Science and Creation

[BryanH]

Ok. So, what is the obvious answer for you?

There is no obvious answer... That's the whole issue...

[Neige]

Well, it is obvious that nothing is infinite (except for abstract concepts) and that our universe began to exist at one point in history. At least that's what the current scientific consensus is. And I would further point out it's obvious that no matter which theory or hypothesis you choose to believe, you simply cannot avoid the initial cause problem. If there was absolutely nothing (no matter, no energy, no spacetime) "before" the BB, then why would our universe be born at all? Why would we be here? How can a natural world be created from nothing by something that is itself natural?

[BryanH]

@Neige

"Nothing" is an abstract concept and it is also arbitrary. You can't find "nothing" somewhere. There is always something there. Even in the vacuum of space, we arbitrarely say that there is "nothing" there, but the truth is that there is something there.

To put it in simple words: 'nothing doesn't exist'

Nothing implies the absence of matter, energy, spacetime and ultimately the absence of God

Can you show me such a 'place'?

Scientists might assume that the universe came out of nothing, but can you really prove that?

I stand by my statement: there isn't an obvious answer for such a question.

[Neige]

Scientists might assume that the universe came out of nothing, but can you really prove that?

I think most mainstream astronomers subscribe to the quantum fluctuations in the vacuum as the initial kick starter of our universe. That means they don't believe it came out of nothing but rather out of something - vacuum, space devoid of matter. And this is why I said you can't avoid the initial cause problem. Even if this is true, where did the initial vacuum come from? There cannot be an infinite amount of past events, therefore nothing natural can exist "since forever".

[BryanH]

I think most mainstream astronomers subscribe to the quantum fluctuations in the vacuum as the initial kick starter of our universe. That means they don't believe it came out of nothing but rather out of something - vacuum, space devoid of matter. And this is why I said you can't avoid the initial cause problem. Even if this is true, where did the initial vacuum come from? There cannot be an infinite amount of past events, therefore nothing natural can exist "since forever".

Where did the initial vacuum come from? Sorry, that is the answer that we all are looking for. Nobody has an obvious answer.

Let me amuse you a little bit (hope so anyways): I believe in the Vacuum, you believe in God...

I don't know how the vacuum managed to appear on the map.

If God is the obvious answer for you, can you tell me how God appeared on the map?

Science and religion have the same problem: an initial assumption that is considered to be true (a point of origin).

[Neige]

If God is the obvious answer for you, can you tell me how God appeared on the map?

I cannot tell you what could have caused something supernatural to exist, since all my knowledge is confined by natural limitations. Supernatural is just what it is - something we cannot explain with the means available to us. But why should we reject something that is true on the basis of not fully comprehending it?

I think it's simple logical deduction:
1. There cannot be an infinite amount of past events, therefore the universe (and the initial space of vacuum) had an initial cause and beginning.
2. It either magically appeared out of true nothing or was created by something supernatural, e.g. God. There is no third option. If you assert it was caused by something natural, you simply put it one step backwards. What caused this natural cause then?

Everything natural has a cause. So there must be an initial cause that is uncaused. If that doesn't call for the supernatural, I don't know what does.

[BryanH]

I cannot tell you what could have caused something supernatural to exist, since all my knowledge is confined by natural limitations

Have you tried expanding your knowledge beyond your natural abilities and failed?

I think it's simple logical deduction:
1. There cannot be an infinite amount of past events, therefore the universe (and the initial space of vacuum) had an initial cause and beginning.
2. It either magically appeared out of nothing or was created by something supernatural, e.g. God. There is no third option. If you assert it was caused by something natural, you simply put it one step backwards. What caused this natural cause then?

1) There simply has to be an initial cause that is uncaused. If that doesn't call for the supernatural, I don't know what does.

I'm pushing your buttons a little bit here, but let's remember the times people used to worship fire and lightning because they didn't understand it.
As I am looking at this, God is an evolutionary form of 'fire' and 'lightning'.

We reached a place and time where we are able to understand basic stuff about the universe. Because we don't know, we say it's God's 'fault'.

2) You are using a linear reasoning model for proving your beliefs. Basically you are using a classic cause-effect explanation.

Now imagine a circular reasoning model. There is no more cause and effect, or anyways, there is no point of it.

3)There cannot be an infinite amount of past events

Actually that;'s not entirely true:

again, imagine: you can go to into the past 1 second ago, 0.1 seconds ago, 0.01 seconds ago, 0.001 seconds ago,... 0.00001 seconds ago, etc etc

[Neige]

I cannot tell you what could have caused something supernatural to exist, since all my knowledge is confined by natural limitations

Have you tried expanding your knowledge beyond your natural abilities and failed?

Are you implying it's possible to explain the unexplainable? God to me is a mystery, but He is the only logical explanation for the cause of our existence that I see.

Basically you are using a classic cause-effect explanation.

And it's not valid because...?

