Monday, June 29, 2009

There is no evidence for God!

Isn’t that an interesting statement? Atheist high priest Richard Dawkins says that he’s “leery of strongly held beliefs in the absence of evidence.” That’s what he says. Yet those who worship Richard, and he himself states strongly that ‘There is no evidence for God.’

My question is, “Where’s the evidence that the universe could come into being without an eternal Creator or Cause?” I thought atheists needed evidence to make a statement like that? Don’t atheists want evidence to support their strongly held beliefs? Seems that the atheist’s favourite tool, rubber rulers, have been pulled out to get just the measurement they want.

This atheist dogma is doubly perplexing when we realise that science in fact refutes the atheist claim that Everything can come from nothing by nothing. Science and Philosophy tell us, and they tell us in a manner that is verifiable, trustworthy and clear as crystal that the universe couldn’t have come into being without an eternal supra natural First Cause.

So why do atheists persist in making anti scientific claims?

35 comments:

Còmhradh said...

There is no evidence for God!
Isn’t that an interesting statement?


Not any more interesting than "There is no evidence that 2 = 5" or "the sky is up."

Leo B. Vadalà said...

Còmhradh! What a compelling argument! With geniuses like you arguing for atheism, it boggles the mind that theism is still alive.

Makarios said...

Well, comrade, it may not seem interesting to you but atheists sure say it a lot.

The Atheist Missionary said...

Mak: If our universe simply reflected the action of pure naturalistic laws rather than the intentions of God, how would it differ from the universe we have today? In other words, what conceivable observation about the universe could convince you that God does not exist?

Albert Ip said...

So you believe that god is created from nothing!

uzza said...

Hey Leo, is that how you follow your pastor's advice "to be engaged politically but to do so respectfully and non-judgmentally?

Makarios said...

Missionary -
"If our universe simply reflected the action of pure naturalistic laws rather than the intentions of God, how would it differ from the universe we have today?"

It wouldn’t be a life supporting universe. 1 chance in 10 ^ 1,230 of a life supporting universe coming into being by accident is how Stephen Hawking puts it. You should type that out just to have a look at it. It's important.

And that hasn’t even begun to add up the odds of each and every constant and quality being exactly as it is. If you had a billion, billion, billion, billion balls in lottery tumbler and all but one of them was black with only one white ball, That’s the odds. The odds for ANY ball being the one that comes out is fantastic. The odds of the one life supporting universe coming out (the white ball) is something only an atheist could believe in.

Think about that! It's important.

In the words of Hawking, if every grain of sand on all the beaches of the world represent possible universes, one of those is our life supporting universe.

Think about that! It's important.

Hawking’s partner, Roger? Penrose states that if the universe was a dartboard and you threw a dart anywhere at random and hit the exact correct PROTON, that is the odds of there being a life supporting universe.

Think about that! It's important!

Atheists take that evidence and say "So what?" But then those who wish to deny the Holocaust take all that evidence and say the same thing. "So what? I’m going to believe what I want to believe."
============

Albert
"So you believe that god is created from nothing!"

(((Deep sigh))). Yet another one.

Ok. As you know, Albert, both philosophy and science have shown that either:
Matter is eternal - or
Creator God is eternal
It's gotta be one or the other.

If Matter isn’t eternal then Matter is able to bring itself into existence - or

Creator God brings matter into existence

But Matter can’t bring itself into existence so

That leaves a prime Cause that is not Natural.

Why is it not natural? Because Nature did not exist prior to the Big Bang.

Got it? I doubt it.

You would think that this takes care of the silly question, “Well, if God made the universe, who made God?” As Albert has proven, it does not take care of the silly questions. Atheists are full of them.

Remember, atheists have no problem with saying that something is infinite, or that it has always existed, or that it’s eternal, as long as that something isn’t Creator God. However, if God exists, then He exists outside of and prior to the universe. God is not material. He is Spirit. He does not need a cause. He has always been. He is infinite. He is eternal.

Asking, “What caused an infinite or eternal Being to begin?” or, “When did an eternal being begin to exist?” is illogical and incoherent.

Wiki didn’t prepare you for this did it? You know why? Because atheism doesn’t provide an answer for it’s blind faith. It just promotes it.

