1) Definition of God
A) Minimal definition
God is an entity that is above and beyond the universe. This means
that God is not subject to the laws of the universe. In addition, He
created the universe and the physical laws that govern it. He has
existed eternally, which is why He had no cause for His existence.
Moreover, God is able to make decisions. He is not merely a robot,
but instead has the ability to decide to do certain things.
B) Christian definition
The Christian God has all of the aforementioned characteristics, as well
as many others. Among these are omnibenevolence (all-loving),
immutability (unchanging), an interest in mankind, omniscience
(all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful). He is perfectly just, and is the
basis for all morality. He created the moral code, which is imbedded
within all humans. He is three persons in one God, consisting of the
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The Son, Jesus Christ, sacrificed himself
in order to allow us to live in heaven for eternity.
2) Uses of definitions
A) People vary on what they believe defines God.
B) The minimal definition is most important when arguing for the existence of God.
C) The Christian definition is important to know so we can answer nonbelievers and
also for our own benefit.
3) Atheistic Objection to the Cosmological Argument
A) The universe has existed eternally.
1) This used to be the most common objection.
2) Has lost popularity due to scientific findings.
3) Steady-State theory has been shown to not be plausible.
4) The Oscillating universe theory also has significant problem.
a) There is no know mechanism for the supposed bounce back
after the big crunch. In fact the evidence from mathematics
seems to say that those models start from the Big Bank, expand
collapse, and then end.
5) Recent measurements by scientists have shown that the universe is
expanding at “escape velocity”. This means that the universe is moving
too quickly to ever collapse back into a big crunch.
6) Thermodynamic properties of the universe dictate that, even if the
universe did oscillate, an eternal universe could not occur. The farther
you go back in time, the shorter the time span of oscillations. The effect
of entropy production will be to enlarge the cosmic scale from cycle
to cycle. Looking back in time, each cycle generates less entropy,
Had a smaller cycle time, and had a smaller cycle expansion factor
than the cycle that followed it. Based on this information, the multi cycle
model has an infinite future, but only a finite past. Thermodynamics-
the most overriding laws governing the universe, prevent oscillating
models from working.
7) According to the best estimates the universe still only has about half the
mass needed for re-contraction. This includes the combined total of both
luminous matter and non-luminous matter, as well as any possible
contribution of neutrinos to total mass. (Note: Some may claim that dark
matter accounts for this difference, but, as it stands, dark matter is largely
theoretical and mysterious. Until the scientific standing of dark matter
is on solid ground, this particular scientific evidence stands. Even if the
universe has a significant amount of dark matter, it is unlikely that this matter
will be able to account for the large difference between the mass needed for
re-contraction and the mass we observe.) This also goes against item 5.
B) Our universe is merely the result of a “Super-cosmos” spewing off universes.
1) This is just an extension of the eternal universe argument.
2) This theory totally lacks evidentiary support. It is completely ad hoc (An ad
hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to refute
one’s theory.). It is not even theoretically possible for us to locate any
evidence to support it. (Note: It is often argued that God is not an
appropriate explanation because men can never know or investigate God.
If this is true, then the atheist must admit that this particular objection fails,
because there is no way to investigate any alternative universes.)
3) The “Super-cosmos” that created our universe must have existed eternally,
or it would have required a cause. Yet, this is not possible since an
actual infinite number of events cannot occur.
C) It is not true that everything which begins to exist requires a cause.
1) Atheist are fond of asserting that the posting of God will result in the
in the breakdown of the scientific method. If this is so, then the postulation
that something occurred for no reason would also be damaging to science.
Science is about discovering the underlying causes for events. If we are to
exclaim, “That event just happened because it did”, we are certainly not
expanding upon our knowledge for how the universe operates. Just boldly
exclaiming that “it just happened” is not an actual answer. To exclaim that
something can come from nothing for no reason is simply the breakdown
of rational thought and analysis. Yet quantum vacuum fluctuation theory
has been offered to show that it can happen.
2) The quantum fluctuation cosmology theorizes an infinitely large “universe-
as-a-whole”, from which multiple mini-universes appear as a result of
fluctuations. In this “universe-as-a-whole”, virtual particle pairs constantly
Fluctuate with energy. This can supposedly lead to the naturalistic creation
of our universe.
