I recently received a comment from a Christian reader named Rae. The comment was in response to my creationism refuted post. Rae's comments seem summarize a very typical response to scientist's explanations for the origin of the universe. I thought i would post his comment together with my response for you all to read. Please feel free to reference the original post about creationism if you like, though it is not necessary to follow the debate. Comments are welcome and encouraged. :)
Rae's comment:
I am a believer in God. Here are my thoughts: We are both making basic foundational assumptions. Mine, of course, is that no matter how it was made, the universe was created by a more supreme being. Science, then, would attempt to continually discover more about what was made and how it works. Your basic assumption is that all can be explained through naturalistic means. The problem is that no matter how many naturalistic theories are formed to explain the existence of our universe, something exists - which shouldn't if there is no outside influence. What I mean is this: Okay, what if there is a parent universe, or something outside this universe that spawned it? And maybe there is something beyond that which spawned it. Even if at the very beginning of the chain that "something" which eventually caused this universe is found to be infinite, that "something" contains ingredients. Whether that is matter or some unknown substance is irrelevant. Those ingredients exist. How? Why? Science can never answer how or why at that point. (Not that science usually answers the question "why?") So I am going to conclude that it is logical to believe that a Supreme Being who humans can't fully understand and who is outside of that which contains these "ingredients", outside of nature, caused this universe and everything in it. I don't believe that God created parent universes and so on, but that is because I, for now, have no reason to believe he did. It sounds like those theories are not scientific but instead are purely philosophical, and absolutely based on the assumption that all can be explained through naturalistic means. You may believe I am filling in the gaps with "God" (I disagree), but I believe you are just filling in the gaps with "We'll know later." I also need to add that there seems to be much more evidence outside of this topic that points to a Creator, and when all is put together and considered, belief in God is, I think, quite plausible. For example: the Bible is by far the most historically sound document in existence. To reject the events that occurred, specifically the events surrounding Christ and the resurrection, you must reject it on means other than the historicity of the Bible, which is being confirmed more and more as we learn and discover new information about the past. And I know that is not what this debate is about, but my point is if the resurrection can't be refuted, than it is absolutely logical to start with the basic assumption that God created the universe. With that, I respect your views and thank you for taking the time to read mine! My Response:
Ok Rae, I don't think that I will be able to persuade you into thinking that a natural explanation is more plausible than supernatural. BUT I will try.
I will start with this, which has already been addressed to Barry. Belief with justification by evidence is not the same as belief without justification or evidence. I believe that unanswered questions will have natural explanations because that is what has happened over and over and over throughout the history of human understanding. I believe events have natural causes, because the evidence supports that idea.
Please remember Rae, that any understanding of cause and effect in our world is founded completely on natural, explainable hypotheses supported with observation and evidence. Imagine the massive wealth of understanding about the observed events in this universe: ALL accepted explanations are entirely naturally based. Humanity has observed the confirmation of that fact over and over throughout the history of science. Yet here you are, suddenly reaching the next frontier of knowledge and expecting a different result? How is that logical at all? It cannot be. Furthermore, I do not think it is logical for you to conclude that a supernatural force must exist outside of nature which is the cause of any event. Over and over we have learned that things have natural causes, why would it be logical to expect a different result that conflicts with the past observations? It is not a valid conclusion because science has never observed a supernatural cause and scientists have no data or evidence to suggest such an existence is even possible.
Granted, I know that I cannot prove that god does not exist, but hopefully at this point I have clarified why “God did it” is not a logical alternative hypothesis to explain issues that “Scientist cannot yet explain”.
It is acceptable to believe that all problems have a solution. It is acceptable to say: “I do not know the answer to this problem.” It is not acceptable to say: “The solution to this problem is a supernatural concept, which I have no evidence to support.” It conclusion, I say history, observable and documented evidence compiled by over two hundred years of research lends credibility to the concept that these problems have natural solutions. There is no data, research and or observable evidence which supports the notion of a supernatural anything. Rae, you are more than welcome to try and prove the existence the supernatural if you like, I will gladly comment on your thoughts.
The old question: “If god created the universe, then what created god?” is usually answered in a similar fashion to your comment “God does not need a creator, because he “has no ingredients”, or “God exists outside time and existence”. But these are simply word play answers and have no real meaning. Both of those concepts are unjustified notions which are not supported by evidence. To make such a claim valid one must prove that a thing can exist outside of time, or that a thing can exist with no ingredients. I could very well propose the concept of a non-thinking, indifferent super-force, with no ingredients, which exist outside of time. I could also say that this force caused of all the matter in our universe to exist. This super-force caused our matter and universe in a way that was accidental, like a by-product of its existence outside of time. I could suggest that when the by-product of this super-force (matter) was created, it was actually the big bang. This super-force, being non-intelligent, was not aware of what it has caused and had no further influence, so after the big gang all of matter ran a natural course which can be explained through natural processes which are documented and observed by science.