Illogical statements are something that atheists usually take great pains to avoid, except when they’re confronted with the reality of Creator God. Then, it seems, all bets are off. The fact remains, and it remains a fact that is based on what science tells us is true, that everything that begins to exist, including the universe, had its cause from something outside of itself. There are no known exceptions to this observed and consistently verified rule. God did not begin to exist therefore He does not require a cause.

Hmm, as I spell check this it sounds a little snarky. That's so unlike me :-)

Michael Mock said...

Makarios: "Science in fact refutes the atheist claim that Everything can come from nothing by nothing."

Would you mind awfully to expound on this point? Here or in a fresh post, whichever... 'Cause I've been looking (since our earlier conversation) and I'm not finding that at all. I'm fine with the Big Bang theory, I can see how science gets there; what I don't see is any scientific evidence that it couldn't have "just happened."

Makarios: "1 chance in 10 ^ 1,230 of a life supporting universe coming into being by accident is how Stephen Hawking puts it."

Do you happen, by any chance, to have a citation for that? I'm not doubting that Stephen Hawking said it, but I'd like to read it in context.

That is a very large number - or a very small chance, if you prefer - but to be honest, I'm not sure that it is important. Impressive, yes; but that's not the same thing.

For starters, it's talking about the odds for a single event. If you have an infinite number of universes, and only 1/10^1,230 support life, then you still end up with an infinte number of life-supporting universes. If you have 10^2,460 universes, and the same odds of supporting life, then overall the odds of a life supporting universe coming into being are pretty good.

Makarios: "Hawking’s partner, Roger? Penrose states that if the universe was a dartboard and you threw a dart anywhere at random and hit the exact correct PROTON, that is the odds of there being a life supporting universe."

But, again, if you have an infinite number of darts to throw, and infinite time to throw them, sooner or later that will happen.

To be honest, I'm not sure how we can meaningfully speak of the "odds" of the universe existing or supporting life. (This is part of the reason why I'd like to see Hawking's quotation in context.) It seems to me that such a judgement requires a perspective that we, being in and of the universe, simply don't have. We can say that the universe exists, and that it supports life, but to make claims about the odds of that happening... What's our basis for comparison? How many other universes can we look at?

Makarios: "The fact remains, and it remains a fact that is based on what science tells us is true, that everything that begins to exist, including the universe, had its cause from something outside of itself. There are no known exceptions to this observed and consistently verified rule."

Back to my original question: how do you justify using "including the universe" in that first sentence, and then following it up with your second sentence? Who's observed and verified the creation of a universe? How was she peer-reviewed? Who can repeat her observations?

You keep insisting that this is scientific evidence for the existence of God. Leaving aside the fact that I think that's a contradiction in terms, I just don't see it. I can't find the connection between a rule that, arguably, works inside our universe - where time and cause/effect are operational - and the origin of the universe that contains that rule.

How is that different from arguing that since matter is neither created nor destroyed, the universe must be eternal?

Help me out, please.

Michael Mock

Makarios said...

Makarios: "Science in fact refutes the atheist claim that Everything can come from nothing by nothing."

“Would you mind awfully to expound on this point?”

Sure, there is nothing in however many years of human thought whereby something has just popped into existence. Observable, verifiable, repeatable x a trillion events have shown that everything that begins to exist has a cause - “oh wait! Where did that zebra come from?” :-)If anything can just pop into existence then why not everything? It sounds preposterous because it is.

Someone may posit that the universe came from nothing by nothing, but it wouldn certainly be going against everything we know from experience and that's just not very scientific. Of course it can't be proven beyond ALL probability, but it can certainly be proven beyond reasonable probability.
===========

“Do you happen, by any chance, to have a citation for that?”

You atheists and your citations. I think it’s from “A Brief History of Time” but I don't have the page number. It's from the same place where he said, “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”
===============

“For starters, it's talking about the odds for a single event. If you have an infinite number of universes,”

Whoa!!! Back that one up my friend. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence for an infinite number of universes. None! Zip! Zero. No evidence. So there is no point in going there whatsoever.
============

“But, again, if you have an infinite number of darts to throw, and infinite time to throw them, sooner or later that will happen.”

Yes but that’s not the option. To have these odds for getting our one life supporting universe, you have one dart and this one universe. That makes the odds stated profoundly meaningful.
==============

“Who can repeat her observations?”

Well, we can only live by what we know. If we stopped doing that, science itself would come to a grinding halt. And what we know is, nothing comes into being without an external cause.
========

“How is that different from arguing that since matter is neither created nor destroyed, the universe must be eternal?”

