Ergo, God would have to create everything from nothing, too. Now the big bang isn’t so hard to believe, now is it? I do have my own personal hypothesis on the creation of the big bang, but I want to run it by a physicist someday. The universe has a very interesting pattern to it, and that pattern may be the key to unlocking the big “how” question.

1. There was nothing, after which the universe popped into existence – sort of spontaneous generation, not caused or created.

2. The universe as we know it – let’s say all material objects, say, to keep it simple – has always existed though it may have changed in many ways.

3. The universe of material objects in space began at some time and was brought into being by something non-material and non-spatial.

It seems to me that Number 1 is not credible to anyone who gives it serious thought. If that’s not so, I would ask (in the spirit of rational inquiry) for other examples of spontaneous generation.

Number 2 is more compelling. Before the Big Bang, there was the stuff that big-banged, so to speak. From what did that “stuff” come? For something to consist of matter, the thing from which it derived must consist of matter. If everything regresses backwards, then there must have been something from which it was derived. If it’s an infinite series with no starting point, that presents problems.

In terms of logical proofs, you prove that A is true by proving that B (on which it depends) is also true. But the series can’t go on infinitely without originating in some assumptions or axioms which can be neither proved nor disproved. There comes a time when you encounter that’s a different kettle of fish. If there is no axiom at the beginning, then there is no basis for proving the rest of your statement.

This, of course, has no bearing on things like Creationism, etc. It demonstrates a case for the existence of an axiomatic “prime mover”. The difficulty in talking about issues like this if people keep veering into stuff like “I couldn’t believe any creator like that could take a personal interest in its/his creation” or “But the fundamentalists are so ridiculous” This particular question — though not every important question — concerns the scientific reasonableness of something coming from nothing. Whether or not it was literal words — or whether speaking is the metaphor used by writers to communicate the power of the creator — isn’t particularly important. What is important is, “Can it be logically inferred that all matter and energy that exist leapt into being without some Other generating it?”
.-= Roof Woofer’s last blog ..RoofWoofer: RT @PaulFidalgo: Thkg about rdg War and Peace on iPhone, mostly b/c of the cliché "You wouldn’t want to read *War and Peace* on it, but…" =-.

I am very much drawn to the ancient Greeks and their value for both science and thought. They had a great understanding of science, but they also observed and revered that “magic” that surrounds the laws of physics, biology, and the universe. The tremendous perfection of it all is truly awe-inspiring, hence the idea of God.

I have to disagree with the suggestion that belief in a personal god would be a difficult prospect for a rational scientist. For one, that depends on what type of scientist they are. There are certain disciplines that carry a higher number of god-believers than other disciplines. Second, not all theists (including myself) believe in the idea of a super-power God that flies through the air with a cape, rescuing the modern American from anything from lost keys to home forclosure. We find spirituality to be infinitely more complex, and the beauty of it all lies in scientific discovery.

The argument that “God is the precondition of human meaningful knowledge” is a first cause argument similar to “God is the origin of life” and “God is the creator of the universe”.

If god exists, god could have been the valid explanation for all the three observed facts: human’s ability of meaningful knowledge, origin of life and origin of universe. However, the reverse may not be true.

Are these three observed facts evidence for god’s existence? If yes, are they sufficient?

No scientific theory currently can deduce these three facts. However, there are ongoing research trying to find out the origins of these facts. If an objective, evidence-based explanation can be found for any or all of these facts, god’s existence is less likely. At this point in time, since there is no accepted explanation, it becomes a philosophical debate between one of these: (1) acknowledgement that we do not have complete knowledge and do not know the explanation to these questions; (2) god exists.

My position is the first one. I am humble enough to admit that we still do not have the knowledge to know the answer to these questions. But I believe in an evidence based approach. Let us just assume we now take position (2).

Another way to test the hypothesis that god is the cause of all the three observed facts is by testing the “other predictions” of the hypothesis.

For a cosmic god, ie a god who created the universe (and everything within) and then left the universe to run its own course without interference, we cannot find any additional thing to test because all such testing would become a scientific test of the underlying working principles and nature of the universe. Such a god is also not a god of any religion.

For a personal god, such as the christian god, who cares about the nitty gitty details of human lives and answers prayer, we can test the god’s hypothesis basing on one or more of the predictions. Answering prayer is one of them. All known religious god fails miserably in a test of the effectiveness of prayers. So a personal god cannot exist.

Some scientists, including Einstein, take position of the existence of a cosmic god. That’s understandable. But any working rational scientists believing in a personal god would be in an untenable position to defend their scientific work ethnics against the irrational belief. Believing in a god who would interfere the normal working of the universe in answering someone’s prayer is just stupid! Believing in a god as the first cause lowers the incentive to find an evidence-based explanation for the above three observed facts.
.-= albert’s last blog ..Reflection 2 – Debate with Puritan Lad =-.

“We think there was a ‘before the Big Bang’, but there wasn’t.”
I honestly doubt that I ever heard or thought this vital point before 2009. I haven’t been able to imagine what anything is without time; even the word “eternity” is visualized as a very, very long amount of time that goes on and on. It is still linear.

I once heard a brilliant rebuttal of this claim that, for the life of me, I can’t seem to find again!

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
.-= Stephen Moore’s last blog ..Vaginal Corona =-.