Atheists Have Dark Auras

Theol0gic
Theist
Theol0gic's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Atheists Have Dark Auras

I've looked at dozens of videos on the blasphemy challenge, and I noticed that all the atheists have one thing in common: dark auras. If you look at them, they look dark and unhealthy. There is no light or sparkle in their eyes. It's as if they have driven the light of God out of them. Some schools of philosophy and religion assert that some people don't have souls. I don't know. But those people do not look normal. They look dark. It's hard to explain.

Banned for lying - was warned twice.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Alright lets look at some

Alright lets look at some examples.... The videos aren't really important just the images.

 

 

 

The first video is against the challenge and the second is by CapnOAwesome. Compare away....


PillarMyArse
PillarMyArse's picture
Posts: 65
Joined: 2007-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I've looked at

Quote:
I've looked at dozens of videos on the blasphemy challenge, and I noticed that all the atheists have one thing in common: dark auras. If you look at them, they look dark and unhealthy. There is no light or sparkle in their eyes. It's as if they have driven the light of God out of them. Some schools of philosophy and religion assert that some people don't have souls. I don't know. But those people do not look normal. They look dark. It's hard to explain.

 LOL ... tit.

 

Quote:

Perhaps the sparkle in a believers eye is a sign of their insanity? 

 

 LOL ... no we are all witches.  It's bad magic.

 

Quote:

So would you like to be my first patient? I'll cut that soul right off!Surprised  

 

 Er ... dude, perhaps you could address the matter at hand?  We atheists assert that your holy book is only useful as toilet paper or perhaps a source of heat if trapped in a mountain blizzard.  Whithout resorting to a theological argument, could you prove that a soul exists?  And no, I don't intend to prove one doesn't exist.  The burden of proof is on that person which makes the assertion.

Religion is the ultimate con-job. It cons the conned, and it cons the conner.

Mr.T : "I ain't gettin' on no damn plane [sic]" - environmentalism at it's best


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest wrote: Alright

Voiderest wrote:

Alright lets look at some examples.... The videos aren't really important just the images.

 

 

 

The first video is against the challenge and the second is by CapnOAwesome. Compare away....

There's definately more of a twinkle in Capn Awesome's eyes. The first one is fairly hot but dead in terms of intellect. And certainly doesn't have a twinkle. Of course the reason for a twinkle in someone's eye is that light reflects off the glossy surface of the eyeball. In a dark room there is less reflection, in a light room there will be more reflection, it's fairly simple physics that we all learn aged 3, without even knowing what physics is!!

Rigor Mortis you brilliant Godless Romanian, my comments on synaesthesia were not ironic.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Jacob Cordingley

Jacob Cordingley wrote:
There's definately more of a twinkle in Capn Awesome's eyes. The first one is fairly hot but dead in terms of intellect. And certainly doesn't have a twinkle. Of course the reason for a twinkle in someone's eye is that light reflects off the glossy surface of the eyeball. In a dark room there is less reflection, in a light room there will be more reflection, it's fairly simple physics that we all learn aged 3, without even knowing what physics is!!

Sure, but its much easier to show a few pics (or videos in this case) then explain how light works... 


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote: I've

Theol0gic wrote:
I've looked at dozens of videos on the blasphemy challenge, and I noticed that all the atheists have one thing in common: dark auras. If you look at them, they look dark and unhealthy. There is no light or sparkle in their eyes. It's as if they have driven the light of God out of them. Some schools of philosophy and religion assert that some people don't have souls. I don't know. But those people do not look normal. They look dark. It's hard to explain.

Classic case of "confirmation bias." Perhaps you should look into this. Do you live in a cave?

Yes, I have met some abysmally miserable nihilstic people out there and I want no part of them or their lifestyle. But I've also met incredibly well functioning, happy happy atheist.

So I'm wondering 2 things:

1. Can you explain why my fundamentalist evangelical born again xian family members are so unhappy? They do so much to help others, follow all the rules, and still--

2. Why is that sooooooo many of these people you describe are out there doing good for society--unselfishly? Doctors, researchers, biologists, etc. They are trying to improve our lot. We owe technology and advances in medicine etc mostly to atheists.

Just think about it... 

 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


Edger
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-01-14
User is offlineOffline
I scoured your original

I scoured your original post looking for something beyond feebly presented, tacit insults and run of the mill theistic drivel.

This was all I could find.

Theol0gic wrote:
I don't know.

Good point 

 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis

Rigor_OMortis wrote:

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html <- this one gets pretty close to what you need. All references to this article the size of a book chapter at the end. I'm sure you will find them very... authoritative.

 

DAMN YOU! More stuff to read. My head is going to explode from information overload. I read through it very quickly. Interesting stuff. But I really am getting overloaded since coming to this site. It's going to take some time and effort to integrate what I'm learning.  


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
cslewisster

cslewisster wrote:

Theol0gic wrote:
Having grown-up among theists, and being one myself, I can see a huge difference between believers and non-believers.

Perhaps the sparkle in a believers eye is a sign of their insanity?

LOL, ha ha ha ha. Good one! 


Theol0gic
Theist
Theol0gic's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Maybe the lack of a sparkle

Maybe the lack of a sparkle is the lack of sanity.

Any modern text book on astrophysics proves what Christian theists have always known. The universe had a beginning. The atheist arguments are so rediculous and antiquated that it literally amazes me that people who claim to live in an age of reason, even hold to atheism.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=William+Lane+Craig&search=Search

Banned for lying - was warned twice.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Everyone has got to know

Everyone has got to know it's a silly argument when the other theists  beat up on the original theist poster.

 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote: Maybe the

Theol0gic wrote:
Maybe the lack of a sparkle is the lack of sanity. Any modern text book on astrophysics proves what Christian theists have always known. The universe had a beginning. The atheist arguments are so rediculous and antiquated that it literally amazes me that people who claim to live in an age of reason, even hold to atheism. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=William+Lane+Craig&search=Search

Show my an astrophysics textbook that states that a supernatural force created the universe. 


DelphicRaven
DelphicRaven's picture
Posts: 101
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
" I've looked at dozens of

" I've looked at dozens of videos on the blasphemy challenge, and I noticed that all the atheists have one thing in common: dark auras. If you look at them, they look dark and unhealthy. There is no light or sparkle in their eyes. It's as if they have driven the light of God out of them. Some schools of philosophy and religion assert that some people don't have souls. I don't know. But those people do not look normal. They look dark. It's hard to explain."

I seriously can't believe someone would post something like that, on a board like this, unless they knew they were being stupid and posted it for reaction value. Maybe I just "overestimate" people.

--Sarah--

Prayer: How to do nothing and feel like your doing something.


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Any modern text book on

Any modern text book on astrophysics proves what Christian theists have always known. The universe had a beginning.

I presume you have an education in astrophysics. I have written extensively on this subject, btw, on this site. I'll show you:

The universe has set boundaries defined by the hyperbolic curvature of the space-time fabric. Granted, the universe is expanding under the push of Dark Energy, but it still has defined boundaries. When you reach the "edge" of the universe, you will simply curve around the side. But like the curvature of the Earth, this hyperbolic shape is so vast that it is completely imperceptible.

The universe is not static either. It is expanding. Fast. There is a fight going on between the gravitational attraction of bodies of matter that reside in the space-time membrane and a mysterious "dark energy" that overpowers gravitational attraction. As gravity becomes weaker, expansion becomes faster. If we were to draw a map of the universe, the dark energy would be spread out in perfectly even pattern of exactly 10^-26 g/cm3. This means there is little more than an asteroid sized chunk in the entire galaxy. Almost nothing. Ordinary matter on the other hand, is clumped. In this map of the universe, there would be billions of of small dots representing galaxies arrayed in a filament-like arrangement, and no matter anywhere else. In most parts of the universe, the denisty of matter is one hydrogen atom per cubic meter, which for all intents and purposes, is nothing.

If the universe is expanding, it had a beginning. It is not eternal. It was born in a singularity exactly 13.7 billion years ago according to extremely authoritative data from WMAP that can establish it to an astonishing 1% margin of error. Idiots call this singularity the Big Bang, when it was not big, and definitely not a bang.

If we wind the clock back, we find a state of hypercompressed energy that created a false vacuum forcing an outward expansion which expanded at the rate of empty space called hyperinflation, which is about 10^50m/s. This is many times faster than light speed, but as there is no matter and no mass empty space can violate the c-limit.

The Universe does indeed need a cause. We've established that for years ever since Hubble confirmed that it was expanding and that if we rewound the clock the universe had a beginning.

Could this cause be God? Perhaps. But I dont like that solution. It is a complicating factor. This would commit a deus ex machina fallacy.Plugging an intractable problem with an intractable solution.

God is quite simply an intangible plug. same as when Einstein found that his equations didn't work in a static universe, he plugged in a "fudge factor" to cancel gravitational attraction because he couldn't conceive that the universe was expanding. But he was wrong, now we know about Dark Energy and hyperinflation. When Newton's classical theory of celestial mechanics and gravity laws were confronted by a clergyman who argued that gravitational force should simply cause any large matter body to crush itself, Newton feebly argued that there was a "vital force of ether" that held everything together (of course, now we know about the space-time continuum and the membranous fabric of the universe)

There are more plausible explanations then God. This is why I prefer multiverse theory. Quantum tunnelling and hyperinflation will always be more parsimonious than God. Spontaneous breaking, and SU1xSU2xSU3 Grand Unifying theory (which have to do with something known as a false-vacuum fluctuation) are simply better explanations. They make sense.

Quite simply, all these anologies, the Garden, the Painter ad infinitum are rehashed versions of the Cosmological argument. They all appeal to infinite regress. Infinite regress merely comes from a human inability to perceive time.

Time has often been regarded by philosophers as an abstract entity, a slow forward march. Yet this is not the case. The human mind perceives in three spatial dimensions, yet it cannot percieve time, the fourth. Time is not some abstract infinite intangible. It is a dimension, more specifically a higher mathematical function expressed in a dimension. It seems to march forward inexorably, yet it is not the case. Because it is woven into a membranous fabric called space-time, it can be bent, and broken, or perhaps stopped or rewound. It is incorrect to ask about the impossibility of infinite regress, or the necessity of a creator if there must be a beginning. It is circular reasoning simply because time only exists when material existence does.

This is why I prefer multiverse. Fixes all the problems, because universal genesis is an eternal process. Universes "bud off each other when space expands to the point where it starts exceeding the c-limit and a new universe is born. In this universe, time only begins at the moment at singularity. That is why it would seem to us that time has a beginning. When in fact it does
In the new universe, imagine a balloon's surface, with objects painted on the side, as you blow it up, they expand and become distorted very fast. This is called hyperinflation and it is how a new universe is born from an old universe. If it expands fast enough, the new universe breaks off, like a bubble clinging to another one. The mother universe for our particular universe may be several nanometers away, and new universes could be forming as I type.

Is this explanation parsimonious? Yes. Does it fit with all of quantum physics. Yes. Is it tested? No. But is it testable, yes. This is why I prefer it to God.

With regard to ex nihilo, ex nihilo creation, whatever the absurd objections, do not violate the laws of quantum physics. I was in correspondence with another member about the subject only hours ago, and this what I wrote:

Now, if you look around at some of the evolution forums, like the one titled "evolution" started by impeached, and the one titled "comments on the nightline debate" started by noexcuse, you will notice that my responses to each contain a section on the laws of Thermodynamics, which explains in long detail what Victor is referring to. However, this explanation is long and full of formulae. The simple premise is that everything progresses to lower energy states. Now, I agree with Victor about ex nihilo, but I am multiverse theorist, so I would contend that the term "nothing" as we understand, means nothing (ironic). Try envisioning "nothing". Impossible. What victor refers to as "nothing" is technically someting.

