Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Gauger]

If God created the universe then what would become of the scientific explanations for the formation of the universe?

[jimwalton]

God used natural processes to accomplish his goals. Science is the study of those natural processes. As far as we know right now, the Big Bang is the scientific explanation for the formulation of the universe.

[Gauger]

How do you know it used natural processes?

[jimwalton]

The question that I was answering was, "IF God created the universe, then what would become of the scientific explanations for the formation of the universe?" So my answer was that IF God created the universe, He could very easily have used natural processes. There are times in the Bible when God used natural processes. When He parted the Reed Sea, it says a wind blew all night long (Exodus 14.21). When the curtain in the temple was torn at Jesus's crucifixion, there was an earthquake (Matthew 27.21). The point is that we don't have to rule out natural processes for God to have been involved, or even to have been the causal mechanism of creating the universe. So the upshot is that I don't have to disregard scientific explanations to see God as the creator.

The question of how I know God used natural processes is a completely different question. To that question I would answer that the logic and evidence of the Big Bang is that it had a causal mechanism outside of nature. That causal mechanism would have to be powerful, timeless, purposeful, and personal. Reasoning leads me in the direction of a powerful personal eternal being.

[Gauger]

> To that question I would answer that the logic and evidence of the Big Bang is that it had a causal mechanism outside of nature. That causal mechanism would have to be powerful, timeless, purposeful, and personal.

How do you know that?

I don't see how you can reasonably come to that conclusion. How do you determine that it was a god and not "universe creating pixies"?

[jimwalton]

> How do you know that?

I use my brain to infer the most reasonable conclusion on the basis of the evidence.

> I don't see how you can reasonably come to that conclusion.

The universe had to have come from somewhere. Things don’t just pop into existence all by themselves— something that made it come into existence. When something doesn't exist, other things make them come into existence. My claim is that science gives us no evidence of anything that doesn’t exist being able to pop itself into existence. That’s not even sensible let alone possible. If it had a beginning, it had a cause outside of itself. Something had to have already existed.

Scientists are on the hunt for "the beginning." They use mathematics to extrapolate back to "the beginning." From what they see in the universe, the evidence tells them that before the Big Bang there existed only an infinitesimally small point consisting of no matter and no dimension, where the laws of physics and nature as we know them didn’t exist and were not in operation. If that is the case, then I am contending that a powerful, eternal, personal being that is not part of nature is a logical candidate to have caused it all.

Ilm al-Kalam proposed that unless there was a beginning, there wouldn’t be a present. Think of it this way: Suppose you go to the grocery store and, approaching the deli counter, you plan to take a ticket for your proper turn. But on the ticket-dispenser you see a sign that says, “Before taking this ticket, you must take a ticket from the machine on the right.” You reach for that machine, but it also has a similar sign on it. The third machine has the same sign. And the fourth. This could go on forever (which is Kalam’s point), unless you finally get to a machine somewhere in the line that allows you to take a ticket. Unless there is a beginning, there can be no present.

Kalam’s case could also be stated mathematically. Instead of starting counting at 1, start at the first number after zero. Well, you can’t start at .9, because there’s .8, .7, etc. You can’t start at .1 because there’s .99, and there’s .999, and .9999. In other words, if we have to consider an infinite quantity of previous numbers, we can’t even begin to count.

Here is the way Kalam’s argument looks:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

What he is arguing is that somewhere there must be a First Cause, something (or Someone) that was always there that kicked the whole thing into gear, to cause everything else. Nothing can create itself out of nothing. There has to be something that always existed. Scientists tell us it wasn’t anything in nature. Nature didn't exist. So I think God is a more reasonable possibility as the First Cause than any other explanation.

Some might argue: (1) “Why couldn’t the Big Bang have happened with no cause?” Maybe it just happened. The problem with this approach is that science knows of no such possibility. Even biological things came from other biological things, or at least from something that already existed. To think that the universe spontaneously generated itself flies in the face of logic and science. Something had to have existed before the Big Bang to cause it to happen.

Some might argue, (2) “The universe is endless and uncaused.” According to Kalam’s logic, this is impossible, and according to what scientists tell us, the universe is not endless. We now have fairly strong scientific and mathematical evidence that the universe is not endless and uncaused, but had an absolute beginning about 13.7 billion years ago. In 2003, cosmologists Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that since the universe is in a state of cosmic expansion, it cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning. According to Vilenkin, “Cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” It reasonably follows, then, that there must be a transcendent cause that brought the universe into being.

Another argument: (3) “Maybe a quantum event of unknown character and means triggered the Big Bang.” Yet this is a “god-of-the-gaps” argument that is purely speculative with no substance to support it. A god-of-the-gaps argument is one where you have no evidence but say, “Well, it just happened that way, and eventually we’ll figure it out.” That’s no argument. In addition, it still presumes the effects of scientific forces in an environment devoid of scientific forces.

A 4th argument: (4) “If an infinite universe is logically impossible, how can an infinite God be logically possible?” At the bottom line, something has to be eternal. Something has to have always been. Either it was material or nonmaterial. Since both science and logic give strong evidence that it was not material, we are left with a nonmaterial cause that is eternal.

