A Little Help, Please.
Posted on: July 16, 2007 - 9:40pm
Offline
A Little Help, Please.
So in another forum, someone has posted what they believe is a proof of the supernatural. He seems somewhat knowledgeable, but I can't help feeling that his logic is unsound. I was wondering if some of you better educated folks wouldn't mind giving it a look through, and telling me what you think. It's long, but half of it is a jumble of scientific discoveries that more or less prove the big bang.
Quote:
Ok, In this session I will attempt to prove the Supernatural. I will do this by proving Miracles. Atheist Antony Flew defines a miracle as follows:
"A miracle is something which would never had happened had nature, as it were, been left to its own devices"
Basically, something that happens outside the normal laws of nature. In other words, Miracles by definition are super or extra natural. If we can agree on this the most basic definition of a miracle then we got a great start.
So, if I am able to prove even one miracle, that proves the supernatural, i.e. something that occurs outside of nature is supernatural. Is everyone with me so far? Good. It really can be only one or the other. Let me put it this way:
"If it is impossible for there to be a natural cause, the Only alternative is a Supernatural cause. If not natural, then supernatural."
Ok, so here is the challenge to all you atheists out there, If this miracle cannot be disproven or is unexplainable using natural laws, then you must admit that at the very least the supernatual exists. i.e. a force outside of nature. Sound reasonable? Good.
Here is my intention with this post. I will, without using the Bible, show evidence of and for the miracle, as well as prove that it could be nothing other then a miracle. Thus proving a Supernatural Cause. Keep in mind I am not using the Bible, but rather Science in this post, so please reply in kind. Thank you.
Right, I have kept you in suspense long enough, here is the Miracle.....Everything. In more scientific terms, the Universe. Written out in logical format it goes something like this.
1. All Miracles are by definition Supernatural
2. The Origin of the universe is Supernatural
3. Therefore the Origin of the universe is a Miracle
Logic does little good if the Premise is crap though. So I will attempt to prove each premise. The First Premise is what we already agreed on, basically that Miracles are supernatural....Duh! Right, So the burden of proof lies in the second Premise. This means if I can prove that the Origin of the Universe was Supernatural then Premise three is inescapable. Ok, is everyone understanding so far? Great.
In order to prove the second Premise lets take a look at this next Logic statment.
1. Everything that had a beggining had a cause
2. The universe had a beggining
3. Therefore the Universe had a cause
Now at this point the seasoned Atheist is probably thinking, Bah, I have heard all this before. Great, then maybe you can correct me where I am wrong. Defeat my challenge if you can. I accept any evidence or logic you can offer. Still, I would like you to hear me out as well as five evidences I have.
So looking at this new set, lets look at premise 1. This is based on the law of causality, which is The fundamental priciple of Science. Sir Francis Bacon, considered the Father of modern Science, said, "True knowledge is knowledge by causes." Basically, Science is the search for causes, if this premise were not true then none of science is true. Everything that has a beggining has a cause must be true.
Once again the second premise is the one that needs convincing. Ok, If the universe did not have a beggining then it would not need a cause, but if it did have a beggining then a cause is needed.
Not sure if anyone has heard of SURGE before, but it is five evidences that the universe had a beggining.
I. Second Law of thermodynamics
1. Thermodynamics is the study of matter & energy.
2. The first Law states the amount of energy in the universe is constant.
In other words there is a limited supply.
3. The Second Law states that the universe is running out of energy.
4. Logically, if the universe is infinately old, the limited energy would have
run out...well, an eternity ago.
5. Here we are today, and there is still energy, so the universe must have
a limited amount of time ago.
6. The second Law states the same for entropy (nature brings disorder)
Seeing that we still have some order shows that the universe is not
eternal.
II. Universe is expanding.
1. Astronomer Edwin Hubble, namesake of the Hubble telescope,
discovered a "red shift" in the light from every observable galaxy.
*Those galaxies were not only moving away from us, but were proof
that those galaxies, and our own were expanding from a single
point.
2. This is also reinforced by the Theory of General Relativity, but I will talk
about that later.
3. This means the further back in time you go, the closer all matter in the
universe gets.
a. Mathematically and logically to a point where nothing actually existed
(i.e. no space time or matter).
b. There was NOTHING, and then there was SOMETHING.
4. Space itself is expanding. interesting to note that space was non-
existant as well.
a. Matter could not come from existing space or other materials.
b. Also of note, time itself did not exist before everything else.
III. Radiation from the "Big Bang"
1. Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered "cosmic background
radiation" in 1965.
a. the radiation consists of light and heat from the initial explosion.
b. the light is no longer visible, because its wave length has been
stretched by the expanding universe to wave lengths slightly
shorter than a microwave oven, but the heat is still detected.
2. Agnostic Robert Jastrow, Astronomist:
"No explanation other then the Big Bang has been found for the
'fireball' radiation. the clincher, which has convinced almost the last
Doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzais and
Wilson has exactly the pattern of wave lengths expected for the light
and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady
State Theory have tried desperately to find an alternative
explanation, but they have failed. At the present time, the Big Bang
Theory has no competitors."
