Logic and creation

[Bravus]

As promised:

Preamble 1: Matter, energy, space and time created out of nothing in the Big Bang, about 14 billion (he says 15 billion) years ago

Preamble 2: 'Metaphysical principle': 'out of nothing, nothing comes'

First argument:

Premise 1: 'Whatever begins to exist must have a cause'

Premise 2: 'The universe began to exist'

Conclusion: 'Therefore the universe has a cause'

(I find this argument to be logically valid: if the statement 'all that begins to exist has a cause' is true and the statement 'the universe began to exist' is true then it logically follows that the universe has a cause. I have no problem with the second premise, but the first requires further study.)

One statement that is not really argued for, just stated: 'The cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless and immaterial being of unimaginable power which created the universe'

(it is plausible but not logically necessary that the cause is a being)

Final argument:

Premise 1: If the cause were not a personal being but an impersonal set of conditions, there would not have been choice in when the universe began, so the universe would be eternal

Premise 2: The universe is not eternal, but had a specific beginning

Conclusion: Therefore the being who caused the universe is personal and has the power of choice (choosing when to begin the universe)

(this last argument is logically valid too, although it's the most complex argument in the video)

I'll leave all arguments and evaluation, apart from the low-level logical stuff, out of this post. Are we agreed that I've summarised Dr Craig's presentation fairly and accurately?

[phkrause]

Good one Bravus, but this is way over my head. LOL

I'll stick with accepting the Bible as it reads. I don't need to get to third base. I do enjoy reading the back and forth though.

[Dr. Shane]

From a non-religious point of view, how do we know the universe had a beginning? Isn't that itself an assumption?

[Bravus]

The Big Bang theory is our best current understanding (from a non-religious perspective, which is what Shane asked about), and that theory suggests that the universe (this universe - there could be others) had a beginning. That theory is very likely to be adapted and improved in the future, but it's unlikely that those changes will be so dramatic as to suggest the universe didn't have a beginning.

(In much the same ways that Einstein's new theory of gravity didn't mean apples fall upward - it explained all the same phenomena Newton's did plus a few more.)

[Dr. Shane]

The Big Bang theory is based on the assumption that the universe had a beginning. We don't believe the universe had a beginning because of the theory. Correct? That is, the assumption of a beginning came first, then the theory - not the other way around.

[cardw]

God is eternal in nature there is no such problem.

For an athiest to argue that matter is eternal, they have to provide proof of that outside of the current known laws of physics...

...Which does not supply the idea that matter is eternal.

Originally Posted By: cardw

Your statement that "having an eternal god solves the problem" ignores the problem. Your logic only starts after you have an eternal god. There is no logical explanation for the origin of god. You have simply set the problem back one more semantic label.

Not at all.

God is eternal.

Because you start from the premise that that is impossible, seeking to insist that God must be created, you have created your own problem.

[Bravus]

The Big Bang theory is based on the assumption that the universe had a beginning. We don't believe the universe had a beginning because of the theory. Correct? That is, the assumption of a beginning came first, then the theory - not the other way around.

No, scientists before Einstein simply did not know whether the universe was eternal or not, and did not make strong statements. Einstein developed some calculations as part of the theory of General Relativity that suggested the possibility of a Big Bang, but it was not until Penzias and Wilson discovered the Cosmic Background Radiation in the 60s that the evidence seemed predominantly to point to a universe with a beginning.

[Twilight]

The Big Bang theory is our best current understanding (from a non-religious perspective, which is what Shane asked about), and that theory suggests that the universe (this universe - there could be others) had a beginning. That theory is very likely to be adapted and improved in the future, but it's unlikely that those changes will be so dramatic as to suggest the universe didn't have a beginning.

(In much the same ways that Einstein's new theory of gravity didn't mean apples fall upward - it explained all the same phenomena Newton's did plus a few more.)

The Big Bang theory is not our best current understanding Bravus.

It is naturalism's current best understanding.

Why do I say that?

It assumes evolution of matter and energy, evolution of systems.

The best current understanding we have as Christians that place the bible first is:

"God spoke and it was done."

That when God creates, He creates fully functioning systems out of nothing.

I do not find in the bible anywhere, this idea that God creates components that produce systems by the process of time and chance.

Nowhere.

So when you say "we have", be very careful who you are claiming knowledge for.

Mark

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Because you start from the premise that that is impossible, seeking to insist that God must be created, you have created your own problem.

