tintingz:
Ok

Yes you are and I will show you below.

Now this where it becomes paradoxical.

In your premise the foundation of it logic is nothing can cause itself to exist, if this is the case then infinite regress is necessary! If there's determinism and causations in this case too infinite regress is necessary!

We can't rule out it possibility.

tintingz:

- Nothing can cause itself into existence = Infinite regress is necessary

- There is a first cause = Then something can cause itself to exist

- This contradict the first logical premise = nothing can cause itself to exist

tintingz:
Ok
The gravitational singularity itself is said to be infinite, what brought out the universe is the hot dense due to quantum fluctuations, the question you should be asking is did the quantum fluctuations acted randomly or something caused it to act?

Both questions are valid.

We will be left back to the same question, can something cause itself to exist or something must cause something to exist?

Ihedinobi3:

I appreciate your heart for the lost - even if they are wilfully lost too - and for the weak among us believers. The Lord does call us to love both.

I only encourage you to protect yourself from them too, because the Bible does say,

[6]"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.
Matthew 7:6 NASB

Apologetics is a spiritual ministry. It does help to bring some of the lost to Salvation, and it does protect the weak in faith among us, but it never eliminates free will. Everyone must still choose whether to believe the Gospel and be saved or not, and whether to listen to the Bible instead of the spurious ideas and theories that people flatter their intelligence with or not. It is a choice, just like you said. So, if I may be so bold, let me encourage you not to expect too much from those who have rejected reason and common sense in their bid to avoid the Truth. It is hard enough to bring a normal unbeliever to Salvation, an atheist - whatever the sort they may be - is not even remotely normal. Their antagonism toward the Lord is in the extreme. They may pretend to be honestly inquiring, but atheism is not an inquiry, it is an accusation of the Lord, and not a fair one by any standard. The atheist doubles as judge and plaintiff in a court of his own making.

The evidence and arguments are all rigged in his favor, so that it is impossible to be right in the eyes of an atheist if you are in the Truth.

A decent apologist would or should have a fair grasp of the philosophy, science, and history that plays into these debates, but they are always at risk of trusting these above the Bible in order to appear reasonable to atheists. That actually is where they lose the battle, although it does seem to recommend itself as the best way to win an atheist over to the Lord.

That is why I am never pressed to defend the Lord to an atheist. I prefer to treat every good question they ask with respect and answer it with the Bible. I use philosophy, history, and science when they are needed only to demonstrate the hypocrisy and lies in atheism. They are no use to recommending the Bible's authority to such people. Besides, the Bible is an absolute authority that does not yield itself to challenge. It offers its claims on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. If anyone retains common sense - which is a common human characteristic regardless of one's faith in the Lord or lack thereof - the Bible is a natural explanation for what is observed in life around us. But if they reject common sense, then, obviously, the Bible is a waste of their time and energy unless they are attacking it.

So, please, keep yourself safe even while you try to reason with them. Whatever you may see in them, remember that the choice to believe or not is not dependent on how well the Gospel is explained or how well the science works in your favor. Those who believe believe because they accept in their hearts the testimony of Creation around us and receive the authority of the Gospel and the Bible. Those who don't do not because they reject these things and twist them to fit their preferred attitude toward the Lord.

Cheers, friend.

shadeyinka:

I love this your post. Almost nothing else to add. Like Paul, we become Gentile to the Gentiles, Jew to the Jew and Roman to the Romans. Here, we become "Scientific" to the Atheists
BUT
In all, not trusting the Arm of Flesh and Intellect but depending upon Him knowing that we could have been worse than them (it's only by grace we have been saved through faith in His Atonement purchased by His blood).

Finally, Paul Plants and Apollo waters but it is God who gives the increase

Shalom

shadeyinka:

We can certainly rule out the possibility of an infinite regression of cause an effect because of Entropy. Entropy will ALWAYS increase in the universe unless there is an external Energy/Force to constrain the system/universe.

Projecting to the future, an infinite regress of cause and effect would terminate at maximum entropy where it is assumed that every energy/mass is distributed uniformly through out the universe. If infinite regress of cause and effect has a terminal date, surely it cannot at the same time accommodate the nature of an infinite regression.

