FarSeeker

Was the Big Bang purely dilation of space, or was some kind of conventional explosion involved?
<a href="http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q2454.html" target="_blank">http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q2454.html</a>

And thus there is the confusion on your part(s).
The BB was not preceeded by an explosion of any type. You are mistaken in you conception of this explosive hypothetical event, which would have required time and space before such existed. This is what I meant about manipulation of terms.

But beyond that, let us back up a little and reconsider. The Cosmological Argument, by itself, does not prove God. Like some mathematical proofs, I think that requires some other proofs. Let me add, it does prove the Universe was created, it had a beginning.

But what the Cosmological Argument does prove is Philosophical Materialsim/Naturalism is wrong. Look at it, the BB proves that time, space, matter and energy all were created, so the Cosmos is not "all that was, is and will ever be." There is something OUTSIDE of our Cosmos/Universe/Space-Time Continuum.
This also provides a possible answer to those who continue to propose the question, "where is heaven." (I have run into people who think this is some "Great Question to Stump the Christians!") And to those who have trouble with transcendence.

David Gould

How does the Cosmological Argument prove that materialism is wrong?
How does the BB show that space, time and matter were 'created'?
All the Cosmological Arguments that I have read assume the conclusion.

If you know of one posted somewhere that does not, I would be glad to see it.

David

LinuxPup

Modern Big Bang Cosmology basically says that space, time, matter, and energy had a beginning about 14 billion +/- 0.5 billion years ago. If this is the case, the cause of the universe must obviously be immaterial. Why? Because this cause started the physical realm (universe), and it is illogical that something caused itself into existance. The beginning of time is important too, because this cause, whatever you want to call it, must exist outside of time, meaning: the cause has no beginning or end, and cannot change. Many scientists (especially astronomers) are finally agreeing with theologians that the non-physical (being incapable of description via the language of physics and chemistry) is real. The Big Bang model, which seems to fit the data the best, demands this.

Datheron

FarSeeker,

First off, you have no idea what is beyond the Universe, if anything. Appealing to ad ignoratum for the location of Heaven is merely taking advantage of the situation.

The other problem I have here is how you quickly jump the non-sequitur ship by concluding that naturalism is false. Perhaps you're not purposely obfuscating/waving hands over terms, but I'll bring them to your attention. What do we mean by "existence"? What "exists" outside the Universe? Remember that the BB created time and space; we have no clue what lies outside it. What is the definition of existence that would make sense outside the Universe, given the argument that we know nothing of it?

Much like all other scientifically-derived philosophies, naturalism follows the rules well by making sure that it stays within our Universe...everything external is meaningless for we know nothing of it, and thus do not serve as evidence either for or against the worldview.

Datheron

David Gould,

I think what FarSeeker was trying to go here was show that matter had a beginning, then jump to a non-sequitur conclusion that they must therefore be "created", bringing with him the deluxe deity package. I suppose you already know that, though, huh?

LinuxPup,

The flaw of your argument, which I addressed in my OP, is simply that you assume that causality makes any sense outside the Universe and outside a temporal context. Simply put, we cannot assume that this is the case...we're not even sure what numerical probabilities we can label on whether causality really exists outside time or not. Once again, as I'll reiterate my OP, the strength of the argument resides in the fact that it proves that the beginning of the Universe requires a cause by assuming that causality works outside the Universe. Since I deny you the premise, you cannot make the argument.

David Gould

Datheron,

I agree with you totally and go even further - if time did not exist prior to the Big Bang then causality is impossible as a cause must occur prior to its effect.

Is the argument is that there may have been some temporal dimension that was in some way prior to the Big Bang, then this argument makes no sense either.

For something to be prior to something else it must exist in the same temporal dimension.

Looking at a graph of (x,y) coordinates shows this clearly. Finding that one coordinate has a (y) value of 1 and that another has an (x) value of 2 deos not help you determine which one is prior to the other - you can only determine priority on the same axis.

If time began at the Big Bang, there is no possibility of a cause.

The only hope of the First Causists is that the Big Bang happened in time and was not its beginning.

The evidence suggests that this hope is futile...

David

Theophage

YEA! So would I. In fact, I give a reason why we should "go even further" and say that cause must be temporally prior to its effect in my response to Datheron in my own thread <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000048&p=3" target="_blank">here</a>. Just scroll down a bit.

Daniel "Theophage" Clark

theophilus

This is an interesting discussion. I do not use the Cosmological argument (or others of that ilk), but I think there is a good deal of misrepresentaiton of just what it attempts to prove. However, that is not my pont.
I think your response here points out a couple of important issues relating to science and knowledge.
You are correct in saying that science can only deal with the physical universe. You are incorrect in saying that we can only have knowledge of what can be known "scientifically."
Part of the problem is the change in usage of the term science. Originally, it referred to all areas of knowledge. Thus, history, philosophy, theology were all sciences. Now, we use the term exclusively to apply to "physical science."
It is not meaningful to say that we can only know what "science" discovers because this is a statement which cannot be "known" scientifically.
In fact, we must "know" many things before we can engage in scientific enquiry, e.g., that we exist, that matter exists, that matter behaves in predictible ways, that our senses are reliable. These things must be "presupposed," they cannot be discovered scientifically.
It is therefore not only possible, but necessary to acknowledge that knowledge is possible apart from science.

Datheron

Theo,

&lt;ahem&gt;Presuppositionism alert.&lt;/ahem&gt;

Then you're engaging in the same quagmire of obfuscation that you accuse me of performing (perhaps unintentionally). There is "knowledge" via observation, evidence, etc. - all that embodied within science. Then there is a group of presupposed "knowledge" - axioms that are assumed to be true.

Yes. As all worldviews must have, science and materialism must have its set of presuppositions as well. I do not argue against that point.

What I do argue against, however, is how these axioms are formulated and evaluated. I have debated quite a bit on these matters, and my point of view is that we can apply Occam's Razor (all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one) and arrive at the simplest worldview with the simplest set of axioms. We can easily establish an internally and externally consistent worldview - an infinite number of such axioms exist - but we need to thin the fat from the meat. OR is my answer - what's yours?