Intelligent Design/Fine Tuning Question

[Question.Everything]

Numbers have no physical existence, yet they are nonetheless real, distinct entitiesOne could say the same about various properties as well. Redness, or goodness, or a particular thing's worth or value cannot be reduced to a physical substance. A cattle rancher may say that his prize bull is very valuable, but where is the value itself located, exactly? What does the bull's value taste like? Is the bull's value heavy or light? Does it have a smell? Obviously, these questions cannot be answered since the entity called "value" does not have a physical existence - just like God. There are quite a number of similar instances that I could offer as examples but suffice it to say that physicalism (the idea that energy and matter are all that exists) cannot account for them and must therefore be untrue.

Numbers, colors, and values are not living, intelligent, or capable of anything. They are all descriptors given by intelligent creatures who are able to realize them. So if you are comparing God to numbers, you're essentially saying that he isn't capable of anything.

LOL! It is amazing to me how atheists use science as their shield and ground of defense so confidently -- until it becomes inconvenient to their philosophy to do so. Then, suddenly, scientists aren't to be trusted; they've made a mistake since what they say doesn't line up with the atheistic worldview. Riiiight.

Cool it with the sweeping generalizations, mmk?

I use science as evidence of things when it's applicable, but I maintain to always be intellectually honest. Scientists do not know the origin of everything. What scientists are fairly certain of is 0.01 seconds after the Big Bang matter was there to bang, and beyond that.

It is at least as possible that scientists are right about the Big Bang as they are wrong about it. There has been no successful challenge to the Theory for more than forty years. The evidence in support of the theory is very strong and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem makes a beginning to the universe an inescapable fact. Nonetheless, since these things don't serve the atheistic viewpoint, they must be discarded as dubious and uncertain. Convenient. Very convenient.

The origin of the Big Bang is absolutely uncertain. Please share the knowledge of that with me if I'm missing it.

If the "small point" had an infinite existence in the past, an infinite span of time would have to be traversed in order to arrive at this moment, which is impossible to do because the span is infinite.

The small point could have taken different forms over infinity. Perhaps it's the case that is oscillates in and out of activity for infinity, and it's the activity in the universe that's marked into finite chunks of time. There are really a million different theories and none of them are falsifiable, including the God theory.

You're speaking of duplication, here, not creation. No matter how far back you want to go with the cycle of like producing like, at some point there must be a beginning to the cycle.

I agree, but there is no knowledge to suggest that God was the beginning of the cycle any more than Zeus was. The cycle could have begun with a simple, assumed vacuum of space that existed just because it could, not because intelligence created it.

Now the cause of the universe is permanently there, since it is timeless.

What proof is there that the cause of the universe is timeless?

So, why isn't the universe permanently there as well?

What proof is there that the universe hasn't permanently been there?

I am completely on par with agreeing that the "universe" is most commonly referred to as this massive place that all exploded from a single point. But what is that single point? Is it not the universe? Do we have any proof that nothing existed before the Big Bang?

 

[bling]

It is really hard to quote you with all the font changes you have going on lol.



Again, evolution. It's plausible to think that the universe started with the tiniest point of 'anything' that could exist (string theory is the most relevant idea to this now) and very slowly evolved itself into more complexity (2 strings).

It takes a leap of faith to believe that, but I of course play the cheap card and simply say we don't know the answers. But given the evolutionary evidence of the universe/earth we have, it's sensible to say everything evolved from the most simple particle that could exist.

I do have degrees in Chemistry and know a little about “string theory” (not sure if it has reached the state of truly being a “scientific theory” but that is a separate discussion), but how does it evolve? Most likely it is moving toward equilibrium, but that is not expressed as evolving?

What “evolutionary evidence” before life are you talking about?

Shortly after the “Big Bang” everything happened very predictably with the exception of life; at, before and very shortly after the big bang, things are poorly at best theorized.

It's a very puzzling question for sure.

Would you agree takes a lot of faith to believe in: “something coming from nothing”?

