40 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Let me start the discussion with this bit of logic.

1. Whatevrr begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe begin to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

This is the fundamental question of the origin of the universe snf the subject of Religion, Philosophy and Science. Enjoy.

[mikeinnaples]

How original....

http://www.sciencech...hp?f=51&t=15756

[shadowhawk]

How original....

http://www.sciencech...hp?f=51&t=15756

Actually this is not original at all. The topic concerns a basic question humans have been asking since they first looked at the heavens. Perhaps you have never asked that question. The logic in the first post, comes in the form known as the KALAM argument and has been around for several thousand years. It has been asked by Theists, philosophers and scientists. Perhaps your comment was that it was original but let me assure you humans have been dealing with this a long time. Do you have some “original,” thoughts? Let’s hear them.

[mikeinnaples]

How original....

http://www.sciencech...hp?f=51&t=15756

Actually this is not original at all. The topic concerns a basic question humans have been asking since they first looked at the heavens. Perhaps you have never asked that question. The logic in the first post, comes in the form known as the KALAM argument and has been around for several thousand years. It has been asked by Theists, philosophers and scientists. Perhaps your comment was that it was original but let me assure you humans have been dealing with this a long time. Do you have some “original,” thoughts? Let’s hear them.

Sarcasm is lost in the written word I see.

[platypus]

Both premises 1 and 2 can be disputed, i.e. they can be incorrect. That kind of undermines the whole argument.

[shadowhawk]

Both premises 1 and 2 can be disputed, i.e. they can be incorrect. That kind of undermines the whole argument.

Any premise from all and every argument can be disputed. So what? Your statement says absolutely nothing and is not a defeater for the KALAM argument. It can also be correct but saying this does not establish the truth of the argument. You don’t like the KALAM but you have said nothing about it. So...

HOW DID THE UNIVERSE BEGIN, is the topic.

[shadowhawk]

How original....

http://www.sciencech...hp?f=51&t=15756

Actually this is not original at all. The topic concerns a basic question humans have been asking since they first looked at the heavens. Perhaps you have never asked that question. The logic in the first post, comes in the form known as the KALAM argument and has been around for several thousand years. It has been asked by Theists, philosophers and scientists. Perhaps your comment was that it was original but let me assure you humans have been dealing with this a long time. Do you have some “original,” thoughts? Let’s hear them.

Sarcasm is lost in the written word I see.

.

[Lister]

HOW DID THE UNIVERSE BEGIN?

• The universe had no beginning; it has always existed
• Humanities basic understanding of time is deeply flawed
• Infinity is a concept humans cannot grasp and won’t be able to for thousands of years

It's all speculative. Unless you’re speaking in MATH you’re just guessing.

[shadowhawk]

HOW DID THE UNIVERSE BEGIN?

• The universe had no beginning; it has always existed
  
• Humanities basic understanding of time is deeply flawed
  
• Infinity is a concept humans cannot grasp and won’t be able to for thousands of years

It's all speculative. Unless you’re speaking in MATH you’re just guessing.

Premise one would be contradicted by The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem which says every thing in a in a state of expansion, has a beginning. The Theorem is physics. Math does not support one. This holds true for both the big bang and the speculative multi-verse views. It also applies to anything that moves or changes

Premise two contradicts premise one. If you understand, you do not understand, how do you understand the universe always existed and had no beginning?

Premise three contradicts Premise one. How do you know one if three is true?.

Things that are speculative are not necessarily contractive. This is indeed a WAG.

Edited by shadowhawk, 16 May 2013 - 12:01 AM.

[Lister]

HOW DID THE UNIVERSE BEGIN?

• The universe had no beginning; it has always existed
  
• Humanities basic understanding of time is deeply flawed
  
• Infinity is a concept humans cannot grasp and won’t be able to for thousands of years

It's all speculative. Unless you’re speaking in MATH you’re just guessing.