What he was talking about, as I said, is spontaneous breaking. Imagine a dam holding back water. This dam is perched on top of a hill blocking a river. If the dam was not there the water would naturally take the path of least resistance and flow downhill. SImple. The water has progressed to a lower energy state, as nature commands. But with the dam there, the water cannot flow downhill. Nonetheless, the water cannot get over the dam, and thus, even though the water is not in its lowest energy state, the arrangement is relatively stable. It is for this same reason that organisms, which are extremely far from chemical equilibirum, do not spontaneously combust.

If the dam is cracked and bursts, the water will flow from the false vacuum, the dam, to the true vacuum, the water. This false vacuum may have been the original state of the universe and it is what victor refers to as "nothing". We also call it a singularity. A singularity is a point where mathematical relationship is not defined. The universe is believed to have been born out of a singularity after a false vacuum fluctuation, when all the essential forces were unified into one.

The universe today is like a broken mirror, with the four forces ruling it disjointed and separate from each other. This is because the original vacuum arrangement is unstable. It broke, and from it gushed the true vacuum- the universe. This unified state, the vacuum arrangement, has another name- nothing.

To quote Victor J Stenger in God, The Failed Hypothesis:

> "If the laws of physics follow naturally from empty space-time then where did that empty space-time come from? why is there something rather than nothing? This question is often the last recourse of the theist who seeks to argue for the existence of god from physics and cosmology and finds that all his other arguements fail. Philosopher Bede Rundle calls it "Philosophy's central, and most perplexing, question." His simple (But book length) answer: "There has to be something" (God the failed hypothesis Pg 132.)
>
> "How do we define "nothing"? What are its properties? If it has properties, doesn't that make it something? The theist claims that God is the answer. But, then, why is there god rather than nothing? Assuming we can define "nothing," Why should nothing be a more natural state of affairs than something? In fact, we can give plausible scientific reason based on our best current knowledge of physics and cosmology that osmething more natural than nothing!" (God the failed hypothesis Pg 132.)
>
> "Nature is capable of building complex structures by processes of self-organization, how simplicity begets complexity. Consider the example of the snowflake, the beautiful six-pointed pattern of ice crystals that results from the direct freezing of water vaopr in the atmosphere. Our experience tells us that a snowflake is very ephemeral, melting quickly into drops of liquid water the exhibit far less structure. But that is only because we live in a relatively high-temperature environment, where heat reduces the fragile arrangement of crystals to a simpler liquid. Energy is required to break the symmetry of a snowflake." (God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)
>
> "In an environment where the ambient temperature is well below the melting point of ice, as it is in most of the universe far from the highly localized effects of stellar heating, any water should readily crystallize into complex asymetric structures. Snowflakes would be eternal, or at least would remain instact untill comic rays tore them apart."(God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)
>
> "This example illustrates that many simple systems of particles are unstable, that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since "Nothing" is as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable. It would likely undergo a spoontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter." "The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would be be that 'nothing' is unstable." (God the failed hypothesis Pg 133.)

 

And when you have done that perhaps you care to answer this, seeing as you apparently know soooo much about physics?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/6279

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


gregfl
Posts: 170
Joined: 2006-04-29
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote:The reason

Theol0gic wrote:
The reason a person would deny the obious fact that atheists have no sparkle in their eyes or glow in their face, is because they also are victims of this same darkness. An atheist would deny this because they have no frame of reference. Having grown-up among theists, and being one myself, I can see a huge difference between believers and non-believers. Atheists have darkness written all over them. I agree that part of the reason is the utter hopelesness and despair that atheism leads to.

 

My response.

 

 

The reason a person would deny the obvious fact that christians have no sparkle in their eyes or glow in their faces is because they also are victims of this same darkness. A christian would deny this because they have no frame of reference. Having grown up among atheists and being one myself, I can see a huge difference between believers and non-believers. Christians have darkness written all over them. I agree that part of the reason is the utter hopelessness and despair that christianity leads to.

 

See? I can spout the same nonsense with the exception of mine not having as many spelling and grammatical errors.

 

You lose...schmuck.


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote: I've

Theol0gic wrote:
I've looked at dozens of videos on the blasphemy challenge, and I noticed that all the atheists have one thing in common: dark auras. If you look at them, they look dark and unhealthy. There is no light or sparkle in their eyes. It's as if they have driven the light of God out of them. Some schools of philosophy and religion assert that some people don't have souls. I don't know. But those people do not look normal. They look dark. It's hard to explain.

 

"Dark auras" is quite the speculative, metaphysical observation. I would recommend the following thought process to ellucidate your observations.

There is a cabin with a table at the center of the kitchen. On this table rests a bowl of water. Hiker A comes in from the outside and puts his hand in the water and says, "Wow, that water is cold." An hour later, Hiker B comes in from outside and puts his hand in the water and says, "Wow, that water is warm." [Yes I borrowed this example from an old philosopher, it was Berkeley I believe]

The point in illustrating this, is that the water's temperature never changed. As I'm surely many people have pointed out before this post, your subjective experience differs while the object does not. The people in the video did not physically change in any way.

To say that the blasphemy challenge participants have a "dark aura" is like saying you see a little green monkey on my shoulder. Show me the monkey, or forever concede that the monkey exists only in your mind and not on my shoulder. Show me the dark aura, or forever concede that the dark aura exists only in your mind and not around the individual bodies.

 

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


Gnophilist
Gnophilist's picture
Posts: 25
Joined: 2007-05-09
User is offlineOffline
"...all the atheists have

"...all the atheists have one thing in common: dark auras."

 

We're big into conserving energy. 

 

 

Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.
Explaining the universe by invoking god is like solving an equation by multiplying both sides with infinity. It gives you a trivial solution and wipes away any real information about the original problem.


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote: Having

Theol0gic wrote:
Having grown-up among theists, and being one myself, I can see a huge difference between believers and non-believers. Atheists have darkness written all over them. I agree that part of the reason is the utter hopelesness and despair that atheism leads to.

 

This post makes me very sad indeed. How long have you lived on this Earth? How many people have you met? How many people do you think you can just look at them and determine their beliefs?

Here is my guess as to how you think you can see "differences" between believers and non-believers.

-You are from a small town or live isolated in the city.

-You have come into contact with few atheists and they just by chance shopped at Hot Topic. Thereby, you form a false association with dark clothing and "dark beliefs."

- You were told how to see the "differences" in people by either your parents or religious leaders.

-You haven't investigated atheism, morals or ethics, or even your own theology.

The list could keep going and going I'm sure since it is comprised simple of conjectures as to how you could possibly have acquired such a perspective of the people you encounter.

I say these things mainly for this reason: atheism does not bring about despair any more or any less than theology could. Yes, that's right, theology can bring despair too. Unbelievable concept. You perceive atheism to bring despair necessarily, because you are most likely insecure in your own beliefs and unwilling to even learn about what it is that you are rejecting. Therefore, you need to attach a belief to atheism so scary that you would never consider listening to what it has to say. Shed the insecurity and learn not to judge people according to supposed metaphysical transmittances.

Although I will give you credit, you did come and post in the R.R.S. forums. That perhaps shows some security in your beliefs to come here and express yourself.

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


Theol0gic
Theist
Theol0gic's picture
Posts: 44
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Cosmology and phiIosophy

Cosmology and phiIosophy have always traced their roots to the wonder felt by the ancient Greeks as they contempIated the cosmos. According to AristotIe,
it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and the stars, and about the origin of the universe.
The question of why the universe exists remains the ultimate mystery. Derek Parfit, a contemporary philosopher, declares that "No question is more sublime than why there is a Universe: why there is anything rather than nothing."

This question led the great German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz to posit the existence of a metaphysically necessary being which carries within itself the sufficient reason for its own existence and which constitutes the sufficient reason for the existence of everything else in the world. Leibniz identified this being as God. Leibniz's critics, on the other hand, claimed that the space-time universe may itself be the necessary being demanded by Leibniz's argument. Thus, the Scottish sceptic David Hume queried, "Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent Being . . . ?" Indeed, "How can anything, that exists from eternity, have a cause, since that relation implies a priority in time and a beginning of existence?" There is no warrant for going beyond the universe to posit a supernatural ground of its existence. As Bertrand Russell put it so succinctly in his BBC radio debate with Frederick Copleston, "The universe is just there, and that's all."

The Origin of the Universe
This stand-off persisted unaltered until 1917, the year in which Albert Einstein made a cosmological application of his newly discovered General Theory of Relativity.To his chagrin, he found that GTR would not permit a static model of the universe unless he introduced into his gravitational field equations a certain "fudge factor" L in order to counterbalance the gravitational effect of matter. Einstein's universe was balanced on a razor's edge, however, and the least perturbation would cause the universe either to implode or to expand. By taking this feature of Einstein's model seriously, Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaitre were able to formulate independently in the 1920s solutions to the field equations which predicted an expanding universe.

The monumental significance of the Friedman-Lemaitre model lay in its historization of the universe. As one commentator has remarked, up to this time the idea of the expansion of the universe "was absolutely beyond comprehension. Throughout all of human history the universe was regarded as fixed and immutable and the idea that it might actually be changing was inconceivable." But if the Friedman-Lemaitre model were correct, the universe could no longer be adequately treated as a static entity existing, in effect, timelessly. Rather the universe has a history, and time will not be matter of indifference for our investigation of the cosmos. In 1929 Edwin Hubble's measurements of the red-shift in the optical spectra of light from distant galaxies, which was taken to indicate a universal recessional motion of the light sources in the line of sight, provided a dramatic verification of the Friedman-Lemaitre model. Incredibly, what Hubble had discovered was the isotropic expansion of the universe predicted by Friedman and Lemaitre. It marked a veritable turning point in the history of science. "Of all the great predictions that science has ever made over the centuries," exclaims John Wheeler, "was there ever one greater than this, to predict, and predict correctly, and predict against all expectation a phenomenon so fantastic as the expansion of the universe?"

The Standard Big Bang Model
As a GTR-based theory, the Friedman-Lemaitre model does not describe the expansion of the material content of the universe into a pre-existing, empty, Newtonian space, but rather the expansion of space itself. This has the astonishing implication that as one reverses the expansion and extrapolates back in time, space-time curvature becomes progressively greater until one finally arrives at a singular state at which space-time curvature becomes infinite. This state therefore constitutes an edge or boundary to space-time itself. P. C. W. Davies comments,

An initial cosmological singularity . . . forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. . . . 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.
The popular expression "Big Bang," originally a derisive term coined by Fred Hoyle to characterize the beginning of the universe predicted by the Friedman-Lemaitre model, is thus potentially misleading, since the expansion cannot be visualized from the outside (there being no "outside," just as there is no "before" with respect to the Big Bang).

The standard Big Bang model thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover,--and this deserves underscoring--the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity. As Barrow and Tipler emphasize, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo." Thus, we may graphically represent space-time as a cone (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1: Conical Representation of Standard Model Space-Time. Space and time begin at the initial cosmological singularity, before which literally nothing exists.
On such a model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity.

Now such a conclusion is profoundly disturbing for anyone who ponders it. For the question cannot be suppressed: Why does the universe exist rather than nothing? In light of the universe's origin ex nihilo, one can no longer dismiss this question with a shrug and a slogan, "The universe is just there and that's all." For the universe is not "just there;" rather it came into being. The beginning of the universe discloses that the universe is not, as Hume thought, a necessarily existing being but is contingent in its existence. Philosophers analyzing the concept of necessary existence agree that the essential properties of any necessarily existing entity include its being eternal, uncaused, incorruptible, and indestructible--for otherwise it would be capable of non-existence, which is self-contradictory. Thus, if the universe began to exist, its lacks at least one of the essential properties of necessary existence-eternality. Therefore, the reason for its existence cannot be immanent, but must in some mysterious way be ultra-mundane, or transcendent. Otherwise, one must say that the universe simply sprang into being uncaused out of absolutely nothing, which seems absurd. Sir Arthur Eddington, contemplating the beginning of the universe, opined that the expansion of the universe was so preposterous and incredible that "I feel almost an indignation that anyone should believe in it--except myself." He finally felt forced to conclude, "The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."

