Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Does God exist ? origin of God - metaphysical reality » God: Who created God ?

God: Who created God ?

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1God: Who created God ? Empty God: Who created God ? on Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:58 am

Who or what created God?

The universe had a beginning, and must, therefore, have been caused into being and created by something
If there ever was a time when nothing at all existed, then there would be absolutely nothing today.
It is an axiomatic truth that if nothing ever existed, then “nothing” would still be the ontological situation, for nothing simply remains nothing — forever! Nothing plus nothing equals nothing.
Since it is the case that something does now exist, one must logically conclude that something has existed always.
That “something” must be either physical or non-physical.
Since the physical universe came into existence at a finite time ago, the cause must be non-physical.
Another term for the “non-physical” would be “spirit.”
Therefore, that “something” must have existed eternally, and be and spiritual in nature. This being, we call God.

Asking: “Who created God?” is committing a category fallacy: God is not a contingent (dependent), caused entity. God by definition the necessary, uncaused and eternally existent " I AM".

God is different from all nature and humanity and everything that exists, in that he has always existed, independent from anything he created. God is not a dependent being, but self-sufficient, self-existent. And this is exactly how the Bible describes God, and how God has revealed himself to be. 1

1. Contingent or non-necessary beings depend on an external cause that made them come into existence - the physical universe – is also contingent.
2. Since that external cause has to be outside the whole aggregate of contingent things, it cannot itself be contingent. So it is necessary.
3. Hey presto, we’ve demonstrated that there is a necessarily existent, uncreated, non-contingent being which causes all other things! And this, of course, is God.

Isaiah 40:28 The Lord is the everlasting God
Daniel 4:2-3 His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom and his dominion is from generation to generation. 
Exodus 3:14God’s existence is underived; no one made him. He simply always was. The Lord revealed himself to Moses as the “I AM THAT I AM”. The “I AM”

The first principles of ontology per the imperatives of logic evince that God must be.   Only the abandonment of rationality imagines that it makes sense to conclude that existence can arise from nonexistence, that an infinite regress of causative events is possible, that actual infinities are possible or that the effect of a mechanical cause is not given from eternity.  

1. Something cannot come into existence from absolutely nothing.
2. The universe had a beginning, therefore, it had a cause.
3. The present moment cannot be reached by adding individual events together from eternity.
4. The second law of thermodynamics refutes the hypothesis of an eternal universe.
5. Therefore an eternal & necessary first cause is the best explanation of our existence.
6. An agent endowed with free will can have a determination in a timeless dimension to operate causally at a (first) moment of time and thereby to produce a temporally first effect.

This is a very common question made by atheists. There is consensus in science that the universe most probably had a beginning. If the cosmos had no beginning, then there would have had to be an infinite series of past events. However, it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. Therefore, the universe cannot be infinitely old. Besides that, If the cosmos was infinitely old, it would have reached maximum entropy a long, long, time ago. Since it has not reached maximum entropy, it cannot be infinitely old without violating the second law of thermodynamics. Although physicists such as Krauss and Hawking talk about "the universe creating itself from nothing," they are using the word "nothing" to mean the vacuum energy, which is not a true nothing. To be more precise, being cannot emerge from non-being.  If the entire cosmos came from something, that thing must transcend our cosmos, that is, it must exist beyond the limits of our space/time continuum. We may call it the First Cause. The creator must be a self-existing power. He is not created; He is eternal.   He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence.  Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is the one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter. The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material/natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been supernatural, i.e. non-material or spirit—a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be an eternal spirit.

"“What caused God?” is a bad objection even apart from the fact that the arguments do not rest on the premise in question. For it is not as if the arguments give no reason why God does not need a cause even if other things do. On the contrary, part of the point of the arguments is to establish that there must be something that not only lacks a cause but could not even in principle have had one, precisely because it lacks the very feature that makes other things in need of a cause. Hence, the Aristotelian proof holds that other things require a cause because they are mixtures of actuality and potentiality, and any potential, precisely because it is merely potential, cannot actualize itself. By contrast, what is purely actual, precisely because it lacks any potentiality, not only need not have a cause but could not have had one."

“The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms....” (Deuteronomy 33:27).
“...The everlasting God...will not grow tired or weary...he gives strength to the weary and increases the power of the weak” (Isaiah 40:28).
“Now we know that if the earthly tent [our bodies] we live in is destroyed, we have a building [celestial body] from God, an eternal house in heaven...” (2 Corinthians 5:1).

