First of all, quoting physicists who’ve written books such as the “The Omega Point” and “The Physics of Christianity” or NYTimes Editorials such as “Taking Science on Faith” isn’t your best bet in convincing someone of your point.
As for whether or not scientists share my views, I only need to show two examples of scientists who share my view. Here’s a paper on Loop quantum gravity and the pre-big bang universe. Here’s an entire department of scientists who share this view. But even if they didn’t, how the hell would they know whether or not there was an event in another spacetime which caused this new spacetime? They don’t know. All of our physics breaks down in a singularity.
The singularity may not have happened, and it was something else, such as a big bounce that caused the explosion, which can be described in a mathematically coherent manner (The only way to describe events near the big bang), and even maintains general relativity, something which a singularity makes impossible. There are plenty of theories that depend on purely natural phenomenon, and even more that haven’t been thought of since, well, we have a fraction of a percentage of the information needed to figure this stuff out. All of those need to be ruled out before evoking a super natural explanation and introducing a shit ton of assumptions into the fray.
Would you demand material evidence that abstract objects like numbers, ideas, or concepts exist?
Asking for material evidence of immaterial things is just misguided.
I have material evidence of numbers; my fingers. I have more than one, therefore numbers must exist (even if not in the sense we describe them). Same for concepts/ideas; I have had ideas, therefore I physically know they exist.
Also, nobody postied that numbers/ideas/concepts created existence.
Sam, I can find many, many more scientists, physicists, and cosmologists to quote from. There’s really no shortage.
Other alternative theories do not rule out the fact that there is one theory with the strongest evidence of them all.
These other theories are ad hoc ways of denying the well-established singularity. You can call it a big bounce, or the big bang, or the initial singularity, or whatever you want.
You seem to be unfairly biased against explanatory hypotheses that aren’t wholly naturalistic in nature. What makes this reasonable in any way, shape, or form?
I wasn’t implying or suggesting in any way that anyone claimed that abstract objects (other than mind(s)) created the universe. I was simply saying that asking for material evidence of an immaterial mind that fits the causal criteria of a big banger is irrational.
I once again ask, how is the God Theory, the one with the most evidence?
And if God cannot be verified empirically, then why even ask the question?
I find these arguments really quite odd
supposedly there is this concept ‘God’ that ‘explains’ a ‘created’ universe, and it is necessary, because of the reason that all that exists supposedly needs to have been created. yet, by such logic God would need to have been created by a pre-God, and on in-infinite regress.
really, positing a ‘creator’ as an answer to the particular puzzle of existence as posed just reposes the puzzle.
maybe step away from the puzzle
You’re espousing some kind of strange positivism/materialism here. I think you’ll find after closer examination that it’s viciously circular, a logical howler, as it were.
Verificationism is self-defeating – it can’t even verify itself. Demanding empirical evidence alone is quite flawed.
The God theory is based off of the finely tuned constants of the universe and off of what is necessary for the universe to spring into existence from a singularity. We already went through what is necessary, what is the necessary causal criteria for this.
All other theories can be slotted into two different categories:
-
Ad hoc or speculatory.
-
Scientifically or logically incoherent.
The Big Bang and the being behind it is neither, unlike the dozens of other models or theories conjured up to avoid obvious conclusions. That being said, it is never wrong to keep exploring models or theories in an effort to reach new understanding – I’m not about to say that we have a full understanding of the universe.
Yes, but I didnt see your “necessary attributes of the prime mover” as very convincing. The only one that seemed necessary to me is that it would have to exist outside of space-time.
As this thread started out saying; if it cannot be in any way verified, what is the point? It is nonsense. I have no problem believing/pondering God. I have a problem saying he acted upon the universe at any given point. Things like that will have to be verified, there would have to be some evidence as to his Big Banging (sounds like a porno lol).
Nirgraham, you pose an interesting question.
But it’s like asking for the cause of the first uncaused cause.
We have two options: either the universe is eternal, or God is. Nothing is contradictory about eternality in and of itself. Eternality, however, has certain criteria that the universe fails to meet. God meets the criteria of eternality perfectly.