I find that most scientists do not reflect philosophically upon the metaphysical implications of their theories. But, in the words of one astrophysical team, "The problem of the origin [of the universe] involves a certain metaphysical aspect which may be either appealing or revolting."

The Steady State Model
Revolted by the stark metaphysical alternatives presented us by an absolute beginning of the universe, certain theorists have been understandably eager to subvert the Standard Model and restore an eternal universe. Sir Fred Hoyle, for example, could countenance neither an uncaused nor a supernaturally caused origin of the universe. With respect to the first alternative, he wrote, "This most peculiar situation is taken by many astronomers to represent the origin of the universe. The universe is supposed to have begun at this particular time. From where? The usual answer, surely an unsatisfactory one, is: from nothing!" Equally unsatisfactory in Hoyle's mind was the postulation of a supernatural cause. Noting that some accept happily the universe's absolute beginning, Hoyle complained,

To many people this thought process seems highly satisfactory because a 'something' outside physics can then be introduced at t = 0. By a semantic manoeuvre, the word 'something' is then replaced by 'god,' except that the first letter becomes a capital, God, in order to warn us that we must not carry the enquiry any further.
To Hoyle's credit, he did carry the inquiry further by helping to formulate in 1948 the first competitor to the Standard Model, namely, the Steady State Model of the universe. According to this theory, the universe is in a state of isotropic cosmic expansion, but as the galaxies recede, new matter is drawn into being ex nihilo in the interstices of space created by the galactic recession (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2: Steady State Model. As the galaxies mutually recede, new matter comes into existence to replace them. The universe thus constantly renews itself and so never began to exist.
If one extrapolates the expansion of the universe back in time, the density of the universe never increases because the matter and energy simply vanish as the galaxies mutually approach!

The Steady State theory never secured a single piece of experimental verification; its appeal was purely metaphysical.The discovery of progressively more radio galaxies at ever greater distances undermined the theory by showing that the universe had an evolutionary history. But the decisive refutation of the Steady State Model came with two discoveries which constituted, in addition to the galactic red-shift, the most significant evidence for the Big Bang theory: the cosmogonic nucleosynthesis of the light elements and the microwave background radiation. As a result, in the words of Ivan King, "The steady-state theory has now been laid to rest, as a result of clear-cut observations of how things have changed with time."

Oscillating Models
The Standard Model was based on the assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy. Some cosmologists speculated that by denying homogeneity and isotropy, one might be able to craft an Oscillating Model of the universe.If the internal gravitational pull of the mass of the universe were able to overcome the force of its expansion, then the expansion could be reversed into a cosmic contraction, a Big Crunch. If the universe were not homogeneous and isotropic, then the collapsing universe might not coalesce at a point, but the material contents of the universe might pass each other by, so that the universe would appear to bounce back from the contraction into a new expansion phase. If this process of expansion and contraction could be repeated indefinitely, then an absolute beginning of the universe might be avoided (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3: Oscillating Model. Each expansion phase is preceded and succeeded by a contraction phase, so that the universe in concertina-like fashion exists beginninglessly and endlessly.
Such a theory is extraordinarily speculative, but again there were metaphysical motivations for adopting this model. The prospects of the Oscillating Model were severely dimmed in 1970, however, by Penrose and Hawking's formulation of the Singularity Theorems which bear their names. The theorems disclosed that under very generalized conditions an initial cosmological singularity is inevitable, even for inhomogeneous and non-isotropic universes. Reflecting on the impact of this discovery, Hawking notes that the Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorems "led to the abandonment of attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang."

Despite the fact that the termini of a closed universe must be singularities and that no space-time trajectory can be extended through a singularity, the Oscillating Model exhibited a stubborn persistence. Three further strikes were lodged against it. First, there are no known physics which would cause a collapsing universe to bounce back to a new expansion. Second, the observational evidence indicates that the mean mass density of the universe is insufficient to generate enough gravitational attraction to halt and reverse the expansion. Third, since entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle in such a model, which has the effect of generating larger and longer oscillations with each successive cycle, the thermodynamic properties of an Oscillating Model imply the very beginning its proponents sought to avoid (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4: Oscillating Model with Entropy Increase. Due to the conservation of entropy each successive oscillation has a larger radius and longer expansion time.
Although these difficulties were well-known, proponents of the Oscillating Model tenaciously clung to it until a new alternative to the Standard Model emerged during the 1970s. The theory drew its life from its avoidance of an absolute beginning of the universe; but once other models became available claiming to offer the same benefit, the Oscillating Model sank under the weight of its own deficiencies.

Vacuum Fluctuation Models
Cosmologists realized that a physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time would require the introduction of quantum physics in addition to GTR. In 1973 Edward Tryon speculated whether the universe might not be a long-lived virtual particle, whose total energy is zero, born out of the primordial vacuum.This seemingly bizarre speculation gave rise to a new generation of cosmogonic theories which we may call Vacuum Fluctuation Models. In such models, it is hypothesized that prior to some inflationary era the Universe-as-a-whole is a primordial vacuum which exists, not in a state of expansion, but eternally in a steady state. Throughout this vacuum sub-atomic energy fluctuations constantly occur, by means of which matter is created and mini-universes are born (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5: Vacuum Fluctuation Models. Within the vacuum of the wider Universe, fluctuations occur which grow into mini-universes. Ours is but one of these, and its relative beginning does not imply a beginning for the Universe-as-a-whole.
Our expanding universe is but one of an indefinite number of mini-universes conceived within the womb of the greater Universe-as-a-whole. Thus, the beginning of our universe does not represent an absolute beginning, but merely a change in the eternal, uncaused Universe-as-a-whole.

Vacuum Fluctuation Models did not outlive the decade of the 1980s. Not only were there theoretical problems with the production mechanisms of matter, but these models faced a deep internal incoherence. According to such models, it is impossible to specify precisely when and where a fluctuation will occur in the primordial vacuum which will then grow into a universe. Within any finite interval of time there is a positive probability of such a fluctuation occurring at any point in space. Thus, given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum, and, as they expand, they will begin to collide and coalesce with one another. Thus, given infinite past time, we should by now be observing an infinitely old universe, not a relatively young one. About the only way to avert the problem would be to postulate an expansion of the primordial vacuum itself; but then we are right back to the absolute origin implied by the Standard Model. According to Isham this problem proved to be "fairly lethal" to Vacuum Fluctuation Models; hence, these models were "jettisoned twenty years ago" and "nothing much" has been done with them since.

Chaotic Inflationary Model
Inflation also forms the context for the next alternative to arise: the Chaotic Inflationary Model. One of the most fertile of the inflation theorists has been the Russian cosmologist Andrei Linde. In Linde's model inflation never ends: each inflating domain of the universe when it reaches a certain volume gives rise via inflation to another domain, and so on, ad infinitum (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6: Chaotic Inflationary Model. The wider universe produces via inflation separate domains which continue to recede from one another. Since these "bubbles" do not interact, they cannot collide and coalesce as the mini-universes postulated by Vacuum Fluctuation Models could.
Linde's model thus has an infinite future. But Linde is troubled at the prospect of an absolute beginning. He writes, "The most difficult aspect of this problem is not the existence of the singularity itself, but the question of what was before the singularity . . . . This problem lies somewhere at the boundary between physics and metaphysics." Linde therefore proposes that chaotic inflation is not only endless, but beginningless. Every domain in the universe is the product of inflation in another domain, so that the singularity is averted and with it as well the question of what came before (or, more accurately, what caused it).

In 1994, however, Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin showed that a universe eternally inflating toward the future cannot be geodesically complete in the past, so that there must have existed at some point in the indefinite past an initial singularity. They write,

A model in which the inflationary phase has no end . . . naturally leads to this question: Can this model also be extended to the infinite past, avoiding in this way the problem of the initial singularity?
. . . this is in fact not possible in future-eternal inflationary spacetimes as long as they obey some reasonable physical conditions: such models must necessarily possess initial singularities.
. . . the fact that inflationary spacetimes are past incomplete forces one to address the question of what, if anything, came before.
In response, Linde reluctantly concurs with the conclusion of Borde and Vilenkin: there must have been a Big Bang singularity at some point in the pas

Quantum Gravity Models
At the close of their analysis of Linde's Chaotic Inflationary Model, Borde and Vilenkin say with respect to Linde's metaphysical question, "The most promising way to deal with this problem is probably to treat the Universe quantum mechanically and describe it by a wave function rather than by a classical spacetime." They thereby allude to the last class of models attempting to avoid the initial cosmological singularity which we shall consider, namely, Quantum Gravity Models. Vilenkin and, more famously, James Hartle and Stephen Hawking have proposed models of the universe which Vilenkin candidly calls exercises in "metaphysical cosmology." In his best-selling popularization of his theory, Hawking even reveals an explicitly theological orientation. He concedes that on the Standard Model one could legitimately identify the Big Bang singularity as the instant at which God created the universe. Indeed, he thinks that a number of attempts to avoid the Big Bang were probably motivated by the feeling that a beginning of time "smacks of divine intervention." He sees his own model as preferable to the Standard Model because there would be no edge of space-time at which one "would have to appeal to God or some new law."

Both the Hartle-Hawking and the Vilenkin models eliminate the initial singularity by transforming the conical hyper-surface of classical space-time into a smooth, curved hyper-surface having no edge.

Fig. 7: Quantum Gravity Model. In the Hartle-Hawking version, space-time is "rounded off" prior to the Planck time, so that although the past is finite, there is no edge or beginning point.
This is accomplished by the introduction of imaginary numbers for the time variable in Einstein's gravitational equations, which effectively eliminates the singularity. Hawking sees profound theological implications in the model:

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary . . . has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe . . . . So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end. What place, then, for a creator?
Hawking does not deny the existence of God, but he does think his model eliminates the need for a Creator.

The key to assessing this theological claim is the physical interpretation of Quantum Gravity Models. By positing a finite (imaginary) time on a closed surface prior the Planck time rather than an infinite time on an open surface, such models actually seem to support, rather than undercut, the idea that time had a beginning. Such theories, if successful, enable us to model the origin of the universe without an initial singularity involving infinite density, temperature, pressure, and so on. As Barrow points out, "This type of quantum universe has not always existed; it comes into being just as the classical cosmologies could, but it does not start at a Big Bang where physical quantities are infinite . . . ." Barrow points out that such models are "often described as giving a picture of 'creation out of nothing,'" the only caveat being that in this case "there is no definite . . . point of creation." Hartle-Hawking themselves construe their model as giving "the amplitude for the Universe to appear from nothing," and Hawking has asserted that according to the model the universe "would quite literally be created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all, because there is nothing outside the universe." Taken at face value, these statements entail the beginning of the universe. Hawking's claim quoted above concerning the theological implications of his model must therefore be understood to mean that on such models there are no beginning or ending points, and, hence, no need for a Creator. But having a beginning does not entail having a beginning point. Even in the Standard Model, theorists sometimes "cut out" the initial singular point without thinking that therefore space-time no longer begins to exist and that the problem of the origin of the universe is thereby resolved. Time begins to exist just in case for any finite temporal interval, there are only a finite number of equal temporal intervals earlier than it. That condition is fulfilled for Quantum Gravity Models as well as for the Standard Model. Nor should we think that by giving the amplitude for the universe to appear from nothing quantum cosmologists have eliminated the need for a Creator, for that probability is conditional upon several choices which only the Creator could make (such as selecting the wave function of the universe) and is dubiously applied to absolute nothingness.

