Science Proves God

[UndecidedFrog]

DISCLAIMER: I am not a christian. My opinions are my own. You do not have to accept them if you dislike them.

Dear ~candice~,

Thanks for the response.

Not really. The logical progression of the argument dictates ONE uncaused cause. Nothing else. To start the ball rolling there must be an event that was caused by this "uncaused cause". Everything else proceeding from that is caused.

Actually, this is quite a handy tool. The ONE exception, an uncaused casue.

To account for the big bang theory, I can postulate that the now limited one exception to be the proto-universe, which by definition, always existed, and via the big bang, created everything (from nothing). Using this hypothesis, I have eliminated the need for any "creator", and just have the proto-universe as the one uncaused cause.

You know, it is quite fun to play make believe.

Regards,

UF

[~candice~]

Your counter example won't work until you can prove your proto-universe has no cause for it's beginning.

[UndecidedFrog]

Your counter example won't work until you can prove your proto-universe has no cause for it's beginning.

Why do I need to prove anything? What kind of proof do you require beyond my postulate?

Oh no! don't tell me you are looking for some objective, verifiable, validatable evidence?

Ahhh, maybe I will just suggest it to you that this is one of the mysteries that I have personally experienced.

Regards,

UF

[~candice~]

Your counter example won't work until you can prove your proto-universe has no cause for it's beginning.

Why do I need to prove anything? What kind of proof do you require beyond my postulate?

Oh no! don't tell me you are looking for some objective, verifiable, validatable evidence?

Ahhh, maybe I will just suggest it to you that this is one of the mysteries that I have personally experienced.

Regards,

UF

You crack me up .

Deflect deflect deflect. In my argument, God is spiritual, and does not have physical energy or matter, but your proto universe does. My argument does not suffer the same logical contradictions that yours does. Where does your matter in the proto universe come from, and who/what caused it? It MUST be a non-matter.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Your counter example won't work until you can prove your proto-universe has no cause for it's beginning.

Why do I need to prove anything? What kind of proof do you require beyond my postulate?

Oh no! don't tell me you are looking for some objective, verifiable, validatable evidence?

Ahhh, maybe I will just suggest it to you that this is one of the mysteries that I have personally experienced.

Regards,

UF

You crack me up .

Deflect deflect deflect. In my argument, God is spiritual, and does not have physical energy or matter, but your proto universe does. My argument does not suffer the same logical contradictions that yours does. Where does your matter in the proto universe come from, and who/what caused it? It MUST be a non-matter.

That's right - how did the proto universe create our energy, when we believe that energy cannot be created nor destroyed by natural means?

This is what it means to be ad hoc. The explanation of an cause immediately accounts for the cause of the temporal, material universe which is insufficient to account for itself, as would by any other natural phenomenon of which we're familiar, forcing you to compound postulations.

And to suggest that having an uncaused cause as the explanation is itself ad hoc isn't accurate at all. There's nothing inconsistent about an eternal, immaterial entity, just an eternal material one. The restriction is inherent only in the material nature.

Besides, say you find an arrowhead in the ground. You know that the cause would be a person. You don't need to know anything about that person to know that the best explanation for the physical phenomenon in question is an intelligent agent. That isn’t ad hoc, it’s just the logical and inescapable conclusion of knowing that anything that’s created has to have a cause, and understanding the limitations within nature that the cause must have been from an intelligence (this is an example).

So, if we can tell that the universe was not eternal, and that material space-time is insufficient to account for itself then the cause necessarily has to be immaterial and timeless so if we were going to entertain your proto-universe we then have an eternal, immaterial proto-universe. The cause would have to be dynamic, otherwise, if it was eternally static, so too would be the effect and our universe is not static, so we have an eternal, immaterial, dynamic cause. The only immaterial, dynamic causes we know to exist take the form of intelligent personalities, so you’d have an eternal, immaterial, personal proto-universe.

By this point we’ve just described attributes that have always been labelled ‘God’ in the past, so if all you’re doing is trying to rename God then we’re simply disagreeing about semantics, and if not then it seems to me that any other explanations would be compounding ad hoc explanations.

