I'm sure everybody else here is much more well versed in this stuff than I am, but I just wanted to see what responses this question might get: Science proves the Big Bang happened. The Big Bang proves the Universe is finite. Logic says that anything that begins to exist must have a cause. The Universe began to exist when the Big Bang happened. Therefore, the Universe must have a cause, perhaps, a First Cause? I read an Atheist rebuttal to the Cosmological Argument, and it seemed pretty convincing to me. So I was just wondering what any of your responses might be. The rebuttal I read was by Paul Jacobsen, on his site "case against faith".

Well I am no Cosmologist but I'll give it a go. First of all we do have an overwhelming amount of evidence for the big bang, as you stated. However, saying that the Big Bang proves that the universe is finite is something that I am not sure has been settled. For starters, yes we know that it's has been a finite time since the universal expansion that we call the big bang took place. However, whose to say that the universe "began to exist" at that moment. Now, we can get pretty close to that moment, but when we are within a 100th of a second of expansion all our understanding of physics seem to break down. Anything before plank time seems to be lost to us. In fact it may not even be proper to speak of there being a "before the big bang" as time itself may cease to exist.
Secondly, and related to the above point, we in fact do not know that the universe began to exist at all. It could be that the universe is eternal. I know that saying that explain nothing, however that doesn't seem to stop Theists from using it as an attribute of their god.
There is also the multiverse theory that I am not at all qualified to go into in any detail. I think the theory purposes that Universes (specifically large black holes) give rise to daughter universes.

It the end however, I think it's Turtle all the way down.

The most simple answer to what came before the Big Bang is, "We don't know." Put a period on that, and stop. That's all that is really required. Saying that you don't know doesn't mean that it can't be known. It is an answer that invites exploration and discovery. It invites scientific progress.

A religious person might say, "God did it." This answer halts further investigation. It ends inquiry, and ignores further questions. It is anti-science.

Now, a good place to start in this is physics. I like Brian Green. Watch his Nova special "Elegant Universe" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/). One of the things that Dr. Green talks about is multi-verses. (He calls them 'branes' I believe)

Our universe could have spawned from a pre-existing universe through the Big Bang. It would be difficult to know this because the singularity at the beginning of the Big Bang seems to cut off any information from its previous existance.

Other physicists have speculated that each universe has the capability to span new universes through black holes. I'm attracted to this idea because it may be possible that each spawn may be somewhat different than the parent. Some spawned universes might spawn more, and some spawn fewer daughter universes, due to their inherit natures. In other words, there might be change over generations, with natural selection... universes might evolve.

The reason why I like this idea is due to something neat about our own universe. In our universe, it is impossible for a black hole to form without the presence of carbon. The first stars that formed had low metallicity, and made only small amounts of carbon before going supernova.

Carbon is a building block of life, and it is also necessary to form black holes. If it is true that universes can spawn universes through black holes, then it is very likely that such spawn will usually be similar to our own universe, and would have physical laws that would support life.

Of course this is all pure conjecture, there is no evidence that this is true or not. But just having this as a possible explanation is a good defense against the Teleological argument, or "argument from design". When someone starts talking about how perfectly our universe seems to be designed for us, the argument against it would be that perhaps those features are selected for during the evolution of universes.

But who knows... when we debate what happened before the Big Bang, we are all just winging it - no one knows, not theology, and not science.

But maybe one day we will find out.

"Sometimes you must destroy something to save it. That's in the Bible. . Uh. . or the Constitution," Jason Stackhouse (True Blood).

Typical disclaimer for the "faithy" guy: My agenda is not to prove anything, merely to suggest we're all silly.

("God did it." This answer halts further investigation.)

Why? Does the autonomous, sovereign field of science have a universal premise of anti-deification in all of its hypo-testing? What a strange INDUCTIVE premise to begin with. The only answer I can find is merely socially constructed and grounded in the basic tenants of academic apartheid (one that is uniquely american as well).

(Of course this is all pure conjecture, there is no evidence that this is true or not. But just having this as a possible explanation is a good defense against the Teleological argument, or "argument from design".)