Perhaps it will be said that such an interpretation of Quantum Gravity Models fails to take seriously the notion of "imaginary time." Introducing imaginary numbers for the time variable in Einstein's equation has the peculiar effect of making the time dimension indistinguishable from space. But in that case, the imaginary time regime prior to the Planck time is not a space-time at all, but a Euclidean four-dimensional space. Construed realistically, such a four-space would be evacuated of all temporal becoming and would simply exist timelessly. Thus, Hawking describes it as "completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would be neither created nor destroyed. It would just BE."

The question which arises for this construal of the model is whether such an interpretation is meant to be taken realistically or instrumentally. On this score, there can be little doubt that the use of imaginary quantities for time is a mere mathematical device without ontological significance. Barrow observes, "physicists have often carried out this 'change time into space' procedure as a useful trick for doing certain problems in ordinary quantum mechanics, although they did not imagine that time was really like space. At the end of the calculation, they just swop [sic] back into the usual interpretation of there being one dimension of time and three . . . dimensions of . . . space." In his model, Hawking simply declines to re-convert to real numbers. If we do, then the singularity re-appears. Hawking admits, "Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities . . . . When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities." Hawking's model is thus a way of re-describing a universe with a singular beginning point in such a way that that singularity is transformed away; but such a re-description is not realist in character.

Hawking has recently stated explicitly that he interprets the Hartle-Hawking model non-realistically. He confesses, "I'm a positivist . . . I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is." Still more extreme, "I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality."In assessing the worth of a theory, "All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements.' The clearest example of Hawking's instrumentalism is his analysis of particle pair creation in terms of an electron quantum tunneling in Euclidean space (with time being imaginary) and an electron/positron pair accelerating away from each other in Minkowski space-time. This analysis is directly analogous to the Hartle-Hawking cosmological model; and yet no one would construe particle pair creation as literally the result of an electron's transitioning out of a timelessly existing four-space into our classical space-time. It is just an alternative description employing imaginary numbers rather than real numbers.

Significantly, the use of imaginary quantities for time is an inherent feature of all Quantum Gravity Models. This precludes their being construed realistically as accounts of the origin of the space-time universe in a timelessly existing four-space. Rather they are ways of modeling the real beginning of the universe ex nihilo in such a way as to not involve a singularity. What brought the universe into being remains unexplained on such accounts.

Summary
With each successive failure of alternative cosmogonic theories, the Standard Model has been corroborated. It can be confidently said that no cosmogonic model has been as repeatedly verified in its predictions and as corroborated by attempts at its falsification, or as concordant with empirical discoveries and as philosophically coherent, as the Standard Big Bang Model. This does not prove that it is correct, but it does show that it is the best explanation of the evidence which we have and therefore merits our provisional acceptance.

Beyond the Big Bang
The discovery that the universe is not eternal in the past but had a beginning has profound metaphysical implications. For it implies that the universe is not necessary in its existence but rather has its ground in a transcendent, metaphysically necessary being. The only way of avoiding this conclusion would be to deny Leibniz's conviction that anything that exists must have a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or else in an external ground. Reflecting upon the current situation, P. C. W. Davies muses,

'What caused the big bang?' . . . One might consider some supernatural force, some agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the big bang, or one might prefer to regard the big bang as an event without a cause. It seems to me that we don't have too much choice. Either . . . something outside of the physical world . . . or . . . an event without a cause.
The problem with saying that the Big Bang is an event without a cause is that it entails that the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing, which seems metaphysically absurd. Philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider remonstrates, "If taken seriously, the initial singularity is in head-on collision with the most successful ontological commitment that was a guiding line of research since Epicurus and Lucretius," namely, out of nothing nothing comes, which Kanitscheider calls "a metaphysical hypothesis which has proved so fruitful in every corner of science that we are surely well-advised to try as hard as we can to eschew processes of absolute origin." But if the universe began to exist, we are therefore driven to the second alternative: a supernatural agency beyond space and time.

The Supernaturalist Alternative
If we go the route of postulating some causal agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the origin of the universe, then conceptual analysis enables us to recover a number of striking properties which must be possessed by such an ultra-mundane being. For as the cause of space and time, this entity must transcend space and time and therefore exist atemporally and non-spatially, at least sans the universe. This transcendent cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial, since timelessness entails changelessness, and changelessness implies immateriality. Such a cause must be beginningless and uncaused, at least in the sense of lacking any antecedent causal conditions. Ockham's Razor will shave away further causes, since we should not multiply causes beyond necessity. This entity must be unimaginably powerful, since it created the universe without any material cause.

Finally, and most remarkably, such a transcendent cause is plausibly to be taken to be personal. As Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne points out, there are two types of causal explanation: scientific explanations in terms of laws and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions. A first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it can be accounted for only in terms of a personal explanation. Moreover, the personhood of the cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality, since the only entities we know of which can possess such properties are either minds or abstract objects, and abstract objects do not stand in causal relations. Therefore, the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must be of the order of mind. This same conclusion is also implied by the fact that we have in this case the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. If the cause of the origin of the universe were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, it would be impossible for the cause to exist without its effect. For if the necessary and sufficient conditions of the effect are timelessly given, then their effect must be given as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and changeless but for its effect to originate de novo a finite time ago is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without antecedent determining conditions. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal creator.

Naturalistic Objections
Many persons will, of course, be reluctant to take on board such metaphysical baggage. But what objection is there to the postulate of a personal, causal agency beyond the universe? Some critiques may be easily dismissed. For example, metaphysician John Post obviously begs the question when he claims that there cannot be a cause of the origin of the universe, since "by definition the universe contains everything there is or ever was or will be." Again it is an obvious non-sequitur when he infers that because "the singularity cannot be caused by some earlier natural event or process," therefore "contemporary physical cosmology cannot be cited in support of the idea of a divine cause or creator of the universe."

On the other hand, Smith realizes that the metaphysician must take seriously the "more difficult question" of "whether or not the singularity or the Big Bang probably is an effect of a supernatural cause." What problem, then, is there with a supernaturalist perspective? Adolf Grünbaum has argued vigorously against what he styles "the New Creation Argument" for a supernatural cause of the origin of the universe. His basic Ansatz is based on the assumption that causal priority implies temporal priority. Since there were no instants of time prior to the Big Bang, it follows that the Big Bang cannot have a cause.

It seems to me that there are a number of options for dealing with this objection, one of which is to hold that the Creator of the universe is causally, but not temporally, prior to the Big Bang singularity, such that His act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous, or co-incident, with its beginning to exist. Grünbaum provides no justification for his assumption that causal priority implies temporal priority. Discussions of causal directionality deal routinely with cases in which cause and effect are simultaneous. One could hold that the Creator sans the universe exists changelessly and, hence, timelessly and at the Big Bang singularity created the universe along with time and space. For the Creator sans the universe, there simply is no time because there are no events of any sort; time begins with the first event, at the moment of creation.

The time of the first event would be not only the first time at which the universe exists, but also, technically, the first time at which the Creator exists, since sans the universe the Creator is timeless. The act of creation is thus simultaneous with the origination of the universe.

The scenario I have sketched of the Creator's status sans the universe requires that the Creator be both a timeless and personal agent. But some philosophers have argued that such a notion is self-contradictory. For it is a necessary condition of personhood that an individual be capable of remembering, anticipating, reflecting, deliberating, deciding, and so forth. But these are inherently temporal activities. Therefore, there can be no atemporal persons.

The weakness in this reasoning is that it conflates common properties of persons with essential properties of persons. The sorts of activities delineated above are certainly common properties of temporal persons. But that does not imply that such properties are essential to personhood. Arguably, what is necessary and sufficient for personhood is self-consciousness and free volition, and these are not inherently temporal notions. In his study of divine timelessness, John Yates writes,

The classical theist may immediately grant that concepts such as reflection, memory, and anticipation could not apply to a timeless being (nor to any omniscient being), but this is not to admit that the key concepts of consciousness and knowledge are inapplicable to such a deity . . . . there does not seem to be any essential temporal element in words like . . . 'understand,' to 'be aware,' to 'know,' and so on . . . . an atemporal deity could possess maximal understanding, awareness, and knowledge in a single, all-embracing vision of himself and the sum of reality.
Similarly, the Creator could possess a free, changeless intention of the will to create a universe with a temporal beginning. Thus, it seems that neither self-consciousness nor free volition entail temporality. But since these are plausibly sufficient for personhood, there is no incoherence in the notion of a timeless, personal Creator of the universe.

All of the above objections have been offered as attempted justification of the apparently incredible position that the universe sprang into being uncaused out of nothing. But I, for one, find the premisses of those objections far less perspicuous than the proposition that whatever begins to exist has a cause. It is far more plausible to deny one of those premisses than to affirm what Hume called the "absurd Proposition" that something might arise without a cause, that the universe, in this case, should pop into existence uncaused out of nothing.

Conclusion
We can summarize the argument as follows:

1. Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
2. Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.
3. If the universe has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.
4. The universe began to exist.
From (2) and (4) it follows that

5. Therefore, the universe is not necessary in its existence.
From (1) and (5) it follows further that

6. Therefore, the universe has an external ground of its existence.
From (3) and (6) it we can conclude that

Therefore, there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.
And this, as Thomas Aquinas laconically remarked, is what everybody means by God.

Banned for lying - was warned twice.


djneibarger
Superfan
djneibarger's picture
Posts: 564
Joined: 2007-04-13
User is offlineOffline
nothing like a long,

nothing like a long, bloated, boring copied-and-pasted response when you're unable to come up with your own answer..

www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
You just ripped that off

You just ripped that off William Lane Craig, you dishonest spammer. I wrote what I pasted. But of course, having no physics education, what can either of you offer on these matters? I am already familiar with all of the models of the universe, you don't need to give a lecture in kindergarden physics. Although you might need it. You didnt even respond to what I wrote, you just pasted from Craig, most of which was prerefuted by me.

Now are you going to respond to me, and the link I posted which I wrote, not someone else, or are you going to copy and paste from theologians who pretend they know about physics?

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


jread
SuperfanTheist
jread's picture
Posts: 353
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote:

Theol0gic wrote:
Cosmology and phiIosophy have always traced their roots to the wonder felt by the ancient Greeks as they contempIated the cosmos. According to AristotIe, it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and the stars, and about the origin of the universe. The question of why the universe exists remains the ultimate mystery. Derek Parfit, a contemporary philosopher, declhe universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful. 4. The universe began to exist. From (2) and (4) it follows that 5. Therefore, the universe is not necessary in its existence. From (1) and (5) it follows further that 6. Therefore, the universe has an external ground of its existence. From (3) and (6) it we can conclude that Therefore, there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful. And this, as Thomas Aquinas laconically remarked, is what everybody means by God.

 

First word: plagiarism

Why don't you look that up and paste us the definition, we would all feel so much better.

 

The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller

Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I stand by my comment to

I stand by my comment to this drillrod earlier in this thread:

 "Just shut up. Please."


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote: Maybe the

Theol0gic wrote:
Maybe the lack of a sparkle is the lack of sanity.

To be quite honest I've only met 2 people in my entire life with dull, dead eyes. Both of them were theists. Both of them made me wonder how they lived as long as they had when I met them.

Theol0gic wrote:
Any modern text book on astrophysics proves what Christian theists have always known.

Any modern textbook on cosmology proves wrong what christian theists have always claimed. The world is not flat. The earth and sun revolve around a barypoint. The solar system is more than 4.6 billion years old, not 6000 years old. The universe is 13.8 odd billion years old, not 6000.01 years old.

