Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> The "first cause" argument is that every effect has a cause, and hence for 
>> the universe to exist, something before the universe must have caused it, 
>> and hence God exists.[1]
> 
>   Science doesn't seem to have any answers about this either.

Many hypotheses that can be investigated, however.

>   There is a rather large amount of scientific postulations describing the
> Big Bang, going further and further back in time, to tiny fractions of
> a second after the bang started. 

Yep. Mostly calculations based on more "normal" circumstances. And I don't 
think anyone knows why the "inflation" bit occurred (or where "dark matter" 
came from, or what "dark energy" is, etc). Astrophysics always seems to add 
one new unknown variable for each observation. Each time a major discovery 
is made, someone makes something mostly-unobservable up to account for it.

> However, nobody seems to be able to
> explain how and why it started (and where did all that energy come from).

There are a number of theories, like "brane theory" which postulates 
higher-level structures colliding and such, or "big bounce" theories which 
postulate a cyclic (but long-term stable) state. I certainly don't know any 
details.

I'm pretty sure anyone who argues the "first cause" argument would not 
accept "a black hole in another universe evaporating" or "normal plain old 
aliens somewhere else" as the "first cause" for the big bang, either.

>   Not that this proves the existence of a creator being which transcends
> the Universe, but that theory is as good as any.

I would disagree, putting "a creator which transcends the universe" as 
usually expressed being an untestable hypothesis. That, in my book, makes it 
a hypothesis that isn't as good. (I think 11-dimensional string theory falls 
into the same "untestable" hypothesis area (for different reasons), as well, 
and from what I understand many physicists are starting to look at it that 
way as well.)

Of course, if you express it as "we're all simulations in someone's 
computer", you could reasonably come up with evidence-based tests to support 
or refute this claim.

It also fails (for me) in the concept that the hypothesis of a creator-god 
(as usually envisioned by organized religion at least)

If you want to postulate an unknowable creator who doesn't care what we do 
and can't influence us after death, then I'd have to wonder why one would 
attribute a personality to such a thing. Not only do you have a supernatural 
(in the strict definition of the word) cause for the universe, but one who 
decides and makes choices and so on, as well.

In any case, my comment was more along the lines of "free will implies there 
needn't be a first cause", not "there was no first cause."  The usual 
argument for why there is evil in the world undermines a common argument for 
why a god was needed to create the universe.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message