Need an uncaused first cause?

They seem to think it’s their best argument so here you go;

For the purpose of argument I’ll grant that something of finite duration requires an infinite first cause because infinite regression goes against common reason (also I’ll note that infinite regression and an infinite subject are logically interchangeable).

All the evidence of Big Bang Theory takes us back to a singularity. A point where time has no practical meaning. From which the rapid expansion known as the Big Bang could “begin”.

Maths describes this singularity in a way that words never could. Any attempt is poetic licence at best but an effort must be made..

First thing to note about a singularity is that it is in a state of entropy. Now entropy is an equilibrium but isn’t necessarily perfect. The cosmic background radiation shows imperfect expansion so the singularity must be also (good start for God yeah?).

A fluctuating state of entropy could theoretically remain so indefinitely. Most of the fluctuations would resolve back to normal entropy without consequence. But sometimes the fluctuation might cause enough “space” for forces to resolve.

Now most of the time these would again collapse back into steady entropy. This pattern could still continue indefinitely. Especially since we’re not dealing with “time” here, this state is functionally eternal.

Now if this happens perpetually there will eventually and inevitably come instances where the entropic state fluctuates and forces resolve enough for the internal expansion to overwhelm the contraction and a big bang to occur.

Remember the “Big Crunch” theories everyone was worried about a few years ago? Most of the innumerable examples of this type of expansion would fall into this category. Most before stars could form, even if the laws in those universes could handle stars.

But evidently we ended up in one where stars could form and.. well the rest as they say is history.

To think the Big Bang was the only one and that it required intent, is the most grievous puddle thinking I have ever seen.


About (V)nemoni)(s

The views and opinions expressed here are purely my own. I am not affiliated with and business or political body. All content is either my own work, items in the public domain, or items used under the terms of Fair Usage for criticism, commentary, or education purposes. (Also; only a fool would take anything posted on here seriously.)
This entry was posted in Atheism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Need an uncaused first cause?

  1. KIA says:

    the ‘tell’ is in the first premise. the set up is in the ‘begins to exist’ specifically crafted to accommodate the eternal god they will just assert with no evidence. Viola!!
    ask them “demonstrate, not with arguments or mere assertions, demonstrate that your god has always existed and doesn’t have a beginning and thus deserves the exemption of the first premise”

  2. john zande says:

    Very nicely said, and you’ve made the Great Lord Brevity smile.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s