Ichthus77 wrote:
Faith is required here, as in all beliefs, but that is a different topic (see my last two articles on that 'faith' topic--if you want, of course).

Your articles are shallow and ill conceived:

Atheists who lack belief in God, believe, more or less, that God does not exist, as well as, like Greta, sometimes believing in "something bigger".  Bare minimum, atheists believe in a world without God.

What is that supposed to mean? It sounds like a badly written third grade report. And where do you come off saying that atheists sometimes believe in something bigger? Bigger than what?

Ichthus77 wrote:
Interesting to think about. Atheists would say there isn't anything 'other than' the physical, and yet, there is a beginning to the physical.

Do you think that with your bit of citing Greene that you have proven that there was a beginning to “the physical”?

Ichthus77 wrote:
That it even began...what it began 'from'...truly, truly, truly astounding. Whether you're an atheist or theist.

Are you writing a poem, getting metaphysical, or discussing physics? It really annoys me when apologists bounce around like this.

Shrunk:

Dawkins is not seeking equal ground here (between atheism & theism), his whole "God Delusion" thesis is his claims of superior arguments against theism. I merely point out his arguments are no better than those of the (broadly defined) intelligent design camp. Why does he feel the need to go outside the realm of empirical evidence and invoke multi-verses then?

Maybe you can explain this to me, though: I've never understood the logic of the theist argument you use here. What you are in effect saying is, "To date, not even the most intelligent being we know of (humans) have been able to create life. Therefore, we conclude that life could only have been created by an intelligent being." Huh? Doesn't that rather suggest that life most likely arose thru a process other than intelligent creation?

I think it quite likely that humans will eventually synthesize cells and design self-replicating automata and master genomics and accomplish great things via genetic engineering and science generally (healthier people, smarter AI) and much more rapidly than blind evolution has managed over the last ~3.6 billion years. Our hominids only domesticated fire between 400,000 - million years ago. In less than a thousandth of that time we'll have domesticated thermonuclear reactors.

DaveD, Oldskeptic & Thommo:

You three are definitely outside the scientific mainstream if you all hold there is essentially no need for an explanation of the cosmogenesis beyond the weak anthropic principal -- in essence "well we're all obviously here so why even ask any questions", quite unscientific indeed. I urge you all to look into the cosmological constant -- just one parameter --we're talking fine tuned on the order of 10^120.

AMR wrote:You three are definitely outside the scientific mainstream if you all hold there is essentially no need for an explanation of the cosmogenesis beyond the weak anthropic principal -- in essence "well we're all obviously here so why even ask any questions", quite unscientific indeed. I urge you all to look into the cosmological constant -- just one parameter --we're talking fine tuned on the order of 10^120.

That wouldn't put me outside of the mainstream of science, it would put me outside of the mainstream of creationism.

What I actually said was that there is no basis to perform a probabilistic analysis outside of a theory of everything - this is in fact well within the mainstream view of science. It only becomes meaningful to discuss "fine tuning" of the cosmological constant if it is a free parameter in a theory of everything. If it turns out to be necessary for some reason (i.e. not a free parameter) then there's no argument there. At the moment we do not know if this is the case - because the "theory of everything" hasn't been developed.

AMR wrote:in essence "well we're all obviously here so why even ask any questions", quite unscientific indeed.

Nobody here is saying we shouldn't ask questions - it's supplying assertions as answers that you want first, and then tailoring the questions so they can't elicit the "wrong" answer I object to.

Ichthus77 wrote:
When I said you should get better arguments (mine)--I apologize for coming off sounding arrogant to those who took it that way...I was giving y'all a hard time and deliberately sounding full of it in good humor

Thanks for the apology, all better now.

(though, my arguments 'are' good)... But I suppose Christians aren't allowed to have personalities 'round here.