IV. Great Galaxy Seeds
1. COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) Launched by NASA in 1989
discovered variations (ripples) in temperature of the cosmic
background radiation.
a. These temperature ripples enabled matter to congregate by
gravitational attraction into galaxies.
b. the finding announced in 1992 not only found the ripples, but also
showed an incredible degree of precision that caused enough
matter to congregate into galaxy formations, but not so much to
cause the forming universe to collapse back in on itself.
1) any slight variations and we would not be here
2) the ripples are exact down to one part in one hundred thousand.
2. Infrared Pictures by COBE show early Galaxy Seeds.
a. Space observations are actually observationsof the past due to the
time it takes for light from distant objects to reach us.
b. Pictures can be found here: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/
c. These "seeds" are the largest structures ever detected, with the
largest taking up 1/3 of the known universe!!!
V. Einstien's Theory of General Relativity.
1. The theory itself demands an absolute beggining for space time and
matter.
a. Space, Time and Matter are interdependant. That is you cannot have
one without the others.
b. While still a theory, it has been verified up to 5 decimal places.
2. It is because of this theory that scientists had reason to look for the
expanding universe, the cosmic background radiation, and the
galaxy seeds.
Now, from these last five main points (SURGE) it is obvious that the universe did have a begginning and so must have a cause.
Logically we know:
1. Everything that has a beggining has a cause
2. the Universe had a beggining
3. Therefore the Universe had a cause
From the examined evidence we also know that Space, Time and Matter, Indeed EVERYTHING natural came into existance at the Big Bang. This is basic science so far. But here is the thing, EVERYTHING came into existance at the Big bang......well, at least everything Natual....This includes Natual Laws.
To Review, A Miracle is defined as:
"Something which would never had happened had nature, as it were, been left to its own devices."
The Law of Causality, upon which all of Science rests, shows that a cause cannot come after its effect. If we are to accept Science at all, we must accept the Law of Causality. Thus this statement is true or all of science is false.
In conclusion:
Natural Law cannot be the Cause of the origin of the universe.
Natural Law Started at the Origin of the Universe.
A Cause cannot come after its effect.
Thus something outside Natural law must be the cause.
Thus fitting the given definition of a miracle.
Logically:
1. All miracles are by definition Supernatural
2. The origin of the Universe is a miracle.
3. Thus, the origin of the universe is Supernatural.
Proving the existence of the Supernatural, does not in essense prove the existance of God. It does however, show that at the very least some supernatural force was needed to make everything we know and call natural. Logically one can only assume that supernatural force to be God, but that is for a different Topic.
And remember, if this miracle cannot be disproven or is unexplainable using Natural Laws, then you must admit the existance of the Supernatural, and at the very least the possibility that there is a God.
I am very interested in hearing an atheists response. Thanks.
My initial response after a cursory read through was as follows:
Quote:
A lot of hot air. Your entire argument relies on a huge gap in logic. You do not even get close to proving the universe is a miracle. Not to mention, miracles are not "by definition" supernatural. They are ascribed to supernatural means because we don't know the true means. You've based this on a quote from an atheist, but that doesn't mean it's true. If you want a definition of something, you go to the experts: a dictionary. The American Heratige Dictionary defines a miracle as
1. An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God: "Miracles are spontaneous, they cannot be summoned, but come of themselves" (Katherine Anne Porter).
2. One that excites admiring awe. See Synonyms at wonder.
3. A miracle play.
Also, you claim that all the "natural laws" came into existence at the time of the big bang. For one, I'd think that the natural laws would already have to be in place for the big bang to occur, and who's to say there weren't a set of "prenatural" laws?
Pointing out any errors in my logic would also be much appreciated.
- Login to post comments
The person you are arguing with is extraordinairily ignorant of science. You should tell him/her/it to read this short piece I wrote on the uses and abuses of the laws of thermodynamics:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/entropy_and_life_the_functions_of_thermodynamics_and_their_implications_for_biological_systems
Her cosmological argument is refuted here, where I combine thermodyamics and ex nihilo to show how BB does not violate thermodynamics:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/lies_damn_lies_and_false_beliefs_about_ex_nihilo_aka_how_to_pretend_you_know_cosmology_without_r...
And the logic she uses is invalid. I showed that here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/all_a_posteriori_arguments_for_the_existence_of_god_are_intellectually_bankrupt
And supernatural is incoherent. I showed that here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/a_clarification_of_the_theological_noncognitivist_position
"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
Excellent, I'll be sure to check those out and pass them along. Thanks.
Okay, a miracle is an ignorant explanation of something we can't logicially or scientifically justify at this point. There is NO empirical way to prove that a miracle is supernatural because you can't test it. Frankly, anything you cannot test with tools, observations, or measurements is non-existent.
Now arguing that the creation of the universe is supernatural is a complete load of crap. Ask him to give an example of ONE other miracle that we cannot explain. The fact of the matter is this: we know that the Big Bang happened through cosmic microwave background radiation and Friedmann models which agree with Einstein's theory of relativity. We can reverse up to the point that we're very, very sure the universe was extremely dense and energetic. Now how that got there, all science fanatics must admit, we do not know... at this point.