I say that this premise DOES apply to the universe and it DOES NOT apply to God.

Why it does apply to the universe:
Within this universe, every experience and experiment conducted by mankind show that if nothing happens, then nothing happens. If you do not plant a seed, then a tree will not grow. However if a tree does grow, then a seed MUST have been planted. There is no alternative. Since this rule is consistent throughout the entire universe, it is logical to think that this same law applies to the universe itself. In addition to this, we have evidence of such a beginning. We have discovered the once hypothetical background radiation which would have followed an explosive beginning to the universe. Red light shift indicates that all other galaxies are moving away from us. This would be very likely if the universe did have an explosive beginning but unlikely if the universe always was.

Why it does not apply to God:
Did God begin to exist? Scientifically there is no answer. The only answer can be found in theology and that answer is no. It is important to remember here that I am not changing or reinventing God so he fits  the criteria of this argument. The idea that God was eternal dates back to at least the writing of genesis which is well before the BCE./CE switch. So I am not fitting the facts to God, not am I fitting God to the facts. They are both the same. Once again the CFC of the universe is fixed. If the universe began (which is an accepted analysis of science), then its cause must fall within certain guidelines, which I established. The fact that the God described in the bible happens to fit these guidelines is not the product of theology but rather of coincidence.

CONCLUSION:

With my reasons for applying the criteria to the universe and not to God in mind I can safely say that I have not committed the logical fallacy of special pleading. The only case in which I would have done this is if God was supposed to be held to the same standards as everything else within this universe. From Goat's source:

2. Person A is in circumstance(s) C.

But the God of Christianity does not fit the circumstances applied to the universe. The laws of the universe don't apply to God simply due to his nature. Looking at this from the other side, if the laws of this universe applied to God, then god could not have been the first cause because he would be dependent on the universe. But then we are still left with the problem of the cause of the universe. In essence what I am trying to say in as lengthy manner as possible is that whatever caused the universe, IS NOT bound by the laws of this universe. Therefore, I can not be guilty of special pleading because person A (God) is not in the circumstances described for and applied to the universe itself.

1. https://www.cbn.com/special/apologetics/articles/Al-ghazali-argument.aspx?option=print
2. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4966

http://www.gavinjensen.com/blog/rebutting-an-atheist-argument-against-theism

"What explains an eternal being?" is an incoherent question. If God exists then there couldn't be any ultimate explanation for God because God is an eternal being. Atheists likewise don't have any explanation for elementary particles or the laws of nature. They must simply take it for granted that all explanations eventually bottom out in brute facts. The God hypothesis does not explain the existence of God, and naturalistic physicalism does not explain the laws of physics.

Here is some scripture to that show that God is eternal:
The eternal God is a dwelling place And underneath are the everlasting arms Deut 33:27
Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth Does not become weary or tired His understanding is inscrutable. Isaiah 40:28
It has seemed good to me to declare the signs and wonders which the Most High God has done for me. “How great are His signs And how mighty are His wonders! His kingdom is an everlasting kingdom and his dominion is from generation to generation. Daniel 4:2-3

This means that God has always existed, He had no beginning and will have no end. Now, we can see that to ask who created God makes no sense.

5 Easy Steps to refute naturalism
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1877-easy-steps-to-refute-naturalism

Either the cosmos
(1) had no beginning, or
(2) it had a beginning.
(1) If the cosmos had no beginning, then there must be an infinite series of past events. However, it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. Therefore, the universe cannot be infinitely old. Besides that, If the cosmos was infinitely old, it would have reached maximum entropy a long, long, time ago. Since it has not reached maximum entropy, it cannot be infinitely old without violating the second law of thermodynamics.
(2) If the cosmos had a beginning, then it must have come from (A) nothing or (B) something.
2.A. Although physicists such as Krauss and Hawking talk about "the universe creating itself from nothing," they are using the word "nothing" to mean the vacuum energy, which is not a true nothing. To be more precise, being cannot emerge from non-being. 
2.B. If the entire cosmos came from something, that thing must transcend our cosmos, that is, it must exist beyond the limits of our space/time continuum. We may call it the First Cause.

Feser states:
"“What caused God?” is a bad objection even apart from the fact that the arguments do not rest on the premise in question. For it is not as if the arguments give no reason why God does not need a cause even if other things do. On the contrary, part of the point of the arguments is to establish that there must be something that not only lacks a cause but could not even in principle have had one, precisely because it lacks the very feature that makes other things in need of a cause. Hence, the Aristotelian proof holds that other things require a cause because they are mixtures of actuality and potentiality, and any potential, precisely because it is merely potential, cannot actualize itself. By contrast, what is purely actual, precisely because it lacks any potentiality, not only need not have a cause but could not have had one."

1. https://www.everystudent.com/wires/created.html

Where did God come from ? - Best answer


God: Who created God ? God_is10

View user profile

2God: Who created God ? Empty Re: God: Who created God ? on Sat Nov 30, 2013 6:35 pm

Admin


Admin
Furthermore, God is not complex. God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly, such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity

God is not complex
http://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1332-god-is-not-complex
God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly, such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/richard-dawkins-argument-for-atheism-in-the-god-delusion

God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly, such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity
http://www.gavinjensen.com/blog/rebutting-an-atheist-argument-against-theism

  Suppose we land on an alien planet orbiting a distant star and discover some machine-like objects that look and work just like a 1941 Allis Chalmers tractor; our leader says “there must be intelligent beings on this planet—look at those tractors.” A sophomore philosophy student on the expedition objects: “Hey, hold on a minute! You have explained nothing at all! Any intelligent life that designed those tractors would have to be at least as complex as they are!” No doubt we’d tell him a little learning is a dangerous thing and advise him to take the next rocket ship home and enroll in another philosophy course or two.

The point is that the leader was not trying to give an ultimate explanation of organized complexity. He was only trying to explain one particular manifestation of it—the tractors. In this context, it is perfectly reasonable to explain one manifestation of organized complexity with another. Similarly, theists are not trying to give an ultimate explanation for all organized complexity (including God) when they invoke God as an explanation for organized complexity.

Is attributing eternity to God special pleading? 
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1539-is-attributing-eternity-to-god-special-pleading

God is eternal and uncaused. This is not special pleading for God since this is exactly what the atheist has traditionally said about the universe: It is eternal and uncaused. The problem is that we have good evidence that the universe is not eternal but had a beginning, and so the atheist is backed into the corner of saying the universe sprang into being without a cause, which is absurd. 1

The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption. 2
This is the key sentence in deciding if I am guilty of special pleading or not. The standards I have set for the universe and deny for God fall into my first premise:
Whatever begins to exist requires a cause




http://biologos.org/questions/what-created-god

Psalm 90:2 “Before the mountains were born or you gave birth to the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God.”

The difference between the theist and atheist positions on this topic is that by assuming that everything — including the universe — has to have a cause, then the atheist is left with a dilemma of what or who that first cause might have been. For the theist, the answer is God, but a satisfactory reason must be found why God should be exempt for the need for a cause. Such a response is available through the Augustinian concept that

God is not limited in space and time, and therefore the argument of needing a first cause loses its power.



Last edited by Admin on Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:30 am; edited 1 time in total

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

3God: Who created God ? Empty Re: God: Who created God ? on Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:28 pm

Admin


Admin
http://carm.org/if-everything-needs-creator-then-who-or-what-created-god

By definition, the Christian God never came into existence; that is, He is the uncaused cause (Psalm 90:2).  He was always in existence and He is the one who created space, time, and matter.  This means that the Christian God is the uncaused cause, and is the ultimate creator.  This eliminates the infinite regression problem.

Some may ask, "But who created God?"  The answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal.  He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence.  Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is the one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter.  Since God is before space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him.

http://www.focus.org.uk/whomadegod.php
First, the 'who made God?' argument is sometimes framed in terms of complexity: if God made the universe, God must be even more complex than the universe is. Therefore (it is claimed) we have tried to explain away one complex thing (the universe) by introducing another complex thing (God).
It is important to grasp that the argument is about causality, not about complexity. We don't have a problem explaining one complicated thing in terms of another: this web page is a fairly complicated thing. It can be explained in terms of another, more complicated thing (me). No-one has a problem with that. The issue is where – or whether – the chain of causality has a beginning. The challenge of complexity is a red herring.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

4God: Who created God ? Empty Re: God: Who created God ? on Fri May 08, 2015 8:44 am

Admin


Admin
If God created the universe, who created God?

https://ehyde.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/top-10-most-common-atheist-arguments-and-why-they-fail/

This is one of the more peculiar arguments I’ve ever come across. Those who use this charge as some sort of intellectual checkmate have simply failed to grasp what Christians understand as ‘eternal.’ It is an argument usually levied once a theist posits that God is required for the existence of the universe (an absolute upon which all other things exist by way of contingency). Some atheists then shift the weight over to the theist saying, “Well then who created God?” (which demonstrates a failure to understand God as the source and ground of being, follow this link for more.) What is a Christian to do with such a question? God is the antecedent of all things in creation and is eternal. If God had a Creator then His Creator would be God. God is God precisely because He does not have a creator.