This surely means that there must have been an Uncaused First cause of everything.
It's mind bugling but logic give us no alternative answer


Yes, logically nothing can cause itself to exist except if that "Thing" had always existed . We can attest to this because we and the Physical Universe we see are evidence of a "caused existence". For the only other logical position to take (without violating logic) is that "Nothing Exist" and that wouldn't be true.

That "Thing" can then logicaly be the "Uncaused First Cause" without violating the logic.

The second logical premise would be true only if and only if the First Cause isn't really a "THING" (energy occupying a space) but a "NOUN".
By "noun", I mean "a non material description" or better still at a dimension of a higher order to the trio of Energy, Space and Time.

Your reference has described the nature of the gravitational singleton without bothering on whether it had always existed or it spontaneously formed itself. I think we have discussed both cases in my last post and the conclusion was that the gravitational singleton had to be externaly caused either way.

If the gravitational singleton had always existed (with the quantum fluctuations) , then it must be very stable (constant) and it would require and external force to make it undergo the sudden expansion called the Big Bang.

If the gravitational singleton was transient, it should require a large external force to form it into a gravitational singleton.

Quantum fluctuations are called such because they are random states and as such theoretically (my take/understanding) should have maximum entropy within itself. The source/origin of the high temperature of the singleton is debatable and maybe theoretical physicists would be able to give a perfect answer the question.

In summary, can we agree that:
"It seems an Immaterial Force/Energy/Influence which could be called the "Uncaused First Cause" initiated the formation of the Universe."

The perfect answer to comprehending such immaterial NOUN would thus be outside the capacity of SCIENCE!

TheArranger:

Exactly. And pls, tell us what religion has achieved? All religion does is suppress critical thinking, encourage misogyny and prejudice, as well as xenocentrism, condemn billions of people (many of whom are decent) to be damned to eternal suffering because they did not bow to a celestial tyrant.

Atheists are skeptics, and as skeptics, we do not claim to know all the answers, or claim that the universe bends to our trivial desires. It is u theists dat make these arrogant & lazy claims. Atheist beliefs, contrary to what many of u bigoted r3tards believe, are pliable but only with evidence. By constantly questioning our convictions, we are cognizant that our perceptions are also subjective and distorted, that there is much to be known. Unlike you illiterate religious zombies who sit on your ass all day & believe whatever you are told without evidence.

Go pound sharp sand, you ignorant, disrespectful neanderthal.

tintingz:
I disagree, it will violate the logic.

Again, if there is an uncaused first cause then something can exist without a cause, you are just being partial and bias here. If something must have a cause to exist how then did you made up same argument there is an uncaused cause? Are you not contradicting?

If something can't cause itself to exist but must require a cause then infinite regress is necessary!

For what we also know, the universe can be infinite itself.

The same argument that apply to an uncaused first cause also apply to the universe, this uncaused first cause is just an assumption to end the infinite regress thing.

tintingz:

What?!

Even if we assume an uncaused first cause it must be natural since it properties are natural or can this first cause create from nothing?

Enough of fantasies please.

That's because they are assumptions!

For what the hypothesis said, the gravitational singularity is infinite, it has always existed, for the fact that energy cannot be created nor destroyed then It has always existed.

Why must there be an external force?

tintingz:

What's this external force?

tintingz:

Can you define quantum fluctuations?

tintingz:

Then you should agree something can exist without a cause, yes?

tintingz:

How can an immaterial force have material properties?

What's this immaterial thing and how did it came into existence?

shadeyinka:

I think this thing is far much simpler than you are making it.

1. In this universe everything has a property of cause and effect.
2. An infinite regression of cause and effect violates the law of entropy
3. There must this be an Uncaused First Cause that initiated the formation of the universe.


Which of this three do you really disagree with?

I think I've explained why the gravitational singleton couldn't have existed forever except you have a counter justification.


If the gravitational singleton had always existed (with the quantum fluctuations) , then it must be very stable (constant) and it would require and external force to make it undergo the sudden expansion called the Big Bang.

If the gravitational singleton was transient, it should require a large external force to form it into a gravitational singleton.

Back to your views:
The Uncaused First Cause cannot be natural (made of Energy, time and Space). If it is, then such is a "Thing" that is caused and must obey the laws of physics and chemistry.

