Is there an observational cause for the universe based on the following?

Hi, I'm Justin a new member. I belong to an astronomy group and one physicist said " Why does the universe need a cause?". String theory and quantum loop gravity are in their infancy, but, as in the case of String theory, what is causing inflation, which is obvious to scientist's that look at the universe. String theory proposes that before the " Big Bang", there was ten-dimensional gravity and using compactification, string theorists are trying to combine this with our universes current four dimensions. String theory gets brave enough to say that F-term inflation can include up to 28 dimensions. The reason for all of this. Why is the universe expanding? No one seems to know why.

Ok, strictly speaking atheists only share an absence of belief in any god (see Wikipedia's definition, I think is pretty good). So, as a group atheist do not have "main principles". Now, I think most intelligent persons would agree that when confronting a serious question, relying on "observational evidence" is better than otherwise. I cannot think you would consider this radical. So your sencond principle is really followed by most people regardless of religious beliefs.

However, your main issue appears to be that since we do not have a polaroid photo of the beginning of the universe (sort to speak), then the God hypothesis is rational or at least plausible. There are a couple of things wrong with this posture: 1 - we do have a "polaroid photo" of natural causes, the background microwave radiation, Hubbles expansion coefiecient, radioactive half-life decay of elements - religious people just refuse to accept the conclusion. You and I can argue about how good this "photo" is, but there is one accepted by scientists the world over. 2 - as an alternative hypothesis to the creation of the universe, the concept of God has even less evidence than any naturalistic explanation. In fact, logically speaking the God hypothesis is baseless as there is no evidence to support it except (as you suggest) incomplete evidence on the other side. You have failed to realize that there is no logical connection between "I don't know" to "there is a God" because by coming up with God you have essentially made up your own answer.

That the universe had a beginning (you call it cause suggesting purpose, which is another hypothesis), is obvious. That we do not have all the answers is also true - given that humans have only been studying this question for what? 150 years? - that should not be surprising. God as a hypothesis is baseless and unsupported. You however can believe whatever you want. Tooth Fairy?

Firstly, you've given an opinion rather than a reference. I'll answer myself, thanks.

Strong atheists who say, "yes, there is no god or gods" are, indeed, making a statement of belief. However, based on the odds, it is not much of a jump, as so far everything we've learned about the universe has naturalistic explanations, so assuming that the next step will also have naturalistic explanations that we just haven't discovered yet is not much of a stretch. The evidence does not indicate that evidence cannot be found for the cause of the universe, it merely shows that we haven't found it YET.

The simple fact is that most atheism is based on a simple principle; there isn't a shred of evidence for any deity, and since most deities of history are now considered mythological by modern society, yet the current religions have just as little proof as the old ones, there is therefore no reason whatsoever to believe in any deity. If evidence of some kind arose, it would be a different story, but right now the only thing that separates a believer in a deity from a non-believer is the application of blind faith, or at other times simply indoctrination from childhood.

... yet when the tremendous Bang became an explosion In a familiar explosion, fabric expands out from a crucial factor. a short second after the explosion begins, the centre must be the most perfect factor. Later there'll be a round shell of fabrics increasing far flung from the centre until eventually gravity brings it lower back all the way down to Earth. the tremendous Bang--so some distance as we comprehend it--became no longer an explosion like that in any respect. It became an explosion of area, no longer an explosion in area. in accordance to the classic fashions there became no area and time formerly the tremendous Bang. there became no longer even a "formerly" to talk of. So, the tremendous Bang became very different from any explosion we are acquainted with and it does no longer opt to have a crucial factor. If the tremendous Bang were an straightforward explosion in an already latest area, we will manage to look out and observe the increasing fringe of the explosion with empty area previous. really, we see lower back in the route of the tremendous Bang itself and detect a faint history glow from the nice and comfortable primordial gases of the early universe. This "cosmic microwave history radiation" is uniform in all instructions. This tells us that it's not be counted it extremely is increasing outwards from a level, yet really it is area itself that expands gently. it is taken into consideration mandatory to pressure that different observations help the view that there is not any centre to the universe, a minimum of insofar as observations can attain. the actual shown fact that the universe is increasing uniformly doesn't rule out the prospect that there is a few denser, hotter position which will be observed as the centre, yet careful analyze of the distribution and action of galaxies ascertain that it is homogeneous on the most important scales we are able to work out, with out signal of a particular factor to call the centre.

Hello God, nice to hear from you. How's your son? I hope his wounds have healed by now.

Anyway... If I see evidence of anything why would I then believe it does not exist. If I detect cause from evidence how can you then say it cannot be detected. Who found your, 'observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally'. The begining and end of that sentence is contradictory. This is a typical example of intellectual diarrhoea.

"even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally."

You obviously have no clue what "observation" and "evidence" entails in a scientific context, nor do you seem aware of current-day scientific theories pertaining to the origin of the universe. By all means, believe in your magic sky daddy, but don't pretend it is supported by any kind of evidence.

The beginning of the universe (part of reality) has no bearing on the myth that surrounds god (part of the world of fantasy).

The moment a christian or other theist can provide a single shred of credible evidence that suggests their god exists, then we can talk. Until then though...

And I have to point out the irony of you asking for observational proof of one thing (the beginning of the universe) while totally ignoring any request for another (your imaginary sky pixie) honestly, this is the reason most people believe that fundamentalists, are clinically insane.

Whether or not I can explain how the Universe began, that has no bearing on the existence of God. At the moment there is no evidence for his existence so I don't believe in him.

Logic, science and mathematics provide no proof for or against the existence of God. Looking for proof in causality is just tail chasing.

Either accept God or dont, it is strictly a belief concept.

Well said.

I love how you asked for the evidence and got opinion instead. Either that or the attack was immediately defended by attacking Christianity (as in the answer of the Canadian Atheist), which is of course no answer at all.

That being said, not everyone answering on the atheistic side is what you called a "strong" atheist. They do not stand in solidarity as Christians generally do, so don't expect them to follow along with anyone other than themselves.