The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[Elioenai26]

How is the big bang theory in contradiction to that evidence?

Science tells us the universe is not eternal, logic tells us that it is not eternal. Therefore your position, if you maintain it, is contradictory to the Big Bang scenario.

 

[Elioenai26]

Okay. The vast majority of everything in he universe. All a result of natural processes without volition. Even me and you.

Then again, I expect you are hugging a definition of the word 'creation' to your breast.

And how do you maintain that the universe's existence is a result of natural processes, when natural processes (made possible through space, time, and matter) came into existence at the Big Bang?

 

[Danyc]

And how do you maintain that the universe's existence is a result of natural processes, when natural processes (made possible through space, time, and matter) came into existence at the Big Bang?

Before we go on, have I answered your first question to your satisfaction? Something being created, or coming into being, or being transformed from a previous state to another, without the requirement of volition?

Let's not imply opinions here. Put it all out on the table. You're arguing from a ridiculous standpoint so we need to be clear on what you're saying, otherwise we'll just get lost all over again.

 

[Elioenai26]

Before we go on, have I answered your first question to your satisfaction? Something being created, or coming into being, or being transformed from a previous state to another, without the requirement of volition?

Let's not imply opinions here. Put it all out on the table. You're arguing from a ridiculous standpoint so we need to be clear on what you're saying, otherwise we'll just get lost all over again.

The answer to my question that you have supplied is in a sense:

"Everything in the universe has come about by natural processes and therefore came to be without it being a volitional act of creating."

Is this your position? Is this what you meant to say? Because your answer was kind of incoherent.

 

[Danyc]

The answer to my question that you have supplied is in a sense:

"Everything in the universe has come about by natural processes and therefore came to be without it being a volitional act of creating."

Is this your position? Is this what you meant to say? Because your answer was kind of incoherent.

Sort of. More accurate would be:


"We know of nothing other than natural processes, therefore it is rational and most likely that everything in the universe has come about by natural processes and therefore came to be without it being a volitional act of creating."

I take no absolute positions, ever. Especially on the origin of the universe, goodness. I am content with saying that I do not know exactly what happened or how it happened and it may turn out to be that, through some strange set of circumstances, we do learn exactly how the universe came into existence and all that it implies. However, as of yet we have not.

And this specific thread is about your position, which we are all discussing here. So what I think happened isn't really important, as much as I would hate to admit it.

 

[Beechwell]

The answer to my question that you have supplied is in a sense:

"Everything in the universe has come about by natural processes and therefore came to be without it being a volitional act of creating."

Is this your position? Is this what you meant to say? Because your answer was kind of incoherent.

Come to think of it: Have we ever observed something actually coming into existance. Aren't all natural phenomeny we observe merely transitions between different forms of mass and energy?
The only effect I could think of that involves something coming into existance would be vacuum quantum fluctuations, which - as far as we know - aren't caused by anything.

By the way: If the universe - and time with it - came into existance at a point in the past, then that would also be the point at which God came into existance. He could not have existed prior to the creation of the universe, because time only began with the beginning of the universe.

 

[Elioenai26]

Sort of. More accurate would be:


"We know of nothing other than natural processes, therefore it is rational and most likely that everything in the universe has come about by natural processes and therefore came to be without it being a volitional act of creating."

I take no absolute positions, ever. Especially on the origin of the universe, goodness. I am content with saying that I do not know exactly what happened or how it happened and it may turn out to be that, through some strange set of circumstances, we do learn exactly how the universe came into existence and all that it implies. However, as of yet we have not.

And this specific thread is about your position, which we are all discussing here. So what I think happened isn't really important, as much as I would hate to admit it.

The universe must have a cause for it's existence and it must be personal.

We see this in the world all the time.

A watchmaker can decide to make a watch. He has the volitional capacity to choose to make it. He can walk around his shop, take out the trash, clean off his workspace, sweep the floor, or choose to sit down and design a watch and make it.

The watchmaker is a man or a woman who has an intelligent mind and volitional capacity. A watch does'nt make itself.

Now, the explanation for the cause of the universe, far from contradicting what I have just said, agrees completely with it!

How?

The Creator of the universe could have chosen not to create or create. He chose to create. How do we know this? Because we exist! The universe, like a watch is very intricate and complex (I hope no one would be so foolish as to deny this) and like a watch, the universe has at least one main purpose. The watch tells time. What does the universe do? The universe, as science shows, seems to be undeniably fine-tuned for the existence of humans on earth. So we could reasonably say that this is one purpose for it's existence. Notice I said one, not only.

Therefore the Creator creating the universe is in keeping with what we observe in reality. Namely, an intelligent being creating something designed and complex.

Take for example the following questions:

Does a watch bring a Watchmaker into existence? Or could we maintain that a watch makes itself?