Premise one would be contradicted by The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem which says every thing in a in a state of expansion, has a beginning. The Theorem is physics. Math does not support one. This holds true for both the big bang and the speculative multi-verse views. It also applies to anything that moves or changes

Premise two contradicts premise one. If you understand, you do not understand, how do you understand the universe always existed and had no beginning?

Premise three contradicts Premise one. How do you know one if three is true?.

Things that are speculative are not necessarily contractive. This is indeed a WAG.

Ah but I never said 1 therefore 2 therefore 3, you just assumed that. I also never said that God doesn’t exist or I’m against God.

Essentially my statement was the limit of my possible answer to the question of how the universe began. That is to say “I don’t think we can know.” I, as with others am not well versed in the multiple theories explaining the beginnings of the universe and thus if I tried to speculate I would be doing just that – speculating.

So really Premise or statement one is a theory which states that the universe has always existed. This theory is in contradiction to many other existing theories as is the same with most theories.

Statement two is a theory stating that we don’t understand time. This is again in contradiction to many existing theories but cannot be proven wrong. We probably are wrong about time as we’ve only been studying time for the briefest of moments on universal terms. This theory could use our lack of research into time compared to the scale of the issue of time as proof that we likely don't understand time.

Statement three is again another theory that cannot be proven or disproven. It is so broad and vague that it can only prove one thing definitively. All 3 statements prove my critical point to be true.

We don’t know. When you start these kinds of topics shadow you often act as though you have some certain truth the rest of us aren’t presently privileged enough to know. You have some sort of gift; you have the gift of truth that you wish to share with all us ignorant folks.

Ultimately my point is you don’t know about the beginnings of the universe and neither do we. If that’s a war against God then so be it.

[DukeNukem]

Your opening logic is potentially flawed, because we do not know that the universe didn't exist at some point.

But we do know that the Bible itself is wrong on practically every point regarding creation and science, so relying on that work--the work of bronze-age humans--is the worst source possible.

[shadowhawk]

Your opening logic is potentially flawed, because we do not know that the universe didn't exist at some point.

But we do know that the Bible itself is wrong on practically every point regarding creation and science, so relying on that work--the work of bronze-age humans--is the worst source possible.

Well, you didn’t deal with the topic. How did the universe begin? You didn’t say one way or the other what you thought and what your reasons were. You didn’t even give reasons for questioning the logic is the opening post.

Atheists usually turn to attacking theists but few have their own answers. We all know the Bible is wrong! Ok another subject, but off topic. You gave no reasons for your statements regarding the Bible or the topic. What are your reasons for how the universe begin?

Bronze age humans? Where did that come from? Tell me what did they believe and what it has to do with anything anyone has said? Who soured them?

[shadowhawk]

HOW DID THE UNIVERSE BEGIN?

• The universe had no beginning; it has always existed
  
• Humanities basic understanding of time is deeply flawed
  
• Infinity is a concept humans cannot grasp and won’t be able to for thousands of years

It's all speculative. Unless you’re speaking in MATH you’re just guessing.

Premise one would be contradicted by The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem which says every thing in a in a state of expansion, has a beginning. The Theorem is physics. Math does not support one. This holds true for both the big bang and the speculative multi-verse views. It also applies to anything that moves or changes

Premise two contradicts premise one. If you understand, you do not understand, how do you understand the universe always existed and had no beginning?

Premise three contradicts Premise one. How do you know one if three is true?.

Things that are speculative are not necessarily contractive. This is indeed a WAG.

Ah but I never said 1 therefore 2 therefore 3, you just assumed that. I also never said that God doesn’t exist or I’m against God.

Essentially my statement was the limit of my possible answer to the question of how the universe began. That is to say “I don’t think we can know.” I, as with others am not well versed in the multiple theories explaining the beginnings of the universe and thus if I tried to speculate I would be doing just that – speculating.

So really Premise or statement one is a theory which states that the universe has always existed. This theory is in contradiction to many other existing theories as is the same with most theories.