Because matter didn’t exist until the universe came into being. Now that it exists, matter can be neither created nor destroyed. We've got what we've got and that's all that we've got.

However, that “law” itself didn’t exist until the universe came into being. As well, the laws that govern the 100+ constants and quantities that govern the universe didn’t exist until those constants and the laws that govern them were “put in” prior to Planck time.

One can say that it happened “just so,” by accident but it stretches one’s incredulity to beyond the breaking point, I think.

In fact to make such a statement one has to a priori reject the supernatural which itself is terribly un scientific. It’s not un atheist driven scientific, which is terribly closed minded, but there lies the problem.

Michael Mock said...

Makarios: "There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence for an infinite number of universes."

Granted, but there's no evidence against it, either. Why shouldn't there be? (Regardless, I might add, of whether God makes 'em or they just happen.) On second thought, don't answer that; it's distracting.

My main point is that I don't see how we can talk meaningfully about the odds of a life-supporting universe occurring - at least, not from where we're sitting. I'll try to dig up that Hawking reference and see if I'm missing something there.

Secondarily, just because something is unlikely - even unlikely on the scale that we're talking about here - doesn't mean that it can't happen on its own. Unlikely is not the same as impossible.

"Because matter didn’t exist until the universe came into being. Now that it exists, matter can be neither created nor destroyed. We've got what we've got and that's all that we've got."

Time didn't exist until the universe came into being, either. Now that it exists, we can say that nothing comes into being without an external cause. But I don't see how you get from there to the belief that the same must apply to the origin of our universe.

It looks to me like you're applying one rule (which is firmly established within the bounds of our universe) but disregarding another rule which is equally firmly established in exactly the same context. Am I missing something?

Leo B. Vadalà said...

uzza said...
Hey Leo, is that how you follow your pastor's advice "to be engaged politically but to do so respectfully and non-judgmentally?

Uzza, I am flattered that you apparently read my blog. Thank you!

As I've made clear elsewhere, I have never claimed to be without fault. On the contrary, as a Christian I am painfully aware of my faults, and therefore all the more grateful for God's forgiveness. That doesn't mean I don't strive to do better, so thank you for pointing that out.

On the other hand, I hope and trust that Còmhradh doesn't mind my responding flippantly to his rather flippant remark. It is all in good fun.

Makarios said...

"My main point is that I don't see how we can talk meaningfully about the odds of a life-supporting universe occurring - at least, not from where we're sitting."

Well, you and I maybe can't talk meaningfully but people who are a lot smarter than both of us put together seem to thing that it can be meaningfully spoken of.

If you are missing anything, I would suggest that it’s a life-supporting universe that we’re talking about. It’s not just any old universe that beat the odds, it’s one with tremendously finely tuned barriers that:

Had to be IN PLACE before Planck time, and

The only thing these have in common to each other is that each and every one of them are required to be just as they are for life to
exist.

Even if we have an infinite number of universes THEY had to have a beginning, and that is a scientific fact cf. Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem.

Some people try to liken this to a lottery but even to have a lottery requires that “someone” makes it happen.

We’re not asking why a universe exists but why “our” life sustaining universe exists. That’s the point with the multiple billions of black balls. Yes it’s highly unlikely that any one of them should fall out. But why was it the lone white ball? Even Hawking has said that it sure looks like this game was rigged. Hawking is not alone:

Arthur Eddington - “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look at it as frankly supernatural.”

Nobel prize winner Arno Penzias -“The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, and the Bible as a whole.”

Stephen Hawking - “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”

Physicist Freeman Dyson - ‘The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”

Anthony Flew - The fine tuning of the universe at every level is simply too perfect to be the result of chance. Flew’s lifelong commitment “to go where the evidence leads” compelled him to become a believer in God.

These are not some religious nut cases. Nor are these men jumping to the conclusion of Creator God in the absence of evidence to the contrary. These are atheists who are simply stating the obvious.

Remember, these constants and qualities are independent of and unrelated to each other. There's no natural reason for any one of them to be just as they are. So, as astronomical are the odds of any one of them being just right for a life sustaining universe, to find ALL of them being as they are in the same universe, by accident is beyond comprehension. To figure out those odds, you would take, say, the Weak Force constant of 1 in 10^100, add to that the constant of gravitational constant 1 in 10^120, which gives you 10 ^ 100 + 120 + . . . and so on for ALL 150 of the constants and quantities.