Does a C++ programming language bring computer scientist Bjarne Stroustrup into existence? Or would we be rational in saying that C++ brought itself into existence?

Does a Facebook page bring Mark Zuckerberg into existence? Or maybe it just somehow designed itself and projected itself into the internet?

Does the Jeopardy game show bring Merv Griffin into existence?

Does the the great American Novel: Gone With The Wind bring Margaret Mitchell into existence? Or maybe it sat down at the typewritter and typed itself over a period of several years!

Or the Appple Inc., did it bring Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne into existence? Or maybe a tree one day dropped one of it's apples and a nameless computer that desiged itself came along and stumbled upon the apple and said: Ahh! That's it!

Maybe some popcorn popped so much in a microwave one day that Orville Redenbacher was born from one of the kernels!

These questions may be humorous, but they make an important point.
It is absurd to suggest that chaos produces order, that non-intelligence produces intelligence, that impersonal objects could create personal entities and so on and so forth.

Every one of the persons listed above chose to act and were the direct cause of the things they created.

 

[Davian]

These are your words, and I quote:

"No, the universe could be eternal, with the big bang being only the beginning of the current instantiation of our cosmos. Here, the cosmos is what is inside of the universe. And, this allows for uranium in what could be an eternal universe."

Now, if you maintain that the universe could be eternal, this position would be in contradiction to the scientific evidence to the contrary.

So at best, your statement above, if you maintain that view, would be a pop-metaphysical contradictory explanation. It is a made up explanation that has no grounds scientifically and actually contradicts the scientific and philosophic evidence at our disposal.

How is the big bang theory in contradiction to that evidence?

Are you going to answer that question regarding your agnosticism?

Science tells us the universe is not eternal, logic tells us that it is not eternal. Therefore your position, if you maintain it, is contradictory to the Big Bang scenario.

You are misrepresenting what I am saying, which is intellectually dishonest. I do not maintain this postion, I just present it to show that you have not addressed all of the issues that falsify your position.

See where you quoted me making a delineation between the universe and the cosmos; no contradiction with the big bang theory.

Are you going to answer that question regarding your agnosticism?

 

[Elioenai26]

Come to think of it: Have we ever observed something actually coming into existance.

No. No human has ever seen something coming into existance out of nothing.

The only effect I could think of that involves something coming into existance would be vacuum quantum fluctuations, which - as far as we know - aren't caused by anything.

This is false and has been shown why in several previous posts.

Suffice it to say that a quantum vacuum is definently not "no-thing".

By the way: If the universe - and time with it - came into existance at a point in the past, then that would also be the point at which God came into existance. He could not have existed prior to the creation of the universe, because time only began with the beginning of the universe.

Who said that the Cause of the universe was bound by time or dependent upon time for it's existence?

This is something you have made up. And in fact it is self-defeating. If the Cause did not exist prior to time, then the Cause could not have created time! The Cause would not have existed to effect any cause, let alone all time, all matter, and all space.

The fact that science proves to us that the universe did have a beginning, proves that there must be a being that is timeless who would have been able to create time.

 

[Elioenai26]

You are misrepresenting what I am saying, which is intellectually dishonest. I do not maintain this postion, I just present it to show that you have not addressed all of the issues that falsify your position.

Thus far, no argument has been given that has falsified the cosmological argument. To say so is deliberately misleading and dishonest Davian.

Are you going to answer that question regarding your agnosticism?

I am honestly not concerned about a hypothetical situation regarding what is in your pocket. So you can stop asking me about it.

 

[Davian]

...
The fact that science proves to us that the universe did have a beginning, proves that there must be a being that is timeless who would have been able to create time.

Do you have any *specifics* on this "science" that has "proved" the existence and nature of this "being"? Something more than a cut and paste from one of your religious web sites?

 

[Elioenai26]

Do you have any *specifics* on this "science" that has "proved" the existence and nature of this "being"? Something more than a cut and paste from one of your religious web sites?

The "specifics" Davian are bound up in one indispensible principle that philosophy, science, and every other discipline is based on and presupposes to come to it's conclusions on the true nature of reality.

This principle is called "logic".

 

[Davian]

Thus far, no argument has been given that has falsified the cosmological argument. To say so is deliberately misleading and dishonest Davian.

No, the cosmological argument, as you have presented it, presumes that the 'big bang' is an "event", that is, something that takes place in space-time, and subject to your cause-and-effect arguments. That is where it fails.

I am honestly not concerned about a hypothetical situation regarding what is in your pocket. So you can stop asking me about it.

Do you find agnosticism to be uncomfortable?

Do you agree that atheism does not make a positive claim?

 

[Elioenai26]

No, the cosmological argument, as you have presented it, presumes that the 'big bang' is an "event", that is, something that takes place in space-time, and subject to your cause-and-effect arguments. That is where it fails.