Theol0gic wrote:
The universe had a beginning.

Prove it.

Theol0gic wrote:
The atheist arguments are so rediculous and antiquated that it literally amazes me that people who claim to live in an age of reason, even hold to atheism.

You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about.

I can't watch the video, but the name of Craig is more than enough to show it's a half baked acid trip. Not science. Not reality. Delusion. Lies.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote: ...

Theol0gic wrote:
...

Here's the full essay that you stole and took as your own:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html

Perhaps the "light of god" was revealed when your eyes sparkled at the theft of someone else's work. Truly sad indeed.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote:

Theol0gic wrote:
Cosmology and phiIosophy have always traced their roots to the wonder felt by the ancient Greeks as they contempIated the cosmos. According to AristotIe, it is owing to their wonder that men both now begin and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters, e.g. about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and the stars, and about the origin of the universe. The question of why the universe exists remains the ultimate mystery. Derek Parfit, a contemporary philosopher, declares that "No question is more sublime than why there is a Universe: why there is anything rather than nothing." This question led the great German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz to posit the existence of a metaphysically necessary being which carries within itself the sufficient reason for its own existence and which constitutes the sufficient reason for the existence of everything else in the world. Leibniz identified this being as God. Leibniz's critics, on the other hand, claimed that the space-time universe may itself be the necessary being demanded by Leibniz's argument. Thus, the Scottish sceptic David Hume queried, "Why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent Being . . . ?" Indeed, "How can anything, that exists from eternity, have a cause, since that relation implies a priority in time and a beginning of existence?" There is no warrant for going beyond the universe to posit a supernatural ground of its existence. As Bertrand Russell put it so succinctly in his BBC radio debate with Frederick Copleston, "The universe is just there, and that's all." The Origin of the Universe This stand-off persisted unaltered until 1917, the year in which Albert Einstein made a cosmological application of his newly discovered General Theory of Relativity.To his chagrin, he found that GTR would not permit a static model of the universe unless he introduced into his gravitational field equations a certain "fudge factor" L in order to counterbalance the gravitational effect of matter. Einstein's universe was balanced on a razor's edge, however, and the least perturbation would cause the universe either to implode or to expand. By taking this feature of Einstein's model seriously, Alexander Friedman and Georges Lemaitre were able to formulate independently in the 1920s solutions to the field equations which predicted an expanding universe. The monumental significance of the Friedman-Lemaitre model lay in its historization of the universe. As one commentator has remarked, up to this time the idea of the expansion of the universe "was absolutely beyond comprehension. Throughout all of human history the universe was regarded as fixed and immutable and the idea that it might actually be changing was inconceivable." But if the Friedman-Lemaitre model were correct, the universe could no longer be adequately treated as a static entity existing, in effect, timelessly. Rather the universe has a history, and time will not be matter of indifference for our investigation of the cosmos. In 1929 Edwin Hubble's measurements of the red-shift in the optical spectra of light from distant galaxies, which was taken to indicate a universal recessional motion of the light sources in the line of sight, provided a dramatic verification of the Friedman-Lemaitre model. Incredibly, what Hubble had discovered was the isotropic expansion of the universe predicted by Friedman and Lemaitre. It marked a veritable turning point in the history of science. "Of all the great predictions that science has ever made over the centuries," exclaims John Wheeler, "was there ever one greater than this, to predict, and predict correctly, and predict against all expectation a phenomenon so fantastic as the expansion of the universe?" The Standard Big Bang Model As a GTR-based theory, the Friedman-Lemaitre model does not describe the expansion of the material content of the universe into a pre-existing, empty, Newtonian space, but rather the expansion of space itself. This has the astonishing implication that as one reverses the expansion and extrapolates back in time, space-time curvature becomes progressively greater until one finally arrives at a singular state at which space-time curvature becomes infinite. This state therefore constitutes an edge or boundary to space-time itself. P. C. W. Davies comments, An initial cosmological singularity . . . forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. . . . 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. The popular expression "Big Bang," originally a derisive term coined by Fred Hoyle to characterize the beginning of the universe predicted by the Friedman-Lemaitre model, is thus potentially misleading, since the expansion cannot be visualized from the outside (there being no "outside," just as there is no "before" with respect to the Big Bang). The standard Big Bang model thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover,--and this deserves underscoring--the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity. As Barrow and Tipler emphasize, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo." Thus, we may graphically represent space-time as a cone (Fig. 1). Fig. 1: Conical Representation of Standard Model Space-Time. Space and time begin at the initial cosmological singularity, before which literally nothing exists. On such a model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity. Now such a conclusion is profoundly disturbing for anyone who ponders it. For the question cannot be suppressed: Why does the universe exist rather than nothing? In light of the universe's origin ex nihilo, one can no longer dismiss this question with a shrug and a slogan, "The universe is just there and that's all." For the universe is not "just there;" rather it came into being. The beginning of the universe discloses that the universe is not, as Hume thought, a necessarily existing being but is contingent in its existence. Philosophers analyzing the concept of necessary existence agree that the essential properties of any necessarily existing entity include its being eternal, uncaused, incorruptible, and indestructible--for otherwise it would be capable of non-existence, which is self-contradictory. Thus, if the universe began to exist, its lacks at least one of the essential properties of necessary existence-eternality. Therefore, the reason for its existence cannot be immanent, but must in some mysterious way be ultra-mundane, or transcendent. Otherwise, one must say that the universe simply sprang into being uncaused out of absolutely nothing, which seems absurd. Sir Arthur Eddington, contemplating the beginning of the universe, opined that the expansion of the universe was so preposterous and incredible that "I feel almost an indignation that anyone should believe in it--except myself." He finally felt forced to conclude, "The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural." I find that most scientists do not reflect philosophically upon the metaphysical implications of their theories. But, in the words of one astrophysical team, "The problem of the origin [of the universe] involves a certain metaphysical aspect which may be either appealing or revolting." The Steady State Model Revolted by the stark metaphysical alternatives presented us by an absolute beginning of the universe, certain theorists have been understandably eager to subvert the Standard Model and restore an eternal universe. Sir Fred Hoyle, for example, could countenance neither an uncaused nor a supernaturally caused origin of the universe. With respect to the first alternative, he wrote, "This most peculiar situation is taken by many astronomers to represent the origin of the universe. The universe is supposed to have begun at this particular time. From where? The usual answer, surely an unsatisfactory one, is: from nothing!" Equally unsatisfactory in Hoyle's mind was the postulation of a supernatural cause. Noting that some accept happily the universe's absolute beginning, Hoyle complained, To many people this thought process seems highly satisfactory because a 'something' outside physics can then be introduced at t = 0. By a semantic manoeuvre, the word 'something' is then replaced by 'god,' except that the first letter becomes a capital, God, in order to warn us that we must not carry the enquiry any further. To Hoyle's credit, he did carry the inquiry further by helping to formulate in 1948 the first competitor to the Standard Model, namely, the Steady State Model of the universe. According to this theory, the universe is in a state of isotropic cosmic expansion, but as the galaxies recede, new matter is drawn into being ex nihilo in the interstices of space created by the galactic recession (Fig. 2). Fig. 2: Steady State Model. As the galaxies mutually recede, new matter comes into existence to replace them. The universe thus constantly renews itself and so never began to exist. If one extrapolates the expansion of the universe back in time, the density of the universe never increases because the matter and energy simply vanish as the galaxies mutually approach! The Steady State theory never secured a single piece of experimental verification; its appeal was purely metaphysical.The discovery of progressively more radio galaxies at ever greater distances undermined the theory by showing that the universe had an evolutionary history. But the decisive refutation of the Steady State Model came with two discoveries which constituted, in addition to the galactic red-shift, the most significant evidence for the Big Bang theory: the cosmogonic nucleosynthesis of the light elements and the microwave background radiation. As a result, in the words of Ivan King, "The steady-state theory has now been laid to rest, as a result of clear-cut observations of how things have changed with time." Oscillating Models The Standard Model was based on the assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy. Some cosmologists speculated that by denying homogeneity and isotropy, one might be able to craft an Oscillating Model of the universe.If the internal gravitational pull of the mass of the universe were able to overcome the force of its expansion, then the expansion could be reversed into a cosmic contraction, a Big Crunch. If the universe were not homogeneous and isotropic, then the collapsing universe might not coalesce at a point, but the material contents of the universe might pass each other by, so that the universe would appear to bounce back from the contraction into a new expansion phase. If this process of expansion and contraction could be repeated indefinitely, then an absolute beginning of the universe might be avoided (Fig. 3). Fig. 3: Oscillating Model. Each expansion phase is preceded and succeeded by a contraction phase, so that the universe in concertina-like fashion exists beginninglessly and endlessly. Such a theory is extraordinarily speculative, but again there were metaphysical motivations for adopting this model. The prospects of the Oscillating Model were severely dimmed in 1970, however, by Penrose and Hawking's formulation of the Singularity Theorems which bear their names. The theorems disclosed that under very generalized conditions an initial cosmological singularity is inevitable, even for inhomogeneous and non-isotropic universes. Reflecting on the impact of this discovery, Hawking notes that the Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorems "led to the abandonment of attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non-singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang." Despite the fact that the termini of a closed universe must be singularities and that no space-time trajectory can be extended through a singularity, the Oscillating Model exhibited a stubborn persistence. Three further strikes were lodged against it. First, there are no known physics which would cause a collapsing universe to bounce back to a new expansion. Second, the observational evidence indicates that the mean mass density of the universe is insufficient to generate enough gravitational attraction to halt and reverse the expansion. Third, since entropy is conserved from cycle to cycle in such a model, which has the effect of generating larger and longer oscillations with each successive cycle, the thermodynamic properties of an Oscillating Model imply the very beginning its proponents sought to avoid (Fig. 4). Fig. 4: Oscillating Model with Entropy Increase. Due to the conservation of entropy each successive oscillation has a larger radius and longer expansion time. Although these difficulties were well-known, proponents of the Oscillating Model tenaciously clung to it until a new alternative to the Standard Model emerged during the 1970s. The theory drew its life from its avoidance of an absolute beginning of the universe; but once other models became available claiming to offer the same benefit, the Oscillating Model sank under the weight of its own deficiencies. Vacuum Fluctuation Models Cosmologists realized that a physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time would require the introduction of quantum physics in addition to GTR. In 1973 Edward Tryon speculated whether the universe might not be a long-lived virtual particle, whose total energy is zero, born out of the primordial vacuum.This seemingly bizarre speculation gave rise to a new generation of cosmogonic theories which we may call Vacuum Fluctuation Models. In such models, it is hypothesized that prior to some inflationary era the Universe-as-a-whole is a primordial vacuum which exists, not in a state of expansion, but eternally in a steady state. Throughout this vacuum sub-atomic energy fluctuations constantly occur, by means of which matter is created and mini-universes are born (Fig. 5). Fig. 5: Vacuum Fluctuation Models. Within the vacuum of the wider Universe, fluctuations occur which grow into mini-universes. Ours is but one of these, and its relative beginning does not imply a beginning for the Universe-as-a-whole. Our expanding universe is but one of an indefinite number of mini-universes conceived within the womb of the greater Universe-as-a-whole. Thus, the beginning of our universe does not represent an absolute beginning, but merely a change in the eternal, uncaused Universe-as-a-whole. Vacuum Fluctuation Models did not outlive the decade of the 1980s. Not only were there theoretical problems with the production mechanisms of matter, but these models faced a deep internal incoherence. According to such models, it is impossible to specify precisely when and where a fluctuation will occur in the primordial vacuum which will then grow into a universe. Within any finite interval of time there is a positive probability of such a fluctuation occurring at any point in space. Thus, given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum, and, as they expand, they will begin to collide and coalesce with one another. Thus, given infinite past time, we should by now be observing an infinitely old universe, not a relatively young one. About the only way to avert the problem would be to postulate an expansion of the primordial vacuum itself; but then we are right back to the absolute origin implied by the Standard Model. According to Isham this problem proved to be "fairly lethal" to Vacuum Fluctuation Models; hence, these models were "jettisoned twenty years ago" and "nothing much" has been done with them since. Chaotic Inflationary Model Inflation also forms the context for the next alternative to arise: the Chaotic Inflationary Model. One of the most fertile of the inflation theorists has been the Russian cosmologist Andrei Linde. In Linde's model inflation never ends: each inflating domain of the universe when it reaches a certain volume gives rise via inflation to another domain, and so on, ad infinitum (Fig. 6). Fig. 6: Chaotic Inflationary Model. The wider universe produces via inflation separate domains which continue to recede from one another. Since these "bubbles" do not interact, they cannot collide and coalesce as the mini-universes postulated by Vacuum Fluctuation Models could. Linde's model thus has an infinite future. But Linde is troubled at the prospect of an absolute beginning. He writes, "The most difficult aspect of this problem is not the existence of the singularity itself, but the question of what was before the singularity . . . . This problem lies somewhere at the boundary between physics and metaphysics." Linde therefore proposes that chaotic inflation is not only endless, but beginningless. Every domain in the universe is the product of inflation in another domain, so that the singularity is averted and with it as well the question of what came before (or, more accurately, what caused it). In 1994, however, Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin showed that a universe eternally inflating toward the future cannot be geodesically complete in the past, so that there must have existed at some point in the indefinite past an initial singularity. They write, A model in which the inflationary phase has no end . . . naturally leads to this question: Can this model also be extended to the infinite past, avoiding in this way the problem of the initial singularity? . . . this is in fact not possible in future-eternal inflationary spacetimes as long as they obey some reasonable physical conditions: such models must necessarily possess initial singularities. . . . the fact that inflationary spacetimes are past incomplete forces one to address the question of what, if anything, came before. In response, Linde