What is a puzzle is that Mormons believe that God really is a physical being on planet X somewhere. They’re guilty as charged as far as infinite regression is concerned.
Logical positivists point out that the verification principle, which applies to BOTH empirical and analytical propositions, indeed verifies itself because it is self evident. You have to know how to understand a proposition before you can verify it.
This “genesis” or “cause before time” nonsense is incomprehensible and therefore unverifiable.
But it’s like asking for the cause of the first uncaused cause.
not really, its more like stipulating that everything has a cause and then going to look for all the causes way back as far as you go which is…(?)
introducing ‘uncausedness’ would undermine the premise that everything is caused.
Eternality, however, has certain criteria that the universe fails to meet.
such as?
God meets the criteria of eternality perfectly.
I’m curious whether the God you speak of is merely a purely formal answer to the question, “what is eternal and also generated the material universe, and is otherwise inneffable?”, is it such a skeletal deism? or will you go on to say things about what God approves of etc? (this would seem hard to justify from the rather barren concept you have elucidated…)
I’m glad we’re agreed on space-time.
To exist outside of space and time, there (again) is criteria that must be met.
Since the entity is the cause of space and time, the entity must transcend space and time and exist atemporally and non-spatially.
A being outside of time entails timelessness. Time is a unit that measures change so this means the entity is also changeless.
If it changeless then it must also be immaterial, since material things are apt to change constantly.
Since the universe has no material cause, but rather, an efficient cause, this cause must be tremendously powerful.
Finally, to blast deism out of the water, this cause must be personal. Why must it be personal? Since there was nothing before the universe it is hopeless to explain it in any other way besides an agent and his volitions. Remember, the universe is entirely contingent. It did not have to come into existence. It does, however, exist.
Abstract objects like numbers, ideas, and so forth, are not powerful. Nor do they cause anything.
By way of deduction, the only cause left is a powerful mind that is personal, outside of space and time, changeless, immaterial, and extraordinarily powerful.
You have to know how to understand a proposition before you can verify it.
My point exactly. It is a nearly pointless endeavor to ponder the nature of God. You can only rely on belief, as there is no physical way to verify it. It is all well and good, but has no physical bearing on the creatures of creation.
I do not care to know your various theories about God. What is the use of discussing all the subtle doctrines about the soul? Do good and be good. And this will take you to freedom and to whatever truth there is… ~ The Buddha# # Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without ~The Buddha
Woah, I can barely keep up with all the replies here. Give me a minute, I’ll respond.
First, Nirgraham. The first premise of the cosmological argument is:
- Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe, being material in nature, most certainly began to exist. It is impossible for it to be eternal.
Sometimes it may seem as if I’m molding God to fit the criteria of eternality, but I assure you, these attributes are already stated throughout the Bible.
are you saying that ‘things that begin to exist’ and ‘are material’ refer to the same class of things exactly?
Since the entity is the cause of space and time, the entity must transcend space and time and exist atemporally and non-spatially.
Assuming creation entails a creator. Cosmic accident is just as plausible.
Since the universe has no material cause,
Another assumption. Who are you to claim to know the universe had no material cause?
Since there was nothing before the universe
another assumption, perhaps there was the multiverse, or a spaghetti monster
It does not matter if you think it is self-evident or not, understanding a proposition before you can verify it is common sense.
This is the main flaw of positivism, though. Positivism demands that understanding comes only through the five senses. It pre-supposes that nature is all there is.
It’s viciously circular. Don’t forget about all the hidden assumptions that positivism makes about experiential reality, ethics, and metaphysics as well.
Other alternative theories do not rule out the fact that there is one theory with the strongest evidence of them all.
These other theories are ad hoc ways of denying the well-established singularity. You can call it a big bounce, or the big bang, or the initial singularity, or whatever you want.
“It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe - as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account” - Steven Hawking
The Big Bang does have the most evidence, but practically none of that evidence points to exactly what the “initial” conditions were, whether or not it was a singularity or something else.
You seem to be unfairly biased against explanatory hypotheses that aren’t wholly naturalistic in nature. What makes this reasonable in any way, shape, or form?
I am intent on giving theories that introduce the fewest assumptions precedence. By definition, that means natural hypotheses.