danot Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Exactly. They insist that the Universe cannot exist without a Creator, because all things which exist must be a product of something; they then argue that the Creator, which exists, does not need to be a product of something, which contradicts their own argument. Scientists just accept that the Universe exists, without demanding that it must be a product of something. Likewise, the religious just accept that God exists, without demanding that God must be a product of something. As I said, the religious aren't concerned with the infinite regressive loop contradiction, it's only scientists who believe God must need a creator. Perhaps quantum fluctuations made God, then God made the universe. Would that be scientifically feasible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Likewise, the religious just accept that God exists That's not likewise at all. You don't need to invoke a God in the first place, unless you are arguing that things cannot exist without cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 That's not likewise at all. You don't need to invoke a God in the first place, unless you are arguing that things cannot exist without cause. Nor do you need to involve theories about quantum fluctuations, unless you're suggesting quantum fluctuations can exist without a cause but creator cannot, which would be a ridiculous claim to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Nor do you need to involve theories about quantum fluctuations Quantum fluctuations have been observed, and are known to exist. You can, if you want, just say "the Universe exists and has no cause." Many cosmologists have done so. What you cannot do is to argue "the Universe must have a cause, because things do not exist unless they have a cause" and then to argue that the thing which causes the Universe to exist, does not itself need a cause. That's why creationism cannot even be called an argument, still less a theory - it contradicts itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0742Sheff Posted October 30, 2011 Author Share Posted October 30, 2011 You two have totally lost me. I'd try and understand but it would not be pretty when my head explodes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Quantum fluctuations have been observed, and are known to exist. You can, if you want, just say "the Universe exists and has no cause." Many cosmologists have done so. What you cannot do is to argue "the Universe must have a cause, because things do not exist unless they have a cause" and then to argue that the thing which causes the Universe to exist, does not itself need a cause. That's why creationism cannot even be called an argument, still less a theory - it contradicts itself. When all is said and done, you could also say- 'We just don't have the foggiest idea what created the universe, but whatever did, it certainly isn't governed by the universal laws of contemporary physics, it laughs in the face of elementary logic and rational reasoning, and if it isn't a creator, then it's something very similar". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 When all is said and done, you could also say- 'We just don't have the foggiest idea what created the universe..." In which case, you have already fallen into the infinite regressive loop, by assuming that the Universe must have had a cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 In which case, you have already fallen into the infinite regressive loop, by assuming that the Universe must have had a cause.Wouldn't I have fallen into it if I had assumed the universe was caused by quantum fluctuations? In both instances I would have made the assumption that the universe was created by something that didn't itself need a creator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Wouldn't I have fallen into it if I had assumed the universe was caused by quantum fluctuations? In both instances I would have made the assumption that the universe was created by something that didn't itself need a creator. If you assume it was created or caused you will always have a problem with infinite regression. In my humble opinion it is infinite and as always existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Wouldn't I have fallen into it if I had assumed the universe was caused by quantum fluctuations? Yes you would, but nobody ever did invoke that assumption merely because they had to find a cause for the Universe. Indeed it was never assumed at all; quantum fluctuations were discovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.