In The Beginning

[4gold]

The Big Bang theory was a phenomenal breakthrough, because it slowed the predominant atheist thought that the universe had always existed. In Bertrand Russell's Why I am not a Christian, he says, "There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination."

The scientific discovery of a beginning to our universe shifted the same question back a step: Was our beginning part of a larger picture with no beginning? MIT professor Alan Guth proposed the theory of Eternal Inflation, which attempts to explain the expanding universe in the larger context of multiple universes. But even the theory of Eternal Inflation has a beginning. It is called eternal, because it has no end. As Guth notes, "The question of whether the universe had a beginning is discussed but not definitively answered. It appears likely, however, that eternally inflating universes do require a beginning. "

A "beginning" brings some deep theological dilemmas with it. A beginning must have a cause. No matter how far back you shift the question, the beginning must have a "first cause", and not just that, but an uncaused cause.

While the science is not settled about a beginning, these questions assume that future science does not discover a way the universe could have always existed.

My questions for debate are:

How does a beginning influence your (non)beliefs?

Science requires materialism. Questions outside of materialism are outside the realm of science. Can an uncaused cause be explained by science, or is it necessarily a question outside of science?

Do you believe the universe has always existed, despite what science has so far shown? If so, why?

What do you believe sired the singularity?

[Furrowed Brow]

A beginning must have a cause. No matter how far back you shift the question, the beginning must have a "first cause", and not just that, but an uncaused cause.

In reality a beginning does not need a cause. Care to debate the logic of that assertion?

How does a beginning influence your (non)beliefs?

My non religious beliefs? Not at all. The universe is as it is without intervention.

Science requires materialism. Questions outside of materialism are outside the realm of science. Can an uncaused cause be explained by science, or is it necessarily a question outside of science?

I think this is a question as to which explanatory framework best describes the nature of causality or lack of causality we find when we peer into the very small and the very early.

Do you believe the universe has always existed, despite what science has so far shown? If so, why?

I suspect that when the final answers come to us, they will be in such a form that questions about beginnings and causes will be seen as inappropriate. As is Euclid’s geometry is inappropriate to rubber topology.

What do you believe sired the singularity?

I’m not committed to a singularity as the an initial phase of this universe as we currently are able to describe it. However if it all does back up to a singularity then we currently lack the math or the conceptual framework to describe whence it came. But it came whence it came. There is no reason to invoke any god as the sire.

[Goat]

The Big Bang theory was a phenomenal breakthrough, because it slowed the predominant atheist thought that the universe had always existed. In Bertrand Russell's Why I am not a Christian, he says, "There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination."

The scientific discovery of a beginning to our universe shifted the same question back a step: Was our beginning part of a larger picture with no beginning? MIT professor Alan Guth proposed the theory of Eternal Inflation, which attempts to explain the expanding universe in the larger context of multiple universes. But even the theory of Eternal Inflation has a beginning. It is called eternal, because it has no end. As Guth notes, "The question of whether the universe had a beginning is discussed but not definitively answered. It appears likely, however, that eternally inflating universes do require a beginning. "

A "beginning" brings some deep theological dilemmas with it. A beginning must have a cause. No matter how far back you shift the question, the beginning must have a "first cause", and not just that, but an uncaused cause.

While the science is not settled about a beginning, these questions assume that future science does not discover a way the universe could have always existed.

My questions for debate are:

How does a beginning influence your (non)beliefs?

Science requires materialism. Questions outside of materialism are outside the realm of science. Can an uncaused cause be explained by science, or is it necessarily a question outside of science?

Do you believe the universe has always existed, despite what science has so far shown? If so, why?

What do you believe sired the singularity?

I don't see how a 'beginning' or 'non-beginning' would influence 'non-belief' at all.
The Inflationary theory (or 'Big Bang' a term coined by Fred Hoyle to mock it),
only says that the universe expanded from a point. the current state only
addresses what happened at the point starting at 10 ^-43 seconds after "t = 0".

Currently, science only has some speculations about what existed 'before'. Some include a cyclical universe, others theorize multidimensional 'branes' that impact each other to start things off.

From what I see of atheists, most of them are more than willing to say 'I don't know' in response to questions beyond which science does not have a definitive answer. It seems to me that many atheists have replaced their search for God/divinity/whatever with the search of 'what is the hidden naturalistic truth' in the world.

[4gold]

In reality a beginning does not need a cause. Care to debate the logic of that assertion?

Sure. Should we start a new thread?

I suspect that when the final answers come to us, they will be in such a form that questions about beginnings and causes will be seen as inappropriate. As is Euclid’s geometry is inappropriate to rubber topology.

Unless the universe is infinite, it must have a beginning, right?

I’m not committed to a singularity as the an initial phase of this universe as we currently are able to describe it. However if it all does back up to a singularity then we currently lack the math or the conceptual framework to describe whence it came. But it came whence it came. There is no reason to invoke any god as the sire.

No god and no way to explain the source of a singularity -- an agnostic position, to be sure. But the atheistic position that the universe has always existed suddenly halts, assuming a singularity as the beginning.

[4gold]

I don't see how a 'beginning' or 'non-beginning' would influence 'non-belief' at all.

Prior to the Big Bang, the predominant atheistic thought was that the universe was without beginning. Clearly, the Big Bang has had tremendous influence on this "non-belief" ever since.

The Inflationary theory (or 'Big Bang' a term coined by Fred Hoyle to mock it),
only says that the universe expanded from a point. the current state only
addresses what happened at the point starting at 10 ^-43 seconds after "t = 0".

"t=0" is the same thing as a beginning.

Currently, science only has some speculations about what existed 'before'. Some include a cyclical universe, others theorize multidimensional 'branes' that impact each other to start things off.

My questions assumed that the universe began from a singularity.

From what I see of atheists, most of them are more than willing to say 'I don't know' in response to questions beyond which science does not have a definitive answer. It seems to me that many atheists have replaced their search for God/divinity/whatever with the search of 'what is the hidden naturalistic truth' in the world.

"I don't know" is an agnostic position. An atheistic position is that the universe has always existed.

[McCulloch]

What do you believe sired the singularity?

Honestly, I don't know. Since the singularity must have been the beginning of space, time, matter and energy, whatever it was must have been outside of or somehow beyond space and time. Certainly the classic God of the monotheists does not fit the bill.

Questions outside of materialism are outside the realm of science.

Actually, questions outside of materialism are outside the realm of rational inquiry.

Can an uncaused cause be explained by science, or is it necessarily a question outside of science?

Uncaused events have already been observed in quantum physics.

Do you believe the universe has always existed, despite what science has so far shown? If so, why?

No, it is most likely that our universe had a beginning. Whether our universe is part of a larger multi-verse is, I believe, an unanswerable question. But it does provide a non-theistic framework to deal with these issues.

[4gold]

Honestly, I don't know. Since the singularity must have been the beginning of space, time, matter and energy, whatever it was must have been outside of or somehow beyond space and time. Certainly the classic God of the monotheists does not fit the bill.

Christians believe that God was outside of space, time, matter, and energy.

Actually, questions outside of materialism are outside the realm of rational inquiry.

No, that's not true. It's only outside the realm of scientific inquiry. Moral questions are outside of materialism, yet are within the realms of rational inquiry.

Uncaused events have already been observed in quantum physics.

That is impossible for us to know. All we can say for sure is that it appears uncaused.

No, it is most likely that our universe had a beginning. Whether our universe is part of a larger multi-verse is, I believe, an unanswerable question. But it does provide a non-theistic framework to deal with these issues.

Multiverse theory is unanswerable, I agree. But even that non-theistic framework creates a likelihood of a singularity.

[Furrowed Brow]

Sure. Should we start a new thread?

Okay. Lets do it.

Unless the universe is infinite, it must have a beginning, right?

Well I was alluding to the possibility that word like “infinite”, “finite”, “beginning”, “cause” may turn out to be inadequate to the task. Maybe a whole new language and conceptual framework will need to be invented. One at the moment we cannot see, in just the same way Euclid’s geometry once appeared to provide the last word on straight lines.

No god and no way to explain the source of a singularity -- an agnostic position, to be sure. But the atheistic position that the universe has always existed suddenly halts, assuming a singularity as the beginning.

I’m an atheist. God does not exist. But I am not committed to whether there was a singularity, or steady state theory. However I am certain that any answer with God in is not well formed and wrong.

[Confused]

How does a beginning influence your (non)beliefs?

I am not sure it does. Questions of the universe need not be relevant to my beliefs. What the beginning means to me is only a chance for more discovery. I don't see that it has to be related to God at all. On the contrary, if we make it relevant to God, we set it outside the realm of rational inquiry.

Science requires materialism. Questions outside of materialism are outside the realm of science. Can an uncaused cause be explained by science, or is it necessarily a question outside of science?

Just puting uncaused cause in the same sentence defies rational inquiry does it not? Why would you say questions outside of materialism are outside the realm of science? Using inductive reasoning, can we not make inferences into things outside of materialism? I am not certain that it would be in the "hard" sciences abilities, but perhaps the "soft" sciences would be more applicable.

Do you believe the universe has always existed, despite what science has so far shown? If so, why?

I don't know if it has or not. There is reason to believe that the BB suggests the birth of the universe, but if something existed prior to the BB, despite how small it might have been, then the BB wouldn't have been the beginning right? Our universe would simply be a branch off of whatever existed before it.

What do you believe sired the singularity?

Since I can't support a singularity, I cannot answer this question.

[Confused]

Christians believe that God was outside of space, time, matter, and energy.

This belief is nonsensical is it not? It defies science and rational inquiry. Anything thought to exist outside the realm of the physical, which this belief does, defies the ability to adequately support any assertion.