For now, let's treat this external force as a "NOUN".
This external force (to the gravitational singleton) is external to Energy, Time and Space.

A quantum fluctuation is the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space,

No!
Matter has to exist through a cause.
Energy change can occur through a cause.

If it's a thing, it is matter.
If it's an Uncaused First Cause, it cannot be matter without violating logic.

I did t say that the Immaterial Force have material properties. Such immaterial force must not be made of Energy, Space and Time.
It is sufficient for now to say that the immaterial force OR the Uncaused First Cause is a NOUN!

tintingz:
You still don't see the paradox?

You said there's cause and effect in the universe (which makes infinite regress necessary) then again you said it is not possible because of law of entropy so therefore there must be a cause that's not cause(not affected by cause and effect).

In conclusion here to your paradoxical argument you committed: Something can't cause itself to exist then again there's something that exist without a cause.

Instead of admitting we don't know, you keep fantasizing by saying there's an uncaused first cause, doesn't this uncaused first cause beg questions how it's uncaused and violated cause and effect and it logic? This is just a special pleading fallacy from you.

Read premises again and see the paradox I've pointed out.

I'm tired of this back and forth argument.

tintingz:

Gravitational singularity is not big bang, you're trying to mix them up. My goodness.

It's an initial infinite state of the universe suggested to be before the big bang.

tintingz:

Can you state again how gravitational singularity cannot be?, maybe I didn't see that part.

Why so?

tintingz:

This uncaused first cause does it consists of natural properties?

If yes, is it natural?

If no, how did natural properties like energy created out of this first cause?

Is it caused or it's "nothing" and "random"?

tintingz:

This uncaused first cause is not a thing?

What do you by noun? Is it not part of existing THING?

shadeyinka:

I think it's you who suddenly shut down going through the logic maze and You suddenly pulled out of following the logic because of a simple paradox. Don't forget that paradoxes in logic either negate the initial set of premise OR modify the input variables.


Again:
1. In this universe everything has a property of cause and effect.
2. An infinite regression of cause and effect violates the law of entropy
3. There must this be an Uncaused First Cause that initiated the formation of the universe.

I asked the question that:
Which one of these three do you disagree with?

Why? A wrong logic premise will lead to a wrong conclusion.

If nothing is wrong with the premise, a set of conclusions would be obtained
i. The universe doesn't exist
OR
ii. The Uncaused First Cause is not a THING!

Note But:
1. Things in the universe obviously exist
2. The universe hadn't always been existing
3. The universe was caused
This leaves no other choice than to accept that there must have been an "Uncaused First Cause" which isn't a THING!

The nature of the Uncaused First Cause could be debated but that's where the Rabbit hole leads.

We don't know as an answer is an escapist way: don't forget that we are leaning more towards LOGIC than SCIENCE. The answer for both will be different. Science may conclude "we don't know yet!" But it is NOT a permitted outcome from Logical deductions!

I've never insinuated that the gravitational singleton is Big Bang.
Big bang is a theory to explain the formation of the universe by the sudden expansion of the pin point hot dense gravitational singleton.

The bold in your quote is actually what needs explanation for the singleton is virtually a pin point hot dense description and NOT "infinite state of the universe"

Can't be what?

This uncaused first cause does it consists of natural properties?
The Uncaused First Cause could not have natural properties of Energy, Time and Space!

If yes, is it natural?
The Uncaused First Cause is Unnatural!

How can the natural properties proceed from an unnatural entity?
No one can logicaly or Scientifically know: for the nature "self existence" is a paradox by itself.

Is it caused or it's "nothing" and "random"?
1. If the Uncaused First Cause is caused, it leads to the impossibility of an infinite regression. No, it's not caused!
2. If the Uncaused First Cause is Nothing, it violates the rule that something cannot come out of nothing
3. If the Uncaused First Cause is Random, maximum entropy is attained and energy/force from somewhere else has to cause changes in states.

Again, the Uncaused First Cause cannot logically be a THING!

A Noun by definition is "an IDENTITY!" Or a Name (conventionally of a person, animal, place or thing)

tintingz:


All what you post here are irrelevant and special pleading fallacy if you can't explain what this uncaused first cause is, why is it uncaused?.

