What is caused?
From the IAmAnAtheist.com comment form and personal correspondence
Your unending conversation is pointless. If there was a big bang then there was a being that caused it. Nothing that comes into existence does so without a cause. What’s so hard?
I’d be happy to discuss this with you. Just to make sure we are on the same page: you say that everything that comes into existence has a cause. Can you give me an example?
Pedantic much? Cars built by mechanic, baby born to mother, stars formed from a collection of dust. EVERYTHING that comes into existence has a cause except, you say, the universe.
Cars, babies, and stars don’t come into existence. Rather, something (an engineer, biological processes, gravity) causes raw materials to form into cars, babies, and stars. Are you saying that the universe was made from raw materials?
By the way, I don’t say that the universe was uncaused. But we’ll get into that after we agree what your question means.
Are you just word games? If there wasn’t a star then gas compresses into a star, then the star came into existence. The universe was not made by God out of raw materials because there was nothing before
This isn’t a word game; it’s an important part of our discussion. If you can say that a star came into existence when a cloud of dust contracted, can you also say that a small cloud of dust “came into existence” when a larger cloud of dust contracted? The small cloud wasn’t there before, after all.
Your argument seems to boil down to this:
1) Whenever something is rearranged to create something new, there is a cause.
2) The universe came from nothing.
3) Therefore the universe had a cause.
That just doesn’t follow. If I’m incorrect about what you mean in one of these steps, let me know.
1 is wrong. I am not talking about rearranging but about creating. 2 is wrong. The universe was created by God. 3 is true. Quantum physics is an example of things coming from nothing.
In #1, you have not shown me why you distinguish rearranging from creating. Adding God to #2 assumes what you are trying to prove.
Quantum physics is of no help to you here. If virtual particle pairs appear uncaused from nothing, then either you have to show that a creator makes them directly or you’ve just disproven your own argument by giving an example of something coming uncaused from nothing .
Rearranging is moving around. Creating is making something new. Whenever something is created there is a designer. The universe was something new out of nothing so there was a designer.
Even with your definition, you’ve still not shown how creating out of raw materials is analogous to the Big Bang unless raw materials also went into the Big Bang. And if the Big Bang used raw materials, then it could just have been the result of a natural process. God — any designer — is not implied.
You are also now saying that anything that is created has a creator. So are you saying that stars had creators? If you say that God is their creator, then once again you are assuming what you are setting out to prove. Saying “God must have made the stars, therefore God must have made the universe” isn’t at all compelling to someone who doesn’t think that God made the stars in the first place.
You’re an a*****e. You deny God, you deny that things are created by a cause. New things come into existence all the time and they are all caused. The universe came into existence so it was caused. It came into existence form nothing so God is the cause. It’s not brain surgery.
I agree that things that are created (by your definition) have a cause. I agree that new things come into existence, in the sense that new things are made out of existing materials. I agree that it is reasonable to assume that the universe had a cause. I disagree that the universe necessarily came from nothing. Why couldn’t there have been something natural before our universe? God is not necessary anywhere in any of this.
You don’t even listen.