/sci/ - Science & Math

>inb4 tolerated rulebreaker schizo
anaconda sauerkraut book mac game
>inb4 >>>/his/, >>>/lit/
I'm not going there because those are religious echo chambers. On this website, everyone is motivated exclusively by oneupmanship, so the only way to have a real discussion is to talk to people who disagree with you, otherwise they won't be motivated to listen because there's no chance to own you epically.
Anyway, consider:
A naive theist might look at the big bang theory and say:
>But where did the big bang come from? Surely something must have caused it. I.e. God, QED.
A naive atheist would reply:
>Okay, then what caused God?
A mature atheist would realize there indeed has to be some original cause; if *every* cause has its own cause, a trivial consequence is infinite causal regress. Now, I think infinite causal regress is possible -- but I realize that's not the mainstream view. Once the mature atheist has conceded an original cause must exist, the naive theist would be quick to butt in:
>Aha, God!
But the mature atheist would say:
>Well, not so fast. If I've got you to agree there has to be an original cause, why can't it be the big bang instead?
The naive atheist would fall to aspersions.
Enter me, the mature theist, and I'll tell you why not.
Consider the nature of the universe.
>Oh, but the idea that things have natures is le religiontard idea!
Not so. Science is founded on this notion. After all, if we can't assume we can assess the nature of a thing by observing its behavior, what grounds do we have to assume its behavior will persist? Without a notion of natures, experimentation would have no value.
Anyway:
We've never seen something in the universe happen without a cause. Therefore, the universe itself happening without a cause would be against its nature.
Something must have preceded it, something whose nature it is for things to happen without a cause. That thing happened without a cause, and made the universe; then, nothing's nature is violated.
U jelly scibro