That's
the new, higher road. Saying, I don't know. It might even fit into the agenda of atheism +.
Speak to an atheist about the impossibility of everything material coming
from nothing material without an external immaterial cause, and you'll get one of three responses:
. “Our
universe came from a multi-verse” (because atheists think that if
you can push the beginning of matter back far enough i.e. infinite
regress, the reason for its existence no longer counts as a
legitimate question).
OR
. “At
most, all you've proven is a deistic god."
OR
. “I
don't know. What's wrong with saying I don't know? The honest answer
is, I don't know.”
Sounds
nice – right? That last one? Intellectually honest. Yes?
Well,
if that is all they meant when they said, “I don't know,” then
ya, it would be the intellectually honest response. But that isn't
all that the atheist means.
When
shown that the universe could not have had a natural / material cause
for its beginning because until Big Bang nothing natural / material
existed, an
atheist (who will also tell you that s/he doesn't believe anything
that isn't scientifically proven) who was being intellectually honest
would tell you, “I know that there isn't any evidence pointing to a natural or material cause for the beginning of the universe, so
UNTIL a material cause is found I'm going to pretend to remain
neutral on the subject. I'm going to pretend that I'm withholding judgement.”
In other words - when an atheist tells you that s/he is open-minded and willing to change h/her mind on this issue, what that person really means is, "I'm willing to change my mind from one material answer to another material answer, because nothing but the material exists."
In other words - when an atheist tells you that s/he is open-minded and willing to change h/her mind on this issue, what that person really means is, "I'm willing to change my mind from one material answer to another material answer, because nothing but the material exists."
Posting a comment on my own post - weird. I had to do it. Just saw a Kraus guy, an atheist cosmologist? who has written a book on how everything material can come from literally nothing material without God.
ReplyDeleteHawking said the same thing because, Stephen Hawking said, Our universe came from a previous universe. So we don't need God to have our universe exist.
That's what one of the smartest atheists in the world said. Can you imagine how the dumbest atheists must think? Can they even breath without assistance?
Anyhow this Kraus guy says, to get everything material from literally nothing material (he can at least follow the dots to admit that this material universe came in being from literally nothing material), "All you do," he says, "is create some positive gravity and an equal amount of negative gravity, and . . .,"
Should I stop now?
All you do is "create physical law of gravity"?
He also said, "The laws of physics allow . . ."
Should I stop now?
And these laws of physics came from where exactly? (sigh) It gets so tiring, and sad. Profoundly sad at how blind and deaf sin makes us. Intelligent but without a shred of wisdom.
There are two concepts that you confuse here. That's why you find these scientists so stupid... and insult them.
ReplyDeleteIf you are interested, listen the full talk by Lawrence Krauss found here. Unfortunately, it was at an Atheist conference so you won't like the speaker who introduces him and you won't like a few of the jokes he makes about theists, but if you focus on the science bits, perhaps you'll understand the following:
1) The 'laws' are descriptive of the universe we live in. We, humans, created these laws when we observed the universe and noticed patterns that are stable enough to be considered 'laws'.
2) Nothing does not mean literally nothing in physics.
**********************
Also, regarding the post, this claim:
the universe could not have had a natural / material cause for its beginning...
Is invalid.
This is where the 'I don't know' answer is appropriate. Nobody knows exactly how the universe started. It is an oversimplification to state that the Big Bang was the beginning of absolutely everything we know of. Hence, that statement you added right after:
...because until Big Bang nothing natural / material existed
is wrong.
The Big Bang is neither a proof of a creation event by a supernatural cause nor proof that no creator is needed. It is simply a description of what the universe around us looked like close to 14 billion years ago.
However, this does not mean that any wild guess is equally likely to be true. Hence, people like Hawkins and Krauss give solid reasons why there is no need for an intelligent creator to be behind all of this, without ever ruling out that possibility with 100% accuracy. There is simply no need for a creator to explain the past 14 billion years, so they go one step further and explain why there is also no need for a creator for the first seconds of that 14 billion-year period.
“The 'laws' are descriptive of the universe we live in. We, humans, created these laws”
ReplyDeleteOh Hugo, please. We did not create the laws of physics. At best we gave them names. Do you think the universe was in chaos until someone said “cosmological constant” and then all became stable? The universe IS mathematically precise and it IS ordered and it IS predictable not because we created the constants and quantities but because those constants and quantities existed from Planck time. I'd say before Planck time, as we understand before, but that just sends you down a rabbit trail. I'll explain what I mean later. All we did was give names to that precision, order and predictability. The laws of logic, physics, mathematics existed long before humans decided what to call them, long before we existed, long before the universe existed. These laws, I believe, are part of the omniscience of God's character. As with objective moral laws and duties, which exist only because God exists, so too with physical laws and laws of logic. They exist because Creator God exists. When we study these laws, we are studying parts and portions of Creator God's character.
We discovered these laws,
We named these laws,
We did not create these laws.
-----
“Nothing does not mean literally nothing in physics.”
What do you think Vilenkin means when he says that ex nihilo or a literal material nothing means matter with a radius of zero?
Of course “nothing” does not mean literally nothing in atheist driven physics because in atheist driven physics there MUST be something material and that something material must be eternal. This must be so because of the metaphysical implications of nothing material are too terrible for the atheist world view. So the very definition of nothing is changed - for the sake of atheism. Vilenkin is the only atheist that I know of who has the guts to describe “nothing” as exactly what it is, “a radius of zero.” Sadly, and tragically for science, atheists have as little comprehension of the difference between something and nothing as they do between life and non life. The existence of their world-view is dependent on an infinite regress of cause. That's why some day we'll hear that infinite regress does not really mean infinite regress. We won't be told what it does mean, only that it doesn't mean what we used to think it meant. It's pitiful.
-----
"Also, regarding the post, this claim:
the universe could not have had a natural / material cause for its beginning...Is invalid."
The only reason you consider it invalid is because you refuse to accept that at one point, nothing material existed. You refuse to accept the idea of “nothing” because your worldview would collapse if at one point there was nothing material and now there is everything material. You hold to a philosophical / religious prejudice that requires the compromise and befouling of science.
-------
“Nobody knows exactly how the universe started.”
Nobody can “prove” how the universe started but we can certainly see clearly where the evidence is pointing, i.e. The existence of an immaterial creator. Only an atheist bias that needs protecting at all cost, even at the cost of losing the integrity of science itself is worth the stubborn refusal to acknowledge this truth.
-----
“The Big Bang is neither a proof of a creation event by a supernatural cause nor proof that no creator is needed.”
That's true. The Big Bang is only one piece of a puzzle among many pieces that is, little by little presenting a picture of an immaterial (something like a Mind) Creator.
We did not create the laws of physics.
ReplyDeleteYes, we did create the laws of physics. What you mean is that we did not create the order we see in the universe. That's why you wrote right after:
Do you think the universe was in chaos until someone said “cosmological constant” and then all became stable?
No, of course not.
Observing the universe does not change it. Describing what we see does not change it. Giving names to the phenomenon and patterns we see do not change them.
The universe IS mathematically precise and it IS ordered and it IS predictable not because we created the constants and quantities but because those constants and quantities existed from Planck time.
The only reason why the universe seems mathematically precise is because we have the tools to measure accurately. The reason why it seems ordered is because we have knowledge of how things work.
The reason why IT IS PREDICTABLE is because we, humans, observed the universe, noticed patterns, created hypothesis as to how these patterns would work, refined the observations, and came up with laws that work at "all" time... but the "all" is NEVER meant to be taken to mean literally "all".
