1) The coming into existence of the universe. Things do not begin without a cause.
That, according to modern physics, is flat wrong. Quantum mechanics REQUIRES that that be wrong. One way of looking at this is that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
en.wikipedia.org
says there can be no such thing as 'empty' space; particles come into and go to out out existence in it constantly.
I did a couple searches on that site and couldn't find references to empty space or particles coming into or out of existence. Where is the idea that the uncertaintly principle means particles come into and go out of existence and then that this has something to do with the origin of the universe coming from? [ Okay, after I wrote that I found the idea that quantum particles may pop into or out of existence or seem to is related to something called quantum tunneling. ]
But even if quantum particles do seem to pop into and out of existence, does this provide a reason to think the entire universe just popped into existence? I think thats an enormous leap. I've always understood that its a mistake to think that quantum mechanics apply to things above the quantum level. Besides what popped into existence at the big bang wasn't a single quantum particle or even all the quantum particules that make up the universe's matter but the very space and time dinemsions that quantum particles occupy.
Next, I know Hawking and others have said the laws of physics break down at the singularity. So I question whether its appropriate to cite quantum mechanics at all re. the singularity. Quantum mechanics is the physics of quantum particles. Quantum particles and the physics which govern them came into existence with our universe. Therefore it seems the cause of the beginning of our universe has to be something beyond our universe, including beyond our universe's quantum physics.
Remember when we talk about the singularity at the beginning of our universe, we're talking about going back before matter, energy, space, time (and that includes quantum particles) existed.
"Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we."
big-bang-theory.com
Is there a reason why we should think quantum particles and therfore quantum mechanics existed in the singularity?
Some further thoughts on this purported use of quantum theory to get around the need for a cause - thinking about this some more, I'm sure I am right above. Go back to your cited wikipedia entry on the uncertainty principle:
In its simplest form, it applies to the position and momentum of any object and implies that if we continue increasing the accuracy with which one of these is measured (or defined), the other will be measured (or defined) with less and less accuracy.
....
This stipulates that the product of the uncertainties in position and momentum is equal to or greater than about 10-35 joule-seconds.
Notice that what this is all about is measuring a quantum particle's place or position (in space) and its movement (through space and time). When talking about a singularity in which by definition, time and space don't exist, neither can the uncertainty principle apply - there's noting for it to apply to - no space, no time, no quantum particles.
-------------------------------------------------------------
It also allows the formation of black holes that can then explode, creating a universe.
space.com
Okay this person is saying the big bang may have occurred in an explosion inside a black hole or alternately a theoretical something called a "white hole":
The entire universe may have been created in an explosion inside a black hole.... In the proposed modification to the standard model, the Big Bang is an actual explosion, Temple explained today in a statement, and it occurs within a black hole in an existing space. ...
Temple also describes the whole scenario as a white hole, the theoretical opposite of a black hole because it tosses matter outward instead of pulling it in. White holes have been talked about before, mostly as mathematical curiosities. There is no evidence these "anti-black holes" exist, whereas scientists have solid evidence for the presence of black holes.
Temple can't say where the matter we see today originally came from. What existed before the Big Bang? This, in fact, is a thorn in the side of all cosmologists, and it may never be answered because we can't see time and space as it existed prior to time as we know it.
First I will note this idea is something totally different than and contradictory to the purported popping of the universe into existence via quantum mechanics or quantum tunneling addressed earlier.
Also, this is clearly an example of someone using their imagination, even though its a well-educated imagination. He isn't describing something he knows happened as he himself says, just something that might have happened ... could have happened ... maybe happened.
Of course, you could say thats what we're doing when we conceive of God beginning the universe too. However, believing in God, I can have a final answer to the beginning, at least final enough for me. With the exploding black hole idea, you explain this universe's beginning but then have the problem of the beginning of the preceding universe in which the hypothetical exploding black hole or white hole existed in. And if that's what happened, what caused the black hole to explode? And how come it exploded in just such a way that a universe capable of supporting life came into being? There's a whole universe's existence to explain, a wholly imaginary one to boot. Seems like a futile exercise to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------
2) The universe that came into existence was against incredible odds fine-tuned in such a way that life can exist in it. The best cosmologists testify to the truth of this.
