Perhaps there are no potentiating conditions for the 'beginning', that the beginning is only the product of an acausal or random occurrence. Although I suppose I am assuming that the big bang is the 'beginning', which very well may not be so; though I don't see why it would be important to assume otherwise.

The Big Bang can be dis proven by logic though. Either matter existed forever or a being did(god) or both. The Big bang theory attempts to disprove god so lets just ignore that part. If matter existed forever that would mean that before the big bang supposedly happened there would have been a infinite amount of time that matter did nothing until a random explosion (this is impossible something would have started the chain reaction happened unless you are suggesting there was a source of power that could have infinite amounts of energy which also would have to have existed forever like the matter. If this was the case the energy would still exist today because it was infinite. also yes the universe is expanding that how the big bang theory got the popular but radiation through out the universe is not equal if explosion happen in all directions with equal force how is this possible?

Nothing can be disproved by logic. The fact that our brains can conjure up a logical tautology need not have anything to do with physical reality.

No it does not. It makes no statement, offers no opinion, and offers no evidence affirmatively or negatively about any idea of god from any tradition, or any of the putative works of such a god.

Because mass and energy are not equal, because by virtue of gravity particles with mass aggregated together and ultimately formed stars and planets. The equal force in that initial instant has become progressively unequal as massive objects have formed and as spatial relationships have changed. Furthermore, we still haven't been able to account for the proposed "dark energy" by which the expansion of the universe is accelerating -- so there's much about the Big Bang that will be revised when this is better understood.

applying physical laws to hypothetical circumstances involves the understanding of the physical world how does it not?

Does a beginning necessarily have to imply the start of time?

The cause of the big bang I would think was purely random.

Causality must have time and since time was not the same in the prelude of the big bang then purpose would have no effect on the occurrence or a 'beginning', that is if you consider the big bang the very beginning.

Therefore something must exist during the prelude that is acausal. Something acausal would imply that there is no cause to govern the future of it from the past or present instances. The only way I can see this being possible is for every part of this 'something' to be the same so as to have every instance of its existence infer the outcome of its existence in another instance.

Matter is governed by the fundamental forces of nature therefore is it very causal, so rule matter out as beign that 'something'.
Energy acts through entropy but only in a closed system would disorder increase, and I hope you will all consider the inpossibility of the cosmos being finite. So perhaps there is an energy that is alike all the time to create the universe as it is today. ( Any ideas would help as to what this 'something' could be :confused: ).

So I don't see why we need the creator to be 'God', although it would be interesting to study humanity's historical perception of God and sees if it parallels the 'something' I'm trying to think of.

Either the big bang is part of an infinite cycle or the big bang is not the true beginning. An instance that has logical conceivance implies a before and after of that instance. It is a paradox really, because can there be a true beginning? I mean there will always be a way to conceive the potential circumstances of an "outside of the box" realm, which will again be a box to have an outer part. Think about Olber's bubble as an example. The cosmos must surely be infinite, because in an infinite realm the outcome of 'logic perceiving life' becomes a reality.

Also, somebody mentioned how is the big bang explosion able to create a force equal in all directions? I would assume that calling the Big Bang an explosion is wrong, it is just an expansion, the balloon analogy works well in this case I think.

I will have to read your essay at a later time; it is not neccessary for me first to disprove your thesis, which I should be able to do in one sentence.

An absolute proof of some state of affairs, such as this or that is so and so, requires a basis, which basis itself requires a proof, which proof again requires a basis and so on ad infinitum; thus, nothing can be proven, only disproven.

...unless it is in a closed system". There, I fixed your argument which only holds in open systems so as to include the case of closed systems such as mathematics. A closed system must be constructed to create a proof. Proof does not apply to open systems, hence that there are no physical laws, only theories(don't jump on this only theories comment Aedes, you should know what I mean by this). The system in consideration is an open one, thus a proof cannot be constructed.

The proof presented holds as axioms certain physical theories, among other things, and is thus invalid outside of its domian i.e. a universe where these are not definitely true, i.e. our universe.

In other words, a closed system is one whose premise is generally acccepted and in which there can be absolute proof. This absolute proof means only, the limited proof which we have renamed absolute proof, because, for the sake of argument, we have ignored the vulnerability of the premise to valid criticism.

Donald Schneider,

Where to begin??? There are so many fundamental errors in your argument that it's difficult to fasten on any one as more or less significant than all the others.

In no particular order, a less than comprehensive list:

Einstien's theory is not correct - you misunderstand the nature of truth/knowledge.

Cause and effect are a temporal-logic framework that came into existence at the big bang. Cause and effect break down at the point of the big bang - because spacetime itself came into existence in that moment. All talk of before the big bang, and therefore a cause of the universe, is meaningless.

Ideas spring out of nowhere and disappear from the argument - where for example, does the idea of a stagnant universe come from and what does it mean?

The universe is not static or stagnant.

Dynamic forces within a static universe???

Your thought experiment is unnecessary.

It simply doesn't follow, logically, or in any way I can discern that:

'Just as a painting's obviously orderly composition did not result from any event within the canvass, but rather from order imposed from without (i.e. by the artist) the undeniable order that permaetes our reality and renders our existence possible must likewise have been imposed from without, by a creator of some sort.'

The 'universe' - and 'without' are a contradiction in terms.