Statement two is a theory stating that we don’t understand time. This is again in contradiction to many existing theories but cannot be proven wrong. We probably are wrong about time as we’ve only been studying time for the briefest of moments on universal terms. This theory could use our lack of research into time compared to the scale of the issue of time as proof that we likely don't understand time.

Statement three is again another theory that cannot be proven or disproven. It is so broad and vague that it can only prove one thing definitively. All 3 statements prove my critical point to be true.

We don’t know. When you start these kinds of topics shadow you often act as though you have some certain truth the rest of us aren’t presently privileged enough to know. You have some sort of gift; you have the gift of truth that you wish to share with all us ignorant folks.

Ultimately my point is you don’t know about the beginnings of the universe and neither do we. If that’s a war against God then so be it.

In my criticism of your points, I said nothing about God. Nor did I say you said God doesn’t exist or you were against God. A war!!! Where did that come from?

When we have theories there are usually arguments to support them. I could say Mickey Mouse blew a bubble and that is how the universe begin. However one theory is not as good as another. They need reasons and evidence. Most of your arguments are arguments from ignorance. We don’t know anything, therefore.... If you don’t know anything, that is alright. You made three points to prove that. You do know that. How?

I clam that we can know things about the cosmos and presented a little evidence to start the conversation.. You dismissed it with a wave of the hand anc claimed ignorance on the part of everyone. You know that but how?

Your observations of me personalty are equally wrong and baseless. Ho humm .

[Lister]

There are some things we can know with reasonable certainty. The sun will come up tomorrow and go down tomorrow night for example. And you will likely wake up tomorrow as a human on earth instead of waking up as Mickey Mouse on the moon. These are reasonable truths.

When we start to take steps away from the comfortable certainty of the here and now things start to become less and less reasonable. To claim that you know you will wake up tomorrow morning is reasonable but to claim that you’ll wake up 10 years from now as the same person you are today is less reasonable.

There is a point where we begin to fall away from all reasonable truths and begin to enter a world of strict theories. We can know that the mountains were under the oceans billions of years ago through clear obvious analysis of the factual evidence on hand. There are many obvious theories like that but the beginning of the universe is likely not in that category.

What material do we have to study regarding the beginning of the universe at this point? We have the light of the stars and their movement (expansion) out in the universe, background radiation and the like… anything else?

You’re right we can know things about the cosmos but the beginning of the universe is not one of them, not yet. Your logic is not enough and neither are present studies of light, background radiation and the like.

Now if you want to have a strictly casual conversation about how the universe began without trying to prove anything I’m game. I say this but you, shadow, have never shown a capability to think far outside the box with zero evidence on hand; nothing but thought games. Can you do it?

[shadowhawk]

There are some things we can know with reasonable certainty. The sun will come up tomorrow and go down tomorrow night for example. And you will likely wake up tomorrow as a human on earth instead of waking up as Mickey Mouse on the moon. These are reasonable truths.

When we start to take steps away from the comfortable certainty of the here and now things start to become less and less reasonable. To claim that you know you will wake up tomorrow morning is reasonable but to claim that you’ll wake up 10 years from now as the same person you are today is less reasonable.

There is a point where we begin to fall away from all reasonable truths and begin to enter a world of strict theories. We can know that the mountains were under the oceans billions of years ago through clear obvious analysis of the factual evidence on hand. There are many obvious theories like that but the beginning of the universe is likely not in that category.

What material do we have to study regarding the beginning of the universe at this point? We have the light of the stars and their movement (expansion) out in the universe, background radiation and the like… anything else?

You’re right we can know things about the cosmos but the beginning of the universe is not one of them, not yet. Your logic is not enough and neither are present studies of light, background radiation and the like.

Now if you want to have a strictly casual conversation about how the universe began without trying to prove anything I’m game. I say this but you, shadow, have never shown a capability to think far outside the box with zero evidence on hand; nothing but thought games. Can you do it?

There goes science, philosophy, history, and abstract objects such as math. There goes the university, literature and most of human knowledge. All defeated from an argument from ignorance. No use discussing how the cosmos begin because we know we can’t know. We would expect at least one reasonable argument from what most of us do know.

