The beginning. God? Or the Universe itself?
This is one of those arguments where science really does not offer enough on the table to show, with scientific proof, that the universe has a scientific beginning. So instead, we must use logic to determine the answer. I will start out with a statement most people would agree on: Everything has a cause. This seems true enough because, to happen, something must make it happen. Now, it is logical there must be an exception, an effect NOT caused, to explain the beginning of the universe. There must be some entity that did not have to follow logical rules of cause and effect. Christians will tell you this is God. God is the entity unaffected by cause and effect, and created our universe. Well, let's look at some attributes of God. 1) No one has seen him. 2) The only evidence of him is in one book. (Christianity) 3) He cannot be percieved with any of the 5 senses or any scientific analysis we can perform. 4) He magically created the universe. Now that we have done that, we see that most people would have to accept this on Faith, as it seems illogical. Next let's look at some attributes of the universe. 1) It is all around us. 2) No sane person can doubt its existence. 3) All five senses can percieve it. 4) It envelops us, and determines everything that will happen by it's laws. Seeing as I've defined both attributes of God and the Universe, we must now reconsider what the entity not affected by cause and effect is. For the sake of the argument, I'll limit it to two choices, God and the Universe. Logically, the universe is a much more worthy choice, because of the attributes it has. It seems much more likely that the universe is the entity not affected by cause and effect, and that God is just a hopeful figment of the humans imagination.
|
Well you will most likely never sway a die hard Creationist, the same as you wont sway the opposer. You will either get some superior being created it all, or that there was a 'big bang'. None of us will really know 100% until we are dead. Where the pastor says "shit!" or "I knew it!" Side: Dont know until your dead
After talking to some of these die hard creationists and how skillful they are at bending logic to fit their world view, I'm beginning to wonder if they would renounce Christianity even after death (assuming Christianity is wrong). I think they would sooner stay in limbo for eternity waiting for Jesus to arrive than just moving on. XD Side: Dont know until your dead
Which is quite possible, you should see my debate about Agnosticism =P I think playing it safe is the best bet =D Side: Dont know until your dead
1
point
There's a video of a talk by Murray Gell-mann on an issue of elegance in physics. He explained very well how elegant solutions (ones that are cleaner, more minimalistic, and get the same work done, essentially) tend to be true. http://www.ted.com/talks/ I happen to agree with him on this point and I think he expressed it better than I would have. Suffice it to say however, that with our universe, you can either have an eternal god and a finite universe or an eternal universe. An eternal universe is more elegant, and conforms with conservation laws as well. You don't even need to think of cause and effect with the universe this way, because just as a Mobius strip is a plane with one side, a circular universe (if our universe is, indeed circular in its formation and end) has no beginning or end, and thus no cause by definition. Side: Eternal Universe
1
point
"Everything has a cause." is contradicted by "...there must be an exception." and is therefore illogical. All five senses can percieve (sic) it. Only a part of it. For instance, we can only interact with baryon matter. But baryon matter isn't the only kind of matter in the universe. We can only see a fraction of radiative wavelengths: the visible spectrum, and even then our eyes aren't attuned to the finest details produced by light reflected off of objects. We interact with a very small portion of reality with a powerful, but ultimately inadequate utility to filter and process stimuli. Logically, the universe is a much more worthy choice, because of the attributes it has. Your conclusion does not necessarily follow from its premises, so it can't be valid. And your reasoning isn't consistent, so it isn't sound. There's no logic to this at all. But I agree in spirit. Reality is a much better and salient option than imaginary entities. Side: Eternal Universe
1
point
Everything has cause contradiction. Well, I structured this argument as for God vs Universe. If you say that there is no exception to the cause and effect rule, then that means you are also stating that God is not real. So it is unclear which side of the debate you are on if you take this stance. All five senses can perceive it True, in terms of basic human ability without technology, we wouldn't be able to see certain things, like oxygen, and notice what it is. But scientific observation using technology can see the minute reflections you speak of, along as anything else. It is illogical that we would believe something not backed up by this evidence, and we don't; with the exception of God. Why should God, which has no proof of existence, be the exception when the universe is much more qualified. Logically, universe is a much more worthy choice How is my reasoning wrong? I stated very clearly and factually attributes about the universe and God. These were very obvious attributes, and not at all unreasonable. The connection that the universe is much more worthy, is not illogical either, when you look at the attributes I have presented. My argument is sound enough for the context I debate it in. Side: Eternal Universe
|
