum total of Y, and Special Relativity disallows such an increase.

Therefore:
1) Infinite Y-MOO stands above reasonable testing, and is excluded as a statement of opinion;
2) Finite Y-MOO appeals to ex nihilo;
3) Ex nihilo is supernatural, cf. definition; therefore
4) Finite Y-MOO requires the supernatural, and is therefore incompatible with a naturalistic cosmology.

The first premise here can not be countered logically. As I posited before, insufficient evidence exists to permit any valid arguments in support of the infinite. Truth to tell, I don't know of ANY evidence that may be taken from before the Bang.

These last three premises, I will disclaimer with "for now," as such relativistic science and logic may indeed show naturalistic models for ex nihilo.

Just random thoughts from a random fellow.

luvluv

Show me one. Just one.

I'd like to see a SINGLE Big Bang theory that posits SPECIFICALLY, that even if there are other universes in existence, all time began with the Big Bang in this universe.

Wiploc

Quote:

GIVEN: That the moment of origin for Y (Y-MOO) must have occured in a moment either finitely removed from the present, or infinitely removed.

Tis true, all is flux; we are mutating goo.
Always we wonder: why are me, why is you?
Whence did we come, and whither goest too?
Always shall we wonder, to Y-end from Y-MOO.
crc