No it's impossible to prove logically. If you accept that an eternal God is the creator of the universe you can build a logical argument, but you cannot prove that this God is eternal. You have simply used semantics, not logic. It's smoke and mirrors.

There is adaquete proof.

You have to have an eternal source for the universe.

Even Atheists recognise that.

So if Atheists and Creationists say that there must be an eternal source, then that would indicate that their is a common line of logic between two opposing viewpoints.

And because there is a common line of logic, it establishes that the idea of an Eternal Source is indeed logical.

[Bravus]

References please for atheists acknowledging that there is an eternal source. Never ever seen any.

[Twilight]

References please for atheists acknowledging that there is an eternal source. Never ever seen any.

Okay you do not like the term eternal source...

How about an "eternal state"?

http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsforgod/a/cosmological.htm

"It is worth pointing out that time is an aspect of the universe — without the universe, there is no time. Thus, it is possible to say that the universe has existed at every point in time and that at no point in time has there been no universe. That is just about as close to “eternal” as we’re going to get. Because time is an aspect of the universe, it‘s hard to see how it can be said to have a “beginning” in the way the word is normally used. The concept of a “beginning” normally assumes a “time before” at which the object did not exist — but there was no “time before” the universe."

[Twilight]

References please for atheists acknowledging that there is an eternal source. Never ever seen any.

I notice you did not respond to my point about God never using simple systems that build themselves up into bigger more complex systems in the bible Bravus?

Given your claim that the Big Bang is the most commendable theory that we can have...?

[Twilight]

Some may be forgetting that Bible is not a science book!!!!

And "Origin of the Species" is?

:-)

I would rather take the inspired writings of the Bible over the uninspired writings of someone who had no authority from God.

As a Christian of course...

[Twilight]

Again...seperate issue! God in my mind is very logical, where do all the 'laws' that explaine the universe originate from. We simply do not understand them all that well and keep discovering more about them. Nothing to be afraid of! To simply say that all our knowledge comes from the Bible...would probably have us back in the stone age or when ever. We have brains with a tremendous capacity to learn and to make choices. To just stop at Bible explanations, limited, and by ancient writers understanding, why the need or this brain we have.

Back to topic!!

Why is accepting the inspiration from God in the Bible going to lead us back into the Stone Age?

The point is very simple.

God shows us in the Bible, in the only example we have of Him creating, that He does this by calling fully formed systems into place.

The Big Bang argues against this.

So to state that the Big Bang is the best theory we have, is ignoring the only inspired account we have of God "creating".

Where in the Bible do you see God creating elements that combine themselves into complex systems?

Nowhere.

Where do you see in the Bible God creating fully functioning complex systems?

In Genesis.

So as a Christian, I have to go with the only Inspired source I have.

I would have to present that God creates fully functioning systems on that basis.

And guess what.

When they turned the Hubble telescope and aimed it towards the point in the sky where they expected to see the "formation of the universe" from the Big Bang, they found what?

FULLY FORMED GALAXIES.

So with that in mind, which theory fits best?

The one based on naturalism that wants to insert evolutionary theory everywhere?

Or the one based on the Bible and Gods Creative process?

I say the Bible.

[Bravus]

Quote:

When they turned the Hubble telescope and aimed it towards the point in the sky where they expected to see the "formation of the universe" from the Big Bang, they found what?

FULLY FORMED GALAXIES.

You keep bringing this up. Can you link to the source of this claim? On it's face it sounds nonsensical: the Hubble is a very recent instrument, from a time when the Big Bang theory was fairly well developed. And the Big Bang theory does not predict a specific centre or origin point for the universe.

[Bravus]

http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html

[Bravus]

I went looking for Twilight's claim, since (despite having posted other stuff since I asked) he hasn't so far answered the question. I still hope he will, but I wondered whether he was talking about these findings from 2004:

http://www.gemini.edu/node/74

If so, it's not so much looking at a specific location as the origin or centre of the universe (and, to be fair, that may have been my misapprehension of what he meant) but far enough out that the light now arriving here is light from early in the age of the universe.

And it's true that the scientists on the Gemini (not Hubble) Observatory were surprised to find quite mature galaxies where they'd expected immature ones.

I'll be tracking down their actual publications (which are mentioned in this press release) and the responses to those in the intervening years.