reluctantly concurs with the conclusion of Borde and Vilenkin: there must have been a Big Bang singularity at some point in the pas Quantum Gravity Models At the close of their analysis of Linde's Chaotic Inflationary Model, Borde and Vilenkin say with respect to Linde's metaphysical question, "The most promising way to deal with this problem is probably to treat the Universe quantum mechanically and describe it by a wave function rather than by a classical spacetime." They thereby allude to the last class of models attempting to avoid the initial cosmological singularity which we shall consider, namely, Quantum Gravity Models. Vilenkin and, more famously, James Hartle and Stephen Hawking have proposed models of the universe which Vilenkin candidly calls exercises in "metaphysical cosmology." In his best-selling popularization of his theory, Hawking even reveals an explicitly theological orientation. He concedes that on the Standard Model one could legitimately identify the Big Bang singularity as the instant at which God created the universe. Indeed, he thinks that a number of attempts to avoid the Big Bang were probably motivated by the feeling that a beginning of time "smacks of divine intervention." He sees his own model as preferable to the Standard Model because there would be no edge of space-time at which one "would have to appeal to God or some new law." Both the Hartle-Hawking and the Vilenkin models eliminate the initial singularity by transforming the conical hyper-surface of classical space-time into a smooth, curved hyper-surface having no edge. Fig. 7: Quantum Gravity Model. In the Hartle-Hawking version, space-time is "rounded off" prior to the Planck time, so that although the past is finite, there is no edge or beginning point. This is accomplished by the introduction of imaginary numbers for the time variable in Einstein's gravitational equations, which effectively eliminates the singularity. Hawking sees profound theological implications in the model: The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary . . . has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe . . . . So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end. What place, then, for a creator? Hawking does not deny the existence of God, but he does think his model eliminates the need for a Creator. The key to assessing this theological claim is the physical interpretation of Quantum Gravity Models. By positing a finite (imaginary) time on a closed surface prior the Planck time rather than an infinite time on an open surface, such models actually seem to support, rather than undercut, the idea that time had a beginning. Such theories, if successful, enable us to model the origin of the universe without an initial singularity involving infinite density, temperature, pressure, and so on. As Barrow points out, "This type of quantum universe has not always existed; it comes into being just as the classical cosmologies could, but it does not start at a Big Bang where physical quantities are infinite . . . ." Barrow points out that such models are "often described as giving a picture of 'creation out of nothing,'" the only caveat being that in this case "there is no definite . . . point of creation." Hartle-Hawking themselves construe their model as giving "the amplitude for the Universe to appear from nothing," and Hawking has asserted that according to the model the universe "would quite literally be created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all, because there is nothing outside the universe." Taken at face value, these statements entail the beginning of the universe. Hawking's claim quoted above concerning the theological implications of his model must therefore be understood to mean that on such models there are no beginning or ending points, and, hence, no need for a Creator. But having a beginning does not entail having a beginning point. Even in the Standard Model, theorists sometimes "cut out" the initial singular point without thinking that therefore space-time no longer begins to exist and that the problem of the origin of the universe is thereby resolved. Time begins to exist just in case for any finite temporal interval, there are only a finite number of equal temporal intervals earlier than it. That condition is fulfilled for Quantum Gravity Models as well as for the Standard Model. Nor should we think that by giving the amplitude for the universe to appear from nothing quantum cosmologists have eliminated the need for a Creator, for that probability is conditional upon several choices which only the Creator could make (such as selecting the wave function of the universe) and is dubiously applied to absolute nothingness. Perhaps it will be said that such an interpretation of Quantum Gravity Models fails to take seriously the notion of "imaginary time." Introducing imaginary numbers for the time variable in Einstein's equation has the peculiar effect of making the time dimension indistinguishable from space. But in that case, the imaginary time regime prior to the Planck time is not a space-time at all, but a Euclidean four-dimensional space. Construed realistically, such a four-space would be evacuated of all temporal becoming and would simply exist timelessly. Thus, Hawking describes it as "completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would be neither created nor destroyed. It would just BE." The question which arises for this construal of the model is whether such an interpretation is meant to be taken realistically or instrumentally. On this score, there can be little doubt that the use of imaginary quantities for time is a mere mathematical device without ontological significance. Barrow observes, "physicists have often carried out this 'change time into space' procedure as a useful trick for doing certain problems in ordinary quantum mechanics, although they did not imagine that time was really like space. At the end of the calculation, they just swop [sic] back into the usual interpretation of there being one dimension of time and three . . . dimensions of . . . space." In his model, Hawking simply declines to re-convert to real numbers. If we do, then the singularity re-appears. Hawking admits, "Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities . . . . When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities." Hawking's model is thus a way of re-describing a universe with a singular beginning point in such a way that that singularity is transformed away; but such a re-description is not realist in character. Hawking has recently stated explicitly that he interprets the Hartle-Hawking model non-realistically. He confesses, "I'm a positivist . . . I don't demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don't know what it is." Still more extreme, "I take the positivist viewpoint that a physical theory is just a mathematical model and that it is meaningless to ask whether it corresponds to reality."In assessing the worth of a theory, "All I'm concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements.' The clearest example of Hawking's instrumentalism is his analysis of particle pair creation in terms of an electron quantum tunneling in Euclidean space (with time being imaginary) and an electron/positron pair accelerating away from each other in Minkowski space-time. This analysis is directly analogous to the Hartle-Hawking cosmological model; and yet no one would construe particle pair creation as literally the result of an electron's transitioning out of a timelessly existing four-space into our classical space-time. It is just an alternative description employing imaginary numbers rather than real numbers. Significantly, the use of imaginary quantities for time is an inherent feature of all Quantum Gravity Models. This precludes their being construed realistically as accounts of the origin of the space-time universe in a timelessly existing four-space. Rather they are ways of modeling the real beginning of the universe ex nihilo in such a way as to not involve a singularity. What brought the universe into being remains unexplained on such accounts. Summary With each successive failure of alternative cosmogonic theories, the Standard Model has been corroborated. It can be confidently said that no cosmogonic model has been as repeatedly verified in its predictions and as corroborated by attempts at its falsification, or as concordant with empirical discoveries and as philosophically coherent, as the Standard Big Bang Model. This does not prove that it is correct, but it does show that it is the best explanation of the evidence which we have and therefore merits our provisional acceptance. Beyond the Big Bang The discovery that the universe is not eternal in the past but had a beginning has profound metaphysical implications. For it implies that the universe is not necessary in its existence but rather has its ground in a transcendent, metaphysically necessary being. The only way of avoiding this conclusion would be to deny Leibniz's conviction that anything that exists must have a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or else in an external ground. Reflecting upon the current situation, P. C. W. Davies muses, 'What caused the big bang?' . . . One might consider some supernatural force, some agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the big bang, or one might prefer to regard the big bang as an event without a cause. It seems to me that we don't have too much choice. Either . . . something outside of the physical world . . . or . . . an event without a cause. The problem with saying that the Big Bang is an event without a cause is that it entails that the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing, which seems metaphysically absurd. Philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider remonstrates, "If taken seriously, the initial singularity is in head-on collision with the most successful ontological commitment that was a guiding line of research since Epicurus and Lucretius," namely, out of nothing nothing comes, which Kanitscheider calls "a metaphysical hypothesis which has proved so fruitful in every corner of science that we are surely well-advised to try as hard as we can to eschew processes of absolute origin." But if the universe began to exist, we are therefore driven to the second alternative: a supernatural agency beyond space and time. The Supernaturalist Alternative If we go the route of postulating some causal agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the origin of the universe, then conceptual analysis enables us to recover a number of striking properties which must be possessed by such an ultra-mundane being. For as the cause of space and time, this entity must transcend space and time and therefore exist atemporally and non-spatially, at least sans the universe. This transcendent cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial, since timelessness entails changelessness, and changelessness implies immateriality. Such a cause must be beginningless and uncaused, at least in the sense of lacking any antecedent causal conditions. Ockham's Razor will shave away further causes, since we should not multiply causes beyond necessity. This entity must be unimaginably powerful, since it created the universe without any material cause. Finally, and most remarkably, such a transcendent cause is plausibly to be taken to be personal. As Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne points out, there are two types of causal explanation: scientific explanations in terms of laws and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions. A first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it can be accounted for only in terms of a personal explanation. Moreover, the personhood of the cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality, since the only entities we know of which can possess such properties are either minds or abstract objects, and abstract objects do not stand in causal relations. Therefore, the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must be of the order of mind. This same conclusion is also implied by the fact that we have in this case the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. If the cause of the origin of the universe were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, it would be impossible for the cause to exist without its effect. For if the necessary and sufficient conditions of the effect are timelessly given, then their effect must be given as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and changeless but for its effect to originate de novo a finite time ago is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without antecedent determining conditions. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal creator. Naturalistic Objections Many persons will, of course, be reluctant to take on board such metaphysical baggage. But what objection is there to the postulate of a personal, causal agency beyond the universe? Some critiques may be easily dismissed. For example, metaphysician John Post obviously begs the question when he claims that there cannot be a cause of the origin of the universe, since "by definition the universe contains everything there is or ever was or will be." Again it is an obvious non-sequitur when he infers that because "the singularity cannot be caused by some earlier natural event or process," therefore "contemporary physical cosmology cannot be cited in support of the idea of a divine cause or creator of the universe." On the other hand, Smith realizes that the metaphysician must take seriously the "more difficult question" of "whether or not the singularity or the Big Bang probably is an effect of a supernatural cause." What problem, then, is there with a supernaturalist perspective? Adolf Grünbaum has argued vigorously against what he styles "the New Creation Argument" for a supernatural cause of the origin of the universe. His basic Ansatz is based on the assumption that causal priority implies temporal priority. Since there were no instants of time prior to the Big Bang, it follows that the Big Bang cannot have a cause. It seems to me that there are a number of options for dealing with this objection, one of which is to hold that the Creator of the universe is causally, but not temporally, prior to the Big Bang singularity, such that His act of causing the universe to begin to exist is simultaneous, or co-incident, with its beginning to exist. Grünbaum provides no justification for his assumption that causal priority implies temporal priority. Discussions of causal directionality deal routinely with cases in which cause and effect are simultaneous. One could hold that the Creator sans the universe exists changelessly and, hence, timelessly and at the Big Bang singularity created the universe along with time and space. For the Creator sans the universe, there simply is no time because there are no events of any sort; time begins with the first event, at the moment of creation. The time of the first event would be not only the first time at which the universe exists, but also, technically, the first time at which the Creator exists, since sans the universe the Creator is timeless. The act of creation is thus simultaneous with the origination of the universe. The scenario I have sketched of the Creator's status sans the universe requires that the Creator be both a timeless and personal agent. But some philosophers have argued that such a notion is self-contradictory. For it is a necessary condition of personhood that an individual be capable of remembering, anticipating, reflecting, deliberating, deciding, and so forth. But these are inherently temporal activities. Therefore, there can be no atemporal persons. The weakness in this reasoning is that it conflates common properties of persons with essential properties of persons. The sorts of activities delineated above are certainly common properties of temporal persons. But that does not imply that such properties are essential to personhood. Arguably, what is necessary and sufficient for personhood is self-consciousness and free volition, and these are not inherently temporal notions. In his study of divine timelessness, John Yates writes, The classical theist may immediately grant that concepts such as reflection, memory, and anticipation could not apply to a timeless being (nor to any omniscient being), but this is not to admit that the key concepts of consciousness and knowledge are inapplicable to such a deity . . . . there does not seem to be any essential temporal element in words like . . . 'understand,' to 'be aware,' to 'know,' and so on . . . . an atemporal deity could possess maximal understanding, awareness, and knowledge in a single, all-embracing vision of himself and the sum of reality. Similarly, the Creator could possess a free, changeless intention of the will to create a universe with a temporal beginning. Thus, it seems that neither self-consciousness nor free volition entail temporality. But since these are plausibly sufficient for personhood, there is no incoherence in the notion of a timeless, personal Creator of the universe. All of the above objections have been offered as attempted justification of the apparently incredible position that the universe sprang into being uncaused out of nothing. But I, for one, find the premisses of those objections far less perspicuous than the proposition that whatever begins to exist has a cause. It is far more plausible to deny one of those premisses than to affirm what Hume called the "absurd Proposition" that something might arise without a cause, that the universe, in this case, should pop into existence uncaused out of nothing. Conclusion We can summarize the argument as follows: 1. Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground. 2. Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence. 3. If the universe has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful. 4. The universe began to exist. From (2) and (4) it follows that 5. Therefore, the universe is not necessary in its existence. From (1) and (5) it follows further that 6. Therefore, the universe has an external ground of its existence. From (3) and (6) it we can conclude that Therefore, there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful. And this, as Thomas Aquinas laconically remarked, is what everybody means by God.

