StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Hi, everyone. I'm not a big important scientist or quantum physicist, so I was hoping someone like that could help me out here. I'm in a debate with someone (a Christian) about the origins of the universe. He claims that since effects always follow causes, something must have initiated time and matter into being (that something being God, of course). This is a simplification, but that's basically what he's saying. For awhile now I've gone with Carl Sagan's view that the universe could be eternally old, perhaps in an eternal expanding-contracting cycle (of course, it depends on how much matter there is in the universe, which is unclear as yet). But he says that this contradicts the whole meaning of causality, since we live in a universe where every action has an equal and opposite reaction. I don't really see why it's impossible that we live in an eternally old universe that happens to have a rule of causality, but he does. Obviously there's not much science dealing with these things yet--I suppose that's why religions have made up so much stuff about it, since religion is always used to explain what people don't understand--but can anyone help me think of a response? I'd be very grateful.

This is a bog-standard religious argument.

I'm in a debate with someone (a Christian) about the origins of the universe. He claims that since effects always follow causes, something must have initiated time and matter into being (that something being God, of course).

If anything must have a cause, what caused god? What caused the cause of god, and what caused that one, etc. pp.

But he says that this contradicts the whole meaning of causality, since we live in a universe where every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Before the creation of space-time, there obviously was no time (nor any space, of course). Yes, that's a confusing concept - but if we accept that space-time WAS created by something or someone, then that creation happened outide of time. It is therefore not a causality - there might be a cause, but it could just as well work without one. Causality is only required if we have time, which was not there before space-time.

His entire argument boils down to infinite regress, and thats what you should focus on. If everything must be caused, then god must have a cause as well. If we can make a special extemption for god and say that he did not have a cause, why can't we make other such extemptions and assume that the universe did not have a cause?
That's what you should ask, there is no logical response to it. God is simply a redundant term here.

If anything must have a cause, what caused god? What caused the cause of god, and what caused that one, etc. pp.

Well, he claims that since God is outside of any physical laws (convenient, isn't it?) he doesn't need a creator. By definition, God was the first, and only, thing.

Before the creation of space-time, there obviously was no time (nor any space, of course). Yes, that's a confusing concept - but if we accept that space-time WAS created by something or someone, then that creation happened outide of time. It is therefore not a causality - there might be a cause, but it could just as well work without one. Causality is only required if we have time, which was not there before space-time.

That's a good point, I'll bring it up.

If he claims that, then he is making a special exception for god. If he can do that, why can't we make it for the universe itself?

Because God is special, of course. The universe is not. It's just physics and stuff. You don't really expect consistency out of these people do you?

It's nice that Christians these days have to go all the way back to the Big Fucking Bang to insert "God Did It!" because they know we can already explain every single other fucking thing that they used to say "God Did It!" about. I'm really tired of people trying to claim that the Universe simply must require a Creator, but somehow it's okay for the Creator to have always existed.