Why do atheists assume the earth formed?

[emprworm]

Atheists talk about the earth forming 4.5 billion years ago.  Why do they assume the earth formed?  Why do they assume the earth needs a cause?  Sure we see material.  Sure we can date it.  But who says that material formed into the earth?  What proof can one provide to me that the earth formed?  Atheists assume the principal of causality regards to the earth.  And that is not rational.  not scientific.

[Dante]

It is here. It is made from bits. Therefore it is made from something, formed from something, was therefore formed. Everything has a beginning.

[GUNWOUNDS]

  Everything has a beginning.

Wrong... and i quote Acelethal....

" You can only go so far back before the logical explanation for the begining of something is that it doesnt have one."

else you get caught in an infinite loop....

[Dante]

Hense educated guesses of an unavoidable beginning based on the evidnece to hand.

[emprworm]

It is here. It is made from bits. Therefore it is made from something, formed from something, was therefore formed. Everything has a beginning.

the universe is a much larger sphere of mass than the earth.  no cause is assumed for the universe.  Atheists do not assume causation in regards to the universe.  So why do they do so for the earth?  An irrational double standard.  If the atheist demands proof that the universe was caused, I too demand proof that the earth was formed.  Until said atheist presents proof, that atheist is a religious zealout, irrational, and making baseless positive claims.

the rational default position regarding the earth should be:  "we do not assume the earth formed.  It may have fluctuated into existence.  It may have once been flat, and then curved around as the sun heated it.  We do not know, or believe in anything regards to causality.  Just because we see a ball rolling, doesn't mean that it started rolling"

[Dante]

An athiest is a religious zealot? Hmm, the logic seems somewhat flawed...

Causality applies to everything, no exceptions, not even the universe. It began somehow, but I'm not going to make any claims to know how, though there are several theories.

[emprworm]

An athiest is a religious zealot? Hmm, the logic seems somewhat flawed...

Causality applies to everything, no exceptions, not even the universe. It began somehow, but I'm not going to make any claims to know how, though there are several theories.

well the atheist disagrees with you dustscout.  Its the creationists that maintain the universe was caused (a rational default position).  The atheists challenge that, stating the universe doesn't need a cause.  you put yourself in the creationist camp when you say causality applies to everything.

[Dante]

Everything needs to be formed but not everything needs to be created, as being created implies a creator, which being formed does not. The origins of the universe are so far away from us that I certainly couldn't hazard a guess as to what they were. But they were scientific, that much I am sure of.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Everything needs to be formed but not everything needs to be created, as being created implies a creator, which being formed does not. The origins of the universe are so far away from us that I certainly couldn't hazard a guess as to what they were. But they were scientific, that much I am sure of.

the origins of the universe were scientific? what exactly does that mean.

[TMA_1]

There are almost no scientists now who believe in the theory that the universe constantly implodes and explodes forever, entropy just wont allow it. It has been pretty much proven that the universe almost certainly wont have enough energy to implode on itself, and if it does it wont haev enough energy to explode once again. There is a beginning.

Now there are theories on why it began, that dont have a "first cause". That doesnt mean those people are somehow dumb, though I disagree with it.

You also dont have to be religious to believe in a "vital force" which science calls it, that started everything. It is just as imperacle as any other idea. It is just as valid too, as all of those things are dealing largely with educated guesses. In fact most scientists are agnostics, believing that some vital force started it all, that does not make them deists in the least.

[Dante]

the origins of the universe were scientific? what exactly does that mean.

That no divine creator intervened, caused, or even existed at the start of everything.

[Apollyon]

The universe has always existed in regards to time, as with the universe exists time. Without the universe there is no 4th dimension and therefore no ability for anything to have a beginning, end, or discernible moment of existence.

[GUNWOUNDS]

That no divine creator intervened, caused, or even existed at the start of everything.

Question :  Is an anomaly scientific?

[Dante]

Clarify.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Clarify.

if something were to be found unexplainable by science such as say..  singularities, or event horizons  and are considered anomalies ... are these still classified as scientific?