Ok Davian, tell us all what the Big Bang is, since all the scientists and cosmologists and astronomers seem to have gotten it all wrong and you've got it all right and know what it is.

I also need to remind you that this is one argument for the existence of God, not the only one.

Do you find agnosticism to be uncomfortable?

Do you agree that atheism does not make a positive claim?

Davian, I do not think that the contents of your pocket is something that I need to be concerned about. The contents of your pocket have no direct bearing on my life, nor does it have a direct bearing on any of the lives of my loved ones, nor do I discern that it has any direct bearing on anyone else's life.

I do, however believe that it is possible for me to know what is in your pocket. I am in no way agnostic about, or apathetic about it. However, it is not on the top of my priorities list at the moment. Sorry.

 

[Danyc]

The universe must have a cause for it's existence and it must be personal.

We see this in the world all the time.

If you wanted to make a cogent and coherent argument then you would have said this:

"The universe must have a cause for it's existence and it must be personal.

We see this in universes all the time."

That would be a scientific statement based on observation. Unfortunately, you did not say this, because there are no other universes that we know of or that we may observe to make such a statement.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Davian]

Ok Davian, tell us all what the Big Bang is, since all the scientists and cosmologists and astronomers seem to have gotten it all wrong and you've got it all right and know what it is.

I do not claim to know, or that those others are wrong. I am only pointing out why the cosmological argument, as you have presented it, is not valid.

I also need to remind you that this is one argument for the existence of God, not the only one.

Is not the cosmological argument merely an argument for the existence of a universe-creation-triggering mechanism, not "God"?

What if this 'mechanism' had intelligence equivalent to that of a toaster oven? What more would it need?

Davian, I do not think that the contents of your pocket is something that I need to be concerned about. The contents of your pocket have no direct bearing on my life, nor does it have a direct bearing on any of the lives of my loved ones, nor do I discern that it has any direct bearing on anyone else's life.

I do, however believe that it is possible for me to know what is in your pocket.

Really? How would one do that, for when I first asked you, considering those pants have already gone through the wash?

I am in no way agnostic about, or apathetic about it. However, it is not on the top of my priorities list at the moment. Sorry.

I see you did not address the other question in my post. The point of my statement and question is to point out the faulty statement in your OP, where you said atheism could be shown to be false. But I am sure you knew that.

 

[quatona]

I asked:

"And where have you observed something impersonal bringing something personal into existence Gadarene?"

And then I asked:

"Do you not know that an impersonal entity does not have volitional capabilities?"

_____________________________________________________________

With regards to the questions:

The universe must have a cause for it's existence and it must be personal.

We see this in the world all the time.

A watchmaker can decide to make a watch. He has the volitional capacity to choose to make it. He can walk around his shop, take out the trash, clean off his workspace, sweep the floor, or choose to sit down and design a watch and make it.

The watchmaker is a man or a woman who has an intelligent mind and volitional capacity. A watch does'nt make itself.

Now, the explanation for the cause of the universe, far from contradicting what I have just said, agrees completely with it!

How?

The Creator of the universe could have chosen not to create or create. He chose to create. How do we know this? Because we exist! The universe, like a watch is very intricate and complex (I hope no one would be so foolish as to deny this) and like a watch, the universe has at least one main purpose. The watch tells time. What does the universe do? The universe, as science shows, seems to be undeniably fine-tuned for the existence of humans on earth. So we could reasonably say that this is one purpose for it's existence. Notice I said one, not only.

Therefore the Creator creating the universe is in keeping with what we observe in reality. Namely, an intelligent being creating something designed and complex.

Take for example the following questions:

Does a watch bring a Watchmaker into existence? Or could we maintain that a watch makes itself?

Does a C++ programming language bring computer scientist Bjarne Stroustrup into existence? Or would we be rational in saying that C++ brought itself into existence?

Does a Facebook page bring Mark Zuckerberg into existence? Or maybe it just somehow designed itself and projected itself into the internet?

Does the Jeopardy game show bring Merv Griffin into existence?

Does the the great American Novel: Gone With The Wind bring Margaret Mitchell into existence? Or maybe it sat down at the typewritter and typed itself over a period of several years!

Or the Appple Inc., did it bring Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne into existence? Or maybe a tree one day dropped one of it's apples and a nameless computer that desiged itself came along and stumbled upon the apple and said: Ahh! That's it!

Maybe some popcorn popped so much in a microwave one day that Orville Redenbacher was born from one of the kernels!

These questions may be humorous, but they make an important point.
It is absurd to suggest that chaos produces order, that non-intelligence produces intelligence, that impersonal objects could create personal entities and so on and so forth.

Every one of the persons listed above chose to act and were the direct cause of the things they created.