What we can say in reality is thus:
- The natural phenomena we observe around us have been stable for the past 14 billion years
- During these years, these sets of laws can be used to describe the physical universe
To prove the point, do this thought experiment about Newtonian gravity:
Before we could go to space, it was possible for humans to measure the gravitational pull of the Earth only on its surface. Therefore, a human going around the entire planet, walking endlessly, would always read the same 9.81m/s^2 value. That human would thus be justified to label this phenomenon a LAW. This is exactly what Newton did.
However, we know that 9.81m/s^2 is not a constant at all!
It depends on the mass of the Earth, the distance from it and the mass of the other object feeling gravity.
We have no reason to think that this law is different from the other laws that describe the universe. We came up with them exactly the same way.
Why do you believe otherwise? Because you have faith that a designer is behind all this. I cannot prove that you are wrong; it will always be possible that down that chain, something, or someone, decided to created that universe that way... and then went into hiding for 10 billion years, woke up to help a few organic compounds self-replicate, went dormant for another 4 billion years, got himself killed on a cross and strongly suggested we accept Him as Savior... or else.
The laws of logic, physics, mathematics existed long before humans decided what to call them
ReplyDeleteAll these laws are based on the same principles: start with some assumptions, some framework, some conventions, some observations and build a system. Things are what they are, they are not what they are not, logic, we can observe how they behave, trying to predict what will happen next, physics, and we use number, math, usually in base 10, to count the values we observe.
As with objective moral laws and duties
The word 'law' does not mean the same at all in this case.
'Objective moral laws' is an oxymoron. Morality is subjective.
We discovered these laws,
We named these laws,
We did not create these laws.
We noticed patterns,
We named these patterns,
We did not create the patterns.
What do you think Vilenkin means when he says that ex nihilo or a literal material nothing means matter with a radius of zero?
It means that it's purely conceptual. Precisely what I meant by "Nothing does not mean literally nothing in physics." Watch the talk by Krauss.
Of course “nothing” does not mean literally nothing in atheist driven physics
Atheism does not drive physics. It does not even make sense to talk about atheist driven physics. There are physicians who are atheists. Nothing more.
...because in atheist driven physics there MUST be something material and that something material must be eternal.
There is no MUST attached to atheism. I understand that you try to show an absurdity, but it does not work if you point something wrong. This is attempted here:
This must be so because of the metaphysical implications of nothing material are too terrible for the atheist world view. So the very definition of nothing is changed - for the sake of atheism.
It's not the definition of nothing that is changed. It's the context in which 'nothing' is used.
It's the same thing with 'laws of physics' vs 'laws of morality'. The definition of the word law is not changed on the fly; it simply means something different in different contexts.
Vilenkin is the only atheist that I know of who has the guts to describe “nothing” as exactly what it is, “a radius of zero.”
ReplyDeleteThe only one? I can say it right now: 'a radius of zero' is the same as 'nothing.
They are both concepts that represent nothing.
you refuse to accept that at one point, nothing material existed. You refuse to accept the idea of “nothing” because...
You are correct, I refuse to accept the statement:
"at one point, nothing material existed"
just like I refuse to accept the statement:
"somthing material always existed"
It does not make any sense to believe these things.
You cannot prove these statements to be true.
...your worldview would collapse if at one point there was nothing material and now there is everything material.
It's possible that at one point there was nothing material and now there is everything material. I see no problem at all.
Nobody can “prove” how the universe started but we can certainly see clearly where the evidence is pointing, i.e. The existence of an immaterial creator. Only an atheist bias that needs protecting at all cost, even at the cost of losing the integrity of science itself is worth the stubborn refusal to acknowledge this truth.
There is no bias. There is no evidence that supports that conclusion.
I can tell you exactly what I think about the universe. I can explain all belief and tell you why I believe them. There is nothing to hide. There is no science to be denied. If you could show me a false belief that I hold, I would reject it and accept something new. That's how we learn...
That's true. The Big Bang is only one piece of a puzzle among many pieces that is, little by little presenting a picture of an immaterial (something like a Mind) Creator.
How is the Big Bang a piece at all? There is no valid logical path between the Big Bang and a god.