================

“Secondarily, just because something is unlikely”

Yes, incredibly unlikely things happen every day. But at some point doesn't a person have to say, "In order to be honest with myself and to not allow myself to be swayed by my world-view, this really is just impossible without some type of Cause."
============
“It looks to me like you're applying one rule (which is firmly established within the bounds of our universe) but disregarding another rule which is equally firmly established in exactly the same context.”

Hmm, now you’ve lost me. I need you to be clearer on this point. Which two rules are you talking about?
==============

Còmhradh said...

1 chance in 10 ^ 1,230 of a life supporting universe coming into being by accident is how Stephen Hawking puts it.

And? As I've stated before, improbability =/= impossibility. Obviously, as we're here.

Makarios said...

Anything greater than 10 ^ 50 is generally regarded as impossible. Yes we're here, but not by accident.

No Guy in the Sky said...

Mak - There is no evidence for God/ any god means just that.If you are dumb enough to think there is a God/ any god. Then show proof/evidence.

The problem is, any lower rung human(theist) that is confronted with a problem they can not comprehend or solve. Immediately they jump to the "Oh God did it" the child like answer. How about trying to say, umm I don't know, or I don't have enough information yet. If you were to find another human to breed with(I would hope not), you might produce a child. That would try to explain how things work. If they said God makes the car go, or a fan turn. You ... again hopefully would say, sorry young tot. The car goes because of a combustion engine attached to a transmission. The fan is powered by electricity. If you didn't know, you could look this stuff up on the internet and tell him/her the truth. Just like you would not give your child a free pass on IGNORANCE. Why should we give you one?

If you are so bent on believing in an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient deity that hides from science. Try doing just what the bible says. Get two or more people together to pray for the same thing, and he will give you your wish. Ask him to appear to the whole world at the same time, giving each person on the planet knowledge of him and his wishes.

S. Hawkins odds that he gives, misses the fact. WE LIVE IT THAT UNIVERSE! Once you win the lottery, you do not give it back, because it is unlikely. Lucky us.

First cause argument is so lame. So you argue that God is the first cause. I say what is Gods first cause. You say ... ah shit. I dont know. God is eternal. Dumbass. Why the need for a god? What are you affraid of? Poor you, cowers at night hoping there is a heaven. Maybe the universe is eternal. Why make your answer more complicated? Did God have a mum? Maybe she created God who created the universe and us. Who created Mum? Grand Mum? Please dont stop. Continue exercise of your stupidity.

There is no evidence Jesus was real. The bible is completely plagiarized. Why dont you look into that? It is out there. There was no Adam and Eve. Most Christians believe that. Then what sin did Jesus get tortured and murdered for by his dead beat dad, if there was no original sin? Ah shit ..you dont know. It does not matter. Jesus was made up.

I am sure I missed much, but I can not wait for some totally ridiculous answer.

Leo B. Vadalà said...

From "The Reason for God" by Timothy Keller, page 131:

"...Though there's not a shred of proof that there are many universes, there's also no way to prove that there aren't.

"However, as a clue, this line of thinking has no force. Alvin Plantinga gives this illustration. He imagines a man dealing himself twenty straight hands of four aces in the same game of poker. As his companions reach for their six-shooters the poker player says, 'I know it looks suspicious! But what if there is an infinite succession of universes, so that for any possible distribution of poker hands, there is one universe for which this possibility is realized? We just happen to find ourselves in one where I always deal myself four aces without cheating!' This argument will have no effect on the other poker players. It is technically possible that the man just happened to deal himself twenty straight hands of four aces. Though you could not prove he had cheated, it would be unreasonable to conclude that he hadn't."

Makarios said...

“that hides from science.”

Actually its science that’s on the verge of proving God’s existence. Does He then hide from atheists? I think so. As Pascal said, “God gives us just enough evidence so those who are looking for Him will be able to find Him, while those who don’t want to know Him won’t be able to find Him accidentally.”

That SHOULD scare you, but I doubt if it will.
============

“Ask him to appear to the whole world at the same time, giving each person on the planet knowledge of him and his wishes.”

God has already done that. Just not in a way that takes away your free will choice to ignore Him or to accept Him.
==============

“S. Hawkins odds that he gives, misses the fact. WE LIVE IT THAT UNIVERSE!”