This is your second warning:

Plagarism is cleary against forum rules, please cease and disist of this activity. If you do not you will be facing a ban.

 

Thank you,

Mod Team 


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote:   This is your

BGH wrote:

 

This is your second warning:

Plagarism is cleary against forum rules, please cease and disist of this activity. If you do not you will be facing a ban.

 

Thank you,

Mod Team

Ah, what's a little dishonesty if it furthers the kingdom of god?

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church [...]a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." - Martin Luther 

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


lao tzu
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I'm calling Poe's Law

"Whether you understand it or not, it is a demonic spirit over the city of Mogadishu. Ladies and gentlemen, that's not a fake, that's not a farce," Boykin said.

General Seeks 'Satan' Speech Probe

 

There is no lao tzu


HumanisticJones
HumanisticJones's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote: The reason

Theol0gic wrote:
The reason a person would deny the obious fact that atheists have no sparkle in their eyes or glow in their face, is because they also are victims of this same darkness. An atheist would deny this because they have no frame of reference. Having grown-up among theists, and being one myself, I can see a huge difference between believers and non-believers. Atheists have darkness written all over them. I agree that part of the reason is the utter hopelesness and despair that atheism leads to.

Hmmm.... lets try an experiment shall we?

I want you to look at these pictures I will now link to, tell me which people in these photos are the atheists with only looking at them.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x260/unitg3d/1557167282_l.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x260/unitg3d/cruiseSpring07/cruise-formalsmall.jpg

There's 3 people amongst the two photos. Maybe someone there is an atheist, maybe I've just put pictures of my friends up to confuse you. Maybe they're all atheists. So lets see how full of despair each one is. I expect accuracy here.

 

The Regular Expressions of Humanistic Jones: Where one software Engineer will show the world that God is nothing more than an undefined pointer.


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
The young girl and the man

The young girl and the man are atheist and the formal female is agnostic.

I sense pure evil.

 

 


Joe6Pack
Joe6Pack's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote:I've

Theol0gic wrote:
I've looked at dozens of videos on the blasphemy challenge, and I noticed that all the atheists have one thing in common: dark auras. If you look at them, they look dark and unhealthy. There is no light or sparkle in their eyes. It's as if they have driven the light of God out of them. Some schools of philosophy and religion assert that some people don't have souls. I don't know. But those people do not look normal. They look dark. It's hard to explain.
Good grief! I think you need to check yurself there bub. My dad is a Christian and he does not see me as some souless monster...even though I have disapointed him at times. Even though I am an atheist he don't see me or other atheists as you do. I think your prejudice has tainted your perception. If my dad read what you posted here I am damn sure he would tell you to read your own sig and rethink some things. You forget that most atheists are the parents, children, and siblings of theists. Your bigotry won't wash with some bible believing Christians.

Besides, you sound like a heathen idolater with your talk about auras and stuff. Maybe you aught to look at the log in your own eye before you cast such rediculous stones at others. I mean its one thing to disagree with the views of some atheists, but good grief! Hearing such prejudice come out of your mouth makes me question if you really have any faith to begin with. Why do I get the feeling that the "Christians" who have a hard time with "Wherever they do not welcome you, as you are leaving that town shake the dust off your feet as a testomony againts them", are in reality people who only pretend to have faith? Are you having doubts about God? If so why waist your time playing hard to get? Why not tell us that you are a doubter so some of us can help you work through losing the rest of your faith? Its ok to be atheist man. Honest. Its not as scary as you fear. No need to demonize folks just because you are having doubts.

( I forgot to make paragraphs hehe )


JoeSoup
JoeSoup's picture
Posts: 4
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Of course we look dark,

Of course we look dark, knowing the truth is burdensome Smiling


Joe6Pack
Joe6Pack's picture
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
JoeSoup wrote: Of course we

JoeSoup wrote:
Of course we look dark, knowing the truth is burdensome Smiling

Or maybe some of us are too bright and some folks prefer the shadows in the cave instead of the sun. Smiling


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: DAMN YOU! More stuff

Quote:
DAMN YOU! More stuff to read. My head is going to explode from information overload. I read through it very quickly. Interesting stuff. But I really am getting overloaded since coming to this site. It's going to take some time and effort to integrate what I'm learning.

Heh, sorry Smiling I must admit it took me quite a while to read through that myself. But I definitely recommend it.

Quote:
Maybe the lack of a sparkle is the lack of sanity.

Any modern text book on astrophysics proves what Christian theists have always known. The universe had a beginning. The atheist arguments are so rediculous and antiquated that it literally amazes me that people who claim to live in an age of reason, even hold to atheism.

Funny, the Buddhists say the same thing about you, and they meditate each day for you to finally find the path to Nirvana...

Quote:
We're big into conserving energy.

LOL ... ?

Quote:
First word: plagiarism

Why don't you look that up and paste us the definition, we would all feel so much better.

OWNED

 

And now to reply to the plagiator, and, possibly, show him that his hero isn't that much to take on. The paragraphs before my first quote on it are simply scientific theories and interpretations, and not in any way erroneous, so I will not quote them, to save some space.

Quote:
As a GTR-based theory, the Friedman-Lemaitre model does not describe the expansion of the material content of the universe into a pre-existing, empty, Newtonian space, but rather the expansion of space itself. This has the astonishing implication that as one reverses the expansion and extrapolates back in time, space-time curvature becomes progressively greater until one finally arrives at a singular state at which space-time curvature becomes infinite. This state therefore constitutes an edge or boundary to space-time itself. P. C. W. Davies comments,

An initial cosmological singularity . . . forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. . . .

Not only that we cannot continue physical reasoning beyond that point of extremity, but we cannot even GET to that point. The Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker Metric not only constitutes an exact formula for general relativity, it also demands that the Universe expands in a certain way. The interesting thing about this certain way is the possibility of circularity of time, or space, or both (thus Hawking's idea of time being a circle isn't exactly so far-off). Needless to say that, if space can be circular, the idea of finding the "boundaries of the expanding Universe" is senseless as long as we are still bound to its laws.

Quote:
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.
The popular expression "Big Bang," originally a derisive term coined by Fred Hoyle to characterize the beginning of the universe predicted by the Friedman-Lemaitre model, is thus potentially misleading, since the expansion cannot be visualized from the outside (there being no "outside," just as there is no "before" with respect to the Big Bang).

The standard Big Bang model thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover,--and this deserves underscoring--the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity. As Barrow and Tipler emphasize, "At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo." Thus, we may graphically represent space-time as a cone (Fig. 1).

The origin through Big Bang is not an absolute ex nihilo, contrary to what is said here. First off, there was a "cosmological singularity" - that's not "nihilo", and we could just stop right here, but why not explain to the end?

As the author admitted himself before, the FLRW Metric has time and/or space not as a cause, but rather as a consequence (we will remember this as (1) for future reference). Current laws of time and space do not allow us to speculate on the nature and laws governing the initial singularity, so all we currently know about it is that the "cosmological singularity" is a model good enough to explain the current situation. the FLRW Metric, as it is applied to general relativity, concludes that within this system we call Universe, space and time exist this way, having the cause described by that singularity. It doesn't, however, stop the possibility of that singularity to be formed after a "big crunch" of a previous universe that has become unstable and reversed its expansion.

"Literal nothingness" is not the case, as in no time an entity which is supposed to be "something other than nothing" had to exist necessarily within time or space.

Next few paragraphs touch different models, some eliminating the need of a singularity, thus creating an edgeless circular model of space and time (which is exactly what I tried to touch before), both as open system and closed system (without actually defining it that way). Though interesting conclusions have been reached in some of them, no debate is necessary.

Quote:
With each successive failure of alternative cosmogonic theories, the Standard Model has been corroborated. It can be confidently said that no cosmogonic model has been as repeatedly verified in its predictions and as corroborated by attempts at its falsification, or as concordant with empirical discoveries and as philosophically coherent, as the Standard Big Bang Model. This does not prove that it is correct, but it does show that it is the best explanation of the evidence which we have and therefore merits our provisional acceptance.

The Big Bang model hasn't been "repeatedly verified" either, as for the moment, that "initial singularity" is simply a placeholder, a model that seems to work just fine and also conform to Occam's Razor. From our perspective, we can think about it as a singularity, regardless of what it actually was (who knows? perhaps it was the aliens pressing the "reset" button on the Universe - joking). Truly, it's the best model that we have until now, but, as I said before, as long as we are bound to the laws of this universe, we cannot escape it and see what actually happened.

