Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: The 1st Cause Argument Still Doesn't Work Bzrd

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by bzrd on December 8, 1999 14:23:53 UTC

: : bzrd here: There is a law of nature called the Law of Causality; for every effect there is a cause. To suppose that the universe could have come : into existance without an effect is contrary to the Law of Causality. Not suprisingly, to attempt to defy it one is lead to illogical conclusions; for : ex. some think the universe was created by the collision of super-strings, where did the super-strings come from? Others propose a universe : that is cyclic. That is, one which expands and collapses according to gravity; how did the initial universe come into being? This [maddening?] : dilemma is satisfied only through scripture; In the Beginning[space-time], God Created the Heaven and the Earth[matter]. Thus, in the very first : sentence in the Old Testament, we learn that God transcends time, space and matter. Since space-time and matter are part of the universe : what-ever created the universe had to be separate from it. So, one asks, who created God? The question has no relevance outside of the : universe; God is not bound by the constraints of human intellect. : : ------ : : One must ask himself if God is subject to the law of causality? Who or what made God? Was it another more powerful God? Perhaps we : should worship that higher being instead. But alas, what made that higher being? And that one? It's a infinte chain of Gods that doesn't help : advance the situation to attain a better solution.

: : Oh, but the theist retorts: God is self caused! Hmmm. Doesn't this violate the laws of causality? Isn't the idea that God created himself and then : created the universe, equally inconceivable as the universe coming into existence all by itself? Parsimony should suggest that we don't need : God as an explanation, because the later explanation is equally inconceivable. : : Furthermore,how could God ever create this law? For in creating this law would be a cause in itself. Therefore, it's perfectly possible that this : law has always existed.

: : But again the theist retreats to his God explanation ie. God is outside physical laws. After all that talk about "look I can disprove your science : using scientific reasoning of my own," is forced to resort to an equally unexplicable: God can do all explanation. That's not very satisfying now : is it? Once again, you're trying to Use God as an explanation for something scientific. That could work if God was testable, but of course he : doesn't want to be proven for some unexplicable reason, otherwise people would actually believe in him and all this [maddening?] controversy : would end.

: bzrd here: If time and space are a consequence of matter, physical laws are a consequence of the interaction of time, space and matter. Physical : laws have no relevance outside the realm of matter; on what basis does one one assume that the Law of Causality exists outside of the : universe? : ----------------- : Steven Hawking also suggests that before the big bang when the universe was a singularity, physical laws did not apply. Indeed even conservation laws or time wouldn't necessarily apply, that's true. There's no way of knowing what a universe devoid of all the physical laws we see today, would be like. But still, God as an explanation is unnecessary. If physical laws didn't apply, neither does the causal law. Therefore, why could the universe no be self caused? : Parsimony, dictates that we should seek the answer that makes the least assumptions, and uses the mechanism which uses the least number of components to explain something (less prone to error).

: explanation 1: God created himself then created the universe or : explanation 2: The universe created itself : *both are equally plausible (or depending on the way you look at it, both equally inconceivable)

: Again, even if (hypothetically) it could be proven that God was this first cause, that would only prove that something powerful enough to create the universe existed. This in no way implies Christianity (all powerful, all compassionate, all knowing being + Christ was ressurected in 3 days, etc.). Can you explain how one could reasonably make such an enormous leap of logic?

bzrd here: In the absence of matter, time and space do not exist. Why can't the universe be self-caused? Because [in your words]the causal law does not apply. Again, it is ironic, [perhaps even apropos?] that the materialist philosophy is reducible to faith in "nothing".....

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2019 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins