Debate/Proof?

[firstpetertwonine]

I am familiar with the cosmological arguement. However, I find it illogical to assume a "creator" in the absence of an explanation. Just because we aren't certain of the beginnings of the universe does not point to a creator.

Isn't belief without justification (faith) just another way of saying gullibility?

Wow I haven't been here in a couple days, this thread sure took off. LOL

I don't know if anybody else already answered this b/c I'm not gonna wade thru 8 pages of replies, but - there was a time in my life when I was skeptical as well, and I felt the same way about the cosmological argument. Theists are just appealing to the divine for lack of any better explanation, like a superstitious caveman who can't explain where thunder and lightning come from. But I don't think that really is what the argument is trying to say. It's not only positing that the universe had a cause, but it's also implying that no naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe can ever be satisfactory.

Most scientists seem to agree the universe is not infinite; it had a beginning. Observations about the world around us would also seem to confirm so because we can't observe an actual infinite anything; infinity is only a mathematical concept b/c we can't seem to count an actual infinite number of something. Since infinity doesn't seem to actually exist, it would serve to reason that the number of past events in the history of the universe would have to be finite.

So, if the universe's prehistory is not infinite, where do we mark the beginning using natural means only? I don't believe it's possible to do so and that's what the cosmological argument is getting at. Any natural explanation of where the universe came from will always appeal to pre-existing conditions of some kind - particles, vacuums, energies, laws of physics dictating how these things behave, etc. - that were already in place before the natural explanation can begin. We don't seem to be able to reach a starting point where there was absolutely nothing (no particles, no energies, nothing), and then there was something, where science can tell us exactly how that happened. In other words:

Theist: "Where did the universe come from?"

Non-Theist: "From the Big Bang."

Theist: "Okay, what was before that?"

Non-Theist: "Well, it's a fascinating theory, theoretical quantum physicists believe that these particles did this and this vacuum did that to them and these energies did this other thing... (etc. etc. etc.)"

Theist: "Well, thank you, that was very interesting. But - where did those particles and energies come from? They were already there before your explanation started."

Non-Theist: ...

I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to the last inquiry. No matter how far back you go, science will have to appeal to something that was already there to attempt a naturalistic explanation. But science also seems to agree there was a time when there was nothing. How did we go from nothing to something? The theist argues there is not and never will be a scientific explanation that is satisfactory. Therefore, we believe, this leaves us with the inescapable conclusion that something divine, something irrational, something super-natural (outside of the natural universe) has to have been involved at some point. This isn't the same as simply throwing up our arms and saying, "Oh well, we don't know, it must have been God" - it's saying, "We know it has to have been God because no other explanation can possibly make sense."

(PS - And yes, I've heard it said, "Well, you're being inconsistent b/c you won't allow the naturalist to say "The universe just always was" but you allow yourself to say "God just always was". Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm allowed to do that when speaking of the divine. That's what makes it divine. I'm not restricted to following natural laws when speaking of the divine.)

(PPS - And yes, I've also heard it said, "Well, just because we don't know what preceded the Big Bang yet doesn't mean we won't, someday." With no disrespect intended to anyone and with full Christian love , they are demonstrating they're not really understanding what I'm saying if they try to argue that. The pre-existing conditions will still be involved in whatever the next explanation is. 50 years from now, or 100, or 200, or 500, when theoretical quantum physics comes up with the next great theory as to the origins of the universe, I pretty much guarantee you it will still be appealing to pre-existing conditions, as discussed. Then us theists will still be there with the pesky question, "Where did those pre-existing conditions come from??")

Peace