If the premise begin with everything that exist must have a cause, why is an uncaused first cause excluded from everything?

Again and again the universe can be infinite and always exist.


Gravitational singularity is another state itself and it's infinite, why it can't be infinite you haven't given any reason.

You're mixing it up with change of state that brought out the expansion.

It seems you don't even understand these things.

Here,

The initial singularity was a gravitational singularity of seemingly infinite density thought to have contained all the mass and space-time of the Universe before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity

If you think the gravitational singularity has always been in a hot dense state, you have been missing the point.



Explain why gravitational singularity can't be infinite?


Lol, How did it cause them to exist? Magic?

The uncaused first cause is unnatural and it beget natural. Wow.

Is this your fantasy and contradictory? You started your argument with scientific and logical argument then suddenly logic and science cannot apply again.

You came up that there is an uncaused first cause and this entity is unnatural that we can't possibly know scientifically and logically, so how come you conclude there is something unnatural or that the uncaused first cause must be unnatural?

At this stage if you can't see your fallacies, I'm sorry I can't help.

Oga, I'm talking about quantum fluctuation, is it caused or nothing/random?

Ooh so logic doesn't apply here anymore.

Can you tell us how it's "illogically a thing"?

Are these not properties of a thing or physical things?

Mention a NOUN property or identity that's not a thing?

shadeyinka:

You amaze me!
Why are you afraid of the truth? Go down the rabbit hole of logic. Let me simplify it for you:


Paradoxes in logic either negate the initial set of premise OR modify the input variables.

1. In this universe everything has a property of cause and effect.
2. An infinite regression of cause and effect violates the law of entropy
These individually are truths but together, leads to a paradox. The paradox can be solved iff


3. There is an Uncaused First Cause that initiated the formation of the universe.

Do you disagree with 1, 2 or 3 and why?

We'll take the other issues after

tintingz:


So to end the paradox in the premise you add to propose an uncaused first cause not knowing the uncaused first cause is also paradoxical. Again and I will say it an infinite universe is also as valid as any infinite entity.

You brought another posit that the uncaused first cause is not logical, not scientific and not a thing just to escape. The is a special pleading fallacy!

I've asked you to tell us why the uncaused first cause cannot be caused, what's this uncaused first cause, you keep on giving ridiculous fallacies.

If you can't argue logically please don't start with a logical argument and end up illogical.

shadeyinka:

You see that you can't deny proposition 1 and 2.
Yo can't also deny that they lead to a paradox.

i. So, what's your own Proposition 3 to resolve the paradox?
ii. Can you logicaly show that the universe has always existed?

tintingz:
Lol, who denied the universe having cause and effect? And again if there is cause and effect then infinite regress is necessary.

Then in logic as you posit nothing can cause itself, again Infinite regress is necessary.

Is Infinite regress possible or not, I don't know, we haven't fully understood the universe.

Now for you to end the infinite regress, you brought up a cause that's not caused(uncaused first cause) from nowhere, now if we agree to an uncaused first cause, we will still go back to the logical question, why is it uncaused, where did it come from, what's the nature of this uncaused first cause?

At the end of the argument we're left with gaps and fallacies.

Now, the logical posit that the universe as always exist is base on something cannot come out of nothing, if we assume there's an higher entity that create, it must create the universe from a pre-existing-material not from nothing!

shadeyinka:

But an infinite regression of cause and effect is impossible!
Do you agree?

budaatum:

I don't agree. I'm not arguing God here, but why is an "infinite regression of cause and effect impossible?

shadeyinka:

Increasing entropy.
At maximum entropy, energy and matter is evenly distributed throughout the universe. Therefore, energy interchange which should either lead to a cause or an effect is impossible as there isn't energy difference everywhere in the universe.

If max entropy of the universe is predicted, there is a termination of cause and effect in the universe and thus infinite regress is impossible

peggywebbs:

budaatum:

You are making an unfound proposal of the universe being a system, which I assume you think is closed.

Does your knowledge reach so far that it knows the limits of God?

shadeyinka:

Scientifically, as far as we know, the boundaries of the universe is infinity.

shadeyinka:

So, your problem is that you believe that infinite regress of cause and effect is possible!