Just because science is currently not mature enough to describe the origin of the universe does not mean that one can write in an explanation. The use of a "God" only makes it more complex because then you need to explain God. Then you need evidence of God. Then you need to show that God is still there. Occam's Razor blows God out of the water because:
a) it's beyond the ability to do any sort of scientific testing
b) the complexity of believing in anything more than a Spinozan god (i.e. the natural tendency of things is god) is too complex and too unrealistic to be believable
c) if God caused the universe to be created, he must have done so for a reason. This adds another layer of complexity. Explain God's will.
d) you have to explain the origin of God's powers. Saying transendence of time and space is a total cop out because you can apply that to anything. You can say that all women have penises but they just exist outside of time and space. Lame.
Look, those who believe in creationism are simply filling in the cosmic "blank space" with their own ideas. Religion has been doing this ever since its inception to explain why the sun is there, why people die, what happens when people die, so on and so forth, yet since has given explanations for dozens and dozens of these religious beliefs. The fact of the matter is that we can't really explain what happened, but we've got more than enough weight to prove that it was nothing like God.
Without even pointing out his faulty physics and lack of understanding of basically any of the science he thinks supports his little travesty of misinfomation, his argument, even if the premises were true,is not valid.
The problem is that even if one could state as fact that all miracles are supernatural and that the origin of the universe is supernatural it does not logically follow that the origin of the universe is a miracle. His conclusion is not supported by his premises.
What he has basically said is If 1.) all cars have four wheels and 2.) a wagon has four wheels therefor 3.) a wagon is a car. See the problem?
“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins
That what I had thought too. The only thing that kept me from stating that problem was that, mathimatically, it seems to work: A = B, C = B, so A = C. But obviously, logically this isn't always the case:
Men are animals (A = B)
Cats are animals (C = B)
Men are cats ( A = C )
Upon further consideration though, I guess it is impossible for this to work with anything other than variables. Both A and C have to initially be the same thing in order for this to work.
There were definitely a few other problems with his logic that I've recently discovered. The obvious one being that "miracle" and "supernatural" are not interchangeable. Miracles might be supernatural, but the supernatural is not a miracle (sort of like squares and rectangles). Even if they were, there is another problem: what is a miracle, and what is supernatural? You obviously can't define them as each other, because then that's just circular. And like DeludedGod wrote an entire essay on, "supernatural" is an empty term as it is definied by what it's not. Even if you claim that all things supernatural are miracles, and then more or less are forced to claim that miracles are caused by God, it's still invalid as you'd then have to prove both premises, which would obviously be very difficult. And more or less the same problem occurs if you the reverse: all miracles are supernatural, and supernatural things cannot be explained in naturalistic terms. Well then, what can they be explained by?
And of course, there's the obvious fact that even if the universe came about through supernatural causes, it doesn't logically follow that the cause is God, much less the Christian god. It's just a plausible (more so in my opinion), that the origin of the universe was due to natural causes we know nothing about.
Also, does anyone know if the claim that there was nothing before the universe is scientifically sound? Seems to me that it's not. I have heard of some alternate theories, but I don't really know that much on the subject.
The entire concept of supernatural seems silly to me. Sort of like artificial. Things can be artificial or natural, artificial things are made by man, and man occurs in nature. Doesn't that mean all artificial things are natural?
In order to say anything is supernatural, it must go against the laws of the universe, which we do not know. We've got a good ideal, but no scientist in their right mind would declare we have the absolute natural laws of the universe. Especially with this whole quantum mechanics thing...
Supernatural needs a different definition in order to have any meaning.
The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.
This sentence doesn't care.
I have a problem with using a dictionary as an end-all source for what a word means. A dictionary definition is meant to describe how people use a word. How people commonly use a word isn't the same as what a word really means. Different dictionaries define words in different ways, too.
But then again, this might just be my own personal pet peeve, and therefore I should be ignored. Sometimes a dictionary might be the only way to clear things up.
Your resident OTD/S, Christina
A good scientist will always change her mind if new evidence is presented which gives her sufficient reason to change it.
www.ziztur.com
Erugh. My computer's been dead for the past few days, making me unable to respond to the guy. So now he thinks he has "destroied atheism." I think I'll go try to debunk him now. Wish me luck.
I get frustrated with Christians and other religious types who claim getting what they asked for in a prayer, or a person surviving or escaping a dangerous situation, is "proof" that God answers prayer or God or angels is/are watching over us. There is such a lady on another message board I frequent.
It doesn't matter that I point out getting what you pray for doesn't mean God gave it to you, or that "God said no" if you don't get what you ask for. It's simply, by definition, not proof!
When someone doesn't get shot, people call it a miracle, as if, if God didn't intervene, every single bullet would hit its mark, or at least hit a living being (whether intended or not). This perfection of bullets striking their mark without fail if God weren't around is illogical. A news story a few months ago had two children in a car, brother and sister. The sister was shot and killed, but the baby brother wasn't. Still, their parents called his luck a miracle.
You can't argue with most of these people, because they think they have all the answers, and they call things "proof" that are not proof at all.