The only assumption I really make is that the universe exists. Everything else comes from objective analysis.

If you’re not going to believe an intelligent designer than the next best thing seem to be putting your faith in matter/energy being eternal and a virtual infinite number of universes providing the opportunity for at least one universe capable of producing stars, but that begs the question of the machine/system that automatically produces separate universes?

 

[aiki]

Numbers, colors, and values are not living, intelligent, or capable of anything. They are all descriptors given by intelligent creatures who are able to realize them.

Actually, they are, at least in the case of colors and values, not descriptors but properties. They exist as actual non-living entities independent of physical substance.

So if you are comparing God to numbers, you're essentially saying that he isn't capable of anything.

I have already explained in what way God and these non-physical entities are the same. Just because they may be compared in a particular way does not mean they are comparable in every way. This seems rather obvious to me...A lion and a house cat bear some resemblance to each other but that doesn't mean they are identical in every respect.

I use science as evidence of things when it's applicable, but I maintain to always be intellectually honest.

The impression you give is that you are motivated more by your atheistic philosophy rather than intellectual honesty...

Scientists do not know the origin of everything. What scientists are fairly certain of is 0.01 seconds after the Big Bang matter was there to bang, and beyond that.

And as I have pointed out, simple reason leads an honest thinker to certain other conclusions.

The origin of the Big Bang is absolutely uncertain. Please share the knowledge of that with me if I'm missing it.

I disagree that the origin of the Big Bang is "absolutely uncertain." In fact, it is a simple matter of logic to recognize that a Big Bang requires a Big Banger. I have given you a bare-bones rationale for why. For further investigation consider the Kalam Cosmological Argument, or Liebniz's Argument from Contingency, or any of the many Teleological Arguments.

The small point could have taken different forms over infinity. Perhaps it's the case that is oscillates in and out of activity for infinity, and it's the activity in the universe that's marked into finite chunks of time. There are really a million different theories and none of them are falsifiable, including the God theory.

Well, if this is how you feel, don't accuse Christians of over-exercising their faith! Have you looked into how really viable the "millions" of different theories are? In fact, the ones that get any serious attention - oscillating universes, many worlds hypothesis, bubble universes, even baby universes - have all been shown thus far to be practically unworkable. And, as the Theorem I've mentioned twice now proves, our universe did indeed have a beginning.

I agree, but there is no knowledge to suggest that God was the beginning of the cycle any more than Zeus was. The cycle could have begun with a simple, assumed vacuum of space that existed just because it could, not because intelligence created it.

Have you been reading Stephen Hawking? Seems like it...Anyway, a vacuum of space is still something, not nothing. But before the universe began there was no thing - not even an empty void of space (which would be something). Your suggestion above requires as much an exercise of faith as anything a religious person must make. WHy are you willing to adopt such an utterly unproved assumption? Why are you more willing to go with such highly speculative ideas rather than concede what mainstream science indicates? What is intellectually honest about doing so?

Selah.

 

[golgotha61]

Logic is not an entity, it is the study of reason. What is your definition of 'entity'?

[FONT=&quot] An entity is that which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving). [/FONT]An entity is something that exists by itself, although it need not be of material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is also no presumption that an entity is animate.[FONT=&quot] Logic is an entity that is comprised of laws. [/FONT]

Logic is not the description of the way the human brain works, it's the study of how everything acts in the universe.

[FONT=&quot]Logic governs the natural laws and the laws of reason and that which governs is an entity. Logic as a study, since the study of logic is called “logic”, is applied to many disciplines and intellectual activities. I am not referring to logic the study; I am referring to logic the entity. [/FONT]

Logic does not exist in the brain, it's realized in the brain.

[FONT=&quot]Therefore, logic itself is an entity. An entity that is realized and studied by the brain and at the same time logic governs the brain’s ability to reason. [/FONT]

Logic is inherently part of the physical laws. Wherever and whenever physical laws came into existence, logic was born.

