Refusing to debate WLC (and the cosmological argument)

I'm sorry soul, but the big bang theory only described the early expansion of the universe from a hot dense state. Anything about it being proof (or disproof) of creation ex nihilio is unwanted speculations. It's more akin to a description of how water changes from solid to a liquid.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Having claimed that certain things can exist without a cause, can you tell me why the universe must have a cause?

I'm not telling you that the universe must have a cause, I'm telling you that according to the accepted standard model and followed to its logical conclusion there was at one point no universe whatsoever. That being so, whatever did cause it to come into existence must not be made up of the same stuff as the universe. Which said stuff is space, time, matter etc. Plus that cause is not governed by the laws of physics either because it exists wholly apart form the laws of physics, in fact that cause also caused the laws of physics. The cause is therefore timeless, i.e eternal i.e. un-caused. Vacuums exist within the universe, hence they are caused by a mechanism that is contained within the confines of the universe. They cannot be equated with the nothingness before the universe came into existence.

So this cause must have power beyond what we know to exist in nature. And the fact that we set out to understand the universe means that we assume that the universe is ineligible to begin with, if not then why do science? And the fact that the universe is intelligible means that the cause of it must also be intelligent as well as having all the aforementioned attributes. Do Higg's field have intelligence? Even if we find an overriding theory of everything we are still left with the question as to why the universe just so happens to be intelligible to observers which supposedly are just accidental by-products of its inner processes and random collisions of atoms over billions of years.

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm sorry soul, but the big bang theory only described the early expansion of the universe from a hot dense state. Anything about it being proof (or disproof) of creation ex nihilio is unwanted speculations. It's more akin to a description of how water changes from solid to a liquid.

Here's what John Barrow An English cosmologist, theoretical physicist, mathematician and currently Research Professor of Mathematical Sciences at the University of Cambridge says about it:

"At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo."

- John Barrow & Frank Tipler, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (1986), page 442

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't think that that is what the 'standard model' (?) says, as others have explained.

I'm always baffled how people with a particular ideology will agree with the bits of science that back up what they believed anyway, but throw out the products of the same science that conflict with their beliefs.

Odd, that.

And I'm always baffled at people who will point to science as the be all and end all of all truth except when its findings happen to support a particular religious viewpoint. That's odd too.

Soul Winner wrote: »

That being so, whatever did cause it to come into existence must not be made up of the same stuff as the universe. Which said stuff is space, time, matter etc. Plus that cause is not governed by the laws of physics either because it exists wholly apart form the laws of physics, in fact that cause also caused the laws of physics. The cause is therefore timeless, i.e eternal i.e. un-caused.

As you state, the cause, which I'm taking to be whatever started the expansion of the universe, is not governed by the law of physics as it existed before they were created. To then apply our concepts of timelessness, eternal etc to this cause is pointless as they are only useful in a world with our laws and as we know this cause is not governed by these laws. So its all a bit circular. The point is to considering the cause as timeless is pointless because our concept of timeless can't be applied to it. Maybe if we could get an understanding of the laws before expansion what we consider an eternal entity would be perfectly logically. None of this points to a logical conclusion of a God, it simply means we dont know, we dont know if the cause is "eternal", we dont know if even asking that question makes sense if we applied a different set of laws to the cause.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

With respect, what one guy said 25 years ago (without any context) does not represent the zenith of scientific knowledge.

OK, so what does represent the zenith of scientific knowledge?

Soul Winner wrote: »

OK, so what does represent the zenith of scientific knowledge?

This or this or this or maybe this.

And then there's this and this and even this.

Science moves ahead at a fantastic speed and so like Monty said, presenting a quote from one scientist 25 years ago is not representative of current research and is really just an appeal to authority, a bad one.

Manach wrote: »

Offhand, the field of IT (experience as per employment).
Then there is the field of law, which generates rather a lot of new cases, books and articles per year (experience as per college courses).
ditto as well History (experience as per college courses)

All of which are fuelled, I would even suggest are subsets of science. I mean science by the definition "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." All of the above need that to work especially IT, saying that as Software professional.

Manach wrote: »

OT: Whilst science does progress at a fast past, so do all other major branches of knowledge. There is a limit to the amount of books/articles to be read within a time-period and to remain somewhat current in various fields (my own limit is about 1 book per week). So linkages to those books, which I'm sure are excellent, it is hardly a disadvantage if one has not read them.

Firstly, I didn't suggest that there aren't other fields of study which have a progress rate which is as fast or faster than science. I don't see what the rates of progress of other branches of knowledge have to do with a discussion on science anyway.

Secondly, I never said that one should read everything that's published in a particular field, however, if you're going to enter an argument about a technical subject then you would do well to assess the current consensus in that field before using an out-dated quote from a lone scientist as if it that should mean something.