« Challenge Response: Saying "God Did It" Is Lazy | Main | Discipled by Narnia »

September 27, 2013

Comments

Q: Who created God?"
A: God is uncreated, by definition.

Judicious definition: the easy way to find out about the world.

But there are good scientific and philosophical reasons to believe the universe did, in fact, begin to exist.

And there are newer models that seem to indicate that our universe formed from the collapse of a previous universe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce

It is far more reasonable to simply recognize the attributes of this cause as an accurate description of God.

Only for the true believer who considers the existence of god to be axiomatic. You haven't even demonstrated that god exists. At least we have evidence that the universe exists.

(1) whatever begins to exist has a cause,


How do you know this? Maybe it doesn't.


(2) the universe began to exist,


How do you know this? Maybe it didn't.


therefore, (3) it is reasonable to believe the universe has a cause.


False premises and such...

Dear Richard Squawkins – The god of delusion.
Is there almost certainly no God? Really?

How about some axiomatic, syllogistic ruminations? :

1. THE solution is obviously to postulate, extrapolate, and infer the most improbable singular infinite Supreme Being.
2. An infinite regression is logically impossible and absurd, but an exhaustive, finite regression is logical.
3. Everything that is designed necessarily requires a more improbable and more complex designer.
4. An exhaustive regress of designers necessarily requires that the most improbable designer be an infinite Supreme Being.


5. The infinite Supreme Being is necessarily singular and logically cannot create another infinite Supreme Being.
6. Statistics and science do not rightly apply to the inherent immeasurability and improbability of the singular infinite (1)*(∞) Supreme Being.
7. Statistics and science also do not rightly apply to the inherent zero values of absolute nothing (0)*(∞). If nothing ever was, nothing would be.
8. The singular infinite (1)*(∞) Supreme Being always is and never was not.
9. We are finite, contingent beings that exist in our finite, contingent universe.
10. The singular infinite Supreme Being can create any finite system or finite being, but none such is necessary.


11. Our universe is a finite system that has been designed and created by a necessary, singular infinite Supreme Being.
12. The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper limits the universe to a finite system. Expansion began with an enormous influx of energy coupled with an intelligent distribution of universe defining seed like characteristics. Their cause is begged.
13. Our universe is a beautiful and delicately structured cosmos, not chaos. Our Earth is a rare diamond adorned with stunning beauty. Our bodies and minds are magnificent! The more we see and learn of our universe, the more beautiful and precious our lives become. From Hubble DEEP Space images of galaxies 13BLY away to family pictures of water skiing and snow skiing vacations on our mantles to X-ray crystallographic images of protein machinery within our cells and everything in between which has been designed for the very benefit of our senses, our intellects, and our enjoyment, their cause is begged.
14. Only a singular infinite Supreme Being would make such beauty and elegance for us to enjoy.


15. There can be no true Atheist. It is a logical error to rule out that which you can never falsify.
16. Pascal’s wager remains in effect. You may not know which God/religion is true, but you know that you are not God.
17. THE solution is obviously to postulate, extrapolate, infer, and worship the most improbable singular infinite Supreme Being.
18. So, stop your squawking Dawkins! And seek God while He may still be found. See Hebrews 11 & 12.

Q: Who married that bachelor.
A: Bachelors are unmarried by definition.

Judicious definition: the easy way to find out about the world.

Ron-

The reason this post has collected nothing but a collective yawn from the very bright theists who visit this blog is because the argument is, as you note, just a simple matter of the definition of terms.

I think you meant to deride this in your initial post. An attitude that I lampooned in my last post.

In all events, the atheist who offers this objection, Dawkins in this case, has shown himself not quite bright enough to understand that what he's said is just one stage removed from this argument:

#) ksd'fj 43nf9( ;jbvjd.
o) vnjehwdffg /////////// rh
So
=+ wjvm e; 9

It is both boring and fruitless to attempt a refutation of the above argument other than to note that the arguer literally does not know what he is talking about.

"But there are good scientific and philosophical reasons to believe the universe did, in fact, begin to exist. And there are newer models that seem to indicate that our universe formed from the collapse of a previous universe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce"

These models come and go over time. The fact that it is proposed means little. The current universe shows little chance of having a curvature, or a reduction in expansion velocity, which would indicate a cyclic model unless you conclude that it was cyclic for an infinite period in the past but is no longer so.

Ron, let's say for a moment that the universe came into existence by the collapse of another universe. The same rules apply to that universe that "collapsed." Where did that universe come from, then? It also began to exist and had a cause, which takes us right back where we were. Unless of course it does not share the same physical characteristics as this universe...wait...that sounds like something metaphysical...

Everyone has seen a bounce. How would the next bounce be as great as the previous without entropy of energy or information/complexity? The bounces cannot logically be infinite. The first bouncer is still begged as well as his control over each subsequent bounce. If even a few thousand atoms are left behind in each contracting universe, bounces cannot logically be infinite. Bounce the model against Occam's Razor and see it pop! Any infinite model has nothing to do with this moment in time anyway, as 99.9999999999999% of all time/bouncing would be lifeless. The fine tuned conditions of our NOW cannot be bounced away.

I think the second law of thermodynamics would not apply to the Big Bounce theory.

This is because the second law isn't really a law of nature at all, but a consequence of the accident that we live in an expanding universe. During a period of universal contraction, entropy decreases in spontaneous reactions without the addition of energy.

With that said, the Big Bounce is a red herring, because the question is not whether matter can be everlasting, but whether it can be necessary.

But matter can't be necessary.

The very fact that we can have interesting debates about whether the Big Bang will expand out until the universe reaches out forever into heat death, or whether it will eventually collapse back down under its own weight and then re-expand in another bang, is only possible because there is a question of how much matter there actually is. And the answer to that question could be "none".

To put it another way, matter is contingent. It might not have existed.

That is what the definition of matter allows and implies.

The definition of God does not allow the same to be true of God. So there is no coherent question of who created God, while there is a coherent question of who created matter.

Dawkin's title for chapter 4:

"Why there almost certainly is no God"

Note that he didn't title it:

"There is no God"

I'll take his argument seriously when he uses the second. Until then, he's a garrulous old crank.

Judicious definition: the easy way to find out about the world.

Not as judicious as saying the world happened by accident.

The comments to this entry are closed.