[FONT=&quot]Logic governs the physical laws and those physical laws came into existence under the governance of logic. Where does logic originate?[/FONT]

 

[Question.Everything]

I do have degrees in Chemistry and know a little about “string theory” (not sure if it has reached the state of truly being a “scientific theory” but that is a separate discussion), but how does it evolve? Most likely it is moving toward equilibrium, but that is not expressed as evolving?

What “evolutionary evidence” before life are you talking about?

String theory is certainly theoretical at this point still. There's no empirical evidence of it.

The evolution I'm talking about is partly theoretical as well; I'm saying we see evolution as a model almost everywhere in the universe. On the very near surface we have human evolution, businesses evolve, cultures evolve, etc. On the universal level we have enormous complexity evolving from a single dense point. Now we don't know if we're the only life on Earth or not, but we can be fairly certain that a few million years after the BB there was no life. So we have the complexity of life evolving out of inanimate matter.

All of this, to me, suggests that everything has evolved from it's most simple state; whatever that may be. We were not created by intelligence, intelligence was created because of evolution.

Would you agree takes a lot of faith to believe in: “something coming from nothing”?

Certainly, but I don't believe that.

If you’re not going to believe an intelligent designer than the next best thing seem to be putting your faith in matter/energy being eternal and a virtual infinite number of universes providing the opportunity for at least one universe capable of producing stars, but that begs the question of the machine/system that automatically produces separate universes?

With regards to the creation of Everything, I believe nothing. I don't think any theory out there is empirical enough to fully trust.

When I weigh the plausibility of:

a) Everything being created by an intelligent creator
b) Everything evolving (from nothing) into intelligence

They both come out equal. Everything we see so far suggests that it's closer to the B answer than the A answer (unless our intelligent creator had unfathomable destruction programmed into it's design). That's why I think following naturalism will yield better results.

 

[Hestha]

With regards to the creation of Everything, I believe nothing. I don't think any theory out there is empirical enough to fully trust.

Wait, in regards to the creation of Everything you only trust what can be provided empirically? I think that's the core issue here. Not all things in the universe can be proven empirically. For example, how do you test "love"? How much "love" do you need to give someone before you can call it "love"? Why do you justify "love" this way? How do you observe "love"? How about equality, justice, God, mercy or humility? How can you empirically "prove" all these concepts? If you can't prove these concepts, then do you still believe that they exist even though you can't empirically "prove" or quantify their existence? What I am getting at is this: there are some things that can't be quantified or measured or scientifically, empirically supported. Science is very helpful with the natural world, but there are some issues - metaphysical issues - that are beyond the realm of science. That's not to say that they are not important at all! That's when philosophy and religion come into play. I think religion is a form of philosophy, and therefore it has a place in understanding our world in a non-empirical manner. I do not think that religion's goal is to provide the absolute truth about what happened or how things arrived. I do think that religion's goal is to explain where we come from, who are we and where are we going. These questions are not historical or scientific questions but rather give us a sense of purpose and meaning in our lives. Therefore, I think religion does have a place in explaining the origin of the universe. It's not scientifically accurate, but I do not believe that religion tries to be that. I think the purpose of this type of knowledge is to understand ourselves a little better.

 

[Sketcher]

If our universe is so complex that it couldn't have happened without a designer, how is it possible that God does not have a designer?

If God is the first cause, then logically he would have no designer.

If God is special in that he's eternal and causeless, why is it not that our universe may be eternal and causeless?

Logically possible, but it's not in line with the facts we have. We know the Universe began with the Big Bang.

If God is beyond human comprehension, why is it not just that our universe is beyond human comprehension?

Because the Universe is natural and thus can be studied by science, not supernatural like God is.

 

[Question.Everything]

Actually, they are, at least in the case of colors and values, not descriptors but properties. They exist as actual non-living entities independent of physical substance.

I have already explained in what way God and these non-physical entities are the same. Just because they may be compared in a particular way does not mean they are comparable in every way. This seems rather obvious to me...A lion and a house cat bear some resemblance to each other but that doesn't mean they are identical in every respect.

