The Big Bang
The big bang:
all the evidence that we have today shows us that the universe came from no space,no time,no matter,all the evidence that we have today shows us that the universe came from nothing,it seems like the only we can make sense of a universe coming from nothing is trough God.
Making a case for God from a universe coming from nothing:
"we have 2 options
1:no one created the universe out of nothing
2:someone created the universe out of nothing
I think the 2nd is more reasonable,both of these options are miracles,but in the 2nd one you have a miracle worker."
“If nature had a beginning,then the cause can’t be something natural,because nature didn’t exist,therefore the cause must be something beyond nature,or supernatural"
''why must the cause be personal?"
causal explanation can be either of 2 types. it can be a scientific explanation in terms of laws and internal conditions,or it can be personal explanation.
if someone comes in my kitchen and they see a kettle boiling and they ask ''why is the kettle boiling?"
i can give the scientific explanation:''Because the heat of the flame is being conducted by the copper bottom of the kettle to the water,causing the molecules to vibrate more violently until they're thrown off in the form of steam''
or i can give the personal explanation:"Because i want some tea""
at the big bang you have no scientific explanation,there is nothing,if you have a cause that cause must be personal.
Argument:
P1:in order for nothing to create something,nothing must be powerful,and intelligent
P2:Nothing did create something
C1:therefore this nothing must be powerful and intelligent
P3:A powerful intelligent ''nothing'' is not literally ''nothing'' but a personal being behind the universe
P4:this powerful intelligent being behind the universe is what we mean by God
C2:therefore,the cause of the universe is God
Explanation for this argument:
"why is it that nothing making the universe doesn't make any sense unless that nothing is ''God"?":
why is it that the universe can be created by nothing (not anything) but it doesn't happen the same with anything else? why can nothing create something outside of space-time and space-time but can't create anything in space time?some might say it does,
The “nothing” which causes these things some of you are talking about is not nothing,it's something in space-time or space-time-matter creating these things.
and i don't want understand what law stops nothing from creating anything,now some might say that i am wrong but then i don't understand what law stops nothing from popping something huge into existence.
well...i actually do...there is no law that stops nothing from doing that,nothing just doesn't create anything,nothing should be able to stop nothing from creating anything.
how could the material or any law stop non-existence from creating anything?
it couldn't,nothing just doesn't create anything.
some might say that particles come in and out of existence all the time from nothing...but that breaks the first law of thermodynamics,''energy cannot be created or destroyed''
again,there are only 2 causal explanations,and we've established why the cause must be personal...so now we know the cause must be personal,
by definition if the universe wasn't created by anything,the universe wasn't created,but the universe did have a beginning and it must have a cause if we take it by the kalam and the law of causality,and well...what we see in our everyday lives.
In order for this ''nothing'' to create the universe,this nothing must be powerful (it did create everything after all),and intelligent (it chose to create and it did create,which nothing doesn't do,and there's also the fact that there are only 2 types of causal explanations,and we can only have a personal explanation).
But wait,this ''nothing'' sounds like what apologists mean by ''God''.
So it seems like the only way we can make sense of nothing creating the universe,is coming with the idea that this nothing is not really nothing,but an intelligent and powerful being behind the universe.
Conclusion:
Nothing+nothing=nothing,unless...this ''nothing'' is not really nothing but an intelligent powerful being behind the universe.
one of TMM's objection:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUHbzV0SlB8&t=18s 3:14-4:13
Rob's answer(Rob from Deflating atheism) And Cameron Bertuzzi's answer:
Rob's answer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS-Ttql8eI0 4:22-5:40
Cameron Bertuzzi's response:
The first objection was that x begins to exist at t if there is a time prior to t at which x does not exist. The second is that if there was no change from a point in time t where x does not exist to a point in time t+1 in which x did exist, there's nothing to be explained. The third objection is that the universe didn't begin to exist, it merely has a front temporal edge.
Let's review the Kalam argument.
(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) The universe has a cause.
Before you read further, I want you to ask yourself: which premises do his objections target? Think about that for yourself. It seems clear to me that objections 1 and 3 target premise (2) and objection 2 targets premise (1).
Objections 1 and 3 aim to show that the universe never began to exist. In TMM's view, whatever begins to exist must be preceded by a temporal moment in which it does not exist. The universe doesn't fit that criteria, therefore the universe didn't begin to exist. I think there are clear counterexamples to this view. Imagine a world in which nothing exists. No space, no time, no matter, no energy, no gods, nothing. Then, all of a sudden, a cheeseburger exists. Since this cheeseburger exists, space, time, matter, and energy exist. But notice: this cheeseburger merely has a front temporal edge. Once we get back to the first moment the cheeseburger exists, there's no moment prior at which it didn't exist. Should we conclude that the cheeseburger never began to exist? Clearly not. The cheeseburger clearly began to exist. The same is true of the universe. So, (2) is still true.
Objection 2 is aimed at premise 1. It states that unless x has a preceding moment that describes its nonexistence, there is no need to explain x at t. I can't see any reason whatsoever to think this is true. Look at your phone. Your phone began to exist. But let's extend how long your phone has existed. Let's say it has existed forever. Does that mean we no longer need an explanation for it? Merely extending the amount of time its existed into the past doesn't seem to remove the need for an explanation. The reason this is relevant here is because if your phone has existed for all of eternity, there was no prior moment in which it didn't exist. Yet, it's perfectly coherent to ask why an eternal phone exists. Why doesn't no phone exist? Why doesn't a different phone exist? This renders the objection false. Moreover, even if we shouldn't seek an explanation for the existence of a ruler in virtue of its having a first inch, we'd still want to know why any such ruler exists. Why does that ruler exist? Why not a different one? Why not no ruler at all?
Big Bang evidence:
Surge:
S=the 2nd law of thermodynamics,the universe is running down,if the universe is running down then probably somebody wounded it up.
U=the “U” stands for the fact that the universe is expanding,and when Hubble discovered that in 1929 it showed everything came from a single point,a point of infinite density,a singularity which is actually nothing.
R=the “R” stands for the radiation afterglow,that’s the remnant heat discovered by Penzias and Wilson in 1965.
There is heat,remnant heat from the big bang still out there which shows the universe had a beginning
G=the “G” stands for the great galaxy seeds which were very fine temperature variations in that radiation afterglow that allowed the galaxies to form in the early universe.
E=the “E” stands for Einstein’s theory of general relativity,which shows that time,space and matter are co relative,that they came into existence togheter,that space time and matter literally had a beginning,Einstein knew this in 1916,then observational evidence began in 1919 when Eddington did his test on the eclipse,and then Hubble discovered the expanding universe in 1929,and then on to the the radiation afterglow in the great galaxy seeds after that.
"The answer to the question "Did the universe have a beginning'' is,''it probably did."we have no viable models of an eternal universe.The [Borde-Guth-Vilenkin] theorem gives us reason to believe that such models simply cannot be constructed''-Alexander Vilenkin
The bgv theorem is now widely accepted by physicists.
“It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” -Alexander Vilenkin
''Almost everyone now believes that the universe,and time itself,had a beginning"- Stephen Hawking
The idea that the universe came from nothing is another idea widely accepted by physicists and scientists (at least from what i've noticed)
There's also the fact that cosmologists tell us that the universe will suffer a heat-death,and my question is:
If the universe is infinite in the past why didn't that heat death happen already?