A 5th argument: (5) “I don’t think it being outside of nature proves anything about it being divine.” My assertion is this: since the material didn’t exist (as far as we know), that seems to point to a nonmaterial cause. Since time didn’t exist, that seems to point to a timeless cause. Since it would take power to create the Big Bang, that seems to point to a powerful cause. Since impersonal causes must have first causes, and only personal causes are capable of being first causes, then that seems to point to a personal cause. A nonmaterial, timeless, powerful, personal cause points to God.

So what caused the universe to begin to exist? It has to have had a cause. If the causal mechanism of the universe was not a thing (it was not matter, as science says), and therefore it was not “scientific” (physics, chemistry, biology), then we have to wonder if the causal mechanism was a metaphysical being with the capability to motivate the Bang. We’ve come down to a logical conclusion that the cause of the universe was nonmaterial, timeless, powerful, and personal. God is the most reasonable choice as to the source of the all that exists. If you think not, then you have to argue for a nonmaterial, timeless, powerful, and personal source that is not God. That burden’s on you.

> How do you determine that it was a god and not "universe creating pixies"?

I am actually hoping for a reasonable discussion here. If you want to talk about pixies, you'll have to go to a different forum for make-believe fantasy stuff. I'm sure there's one somewhere.

[Gauger]

> Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

sure and that is where you have to stop you have no way of telling if your god was the cause or my Universe Creating Pixies.

I'm familiar with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the problem with it is it relies on an uncaused first cause, and that is just special pleading.

If the universe has a cause what caused that cause, and so on and so forth.

[jimwalton]

> sure and that is where you have to stop you have no way of telling if your god was the cause or my Universe Creating Pixies.

Then you haven't followed the argument. The conversation is not about if it was my God, but only if "God" is a reasonable conclusion, which He is. You'll notice that my conclusions were
* a powerful, eternal, personal being that is not part of nature is a logical candidate
* I think God is a more reasonable possibility as the First Cause than any other explanation.
* It reasonably follows, then, that there must be a transcendent cause that brought the universe into being.
* God is the most reasonable choice as to the source of the all that exists.

What I've said is that God is a logical candidate, a reasonable possibility, and, in my opinion based on the logic and science, God is the most reasonable choice.

> I'm familiar with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and the problem with it is it relies on an uncaused first cause, and that is just special pleading.

Then you haven't followed the argument. Something has to have been eternal, whether matter, energy, quantum something, or possibility a metaphysical something. Without a first cause you have an infinite regression.

The burden of refutation is on you to show where Kalam's argument fails. Again, you haven't followed the argument properly because Kalam never says anything about a first cause, but only that the universe has a cause. That's different. So you are avoiding the discussion by suggesting an erroneous fallacy.

> If the universe has a cause what caused that cause, and so on and so forth.

Again, an infinite regression takes us nowhere. Only if the past is finite can there be a present. An actual infinite (in contrast to a potential infinite) is actually infinite. An actual infinite has no room for growth. Therefore there has to have been a First Cause, whatever it was. Logic takes us to a powerful, timeless, purposeful, and personal Cause.

And you have not answered the question: If you think the logic doesn't lead to God, then you have to argue for a nonmaterial, timeless, powerful, and personal source that is not God. That burden’s on you.

[Gauger]

You don't just get to claim that god is an option Kalam gets you to the universe needs a cause. You then need to demonstrate that a god is an option. I'm not even convinced a god exist, just like you're not convinced of universe creating pixies. when you got evidence of a god doing anything let us know.

[jimwalton]

> You don't just get to claim that god is an option

I didn't just claim it. I gave a logical progression to that conclusion. Follow the logic.

* We know that whatever caused the Big Bang was powerful, given the result (rapidly expanding universe of still unknown size).
* Whatever caused the Big Bang was not natural, since nature didn't exist, nor were the forces or laws of nature in existence.
* Whatever caused the Big Bang was timeless, since as far as science tells us, time did not exist before the Big Bang. (The idea that time did not exist before the "Bang" is theoretical but plausible.)
* Whatever caused the Big Bang was personal, since only personal causes can be first causes. (The burden of rebuttal is upon you to rebut this claim.)
* Whatever caused the Big Bang was intelligent, since science tells us that we have no example of informational data that does not cause from previously existing intelligent cause.

This leads us to the logical conclusion that the First Cause was eternal, timeless, personal, outside of nature, intelligent, and powerful. God is a plausible option for that First Cause.

> I'm not even convinced a god exist,

Well, I'm giving you a plausible logical succession of thought to claim that His existence can be reasonably inferred from the evidence and logic at hand.

And, by the way, pixies don't fulfill the criteria of the argument at hand, so please leave your fantasy world out of this.

> when you got evidence of a god doing anything let us know.

I'm giving you some evidence. And you still haven't responded to the question: If you think the logic doesn't lead to God, then you have to argue for a nonmaterial, timeless, powerful, and personal source that is not God. That burden’s on you. Present your case. Let's talk.