On the whole. If you want to believe in God, don't look for scientific justification. You do science no favours. You do religion no favours. You certainly don't do Ross, Schick, or Einstien any favours.

With all due respect, this is asre gravy of the worst kind.

iconoclast.

Yes it does -- at least affirmative proof applies. I can prove to you that I've got ten fingers. How? Come here and look. That is the root of all empirical science. I can prove that Mount Everest is the tallest mountain on earth the exact same way, but by virtue of using a more complex but validated methodology. That's affirmative proof. It's negative proof that cannot (in an absolute sense) apply to an open system, because negative proof would require knowledge of an infinite number of instances. In other words, I can prove to you that there are squirrels in North Carolina by showing you my back yard. I cannot prove to you that there are no abominable snowmen in North Carolina, though.

So theoretically in the PHYSICAL world someone can prove the existence of a creator. The thing is, no one has done so. People resort to logic to do so. Strange, though, that it's easier for me to prove that I've got lint in my navel than it is for someone to prove that God exists. What do you think that means?

I would advise you to read a book called "The Kuzari". In the beginning of the book, the King of the Kazars invites a christian and a muslim to present their religion. Both of them bring proof of the creator as creating the universe. What the King slyly answers is that this is not an acceptable proof. No one was present to witness the creation of the universe, thus there is no proof that it was created. He then invites the Jew to speak and the Jew says "I beleive in the God that took us out of Egypt".
This begins a series of philosophical discussions, because many were present during the exodus and the receiving on Mount Sinai. Mohammad was alone in a cave.

This is what is known as a Historical proof. How do we know that any History is accurate? Much of the History we know of comes from written documentation. Written documentation that was accepted by the masses as being true. The masses would obviously not accept a History that was false, especially if the History forced them to keep 613 difficult commandments. The people would simply say "I'm not doing that cause this history is false"
This is known as the Kuzari principle, and underlies the only way God can be proven. The only way is through interaction. Nothing exists unless it interacts with reality. If you can prove that God interacts with reality (Such as the exodus that was witnessed by the masses and recorded in both Egyptian Hyroglyphics and the Bible) then you can prove God.
Think about a slave Nation that is ruled by the World's super power of the time. And one of the slaves comes and says, God will free us. He will do so and so and we will be free.
This is highly unlikely and if it happens then it was either the biggest fluke or there is a divine intelligence that plans the world. Then in the dessert 600,000 people all hear the voice of God and record it in the book. The book also says "You did not drink wine so you know what you experienced is real"
The nation also practices a yearly tradition where the father tells the son "I was in Egypt, My father told me, and his father told him and one day you will tell your son, it happened."

iconoclast writes: "On the whole. If you want to believe in God, don't look for scientific justification. You do science no favours. You do religion no favours. You certainly don't do Ross, Schick, or Einstien any favours."

Hello,
My answer: There are proofs using logic and science for a Creator of this universe.

Here follows a proof for a Singularity (Creator):
"Matter exists. Scientists concur that matter is ultimately composed of a combination of pure forces (quarks) emanating from a Prime Force, i.e. a Singularity. Stated conversely, that Singularity is responsible for everything physical in the universe, all matter and all laws governing matter. Nor can any intelligent person escape the conclusion that the universe manifests, at every turn, intelligent design; of an intelligence far exceeding our own.

Thus we unavoidably encounter a super-intelligent Singularity. The most eminent scientists, including physicists, acknowledge that even though they're uncomfortable with how theologians distort it.
Moreover, it isn't logically defensible to state that "it is impossible for anyone to completely prove that there is or isn't a Creator." At best, you can only state that you don't know of such a proof. In fact, such a proof exists.

Thus I offer the following proof that there is a Singularity-Creator, the well recognized reductio ad absurdum proof (proof by disproof).

Assume: There is no Singularity (Creator).

Therefore: There is no matter nor physical universe that conform to the known physical laws.
Point of fact: There is matter and a physical universe that conform to the known physical laws. (Contradiction proves the antithesis of the assumption; i.e. proof by disproof).
Therefore: There is a Singularity (Creator)!

To dispute this proof, one must find and prove that the laws governing the universe are, in fact, different from the known laws governing the universe (a daunting task indeed) AND provide an alternative explanation for its existence not requiring a Singularity-Creator.
So, in fact, those who ASSUME there is no Creator, contrary to all evidence (every atom and quark that exists in the universe) and proof, are the ones who are blind ignorant.

This proof also demonstrates that the argument to ignore all of the evidence in the universe that witness a Singularity-Creator is argument ad ignorantiam , the appeal to ignorance and evasion of the burden of proof. The onus is upon whomever would argue to dismiss all of the known laws of the universe and its implications to prove their case, not for those whose views are in harmony with all of the known laws of the universe and its implications to prove the argument ad ignorantiam wrong. Ad ignorantiam is wrong prima facie , by definition as a well-recognized logical fallacy."

Quote from: Paqid Yirmeyahu ha-Tzadiq - www.netzarim.co.il

The above quote surely satisfied all intelligent and logical persons.


All the best,
Anders Branderud

I stopped reading right there, thinking "Finally ! Logical proof of God !"

One question though. How can you honestly assign the property of "is intelligent" (property otherwise observed only in highly evolved biological organisms) to an inorganic, super hot, super dense theoretical particle that in many ways would resemble a black hole ?