Why physicists can't avoid a creator

[Farinata]

Honestly I don't get this argument. Even if I grant you that there had to be a prime mover, the Deistic position, how does that advance the truth of Christianity in the slightest? Accepting that assumption tells you nothing about the mind of this aforementioned creator. This creator could have been incompetent or cruel or malicious or any combination of these things, a far more likely assumption than assuming it is omnibenevolent or "loves" us considering all the death and suffering surrounding humanity. There's no logical step that takes you from Deism to Theism; it's still a leap of faith with no empirical support.

 

[Orogeny]

I would expect the natural world to be able to be quantified using mathematics if it was created by an intelligent being because design and information can only come from an intelligent source.

Define 'design'. Define 'information'. Also, answer the question in the quoted post; you cleverly bypassed actually addressing it.

I would have no expectation of the natural world being quantified using mathematics if it were the result of random chance.

Why not? Also, define 'random chance', and explain mathematically why 'random chance' cannot be explained using mathematics.

 

[The Paul]

I think what happens is theists occasionally "catch" famous scientists admitting they don't understand the ultimate nature of the universe.

Seems like a big deal when its important to keep up the appearance of understanding the ultimate nature of the universe.

Human science may never be able to determine the ultimate nature of the universe. It may be true that we simply can not interact with the necessary forces.

But whether or not it ever does has no bearing on the fact religion does not understand the ultimate nature of the universe.

 

[Upisoft]

I think what happens is theists occasionally "catch" famous scientists admitting they don't understand the ultimate nature of the universe.

Seems like a big deal when its important to keep up the appearance of understanding the ultimate nature of the universe.

Human science may never be able to determine the ultimate nature of the universe. It may be true that we simply can not interact with the necessary forces.

But whether or not it ever does has no bearing on the fact religion does not understand the ultimate nature of the universe.

I think they just repeat the faulty cosmological argument of Dr. Craig.

It goes like following:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

....

It is faulty, because it uses different definition of "begins to exist" in 1st and 2nd points above. I agree with both points however. The argument should be like follows (with proper definitions:

1. Whatever begins to exist in time has a cause. (This is observational fact)
2. The universe along with time that belongs to it began to exist in something that is not time (and therefore we have no other observation data about things that began to exist in this way except the universe itself)
3. We can't conclude that the universe has cause, because we lack statistical data of things that began to exist in that other thing that is not time. We know only one instance of such an event and we don't know it has a cause (that is the universe)

 

[KCfromNC]

I wouldn't.

I'm sitting here at my desk with a few different mineral samples sitting around me. They grew quite naturally into incredibly beautiful forms at multiple scales using only natural processes that we can see in the lab every day.

It appears quite complex and amazing but is simply what happens when different elements of different size/charge ratios combine under certain chemical conditions.

The very minute the formation of an ice cube in a freezer becomes evidence for God is the minute that we can start dealing with infidels who refuse to believe in the "Cosmic non-living Microwave Oven" who created us all! Selah!

Not only that, but we have exactly zero examples of intelligence capable of creating universes. Extrapolating from that lack to it being a requirement seems like a huge stretch that there's absolute no reason to make. How do we even know that universes can be created by intelligent beings rather than natural processes? We don't, and yet it's trotted out not only as a possibility but a necessity for no reason at all, other than as a social welfare make-work program for a hypothetical god.

 

[KCfromNC]

I admire your faith, because of you can believe that, it certainly isn't about the evidence.

So as a Christian, you're saying that faith is a bad thing? Just curious.

Not that I agree that "well, there no reason to believe in a creator so I won't" is a faith statement, but that's not the question I'm asking.

 

[KCfromNC]

Whatever begins to exist in time has a cause. (This is observational fact)

Except for the stuff that, as far as we can tell, happens without a cause, of course. Radioactive decay and all of those other unpredictable individual quantum events don't seem to fit into a traditional understanding of cause and effect.

 

[Greg1234]

Human science may never be able to determine the ultimate nature of the universe. It may be true that we simply can not interact with the necessary forces.

One body (man) is sufficient. Other bodies like the cosmos, the vegetable etc aren't necessary.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Why are some theists so afraid to say "I dont know"? Simple fact is no one knows how the universe/reality/existance began.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Why are some theists so afraid to say "I dont know"? Simple fact is no one knows how the universe/reality/existance began.

I don't know.

I guess you could suggest that its cause and effect? People who cant deal with uncertainty flock to religion as they consider false certainty better then non?
Course I am not suggesting that is the or the only reason these people come to religion, I'm just speculating.

