Why Couldn't the Universe Exist Without a Cause?

[Bradski]

Yes, and some would say rather intelligently designed!

Mmm. I think that I will never see, a poem lovely as a…the ebola virus. Now that’s efficient. A real success story. Very well designed indeed.

 

[PRmerger]

Mmm. I think that I will never see, a poem lovely as a…the ebola virus. Now that’s efficient. A real success story. Very well designed indeed.

Yeah. In The Beginning it was not so.

 

[ynotzap]

Mmm. I think that I will never see, a poem lovely as a…the ebola virus. Now that’s efficient. A real success story. Very well designed indeed.

I understand with the intelligence God gave man, they are making advances in controlling the virus, with greater hope for more success in the future. God did not leave us helpless, we just need to co-operate with Him more.

 

[Nixbits]

PRmerger:

I hope you are astute enough to tell the atheist, “Well, that’s nothing but Science of the Gaps thinking.”

I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here. Why would I be so foolish as to point out to an atheist that science concentrates on investigating things that we don’t already know? That’s obvious. If you meant this as a joke, then I apologise. The humour escapes me. I don’t see that it’s in any way analogous to the ‘God of the gaps’ claim.

 

[Bradski]

I understand with the intelligence God gave man, they are making advances in controlling the virus, with greater hope for more success in the future. God did not leave us helpless, we just need to co-operate with Him more.

But did he design it?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t quite understand what you’re saying here. Why would I be so foolish as to point out to an atheist that science concentrates on investigating things that we don’t already know? That’s obvious. If you meant this as a joke, then I apologise. The humour escapes me. I don’t see that it’s in any way analogous to the ‘God of the gaps’ claim.

Oh, it is exactly analogous to the God of the Gaps objection.

It limns quite effectively the double standard that is so egregious in atheistic circles.

“We object to believers saying, ‘we don’t understand,therefore, God’ but we get to say, ‘we don’t understand, therefore Science’.”

 

[o_mlly]

According to Aquinas’ five ways, anything nothing can be put in motion or exist without a cause. …

That is, before the Big Bang, there may have been a different set of rules from those we know. We don’t know what such a time and place would be like, because we have no way of observing it! So, how can we know there must be a First Cause?

Rather than name the “Big Banger” you would, in your alternate universe, still have to name the “Rule Maker/Changer.” The answer is the same.

 

[inocente]

This remark is incomplete until you add there is also no way to include the possibility.

Perhaps we have missed something in all this?

If we distinguish creation from causation, we know they are radically different.

Creation cannot be the same as causation, because when the universe was created the principle of causation was created with it. It is possible for God to create from nothing, since for God all things are possible. But for us (bound as we are in the chain of causality God created) it is not imaginable that an event can happen with nothing to cause it.

If we say that God caused the singularity, what we really mean is that God created the singularity, from which did spring the principle of causality.

Creation is a mystery. Causality is not.

This is why Bertrand Russell was so wrong-headed when he asked why God should not have a cause. Why would the Creator of causality have a cause?

I think Russell’s argument was that just because a claim is familiar doesn’t of itself make the claim reasonable - the claim of some exotic quality called necessary existence, the claim that God alone possesses it, and so on.

But I agree with your good thought that in the singularity is something very singular, at that point of creation something we don’t see every day is going on, so we shouldn’t expect day-to-day intuitions or rules to apply.

 

[inocente]

I think you’re over analyzing nothing here. (Or making much ado about nothing). If there was nothing then we wouldn’t exist. Since only nothing comes from nothing. Therefore there must be something that exists necessarily from which all contingent beings can derive their existence. It is something that exists eternally. This is as I have been saying is necessary. Not by some rule of logic. But by its very nature. But logic is what we can use to see that fact. Unless, you want to believe something can come from nothing.

Trouble is, I think you’re falling into logic traps. Here, for instance, the traditional argument is that nothing comes from nothing - creatio ex nihilo literally means creation out of nothing. But that argument doesn’t call God a thing as you’ve been doing, it claims things cannot be eternal and must come into being, while God alone is eternal.

As far as its properties existing necessarily I have said nothing. If you believe the universe is the necessarily existing being does that mean everything in the universe must necessarily exist? That’s not what I am talking about. What we are taking about is its existence is necessary. Now, other properties like it being timeless, changeless, transcendent, etc could be argued as necessary. But it is also capable of creating things and properties that aren’t necessary and are contingent. Like for instance, universes, people and dogs.

Well no, everything in the universe is constantly changing, puppies are born then grow old, dust to dust.

As well it could be argued that it must be a personal agent. Because only a personal agent can choose to bring a contingent universe into existence a finite time ago. If it was an impersonal agent like a force then that would not explain why the universe was brought into existence a finite time ago. For if the cause exists then the effect must necessarily exist as well. For example if the temperature is below freezing and there is water it will turn into ice. Even if it went back infinite time. As long as it was below freezing the effect would be the ice would freeze. The water wouldn’t wait until some finite time ago to freeze. Thus, as the cause exists the effect must necessarily also exist. And, if the necessarily existing cause of the universe was an impersonal force energy then the universe must also have also existed. As long as the cause existed. That is, unless the cause is a personal free agent that can choose to bring the universe into existence a finite time ago.

I think you fell into another logic trap. If the big bang was a creation event then no time could have passed before the big bang, since there was no universe in which time could pass. So the cause must exist outside time.

btw for the same reason, the scientific theory is that the sum total of energy across the entire universe is, and always has been, exactly zero, since there was no previous universe to provide a source of energy - again, creatio ex nihilo.

 

[inocente]

Oh, it is exactly analogous to the God of the Gaps objection.