[Bravus]

Here's the abstract of their Nature paper: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Natur.430..181G

And here's a press release about it that includes more details and some diagrams: http://www.gemini.edu/index.php?q=node/8

Here's the full text of a paper in Nature by Gregory Wirth talking about the importance of the findings: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6996/full/430149a.html

[Bravus]

I might actually drop a short note to Roberto Abraham, one of the scientists on this team, to ask whether there've been further developments since 2004 in this field.

That's assuming, of course, that Twilight is willing and able to confirm that I have in fact found what he's been talking about. If he had something different in mind I hope he'll link it.

[Twilight]

You continue to ignore all the rest of the universe! There is a lot of 'unformed' matter out there and we still do no see to the farther reaches! Remember, what we see out there happened a long time ago! I say you limit God with your interpretation of the written word, how can we do that? Maybe God started it all with the BB of this universe? You require 'proofs' for your 'faith' it seems to me, I don't. I enjoy the world of 'what if', since my only source for knowledge of God is but a speck in the universe.

Again, none of this destroys none of my belief in the Bible for its intended purpose.

How do you know it is "unformed matter"?

Simple, that is what the secular scientists that worship the religion of naturalistic evolution, have presented and you have clearly accepted it.

Why cannot it just be "matter"?

You say I limit God with my interpretation.

But I am saying God forms fully operating systems in the Bible.

You are limiting God to the bias that secular evolutionary thought imposes on you.

Why is it limiting God to state He has brought everything into existance as a fully functioning system?

What is limiting about that?

If you are arguing that I limit my uderstanding to the direct revelation of God revealed in the Bible, and if anything contradicts that revelation, I dismiss it.

Then yes...

...Guilty as charged.

Creationism and Anti-theism are not good bed fellows...

[Twilight]

Quote:

When they turned the Hubble telescope and aimed it towards the point in the sky where they expected to see the "formation of the universe" from the Big Bang, they found what?

FULLY FORMED GALAXIES.

You keep bringing this up. Can you link to the source of this claim? On it's face it sounds nonsensical: the Hubble is a very recent instrument, from a time when the Big Bang theory was fairly well developed. And the Big Bang theory does not predict a specific centre or origin point for the universe.

Please notice this.

That when the hubble is pointed as far back as it can see (13 billion years apparently), all it finds is fully formed Galaxies.

Do not be fulled by the presenters use of the term "baby galaxies", which is of course propaganda.

Here is a link for you Bravus.

When you have finished watching it, maybe you can explain to me, why we have no images of the time "before" the galaxies formed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEuVVCkVO0Q

[Twilight]

http://www.exploratorium.edu/hubble/tools/center.html

Whilst I hate to burst your expanding universe bubble Bravus...

If what you say is true, then would not everything expand?

Wouldn't everything including the space between all the atoms in our bodies for instance be constantly expanding?

[Twilight]

And it's true that the scientists on the Gemini (not Hubble) Observatory were surprised to find quite mature galaxies where they'd expected immature ones.

Fully formed systems at the point of creation perhaps Bravus?

Would they have been surpised if they had taken account of the Biblical explanation of Gods Creative processes?

NO.

This is what happens when we chase after and pander to acceptace with secular science.

We start trying to race from the wrong starting block...

[Twilight]

And it's true that the scientists on the Gemini (not Hubble) Observatory were surprised to find quite mature galaxies where they'd expected immature ones.

Fully formed Galaxy systems at the point of creation perhaps Bravus?

Would they have been surpised if they had taken account of the Biblical explanation of Gods Creative processes?

NO.

This is what happens when we chase after and pander to acceptace with secular science that has at its centre the sole desire to remove God from the picture.

We start trying to race from the wrong starting block...

But I hope you see now, that the physical evidence that we can point to as to the manner of Gods Creation is one of fully functioning systems and not an "evolving Big Bang hypothesis"?

This is why I reject your argument that the Big Bang is the "best current model".

It is not.

The best current model is:

"God did it, and He did it with STYLE, He spoke and the Universe came into existance fully functioning as a life support system..."

[Twilight]

Here's the abstract of their Nature paper: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Natur.430..181G

And here's a press release about it that includes more details and some diagrams: http://www.gemini.edu/index.php?q=node/8

Here's the full text of a paper in Nature by Gregory Wirth talking about the importance of the findings: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6996/full/430149a.html

As most of the quote on the nature.com site was pay per view...

I can only quote this exclamation of surprise:

"The discovery of massive, evolved galaxies at much greater distances than expected — and hence at earlier times in the history of the Universe — is a challenge to our understanding of how galaxies form."