Colors describe at what frequency wavelengths vibrate off something. Values describe how our emotions affect us. They are properties, but non-physical and descriptive properties.

The comparison between a lion and a housecat is far less distant than comparing colors to God. I mean I see what you're saying, but it's still not making any sense of a mind being completely invisible like a value.

The impression you give is that you are motivated more by your atheistic philosophy rather than intellectual honesty...

I guess I'm sorry that you've got the wrong impression of who I think I am lol. We'll have to call that subjective battle a stalemate. I've said before though, with regards to the origin of everything I do not believe in anything.

And as I have pointed out, simple reason leads an honest thinker to certain other conclusions.

Is it unreasonable that aliens from across the galaxy planted DNA life on Earth?

I disagree that the origin of the Big Bang is "absolutely uncertain." In fact, it is a simple matter of logic to recognize that a Big Bang requires a Big Banger. I have given you a bare-bones rationale for why. For further investigation consider the Kalam Cosmological Argument, or Liebniz's Argument from Contingency, or any of the many Teleological Arguments.

I've read all of those arguments; logic does not prove anything. At most, it posits that it's reasonable to believe that we were created. I can completely see that, but I'm more a glutton for truth than I am belief.

Well, if this is how you feel, don't accuse Christians of over-exercising their faith! Have you looked into how really viable the "millions" of different theories are? In fact, the ones that get any serious attention - oscillating universes, many worlds hypothesis, bubble universes, even baby universes - have all been shown thus far to be practically unworkable. And, as the Theorem I've mentioned twice now proves, our universe did indeed have a beginning.

These arguments really are so tough because 98% of them are always stuck on the "does [a God] exist?"; it rarely progresses to "If a creator does exist, why would he be Jesus?" That leap is a much, much bigger one than saying "A creator exists."

Have you been reading Stephen Hawking? Seems like it...

Actually, nope! I have done my reading up on his ideas though and they're very similar, the man is brilliant.

Your suggestion above requires as much an exercise of faith as anything a religious person must make. WHy are you willing to adopt such an utterly unproved assumption? Why are you more willing to go with such highly speculative ideas rather than concede what mainstream science indicates? What is intellectually honest about doing so?

For one, I do not take any such matter on faith. I don't believe that I know the answers to any of it; all I can do is speculate given what we do know. The very simple fact is that when science tries to boil down everything to the very beginning of the universe, everything goes to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] (I'm 25% French). They have no idea what was happening at the beginning of the universe, only what happened after the beginning. The Big Bang is as mysterious to me as the concept of God is.

Again, science indicates that the massive cluster of matter we see now came from a very tiny point after the beginning of matter. Beyond that point is a complete mystery, and we have no evidence to suggest anything about it.

 

[Question.Everything]

Logic governs the physical laws and those physical laws came into existence under the governance of logic. Where does logic originate?

Logic does not govern physical laws, physical laws dictate logic. If our universe had different physical laws, it's logic would be different. The question you should be asking is 'Where do physical laws originate?'

The answer to that question is both puzzling and unknown.

 

[Question.Everything]

Wait, in regards to the creation of Everything you only trust what can be provided empirically?

Yes.

Not all things in the universe can be proven empirically. For example, how do you test "love"? How much "love" do you need to give someone before you can call it "love"? Why do you justify "love" this way? How do you observe "love"? How about equality, justice, God, mercy or humility? How can you empirically "prove" all these concepts?

First we'd have to agree on a definition for love. Once we did that, I'm sure we could empirically validate the expression and existence of love in our lives.

there are some issues - metaphysical issues - that are beyond the realm of science.

Issues such as?

I think religion is a form of philosophy[/quote]

You are correct there.

and therefore it has a place in understanding our world in a non-empirical manner.

Rut-roh!

Yes, but subjectively. With regards to personal meaning, many different conflicting philosophies can be true. This is why Christianity is true to some people, and Hinduism to others. Neither provides any truth to the universe we live in.

I do not think that religion's goal is to provide the absolute truth about what happened or how things arrived.