WOW! What an interesting concept, seems to have the all same “clutch” arguments as your god argument. Yet, I’m willing to bet it sounded ridiculous. It should, its totally unjustified word play, yet you and everyone on the planet cannot prove my theory false. Should we be inclined to accept it a plausible explanation for the origin of matter? My position is that we should not.
It can’t be proven wrong so…..“That means there’s a chance!” (A chance it’s true)
Your right Rae, but that is not how humans decide what to believe in any other area of life.
For ex: You cannot possibly prove that there are not fairies at the bottom of my garden, but you can prove that the PROBABILITY of that being true is slim, and that is based on the observations and evidence, which give no reason to conclude that fairies are real.
A satellite could fall from the sky and crush you as you leave for work. It’s possible, but so unlikely to happen, so based on the probability that it won’t, you don’t think twice about it when you step outside. When someone IS afraid to go outside because they are scared of falling satellites or garden fairies, we call them crazy or neurotic. Because unjustified beliefs are a characteristic of an irrational person.
So Rae, with all due respect, do you still feel your beliefs in god are justified by some evidence or observable data, or any testable concept? Because before we talk about the bible or resurrection we must first establish whether or not the notion of GOD is a plausible concept. I look forward to your reply.
Feb 11, 2010
Logging you in...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Rae · 789 weeks ago
Ok, so what if we continually discover natural causes for things we don't currently understand? The big bang didn't just happen - that doesn't make sense. Something had to be the cause. Let's say we figure out what that cause was. Well, whatever that "thing" is also had to have a cause - a reason it got to that point and reacted in a way that caused the big bang. If everything has a natural cause - it must be to an infinite degree! There can't be a beginning. Things can not come out of complete nothingness. If you choose to say, "Maybe things can come out of complete nothingness - we just haven't discovered how yet," then you are making a statement completely based on faith.
In the end, (or beginning), there has to be an uncaused cause. I believe that would be God because of other reasons - not because of science. An infinite universe, or super-universe or whatever, could be an uncaused cause. Nothing could explain why it existed, but putting that aside, there is no reason that a theory like that is more plausible than God. You have no evidence or data to support such an idea. For a long time we thought our universe was infinite - which if were true, would be very helpful to your case. But it's not, it has a beginning and a cause. For now, science cannot tell us what that cause is. And I have other reasons to believe that the cause is God.
Here is my perspective on why even through science God is very plausible: The more we discover and learn, the more we see how very complex this world is. It's just too unbelievable for me to believe that such beautiful order could come from such complex randomness - if it were randomness. From my perspective it makes perfect sense that we should be constantly finding natural causes for things. God made nature! If I believe he exists, then I have to believe he created this universe in a way that it would function through order and law. He put the natural elements in place. I am certainly not trying to convince you that God exists, but I am hoping to show you that the idea of a God is not at all inconsistent with anything we have discovered. In fact, the idea of a God becomes more and more consistent with science.
One other thing. As humans, we often have to make a decision on what to believe based on more than one concept. When someone is on trial for murder, you can't base the judgment on one piece of evidence and ignore the others. (The parallel would be: You shouldn't just dismiss God as being real just because science doesn't tell us enough.) We have to observe witness testimonies, documents, etc. We then have to decide whether everything is consistent with our accusation. Then, we have to have faith that we made the right decision. A jury can't know beyond all doubt that a person is guilty, but with their best effort they have to make a decision.
That is why I brought up the resurrection story. You take historical documents, human testimony (of which you can find a LOT), sound Christian theology, philosophy, personal experience, and science - put it all together and everything works seamlessly. You still don't have to accept it. But it wouldn't be very reasonable to say that the idea is implausible.
Your super force analogy actually might work - if science was the only way to discover truth. But my concept of God is supported by other means of discovering truth as well. And since science as we know it says something cannot come from nothing, the God hypothesis works very well for me.
If there is some scientific evidence that is contradictory to the idea of a God, I may just be unaware of it.
Thank you! I am enjoying the discussion!
rev · 788 weeks ago
rev · 788 weeks ago
Rae · 788 weeks ago
As far as an uncreated God, I believe the only God that makes perfect sense with this world is the Christian God, who calls Himself "I am." Because He is - he just exists. That's all there was before time existed (as far as we know and believe). He didn't need a cause, because, well, He is. He was not floating in a space of nothingness in which he began creating things - there was no space of nothingness! He was all that existed.
