Quote:

The very first statement is in error I think. The universe can be in mmmm, how do you say that, 'in harmony when it comes to energy production and consumption', so any loss of energy need not be when it's infinitely old.




If I understand correctly what you're saying here, you think that thermodynamics is a false?

Quote:

I pretty much agree with the second statement though, if it's NOT infinite, then it must have had a beginning. That's quite rational.



Great, that makes my position of an extra-universal cause quite rational then.

Quote:

(like you doubt the existance of the place of the other universes, I doubt this 'infinite' place a God would be.)



So do I. As soon as you use the word 'place' as anything other than a metaphor, you've just added the physical universe to God. In which case that would preclude an extra-universal cause (specifically God) to the universe.

Quote:

Well, unless you believe Gods can pop out of nowhere, like life can, then there's no problem.



I'll admit that I don't fully understand what God is. But I will admit that a grand nothingness makes less sense as a creator (assuming you think its logical that something infinitely less than our universe can create a universe). I think its easier to believe that something infinitely more than our universe could create something much less than itself, than something infinitely less than the universe could create something more than itself.

Quote:

I guess this guy flew to all edges of the universe then ... How does he know? I thought no true borders where discovered yet?



He's assuming that the expansion of the universe is true. The only way, if the universe is truly expanding, that it could be infinitely large is if it has been expanding for an infinite amount of time. In which case we run into the problem with thermodynamics again.

Quote:

Circular reasoning, or at least so it seems to me. 'There can be no infinite events, because infinite events would mean an infinite place or universe for them to happen.'



It would be circular reasoning had he not stated his case for disbelieving an infinite time or universe. In that case, he made a justification (that you're free to disagree with) that there cannot be an infinite regress of events to create the universe. In other words, he gave reasons for A which he believes leads to B. Had he used B to justify B, that would be circular.

Quote:

Well, the last part is quite questionable. Remember the line, with an infinite amount of points on it? Well the line itself has a finite touch to it, but what if all those infinite points on the line are infact events? I think infinite events can happen within a limited space, as the line example proves, besides I pretty much doubt the universe will implode into nothingness someday, so that makes the duration irrelevant (infinite).



Maybe its because I'm tired, but I'm having a hard time following what you're saying here.

However, he's saying that there would be time needed for each event, so infinite events = infinite time. So it goes back to his original argument about infinite time.

Quote:

Yup, at first I thought he was going to admit that things can pop out of nowhere, because it would make sense at exactly that point



Sense? Well...whatever, I'll have to 'pick my arguments' on this one.

Quote:

but no he goes for an 'uncaused cause'. Pfffff... Uncaused means not caused but still causing something to happen, how can something that has no cause cause something else?



If it exists without cause (I don't like to use the word exists, but I have to), then it exists. No duh, right? Well, if it exists, then why can this thing not cause something just because nothing caused this thing? You have to back up your claim that an uncaused cause cannot cause something, besides that you don't think it can.

An uncaused cause, by its namesake can cause.

Well, I suppose the burden of proof really isn't on you, but I don't think you've really given a good reason to doubt what he said.

Quote:

But why should this uncaused something be 'greater in size and duration than what he 'creates''?



How can something weaker and smaller than the universe bring the universe into existence? How would this cause even be able to fathom something that doesn't exist, but is greater than itself?

Quote:

God can be infinitely small too, if he would be infinite in the first place. Size get's rather irrelevant when something is infinite. Apart from that, we are able to create things both larger and smaller than ourselves, so ... A God that can't can not be almighty.



Yes, size is irrelevant. However, I believe there's a flaw in something you just said.

Quote:

Apart from that, we are able to create things both larger and smaller than ourselves, so ... A God that can't can not be almighty.



A God that is less than our universe would actually not be almighty. Not the other way around. If God is the opposite of infinite nothingness, then by definition he cannot create something greater than He because he is the 'greatest'.

Quote:

I also kinda missed the part 'why' this uncaused cause would be God.



Its a jump of faith, which I believe he admits. But its meant to be a critique of those who believe the universe popped up out of a vast and great nothingness.

Quote:

An uncaused cause cannot be a natural part of the universe.



Yes, and thus would mean this uncaused cause doesn't exist.



Doesn't exist naturally? Yes. That's why it would be a supernatural cause. Again, you're looking to the universe to explain something greater than the universe. I think this is faulty reasoning, but I don't know how to convince you not to think this way.

JCL, I'll have to read up on some stuff a bit more. But for now I'll continue what I believe that I can.

Quote:

3. The universe may have had an internal cause (f.i. multidimensional membrane collision) or no cause (f.i. spontaneous phase transition).



Ok, so we have some pre-universal state. What then caused this pre-universal state? Where do these membranes come from, or these 'phase transitions' that are spontaneous, in the first place? You're keep thinking you've reached the end of an infinite question. No matter how many times you find something simpler than what you understand to be the beginning, you still haven't found the beginning. And since we cannot recreate, anywhere in this universe, a complete void (no space time or matter, to see if a complete void can spawn some simple universe that eventually leads to ours) scientists will either have to admit that they can never know, or admit that there is a supernatural cause.

I find it entertaining to watch all of these theories about the beginning, and see that none of them has really brought us any closer. At the rate we're going, the universe will run out of useable energy, and we'll still have an infinite amount of questions to answer. Actually the death of our sun would be a more relevant end to humanity.

I still remember when the big bang was touted as the beginning. Then they said the universe had to fluctuate. Then there were multiple universes. And now there are membranes.

As far as uncaused...things. I would like to know how science proves something does not have a cause. As far as I remember you never really answered that question. I wondered how we can prove anything other than that we don't know the cause. I don't know how to prove a negative. It was like scientists 50 years ago proving that vestigial organs have no purpose. Surprise! They do.

Saying something can never have a cause is a dead end for reasoning, and as far as I'm concerned: anti-science. Maybe you can set me straight on this one.

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."