Hopefully not a dumb question

[cnk12]

I have what may be a nebulous question, but anyone willing to indulge me by providing your personal answer can help my search for truth and will have my sincere gratitude.

“Science” has developed a model showing the history of the universe, formation of the earth, life, and evolution of life. I have heard Atheists contend this model is bolstered by the fact it is built from the research of multiple separate entities in astronomy, archeology and science (among others) that all arrive at similar conclusions.

My question to Christians is … what if any mitigating factors that are contradictory to the aforementioned model do you embrace to support your assertion of Theism and/or Christianity?

Thanks,
Charles

[hughfarey]

I have what may be a nebulous question, but anyone willing to indulge me by providing your personal answer can help my search for truth and will have my sincere gratitude.
“Science” has developed a model showing the history of the universe, formation of the earth, life, and evolution of life. I have heard Atheists contend this model is bolstered by the fact it is built from the research of multiple separate entities in astronomy, archeology and science (among others) that all arrive at similar conclusions.
My question to Christians is … what if any mitigating factors that are contradictory to the aforementioned model do you embrace to support your assertion of Theism and/or Christianity?
Thanks,
Charles

Shall I have a go? What makes you think that a belief in God needs any contradictory factors to mitigate the model of the universe developed by Science? Science has indeed developed a fairly coherent model of the universe (with a few glaring problems still to be sorted out, to be fair), that is is defined by the existence of an organisation, and something to be organised, and some power with which to organise it, which is self-reflective (that's us). I won't go further than that just now, but you can see where I'm heading. I doubt if any Atheist would deny those very basic points, except to say that the first three just appeared from nothing 15 billion years ago, whereas I think they are outside of time altogether. I think it would take a philosopher to explain the implications of a universal, omnipotent, e-temporal, self-reflecting algorithm, but they will spiral inevitably to an entity which is indistinguishable from God. Let's call it God, shall we?

[cnk12]

Thanks for replying to my post.

What makes you think that a belief in God needs any contradictory factors to mitigate the model of the universe developed by Science?

I don't necessarily think one needs them, but I think a lot of people have them and that's what I'm interested in. Maybe in your case they would be the glaring problems you mentioned, but didn't specify.

Science has indeed developed a fairly coherent model of the universe (with a few glaring problems still to be sorted out, to be fair), that is is defined by the existence of an organisation, and something to be organised, and some power with which to organise it, which is self-reflective (that's us). I won't go further than that just now, but you can see where I'm heading.

If you don't mind going further, I'd appreciate it. Sorry, but I didn't really get what you're saying.

I doubt if any Atheist would deny those very basic points, except to say that the first three just appeared from nothing 15 billion years ago, whereas I think they are outside of time altogether.

What appeared from nothing? Are you referring to the organization you mentioned above? Again, it's not sinking in here.

I think it would take a philosopher to explain the implications of a universal, omnipotent, e-temporal, self-reflecting algorithm, but they will spiral inevitably to an entity which is indistinguishable from God. Let's call it God, shall we?

I completely agree, well put. Thanks.

[hughfarey]

Hi cnk12,
The glaring problems I was talking about were scientific rather than philosophical: the relationship between electromagnetism and gravity, the shape of the universe, dark energy, the problems still inherent in quantum physics and so on.
As to atheists, I think their real problem with God is historical and social rather than cosmological. The origin and maintenance of the universe is not a matter of concern to most people, their dealings with each other is. What atheists mostly deny is Christianity (or Islam or Sikhism etc.) as a social structure. However, more cosmologically minded atheists have to engage in a discussion about which there is practically no evidence, and what does exist are solutions to speculative equations rather than observation. There was, I think, some satisfaction in the scientific atheist camp when quantum electrodynamics predicted that matter and energy could appear from nothing, as it appeared to do away with the need for an external creator. However the more philosophical atheists could see the naiveté in their delight, because by pushing the origin of the universe away from the physical, they pushed it towards the mathematical and e-temporal (outside time). It may well be true that, in a physical sense, "nothing" can indeed be a source of "something," but this is only true if "nothing" is subject to certain rules. And those rules mean that to a philosopher, the "physical nothing" is not "nothing at all" but teeming with the mathematics of the complex interactions which not only enabled the big bang, but also describe the flight of a bird and the feeling of wonder and awe and beauty I feel when I look at a landscape or the sky at night. That's pretty cool Maths.
But, but, say my Christian friends, you are reducing God to a set of rules, that could in theory be written down in a book! That's not God!
And I say, of course not. The rules describe the history and organisation of the universe, and I think they are an aspect of God, but they imply something else. As I said before, before even the creation of anything physical from nothing, there was organisation (that's the rules), and something to organise, and the power to organise them, and all that existed and exists, without the tiniest alteration (that's the coherence of Science across space and time) wholly without reference to the "physical universe." It is not at all obvious that my necessary pre-existing aspects of existence actually needed to result in the universe, or the multiverse, or whatever variety of calculable cosmology you assert, but we do know that it resulted in us, and that we can speculate about why we are here. This ability to be self-reflective is therefore, in physical terms, a consequence of the playing out of the rules of the universe, but in pre-physical terms, part of the e-temporal entity that governs them.
Does that make things clearer, or more obscure?

[cnk12]

Your answer was both revealing and clear(except for one more question I'll ask in a minute). It was new to me and rings of truth, and I really appreciate your taking the time to explain.