Aww darn, why'd you have to go and spoil your nice apology by muttering that it was really our fault after all, because we mean-and-nasty atheists won't let you have a personality

Get real, sister. Look around here. This forum is obviously slanted toward atheism but there are plenty of long-term theist participants -- and every one of them has a "personality". Get over the bad start you caused yourself with the first less-than-forthright post, and honestly be yourself. You are as welcome as anybody else to join in.

Only, your arguments are going to be hammered over and over because you don't bring any evidence to the table. A cute personality and a shallow understanding of cosmology ? Not going to cut it

AMR wrote:Shrunk:

Dawkins is not seeking equal ground here (between atheism & theism), his whole "God Delusion" thesis is his claims of superior arguments against theism. I merely point out his arguments are no better than those of the (broadly defined) intelligent design camp. Why does he feel the need to go outside the realm of empirical evidence and invoke multi-verses then?

No, his claim is that theism has no persuasive arguments in its favour. Any such argument can be refuted. Arguments in favour of atheism need not be made in this context. Indeed, arguments in favour of so-called "weak" atheism (the lack of belief in God, rather than the assertion that there is no God, which is the position that Dawkins is defending) cannot even be made in theory. It's the old problem of proving a negative. Christain apologist like Wm. Craig recognize this in their transparent attempts to illegitimately shift the burden of proof, as you are attempting to do here.

The issue of Dawkins' use of the multiverse idea has already been addressed above by another member. I'll just add that Dawkins is simply showing that even if he were to grant theists the right to go outside empirical science in invoking a supernatural creator of the universe, there remain other naturalistic explanations that do not depend on the existence of a god, and which the theists must refute in order to proclaim god as the only valid explanation.

Maybe you can explain this to me, though: I've never understood the logic of the theist argument you use here. What you are in effect saying is, "To date, not even the most intelligent being we know of (humans) have been able to create life. Therefore, we conclude that life could only have been created by an intelligent being." Huh? Doesn't that rather suggest that life most likely arose thru a process other than intelligent creation?

I think it quite likely that humans will eventually synthesize cells and design self-replicating automata and master genomics and accomplish great things via genetic engineering and science generally (healthier people, smarter AI) and much more rapidly than blind evolution has managed over the last ~3.6 billion years. Our hominids only domesticated fire between 400,000 - million years ago. In less than a thousandth of that time we'll have domesticated thermonuclear reactors.

That's very nice. Now perhaps you could answer my question.

DaveD, Oldskeptic & Thommo:

You three are definitely outside the scientific mainstream if you all hold there is essentially no need for an explanation of the cosmogenesis beyond the weak anthropic principal -- in essence "well we're all obviously here so why even ask any questions", quite unscientific indeed. I urge you all to look into the cosmological constant -- just one parameter --we're talking fine tuned on the order of 10^120.

Assuming this is correct or even relevant (I'm in no position to say), you seem to fail to realize that your argument disproves the existence of the omnipotent God of the Abrahamic faiths, who should be able to create a life-containing universe no matter what the physical constants are.

AMR wrote:"well we're all obviously here so why even ask any questions"

I decided to revisit this. This is a scandalous misrepresentation. Not of just one of us, but of all three. None of us said anything remotely of the kind.

As far as your improbability claim goes, let me give you an example.

Straight out of a high school textbook, we might find:

"5 red balls and 5 blue balls are placed in a bag, one ball is drawn randomly. What is the probability the ball is blue?"

And of course the answer is 10%.

Now let's consider the scenario you're presenting us with:-

X possible universes are placed in a bag, Y of them have cosmological constant=10-120, one universe is selected randomly. What is the probability the universe selected has cosmological constant=10-120?

There's a major problem - We don't know X or Y. We don't know what proportion of possible universes have cosmological constant in the "required" range, the question cannot be answered and we can assert neither probability nor improbability.

CookieJon wrote:This was a really good point that should not be ignored...

Shrunk wrote:Suppose I were to argue this: Everything in the universe has a cause, except that which does not have a cause. If the singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang required a cause, this cause would have to be an uncaused cause, such as that proposed by theists. However, since there is no God, this cannot be the case. Therefore the initial singularity is not itself caused.

I doubt you would accept that argument, nor should you. However, that argument is not less valid than the one you are making.

Ichtus seemed to take issue, but didn't give any reason why...

Ichthus77 wrote:Shrunk--you misinterpret the Kalam argument obviously.

(WHY?...)

You're telling me I deliberately misrepresented my relationship to the article and that I am dishonest and should apologize. Inside the article, it has references to my "Ichthus" username. I never said "Hey, this isn't my article, but check it out." Are you joshin' me?

[ ... ] How is Shrunk misinterpreting the Kalam argument? Shrunk's argument is exactly the same as the Kalam uses for god.

CookieJon,

Happy Saturday When I said he misinterpreted the Kalam argument (or a version of it, anyway), it was his use of the word "everything" he was, in particular, misinterpreting. I had already corrected it, but he kept using it incorrectly.

From before:

I never said everything needs a cause. Nobody ever said everything needs a cause (only Greta--atheist woman I quoted in my article). What was said by me, in reply to Greta, is that (in short) "everything that needs a cause, needs a cause". The "uncaused cause"--is not one of those things...it is where those things get their thingness. This was already made clear before you replied, but you skipped over that fact and fell for Greta's straw man.

He went on to say he didn't skip over it, but--that was all talk.

***
It sounds like y'all want me to talk about the science behind what Brian Greene said (about there being a beginning), rather than making an argument from authority. That might be a good idea, except for 1) I'm not a physicist and couldn't vouch for any of it, 2) I'm not sure many of my readers are physicists, either. I am frequently asked to "dumb it down", and 3) I still haven't heard back from Brian Greene on whether or not I correctly interpreted him (two e-mails now). If I do, I will write that article for you, assuming he confirms my interpretation. If he says I misinterpreted him, then I've got some rewriting to do.

Shrunk:

That's very nice. Now perhaps you could answer my question.

As I wrote in my first reply to your question science, technology, via intelligently designed machines and processes are capable of advancing "much more rapidly than blind evolution has managed over the last ~3.6 billion years" of biological history. To date even with our understanding of molecular and cell biology we've not been able to construct even a working molecular model of a protobiont capable of self replication. Urey–Miller in their famous experiment synthesized simple organic molecules, amino acids, but how do such chemicals form a protocell? I certainly make no claim, as you impute to me in your question,

'Therefore, we [you mean me, I suppose] conclude that life could only have been created by an intelligent being."

I've never made any such assertion; I'm simply saying I don't have an understanding of how such a bag of tricks fell together a la Hoyle's junkyard tornado blowing together a working 747. A clever analogy on his part but of course a 747 is a lot simpler than a functioning protobiont. So far we think we know how to form the bag itself out of liposomes and microspheres. But I have little doubt that eventually we'll solve the problem it just underscores how unlikely mere chance, accident, randomness could have achieved such happenstance.

Now maybe you can explain this one to me:

Indeed, arguments in favour of so-called "weak" atheism (the lack of belief in God, rather than the assertion that there is no God, which is the position that Dawkins is defending) cannot even be made in theory.

Wow, cannot even me made in theory?! Really?

Thommo:

"5 red balls and 5 blue balls are placed in a bag, one ball is drawn randomly. What is the probability the ball is blue?"

And of course the answer is 10%.

Are you joking or am I missing something: 5 red + 5 blue = 10 balls. Half the balls are each of the two colors. The chance of withdrawing a blue ball is half or 50%.

Ichthus77 (Maryann):

Brian Greene is famous as a popularizer of string (or M) theory, which has the reputation among a backlash physics community as a dead-end incorporating many of the more obscurantist traditions of scholasticism. However what Greene is stating is the commonly accepted theory that repeated cycles of bang and crunch and bang would have entropic effects, wear down, like a yo-yo on a string. But congrats on making it through that book of his on string theory

AMR--yeah, entropy (and quantum stuff) is the reason there is a beginning of the first cycle which needs an explanation, and entropy comes up again and again. Dawkins (not a physicist, but more of one than I) noted that the cyclic model does not seem likely with evidence that the universe will keep expanding (not eventually crunch and start all over again), however, entropy is an issue in every model. So it seems that every model has a beginning that needs explaining, which cannot be explained by science (confined to the physical). Usually folks try to say maybe physical laws break down and time no longer applies. To me that sounds like saying "maybe there is no physical universe before it begins"--no cause-and-effect before something is caused (even if it causes itself). But--it begins--here we are. It is caused--"before" the physical, and "before" cause-and-effect--to the point that "before" perhaps doesn't quite make sense. Hello. Is this thing on? Again, truly astounding.

But, it is not inconceivable that there is a sort of time which transcends physical time (forward-moving) though not to the point of becoming disconnected from it. If Einstein was right that the past and future still/already exist, such time is necessary. And if the prophets really did receive visions of and messages about the future when they were in the past relative to that future (much of which is now in our past)--such time is necessary. But the existence of such time--where "before" doesn't quite make sense--in no way nullifies the fact that there is a beginning to the physical, which science (again confined to the physical) cannot explain. Science cannot touch it, though it would have nothing to study w/o it.

Let me ask you a few questions. Are the past and future empty of matter/energy? How can they still/already exist if they are empty? If they are full, how does that work? Is there a copy of the universe (just arranged slightly differently, like in a cartoon flip-book) in every still/already existing moment? How many copies are there? Why do they still/already exist? If past/future moments are empty, then is there only one copy of all the matter/energy, but the past/future moments remember or anticipate how it was all arranged? What sort of "stuff" is an empty moment that remembers/anticipates? If every moment is full, then when the universe began, did all the moments become full at the beginning, or are they each their own separate beginnings, or what? If every moment is empty except for "now"--then when the universe began, why did all the future empty moments anticipate the different arrangements of matter/energy? Is there a book which answers these questions simply?

Ichthus77 wrote:
Happy Saturday When I said he misinterpreted the Kalam argument (or a version of it, anyway), it was his use of the word "everything" he was, in particular, misinterpreting. I had already corrected it, but he kept using it incorrectly.

And as I've said before, I understand exactly how you mean "everything." You seem unable to realize how this renders the Kalam argument meaningless:

Everything has a cause, except those things that don't have a cause.

The universe had a cause, unless it was one of those things that don't have a cause.

If it did have a cause, then God is the cause of the universe. But, of course, if it doesn't have a cause, then God isn't the cause, because, well, it doesn't have a cause.

Conclusion: God exists. Or he doesn't exist. It all depends.

Perhaps the Kalam is a metaphysical statement on the status of God in relation the the universe if we assume God exists. In that case, your definition of "everything" serves a purpose. But if you're intending the Kalam as evidence for the existence of God, then your equivocation on the word "everything" refutes that totally.

That's before we even get into the issue that hackenslash raised on your article, that arguments of this sort don't really demonstrate the existence of anything without empirical evidence to back them up.

From before:

I never said everything needs a cause. Nobody ever said everything needs a cause (only Greta--atheist woman I quoted in my article). What was said by me, in reply to Greta, is that (in short) "everything that needs a cause, needs a cause". The "uncaused cause"--is not one of those things...it is where those things get their thingness. This was already made clear before you replied, but you skipped over that fact and fell for Greta's straw man.

He went on to say he didn't skip over it, but--that was all talk.

I may talk the talk, but I walk the walk, too.

***

It sounds like y'all want me to talk about the science behind what Brian Greene said (about there being a beginning), rather than making an argument from authority. That might be a good idea, except for 1) I'm not a physicist and couldn't vouch for any of it, 2) I'm not sure many of my readers are physicists, either. I am frequently asked to "dumb it down", and 3) I still haven't heard back from Brian Greene on whether or not I correctly interpreted him (two e-mails now). If I do, I will write that article for you, assuming he confirms my interpretation. If he says I misinterpreted him, then I've got some rewriting to do.