There cannot be an infinite amount of past events

Actually that;'s not entirely true:

LOL! There's a slight distinction between real past events and abstract things like numbers. Are you arguing that the Universe has existed for an infinite amount of time?

[BryanH]

Are you implying it's possible to explain the unexplainable?

Yes. History is my witness for that.

God to me is a mystery, but He is the only logical explanation for the cause of our existence that I see.

Of course God is a mystery... but why would God be the only logical explanation? That I don't see.

LOL! There's a slight distinction between real past events and abstract things like numbers. Are you arguing that the Universe has existed for an infinite amount of time?

That is one paradox among others... Feel free to check on it... That is why I said that linear reasoning might not be the solution.

[Neige]

Of course God is a mystery... but why would God be the only logical explanation? That I don't see.

Because there is nothing natural that could have caused the natural world to exist. At the very least, it has to be something supernatural. Don't call it God. Call it the Infinite Source, the Uncaused Cause, the Great Engineer or whatever you like. Some people seem to be allergic to the word God... but there is simply no other explanation.

I'm not asking for a detailed and specific explanation. I'm asking what could purely hypothetically be the cause of the initial spacetime and be itself natural. Oh, wait... There is no answer to that question, because natural things themselves only exist within spacetime.

We're sitting in our little box, thinking that because we can measure stuff inside it, there must be nothing outside it. That's why we're stuck with "we don't know yet", "there is no evidence yet". But we will never have evidence for the first cause. You can't measure something you can't reach.

[BryanH]

Because there is nothing natural that could have caused the natural world to exist. At the very least, it has to be something supernatural. Don't call it God. Call it the Infinite Source, the Uncaused Cause, the Great Engineer or whatever you like. Some people seem to be allergic to the word God... but there is simply no other explanation.

There is simply no other explanation yet. It's the same with 'fire' and 'lightning'.

There is no answer to that question, because natural things themselves only exist within spacetime

Well, this is somehow unproven. First you would have to find a 'place' where spacetime doesn't exist and 'place' a natural thing/being there. Let's see if it disappears into non-existence .

But we will never have evidence for the first cause. You can't measure something you can't reach.

Well, I can't argue with you, but then again, it depends on which means of transport you use.

[Neige]

There is no answer to that question, because natural things themselves only exist within spacetime

Well, this is somehow unproven. First you would have to find a 'place' where spacetime doesn't exist and 'place' a natural thing/being there.

LOL, I can't believe you're arguing this point. You can't physically put a natural object (consisting of matter and taking up spatial dimensions) "outside" the space. It's just impossible on so many levels. But you don't have to perform an experiment to know that nothing natural can exist there. If something indeed exists "outside" spacetime, it can only be something nonspatial, nonmaterial and nontemporal (remember: no space, no time). Whatever it is, it's the direct opposite of natural.

[bippy123]

@Neige

"Nothing" is an abstract concept and it is also arbitrary. You can't find "nothing" somewhere. There is always something there. Even in the vacuum of space, we arbitrarely say that there is "nothing" there, but the truth is that there is something there.

To put it in simple words: 'nothing doesn't exist'

Nothing implies the absence of matter, energy, spacetime and ultimately the absence of God

Can you show me such a 'place'?

Scientists might assume that the universe came out of nothing, but can you really prove that?

I stand by my statement: there isn't an obvious answer for such a question.

Bryan, the more specific word we mean is NON-BEING not nothing.
William Land Craig empasized this when he was talking about the universe being created out of nothing, and I believe the nothing meant here is a material nothing. God can never be non being because he has always existed.

[BryanH]

If something indeed exists "outside" spacetime, it can only be something nonspatial, nonmaterial and nontemporal (remember: no space, no time). Whatever it is, it's the direct opposite of natural.

How do you know that? Now really... We barely have started to gain some knowledge about spacetime and you are asserting some bald things already. We don't even know what time is and how it works. We don't even know how space works to be more accurate.

Bryan, the more specific word we mean is NON-BEING not nothing.
William Land Craig empasized this when he was talking about the universe being created out of nothing, and I believe the nothing meant here is a material nothing. God can never be non being because he has always existed.

I do get your point.

God can never be non being because he has always existed

This is an assumption just as others are.

That is what I was discussing with Neige: both and science and religion start from an assumption because right now we can't go beyond that point.

[bippy123]

Bryan, you either believe in a necessary being or you believe in infinite regression. I think this article by Peter Kreeft will explain why an infinite regression of causes is illogical and he does it in a very easy to understand why. I will post a few paragraphs from the article, but I really would recommend reading through it all.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

Now the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence. Each of these things must therefore have a cause. My parents caused me, my grandparents caused them, et cetera. But it is not that simple. I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriages of my ancestors. The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes. But does the universe as a whole have a cause? Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes? If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God.
Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, "Don't look to me for the final explanation. I'm just an instrument. Something else caused me." If that's all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck. God is the one who says, "The buck stops here."
If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.
Here is one more analogy. Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.