What atheists mostly deny is Christianity (or Islam or Sikhism etc.) as a social structure.

Would you mind elaborating on this?

Thanks again

[hughfarey]

Yes, if you like. I think quite a lot of people, perhaps most people, who do not believe in God don't care one way or another about cosmology. Even Richard Dawkins, a scientist to the core, devotes only a handful of pages to it in the God Delusion. While the understanding and exploration of the distant past is interesting (at least to me), it doesn't really matter one way or another as I pursue my daily life. What atheists primarily disagree with is religion as a mode of behaviour, most commonly Christianity, which they see as more of a hindrance than a help to the harmonious development of the human race. Of course, if you think something is wrong, it stands to reason that it can't have been created by a being who is by definition always right, and so a practical disagreement with social structure leads to a philosophical disbelief in a divine founder thereof.
"Imagine," says Dawkins at the beginning of his book, "no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestine wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ-killers'," etc. etc. All these would have been avoided if nobody believed in God, is his assertion. (It has just occurred to me that to atheists, the evils of the world are due to belief in God rather than the existence of God...). I tend to follow GK Chesterton's: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried."

[cnk12]

Crystal clear! Thanks for everything, I really enjoyed reading what you had to say.

[Revolutionary]

There was, I think, some satisfaction in the scientific atheist camp when quantum electrodynamics predicted that matter and energy could appear from nothing, as it appeared to do away with the need for an external creator. However the more philosophical atheists could see the naiveté in their delight, because by pushing the origin of the universe away from the physical, they pushed it towards the mathematical and e-temporal (outside time).

You are incorrect on so many levels pertaining to what science has claimed, it's difficult to even begin.

Science has only mapped our physical and observable universe to a point of origin, never has it reached beyond that point to conclude anything beyond speculation.

How you've come to the conclusion that science has declared that the universe came from nothingness is beyond me.

Simple logic would bring intellect along an undeniable path in thought.... Lets wipe it all clean down to a void/nothingness.... More so, it is an infinite void in an infinite arena of time.... If a universe could spring from said void, probability offers us this very simple aspect to logic; in an infinite arena of time and void there are infinite events to which this probability can occur giving us infinite examples of such a point of origin. This is just small scale view to something that logically, there is no point of origin.
Never once has science declared anything pertaining to origin beyond our physical/observable 'universe'.

And here is the real conundrum that you alone must overcome, something that always is and always was doesn't need a creator.

What about God? Did God need a creator or did he create himself out of nothingness?

The argument you pose against science is equally detrimental to your own belief, they both claim the exact same thing and provide it with a different image.

You could as easily attribute the focal brilliance of the universe, that it is simply a reflection of God.... Personally, if I were to indulge the concept of God, what a perfectly brilliant focal aspect traveling into infinity.... No beginning, no end, no point of containment.... Eventually you need to bring that focus back to self, it's actually quite liberating.... The reflection is you!

Just a thought, if I were to indulge in the artistry!

[Revolutionary]

To add to my post, you might be having discussions with people that claim that everything that exists popped up from nothingness; they are ill advised and it is definitely not something that is embraced by the scientific community. Well, not for long anyways!

[Byblos]

To add to my post, you might be having discussions with people that claim that everything that exists popped up from nothingness; they are ill advised and it is definitely not something that is embraced by the scientific community. Well, not for long anyways!

You may have jumped the gun, rev. I really don't think that's what he was saying (but I could be wrong).

[hughfarey]

Science has only mapped our physical and observable universe to a point of origin, never has it reached beyond that point to conclude anything beyond speculation. How you've come to the conclusion that science has declared that the universe came from nothingness is beyond me.

I'm afraid I don't think I understand what you're saying. Are you not aware of the multiverse theories, for example? They are, it is true, more mathematical than observational because, as you say, one cannot observe anything before the Big Bang, but they are detailed and coherent (and often conflicting!). I'm a bit worried by your thinking that I think "Science has declared...." anything. Science is not a uniform body that pronounces facts which nobody can deny. Science is a vast accumulation of evidence and conclusion which gradually gains general, but rarely universal, acceptance.

Lets wipe it all clean down to a void/nothingness.... More so, it is an infinite void in an infinite arena of time....

Let's not do any such thing. There is no "infinite void" and no "infinite time." I don't know of any scientific theories that suppose this.

Never once has science declared anything pertaining to origin beyond our physical/observable 'universe'.

There you go again. Science has never declared anything at all. Scientists and mathematicians have speculated at great length about what "lies beyond our physical/observable 'universe'," using well-defined starting points mostly based on quantum theory.

And here is the real conundrum that you alone must overcome, something that always is and always was doesn't need a creator.

That's not a conundrum. It's a syllogism of sorts.

What about God? Did God need a creator or did he create himself out of nothingness?

Neither.

The argument you pose against science is equally detrimental to your own belief, they both claim the exact same thing and provide it with a different image.

This makes no sense to me at all. Please clarify it if you think it worthwhile.

You could as easily attribute the focal brilliance of the universe, that it is simply a reflection of God.... Personally, if I were to indulge the concept of God, what a perfectly brilliant focal aspect traveling into infinity.... No beginning, no end, no point of containment.... Eventually you need to bring that focus back to self, it's actually quite liberating.... The reflection is you! Just a thought, if I were to indulge in the artistry!

Sorry, you've lost me completely here.