Oh my, if only Hawkins would have thought of that. Alas, he didn’t have a brilliant mind like yours around when he needed it most. Dawkins of course shares you thought but he’s in a league of his own.
===========

“Why the need for a god?”

Science has shown that matter can’t be eternal, nor can matter create itself or pre exist itself.
============

“Maybe the universe is eternal.”

I’m only slightly surprised that you don’t already know this. Science has shown that any model of an expanding universe be it theoretical, like the one in your imagination, or real such as ours requires a finite space / time boundary, a singularity, a big bang, Creation event. That’s been proven over and over and over. In fact, each time atheists propose yet another “origin of the universe mythology,” the Big Bang cosmology is proven yet again.

No Guy in the Sky said...

Mak - If the universe were eternal. All matter would always be in it. It wouldn't magically disappear like God. I used eternal as an example. Like why add a god. I thought you could grasp that. Not.

So your whole argument for God is first cause. That is sad. God is not an explanation. It is , I give up. Nobody knows how it all began. Yet. Giving up and calling it God is childish. So you know. Matter can be turned into energy. If all matter were turned into energy, there would be, in effect nothing.

You hanging on these words first cause, matter can not be eternal is pure ignorance for belief in God. It is as bad as saying(your words)"God is infinitely powerful" The God should be able to create a rock he can not lift. Blah Blah. If he cant he loses, If he can he loses.

You have no intelligent answer for how the universe began. First cause is not a good argument.

Makarios said...

"Mak - If the universe were eternal. All matter would always be in it."

What?
==============

"I thought you could grasp that."

No, no. I couldn't grasp that. I'm sorry man. You're thoughts are higher than my thoughts.
==========

"Matter can be turned into energy."

Really?
============

Good night Joe. You're probably a very nice man.

Ian said...

Speaking of odds, Makarios, do you realize what the odds are against your own existence? The odds of you personally existing right here and now are millions to one, perhaps more so than that. Just because something is highly improbable does not mean that it's impossible.

Take a die, for instance. Roll it sixty times. Write down the each number you roll. The odds of you getting that particular set of numbers is billions to one. Does not mean it can't happen though.

And I'd like to see where you read that Science is getting ready to prove the existence of god, because, as far as I know, that's complete and utter bullshit.

Ian said...

Speaking of odds, Makarios, do you realize what the odds are against your own existence? The odds of you personally existing right here and now are millions to one, perhaps more so than that. Just because something is highly improbable does not mean that it's impossible.

Take a die, for instance. Roll it sixty times. Write down the each number you roll. The odds of you getting that particular set of numbers is billions to one. Does not mean it can't happen though.

And I'd like to see where you read that Science is getting ready to prove the existence of god, because, as far as I know, that's complete and utter bullshit.

Ian said...

Speaking of odds, Makarios, do you realize what the odds are against your own existence? The odds of you personally existing right here and now are millions to one, perhaps more so than that. Just because something is highly improbable does not mean that it's impossible.

Take a die, for instance. Roll it sixty times. Write down the each number you roll. The odds of you getting that particular set of numbers is billions to one. Does not mean it can't happen though.

And I'd like to see where you read that Science is getting ready to prove the existence of god, because, as far as I know, that's complete and utter bullshit.

No Guy in the Sky said...

Mak - You said "Matter is eternal - or
Creator God is eternal
It's gotta be one or the other."

I would also add that you are wrong. It does not have to be one or the other. That is the dumbass answer. What about your imaginary friend can not be eternal. What made God. What is outside of God. What was here before God. Pretending God is made of an undetectable element from some other universe is not an excuse. Even if you wish it to be. Plus there are thousands of other possible answers that do not include being dumb enough to believe in the supernatural. If the true answer is unknown at this time, then the answer is unknown. There is no dumbass default for God to exist. Truly thought free irrational theists want a God. Wanting, liking and needing one, does not make a God. Gods are pretend and for ignorant.

Have a Great Day! @:-D)

Michael Mock said...

Makarios (quoting me): “It looks to me like you're applying one rule (which is firmly established within the bounds of our universe) but disregarding another rule which is equally firmly established in exactly the same context.”

Makarios (responding): Hmm, now you’ve lost me. I need you to be clearer on this point. Which two rules are you talking about?

-------------

I'm talking about these two rules:

1. Everything that begins to exist had its cause from something outside of itself.
...and...
2. Matter is neither created nor destroyed.

Both of these rules are, I think, equally scientific and equally well established. They are true* within context of our universe - where space and time and matter and energy exist.

However, you're saying that the first rule must necessarily apply outside our universe - before time. This is where you lose me. I don't see how that rule applies in this context** at all.

As a result, your scientific proof seems to me to be neither scientific nor proof.

In an attempt to demonstrate why I think this is problematic, I pulled up the second rule. I chose that one because, as I said, I think it's equally scientific and equally well established inside our universe. I then made the same assumption - that since the rule is so well established, it must be applicable to the origin of the universe. Assuming that matter and energy really cannot be created or destroyed leads me to conclude that the universe itself must be eternal.

You immediately pointed out that this is a flawed argument, because the rule I'm using only works after matter is created. I agree; it is flawed. I only brought it up because it looks to me like your argument ("Everything that begins to exist must have a cause for its existence, therefore something must have caused the universe.") is also flawed, in exactly the same way.

Does that help?

The probability argument is interesting, but not - to my mind - terribly persuasive. Still, I'd like to see where these Very Smart People were coming from when they said those things. That's going to require a bit of time and some literary digging.

Thanks,

Michael Mock

* True enough for our purposes here, anyway.

** The context in question being the origin of the universe, and therefore the beginning of time.

The Atheist Missionary said...

No Guy in the Sky (BTW, love that name) wrote:

If you are so bent on believing in an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient deity that hides from science. Try doing just what the bible says. Get two or more people together to pray for the same thing, and he will give you your wish. Ask him to appear to the whole world at the same time, giving each person on the planet knowledge of him and his wishes.

Mak, your response to this comment was pitiful. You get handed your ass so often on this blog it has become comedic.

You know the "power of prayer" is non-existent.

Over and over again, you keep repeating the same line: God must be the first cause for the universe. But you have no intelligent answer as to why, except (which you never admit) "the Bible tells me so".

You go on and on talking about how unlikely it is for life to have begun without a supernatural creator ... just like someone who argues that it is impossible for a hurricane to create a 747 in a junkyard. This is a dumbing down approach and you are too smart for that. Unlike many of your brethren, you know that the fact of evolution can't be challenged. So you just go back to a point where science remains uncertain and say: "God did it". This is the ultimate dumbass approach.

Michael Mock said...

Goodness. I just went through a Google search on the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin Theorem, and was forcibly reminded that I don't actually speak Cosmologist.

As far as I can tell, though, all that it really establishes is that our universe - even if it's in some sense a multiverse - has a definite beginning. Since everybody here seems to be pretty comfortable with the Big Bang theory, I'm not sure how that's relevant.

That may be more my problem than yours, though.

::goes back to reading::

Makarios said...

Michael - Thank you, I believe you've given me something to wrestle with. When I read,

"Assuming that matter and energy really cannot be created or destroyed leads me to conclude that the universe itself must be eternal."

I wonder, is this where Pantheism gets its grounding i.e. god being the universe?

Makarios said...

"No Guy in the Sky (BTW, love that name) wrote:"

Ya, that is pretty good. I can hardly believe it took people so long to come up with something. And wouldn't you know, it would be him to do it.
=================

"Over and over again, you keep repeating the same line: God must be the first cause for the universe. But you have no intelligent answer as to why, except (which you never admit) "the Bible tells me so"."

This does NOT come from the Bible. Have none of you taken even one philosophy class? The idea of either matter or supernatural Cause is neither mine nor the Bible. It comes from the most brilliant minds to have ever existed! Guy's assersion that there are thousands of alternatives is ludicrous. There are TWO and only TWO options - eternal matter or eternal Cause. Guy doesn't seem to know what the term "eternal" means but I trust that you do.

You don't have to agree with Plato but asserting that his reasoning is poor is just a case of you not being able to understand what he's saying.

"you know that the fact of evolution can't be challenged."

We actually aren't talking about abiogenesis here. We're talking about the origins of the universe.

Michael -
Well, if I may disagree Michael, I'm not sure anyone here is comfortable with the Big Bang theory since it states that EVERYTHING came from literally NOTHING. And now we're back to square one. Can natural processes produce ANYTHING from nothing?

Makarios said...

Michael -
I'll try to quit after this comment. I say "we" aren't comfortable with Big Bang cosmology. That discomfort is the only reason for pomoting the following. Why? Because they attempt to sidestep the metaphysical implications of:
Matter or eteranl Cause, and
Matter cannot create itself.

