The Universe - is it Created? or by Chance?

[krizitoyness]

---

dli sad possible sa nga tinuud ang duha.?

[kenites]

I will just ask nalang kay I really don't know the answer

If everything that begins to exist has a cause then is it safe to say that that cause has also a beginning and therefore has also a cause?

Ah..don't bother answering. I back read. Inyo naman diay ni na discuss. He's the Alpha and Omega and cause-uncaused man diay..

Please continue your discussion so I will learn from you my friends

[redhorse1L]

I will just ask nalang kay I really don't know the answer

If everything that begins to exist has a cause then is it safe to say that that cause has also a beginning and therefore has also a cause?

If everyting that begins to exist has a cause then is it safe to say that that cause has also a beginning and therefore has also a cause?

Take note on the phrase "begins to exist has a cause".
It applies to all things, and particularly, the Universe.
Since the Universe began to exist at the Big Bang, something or someone could have caused it.

That is why this something should exist beyond space and time(not bound to space-time dimension). It did NOT began to exist since a beginning involves time.

As the Universe grows old (14 billion yrs), this Being does not go along with it, and therefore, it is eternal.

[Boyet4istorya]

"in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Gen.1:1
heavens >> 1st heaven = sky
2nd heaven = universe
3rd heaven = God's dwelling place

[kenites]

If everyting that begins to exist has a cause then is it safe to say that that cause has also a beginning and therefore has also a cause?

Take note on the phrase "begins to exist has a cause".
It applies to all things, and particularly, the Universe.
Since the Universe began to exist at the Big Bang, something or someone could have caused it.

That is why this something should exist beyond space and time(not bound to space-time dimension). It did NOT began to exist since a beginning involves time.

As the Universe grows old (14 billion yrs), this Being does not go along with it, and therefore, it is eternal.

But isn't this a mere assumption my friend?

[josephdc]

YouTube - Carl Sagan On God(s)-"Why Not Save A Step?"

Great quote. But which is more plausible, that the universe has always existed, or that it had a beginning?

[josephdc]

Correction. Time was created during the big bang. Its the singularity(the universe in its form before the bang) from which the big bang "exploded" from. That could have been always there. The point is, why invoke the supernatural to end causation? Why not stop at the universe itself? Also, Occam's Razor(look it up if you haven't heard of it)

But when you say bro that the singularity could have always been there, aren't you saying that the universe has always existed?

[josephdc]

are you seriously asking theists to set aside biblical passages? please tell me you're kidding. if you're a theist, chances are you believe in creationism. if you're a creationist, chances are you reject the BIG BANG theory. and no, you will not find the BIG BANG in the Bible so stop treating the Bible like a science book. furthermore, stop comparing who's the more LOGICAL, because obviously, if creationists are logical people, then they would not discredit EVOLUTION or treat it as a false claim.

lastly, the debate regarding CAUSALITY has been repeated again and again. this thread is going nowhere.

But what is your take about the cosmological argument, though? Would you say that it's logically invalid or that the premises are false?

[schmuck]

Great quote. But which is more plausible, that the universe has always existed, or that it had a beginning?

Which raises more questions that it answered?
Which doesn't add additional unknowns?

But when you say bro that the singularity could have always been there, aren't you saying that the universe has always existed?

Yep. That was what I was saying. I had to spell it out for redhorse to understand it. He kept name dropping scientists who say the universe "began" 14 billion yrs ago. What he does not understand was, said scientists were referring to the expanded universe.

[josephdc]

if we follow your argument of causality, it would then beg the question, where did GOD come from? tag-anon na lang nako imong tubag daan ha --- "GOD simply exist. He is ever-existing, omnipotent, the beginning and the end, the first and last, the ALPHA and OMEGA..."

But in order to recognize an explanation as the best, you don't really need to have an explanation of the explanation. If we require every explanation to have an explanation, it will lead to an infinite regress of explanations so that nothing ever gets explained.

In the Kalam cosmological argument, an un-caused cause is given as the best explanation because such a cause is metaphysically necessary. If you don't think that's a good explanation, what alternative can you offer?