Quote:
The discovery that the universe is not eternal in the past but had a beginning has profound metaphysical implications. For it implies that the universe is not necessary in its existence but rather has its ground in a transcendent, metaphysically necessary being. The only way of avoiding this conclusion would be to deny Leibniz's conviction that anything that exists must have a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or else in an external ground.

Very well, I deny Leibniz's conviction. Why should I care of someone's conviction, since he went to absolutely no effort to actually demonstrate that his conviction is actually true.

But consider this as my own opinion, and please note what the author states here: "anything that exists must have a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or else in an external ground" <- of chich the author leaves no room for interpretation but to that he is convinced of. We will keep this in mind as (2) for the final argument.

Quote:
'What caused the big bang?' . . . One might consider some supernatural force, some agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the big bang, or one might prefer to regard the big bang as an event without a cause. It seems to me that we don't have too much choice. Either . . . something outside of the physical world . . . or . . . an event without a cause.
The problem with saying that the Big Bang is an event without a cause is that it entails that the universe came into being uncaused out of nothing, which seems metaphysically absurd. Philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider remonstrates, "If taken seriously, the initial singularity is in head-on collision with the most successful ontological commitment that was a guiding line of research since Epicurus and Lucretius," namely, out of nothing nothing comes, which Kanitscheider calls "a metaphysical hypothesis which has proved so fruitful in every corner of science that we are surely well-advised to try as hard as we can to eschew processes of absolute origin." But if the universe began to exist, we are therefore driven to the second alternative: a supernatural agency beyond space and time.

Please take note that in the first part of the argument, the author states 3 possibilities: a supernatural agency, an agency beyond space and time and no cause. In the end, he mysteriously combines thefirst two into one, thus leaving only two possibilities: a supernatural agency outside space and time and no cause. I feel obliged to correct his argument: "we are therefore driven to the first two alternatives: a supernatural agency and an agency outside of space and time" <- we will keep this in mind as (3).

Quote:
If we go the route of postulating some causal agency beyond space and time as being responsible for the origin of the universe, then conceptual analysis enables us to recover a number of striking properties which must be possessed by such an ultra-mundane being. For as the cause of space and time, this entity must transcend space and time and therefore exist atemporally and non-spatially, at least sans the universe. This transcendent cause must therefore be changeless and immaterial, since timelessness entails changelessness, and changelessness implies immateriality. Such a cause must be beginningless and uncaused, at least in the sense of lacking any antecedent causal conditions. Occam's Razor will shave away further causes, since we should not multiply causes beyond necessity.

This paragraph is probably the downfall of the entire argument, so please keep in mind all that is written here as (4).

Quote:
This entity must be unimaginably powerful, since it created the universe without any material cause.

That demands a relative power to compare it to, and that also demands a person to wield this "power". Can we say that a rock is "powerful" because it shatters a window? But anyway, let's also assume this to be the case.

Quote:
Finally, and most remarkably, such a transcendent cause is plausibly to be taken to be personal. As Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne points out, there are two types of causal explanation: scientific explanations in terms of laws and initial conditions and personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions. A first state of the universe cannot have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it, and therefore it can be accounted for only in terms of a personal explanation. Moreover, the personhood of the cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality, since the only entities we know of which can possess such properties are either minds or abstract objects, and abstract objects do not stand in causal relations. Therefore, the transcendent cause of the origin of the universe must be of the order of mind. This same conclusion is also implied by the fact that we have in this case the origin of a temporal effect from a timeless cause. If the cause of the origin of the universe were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, it would be impossible for the cause to exist without its effect. For if the necessary and sufficient conditions of the effect are timelessly given, then their effect must be given as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and changeless but for its effect to originate de novo a finite time ago is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to bring about an effect without antecedent determining conditions. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal creator.

And now comes the conclusion that is deeply flawed, and that all the other 4 points are given to support.

A "first state" of the Universe not only can, but it also has a scientific explanation: the "cosmological singularity" model. To what we are able to know, that was the "fisrt state" of the Universe. How do we know it? Simple, through (1), that states time/space is more of a consequence of the FLRW Metric. Since that singularity was the cause of time, applying the term "prior" to the relationship isn't flawed by any order of science, thus the author's presumption is already shaking.

Next interesting point is that timelessness and immateriality point to a person. Unfortunately for the author, (1) again tells us that the singularity is timeless and immaterial. We know of no person within the singularity, and, along with Occam's razor, we need none, the author itself admitting that the current Big Bang theory is the best one that we have. Since the initial singularity does not equal Big Bang, the question as to what caused the Big Bang can be answered by "the singularity" and it will be correct from this respect.

As a side note: the author does another incorrect assumption, that minds can exist outside of space and time. Yes, they do exist outside of space, but not outside of time, since the development of the mind itself, and the thinking process, is in itself related to time.

The next supposition of the author is that it would be impossible for a timeless cause to exist withoutits timed effect. What the author does not realize is that both options given by (3) support his assumption: both the supernatural cause, and the timeless natural cause. It is simply proven by the fact that we exist, so we clearly see the effect in existence. The author, therefore, does nothing to rule out one of the two causes at (3), making this bit at least redundant.

We now continue where the author has left off. Right now, we have two possibilities, given by (3), and both of them are plausible, the author having done nothing (nothing that is logically and scientifically correct, at least) to rule out any of them.

We remember (4), and we analyze the conditions imposed, checking them with the two possibilities: transcendence of space and time, existence sans Universe (both check), changeless (none check) and immaterial (both check), beginningless and uncaused (both check). So, (4) as well does not rule out any of the possibilities.

We are left with (2). "Anything that exists must have a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or else in an external ground". The author believes this conviction of Lebniz. So we ask: for the two possibilities (supernatural agency or natural agency), which is the reason for their existence? If existence is not sufficient in itself, then why would we need an external cause, and which one is that? The answer to both can be the other, so (2) again, a great condition imposed by theistic thnking, rules out no possibility.

Therefore, the author did nothing but to prove that there are two possibilities: a supernatural agency, or a natural timeless and spaceless agency. Which we already know.

Quote:
1. Whatever exists has a reason for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external ground.
2. Whatever begins to exist is not necessary in its existence.
3. If the universe has an external ground of its existence, then there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.
4. The universe began to exist.
From (2) and (4) it follows that

5. Therefore, the universe is not necessary in its existence.
From (1) and (5) it follows further that

6. Therefore, the universe has an external ground of its existence.
From (3) and (6) it we can conclude that

Therefore, there exists a Personal Creator of the universe, who, sans the universe, is timeless, spaceless, beginningless, changeless, necessary, uncaused, and enormously powerful.
And this, as Thomas Aquinas laconically remarked, is what everybody means by God.

The summarization of the argument does EXACTLY the same two errors that all theists have been doing for hundreds of years: 1. assume that there can only be a personal creator, not a natural one (and my paragraphs above show that the author did nothing to actually prove this supposition) and 2. assume that such a personal creator is bound to the description of their religion, when, in fact, it can be bound to the description of another one, or none at all.

 

So there you have it.

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
What makes that long post

What makes that long post so nausiating is that it assumes that what happened before the begining of the universe there was a disimbodied coginitive brain, but offers up no atributes of it's neurons or brain matter.

It never occures to them that whatever happened before the unverse was merely part of an ongoing natural event having nothing to do with hocus pocus. They pick out a particular magic bearded sky daddy and shout by proxy, "SEE SEE YOU DONT KNOW SO MY SKY DADDY IS REAL"

It is a whole lot of fluff masked ambiguity nurtured by indoctrination based on wishfull thinking.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Theol0gic wrote:

Theol0gic wrote:
I've looked at dozens of videos on the blasphemy challenge, and I noticed that all the atheists have one thing in common: dark auras. If you look at them, they look dark and unhealthy. There is no light or sparkle in their eyes. It's as if they have driven the light of God out of them. Some schools of philosophy and religion assert that some people don't have souls. I don't know. But those people do not look normal. They look dark. It's hard to explain.
If you saw mine, you'd possibly notice a couple of things.

1: I was wearing neutral-dark clothing, the lights were out, and I'm not fully white. In other words, I am dark, it was dark, I was wearing dark. Dark dark dark. Not all of us can be pure white as snow like Aryan Jesus.

2: I was battling a cold, and as such I was unhealthy.

3: I have naturally dark eyes, as well. Dark eyes don't "sparkle" as much as your precious blue eyes do, Hitler Wink

Nevertheless, others have called my blasphemy challenge video funny (not a sign of darkness or soullessness) cute, warm, and insightful (none of which are signs of soullessness). I'd like to think I was happy in it. In fact, I see little "darkness" in any Blasphemy Challenge videos I've seen. Maybe you could show me a few?

Theol0gic wrote:
The reason a person would deny the obious fact that atheists have no sparkle in their eyes or glow in their face, is because they also are victims of this same darkness. An atheist would deny this because they have no frame of reference. Having grown-up among theists, and being one myself, I can see a huge difference between believers and non-believers. Atheists have darkness written all over them. I agree that part of the reason is the utter hopelesness and despair that atheism leads to.

I was a christian for ages, and I'm happier and more "full of life" than I was then. I'd at least think so. What is utterly hopeless about living life to the fullest because there is no afterlife?

I do understand the theistic approach here. Theists put so much stock in the afterlife that they think that any disbelief in it is hopelessness itself. I am not trying to feed the troll, since I actually think that this person might be legitimate. So many religious people think like this that I am inclined to believe this is legitimate.

Theol0gic wrote:
rediculous

If you check out this thread, you'll see the following entry, by yours truly:

Rediculous: It is a word that means, regardless of the context, that the person typing the word is a total fucking idiot.

Theol0gic wrote:
Whole lot of Copy-Pasta

When you cook us up some Copy-Pasta, be sure to show us the recipe. (Personally, I prefer that you give us directions to the chef that cooked up the Copy-Pasta you wish us to swallow and digest, since that doesn't mess up the board)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15861
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: Jacob

wavefreak wrote:

Jacob Cordingley wrote:
What he is saying is that there is no scientific proof of souls and proof that all actions are performed by the brain. The soul is by definition a mystical, supernatural force within each of us. The question actually should be can you wavefreak find a scientific source prooving the existence of God.

 

I guess I'm still not up to speed on the assumptions around here. Saying it is a scientific fact that souls don't exist isn't the same as saying there is no scientific proof for souls. Since this site promotes clear argument and logic, is not a trivial distinction. But I guess I'm supposed to understand what was meant, not what was actually said.

How many times do we have to answer this question before you get it.

Science is a process. It is a process in which scientists start with past and current substantiated data. "Souls" is not a word started by data. It was started by believers in magic. A history of claiming something is not evidence. It merely means that people have a history of claiming it.

So the intelectually honest person when called on this discards bad claims.

"Souls" is a naked assurtion with no data ever in history.

You dont buy "invisable purple snarfwidgets" merely because I claim it. So saying, "Prove that purple snarfwidgits dont exist" is irrelevent when there is nothing to replicate or falsify that claim.

PWUTTY PWEASE get this before I pull my hair out of my head. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
This guy really is an idiot.

This guy really is an idiot. *Sigh* I actually can't be arsed anymore. *Sigh*


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
BenfromCanada wrote: 3: I

BenfromCanada wrote:

3: I have naturally dark eyes, as well. Dark eyes don't "sparkle" as much as your precious blue eyes do, Hitler Wink

 

Thanks Ben, I just spit smoothie at my monitor.

 

 


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Maragon

Maragon wrote:
BenfromCanada wrote:

3: I have naturally dark eyes, as well. Dark eyes don't "sparkle" as much as your precious blue eyes do, Hitler Wink

 

Thanks Ben, I just spit smoothie at my monitor.

 

You're welcome! Tell your monitor I'm sorry.