Oscillating universe - What’s the evidence for it? - There isn’t any.

Baby universes - What’s the evidence for it? - There isn’t any.

Multi verses - What’s the evidence for it? - There isn’t any.

The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario - What’s the evidence for it? - There isn’t any.

The Chaotic Inflationary universe - What’s the evidence for it? - There isn’t any.

Brane-cosmology - What’s the evidence for it? - There isn’t any.

Inflationary multi-verse - What’s the evidence for it? - There isn’t any.

Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum - What’s the evidence for it? - There isn’t any.

The many worlds hypothesis - What’s the evidence for it? - There isn’t any.

The black hole hypothesis - What’s the evidence for it? - There isn’t any.

Quantum gravity models - What’s the evidence for it? - There isn’t any.

Vacuum fluctuation models - What’s the evidence for it? - There isn’t any.

Imaginary time and imaginary space - What’s the evidence for it? - There isn’t any.

Space aliens brought life to earth - What’s the evidence for it? - There isn’t any.

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin refutes all of them for each of them requires an initial Cause that existed outside of them.

Michael Mock said...

Makarios: "I wonder, is this where Pantheism gets its grounding i.e. god being the universe?"

I don't know, of course, but I suspect it's a lot more visceral than that. There are, for me, a handful of places that feel holy, or sacred; that inspire a deep sense of awe and calm. It strikes me as very easy to move from that feeling to the idea that God is present in and through the world. Granted, that's a slightly different take from the idea that God is a separate entity who created the world, but I don't think it's wholly incompatible with Christian beliefs, either.

This sense of the sacred is not something that I've ever felt in a church, by the way. That's part of the reason why I don't consider myself a Christian, but I'll freely admit that it may say more about me than about the nature of the divine.

Makarios: "I'm not sure anyone here is comfortable with the Big Bang theory since it states that EVERYTHING came from literally NOTHING."

My understanding is that the Big Bang theory simply says that in the distant past, our universe began expanding from a hot, dense speck. It does not, in itself, say anything about what (if anything) came before that. Given those limitations, I think everyone here is comfortable with the theory.

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin does seem to knock holes in some of the hypotheses and models you've listed. (At least, I think so; this is not exactly light reading!) But... I don't think that matters. For one thing, as far as I can tell they're all hypotheticals - neither proven nor entirely discarded*. Even if one of them does turn out to be correct, it will almost certainly have to be heavily modified first.

It's entirely possible that once we have a more complete model of the early moments of the universe, we really will have a Big Bang theory that states that Everything literally came from Nothing. As far as I can tell, though, we aren't there yet. Right now, we just don't know.

Michael Mock

* Except for the one with the space aliens. How did they get in here, anyway? (...Blasted aliens, always forcing their life-forms onto other planets. Does it even occur to them to wonder if other planets actually need or want their silly life-forms?)

Makarios said...

“This sense of the sacred is not something that I've ever felt in a church, by the way.”
Me neither, well, maybe three times in 28 years.
=============
“our universe began expanding from a hot, dense speck.”

Of course then we’d have to ask, “Where exactly was this dense speck?” and the answer would be, “Oh ya! There wasn’t any space nor was there any matter, not even as a dense speck. There wasn’t even a “before” because the concept of time didn’t exist either.”
========
Blasted aliens, always forcing their life-forms onto other planets. Does it even occur to them to wonder if other planets actually need or want their silly life-forms?)”

I think they’re totally amoral; couldn’t give a rip if what they do is right or wrong.
============

No Guy in the Sky said...

Mak - You said "Guy's assersion that there are thousands of alternatives is ludicrous. There are TWO and only TWO options - eternal matter or eternal Cause. Guy doesn't seem to know what the term "eternal" means but I trust that you do."

Are you fucking insane? What part of unknown don't you understand? If one of the thousands of possible unknown answers is unknown at this time. It is unknown. Try Google definition unknown. Then Google dumbass. Smile when you see your picture. Unknown like lightening was to Native Americans. Unknown like thunder to the Norse. Unknown like every damn thing to the Romans/Greeks. Unknown like fertility to damn near every ancient culture. Every fucking thing in the universe has been attributed to God/Gods since the stone ages. The last little bit left is the origin of the universe. With all those flat world Christians being WRONG for 1500 years. What in the world makes you think this could be right? Christianity is truly for the stupid.