OK so you don’t have a clue. I accept that.

What box? There is none. How do you know someone is in a box? I am not interested in personal attacks. By the way a discussion of ignorance is off topic. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that or am I in the box?

[shadowhawk]

Lister: Now if you want to have a strictly casual conversation about how the universe began without trying to prove anything I’m game. I say this but you, shadow, have never shown a capability to think far outside the box with zero evidence on hand; nothing but thought games. Can you do it?

OK we now have a place where it will be on topic. No games.

Lister Edit: No need shadow. Stick with this topic.

Edited by Lister, 18 May 2013 - 01:28 AM.

[shadowhawk]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe begin to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

I believe the big bang is the best explanation of the beginning of the cosmos and it is the dominate view today. In the past, as science has advanced there have been other dominate views. Some have even proposed these older views here but we have not dealt with them because no reasons have been given as why they are to be preferred.

The Kalam argument argues for a beginning. Perhaps those who reject it have reasons why?

[DukeNukem]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe begin to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

I believe the big bang is the best explanation of the beginning of the cosmos and it is the dominate view today. In the past, as science has advanced there have been other dominate views. Some have even proposed these older views here but we have not dealt with them because no reasons have been given as why they are to be preferred.

The Kalam argument argues for a beginning. Perhaps those who reject it have reasons why?

Once again, your opening statements are not known as facts. We do not know if the universe had a beginning (for example, the big bang could be just one of endless similar events, that have always happened in the past, without a beginning).

However, as time goes on, we'll perhaps come up with a scientific explanation, just like we did for lightning bolts, evolution of life, and the origin of our solar system.

What you're proposing is what religious people have always proposed: If we currently do not have an explanation, it must be a god! That line of thinking has ALWAYS shown to be incorrect in centuries past. Always.

[Lister]

I agree with theories of the big bang. As to the source of the big bang there are several theories including M Theory that are reasonable go to theories. I for one prefer to think outside of that box that apparently doesn’t exist. My Theory:

In the entire universe there are theorized to be equal amounts of negative and positive matter/energy. If you take all of it and add it together this whole universe should amount to nothing. All positive/negative matter and energy cancels out and we’re left with nothing. So then on the flip side to create a universe we need only take 0 and turn it into -10 and +10. The only way I can think of to do this is to have 0 vibrating at such intensely high rates that it is pulled apart. So how does that happen?

Well… It is theorized that everything will end with the heat death of the universe. All of the universe will slowly begin to fall back towards 0. All energy and matter will spread out; positive and negatives will interact until they reach equilibrium. Everything will become 0. There’s a trick here though; when everything becomes 0 everything will become the same.

Now this is where everything slows down and stops right? What if that doesn't happen right away? What if everything begins to vibrating at the same frequency? A universally driven synchronous frequency; that’s a pretty powerful vibration is it not? And as the universe moves closer and closer to zero it will only amplify that frequency until we’re left with the most powerful frequency every; a frequency that’s so powerful it’s enough to shake 0 into -10 and +10. Logic would say that this cannot happen as heat death means frequency death as nothing moves. But before everything stops it must slow down and during that period of time there will be a chance for a uniform frequency to develop. This is where I feel a new or multiple new universes will come about as 0 is shaken into -10 and +10.

Edited by Lister, 18 May 2013 - 01:30 AM.

[NeuroGuy]

In the entire universe there are theorized to be equal amounts of negative and positive matter/energy. If you take all of it and add it together this whole universe should amount to nothing. All positive/negative matter and energy cancels out and we’re left with nothing. So then on the flip side to create a universe we need only take 0 and turn it into -10 and +10.

First off: hello again! I'm back from a short break, though I'm not sure how much I'll be able to participate.

The first part of your theory makes sense in the abstract sense, so I can understand where you're coming from; if it's true that there are equal amounts of negative and positive matter/energy, then when combined it should amount to a net zero. However, there is an inherent contradiction in the reverse of this process that you postulate that I don't think is being considered.