Like I said, I will not be able to prove God to you, and will not try to. I understand that you do not accept a creator theory, but what have you said makes the idea of a creator implausible? You can give alternative theories, but you have zero evidence to stack up against there being a creator. And I haven't received any evidence that points to those theories as being more plausible. Therefore, I have no reason not to believe in a creator, and plenty of reasons outside of science to believe in God.
rev · 788 weeks ago
I'm hoping we can salvage this discussion from going nowhere, like most debates on this subject. Please be patient as i struggle for clarification. We know that all events have causes and a beginning. These are your words, and here we agree. Our universe has a cause and a beginning, your words again and once more i agree. However this is where we loose each other:
You and I have observed the cause and beginning cycle over and over. Yet, you have concluded that if we look backwards far enough there is an ultimate cause of all things. Here is your "evidence" for this conclusion: ---- All events have a cause and a beginning, including the universe.
I don't agree with your conclusion based on your stated evidence. Lets look at cause and effect as if they were numbers. If we observe the number pattern (which is meant to symbolize the cause and effect pattern) 1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2......etc. We know from observing the pattern that behind every 2 there must be a 1, and behind every 2 there must be a 1. Tell me why is it logical to conclude that if we follow the pattern far enough back we will find a 3 with no further numbers before it? It seems to me that if before every 1 is a 2 and before every 2 is a 1, there is no reason to conclude that when we look back far enough we will find a 3 or anything other than a 2 or 1. It doesn't matter to me if we can only see back a thousand sequences of 1 and 2 patterns. I conclude that before the 1000th we see more of the same.
Keep in mind Rae that no one has made the claim that before the big bang there was nothing, and then suddenly matter burst out of nothingness. NO ONE knows what happened before the big bang. The big bang theory states that all of matter was condensed into an infinitely small and dense point and then it suddenly burst forth in an explosion. IT DOES NOT state that first there was nothing, and suddenly matter burst into existence. The matter existed before it burst forth. Neither I nor anyone else is stating that an event can exist without a cause. I am NOT trying to get you to admit that a event exist which has no cause. I AM trying to get you to explain why it is logical to observe a pattern repeat itself over and over a billion times and as soon as that pattern gets too distant to follow, simply conclude that this is the point where the cycle breaks because its no longer observable.
Cause and effect, cause and effect, cause and effect. This pattern is observable through distant star light for over 14 billion years. THIS is what we know. This is not hoping, i am concluding based on 14 billion years of evidence that the cause and effect pattern has no beginning. REMEMBER there is no evidence of matter NOT EXISTING. A beginning as you describe it would be observing no matter existing in one instant, and then observing matter existing in the next. There is no proof or evidence to suggest that ever happened. The beginning of the universe as science would define it is the big bang, and just refers to existing matter exploding forward as the theory states. Check your physics books. I think this may be the source of the confusion. I look forward to your reply. Please continue this with me, i feel like there may be some progress yet.
Rae · 788 weeks ago
I guess I just can't really wrap my head around an infinite string of causes. I don't buy it. The idea is still not inconsistent with there being a God - if God is infinite, he certainly can create an infinite chain of events. But even so, because I already presuppose God is creator, I don't need that kind of explanation.
Actually, here is what I think is wrong with your number pattern analogy. What we observe is very different from a 1,2,1,2 pattern. (I understand that 1 is cause and 2 is affect). I think the 1,2,1,2 patter is deceitful because it looks like it works on the surface but it fails to recognize the way the world actually works. 2 does not cause 1, it causes something entirely different - 3, which goes on to cause 4. The pattern should be more like this: 1,2,3,4,5,6, etc. and each number is the affect of the previous and the cause of the following. Therefore, whatever number we are at now - whether its 10 or 10 kajillion :) , keep going backwards and you'll eventually hit the number 1. The cause that is not also an affect. Now, if it pleases you, you can hold that whatever the number one is it is natural and eternal and has no reason for existing. But I still think it's logical to assume there is a bottom to this chain.
rev · 787 weeks ago
I will defend my number analogy. 1,2,1,2,1,2.. is not meant to represent identical cause and effect. It's meant to represent 1 NATURAL cause and 2 NATURAL effect. They may be different natural causes and natural different effects, but i argue now and in my former replies that we can trace and explain the entire history of the universe with tangible evidence based natural causes. With our current understanding and knowledge we must accept that NO supernatural causes have been required. OR in terms of my number pattern, no "3's" have be documented or required in any explanation for anything. I hope this clarifies, 1,2,1,2,1,2, is not deceitful. If as i have stated, we have more reason to assume this pattern goes on infinitely then I would ask you to start at infinity and count down to one. It’s not possible. So again if you can agree that the pattern of 1,2, observed for the past 14 billion years gives us logical reason to expect more of the same, counting down to a number one when you do not know where to begin is not feasible.