1. If that's the case why is the entropy of the universe increasing and never decreasing?
2. Would you agree that at maximum entropy of the universe, no further cause and effect is possible?
3. If cause and effect will terminate in some future time, does it not imply that infinite regress is impossible?

shadeyinka:


Let's not violate the principle of Science by assuming something not yet seen/observed is out there (is that not the same rule Atheists use to rule out God?)

budaatum:

So why assume it isn't? Is there evidence anywhere that suggests the boundaries of the universe is limited?

tintingz:
Again, As long as the assertion of cause and effect comes in Infinite regress is necessary and possible.



These are assumptions and no sort of evidence to prove this claim. We haven't fully understand the universe.

As far as there is cause and effect, infinite regress is necessary and possible, whether there is entropy or not it doesn't negate possiblity of infinite regress.



I'm tired of back and forth argument.

tintingz:

The question you're yet to answer is, why is the uncaused first cause not caused, why is it exempted from the logical premise of causations, what is this uncaused first cause?

budaatum:

Yes, let's not. And well done for seeing the trap you set for yourself and almost fell in to.

We have not seen/observed some of the things we assert and are asking the atheist to take our word for it. Why should they? Are we so authoritative and trustful individuals ourselves that they must trust us or do we have some ulterior motive we perhaps ought to consider especially if our argument is based on inflating how little we know.

Here's a link to my position on the subject from when I was an atheist. It was not evidence or proof for no gods then and is neither for God now, as it is simply a replacement for God by the assumed knowledge in the mind of its user who denys the existence of the observable for the belief in that which they themself assume.

Infinite regressions are mathematically possible, though not many see Mathematics as the Word of God, there at the beginning and through which all was created, though not exclusively even though it is all the way through and in creation. They should exist logically too, except it seems most would not push logic so far and stop where their mind does. And they do exist in Scripture, or at least a time we know not much of does. Or did God just awaken one day and say, "Let us work for six days", with no time before then? Why argue there can not then have been a time before "God said", or times before that of which nothing is known of?

To wit I say, one needs Christ in one's life.

TheArranger:

SHADEYINKA
TINTINGZ
BUDAATUM
LORDREED
XXSABRINAXX

Check this out and let me hear your thoughts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2dYW1pSQy8

shadeyinka:

You have not shown how an infinite regression of cause and effect is possible. This your NEW theory violates many known laws of nature.

1. Infinite regress of cause an effect assumes the possibility of perpetual machines existing.
Take the universe as a Thermodynamic system it's obvious to see the violation
Note:
Q=U+W

Can you show that the universe as a Thermodynamic system exceed the Carnot Efficiency?
2. Infinite regress actually still prove unequivocally that the universe is bounded on all sides by "an unknown kind of constraining Force " which in turn is surrounded by another constraining force which in turn is surrounded by another constraining force....

Do you know the number of assumptions you have inserted?
Would you agree that the fewer the number of assumptions to a theory, the more plausible that theory?
3. There is supposed to be an equivalence of matter and energy.
E=mc^2
How come we can "break" mass into energy but can Energy be converted to mass?
And you still feel that an infinite regression of cause and effect is possible?
In respect of this, what happens at the Heat Death of the universe, how do you propose that mass can be regenerated from Energy?


Rather than just asserting a repetition of "infinite regression of cause and effect" is possible, negate the three points above and show the contrary.

I don't know how you feel this your question make any sense.

1. I am a product of cause and effect!
2. Every knowledge of Science is about cause and effect!
And you want me to explain how/why
i. The Uncaused First Cause was not caused
ii. Why it is exempted from the logical premise of cause and effect
With what Scientific tool?

iii. Your third question of what is this first cause had been answered....it's a NOUN! (A Name!, An Identity, A description)
To help you out: A shadow isn't a person, nor an animal, nor a thing , nor place but yet is a noun.

TheArranger:

SHADEYINKA
TINTINGZ
BUDAATUM
LORDREED
XXSABRINAXX

Check this out and let me hear your thoughts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2dYW1pSQy8

tintingz:

if it can't be scientifically and logically explain, can you tell us the other way it can be explain?