Uh. . ."we can guess cause' we're scientists" only reifies the apartheid and stifles inquiry. Funny how the reasoning is isolated to answers and not the questions.

Good thread.

You're right David, it seems that time does cease to exist prior to the Big Bang. In this "before time" period, there was probably nothingness. But then, the singularity appeared. The Universe began to expand, containing the material that was necessary for evolution to start. Where did this material come from? A prior, "Mother Universe?" Well, where did the material come from that was present in the very first Mother Universe? You're right, Theists seem to have no problem with saying that God is eternal, but it also seems that Atheists might be inclined to say that some universe is eternal. It seems that something needs to be eternal, because, Dan Barker has said, "there has never before been observed an un-caused cause." But just because that is the case here, in the natural realm, doesn't mean the same rules apply in the potentially existing supernatural realm. Yes it is beyond human understanding. But it seems that what evidence that there is, here in the natural realm, seems to point in the supernatural direction, that is, of something being an eternal un-caused cause. Call it a universe, call it a God, if such a thing really does exist, it's probably one in the same. I must admit that Deism does have appeal to me, but only in the sense that it seems that the only thing that this Deity has ever done was it just served as The First Cause. However, I seriously doubt that this Deity is The Jewish Zombie! In the meantime until I reach a conclusion, I shall remain a weak agnostic. And you're right Plotinus, this has been a good thread, because we got atheists, agnostics, and theists all discussing this stuff. One-side-ed-ness is antithetical to progress. You can tell that all the screamers at the town hall meetings only watch Fox News!

Dyar you have started us on a specific version of the cosmological argument known as the Kalam Cosmological argument. There is some great info about this argument at the Iron Chariots WiKi page...... http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam

In Dan Barker's article Cosmological Kalamity, he writes

The curious clause “everything that begins to exist” implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty[2], but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God. If God is the only object allowed in NBE, then BE is merely a mask for the Creator, and the premise “everything that begins to exist has a cause” is equivalent to “everything except God has a cause.” As with the earlier failures, this puts God into the definition of the premise of the argument that is supposed to prove God’s existence, and we are back to begging the question.

In other words, the set of items that do not begin to exist must be pluralized - otherwise it is just another word for God.

The NBE "set" is well articulated. However, the pluralist view of the set can be eliminated by redefining time (in the non-linear sense). I know this doesn't reflect newtonian physics, sort of trumps it, but we faithers might well escape the set begging itself. I guess it the "cause A" as setting the "mode" of the premise (time being B). Inferentially, I get booted from the table ---yet I suggests it reflects the alien transpermation (or whatever it's called) explanation of organic "causes"--same thing.

This is not my realm of expertise. Cosmological args tend to be spotted by trendy physics---thus different everyday and I'm currently locked into my 5 year olds mermaid movie right now. . . don't get me started on fish ladies and disney's tooling of american patriarchy.

Cheers.

Thank you sempaidavid. The Iron Chariots article was enlightening. I hope that some day I do possess a complete understanding of math and science, but in the meantime until then it does seem that some things can exist without being caused. In the rebuttal by Paul Jacobsen, his basic answer to it was, "to say that a God created the universe is just answering one mystery with another." But does not that view, imply that agnosticism is the best stance to take? Usually when one is faced with a mystery, one will say, "I don't know what the answer is." Or is the reason why you are an Atheist is because you feel that all of the definitions for God are unsound, but, you do not rule out a natural cause for our universe? So then, if one does not rule out a natural cause, they can still say, "I don't know"? So then, are you a metaphysical naturalist?

Plotinus,

What do you mean when you say, "academic apartheid"?

Absolutely! I am agnostic about the First cause. I do not even have the knowledge to say whether there even was a first cause.
However, Why I would jump to anything other than a natural explanation? Just because science can't explain everything is no reason to start postulating some kind of super-natural force(for which we have NO evidence).
We do have several examples of mysteries that came to be explained by natural processes. We as of yet-we have no examples of mysteries that were later shown to be super-natural.

So, yes I am agnostic to a first cause. I however remain an Atheist. Remember, Atheists to not claim that there is NO god. We just lack a belief in one.