Add to this that the simple explanation of God as Creator not only satisfies each one of these arguments, but in addition entirely accounts for the order in the universe, the appearance of the fine tuning of the universe to support intelligent life, the biological response to that fine tuning in the manifestation of intelligent life despite the never observed violation of the law of biogenesis and against all statistical possibility, the statistical impossibility of the development of complex interdependent functions among biological organisms through nothing more than unguided processes of accident (mutation) and elimination (natural selection), the ingrained compulsion among the human animals to project divinity as the cause, the fact that there is an undeniable immaterial component to the material world (e.g. logic and empiricism themselves are immaterial concepts, so if there was nothing immaterial we can’t appeal to logic or empiricism to establish such is the case). Etc.

The proposition that God is a simple explanation that satisfies so many questions, all of which require an intertwined web of ad hoc explanations if you rule out God as the cause at the outset.

[~candice~]

OES Very well explained brother .

[UndecidedFrog]

You crack me up .

Deflect deflect deflect. In my argument, God is spiritual, and does not have physical energy or matter, but your proto universe does. My argument does not suffer the same logical contradictions that yours does. Where does your matter in the proto universe come from, and who/what caused it? It MUST be a non-matter.

Thanks, I was merely using a few deflections I have had used on me not so long ago. I hope you recognized them.

Confucius said: Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself (Analects)

My proto-universe has just as much objective, validatable, verifiable evidence to support its existence as any god.

I can easily postulate that the proto-universe always was, and is the uncaused cause. It exists outside time and space, and is everything and nothing at the same time, just like any god.

The proto-universe existed before time itself, and nothing caused it because it always is, and was. and will be. I kind of like writing in this hyperbolic style. Do you think I have a future in religious writing?

Regards,

UF

[~candice~]

You have still missed the point. The proto universe has energy and matter and thus cannot be the uncaused cause.

PS

[UndecidedFrog]

That's right - how did the proto universe create our energy, when we believe that energy cannot be created nor destroyed by natural means?

Pretty much the same way your god does it.

This is what it means to be ad hoc. The explanation of an cause immediately accounts for the cause of the temporal, material universe which is insufficient to account for itself, as would by any other natural phenomenon of which we're familiar, forcing you to compound postulations.

Not at all, you may view my proto-universe as both within and outside nature.

And to suggest that having an uncaused cause as the explanation is itself ad hoc isn't accurate at all. There's nothing inconsistent about an eternal, immaterial entity, just an eternal material one. The restriction is inherent only in the material nature.

And why do you presume that the proto-universe is strictly material or strictly natural?

Besides, say you find an arrowhead in the ground. You know that the cause would be a person. You don't need to know anything about that person to know that the best explanation for the physical phenomenon in question is an intelligent agent. That isn’t ad hoc, it’s just the logical and inescapable conclusion of knowing that anything that’s created has to have a cause, and understanding the limitations within nature that the cause must have been from an intelligence (this is an example).

And my example of the universe being created by a proto-universe does not contradict your example.

So, if we can tell that the universe was not eternal, and that material space-time is insufficient to account for itself then the cause necessarily has to be immaterial and timeless so if we were going to entertain your proto-universe we then have an eternal, immaterial proto-universe. The cause would have to be dynamic, otherwise, if it was eternally static, so too would be the effect and our universe is not static, so we have an eternal, immaterial, dynamic cause. The only immaterial, dynamic causes we know to exist take the form of intelligent personalities, so you’d have an eternal, immaterial, personal proto-universe.

Yes, an eternal, immaterial and material, immeasurable, unknowable, totally mysterious, outside of space, time, matter and energy proto-universe. Attempting to portray it as dynamic or static will be confounded for you do not know the nature of what is unknowable. It can be postulated as both and neither. Attempting to portray it as personal or impersonal will be confounded. It can be postulated as both and neither. Yes, it is a mystery, isn't it? Attempts to know it or understand it will go against its mystery. Suffice it to say it is the alpha and omega.

Regards,

UF

Edited July 15, 2011 by UndecidedFrog

[~candice~]

How is this any different to the FSM? Have we really reduced to such absurdity?