Please don't offer the Jesus miracles as documented evidence of a "3", this is a different concept and topic, I will argue against it as soon as this is one is resolved. Also we can very easily conclude hypothetically that the prior 14 billion years were not affected by whatever Jesus did or did not do.
If your argument for God as an initial cause is now because it answers the question "Why does anything exist at all?" I will respond:
We only know that things exist and have existed for a long time. I too wonder why things exist at all. So does everyone, but until anyone has any evidence that points toward an answer, we must all admit that our temporary answers are mere speculation and not founded on evidence. Feel free to suggest that god is the reason behind it all, but without evidence to support that notion, you are forced to admit that it is nothing more that unfounded speculation.
Now to recap, through this argument you have stated that god is the un-caused cause. That statement was based on the mis-representation of what we know about matter. You thought, that matter didn't exist in one instant and did in the next, making you ask what caused that to happen? I stated that no one actually makes the claim that matter didn't exist and that the Big-bang is actually just a explanation for what happened to matter that already existed. I then stated that we have observed and documented a 14 billion year pattern of natural cause and natural effect. I further stated we can make some evidence based conclusions about whatever happened before the observable beginning of our pre-big-bang matter. The conclusion is that we should expect a continuation of the same 1,2,1,2,1,2,.... That is evidence based conclusion and is significantly more probable than a conclusion based on something that has never been observed: a "3". You disagreed about my number pattern, stating a misrepresentation, and then i clarified in this reply. I disagreed about your statement to count backwards and eventually you get to one because if the pattern goes for an infinite sequence, starting at infinity and counting backward to one would be a more accurate process. That is process which cannot lead to an initial cause. You stated that an infinite regress explanation does not explain why anything exist at all. I agreed, but stated that the lack meaning behind it all does not refute the evidence observed.
So Rae again, i apologize for the repetition, its only for consistency. I have concluded that although you are entitled to have a belief in God as an initial Un-caused cause, it is speculation that is unfounded. Any natural scenario is more plausible, because there are billions of years of evidence supporting a natural cause and a natural effect pattern. If you agree, we shall move on to talking about Jesus. If you still feel there is credibility to the un-caused cause, please offer some evidence or argument and we will continue. Thanks again.
Rae · 787 weeks ago
I'll comment back and argue further. But in the end, what I just repeated stands. Even if we do conclude that an infinite string of causes is more plausible, that is in no way inconsistent with a creator. We might tend to ask the question, "Why would the creator create that way?" But just because we don't have the answer doesn't mean there isn't one.
rev 38p · 787 weeks ago
Rae · 787 weeks ago
We know that the universe must have started in perfect order and is continually heading for disorder. How did it start in perfect order? Just by chance?! We have never seen something come from nothing, yet this is all here! You say it is infinite. I say it points to someone who put it here! Where do you get God is a 1 in a billion possibility? Please, tell me all the possibilities that are more "probable" than God, because if you can come up with 999,999,999 other possibilities I will certainly be impressed. It seems to me like we have 2 options - all that exists is natural, or God has created the natural. You can come up with all kinds of super-universe theories or whatever, but we are essentially debating that matter - or nature - is either infinite or it is not.
It's not as you say that we have no evidence for God. What matters, though, is the perspective we use to look at the evidence. We know that the universe is not infinite. I am perfectly aware that the big bang doesn't claim the universe sprang from nothingness, I never said that it did.
Time and time again we see cause and effect right? You admitted it. Well, if matter is infinite than you are already admitting an uncaused cause!!! If it's not, and there is nothing but an infinite chain of events - how would there ever be any kind of order if that chain of events wasn't directed? Tell me how all of this complex order can possibly just exist? No one has ever observed complex order caused by purely random chance!
You keep saying that I have no evidence, but I have the very same evidence you have. I just see it in light of God and it's seamless! Your atheistic view is not seamless. It has a lot of holes as I addressed above. You seem to prefer to dismiss them.
You see, I believe God intentionally created the universe so that we would have two rational options to believe: He created it, or it is uncreated. I certainly believe there is plenty of evidence for a creator But He made this world so that if we choose not to see Him, we won't. We will not be forced to see God, even through science. It must be a choice. It's the ultimate freedom.