3) It is not true that the quantum vacuum is literally “nothing”. The so-called
vacuum is actually a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles,
which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. This has been
confirmed by many scientists including Davies who admits:”The processes
described here do not represent the creation of matter out of nothing, but the
conversion of pre-existing energy into material form.” Redefining nothing
to mean something should not be accepted.
D) Stephen Hawking’s Quantum Cosmology refuter the Cosmological Argument.
1) The Hartle-Hawking model purports to eliminate the need for a First Cause,
even while maintaining that the universe has not existed forever.
2) The Hartle-Hawking model uses the concept of “imaginary time” by plugging
numbers such as the square root of -3 into equations. Since there is no real
number for the square root of -3, it is referred to as an imaginary number.
The Hartle-Hawking model uses these numbers in order to create a concept
called “imaginary time”, which, when plugged into the equations, eliminates
the need to a First Cause. However, this whole line of thinking is confusing.
What are we to make of the concept of “imaginary time”? Those who hold
to this model have the burden of proof to explain just what this combination
of words really mean. Otherwise, we might as well say that “blarks” eliminate
the need for a First Cause. Just as “imaginary inches” is totally useless as
actual concept, so is “imaginary time”.
3) One of the basic principles of using “imaginary numbers” is that you have
to convert them to real numbers if the equations are to hold. This they refuse
to do, because once the “imaginary numbers” are replaced with real numbers,
the need for a First Cause comes back into the picture.
E) If it is true that everything which begins to exist requires a cause, then God requires
a cause also.
1) This objection fails to recognize that God has existed eternally and requires
no cause. We are not arguing that “Whatever exists requires a cause”, but
rather, “Whatever begins to exist requires a cause”. Therefore, since God
never began to exist, He does not require a cause.
2) It is also argued that since God does not have a beginning and therefore
Does not require a cause, then we are well within our rational confines to
claim that the universe did not have a beginning and does not require a
cause for its existence. Unfortunately there are numerous philosophical
and scientific evidences against the eternality of the universe.
F) Even if it is true that the universe requires a cause, God is not necessarily the best
Explanation.
1) The objection is that even it all of the premises of the argument are true, there
is no reason to suppose that God is the only reasonable explanation for the
existence of the universe.
2) The nature of the First Cause requires exactly the same entity as outlined in
the minimal definition of God. The three major points in the minimal
definition of God are as follows: 1) An entity that is above and beyond the
laws of the universe, and not subject to the laws of the universe. 2) An entity
that has existed for eternity. 3) An entity with the ability to make decisions.
a) Since the universe contains physical laws, the entity that created the
universe would have to be separate from these laws. Therefore, the
entity would be operating in a different realm, and would not be
subject to the laws of the universe it created. Therefore, this
characteristic of God is a necessary component of the First Cause
entity in question.
b) It is necessary that the First Cause entity be eternal, or else that
entity would require a cause itself, based on the principle “Everything
that begins to exist requires a cause”. It is therefore true that the
First Cause entity in question must have existed eternally, otherwise
leading to on infinite regression of event, which is a logical
impossibility.
c) This is the most important point. If it can be shown that the entity
responsible for the creation of the universe makes decisions, we are
forced to acknowledge the existence of God in one form or another.
A naturalistic cause does not have the ability to make decisions.
Therefore, if this point is shown to be highly plausible, it would seem
inevitable that we will be forced to admit that God is the only logical
possibility for the First Cause.
Is such a conclusion possible. The First Cause requires an entity
with the ability to make decisions, because an eternally existing cause
without such an ability would not be capable of creating something
unique. An automated, inanimate cause cannot will into existence
something, because such a cause only responds to conditions. On
the other hand, God has the ability to make decisions, and thus can
“will” something into existence even in the absence of any automated
condition to do so. An inanimate, eternally existing cause cannot create
something unique, while an entity that is able to make decisions can.
G) The argument involves circular reasoning since the only possible eternally existing
entity is God.
1) This is a fairly common response to the argument in question. However, it is
not our contention that God is the only potential eternally existing entity.
