Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]-there is nothing there that contradicts what I said.
The link you provided wasn't part of the discussion. What was part of the discussion was your counter to my response. You asked how can we know the universe had a cause, to which I responded: via inductive reasoning. You then said inductive reasoning wasn't applicable, since we would need to 'thing' in existence. I know it's mind-blowing, but that's just the way He rolls.[/b]
“….This is where you err. We can all agree that if it happens, it's an event…..”
The beginning of most things can be called an “event” (what about the beginning of a length of string? ) but this would NOT be strictly true for the beginning of the universe if that beginning was also the beginning of time. The reason for this is as follows:
An event is something that occurs IN time and space therefore for existence itself to have a beginning in a form of an “event”, it must occur IN time and space. BUT, and this is the critical part here, existence itself INCLUDES space and time itself! So in order for the beginning of space and time itself to be an “event”, space and time must occur within space and time; but there is no evidence that there was some other space and time for the space and time in our universe to begin to exist IN (not to mention the fact I am unsure if it makes a whole lot of sense to say our space and time exists IN some other space and time! ).
Therefore, the beginning of space and time cannot be an “event”; it is just a brute fact that it exists and there was a time zero i.e. it had a beginning. Since we have both agreed that at no point in time did there exist “nothing”, the same applies to anything else that existed at the beginning.
“…..We (thus far) have conceded that any event we have been able to observe has been caused….”
That is simply not true; what causes a particular random quantum event to occur when and where it does?
Who has “conceded” that it has a “cause”? And, more importantly given the total absence of evidence that such a thing has a “cause”, why?
“….The third stage is moot for us, because the law of cause and effect has been accepted since ancient times…..”
The fact that the ancients thought everything had a cause doesn’t give the hypothesis any more credence than the fact that many ancients thought the Earth was flat. Length of history of opinions doesn’t verify a hypothesis; only logic and evidence can do that.
“…Certainly, there's been a few chance-obsessed folks who attempted to establish HUP, Bohr's quantum leap and etc., but the so-called law of chance has been weighed and found wanting…..”
Has been “has been weighed and found wanting” by who? The average layperson? Or the scientists that have done the actual research such as Bohr? To simply vaguely say a hypotheses “has been weighed and found wanting” is not an argument against it.
“…Time is a construct created for the convenience of man; not a constraint within which God exists. His existence outside of space, time, known physical reality, has always been, will always be.…..”
Ok, let’s suppose for the sake of argument that’s true even though you haven’t shown any evidence that a “God” with these properties exists:
“…BEFORE the existence of time, space and the known universe, there was nothing... nothing but God….” (my emphasis)
You have obviously completely failed to understand the essence of my logical argument;
“BEFORE the existence of time” is a logical self-contradiction.
Now really think carefully about this; how can there be a “before” the existence of time when “before” implies the existence of time BEFORE that existence of time itself!
The remainder of your post is flawed because it doesn’t get that point.
So the basic logical argument I presented to you still stands which is basically (in now adapted form):
1, If there was no time “before” existence as we know it then it logically follows that there was no “before” the beginning of existence.
2, from 1; no God existed “before” existence because, there was no such “before” and therefore God didn’t exist “then” (because that "then" doesn't exist).
3, from 1; there could not be a “cause” of existence because a “cause” is taken to always come “before” its “effect” and (from 1 ) there was no “before” the beginning of existence.
4, from 2 and 3; no God could “cause” the beginning of existence (actually, 2 is not strictly needed here)
Which (if any) of the above deductions would you disagree with and why?