So I argue that the theory of a creator is not a 1 in a billion chance, but a 1 in 2 chance. And I further argue that with our current knowledge, neither theory is more scientifically probable until you assign to it a presupposition.
Now, if you want to argue on philosophical terms, (morality, theology, etc.) I am definitely much more equipped and immensely more confident in my thoughts on those subjects.
rev 38p · 787 weeks ago
rev 38p · 787 weeks ago
Rae · 787 weeks ago
But isn't that what science is? We create a theory and then experiment and make observations to see if that theory is consistent with what is occurring. We come up with a theory about gravity and then we test it and observe it and our findings are so consistent with that theory that we accept it. Science is pretty much all about cognitive deduction.
You say, "I feel that if we had a strong enough microscope a quark could actually be observed." That makes sense. But do you feel that we might some day come up with the technology to observe the cause of our universe? Do you honestly feel that we could observe whatever is outside of this universe, or whatever existed before it? I argue that in the end we are left with implied evidence. We will never be able to empirically prove every single idea. At some point, we have to rely on cognitive deduction.
I think anyone who after searching for answers comes to the conclusion that the idea of a God is at least sufficiently consistent with reality - for that person the next step is to figure out which god is most consistent, as it is a matter of HUGE importance if it is seen as even a mere possibility. Depending on which god seems to be the most likely, one's afterlife may depend on the issue.
So, I will summarize. 1. You are correct in that our scientific evidence of God must be based on cognitive deduction. 2. But there are scientific theories about the natural world that can only be based on cognitive deduction, that are seen as valid and accepted theories, which therefore allows the implied evidence for God also to be valid. 3. Depending on what is true, the question of the existence of God may be of such importance that if it is a possibility, it should certainly be looked into in other areas outside of science, since science does not say for sure either way.
Rick Supplee · 787 weeks ago
The huge problem with your view that there is no clear evidence of a Supernatural force behind our world is that you deny the reality that Christians experience God visiting them or touching their lives. On my blog I explain one such visit from God where a homeless person accosted me with a high pressure bike tire pump I needed a great deal. Now I never had anything to do with homeless people in the past but God decided to bring this man and me together in the most miraculous way. We became good friends. I led him to know Jesus and then he was murdered. Curious. And I have many other stories of God invading my life in miraculous ways that I put on my blog. So that puts me in a place where I must say, "OK, God I know you are guiding me because I could not come up with this miraculous stuff on my own. I am a fairly shallow person who is fully distracted by being the dad of my big family, my work and caring for my way needy Golden Doodle dog Jack. Yet God consistently breaks into my world and distracts me to do his work. I honestly do not push him toward anything so his appearance remains a total surprise. And that is what compels me to believe in this Supernatural force behind events in my life.
Skaggz · 784 weeks ago
skaggz · 784 weeks ago
If the Big Bang was the method of populating the universe it had to have been initiated. If the matter within the event of the Big Bang were eternal, it would have to remain constant and unchanging, just as I believe that God is eternal and unchanging as it is stated in the bible.
I know that I have repeated myself a couple of times here but I am not a skilled writer, infact, I'm not too skilled at anything..
skaggz · 784 weeks ago
Can anyone sanely argue that the Sun does not radiate it's light and heat on us and the earth? You have no choice but to accept it. No Free Will. God wants you to choose him from your heart and your desire. To trust in someone whole heartedly is truly loving them. To love with your heart is truly faith. I believe that Time and Space (all the universe) were created by God for the sole purpose of allowing us, humans, to actually choose whether or not we will love Him. If we were eternal, we would have to remain the same forever. Time and space allows us the ability to choose and to demonstrate our Love for God.. Thanks
skaggz · 784 weeks ago
rev 38p · 784 weeks ago
Rae · 784 weeks ago
With that said, I do very much respect your position. I think we will have to agree to disagree. Unless you wish to discuss further - no problem by me. But I think there are other more important evidences for the supernatural than science, like good and evil. Ooh I have a question about biological determinism also! I have so many topics I'm eager to discuss if you're in!
And I would like to end with this:
Science is not THE one way to derive Truth. Science is A way to derive CERTAIN truths about the world we live in.
i would have preferred to italicize rather than capitalize.
rev 38p · 784 weeks ago
Rae · 781 weeks ago
I like the idea of a new post but if you'd prefer email that's totally cool with me. Also, I am eager to discuss the subject of morality, but I am open to any other ideas. I look forward to further discussion!