But you understand it well enough to base a major part of your argument on it? Or, at least you'd like your readers to think so.

Seriously, if you want someone to explain this to you, post a question in the Science section of this board, and you'll soon find many knowledgeable people who would be glad to help you out. Some of them may even have already made your acquaintance (Not me, I hasten to add.)

AMR wrote:
DaveD, Oldskeptic & Thommo:

You three are definitely outside the scientific mainstream if you all hold there is essentially no need for an explanation of the cosmogenesis beyond the weak anthropic principal -- in essence "well we're all obviously here so why even ask any questions", quite unscientific indeed.

I use the anthropic principle when someone brings up fine-tuning as an argument for an intelligent designer/creator god, not as any kind of explanation of the origins of the universe as we know it. I’m as curious as anyone to know what is behind the curtain, but I’m not going to start guessing that whatever it is set up the universe with my intelligence in mind as a forward looking goal.

I urge you all to look into the cosmological constant -- just one parameter --we're talking fine tuned on the order of 10^120.

You need to explain what you are talking about. I am very familiar with the cosmological constant from Einstein’s introduction of it into general relativity in 1917 to model a static universe, to its current use to explain accelerating expansion of the universe, but do not understand what you are getting at, and I don’t think that you do either.

Shrunk

And as I've said before, I understand exactly how you mean "everything." You seem unable to realize how this renders the Kalam argument meaningless:

Everything has a cause, except those things that don't have a cause.

The universe had a cause, unless it was one of those things that don't have a cause.

If it did have a cause, then God is the cause of the universe. But, of course, if it doesn't have a cause, then God isn't the cause, because, well, it doesn't have a cause.

Conclusion: God exists. Or he doesn't exist. It all depends.

Bottom line, the universe does have a beginning. Perhaps it is a matter of faith that all things that have a beginning, are caused by something other than themselves? Atheists have faith that something with a beginning can just pop into existence. Theists have faith that something with a beginning cannot just pop into existence, but must be brought into existence by something that has always existed. Atheists ask that this thing that has always existed--why does it exist?--but they won't apply that question to the beginning of the universe. Instead they try to turn it around and say "If the universe needs a cause, then what caused it needs a cause, too, and if it doesn't, then neither does the universe." They want to be satisfied with an infinite regress (or is it rather a complete absence of regress, since a complete absence of 'cause'?), whereas theists answer that at some point you will reach the source of all being...the "source without a source" (uncaused cause) (Logos). It takes a high degree of irrationality to suggest that something that pops into existence does not need a cause, whereas something that has always existed does need a cause--that is what the atheist reply really boils down to. And to suggest that the physical universe may have no beginning is to contradict the findings of science, at least as far as I understand them.

As for what I want "my readers" to think about how much I know...I used the words "This would seem".

I am not posting my questions in the science forum, because it does not guarantee an accurate answer. Hence, my request for a book that explains it simply. Not that the answers being in book form gaurantee their accuracy, but...it does lower the probability for baloney.

Ichthus77 wrote:Shrunk

And as I've said before, I understand exactly how you mean "everything." You seem unable to realize how this renders the Kalam argument meaningless:

Everything has a cause, except those things that don't have a cause.

The universe had a cause, unless it was one of those things that don't have a cause.

If it did have a cause, then God is the cause of the universe. But, of course, if it doesn't have a cause, then God isn't the cause, because, well, it doesn't have a cause.

Conclusion: God exists. Or he doesn't exist. It all depends.

Bottom line, the universe does have a beginning. Perhaps it is a matter of faith that all things that have a beginning, are caused by something other than themselves? Atheists have faith

that something with a beginning can just pop into existence. Theists have faith that something with a beginning cannot just pop into existence, but must be brought into existence by something that has always existed. Atheists ask that this thing that has always existed--why does it exist?--but they won't apply that question to the beginning of the universe. Instead they try to turn it around and say "If the universe needs a cause, then what caused it needs a cause, too, and if it doesn't, then neither does the universe."

They want to be satisfied with an infinite regress (or is it rather a complete absence of regress, since a complete absence of 'cause'?)

whereas theists answer that at some point you will reach the source of all being...

the "source without a source" (uncaused cause) (Logos).

It takes a high degree of irrationality to suggest that something that pops into existence does not need a cause

whereas something that has always existed does need a cause--that is what the atheist reply really boils down to.

And to suggest that the physical universe may have no beginning is to contradict the findings of science, at least as far as I understand them.

As for what I want "my readers" to think about how much I know...I used the words "This would seem".

I am not posting my questions in the science forum, because it does not guarantee an accurate answer. Hence, my request for a book that explains it simply. Not that the answers being in book form gaurantee their accuracy, but...it does lower the probability for baloney.

Ichthus77 wrote: Bottom line, the universe does have a beginning.

Bottom line: No one knows whether the universe has a beginning.

If your understanding of cosmology is so incomplete that you need others to explain it to you, and don't even trust yourself to tell whether answers you might receive here are "baloney" (which, if you had actually bothered to lurk around this board before trying to pimp your apologetic nonsense, you would know is not likely the case), there's nothing wrong with that. But then you can hardly use cutting edge cosmological research as the basis for your theological arguments.

hotshoe wrote:

that something with a beginning can just pop into existence. Theists have faith that something with a beginning cannot just pop into existence, but must be brought into existence by something that has always existed. Atheists ask that this thing that has always existed--why does it exist?--but they won't apply that question to the beginning of the universe. Instead they try to turn it around and say "If the universe needs a cause, then what caused it needs a cause, too, and if it doesn't, then neither does the universe."

They want to be satisfied with an infinite regress (or is it rather a complete absence of regress, since a complete absence of 'cause'?)

Yeah, I'd also kinda like to hear exactly what you object to in these arguments, Ichthus77, that you've actually summarized quite well. The only objection I can see is that they don't make any allowances for your imaginary friend actually existing.

Ichthus77 wrote:CookieJon,

Happy Saturday When I said he misinterpreted the Kalam argument (or a version of it, anyway), it was his use of the word "everything" he was, in particular, misinterpreting. I had already corrected it, but he kept using it incorrectly correctly, but such that it was inconvenient for my argument.

Fixed.

Seriously Ichthus, I don't think you've actually understood what's been put to you, because your subsequent answers don't address Shrunk's point at all.

Ichthus77 wrote:

Let me ask you a few questions. Are the past and future empty of matter/energy? How can they still/already exist if they are empty? If they are full, how does that work? Is there a copy of the universe (just arranged slightly differently, like in a cartoon flip-book) in every still/already existing moment? How many copies are there? Why do they still/already exist? If past/future moments are empty, then is there only one copy of all the matter/energy, but the past/future moments remember or anticipate how it was all arranged? What sort of "stuff" is an empty moment that remembers/anticipates? If every moment is full, then when the universe began, did all the moments become full at the beginning, or are they each their own separate beginnings, or what? If every moment is empty except for "now"--then when the universe began, why did all the future empty moments anticipate the different arrangements of matter/energy? Is there a book which answers these questions simply?

Ichthus77 (Maryann):

Wow, I think that was the most Zen-like riddle (koan) I have ever encountered in the English language. Bravo; talk about poetry in prose, beautiful, a work of art. The first time I tried reading it I faded into a trance by about the ninth sentence.

A famous quote of Einstein (I'm not sure if it's apocryphal), when he was asked what time is he replied simply: "time is what a clock measures." Nothing more mystical. It is how we measure the rate of change in the universe and it varies from observer to observer depending upon our inertial frame of reference (i.e. how fast we're moving, or how massive an object we're sitting on given the equivalence of gravity and acceleration in relativity theory). Our understanding of Relativity Theory gives rise to notions of time travel in which one twin observer accelerates near the speed of light and the other remains (relatively) fixed and the traveller returns to meet his stationary twin as an old man (twins paradox).

