By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
setsunatenshi on 23 August 2018
Edit Thread
WolfpackN64 said:
setsunatenshi said:

Not so easy if you ignore the meaning of the words we are using.

 

If there is no time before the universe, there is no cause to the universe. A cause necessitates a unit of time "before" the event you're trying to justify.

This might be the reason why you're convinced this argument holds any weight. And to be fair the concept of time not existing is something very hard for the common person to imagine, which is why, no matter how many times it's debunked, it keeps being brought forward time and time again. It's a limit on the person evaluating the argument, not on the refutation

I don't think you can be too sure of your argument. All you did is make time and the existance of the universe contingent on each other. In a chain of a cause and effect, that would make them both effects of a cause. Otherwise you have your virtual particles again, which you can't be sure of they "pop into existence" and our universe sure as hell isn't a virtual particle. In any case, it started with a massive singularity. Our knowledge of what the rules concerning singularities are are still limited. So unless a supermassive singularity can certainly cause itsel, it's just another link in the chain.

i started by saying this argument has false premises which I have clearly demonstrated.

the fact you accepted time and the universe to have begun at the same time (which is intellectually honest of you) absolutely disproves the premise of the universe having a cause. 

I'm not under any delusions that now you'll find yourself an atheist and negating your faith and beliefs because at the end of the day that's what they are. you believe those things because you were conditioned since you were a child, you hold on to those beliefs as a victim of your own sociological context and the beliefs of those around you. 

More importantly to one of my first points, there's nothing in this argument that points to the specific deity you defend. It uses a special pleading argument that for some reason makes you ignore the impossibility of a cause to the universe but you're happy to ignore a cause to your deity. 

The usual leap in logic that occurs after the premises i stated is "therefore god caused the universe". I didn't state it on purpose to see if you would do it. But doing so would necessitate somehow we all agreeing that your deity didn't "begin to exist" which is a laughable special pleading :)