You stated that the reverse of this process, or the creation of the universe, is essentially the process of "0 vibrating at such intensely high rates that it is pulled apart." If 0 here is assumed to be literally nothing, then the description of this process is innately flawed. To begin with, there is no matter or energy to be pulled apart! Secondly, if we were to begin with absolutely nothing, this begs the question of what would be driving the pulling process you described, as energy would not theoretically exist. Finally, it also makes no sense why nothing would only give rise to a universe. If "nothing" was capable of spontaneously generating a universe, why too couldn’t it cause the spontaneous generation of individual planets, or yachts, or even completed scientific dissertations for that matter? To limit its causal powers to the creation of universes ascribes "nothing" with an attribute, namely, an inclination towards causing universes. However, “nothing,” in the metaphysical sense, has no attributes or properties whatsoever. If it did, it would be something other than "nothing."

This all seems to necessitate that the starting point be “something” rather than nothing. Bear in mind, the “nothing” that I’ve referenced does not equal the vacuum of space. Someone might retort that quantum physics allows the spontaneous generation of something from nothing, which in context refers to the generation of subatomic particles within a vacuum. Yet a vacuum is not “nothing,” as it contains both space and random fluctuations of energy all throughout. Neither of these properties exist in a hypothetical state of “nothing,” as neither space nor energy would have come into existence yet.

[DukeNukem]

Many researchers consider our universe "the ultimate free lunch," meaning it's a zero-sum energy event, and was an inevitable outcome. In other words, to think of our universe as "something from nothing" is the wrong way to think of it. That's why I consider Shadowhawk's opening logic claims to be naive, and completely biased in favor of his religious belief of "creationism" in some form.

Is Our Universe the Ultimate Free Lunch?
http://www.huffingto..._b_2123732.html

While we still don't have definite answers, we are on the trail and so far there's no indication that a god or gods are necessary to create the visible universe around us. And if gods did create the universe, who created the gods? Don't religious people see that if they claim that "whatever exists must have a cause," the same logic MUST apply to their gods? Or are they really able to sweep that frustrating fact under the rug and hope no one looks there?

Edited by DukeNukem, 18 May 2013 - 07:45 PM.

[Shepard]

For those unaware, the Kalam argument was re-popularized by the apologist and heavyweight debater William Lane Craig. Most of the above comments have been answered in one way or another (satisfactory or not) in his writings and debates.

Shadowhawk, have you read The Fallacy of Fine Tuning by Stenger, which includes his critique of Craig's (mis)use of the BGV theorem?

[Lister]

I would be interested to hear Shadows response to shepard's response above. But now that NeuroGuy is back (welcome back) I have to respond to him!

First off: hello again! I'm back from a short break, though I'm not sure how much I'll be able to participate.

The first part of your theory makes sense in the abstract sense, so I can understand where you're coming from; if it's true that there are equal amounts of negative and positive matter/energy, then when combined it should amount to a net zero. However, there is an inherent contradiction in the reverse of this process that you postulate that I don't think is being considered.

You stated that the reverse of this process, or the creation of the universe, is essentially the process of "0 vibrating at such intensely high rates that it is pulled apart." If 0 here is assumed to be literally nothing, then the description of this process is innately flawed. To begin with, there is no matter or energy to be pulled apart! Secondly, if we were to begin with absolutely nothing, this begs the question of what would be driving the pulling process you described, as energy would not theoretically exist. Finally, it also makes no sense why nothing would only give rise to a universe. If "nothing" was capable of spontaneously generating a universe, why too couldn’t it cause the spontaneous generation of individual planets, or yachts, or even completed scientific dissertations for that matter? To limit its causal powers to the creation of universes ascribes "nothing" with an attribute, namely, an inclination towards causing universes. However, “nothing,” in the metaphysical sense, has no attributes or properties whatsoever. If it did, it would be something other than "nothing."

