As far as the OP is concerned, I believe the best response is: “I don’t know and neither do you.”
We can all sit here a hypothesize for years, yet without empirical evidence to support our theories it all boils down to faith. And it simply becomes a logical impossibility to argue for or against a belief held on same. Look it up, it is in the very definition of the word.
MEBuckner, agreed completely if you’re using definition 1a of the word. I personally believe it’s silly to predict what man may or may not be able to know/learn and your hypothetical only proves my point. OTOH, if someone takes definitions 1b or 2 for its usage: “One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism” and “one who is doubtful or noncommittal about something” respectibly, your sample does not hold – that’s where G. H. Smith comes in with a hard tackle, not easy to rebutt, yet I disagree with him. I’m guessing you’ve read the book I referenced, but that’s a whole 'nother debate.
I personally define myself as a “strong atheist” when it comes to all man-made religions, yet I like to use the word “agnostic” and/or “weak atheist” when it comes to genesis.
But there must still be the unmoved mover–whatever you call this entity–even if the movement that puts the universe into motion is by “chance,” whatever that would mean.
Why? I believe the state of things right now is that there was no “before the big bang.” Time started then so to speak of something existing before the universe doesn’t make sense.
It seems to me that the argument that “there must have been an unmoved mover” is nothing but the statement that “everthing has a cause” in different paint.
The problem here is that this leads to infinite regress and no beginning will ever be found.
If everthing has a cause, then the universe has a cause, and the cause of the universe has a cause, and the cause of the cause of the universe has a cause, and so on ad infinitum.
I think you’re misunderstanding the argument. It specifically asserts that this infinite regression is illogical. Consequently, there must be a single first mover.
To take this a little further. The statement “there must have been an unmoved mover” implies that the universe couldn’t exist without a cause. If it is argued that the unmoved mover exists without a cause, that is a claim that something can exist without a cause. In that case it might as well be the universe as the “unmoved mover.” The claimed existence of the “unmoved mover” is a postulate on which everthing else depends and is, as such, unprovable. It is no better than the claim that the universe is uncaused which is fully equivalent to the claim that the “unmoved mover” is uncaused.
Essentially, the big bang did. We cant know the condition of the universe before the big bang, so theres no point in trying to measure anything, including time, before it. Everything that has happened that can have any effect on us happened after the big bang. So for us, time starts at the big bang. Its a convention, much like the idea of time itself.
According the Occam’s Razor, the beginning of the universe shouldn’t even come into equation as of yet. It seems as though the universe is expanding quickly enough for us to not receive the first light waves - inductive logic creates hypotheses, not theories.
Also, though: Big Bang theory IS currently being questioned by the recent validation of dark matter. It’s likely going to stand up to it, though I’m guessing it’s in for a bit of a reworking. (The universe is still expanding from a denser state…though dark matter may hold an answer we’ve not yet found)
Wrong. An agnostic believes it is impossible to know whether or not God exists. I think there is a possibility that God exists. However, the possiblity that God exists is less than the possibility that Bigfoot exists, or that the Tooth Fairy exists. I prefer to simply say that I don’t believe in God. To say that such-and-such is impossible is too limiting, since what seems impossible at one time often is shown to be possible at a later time.
This is sort of a pet peeve of mine, because I’ve noticed that theists are quick to try to slap a label on you:
“I don’t believe in God”
“Then you’re an ATHEIST, right?”
“Yes, I suppose I am”
Then as soon as they have that label affixed, they want to tell you what you do or do not believe. :smack:
We’ve had lively threads here where certain non-christians (and a few christians too) have, with great enthusiasm, informed christians about what they (the christian) had to believe.
Labelling folks is sooooooooooo convenient. Then I don’t have to think about them much anymore.
I thought that was hard agnosticism; soft agnosticism, on the other hand, is simply not knowing yourself. Similarly, hard atheism is saying definitively “there is no God,” and soft atheism is personally disbelieving. I don’t think God exists, but I do think that I could be wrong, simply because I’m fallible.
Well ReggieB called it “God”, but the name is not the point. The point is that you’re simply using a word as a place-holder for “that which I don’t understand”. It doesn’t shed any light on the problem.
If you want to believe in God, that’s super, but it doesn’t make sense to use logic to arrive at God, but then discontinue the reasoning once you get to God. If God can be non-created, why can’t the universe be non-created?
Hot damn. I honestly don’t understand why posters ignore what’s already been discussed.
Again, look-up MEBuckner’s link to the American Heritage® Dictionary definition of “agnostic” and you’ll find more than the one usage you’re using as a definition of same.
In the situation of an event which doesn’t follow any current Laws, nor follow any current Theories, yes, it is necessary to travel into the past to observe what Laws did exist at the zero-hour - otherwise, any occurrences that happened AFTER expansion began, are based on a model of existence that has no bearing on the model of existence (or lack thereof) at the zero-hour of the universe.
It has now been pointed out by two of us that your “unmoved mover” is just an arbitrary stopping point asserted by you, and St. Tom, to avoid infinite regress. As long as it’s arbitrary then the universe itself is just as good as your “unmoved mover.”