[Acriku]

Atheists talk about the earth forming 4.5 billion years ago.  Why do they assume the earth formed?  Why do they assume the earth needs a cause?  Sure we see material.  Sure we can date it.  But who says that material formed into the earth?  What proof can one provide to me that the earth formed?  Atheists assume the principal of causality regards to the earth.  And that is not rational.  not scientific.

It's only rational to deduct that Earth formed from small to large bits of rock getting caught into orbit around the Sun, and then forming from then on. What else happened? A god made it 4.5 billion years ago?

Let's not get into the philosophy of a first cause, let's keep it scientific. There has been dating that records billions of years ago, so that is already established. Does it make sense for Earth to have been caused by debree getting caught by the Sun's gravity collecting debree as it orbited the Sun until it formed large enough with enough gravitational force of its own to form some kind of atmosphere, thus starting its beginning?

[emprworm]

It's only rational to deduct that Earth formed from small to large bits of rock getting caught into orbit around the Sun, and then forming from then on.

why?  you are assuming that the earth's existence requires a causual force.  Why is this?  What is your proof?

What else happened? A god made it 4.5 billion years ago?

red-herring fallacy.  This is not an argument for theism, nor is theism implied anywhere in my post.  diverting the topic doesn't work with me.

Does it make sense for Earth to have been caused ....<SNIP>

why do you keep assuming the earth was caused by something?  You do not assume the universe had a cause.....do you?

[nemafakei]

I have my own theories about the instance of the universe, and I'm fairly satisfied with them, and I've posted them before a few times.

But what about you? If you're so demanding of us to show where everything came from, I'd like to know who created god?

[emprworm]

this is not a topic about God.  I would be happy to discuss that issue elsewhere.  I just want to know what basis you have, and what evidence you have, to assume the principle of causation in regards to the existence of the earth.  What scientific right do you have to assume the principle of causality with the earth?  Or with anything for that matter?

[Caid Ivik]

Formation process is needed. If there would be only some infestation of matter, energy and space, how it could end up in a sophisticated thing like human? Not saying that matter itself is already a very high state of existence. We can make four cathegories of all being - not existence, pure metaphysical being. First is archetypal world, timeless and spaceless, primary source and target of everything created. Second is creative world. Here, ideas start to exist. Third is formalizing world, world, where shapes and other cathegories are created. And fourth is the living, timely existing world.

[Acriku]

why?  you are assuming that the earth's existence requires a causual force.  Why is this?  What is your proof?

Look at today: meteors getting caught in the gravitational force of Earth, crashing down into the ground. Seems reasonable to me that this is how it happened in the first billion of years.

red-herring fallacy.  This is not an argument for theism, nor is theism implied anywhere in my post.  diverting the topic doesn't work with me.

Well, what is your alternative?

why do you keep assuming the earth was caused by something?  You do not assume the universe had a cause.....do you?

Because the universe is changing, everything is changing around me. The earth is changing as well. It would not make sense to think that the earth was static 4.5 billion years ago and just began to change. No, it's sensible to think that it was always changing. So, I have no reason not to suspect that sometime in the past the earth was changing into a bigger "blob" of matter.

[nemafakei]

"this is not a topic about God"

"Or with anything for that matter?"

No caption needed.

Well, (recalling a previous post of a certain someone) it has either (1) existed forever, (2) it caused its own existence, or (3) something else created it, or (4) it exists without surroundings, and so is by defintion all that exists.

Clearly since matter is not popping in and out of the universe randomly for no apparent reason, nothing within the universe causes itself.

We can see that it did not always exist, because we can look at the relative velocities of stars and so on to tell that we were all once at pretty much the same place, so we have in fact, had to have been separated out and formed. The details  of the formation are taken from other geological and similar records which I quite frankly am not going to memorise.

We can see that it does have surroundings, so option 4 is out as well.

That leaves option 3: it was formed from its predecesors.

[emprworm]

"this is not a topic about God"

"Or with anything for that matter?"

No caption needed.

Well, (recalling a previous post of a certain someone) it has either (1) existed forever, (2) it caused its own existence, or (3) something else created it, or (4) it exists without surroundings, and so is by defintion all that exists.

option 4 sounds redundant.

if the universe effected itself (caused is a bad word here), and it is all that exists (naturalism is true), according to option 2, then option 2 and 4 are true simultaneously,