wilsoncole
Active Member
A fool is a person who works, consistently, against his own interests.Nonbevliever_92, My posts are red.
.I.II. Scientific Confirmation
I.I.II.I. The Expansion of the Universe
This purely philosophical conclusions (I can tell already that this chall be funny.)are supported by recent advances in the field of cosmology. The discovery of the cosmological red shift and cosmic background radiation served to confirm the hypothesis formulated by Friedman and Lemaitre. Both scientists formulated independently of one another a theory that eliminates the need for what Einstein called a 'fudge factor' in his General Theory of Relativity. They did this by predicting the expansion of the universe. (Alright, I'm with you so far.)
This prediction sparked what is called one, if not the single most, spectacular discovery in the history of science. As John Wheeler exclaims, Of all the great predictions that science has made over the centuries was there ever one greater than this, to predict, and to predict correctly, and predict against all expectation a phenomenon so fantastic as the expansion of the universe? [2]
This prediction was confirmed by two scientific discoveries over the past century, the discovery of the cosmological red shift by Edwin Hubble and the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation.
The expansion predicted by the Friedman-Lemaitre model thus predicts that as one goes back in time, the universe is compressed into a mathematical singularity prior to which nothing existed, not even time and space. The implication is that this singularity then forms a boundary in the finite past to space and time itself. PCW Davies comments:
This singularity then expanded to form the universe in the event known as the Big Bang. The standard Big Bang model then, as formulated by Friedman and Lemaitre, predicts a universe that is not eternal in the past but began to exist a finite time ago. Now, scientists have been trying for the past century or so, to craft a model that precludes the universe beginning to exist but none so far has had much success. The 20th century history of cosmology can perhaps be described as a series of failed attempts to craft a working alternative model to the standard Big Bang model. (Dear lord I've fogotten what I asked in the OP this has gone on so long...)If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.[3]
All these attempts however came to what could be called a watershed with the publication by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin of the theorem that now bears their name. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) Theorem predicts that any universe that is on average expanding even at a very minimal rate is not past-eternal and had an absolute beginning. (hasn't that already been debunked?)This applies even to cyclic models of the universe and even to eternal inflationary multiverses. Vilenkin, in his book, is blunt about the implications of this theory, It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.[4]
The BGV Theorem single-handedly sweeps aside all the most important attempts to find an alternate model of the universe that does not involve an absolute beginning. (Some theorems just refuse to listen.)
I.I.II.II. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
There is a second scientific confirmation however that involves a law that is so well understood especially in comparison the the relatively controversial standard model. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, elements within a closed system tend to, over time, result in a state of rest, ie thermodynamic equilibrium. For examples of this law at work, take water inside a bath and disturb it. You will observe the disturbance gradually cease until a state of rest reemerges in the absence of further stimuli.
The argument then is elegant in it's simplicity. If the universe is such a closed system and has existed for infinite time, why is it not now in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium? (To be fair, just because we haven't seen degradation doesn't mean that it's not degrading, and we're not exactly sure that the universe is a closed system.)The conclusion can only be that it has not, in fact, existed for infinite time, thus serving as further confirmation of premise (2).
I.II. The Causal Principle
In light of this evidence, atheists are forced to conclude that the universe, if it began to exist, came from nothing. But surely, this makes no sense? (It came form a diety of course. That in turn came out of nothing...wait...) Out of nothing, nothing comes. (And from the darkness comes, BATMAN!!!) A metaphyisical principle that is both necessary to science and a principal principle for our understand of the world. This causal principle is everyday confirmed in our experience of the world. It is confirmed empirically by every observation by science since the dawn of mankind. Empiricists thus have the strongest of motivations to accept premise (1).
I.III. Nature of the Cause / Conclusion
We have thus far deduced (assumed)that the universe began to exist and it had a cause. What then can we deduce of the nature of this cause? It must be timeless since time began to exist. It must be spaceless since space began to exist. It must be immaterial and changeless prior to the creation of the universe. It must be enormously intelligent and enormously powerful to have caused the universe into being. And finally, it must be a 'personal mind'.(AssumptionsAssumptionsAssumptionsGalore!!!)
The Cause being a Personal Mind
1. An eternal cause precedes an eternal effect a ball weighing down on a matress from eternity past will always have a matress being weighed down. If the cause is eternal, the effect must also be eternal bar 'agent causation'. The only possible exception is a personal mind that freely chooses to produce it's effect.
2. Only two objects are immaterial, abstract objects and minds we know of only two things that fit the criterion if being immateral. Abstract objects, like numbers and propositions, and unembodied minds. It cannot be abstract objects since abstract objects are causally effete, ie they don't cause anything. It follow then that the cause is an unemboidied mind.
Infinite Regress of Causes
Occam's Razor will then shave off any further causes to just one necessary cause. We are thus left with a cause of the universe that is necessary in it's nature, is timeless, spaceless, immaterial and changeless, enormously powerful and enormously intelligent, and lastly personal. And that is what we minimally mean when we speak of God.
This is such a tired argument, though. If "god" can exist without needing a cause, why can't the universe? And why does "god" have to be the cause and not All-powerful Purple Penis Pixies with tender Turquoise Teats?
P.S. I'm posting this here so you guys could ask you questions and we can have a discussion on this outside the strict confines and limitations of a debate. (You know this is the debate forum right?)Don't be shy about the questions, this is as much training for me as an attempt to spread this material to more people. Cheers!
meh.
[1](William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, p118)
[2](John A. Wheeler, Beyond the Hole, in Some Strangeness in the Proportion, ed. Harry Woolf (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1980), 354)
[3]( P. C. W. Davies, Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology, in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1978), 7879.)
[4](Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One, 176.)
A clear case of braggadocio and attempted humor in the face of serious questions! But it is a familiar ploy when difficult ridiculous claims are met with brutal facts.
I wonder if you realize that you have not refuted anything in this post and that your responses are actually quite-----insipid? And far from funny.
But I think you know that.
And thoughtful readers can see through your veneer of false confidence.
Now - let's see you refute the arguments presented by Diosangpastol in posts 221-223. OK?
(\__/)
( . )
>(^)<
　
Wilson
