re: How old is Earth?

quote:

---

Not for very long, because it doesn't take much reasoning to see the circular argument. As soon as you realize it can't be made without deciding that your infinite regression eventually has to stop at some point you must conclude that if ONE thing is outside of the argument (all things have a cause) then ALL things could exist without a cause.

---

Turtles all the way down.

quote:

---

I’ve been arguing that all the matter in the universe, the things we can observe and know to exist had to come from somewhere, some source had to make at all.

---

This doesn't have to be true.

quote:

---

My question is what is what source and where did that source come from?

---

the problem is that this is a never ending question

eventually you have to come to the conclusion of either

a) something did come from nothing

or

b) something was always here

and both of those things contradict your statements "something can't come from nothing" and "everything has to have an origin"

this is what we have been hopelessly trying to show you

quote:

---

Everything does have to have a cause, an origin.

---

Ok...then that would mean that everything that causes a thing would also have to have a thing which caused it...right?

And so on...

And so on...

And so on...

At some point, you'll tire of this Russian Doll situation and decide that you've finally found "the first cause" and just declare that IT was special and was itself causeless.

The problem there is, you didn't prove any of it. You just special pleaded it into existence.

quote:

---

But I never supposed to claim what that origin is.

---

It's irrelevant. It still has to fit within the logic of the above...regardless of whatever "it" is.

quote:

---

I’ve been arguing that all the matter in the universe, the things we can observe and know to exist had to come from somewhere, some source had to make at all.

---

See above. Also, you provided no evidence for any of that.. You simply asserted it as fact.

quote:

---

My question is what is what source and where did that source come from?

---

We don;t agree there had to be any source, because THAT SOURCE would, itself, need a cause.

I get why would don't like this, but how do you not see the contradiction?

If matter can disappear into nothingness in a black hole, why can't the opposite be true?

watch this

LINK

quote:

---

But it doesn’t disappear into nothingness. It’s broke down to sub-atomic particles best we can tell. It’s transformed from one thing into another.

---

It's a singularity. In other words it has zero radius. Even sub-atomic particles have a radius.

quote:

---

No robin? No idea what you mean.

---

I meant to type origin. You’ll have to ask Apple why it autocorrected to Robin.

quote:

---

EVERYTHING must have a first cause, which means that there IS NO ULTIMATE first cause, because it too would have needed a first cause...

Or...things can either come into existence without a first cause or things have existed without being caused.

The only way to achieve the first version is to simply wave one's hand at the question of "what caused the first cause" as if it's not the obvious and ultimate next question to answer.

Essentially, it answers nothing to assert there must have been a first uncaused cause.

---

I never said there was an “uncaused cause”. All I’ve said is there has to be a beginning to all this and from what I’ve studied on the matter I don’t beleive the theory of the Big Bang does a good job explaining it.

quote:

---

I never said there was an “uncaused cause”.

---

No, you've tried to argue that everything must come from something...and when pressed on what THAT thing came from (since everything must come from something) you answer the question with a question that reads something like, "Wait, so you think all matter came from nothing??"

That IS an uncaused cause. It's the thing for which you're willing to accept there was no need for the cause you're going on about.

quote:

---

All I’ve said is there has to be a beginning to all this

---

An uncaused cause is what you're describing. That thing for which there is no need to suggest that it needed a cause. Because, as you've suggested as fact...everything has a cause.

quote:

---

I don’t beleive the theory of the Big Bang does a good job explaining it.

---

Not to be a dick, but it's not your call. An argument from incredulity is not a valid criticism. The fact that you don't accept it in no way invalidates the theory any more so than the guy building his own steam powered rocket who doesn't believe the earth is sphere.