This all seems to necessitate that the starting point be “something” rather than nothing. Bear in mind, the “nothing” that I’ve referenced does not equal the vacuum of space. Someone might retort that quantum physics allows the spontaneous generation of something from nothing, which in context refers to the generation of subatomic particles within a vacuum. Yet a vacuum is not “nothing,” as it contains both space and random fluctuations of energy all throughout. Neither of these properties exist in a hypothetical state of “nothing,” as neither space nor energy would have come into existence yet.

I agree with you. I think really what I'm trying to say is that I feel that “nothing” is inherently instable and that instability is dependent on how much "nothing" exists. Now that's completely counter intuitive I know however instability strikes me as being a creative function.

Now I have to say I don’t like this theory at all. This means that the universe has to almost completely end before we can get a shiny, new one.

I’ve also thought it might be consciousness that inevitably causes the creation of the universe; that all consciousness in the universe “clings” to itself as the rest of the universe dies around it and eventually once enough consciousness has gathered it is “strong” enough to create a universe. That gathered consciousness could then be considered to be “God” and religion is really all based upon a memory of when our consciousness was part of a much larger and more powerful whole. Though this theory assume that consciousness has some inherent power and that consciousness can never or is rarely ever destroyed. I like this theory better for obvious reasons.

[NeuroGuy]

Many researchers consider our universe "the ultimate free lunch," meaning it's a zero-sum energy event, and was an inevitable outcome. In other words, to think of our universe as "something from nothing" is the wrong way to think of it.

The author of the article, Mario Livio, states that for the ultimate free lunch hypothesis to be viable, “we do have to assume that the laws of physics continue to apply even when there is nothing.” Yet this is a weighty assumption; why should they apply when there is nothing? We know that the laws of physics, much like the fundamental physical constants, are not metaphysically necessary; there are conceivable universes where different physical laws and constants exist. Given that fact, in a literal state of nothingness, there is good reason to believe that our current physical laws wouldn't apply, as there would be no specific universe yet in existence with a specific set of physical laws to even apply to it.

And if gods did create the universe, who created the gods? Don't religious people see that if they claim that "whatever exists must have a cause," the same logic MUST apply to their gods?

This is a legitimate question, and I wholeheartedly agree that the same logic must apply to any alleged deity or deities. However, that said, you seem to have misread the premise. The premise is not “whatever exists must have a cause,” but “whatever begins to exist must have a cause.” This certainly sweeps a plethora of religious conceptions of various deities off of the rational landscape. Yet the Judeo-Christian conception holds that God is a non-contingent, non-physical, unembodied consciousness that exists necessarily. If a being exists by the necessity of its own nature, it has neither a beginning nor an end, and thus does not require a cause.

I’ve also thought it might be consciousness that inevitably causes the creation of the universe; that all consciousness in the universe “clings” to itself as the rest of the universe dies around it and eventually once enough consciousness has gathered it is “strong” enough to create a universe. That gathered consciousness could then be considered to be “God” and religion is really all based upon a memory of when our consciousness was part of a much larger and more powerful whole. Though this theory assume that consciousness has some inherent power and that consciousness can never or is rarely ever destroyed. I like this theory better for obvious reasons.

I do find the first part of this alternative theory better. However, the rest of it seems to posit a cyclically forming consciousness that extends back ad infinitum. Yet from our modern understanding of set theory, the absurdity of the actually infinite (see Hilbert’s Hotel) renders this infinite regress implausible.

[DukeNukem]

To me, the most mind-blowing question is, How does a universe exist? Why not just endless literal nothingness? The fact that we are here, must mean it was inevitable. It's probably a bad assumption to think that literal nothingness is possible -- there must alway be some emergent laws that allow for quantum possibilities that eventually lead to a universe. Humans can't comprehend the idea that true nothingness cannot exist, and we always want to find a beginning, but in the case of the base laws that birthed us, I suspect they've always existed, infinitely far back in time.

