Re-GII (Origin of Universe)

Response to GII.

God did not magically appear nor did He magically craft the universe. Rather, when one suggests that there need be an actual infinite chain of explanations or causes (e.g. A caused B, which caused C, which caused D, ad finitum) such claims lead to absurdities (e.g. try to subtract and infinity from an infinity; now subtract all the odd numbers from an infinity, what do you get?). This is called the problem of Infinite Regress, eventually you get to foundational explanation/cause. God is suggested to be such a cause/explanation and considered necessary. For more clarification on this point see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAAOvzwFiCo&feature=channel_page

Two philosophical arguments against an actual infinite/static universe:

(1) An actual infinite cannot exist.
(2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
(3) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

(1) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite.
(2) The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.
(3) Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite.

Scientific findings that suggest (along with General Relativity) that universe is not static:

Friedmann-Lemaitre model/Hawking-Penrose Theorum (see):

Friedmann, A. (1922). Uber die Krummung des Raumes. Zeitschrift fur Physik 10, 377-86.

Lemaitre, G. (1927). Un univers homogene de masse constante et de rayon croissant, rendant compte de la vistesse radiale des nebuleuses extragalactiques. Annales de la Societe sceinfique de Bruxelles, 47, 49-59

Hawking, S., & Penrose, R. (1970) The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 314, 529-48

Scientism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZoTBhARZhI&feature=channel_page

(Clarification of 5 e.g.s) First, science cannot account for logic and mathematics because science presupposes these in order to function, so if one were to attempt to prove math and science they would be arguing in a circle. Second, science cannot account for metaphysical truths like there are other minds for science can only detect brain structure but cannot quantify and define an individuals thoughts and ‘aboutness.’ Third, science cannot account for morale judgments because you can not establish via science that Nazi scientists who experimented on people during the holocaust were wrong in comparison to scientists of post-modernism. Fourth, beauty cannot be scientifically proven for it is an abstract concept like good and evil. Lastly, science cannot be proven via science because it contains unprovable assumptions like the speed of light or other boundary conditions.


References:

Craig, W.L., & Moreland, J.P. (2009). The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Polishing Ltd

Craig, W.L., & Moreland, J.P. (2003). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press

Einstein, A. (1917). Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity: The Principles of Relativity. New York: Dover Publications

Moreland, J.P. (1987). Scaling the Secular City. Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Book House

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Category:

Education

Tags:

• kalam
• infinity
• potential
• actual
• god
• nature
• christianity
• atheism
• of
• the
• gaps
• science
• phiolosphy

[ultradevon04]

Even though the universe as we know it came into being around 14 billion years ago, we do not know the nature of what caused the universe. It obvious that something has always existed because if there was nothing there would still be nothing but to assume its a god, or your god is begging the question. Why assume its a who, its simply another thing that we know nothing about. If you make claims about the nature of such a thing then this requires evidence which theist have none.

[telemantros]

"...we do not know the nature of what caused the universe."

Explicitly, you are right. But we can infer the cause: it must be immaterial, timeless, spaceless and powerful. Since all matter, space, and time came into being at the singularity of the big bang, the cause cannot be material or based from something material (energy).

It's not begging the question because again, it's an inference from above. I'm curious if you actually watched the video as I offered explanations to all your args.

[ultradevon04]

In your video you said that positing a natural process as the source of the universe presupposes the existence of matter, space and time and that all of this came into being at the big bang. I argue that whatever caused the big bang, exists naturally. Therefore the universe has a natural cause. It could very well be some higher dimension of space-time that produces universes, who knows. To say its super natural or call it god is pointless IMO

[telemantros]

"I argue that whatever caused the big bang, exists naturally."

If by naturally you mean necessarily, then I would agree but I wouldn't grant you naturally if by it you mean "by energy" as energy is derivative of matter (First Law of Thermo), which couldn't exist prior to the big bang, thus it cannot be a cause.

If you argue that the universe came from some "higher dimension" or "space-time" then this is hard to see how this is not natural or derivative of material. Again, this came into being.

[L0veNeverFailing]

ur sister-in-law says "hi! i love you!!!" ♥

[telemantros]

: )

[TheIrrationalAtheist]

I don't know if anyone takes those GII videos seriously, but great video dood!!

[LegendaryZody]

First off nice unibrow. Second science is a way of thinking that looks at things FROM a LOGICAL stand point and not a POOF magic one. Religion will die later on in the future so arguing about this kind of stuff is trivial. With each discovery science builds on itself and increases humans knowledge and understanding. People did not come up with science to THINK the way they want to like "God" was. So stop trying to troll GIIVideo because in the end you're a voice that nobody will listen to.

[littlemas2]

@ultradevon04 If something is outside of what we define as the natural world, what should it be called? If God exists, then he is natural in the sense that his existence is real. As Christians understand God, He exists in His own reality, and He is defined by His own characteristics. He is only mystical or magical in the sense that we cannot fully comprehend Him with our own limitations in our reality.

[fiscornioman]

Surrender to the fractal mother.

[ikeones]

if all the stories from the bible are true i.e. noah's ark. the time it wood take to get two of every animal and there 1.5 million species found so far most wood have died of old age by the time you got all of them. so we will sey god made them live longer. but if this is true then every animal should be like the cheetah inbred but there not how can you explain this

[Madhijz]

/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA

a sort of related work by Rob Bryanton

a very clear animation and he talks "aboot" alot of interesting subjects

[luvdomus]

Sorry, Eisntein's theory of Relativity,p(ub. 1915, not 1917) didn't address the origin of the universe. The Big Bang theory was unknown to Einstein at the time. Aside from that, a "natural;" origin to the universe doesn't "presuppose the exitence of matter, time, etc before the Big Bang," only that these phenomena emerged from the Big Bang as the result of natural processes rather than magical, supernatural or Divine ones. As far as science goes, if it happens, it's part of nature.

[GoforBroke4]

I agree that there's no concrete evidence for God, but when one consider ALL the logic TOGETHER, which by themselves may only constitute weak evidence, they become moderately strong evidence of a God.