Perhaps you have an image of Stephen King's imaginative Langoliers (TV movie) or equivalent Twilight Zone, in which the material objects of the world remain as we pass through them fleetingly. The closest theoretical physics gets to that kind of weirdness is something called the "many-worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics in which all our possible quantum states constantly fission from "our" stream of reality. It was (and is) an ingenious idea of the late Hugh Everett to resolve the mysterious collapse of the Schrodinger Wave Equation that has many followers in main-stream physics today. All possible quantum states diverge, all our possible decisions, those of our ancestors; obviously we don't exist in the vast number of such would-be extant parallel universes. The smallest measure of time is known as the Plank time (tP) the time light takes to transit a Plank length or ~5.39134*10-44 seconds. Wikipedia tells us

As of 2006, the smallest unit of time that was directly measured was on the order of 100 attoseconds (10−16 s), or about 1.85*1026 Planck times.

You asked about books. I think you would enjoy author Paul Davies and you can get most of his books used on Amazon.

1982 The Accidental Universe ISBN 0-521-28692-1
1983 God and the New Physics ISBN 0-14-022550-1
1992 The Mind of God, ISBN 0-671-71069-9
1995 About Time: Einstein's Unfinished Revolution, ISBN 0-670-84761-5
1998 The Fifth Miracle: : The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life. ISBN 0684837994
2002 How to Build a Time Machine ISBN 0-14-100534-3
2007 The Goldilocks Enigma, also under the title Cosmic Jackpot, ISBN 0-14-102326-0

Oldskeptic:

In Planck units the cosmological constant = 10-120 controls the universe's rate of expansion. If it were larger than this extremely small number the universe would expand matter apart so rapidly stars and galaxies would not be able to form and needless to say life would no be possible.

Ichthus77 wrote:
Bottom line, the universe does have a beginning.

The universe as we know it had a beginning. This says nothing about any precursor/s to the universe which when talking about true beginnings must be considered. What we can say had a beginning is the current universal “landscape” that we can observe, and the past “landscape” than can be deduced. .

Ichthus77 wrote:
Perhaps it is a matter of faith that all things that have a beginning, are caused by something other than themselves?

It is something of a matter of faith to even think about things like energy that can be converted to matter under the right circumstances to ever have had a beginning. You’ve made a big deal over increasing entropy with each cycle ruling out Tolman’s and Turock’s cyclical models; This has to do with the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But lets look at the 1st law of the thermodynamics, the one law that virtually all physicists say cannot be violated in any closed system. Be it this universe or a multi-verse.

1st principle of the first law:
Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.

So we have something of a conundrum here: The second law concerning entropy says that cyclical models of this particular universe do not work to explain infinite cycles. But the 1st law says that that the energy contained within this universe can never have been created nor can it be destroyed. Energy is eternal.

What is the solution to this conundrum? One is that the cyclical models are wrong when they talk about infinite cycles, and that each cycle gets a beginning from another finite cycle. I don’t really like this because I’m not convinced that cyclical models are needed. If you use cyclical models to get away from multi-verses, until the increasing entropy problem is overcome you are stuck with multiple cyclical models, which is no better than a multi-verse, and a bit more complicated.

To sum up: The 1st law of thermodynamics requires the conservation of energy. The energy that is contained within this universe that is now partly transformed into matter was not created at the beginning of this universe as we know it. It existed before expansion and unless you can come up with something scientifically astounding it appears that it has always existed in one form or another.

Ichthus77 wrote:
Atheists have faith that something with a beginning can just pop into existence.

Get off the atheists/scientists have faith bit, it’s getting old. Nothing pops into existence out of nothing, and if you want to keep asserting that atheists/scientists think this then you should provided some support for your argument instead of just deciding what atheists/scientists think.

Ichthus77 wrote:
Theists have faith that something with a beginning cannot just pop into existence, but must be brought into existence by something that has always existed.

And you call this something God. I get it, and you have every right to believe that on faith, but you do not have the right or a reason to say that anyone that disagrees with you on the God simply has faith in something else.

Ichthus77 wrote:
Atheists ask that this thing that has always existed--why does it exist?--but they won't apply that question to the beginning of the universe.

You mean atheists ask why God can be said to have exist forever, but not the universe? Any atheist familiar with cosmology in even a small way knows that this universe had a beginning. I think that you are trying to stand this argument on its head: In my experience it is theist apologists that ask, “If the universe can have existed forever then why not God?” But atheists don’t says that the universe has existed forever. But some like me that have some scientific knowledge do say that what the universe came from/is made of could be and by the 1st law of thermodynamics appears to be eternal.

Ichthus77 wrote:
Instead they try to turn it around and say "If the universe needs a cause, then what caused it needs a cause, too, and if it doesn't, then neither does the universe."

Hey! Ichthus77, this isn’t some internal dialogue your having here, nor is it one of your columns that require dumbing down. It is you and those like you that use the word “Cause” as if it is somehow responsible for but separate from effect. When atheists say that if what you say “caused” the universe doesn’t need a cause then neither does the universe, they are talking about the god that you claim is the cause. And so, if your god does not need a cause then how do you explain the universe needing your god as a cause?

Ichthus77 wrote:
They want to be satisfied with an infinite regress (or is it rather a complete absence of regress, since a complete absence of 'cause'?), whereas theists answer that at some point you will reach the source of all being...the "source without a source" (uncaused cause) (Logos).

Are you under the impression that you are writing here for your audience that needs and only understands platitudes? Atheists/scientists are not satisfied, nor do they want to be, with infinite regress. Infinite regress is you problem. A problem that you can only solve by defining God as an uncaused cause.

Ichthus77 wrote:
It takes a high degree of irrationality to suggest that something that pops into existence does not need a cause,

Who said that anything popped into existence other than you and those of like mind? Nothing pops into existence.

Ichthus77 wrote:
whereas something that has always existed does need a cause--that is what the atheist reply really boils down to.

Maybe not a cause, but your intelligent designer/creator god with infinite powers and attributes that has existed eternally certainly needs a better explanation than what you or any other apologists has ever given.

Ichthus77 wrote:
And to suggest that the physical universe may have no beginning is to contradict the findings of science, at least as far as I understand them.

For once you got something almost correct. I would put it this way, “To suggest that the universe that we exist in and can observe may have had no beginning is to contradict the findings of science.”

Ichthus77 wrote:
I am not posting my questions in the science forum, because it does not guarantee an accurate answer.

What questions? All I have seen are unsupported assertions. Maybe you are avoiding the science forum because you might get a real education there? If you really want to know what Brian Greene meant with his summation of cyclical models why not take it to the science forum? I can guarantee you that you won’t have to wait very long for responses and explanations.

Ichthus77 wrote:
Hence, my request for a book that explains it simply. Not that the answers being in book form gaurantee their accuracy, but...it does lower the probability for baloney.

You don’t need a book that explains cosmology in a way that you can understand it. You have a great resource right here on these forums if you have a specific question. I read almost everything that I can get my hands on because I find it exiting and interesting to try to understand the big picture, but some people don’t have time for that.

What I recommend is that you read a book or two or three on things like confirmation bias, why we believe, how the mind works…

Scientific facts and explanations are easy to come by if you know how to ask your question, but an understanding of what we accept or reject is something that requires time and effort. I highly recommend to anyone that they try to gain an understanding of why they believe what they do, and why they tend to reject things that do not conform to established beliefs.

AMR wrote:Thommo:

"5 red balls and 5 blue balls are placed in a bag, one ball is drawn randomly. What is the probability the ball is blue?"

And of course the answer is 10%.

Are you joking or am I missing something: 5 red + 5 blue = 10 balls. Half the balls are each of the two colors. The chance of withdrawing a blue ball is half or 50%.

You're right, there's a typo.

But how about you actually reply to the part that asked for an answer and not the typo in the hastily tapped high school example that has no bearing on the point?