[sthira]

Nothing new to add here; but it could be the case that all possible universes exist because all possible universes can exist. It could simultaneously be that all possible variants of infinite nothingness also "exist." Language breaks down here and words sound nonsensical. We're trapped within our cultural boundaries. Our tools will get us closer to answering our questions. But when the do, we're back to the language problem because how then will our tools communicate their ineffable (to us) discoveries?

[platypus]

If a being exists by the necessity of its own nature, it has neither a beginning nor an end, and thus does not require a cause.

I'd rephrase: If something exists by the necessity of its own nature, it has neither a beginning nor an end, and thus does not require a cause. This neatly covers universes too.

[shadowhawk]

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe begin to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

I believe the big bang is the best explanation of the beginning of the cosmos and it is the dominate view today. In the past, as science has advanced there have been other dominate views. Some have even proposed these older views here but we have not dealt with them because no reasons have been given as why they are to be preferred.

The Kalam argument argues for a beginning. Perhaps those who reject it have reasons why?

Once again, your opening statements are not known as facts. We do not know if the universe had a beginning (for example, the big bang could be just one of endless similar events, that have always happened in the past, without a beginning).

However, as time goes on, we'll perhaps come up with a scientific explanation, just like we did for lightning bolts, evolution of life, and the origin of our solar system.

What you're proposing is what religious people have always proposed: If we currently do not have an explanation, it must be a god! That line of thinking has ALWAYS shown to be incorrect in centuries past. Always.

My opening statement was a question with no attempt at making it a “fact.” This is a straw man. It is not a fact that the universe beginning is one of a endless similar events. You have 0 evidence for such an impossible endless regress of events.

Perhaps in the future is also not a fact. Perhaps, anything. Perhaps God? Shall we compare apples and oranges or apples and bananas? Wishful thinking is not a fact either. Someday, maybe...

The Big Bang was not invented by religious people. Nor, did I say God did it. The KALAM says nothing about God. However since you brought it up, how is God always an incorrect answer for a beginning?

[shadowhawk]

For those unaware, the Kalam argument was re-popularized by the apologist and heavyweight debater William Lane Craig. Most of the above comments have been answered in one way or another (satisfactory or not) in his writings and debates.

Shadowhawk, have you read The Fallacy of Fine Tuning by Stenger, which includes his critique of Craig's (mis)use of the BGV theorem?

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe begin to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
4. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
5. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
6. Therefore, it is due to design.

Saying someone disagrees with this reasoning says nothing about its truth. So? The KALAM has long been debated. Let me expand the argument to include a designer. So if you want to avoid the conclusions of these arguments, you must reject at least one of their premises as false. So I invite you to tell me: which premise do you reject and why? Don’t hide behind insults; engage the arguments. We have has so many verbal attacks here that real discussion is impossible. Thanks for your civility.

The BIRDE GUTH VILENKIN THEOREM wad something I mentioned earlier The origin of the universe is confirmed by philosophical arguments and scientific evidence.

There cannot be an actual infinite number of past events, because mathematical operations like subtraction and division cannot be applied to actual infinities. There are other reasons but I won’t go there unless someone else does.

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) proof shows that every universe that expands must have a space-time boundary in the past. That means that no expanding universe, no matter what the model, can be eternal into the past. When one thinks about it, I think this goes for movement in general. This has a unrecognized impact on the Origin of life as well but I am getting off topic.

I have not read the article by Stenger but here is a recent debate with Craig. Very good point on the BGV .
.
Following the debate is a video regarding the BGV Theorem which should clear up Steigner’s misrepresentation of it..

[Shepard]

Don’t hide behind insults; engage the arguments.

Not sure if you're talking to me, but I meant no insult to anyone in this thread or the two outside people I mentioned.

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) proof shows that every universe that expands must have a space-time boundary in the past. That means that no expanding universe, no matter what the model, can be eternal into the past.

The "expanding, on average" point is pretty much the issue of conflict as it doesn't account for other alternatives. On WLC's own site, it is brought up that the BGV theorem is not quite as powerful as WLC makes it out to be in debates. It would be interesting to read his Kalam essay in the Blackwell companion.