Verification: Agents have to know how to figure out if propositions are true or false. One prerequisite is that the sentence makes sense.
“Creation” “ex nihilo” and “god” are all jibberish.
You could say God, the Multiverse, or any other number of possibliities.
Exactly, and things like the multiverse, inflationary or oscillating models are either completely speculatory or fail in some way scientifically as explanatory hypotheses.
Besides, the existence of a multiverse usually is only conjured up to discount the finely-tuned constants of the universe which are required even for the formation of the universe. Without them, if the universe was to form randomly, it would simply collapse into a fireball.
Besides, positing multiverses does nothing to explain causality.
This is why I posit God, since he is by far the most consistent and coherent explanation.
Perhaps you should read this paper before you start talking about causality as if it were a hard and fast rule going forward in time.
And again, there may not have ever been a “ex nihilo” condition at any point in time in this universe. That is another assumption you make, causing your postulation to even further be removed by Occam’s razor.
“God did it” rests upon a whole bunch of assumptions, e.g. God exists, God is powerful enough to do it, God would want to do it etc.
If you think the only way universes can form is the way this one formed, I am sorry, you are wrong. Yes, the way things are now is due to the balance between the four forces of existence. But this balance is far from the only possible one. It also doesnt account for the possiblility that the balance we have is the most likely thing to occur in the early state of things.
You can posit God as prime mover if you desire, but you have to evidence that God exists.
Would anyone take the stance of supporting a demiurge involving the creation and maintenance of the universe?
I have no problem if that is what you want to believe personally. But if you are positing it scientifically, you need to provide evidence that this artisan God really exists.
i.e. The Artisan God is responsible for evolving creatures. Ok, what evidence have you of this artisan God?
My argument infers God because of the list of attributes that are necessary of a ‘big banger’.
Now in response to the Quantum Physics paper, sometimes these papers come out claiming that sub-atomic events are uncaused.
This is a highly controversial contention, one that many physicists are dissatisfied with.
I list out my syllogism so it’s a little clearer:
-
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
-
The universe began to exist.
-
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
I’ve already described what type of attributes are necessary for the cause.
The first premise is relatively uncontroversial, and no, quantum physics is too theoretical to furnish a proven objection to premise 1.
The second premise has the backing of modern science – the big bang is one of the most proven theories that exist today.
The third is the conclusion. The cause has certain requirements. It cannot be physical, it cannot be in time or space, it must be tremendously powerful, and personal.
Call it God, call it a supercomputer, I don’t really care.
I’d be happy to answer any questions.
As has been said, that is fine. And I reasonable hypothesis. But it will have no credibility until you can prove that this “God” exists and is powerful enough to create the universe.
The cause has certain requirements. It cannot be physical, it cannot be in time or space, it must be tremendously powerful, and personal.
Why would any of that be neccessary for creation? (except the time and space one, ill grant you that)
Timelessness implies changelessness, and changelessness implies immateriality.
He must be tremendously powerful otherwise – the universe wouldn’t be here. The power to create space and time ex nihilo is an incredible feat.
Also, it’s really fascinating because personhood is implied by timelessness and imateriality. The only things which fit that criteria are either minds or abstract objects.
Abstract objects like numbers do not cause anything. So we are left with ‘minds’. It may be one mind or two minds, or a dozen minds. Usually Ockham’s Razor is employed to shave away multiple minds.
So we can infer from this that the transcendent cause of the universe must be a mind. That is the proof of God’s existence. We prove from the existence of the unvierse exactly what type of entity required for such a thing to exist.
Also, it’s really fascinating because personhood is implied by timelessness and imateriality. The only things which fit that criteria are either minds or abstract objects.
How are minds timeless? My mind changes all the time, and it most certainly will end one day. Persons are material beings subject to time, so Im not sure what you said holds true.
sually Ockham’s Razor is employed to shave away multiple minds
You’re using OR on an assumption, that only minds create things (oscillating molten iron in the earth’s core creates the magnetic field), which is not really the place of OR.
So we can infer from this that the transcendent cause of the universe must be a mind.
Once again, things other than minds can create things. This runs very close to the watchmaker argument, which has been thoroughly debunked.
Right you are. There are other things than minds that can create things. In this case, however, the cause has certain criteria that only a powerful, personal mind.
The mind of God is not made of matter.
Now in response to the Quantum Physics paper, sometimes these papers come out claiming that sub-atomic events are uncaused.
This is a highly controversial contention, one that many physicists are dissatisfied with.
That paper does not claim something happened without a cause, it claims something happened before the event that caused it happened. It is a verifiable phenomenon. This isn’t just theoretical.
The second premise has the backing of modern science – the big bang is one of the most proven theories that exist today.
The big bang does NOT mean the “beginning” of the universe.
You’re sure about that one? Your view is not one that cosmologists and scientists share.
“For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.” – P.C.W. Davies
The Big Bang model states that the universe came into being at a singularity at a finite time ago.
John Barrow and Frank Tipler say, “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity..”
And one last powerful quote from Gott, Gunn, and Scrhamm.
“Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the big bang; it is somewhat like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the big bang took place. The point universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the only answer can be that the big bang happened everywhere.”
J. Richard Gott III, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice M. Tinsley, “Will the Universe Expand Forever?” Scientific American, March 1976, 65
God, the multiverse, white hole theory, cosmic accident, or any other number of possiblities
Just because there are a plethora of options doesn’t discount that one of those options is not only the best explanation, but has the most evidence backing it.
This is why the Big Bang is generally accepted – because it has the most actual evidence and it doesn’t involve needless speculation.
Citing different theories does nothing to cast doubt on the right one.
what evidence? nd physical, plz, not logical
That is some strange epistemology that denies that truth can be obtained through logical arguments.
If God could be perceived through the five senses, then he couldn’t possibly be God. That is the point.
If God could be perceived through the five senses, then he wouldn’t be timeless, changeless, immaterial, etc.
He would descend to the status of some created being and thus push the problem further back – who created the created being. The being’s materiality means that it cannot be eternal.
Exactly. You can believe all you want, it can never be objectively verified and therefore is a pointless endeavor to even argue about it. Believing in God is one thing, you are completely justified in doing so. Positing that he acts upon the universe is another, and will require some verifiable evidence. Since evidence cannot be provided, simply by the irrational nature of God, ergo, any kind of creator/actor God could not exist.