For those who would cry “Special Pleading” at this must defend the alternative, which is strictly illogical, that of absolute contingency and/or unconditional conditionality of the physical universe (assuming they believe in the eternality of nature; if not, if they believe the universe had a beginning, then they must defend an even more fantastic illogical leap, that of “just-thereness” of the universe, which differs very little from pure magic). But the belief that God is eternal is not special pleading to begin with for the simple fact that the subject matter is something truly unique, justifiably “special”. If one cannot claim that at least one thing is Absolute, or “Necessary” in philosophical parlance, then reality as we know it is irrational.

Better to be wrongly accused of a logical fallacy then rightly accused of a logical absurdity.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

5God: Who created God ? Empty Re: God: Who created God ? on Sat Dec 24, 2016 11:11 pm

Admin


Admin
Who or what created God?

5 Easy Steps to refute naturalism
Either the cosmos
(1) had no beginning, or
(2) it had a beginning.
(1) If the cosmos had no beginning, then there must be an infinite series of past events. However, it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. Therefore, the universe cannot be infinitely old. Besides that, If the cosmos was infinitely old, it would have reached maximum entropy a long, long, time ago. Since it has not reached maximum entropy, it cannot be infinitely old without violating the second law of thermodynamics.
(2) If the cosmos had a beginning, then it must have come from (A) nothing or (B) something.
2.A. Although physicists such as Krauss and Hawking talk about "the universe creating itself from nothing," they are using the word "nothing" to mean the vacuum energy, which is not a true nothing. To be more precise, being cannot emerge from non-being. 
2.B. If the entire cosmos came from something, that thing must transcend our cosmos, that is, it must exist beyond the limits of our space/time continuum. We may call it the First Cause.

The creator is a self-existing power. That's unfathomable to the finite mind. Nonetheless, there are wonders of a caliber the time and coincidence argument is hard pressed to attempt to contain. Some may ask, "But who created God?"  The answer is that by definition He is not created; He is eternal.  Definition of eternal: permanent, unending. Eternal, endless, everlasting, perpetual imply lasting or going on without ceasing. That which is eternal is, by its nature, without beginning or end. He is the One who brought time, space, and matter into existence.  Since the concept of causality deals with space, time, and matter, and since God is the one who brought space, time, and matter into existence, the concept of causality does not apply to God since it is something related to the reality of space, time, and matter.  Since God is beyond space, time, and matter, the issue of causality does not apply to Him.The cause of the universe must have been non-material because if the cause was material/natural, it would be subject to the same laws of decay as the universe. That means it would have to have had a beginning itself and you have the same problem as cycles of births and deaths of universes. So the cause of the universe’s beginning must have been supernatural, i.e. non-material or spirit—a cause outside of space-matter-time. Such a cause would not be subject to the law of decay and so would not have a beginning. That is, the cause had to be an eternal spirit.

If God created the universe, who created God?
This is one of the more peculiar arguments I’ve ever come across. It is an argument usually levied once a theist posits that God is required for the existence of the universe (an absolute being upon which all other things exist by way of contingency). Some atheists then shift the weight over to the theist saying, “Well then who created God?” This very familiar argument demonstrates a failure to understand what almost any form of classical theism understands by the name “God”. Speaking for Christianity, God is the One who is – i.e., the only One who is the source of His own being. He is worshiped as the uncreated One who always was and always will be. God is not seen by the Christian as one more being in the total aggregate of all beings in the universe. Rather He is the source and ground of all being, of all existence (follow this link for more).
One way to say it, though it might sound odd at first, is that Christians do not believe that God ever came into existence (Kierkegaard). Think of it in the old ‘Cosmological Argument’ sense. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore it had a cause. But God never began to exist; He always was, i.e., eternal.
The atheist will typically respond with, “who cares what you assert about God, it still does not answer the question.” And this is a great example of the moment when atheists and Christians begin to talk past one another. For the Christian the question is purely nonsensical, for the atheist it’s pure logical fallacy.
On that note, for those who would cry “Special Pleading” at this claim must defend the alternative, which, strictly speaking, is illogical in a universe made up entirely of contingent realities. Without the logical assignment of an absolute upon which all things are contingent, one is left with something like absolute contingency or unconditional conditionality of the physical universe (this assuming one believes in the eternality of nature; if not, if one believes the universe had a beginning, then he must defend an even more fantastic illogical leap, that of “just-thereness” of the universe, which differs very little from pure magic). But the belief that God alone is eternal in His being is not special pleading to begin with for the simple fact that the subject matter is something truly unique, justifiably “special”. If one cannot claim that at least one thing is Absolute, or “Necessary” in a universe of conditionality, then reality as we know it is irrational (for a great book on this see David Bentley Hart’s, The Experience of God).
Better to be wrongly accused of a logical fallacy then rightly accused of a logical absurdity.