Quick lesson. God creates world. Then Adam and Eve. Forsakes all of mankind for eternity because Eve ate from his fav tree. Stupid omniscient god being so loving and caring. Could not quite let that one slide. So every human on the planet that never had heard of old sour puss, can not go to heaven. He is a jealous god. Sorry no exceptions. Then he waits 4000 years to send his beloved son to one of the most remote deserts on the planet. He does not give him a scooter to get the message out quicker. He gets sandals. So then again he only magically appears to a few illiterate desert dudes. The he gets tortured and murdered so we could be forgiven, because some bitch he made ate his fucking fruit. That he knew would eat it. So even now. In remote parts of the world. Christian Missionaries have not infected everyone. Those innocent people burn in hell. Unborn babies burn in hell. Babies killed in car accidents burn in hell. Most of every human for the last 6000 years should be burning and being tortured forever in hell.

MAK _ You worship that fuck? Your an idiot. OK back to this stupid post.

God would only be a side note in a universe. He needs a maker too. Do I need to paste my whole Mum, Grand Mum God maker for you? Your using God as a universe maker only complicates things more. God is not possible. God is not real. God is NOT eternal. There are other answers we do not know yet. Do you really want to believe in this crazy fucking god?

Michael Mock said...

Makarios: "Of course then we’d have to ask, 'Where exactly was this dense speck?'"

IF I understand the theory correctly (and that's a pretty big "if"), the speck itself is all the "where" that there was at the time.

Granted, it does tend to make you wonder where the speck came from, what surrounded the speck, etc. However, wondering where the speck was is not really any different from wondering where our universe is located. By the same token, wondering what's outside our universe is basically the same as wondering what was outside the speck.

My main point is that those questions - "Where was this dense speck?" and "What came before the dense speck?" - are actually separate questions, which are not addressed by the Big Bang theory per se. Thus, it's perfectly possible to accept the Big Bang theory (by itself) without tripping over questions about First Causes.

As a reminder, most* of the Atheists I've met endorse the Big Bang theory. This isn't because they haven't thought it through; it's just that they (and I) don't see where it necessarily leads to, or requires, belief in any sort of creator.

Makarios: "I think they’re totally amoral; couldn’t give a rip if what they do is right or wrong."

Well, that's aliens for you.

Michael Mock

* I'd say "all", except that I'm sure there are some people with whom the topic has never come up.

Makarios said...

“are actually separate questions, which are not addressed by the Big Bang theory per se.”

I think they absolutely are answered by Big Bang. Let me help you out.

Where exactly was this dense speck?
- There wasn’t any speck. There wasn’t any thing

What came before the speck?
- There wasn’t any before. There wasn't any time. There wasn’t any thing

What was outside of the speck?
- There wasn’t any outside. There wasn’t any space. There wasn’t any thing.

Where is our universe
- Our universe is everything. Our universe didn’t expand from a point. It expanded from every point. Our universe simply came into being and it is still expanding at every point.

What is outside of our universe?
- Nothing is outside of our universe. Our universe is everything.

“Well, that's aliens for you.”

Thank you Michael. You’re an oasis of sanity in a desert of stupid.

Michael Mock said...

Makarios: I think they absolutely are answered by Big Bang. Let me help you out.

Hm. I think we're miscommunicating, but I'm not quite sure where or how.

According to the wikipedia entry on the Big Bang*, "As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day."

I'm using the term "speck" as a shorthand for that "primordial hot and dense initial condition". I think you use the term "singularity" in much the same way.

I would agree that questions like "Where was the speck located?" and "What came before the intial hot and dense condition?" are effectively meaningless, as they rely on properties like space and time that only apply inside the universe. That's what I meant when I said that the "speck" was "all the 'where' that there was at the time."

For the theory itself - As I understand it, the Big Bang theory itself only goes back to that initial condition. The Atheist position is therefore still fairly safe (for now), because the scientific answer to questions about how/why the Big Bang happened largely amounts to, "We don't know (...yet)."

You listed several models and hypotheses which have been advanced to try to understand what was going on in the early stages of the singularity and/or what might have caused the singularity in the first place; but I think those are attempts to expand or build on the Big Bang theory, rather than a part of the theory itself.

Hopefully that has clarified, rather than confused the conversation...

Michael Mock

* Probably not the best source, but it has the advantage of being written in layman's terms...