For instance, it is possible that there exists more than one god. Or, it is
possible that there are physical objects that have existed forever outside of
the universe. For example, it is possible that God has a book, and that
book has existed alongside Him forever. Therefore, since it is at least
possible that something other than God has existed eternally, it is not
circular reasoning to claim that everything which begins to exist requires a
cause.
2) However, it may be argued further and said, “If you admit that other things
could has existed for all eternity, then why should I believe in your God?
What if there are multiple gods, or what if the first cause was an inanimate
object that created the universe?” Again, it is impossible for an inanimate
object to cause the creation of something unique. As far as the multiple
gods question, it makes no difference for the atheist, because whether there
is one God or a thousand, atheism is still refuted. It must be mentioned here
that we have never claimed that the Christian God exists with reference to
the Cosmological Argument. This argument is only to show the atheist that
a supernatural entity does exist. We can always argue on the basis of
Ockham’s razor and consider it more likely that one God is responsible
rather than multiple gods.
H) The Cosmological Argument is merely God-of-the-gaps.
1) This objection has to do with the fact that science is always discovering
new things. Since this is true, the atheist attempts to make their case by
advancing the idea that science has yet to discover the origin of the universe
and therefore it is not necessary to insert God into the equation. Just give
the scientific community time and it will be discovered. However, is there
any hope that naturalistic explanations will be forthcoming?
a) Is there any reason to believe that, in the future, scientists will discover
that the universe is indeed eternal and has existed forever?
Well, what is the trend in the data? Almost all of the discoveries
that have refuted an eternal universe have been uncovered fairly
recently. Scientists has all but abandoned the concept.
b) Is there any reason to believe that, in the future, we will discover that
it is indeed possible for the universe to come into existence uncaused
out of absolutely nothing? Sadly, it is true many scientist and
philosophers are beginning to consider this idea. All attempts in the
past have failed, so is there any reason to suppose that they will be
more successful in the future? Our vast experience with causal
relationships gives little hope to this idea. The principle of cause
and effect seems to be very simple and logical. Absolute nothing has
no power to create anything. If “nothing” creates something, is it
really “nothing” at all? We have no evidence to even suggest such.
c) Is there any reason to believe that, in the future, we will discover
evidence that there are alternative universes or Super-cosmos or
something of that nature? This objection is the hardest to prove
either way. The existence of these alternate universes does not
seem to be testable. These are usually just ad hoc suggestions to say
the least. There is no actual evidence to support these theories.
d) Is there any reason to believe that, in the future, scientists will discover
a naturalistic First Cause? The idea of a naturalistic First Cause seems
to violate logical principles. It is impossible for an eternally existing
entity to suddenly create something unique out of nothing.
I) The mere existence of atheistic objections demonstrate that God is not necessary.
1) It is claimed that any naturalistic scenario is superior to the God proposition.
Therefore, even if a remote possibility exists that any of the various
alternatives offered is true, it is more rational to believe in it rather that
in the supernatural proposition. We have dealt with just about every
alternative offered by the atheist for the reason the universe exists. In
most cases, the problem with them is mot merely the lack of evidentiary
support, but outright logical contradictions.
2) Most of these naturalistic alternatives are not really very naturalistic at all.
As is the case with the alternative universes or the universe-as-a-whole scheme
promoted by the quantum vacuum fluctuation model, these scenarios involve
aspects of reality that are not only unknown, but also unknowable. Since
we are confined to our universe, there is no way that we could even begin
to analyze or test these models. As such, these models are no more natural
than the God proposition
3) These alternative theories all boldly fly in the face of empirical evidence.
Scientific findings have completely undermined these theories while at the
same time supporting the God proposition.
4) What about the claim that anything is more likely than God? Should any
atheistic theory, no matter how badly undermined by scientific findings,
be considered more rational than the existence of God? Not necessarily so.
When an atheist claims this, they are basically raising the white flag and
admitting defeat, even though they may foolishly announce there victory.
If the evidence for God is so persuasive that one must embrace theories
which apparently involve logical contradictions, and also have a myriad
of scientific findings flying in their face in order to hold to atheism. Then,
I say, the existence of God is firmly established.
No comments:
Post a Comment