 

[Davian]

Honestly I don't get this argument. Even if I grant you that there had to be a prime mover, the Deistic position, how does that advance the truth of Christianity in the slightest? Accepting that assumption tells you nothing about the mind of this aforementioned creator. This creator could have been incompetent or cruel or malicious or any combination of these things, a far more likely assumption than assuming it is omnibenevolent or "loves" us considering all the death and suffering surrounding humanity. There's no logical step that takes you from Deism to Theism; it's still a leap of faith with no empirical support.

Nice summary. All those deistic arguments for a theistic deity fall down right there, as you say.

 

[Davian]

Why are some theists so afraid to say "I dont know"? Simple fact is no one knows how the universe/reality/existance began.

There is a lot of competition for those selling "Truth". Perhaps they are afraid that if they were to crack the lid on what they are not sure about, then they will lose followers to those that *are* sure about what they preach.

 

[paul becke]

'Ah perhaps I was unclear I meant that just because you cant think of a way something happened does not mean that it did not happen in some way you did not think of.'

Can you quote which of my words you were responding to, above? As far as I'm aware I have made two main points:

1) That the cosmologist explained why the universe had to have a beginning. That, in itself, NECESSARILY implies an ominiscient and omnipotent Creator. But evidently, you suspect that maybe 'nothing' made something? And a mighty big and awesome 'something', at that; and

2) Re my second paragraph, no, not a detail, but the whole ambience of both quantum physics and cosmology, i.e. most of its content.

Cosmology is now so replete with paradoxes, people such as Hawkins are reduced to the wild conjectures about multiverses; effectively, by doing so, indicating that science* has much come to the end of the line. Hawkins is so muddled that he even suggested that the universe might have been created by a principle or law. Abstract concepts!

Scientists and science writers today invariably refer to the intrinsic unintelligbility of paradoxes as being, 'counter-intuitive'. If you need to rely on your intuition to discern that photons are both particles and waves, then you are an idiot. Every single paradox, no matter how trivial, is absolutely imponderable. In other words, total mysteries. They are all every bit as mysterious as Christ's incarnate nature as true God and true man; or as the Most Holy Trinity's being the union of three persons in one God.

* Rutherford remarked that there is only one scientific field: physics. 'All the rest is stamp-collecting'.

But if you want to know how physics has proved the existence of an omnisicent and omnipotent God, the absolute speed of light attests to it quite clearly. How else would light always hit your back at its absolute speed while you are both moving in the same direction, irrespective of the speed at which you are travelling. What's more its reference-frame is clearly exogenous to space-time, even though the former is claimed to be a vacuum.

 

[Incariol]

Cosmology is now so replete with paradoxes, people such as Hawkins are reduced to the wild conjectures about multiverses; effectively, by doing so, indicating that science* has much come to the end of the line. Hawkins is so muddled that he even suggested that the universe might have been created by a principle or law. Abstract concepts!

<snipped>

But if you want to know how physics has proved the existence of an omnisicent and omnipotent God, the absolute speed of light attests to it quite clearly. How else would light always hit your back at its absolute speed while you are both moving in the same direction, irrespective of the speed at which you are travelling. What's more its reference-frame is clearly exogenous to space-time, even though the former is claimed to be a vacuum.

Are you seriously saying it is too ridiculous to believe when physicists suggest the existence of a multiverse in the same post that you claim C is scientific proof of God?

Hooray for double standards.

 

[Orogeny]

'Ah perhaps I was unclear I meant that just because you cant think of a way something happened does not mean that it did not happen in some way you did not think of.'

Can you quote which of my words you were responding to, above? As far as I'm aware I have made two main points:

1) That the cosmologist explained why the universe had to have a beginning. That, in itself, NECESSARILY implies an ominiscient and omnipotent Creator. But evidently, you suspect that maybe 'nothing' made something? And a mighty big and awesome 'something', at that; and

2) Re my second paragraph, no, not a detail, but the whole ambience of both quantum physics and cosmology, i.e. most of its content.

Cosmology is now so replete with paradoxes, people such as Hawkins are reduced to the wild conjectures about multiverses; effectively, by doing so, indicating that science* has much come to the end of the line. Hawkins is so muddled that he even suggested that the universe might have been created by a principle or law. Abstract concepts!

Scientists and science writers today invariably refer to the intrinsic unintelligbility of paradoxes as being, 'counter-intuitive'. If you need to rely on your intuition to discern that photons are both particles and waves, then you are an idiot. Every single paradox, no matter how trivial, is absolutely imponderable. In other words, total mysteries. They are all every bit as mysterious as Christ's incarnate nature as true God and true man; or as the Most Holy Trinity's being the union of three persons in one God.