An explanation concerning the origin of the universe must be in accordance with what the evidence demands quatona. What does the evidence demand? What entity could cause the universe to exist with all of it's irreducible complexity, and human diversity, and intricate laws, principles, undeniable beauty and wonder?

You keep saying over and over and over again that my explanation for the origin of the universe does not fit with laws observed within the universe.

You can't be speaking of the Causal Principle because it simply states that everything that comes into existence has a cause for it's existence.

You can't be speaking about the Principle of Uniformity because it states that causes in the past work like causes today. How do causes work today? There are two types of causes: intelligent, and non-intelligent. Mount Rushmore is an example of an effect of the first, the Grand Canyon is an example of an effect of the second. The universe either has an intelligent cause or an unintelligent cause. What is more probable? An intelligent cause! Why? Because everything we observe in life tells us that unintelligent causes do not produce intelligent entities, or designed effects. It is akin to saying that an earthquake could have caused the faces on Mount Rushmore to come into existence!!!!

Please stop the evasions and answer the question.

 

[Gadarene]

I asked:

"And where have you observed something impersonal bringing something personal into existence Gadarene?"

And then I asked:

"Do you not know that an impersonal entity does not have volitional capabilities?"

_____________________________________________________________

With regards to the questions:

The universe must have a cause for it's existence and it must be personal.

We see this in the world all the time.

A watchmaker can decide to make a watch. He has the volitional capacity to choose to make it. He can walk around his shop, take out the trash, clean off his workspace, sweep the floor, or choose to sit down and design a watch and make it.

The watchmaker is a man or a woman who has an intelligent mind and volitional capacity. A watch does'nt make itself.

Now, the explanation for the cause of the universe, far from contradicting what I have just said, agrees completely with it!

How?

The Creator of the universe could have chosen not to create or create. He chose to create. How do we know this? Because we exist! The universe, like a watch is very intricate and complex (I hope no one would be so foolish as to deny this) and like a watch, the universe has at least one main purpose. The watch tells time. What does the universe do? The universe, as science shows, seems to be undeniably fine-tuned for the existence of humans on earth. So we could reasonably say that this is one purpose for it's existence. Notice I said one, not only.

Therefore the Creator creating the universe is in keeping with what we observe in reality. Namely, an intelligent being creating something designed and complex.

Take for example the following questions:

Does a watch bring a Watchmaker into existence? Or could we maintain that a watch makes itself?

Does a C++ programming language bring computer scientist Bjarne Stroustrup into existence? Or would we be rational in saying that C++ brought itself into existence?

Does a Facebook page bring Mark Zuckerberg into existence? Or maybe it just somehow designed itself and projected itself into the internet?

Does the Jeopardy game show bring Merv Griffin into existence?

Does the the great American Novel: Gone With The Wind bring Margaret Mitchell into existence? Or maybe it sat down at the typewritter and typed itself over a period of several years!

Or the Appple Inc., did it bring Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne into existence? Or maybe a tree one day dropped one of it's apples and a nameless computer that desiged itself came along and stumbled upon the apple and said: Ahh! That's it!

Maybe some popcorn popped so much in a microwave one day that Orville Redenbacher was born from one of the kernels!

These questions may be humorous, but they make an important point.
It is absurd to suggest that chaos produces order, that non-intelligence produces intelligence, that impersonal objects could create personal entities and so on and so forth.

Every one of the persons listed above chose to act and were the direct cause of the things they created.

Deliberate and deceitful cherry picking of examples to support an untenable point.

We know of plenty of things that form without requiring volition, and you are just wilfully ignoring them.

 

[Gadarene]

Suffice it to say that a quantum vacuum is definently not "no-thing".

Precisely! Craig's summation of the BBT is INCORRECT.

So forget about it, because that's what's causing you to make your mistake. We are not claiming something comes from nothing, because the quantum mechanical vacuum is not nothing!

 

[KCfromNC]

Are any of the following statements not logical or illogical to you KC:
Chaos cannot produce order.

Nonintelligence cannot produce intelligence.

Impersonal cannot produce personal.

Nonlife cannot produce life

Chance cannot produce intelligence

Single statements aren't attempting to be a logical deduction or inference so the question is a category error. But most of your examples are factually wrong, if that's what you're asking.

Logic and common sense (not just mine but logic in and of itself) tells us that an impersonal entity cannot choose to create anything, let alone a human being with it's complex capacities to include volition, mind, and emotion.

If you're saying that only conscious beings make choices, I tend to agree, as long as you understand that consciousness is continuum, not a binary state.

But until you show that the creation of the universe requires an entity to make a choice, you're putting the cart before the horse here.

Your analogy is fallacious in that you assume that I have said that a creator must share every attribute with it's creation. I have never once said this. Therefore your whole argument is misguided.

OK, then tell us why consciousness is required to create consciousness.