I'm not sure it's necessarily true that whatever begins to exist has a cause. I'm willing to accept that this is true within the universe, and I think it seem intuitive, probably because that's what we observe within the universe. But I think quantum physics has shown us that things that seem intuitive aren't necessarily true, and I'm not sure we can assume that what applies within the universe necessarily applies externally to it. (And if we were going to assume that what applies within the universe necessarily applies externally to it, then the principle of the conservation of energy would rule out creation ex nihilo.) But it does seem intuitive, so let's assume it's true. Let's also assume the universe was caused by something transcendent, eternal, immaterial, and powerful. I still have issue with the ideas that it would be smart, personal, creative, and caring. If the thing that caused the universe was itself uncaused, then there would be nothing to cause it to be these things. It would have to be these things by mere chance. And that seems less likely to me than a multiverse that's transcendent, eternal, immaterial, and powerful, but simply creates random universes. And I don't buy the idea that Occam's razor would suggest that there would only be one of something. To me, I think Occam's razor would suggest that, e.g., there are probably no unicorns, because I think evidence for unicorns is lacking. But if I had evidence for one unicorn, then I don't think Occam's razor would suggest that there weren't any others. If I had evidence for one unicorn, then I don't think the existence of other unicorns would any longer be an outlandish suggestion. Universes, I would say, aren't implausible things, because we already know there's at least one of them.
This isa bit outdated. I'm a believer but I like to keep things accurate & honest. The primary theory has been Big Bang for some decades but some have always held to other Constant State Theories, and, more recently the new cosmological info coming in has in fact strongly backed the Constant State model & the Big Bang is having a hard time & not answering this.
In fact it’s exactly the opposite. The Constant state theory was suggested in 1940 but abandoned because of its incapacity to be consistent with the observations that came afterwards.
Well then that universe has a cause, even if this supposedly happened 1 billion times, there still has to be a beginning because if there is an infinity past in a dimension of time we would never get to present day
@@digital_gaming8568 bottom line is, we don't know. And since we don't like that, we make up explanations. I'll stick to science, at least it admits being wrong when proven wrong, and amends itself. Religion doesn't do that It'll blame it's failure on your unwillingness to accept "truth".
yes, I agree at the end there should be a creator. But we end up with the paradox of creator of the creator of the creator and so on. And the fact that the Big Ben was the collapse of a previous universe can advocate for the nothing create nothing. @@boxonothing4087 where something proved God doesn’t exist ?
Premise Premise Conclusion No God in this syllogism but I'm gonna pretend as if it concludes the thing I'm trying to prove anyways. Also: Prove Premise two to be true
@@nikke36 before time would mean there was no time before time, it’s not really the right words, but time would have to be created, because if time was infinite, we could never get to the present day. Anyway, God would be outside space and time, and if he created it he would be in a sense before space and time