It may be worth pointing out that it was theologians who invented the term god of the gaps as a criticism of any apologetic which relies on gaps in knowledge, for instance intelligent design.

“…how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer quoted in theopedia.com/god-of-the-gaps

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Mmm. I think that I will never see, a poem lovely as a…the ebola virus. Now that’s efficient. A real success story. Very well designed indeed.

The devil made you say that!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It may be worth pointing out that it was theologians who invented the term god of the gaps as a criticism of any apologetic which relies on gaps in knowledge, for instance intelligent design.

“…how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer quoted in theopedia.com/god-of-the-gaps

Here is another quote from Bonhoeffer that I like very much.

“A God who let us prove his existence would be an idol.”

This is the best answer to atheism.

 

[PRmerger]

It may be worth pointing out that it was theologians who invented the term god of the gaps as a criticism of any apologetic which relies on gaps in knowledge, for instance intelligent design.

“…how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know; God wants us to realize his presence, not in unsolved problems but in those that are solved.” - Dietrich Bonhoeffer quoted in theopedia.com/god-of-the-gaps

God of the gaps objection is an otiose objection, no doubt.

 

[Nixbits]

PRmerger:

it is exactly analogous to the God of the Gaps objection. . . . “We object to believers saying, ‘we don’t understand, therefore, God’ but we get to say, ‘we don’t understand, therefore Science’.”

I disagree. The two are not analogous.

In one case, God is asserted to be the definitive answer without evidence to support the assertion. In the other case, science is offered as the means by which evidence can be evaluated in order to find the most likely answer.

 

[PRmerger]

In the other case, science is offered as the means by which evidence can be evaluated in order to find the most likely answer.

And this is, amusingly, a faith-based belief.

Of course, I don’t have a problem with faith-based beliefs.

But it’s a peculiar double standard that is being held by atheists, don’t you think?

 

[DrTaffy]

And this is, amusingly, a faith-based belief.

It is evidence based. Science has an excellent record at solving such problems, so it is reasonable to ‘have faith’ that it has a good chance of finding answers to as yet unsolved physical mysteries. Blind faith, in contrast, has an abysmal record there. Those religious figures who have made significant contributions to our understanding of the physical universe have done so using scientific methods.

But it’s a peculiar double standard that is being held by atheists, don’t you think?

Nope - the ‘God of the Gaps’ argument tries to use the lack of a definitive answer to conclude that God did it, by some unknown and possibly unknowable means. ‘We don’t understand therefore God’ as you put it. Scientists (atheist or not) just admit ‘we don’t know for certain, but these are our best guesses and this is what we are doing to test them and look for better ones.’

There is a huge difference between asserting that “God did it by magic” as an answer to all unsolved questions and pointing out the process we are using to find and evaluate potential answers.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is evidence based. Science has an excellent record at solving such problems, so it is reasonable to ‘have faith’ that it has a good chance of finding answers to as yet unsolved physical mysteries. Blind faith, in contrast, has an abysmal record there. Those religious figures who have made significant contributions to our understanding of the physical universe have done so using scientific methods.

Blind faith should refer to theological mysteries only. But scientism has blind faith that there are no theological mysteries worth spit. Scientism will not allow that there is any realm of knowledge worth examining that is not subject to the scientific method. That is why scientism is warped and bigoted toward both religion and metaphysics.

 

[DrTaffy]

Blind faith should refer to theological mysteries only.

So we agree that the God of the Gaps should be dismissed? It is, surely, always applying blind faith to physical questions such as the origin or diversity of life.

But scientism has blind faith that there are no theological mysteries worth spit. Scientism will not allow that there is any realm of knowledge worth examining that is not subject to the scientific method.

Scientism as opposed to Science is pretty much defined as at least an abuse of science. But how many atheists actually go that far? How many, for example, would reject pure mathematical proofs as worthless?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Scientism as opposed to Science is pretty much defined as at least an abuse of science. But how many atheists actually go that far? How many, for example, would reject pure mathematical proofs as worthless?

It’s been my experience that many, if not all, atheists subscribe to the abuse of science called scientism. They demand, for example, proof of God that can be verified. This kind of proof, of course, is not going to be forthcoming for most atheists because they are not open to the experience of God in the first place. Anyone who has an authentic experience of God does not put God in the dock or in a test tube or on a petri dish or at the end of a telescope. Since the atheist does not pray, how is he to know whether there is a God who listens and answers? And if he answers that he once upon a time listened and heard nothing, how does he know that God answered but he was blind or deaf to the answer?

 

[ynotzap]

Mmm. I think that I will never see, a poem lovely as a…the ebola virus. Now that’s efficient. A real success story. Very well designed indeed.

Ebola virus is not evil in itself, evil is considered the absence of the good. In a subjective way it is considered an evil because it destroys life which man considers good. It causes disorder in the human body. So does smoking, which does cause cancer, and heart trouble, and that’s by man’s choice. God’s permissive will allows both to exist, the same goes for sin. God can draw good from evil. It is impossible for God to commit evil, for He is total Good. Man has caused more and real evil than any virus can. A virus does not make moral choices, it follows the laws of nature which God imposes, there is no evil. Yet man destroys human life by wars, murder, drugs, hatred, and lust that has been responsible for many infant deaths. Ebola virus can be controlled, but man can’t control much of the real real evil he causes, and why? Christians know why. Do atheists know why? Has it ever crossed their minds? Blaming their idea of God for what men do. Many do not value life, to them it is cheap, with some even their own, humanity is very ill, and there is evidence of this world wide, and why? For Christians to say they don’t know would be to misrepresent the truth. Even for Christians knowing the reasons for evil, they know they can’t change things, but they also know who can. Jesus Christ. We can not change anyone, but we can point the way, and give the right example by our own lives to testify to the truth.