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

6God: Who created God ? Empty Re: God: Who created God ? on Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:03 am

Admin


Admin
A number of skeptics ask this question.
But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’
So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time.
The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning.

God, unlike the universe, had no beginning, so doesn’t need a cause. In addition, Einstein’s general relativity, which has much experimental support, shows that time is linked to matter and space. So time itself would have begun along with matter and space. Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time—God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabits eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.
In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.

2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.
If the total amount of mass-energy is limited, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy—the ‘heat death’ of the universe. For example, all radioactive atoms would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further work would be possible. So the obvious corollary is that the universe began a finite time ago with a lot of usable energy, and is now running down.
Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause?
But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause—no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied.
So would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house.
Also, the universe cannot be self-caused—nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.

In Summary
The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.
Objections
There are only two ways to refute an argument:
Show that it is logically invalid
Show that at least one of the premises is false.
a) Is the argument valid?
A valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Note that validity does not depend on the truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument. The argument in this paper is valid; it is of the same form as: All whales have backbones; Moby Dick is a whale; therefore Moby Dick has a backbone. So the only hope for the skeptic is to dispute one or both of the premises.
b) Are the premises true?
Also, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is ‘open’.

1) Does the universe have a beginning?
Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists like the late Carl Sagan and Isaac Asimov solely to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator. But as shown above, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument. Even an oscillating universe cannot overcome those laws. Each one of the hypothetical cycles would exhaust more and more usable energy. This means every cycle would be larger and longer than the previous one, so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller cycles. So the multicycle model could have an infinite future, but can only have a finite past.
Also, there are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place, i.e., the universe is ‘open’. According to the best estimates (even granting old-earth assumptions), the universe still has only about half the mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both luminous matter and non-luminous matter (found in galactic halos), as well as any possible contribution of neutrinos to total mass. Some recent evidence for an ‘open’ universe comes from the number of light-bending ‘gravitational lenses’ in the sky. Also, analysis of Type Ia supernovae shows that the universe’s expansion rate is not slowing enough for a closed universe. It seems like there is only 40-80% of the required matter to cause a ‘big crunch’. Incidentally, this low mass is also a major problem for the currently fashionable ‘inflationary’ version of the ‘big bang’ theory, as this predicts a mass density just on the threshold of collapse—a ‘flat’ universe.
Finally, no known mechanism would allow a bounce back after a hypothetical ‘big crunch’. As the late Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics says that the universe oscillates, ‘There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch.’ Off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and that’s the end.

2) Denial of cause and effect
Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing. For instance, Paul Davies writes:
… spacetime could appear out of nothingness as a result of a quantum transition. … Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation … Yet the world of quantum mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing.10
But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing. Davies himself admitted … that his scenario ‘should not be taken too seriously.’

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their ‘quantum vacuum’ is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not ‘nothing’. Also, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics (QM) from my doctoral thesis work. For example, Raman spectroscopy is a QM phenomenon, but from the wavenumber and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands. To help the atheist position that the universe came into existence without a cause, one would need to find Raman bands appearing without being caused by transitions in vibrational quantum states, or alpha particles appearing without pre-existing nuclei, etc. If QM was as acausal as some people think, then we should not assume that these phenomena have a cause. Then I may as well burn my Ph.D. thesis, and all the spectroscopy journals should quit, as should any nuclear physics research.
Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe Appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can’t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn’t have any properties until it actually came into existence.
Dr Jonathan Sarfati. Organic Chemist, Christian Apologist, Author, Chess Champion and Logician.

Scientists and Critical Thinkers Cited
Dr Carl Sagan
Dr Isaac Asimov
Professor Beatrice Tinsley
Professor Paul Davies
Dr Jonathan Sarfati

View user profile http://elshamah.heavenforum.com

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum