The Strongest Argument for God

[Kenny]

Here's the timeline and widespread consensus of physicists and astronomers of the first three minutes of the Big Bang - you can find this documentation all over the net:

Big Bang's First Three Minutes:

0 second to 10-43 second. Only God knows or can know what happened during this period of time. We know only that at least 9 dimensions of space existed as what is called singularity. All of the universe-to-be existed as a point of no volume. Time as we know it was created.
10-43 second, also known as Planck time. This is the point at which gravity, one of the four unified forces, became separate from the remaining three forces.
10-36 second. The strong nuclear force (the force that holds the nuclei of atoms together) separated from the other three unified forces.
10-36 to 10-32 second. Immediately following and triggered by the separation of the strong nuclear force, the universe expanded rapidly for this brief period of time.
10-32 to 10-5 second. The universe is filled with quarks, antiquarks, and electrons. The quarks and antiquarks combine and annihilate each other. Quarks are in excess of antiquarks by a ratio of 1,000,000,001 to 1,000,000,000. The remaining quarks will make up all the matter that exists in the universe.
10-12 second. The final two unified forces split from one another. Electromagnetism, which controls the attraction of negatively and positively charged particles, becomes separate from the weak nuclear force, which controls radioactive decay.
10-5 second. The universe cools to 1,000,000,000,000°K allowing quarks to combine to form protons and neutrons, the building blocks of atomic nuclei.
1 second to 3 minutes. The universe continues to cool, allowing protons and neutrons to combine to form the nuclei of future atoms.

If there is scientific consensus on this, how come it isn’t a part of a Scientific theory?

Um, it is.

Well it isn't a part of the Big Bang theory, so which theory is it?

[Philip]

It's called the inflationary Big Bang Model!

[Kenny]

It's called the inflationary Big Bang Model!

Thanx I'll look into it.

[Philip]

Ken: My disagreement is not about what it looks like, I have no doubt for someone with only experience from what we see here on Earth, it probably does look like an intelligence is behind all of this. But just because it looks like an intelligent design doesn’t mean it is. That is why we need to go where the evidence leads us, rather than just relying on previous experiences.

Ken, at least with even Einstein and a long and diverse list of widely renowned physicists, Nobel Prize winners, astronomers, etc., convinced of apparent (obvious to them) intelligent designs across the complexity and incredible precision of how the universe, earth and its many systems, you are beginning to acknowledge that these many things at least LOOK designed and precisely controlled. As well, absent any evidence whatsoever that things with these characteristics have ever been created by anything but other intelligent humans (and humans can't come close to what even a simple cell's design and functionality includes) should additionally make you realize we have zero reasons for thinking non-intelligent things can produce anything beyond the simple and random chaos - and even then, something would have to make them become physical realities AND THEN put them into motion for even that. But we are talking an extreme polar opposite of random, simple or chaotic, in the things science has long observed - meaning no one has any reasons at all to think blind, random things could have configured themselves into stupefying complexity on universal scale. And the mathematically, highly improbable likelihood that just and precisely the complex and absolutely NECESSARY material components "just happened" to come into existence, makes what is already statistically impossible, even more so!

[Kenny]

Ken: My disagreement is not about what it looks like, I have no doubt for someone with only experience from what we see here on Earth, it probably does look like an intelligence is behind all of this. But just because it looks like an intelligent design doesn’t mean it is. That is why we need to go where the evidence leads us, rather than just relying on previous experiences.

Ken, at least with even Einstein and a long and diverse list of widely renowned physicists, Nobel Prize winners, astronomers, etc., convinced of apparent (obvious to them) intelligent designs across the complexity and incredible precision of how the universe, earth and its many systems, you are beginning to acknowledge that these many things at least LOOK designed and precisely controlled. As well, absent any evidence whatsoever that things with these characteristics have ever been created by anything but other intelligent humans (and humans can't come close to what even a simple cell's design and functionality includes) should additionally make you realize we have zero reasons for thinking non-intelligent things can produce anything beyond the simple and random chaos - and even then, something would have to make them become physical realities AND THEN put them into motion for even that. But we are talking an extreme polar opposite of random, simple or chaotic, in the things science has long observed - meaning no one has any reasons at all to think blind, random things could have configured themselves into stupefying complexity on universal scale. And the mathematically, highly improbable likelihood that just and precisely the complex and absolutely NECESSARY material components "just happened" to come into existence, makes what is already statistically impossible, even more so!

If that’s the standard you want to use, Einstein and a long and diverse list of widely renowned physicists, Nobel Prize winners, astronomers, etc. will acknowledge there is no evidence where an intelligent being has lived eternally outside of any type of environment, (all intelligent beings require a suitable environment in order to live) then for whatever reason decides to start creating stuff; not creating using pre-existing materials, but creating from nothing at all IOW bringing things into existence. We have zero reasons to believe this is possible if we go by your standards; yet not only do you believe it is possible, you’ve built your entire worldview around the idea that it actually happened! Now if you’re able to get past your standards in order to believe an intelligent being (God) did it, why can’t you understand someone getting past your standards in order to believe random is responsible?
And BTW Quantum Fluctuations prove things can spring into existence without cause. Quantum Fluctuations are random and unguided. Every now and then a fluctuation can exceed a threshold forcing a change in a system. As the fluctuation is uncaused, the change it creates is uncaused. Thus particles spring into existence without cause as virtual particle/anti-particle pairs. This is how we get Hawking radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

[PaulSacramento]

Humm; let me guess... God is the only one who is not contingent thus has no cause, and God is the only one who didn't come into existence, everything else did. Is that correct? If so, how is that different from when I said an exception is made for God because he is uncaused, everything else is caused? And how does this refute the objections I mentioned?

First off, no one said that everything else is caused, you said that.

Oh so according to you there are other things that are uncaused? Like what?

The reason we call that Uncaused Cause God is because of that an uncaused cause MUST be ( its attributes), but that is another point that can only be understood IF you understand why there must be an uncaused or first cause.

So are all of those other uncaused causes you eluded to, God as well?

IF more than one can exist, yes BUT if more than one exists then there has to be a way to distinguish them, right?
Which would mean that one of them can NOT have all the same attributes as the other, right?

Just because they all have different attributes doesn’t mean they all can’t have an eternal existence. One has nothing to do with the other

Sure, but if one had something the other didn't it would mean that One would be "less" than the other and the obvious implications that come with it.

[Kenny]

Humm; let me guess... God is the only one who is not contingent thus has no cause, and God is the only one who didn't come into existence, everything else did. Is that correct? If so, how is that different from when I said an exception is made for God because he is uncaused, everything else is caused? And how does this refute the objections I mentioned?

First off, no one said that everything else is caused, you said that.

Oh so according to you there are other things that are uncaused? Like what?

The reason we call that Uncaused Cause God is because of that an uncaused cause MUST be ( its attributes), but that is another point that can only be understood IF you understand why there must be an uncaused or first cause.

So are all of those other uncaused causes you eluded to, God as well?

IF more than one can exist, yes BUT if more than one exists then there has to be a way to distinguish them, right?
Which would mean that one of them can NOT have all the same attributes as the other, right?

Just because they all have different attributes doesn’t mean they all can’t have an eternal existence. One has nothing to do with the other

Sure, but if one had something the other didn't it would mean that One would be "less" than the other and the obvious implications that come with it.

What are these obvious implications that result when some have more/ less than others? And what does this have to do with them all existing eternally?

[PaulSacramento]

You asked if those other uncaused things would also be God, correct?

Here:

So are all of those other uncaused causes you eluded to, God as well?

So, quite obviously, if there is more than one there MUST be a way to distinguish them, which means one has something more or less than the other, correct? so only ONE could be God.

[Philip]

Ken: If that’s the standard you want to use, Einstein and a long and diverse list of widely renowned physicists, Nobel Prize winners, astronomers, etc. will acknowledge there is no evidence where an intelligent being has lived eternally outside of any type of environment, (all intelligent beings require a suitable environment in order to live) then for whatever reason decides to start creating stuff; not creating using pre-existing materials, but creating from nothing at all IOW bringing things into existence.

Ken, again you morph what should be two questions into one. Einstein and his fellow theist-believing scientist did and DO believe in and an intelligent Cause or Being for the universe, precisely BECAUSE of the exhaustive list of incredible scientific evidences. But as for the nature of God - or whatever such theist-believing scientists believe that intelligent Cause to be - that is an Entity that both originated and stands outside of time and the physical universe - an eternal Entity that is beyond their tools and intelligence, and One that cannot be explained by their physical knowledge or tools. And THAT aspect of the Cause is why they do not try to explain it scientifically, as science cannot measure that. Again, however, it's like a black hole - while it cannot be directly seen, we know it's there because of how objects nearby react to it. Something incredible is doing this - which is how we know the black hole exists - just like why these theist-believing scientist believe a creative Intelligence is behind the universe - because we can see how the universe, world and its systems inexplicably otherwise function.

Ken: And BTW Quantum Fluctuations prove things can spring into existence without cause.

Ken, quit googling around because you clearly don't understand some key things about Quantum mechanics and what they are all about. They do NOT produce things from nothing, but their existence and functionality DID require an intelligent cause themselves.

Rich Deem wrote: "Quantum mechanics states that quantum events occur according to finite probabilities within finite time intervals. The larger the time interval, the greater the probability that a quantum event will occur. Outside of time, however, no quantum event is possible. Since time originated at the moment of the creation of the universe, quantum tunneling could not be its "creator." In addition, quantum events are extremely short-lived. As a quantum event, the existence of the universe is many orders of magnitude longer than any described quantum event. Therefore, cosmologists who propose such theories must appeal to unknown laws of physics to describe the reality of the universe."

And here is a great overview of the impossibility that anything can be produced from nothing - as quantum mechanics itself had to have a cause. Here is a great overview to help you better understand what you clearly do not:

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.a ... ticle=4584

Outtakes from the above link:

Even if one were to irrationally accept the premise that quantum theory allows for the possibility that Universes could pop into existence, in the words of astrophysicist Marcus Chown:

"If the universe owes its origins to quantum theory, then quantum theory must have existed before the universe. So the next question is surely: where did the laws of quantum theory come from? “We do not know,” admits Vilenkin. “I consider that an entirely different question.” (Much like Ken should!) When it comes to the beginning of the universe, in many ways we’re still at the beginning (2012, p. 35, emp. added)."

Martin Gardner said, "Imagine that physicists finally discover all the basic waves and their particles, and all the basic laws, and unite everything in one equation. We can then ask, “Why that equation?” It is fashionable now to conjecture that the big bang was caused by a random quantum fluctuation in a vacuum devoid of space and time. But of course such a vacuum is a far cry from nothing. There had to be quantum laws to fluctuate. And why are there quantum laws?... There is no escape from the superultimate questions: Why is there something rather than nothing, and why is the something structured the way it is? (2000, p. 303, emp. added)."

In “Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” Stephen Hawking boldly claimed that everything in the Universe can be accounted for through atheistic evolution without the need of God. This is untrue, as we have discussed elsewhere (e.g., Miller, 2011), but it seems that Hawking does not even believe that assertion himself. He asked the question, “Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur? In a nutshell, did we need a god to set it all up so that the Big Bang could bang?” (“Curiosity…,” emp. added). He then proceeded to offer no answer to the question. In his critique of Hawking, Paul Davies highlighted this very fact, saying, “You need to know where those laws come from. That’s where the mystery lies—the laws” (“The Creation Question…,” 2011). Quantum mechanics, with its governing laws, simply do not leave room for the spontaneous generation of Universes."

[PaulSacramento]

Even IF the Quantum singularity had always existed, and there is no evidence of that, you still have to account for the CAUSE of the expansion.

As the First cause argument states:
Things that HAVE A BEGINNING, need a cause.

[Kenny]

Ken: If that’s the standard you want to use, Einstein and a long and diverse list of widely renowned physicists, Nobel Prize winners, astronomers, etc. will acknowledge there is no evidence where an intelligent being has lived eternally outside of any type of environment, (all intelligent beings require a suitable environment in order to live) then for whatever reason decides to start creating stuff; not creating using pre-existing materials, but creating from nothing at all IOW bringing things into existence.

Ken, again you morph what should be two questions into one. Einstein and his fellow theist-believing scientist did and DO believe in and an intelligent Cause or Being for the universe, precisely BECAUSE of the exhaustive list of incredible scientific evidences. But as for the nature of God - or whatever such theist-believing scientists believe that intelligent Cause to be - that is an Entity that both originated and stands outside of time and the physical universe - an eternal Entity that is beyond their tools and intelligence, and One that cannot be explained by their physical knowledge or tools. And THAT aspect of the Cause is why they do not try to explain it scientifically, as science cannot measure that. Again, however, it's like a black hole - while it cannot be directly seen, we know it's there because of how objects nearby react to it. Something incredible is doing this - which is how we know the black hole exists - just like why these theist-believing scientist believe a creative Intelligence is behind the universe - because we can see how the universe, world and its systems inexplicably otherwise function.

Ken: And BTW Quantum Fluctuations prove things can spring into existence without cause.

Ken, quit googling around because you clearly don't understand some key things about Quantum mechanics and what they are all about. They do NOT produce things from nothing, but their existence and functionality DID require an intelligent cause themselves.

Rich Deem wrote: "Quantum mechanics states that quantum events occur according to finite probabilities within finite time intervals. The larger the time interval, the greater the probability that a quantum event will occur. Outside of time, however, no quantum event is possible. Since time originated at the moment of the creation of the universe, quantum tunneling could not be its "creator." In addition, quantum events are extremely short-lived. As a quantum event, the existence of the universe is many orders of magnitude longer than any described quantum event. Therefore, cosmologists who propose such theories must appeal to unknown laws of physics to describe the reality of the universe."

And here is a great overview of the impossibility that anything can be produced from nothing - as quantum mechanics itself had to have a cause. Here is a great overview to help you better understand what you clearly do not:

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.a ... ticle=4584

Outtakes from the above link:

Even if one were to irrationally accept the premise that quantum theory allows for the possibility that Universes could pop into existence, in the words of astrophysicist Marcus Chown:

"If the universe owes its origins to quantum theory, then quantum theory must have existed before the universe. So the next question is surely: where did the laws of quantum theory come from? “We do not know,” admits Vilenkin. “I consider that an entirely different question.” (Much like Ken should!) When it comes to the beginning of the universe, in many ways we’re still at the beginning (2012, p. 35, emp. added)."

Martin Gardner said, "Imagine that physicists finally discover all the basic waves and their particles, and all the basic laws, and unite everything in one equation. We can then ask, “Why that equation?” It is fashionable now to conjecture that the big bang was caused by a random quantum fluctuation in a vacuum devoid of space and time. But of course such a vacuum is a far cry from nothing. There had to be quantum laws to fluctuate. And why are there quantum laws?... There is no escape from the superultimate questions: Why is there something rather than nothing, and why is the something structured the way it is? (2000, p. 303, emp. added)."

In “Curiosity: Did God Create the Universe?” Stephen Hawking boldly claimed that everything in the Universe can be accounted for through atheistic evolution without the need of God. This is untrue, as we have discussed elsewhere (e.g., Miller, 2011), but it seems that Hawking does not even believe that assertion himself. He asked the question, “Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur? In a nutshell, did we need a god to set it all up so that the Big Bang could bang?” (“Curiosity…,” emp. added). He then proceeded to offer no answer to the question. In his critique of Hawking, Paul Davies highlighted this very fact, saying, “You need to know where those laws come from. That’s where the mystery lies—the laws” (“The Creation Question…,” 2011). Quantum mechanics, with its governing laws, simply do not leave room for the spontaneous generation of Universes."

I never suggested Quantum fluctuation had anything to do with the beginning of the Universe. And as far as Einstein and other scientists who are also theists, I’m sure there are a number of scientists who believe in God thus believe he is responsible for the beginning of the Universe; but that’s it, they only believe God is responsible (via faith) they recognize there is no actual Scientific evidence that suggests God is responsible. My point is, if you are going to hold my responses up to scientific scrutiny, you need to be consistent and hold your responses up to the same standard as well. So as long as you continue to insist an intelligent being is responsible for the Big Bang, you are not holding yourself to the same standard you are holding me to.

[Philip]

Ken: And as far as Einstein and other scientists who are also theists, I’m sure there are a number of scientists who believe in God thus believe he is responsible for the beginning of the Universe; but that’s it, they only believe God is responsible (via faith) they recognize there is no actual Scientific evidence that suggests God is responsible.

Ken, a theist includes all people who believe in a creator or higher intelligence that is the Source of the universe. And all those scientists - and there is an enormous list of people from all fields of the sciences who A) believe in God, and B) they believe so BECAUSE of the incredible evidences that show there HAS to be some such source. And, amongst these scientists, there is significant disagreement over the identity of the creator, as to whether it is the God of the Bible, merely some impersonal but intelligent force, Allah, or whatever identity they choose to believe it to be. But what they ALL agree on is that the evidence also strongly suggests that, C) the Creator Source would also have to have certain characteristics and capabilities to produce the immense complexity and designs that exist. Don't fool yourself into saying there is no evidence for an intelligent Source, even if you don't feel there is evidence for that Source's identity. All of these great theistic great thinkers and scientists are theist precisely because that is exactly where the evidence has led them. This is undeniable!

Now, you are correct that, other than attributes noted of the Biblical God that "happen" to match up with the required attributes necessary to create a universe, science cannot prove the Source's identity. For that, other considerations must be made, and other evidences weighed.

Ken: So as long as you continue to insist an intelligent being is responsible for the Big Bang, you are not holding yourself to the same standard you are holding me to.

How so? I'm not asking you to prove the IDENTITY of the Source of things. But I am holding you accountable for what the massive evidences show is necessary for the Source of the universe, and that blind, uncontrolled, unguided things cannot as we've long what we observed many things and evidences from the creation itself, as is revealed an astounding collective interaction of incredible precision. And you can't show many any non-thinking / non-living entity that reveals intelligence or creative capabilities, that aren't somehow being controlled or impacted by at least a primitive intelligence (like insects have).

[Kenny]

Ken, a theist includes all people who believe in a creator or higher intelligence that is the Source of the universe. And all those scientists - and there is an enormous list of people from all fields of the sciences who A) believe in God, and B) they believe so BECAUSE of the incredible evidences that show there HAS to be some such source.

I said SCIENTIFIC evidence. Any absurdity could be considered evidence! If I believe the Earth is flat, the fact that it looks flat to me could be considered evidence. If I believe Santa builds toys at the North Pole, the very existence of toys could be considered evidence that Santa is real. That’s why I said scientific evidence, because there are standards when it comes to scientific evidence, and there is no scientific evidence that God even exists; let alone is responsible for the Big Bang. I know that’s what the Pope believes, but even he knows better than to try to claim science is behind this belief.

Ken: So as long as you continue to insist an intelligent being is responsible for the Big Bang, you are not holding yourself to the same standard you are holding me to.

How so? I'm not asking you to prove the IDENTITY of the Source of things. But I am holding you accountable for what the massive evidences show is necessary for the Source of the universe, and that blind, uncontrolled, unguided things cannot as we've long what we observed many things and evidences from the creation itself, as is revealed an astounding collective interaction of incredible precision.

Why don’t you hold yourself accountable and recognize there is zero evidence that an intelligent being could live eternally, and create stuff out of nothing? Again; hold yourself to the same standards you hold me to.

[PaulSacramento]

Why don’t you hold yourself accountable and recognize there is zero evidence that an intelligent being could live eternally, and create stuff out of nothing? Again; hold yourself to the same standards you hold me to.

There is ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that a MATERIAL intelligent being can be eternal.
There is ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that the quantum singularity from which the big band started had always existed.

Both these statements are 100% true.

They are also irrelevant to the argument.

God is NOT material.
The quantum singularity need not have always been there or COULD have always been there and it would still not be relevant to the argument that:
Things that COME INTO being, require a cause.
Or:
Things that change from one sate to another, are acted upon by something outside themselves.

[Kenny]

Why don’t you hold yourself accountable and recognize there is zero evidence that an intelligent being could live eternally, and create stuff out of nothing? Again; hold yourself to the same standards you hold me to.

There is ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that a MATERIAL intelligent being can be eternal.
There is ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that the quantum singularity from which the big band started had always existed.

Both these statements are 100% true.

They are also irrelevant to the argument.

There is also ZERO SCIENTIFIC evidence that ANY type of intelligent being can be eternal. Now that is completely relevant to the argument