I do think that religion's goal is to explain where we come from, who are we and where are we going.

This is a blatant contradiction. You do not think religion provides knowledge of where we came from or how, but you think it provides and explanation of where we came from and why.

I think the purpose of this type of knowledge is to understand ourselves a little better.

Again, I don't think you've read the Bible. It is quite absolute in thousands of it's claims.

 

[Hestha]

This is a blatant contradiction. You do not think religion provides knowledge of where we came from or how, but you think it provides and explanation of where we came from and why.

Actually, I meant the former and the latter sentences to have different meanings. The former was supposed to emphasize the word "absolute", as in the "absolute" truth. The latter was supposed to imply that learning about these things are useful in studying the human condition or the humanities.

Again, I don't think you've read the Bible. It is quite absolute in thousands of it's claims.

Well, I read the Book of Genesis, which discusses the beginning of times. I do not treat it literally. I am not a Christian nor am I a biblical literalist. I treat it as a work of literature, deserving of praise, because it's an example of how the Ancient Hebrews perceived the world.

Yes, but subjectively. With regards to personal meaning, many different conflicting philosophies can be true. This is why Christianity is true to some people, and Hinduism to others. Neither provides any truth to the universe we live in.

Well, subjective truth sounds good to me. That's the nature of the humanities. Sometimes, it's subjective and hard to define. You may try to think of a way to quantify the entire world or resolve all the world's questions and problems with empirical evidence, but I think that would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to do. In the process, we can just enjoy the different interpretations/explanations to our origins.

 

[golgotha61]

Logic does not govern physical laws, physical laws dictate logic. If our universe had different physical laws, it's logic would be different.

Your reasoning is convoluted. Logic necessarily governs with its laws such as the law of non-contradiction or the laws of nature and the universe would not exist. The law of non-contradiction itself determines the functions of physics and math. Reason would be impossible and sensible argumentation that leads to understanding and communication would not be possible without the governing laws of logic.

Law of non-contradiction review: Simply proposed, this asserts that "no statement can be both true and false." Or to take it a step further, "a given thing cannot be and not be in the same way and to the same extent at the same time." This is a vital principle, without which reasoned thinking is not possible.

The question you should be asking is 'Where do physical laws originate?'

The answer to that question is both puzzling and unknown.

The question is still; where does logic originate?

It is ok to admit that you do not know where logic originates. But this argument should open the possibility of God's existence and hopefully open your desire to know Christ.

The primary purpose of this argument is not to prove you wrong and myself right. The primary purpose is to demonstrate the reality of God's existence so you may desire the salvation that Christ offers.

My prayer is that you will accept the teachings of Christ as truth and that you will trust Him with your eternal life.

 

[bling]

String theory is certainly theoretical at this point still. There's no empirical evidence of it.

First off: the reason I question if “String Theory” is really a scientific theory by definition and not just a hypothesis is because there is no way yet to test the “theory”, so if it is not testable it is a hypothesis?

The evolution I'm talking about is partly theoretical as well; I'm saying we see evolution as a model almost everywhere in the universe. On the very near surface we have human evolution, businesses evolve, cultures evolve, etc. On the universal level we have enormous complexity evolving from a single dense point. Now we don't know if we're the only life on Earth or not, but we can be fairly certain that a few million years after the BB there was no life. So we have the complexity of life evolving out of inanimate matter.

All of this, to me, suggests that everything has evolved from it's most simple state; whatever that may be. We were not created by intelligence, intelligence was created because of evolution.

The “evolutions”, you mostly talk about involve living organisms, when you say “life evolving out inanimate matter” that is what you are placing your faith in since nothing has shown that can happen. Again “inanimate matter” does not “evolve”, but can change randomly or move to equilibrium (remember entropy is involved).

As far as complexity coming from non complexity is what we are questioning: “How can that happen?”

Certainly, but I don't believe that.

Great, so do we agree something had to always exist?

With regards to the creation of Everything, I believe nothing. I don't think any theory out there is empirical enough to fully trust.

When I weigh the plausibility of:

a) Everything being created by an intelligent creator
b) Everything evolving (from nothing) into intelligence

They both come out equal. Everything we see so far suggests that it's closer to the B answer than the A answer (unless our intelligent creator had unfathomable destruction programmed into it's design). That's why I think following naturalism will yield better results.

“evolving” has not been shown for non living substances, so “B” should say “randomly” resulted into intelligence.


Sometimes our actions speak louder than our words. Do you act like there is no God or do you act like there is a God?



Like most atheists/agnostics I have talked with we leave science very quickly (since it does not support their conclusions) and deal with the morality of God. That is fine, but it is a longer subject.

 

[GrayAngel]

If our universe is so complex that it couldn't have happened without a designer, how is it possible that God does not have a designer?

If God is special in that he's eternal and causeless, why is it not that our universe may be eternal and causeless?

If God is beyond human comprehension, why is it not just that our universe is beyond human comprehension?

If you're going the logical route and believe in intelligent design, I'd like to get your thoughts on those questions.

I haven't read through all of these pages, so hopefully I'm not repeating what's already been said too much.

1. Complexity isn't the only thing that tells us our universe had to have been created. Our universe had a beginning. Few people deny that. But if the universe had a beginning, then where did it come from? If it came by random chance, then how do we explain the complexity of it and how it just so happens to be perfect for harboring life?

2. I don't know many people who claim that our universe is eternal or causeless. Some believe in the Big Bang, but not that the universe was always around. However, whatever caused the universe must have been eternal. Otherwise, we'd have to explain where it came from. Going from the natural explanation of things, we'd have a never-ending spiral of what causes what, unless we decide to finally stop and believe in something eternal, possessing of infinite energy, and unaltered by the passage of time. The only explanation that I know of that fully fits this criteria is God.

3. Our universe is beyond our comprehension. This is why I get the feeling God's laughing at us, acting like we're smart enough to know things like the age of the universe when we don't even know how many stars there are. Still, we can't just abandon our logic. And there are some things we can assume by logic until something comes along to prove it wrong.

 

[Elioenai26]

It is ok to admit that you do not know where logic originates. But this argument should open the possibility of God's existence and hopefully open your desire to know Christ.

The primary purpose of this argument is not to prove you wrong and myself right. The primary purpose is to demonstrate the reality of God's existence so you may desire the salvation that Christ offers.

My prayer is that you will accept the teachings of Christ as truth and that you will trust Him with your eternal life.

That's exactly right! Too often it is assumed that it is a: "im right and you're wrong" attitude which we speak from in our discussions. This simply is not the case. Fruitful discussion should always have as its aim the discovery of truth in love.

I commend you for defending the faith!

 

[aiki]

Colors describe at what frequency wavelengths vibrate off something. Values describe how our emotions affect us. They are properties, but non-physical and descriptive properties.

I think you're getting hung up on the details. No matter what the science of color is, there is an entity called "red" and another called "green," or "yellow," or "blue," etc. The color red is a discrete, particular thing distinct from other colors and all other things. Red is not the number 5; it is not a fish, or a tree, or a vegetable. The color red is not a sentient being, which is another kind of entity, but it is still an entity, nonetheless.

Values are not always or necessarily descriptive properties associated with my feelings. A diamond has a value independent of what my feeling may be about how valuable it is. In any case, these observations don't change the fact that a diamond's value is a distinct, particular entity separate from the value of a pig, or a car, or one's child. It doesn't change the fact that this value, while real and distinct as an entity, is nonetheless incorporeal - just as God is real and distinct as an entity and also incorporeal.

The comparison between a lion and a housecat is far less distant than comparing colors to God. I mean I see what you're saying, but it's still not making any sense of a mind being completely invisible like a value.

Well, I don't know what to tell you except that it makes perfect sense to me...

I've said before though, with regards to the origin of everything I do not believe in anything.

This seems very convenient to me - but unjustified.

And as I have pointed out, simple reason leads an honest thinker to certain other conclusions.
Is it unreasonable that aliens from across the galaxy planted DNA life on Earth?

It is possible. But not everything that is possible is probable. Certainly, in the stark absence of anything but science fiction upon which to base such an assertion, one is not unreasonable to reject this possibility as highly improbable and to accept other more likely and substantiated possibilities.

I've read all of those arguments; logic does not prove anything.

Here you reveal that you don't understand philosophy very well. Logic, by itself, doesn't prove anything, but logical argument does, which is what those various arguments I suggested to you do very well.

At most, it posits that it's reasonable to believe that we were created. I can completely see that, but I'm more a glutton for truth than I am belief.

I'm afraid you don't understand the ramifications of a proved argument. A logically constructed argument's conclusion, if successfully proven, is as binding a proof as anything the empirical process alone can produce. For example consider the following argument:

All humans die.
All Canadians are humans.
All Canadians die.

This simple, logical argument proves that all Canadians die. The conclusion of the argument is not merely a matter of belief even though it is only a simple syllogism that proves the conclusion (unless you believe Canadians aren't human, which you'd have to prove).

These arguments really are so tough because 98% of them are always stuck on the "does [a God] exist?"; it rarely progresses to "If a creator does exist, why would he be Jesus?" That leap is a much, much bigger one than saying "A creator exists."

Oh, I don't know...I think the resurrection of Christ makes the case for this belief pretty powerfully.

The very simple fact is that when science tries to boil down everything to the very beginning of the universe, everything goes to [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] (I'm 25% French). They have no idea what was happening at the beginning of the universe, only what happened after the beginning. The Big Bang is as mysterious to me as the concept of God is.

This is to be expected, I think. Science is empirically-based; it is designed to investigate the material universe, not the immaterial state that existed before the material universe began. But logic can accomplish what science, limited by its empiricism, cannot. It can, through rational thought and argument, establish at least some things about the nature of what came before the universe in which we live.

Selah.

 

[Question.Everything]

Your reasoning is convoluted. Logic necessarily governs with its laws such as the law of non-contradiction or the laws of nature and the universe would not exist. The law of non-contradiction itself determines the functions of physics and math. Reason would be impossible and sensible argumentation that leads to understanding and communication would not be possible without the governing laws of logic.

Law of non-contradiction review: Simply proposed, this asserts that "no statement can be both true and false." Or to take it a step further, "a given thing cannot be and not be in the same way and to the same extent at the same time." This is a vital principle, without which reasoned thinking is not possible.

I understand all of that, but how is logic not reliant itself on the physical laws of the universe? Logic is a nonphysical property, meaning it's really not anything but a description of something else. Logic tells us how the universe works, but if our universe had different properties there would be different logic.

The question is still; where does logic originate?

It is ok to admit that you do not know where logic originates. But this argument should open the possibility of God's existence and hopefully open your desire to know Christ.

The primary purpose of this argument is not to prove you wrong and myself right. The primary purpose is to demonstrate the reality of God's existence so you may desire the salvation that Christ offers.

My prayer is that you will accept the teachings of Christ as truth and that you will trust Him with your eternal life.

Yes, I do not know where logic originates. And likewise my goal here isn't to convince any Christian that their belief is insane or anything like that. But what does bug me is that Christians claim knowledge of things that are completely unknowable at this point. It seems many do not take things with an open mind.

 

[Question.Everything]

First off: the reason I question if “String Theory” is really a scientific theory by definition and not just a hypothesis is because there is no way yet to test the “theory”, so if it is not testable it is a hypothesis?

We agree on this, maybe you misinterpreted what I said. The math on it is pretty good but like you said, with our current technological capability we can't test it. So it's a very loose theory.

The “evolutions”, you mostly talk about involve living organisms, when you say “life evolving out inanimate matter” that is what you are placing your faith in since nothing has shown that can happen. Again “inanimate matter” does not “evolve”, but can change randomly or move to equilibrium (remember entropy is involved).

As far as complexity coming from non complexity is what we are questioning: “How can that happen?”

It's a difficult question to answer, and at this point we don't know exactly. To me it is both sensible that either:

a) Some supreme intelligence planted the seed of life on our planet.
b) Life arose from inanimate matter by a process we just don't fully understand yet (abiogenesis)

Great, so do we agree something had to always exist?

Haha, I don't think we do. I think the concept of infinity is just as puzzling is the concept of there being "nothing" before spacetime began. You can't say it had to exist without fully understanding every bit of physics behind it.

“evolving” has not been shown for non living substances, so “B” should say “randomly” resulted into intelligence.

Right, we haven't been able to replicate abiogenesis yet. But I think it's something we may discover in the coming decades or centuries.

Sometimes our actions speak louder than our words. Do you act like there is no God or do you act like there is a God?

I do not believe in God, so I see no purpose in acting like he is there. If anything I act like a humanist. I think that we do not have all the answers, but we can at least realize who we are and try to preserve that and grow on it.

Like most atheists/agnostics I have talked with we leave science very quickly (since it does not support their conclusions) and deal with the morality of God. That is fine, but it is a longer subject.

Well, my conclusion is that I don't know. Neither science or religion really supports that.

 

[Question.Everything]

I haven't read through all of these pages, so hopefully I'm not repeating what's already been said too much.

1. Complexity isn't the only thing that tells us our universe had to have been created. Our universe had a beginning. Few people deny that. But if the universe had a beginning, then where did it come from? If it came by random chance, then how do we explain the complexity of it and how it just so happens to be perfect for harboring life?

2. I don't know many people who claim that our universe is eternal or causeless. Some believe in the Big Bang, but not that the universe was always around. However, whatever caused the universe must have been eternal. Otherwise, we'd have to explain where it came from. Going from the natural explanation of things, we'd have a never-ending spiral of what causes what, unless we decide to finally stop and believe in something eternal, possessing of infinite energy, and unaltered by the passage of time. The only explanation that I know of that fully fits this criteria is God.

This was all kind of a repeat of what's been discussed. More or less, I argue that the activity of our universe had a beginning (the Big Bang), but we know nothing of the BB itself. That dense point of matter/energy that exploded...we don't know how long it was there before it exploded.

3. Our universe is beyond our comprehension.

Thankfully scientists don't adopt this thought, or we'd all be dead around the age of 30.

This is why I get the feeling God's laughing at us, acting like we're smart enough to know things like the age of the universe when we don't even know how many stars there are.

What a sad story it would be if God created us, wasn't happy with it, slaughtered everybody with the flood, gave us another chance, and then sits back and laughs at us when we try to understand the reality we live in. I truly and deeply hope this is not who our creator is.

 

[Question.Everything]

Well, I don't know what to tell you except that it makes perfect sense to me...

I am not sure how you can think it's sensible that a completely invisible 'value' has the capability to think and create matter. Your analogies are still irrelevant, colors and numbers are not things...they are not capable of doing anything.

This seems very convenient to me - but unjustified.

Why is it unjustified?

It is possible. But not everything that is possible is probable. Certainly, in the stark absence of anything but science fiction upon which to base such an assertion, one is not unreasonable to reject this possibility as highly improbable and to accept other more likely and substantiated possibilities.

If is is possible that aliens planted the seed of life on earth, you can admit that you do not know if God created the universe?

I'm afraid you don't understand the ramifications of a proved argument. A logically constructed argument's conclusion, if successfully proven, is as binding a proof as anything the empirical process alone can produce. For example consider the following argument:

All humans die.
All Canadians are humans.
All Canadians die.

This simple, logical argument proves that all Canadians die. The conclusion of the argument is not merely a matter of belief even though it is only a simple syllogism that proves the conclusion (unless you believe Canadians aren't human, which you'd have to prove).

"If successfully proven"

You are correct. Nobody has successfully proven the origin of all matter. Any logical deductions are still theoretical until they are proven.

Oh, I don't know...I think the resurrection of Christ makes the case for this belief pretty powerfully.

That's a topic I'll save for another thread .