* Rutherford remarked that there is only one scientific field: physics. 'All the rest is stamp-collecting'.

But if you want to know how physics has proved the existence of an omnisicent and omnipotent God, the absolute speed of light attests to it quite clearly. How else would light always hit your back at its absolute speed while you are both moving in the same direction, irrespective of the speed at which you are travelling. What's more its reference-frame is clearly exogenous to space-time, even though the former is claimed to be a vacuum.

Holy appeal to ignorance, Batman!

 

[variant]

Honestly I don't get this argument. Even if I grant you that there had to be a prime mover, the Deistic position, how does that advance the truth of Christianity in the slightest? Accepting that assumption tells you nothing about the mind of this aforementioned creator. This creator could have been incompetent or cruel or malicious or any combination of these things, a far more likely assumption than assuming it is omnibenevolent or "loves" us considering all the death and suffering surrounding humanity. There's no logical step that takes you from Deism to Theism; it's still a leap of faith with no empirical support.

This.

Although a prime mover =/ Deism or Theism.

It's an old and particularly bad argument. But, it appeals to people who want to make scientists admit to the fact that they don't know everything (which they freely admit to in the first place) and thus carve out enough doubt so that their preferred yet still completely unsupported beliefs feel safe.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Holy appeal to ignorance, Batman!

Holy appeal ... Priceless.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But if you want to know how physics has proved the existence of an omnisicent and omnipotent God, the absolute speed of light attests to it quite clearly.

Err... what?

How else would light always hit your back at its absolute speed while you are both moving in the same direction, irrespective of the speed at which you are travelling.

QV. Einstein's theory of relativity. And, for the record, "How else could X? Therefore, God" is, at its heart, an argument from personal incredulity.

What's more its reference-frame is clearly exogenous to space-time, even though the former is claimed to be a vacuum.

I think you misunderstand the colloquial use of the term 'vacuum' in popular science.

 

[The Paul]

Every single paradox, no matter how trivial, is absolutely imponderable. In other words, total mysteries. They are all every bit as mysterious as Christ's incarnate nature as true God and true man; or as the Most Holy Trinity's being the union of three persons in one God.

No, they aren't.

One is math that accurately describes the world but can't be grasped intuitively.

The other one is taking mutually exclusive stories and pretending they're part of the same narrative.

 

[Phred]

Anything that has a beginning requires a cause outside of itself. The creationist recognizes that cause to be God.

It would be nice if the creationist would think beyond this just once. The creationist is seeking excuses to insert God into the universe because there are no obvious examples of "There's God" anywhere to be found. So if the universe has a beginning and nobody can, at this point in time, decipher what that beginning might have been, the creationist starts waving his arms yelling, "God" without once thinking about what that means.

Go there... please, just once. What does that define "god" to be? A cosmic light-switch thrower? Or more as defined by the Bible? This god knows all, sees all, both forwards and backwards in time. The database that is God's mind is so vast is must be larger than the universe that it contains knowledge of. So a deity like this could take billions of years just to access the answer to a question. It is not functional and cannot be a deity that actually DOES anything. And that's just the KNOWLEDGE aspect of this deity.

This cause presents a problem for the atheist who believes in evolution

Maybe, just maybe you could learn what evolution actually IS before you try and tell us what problems are caused? Evolution is simply about how species change over time. It has nothing whatsoever to do with how life began or how the universe began. Nothing. At all.

as they have to assume that everything came from nothing and was it's own cause which is logically impossible.

Except you assume that your god came from nothing, which to you is completely logical and you have no problem with that, do you? The universe starting from a singularity (which is not "nothing" by the way) is a gigantic problem for you. But pushing the start of things back to "Where did God come from" is no problem for you at all. You don't care. Why? Because it's god and you TRUST that whatever, or wherever this deity came from it's going to be explained to you all in good time. It's wrong to even ask. So if you hit a wall with where God came from that's just fine. Doesn't matter. You can't even see how incredibly foolish that is. You make statements like the one above about the universe. "logically impossible." But apply your mind to god... go on, do it!

You won't find that logically impossible because you simply don't want to. Atheists don't have the problems here. It's you that has the problem. First one of actually understanding what you're talking about. Second knowing what logic is. Third separating what you've been fed for your entire life vs. what is real.

Sad... reading posts like these is really sad.