But you wouldn't know of any that were created without proper parameters for life, would you? There may have been a billion others created that were sterile and you would know of none of them.
Sure the multihypothesis would explain (away) our universe's fine tuning - there would be a very large number of universes ((maybe an infinite number of them) and we're just the lucky universe which is fine-tuned so that life can exist. Of course, there's no evidence there are multiple universes and no real reason to believe in them except as a non-theological way out of the fine tuning problem. If science is truly objective, why is it necessary to come up with unprovable theories which exist solely to eliminate the theological implications of fine-tuning? To me this is evidence that some scientists are simply thinking up "scientific" ideas for the sake of defending a preconceived theological position.
I know I can't convince you that the fine-tuning of the universe is proof of a designer, but I think you have agreed above that fine-tuning is real and that our universe is "lucky" from the standpoint of us living creatures. I will come back to this issue of luck at the end of my post.
------------------------------------------------------------
3) The beginning of life by spontaneous generation is impossible, just as it impossible that the computer in front of you spontaneously generated.
That computer wasn't "spontaneously generated"; it was designed. And for economic reasons it was designed in a relatively short period of time by a small number of engineers with very limited random experimentation. How YOU can presume to speak of what can happen in billions of years with no basis but your "feeling" is totally beyond me. You state the result, then say it is true because you want it to be true.
That the computer was designed is precisely my point. I think life was designed too. Of the two things, I think life is the more amazing.
Re. the billions of years, life didn't have billions of years to get started. There is evidence of life on earth 3.85B years ago. That happens to be very early in earth's life. Earth was formed about 4.5-4.6B years ago, was molten at first with no atmosphere, no oceans. The early period of earth's life was also a period of very heavy asteroid bombardment, violent enough to have prevented any life from existing. Life seems to have appeared on earth immediately (okay, maybe millions of years following) after the earth became stable enough to allow life to exist on it. So there wasn't billions of years available for life to get started, only some millions. That makes a difference given life's complexity.
Ever played with some graphic computerized chaos theory programs? The patterns that can be generated by enough randomness are rather amazing.
No, but I've read about them. Dawkins and Dennett and some others I've read mention them. There's a guy named Wolfram who's pretty impressed with them too. These programs involve setting a few simple rules and then letting a program apply those rules, producing unpredicted patterns, even sort of complex patterns. As an analogy to the beginning of life, I'm very underwhelmed. Life is a lot more complex than what these programs come up with. And the programs are designed programs which could be said to demonstrate the power of an initial designer to produce surprising complex things.
Next, is there any evidence of some rule or rules in our world which would cause life to come into existence like the rules in these programs? No, I don't think so. If there were such rules*, those rules would be generating new life all the time all around us. And it is very likely that not all the life on earth would be of common descent. But common descent is considered a scientific fact.
If life could have begun by itself the way you're assuming, why hasn't it happened a vast number of times on our earth? Why can't we go out in the world and observe it happening now? If abiogenesis can happen because of some rule or rules in the universe, it ought to be happening now. So where is it?
I know I can't convince you that life's origin by chance is impossible, though I'm convinced of it and one of our most esteemed information theorists has essentially said so. But like the fine-tuning where I think you'll admit our universe is "lucky", I think you'll also agree that the odds of life's origin by chance must be at least pretty slim, that life's origin by chance is very very rare. It that weren't so, all life on earth probably wouldn't be of common origin as science says it is and we'd be seeing life originate by chance all around us. At least we'd see evidence that life has originated more than one time on earth So again, there is "luck" involved in life being here.
*If there were such rules, it still wouldn't provide evidence of no designer. For the question of where did the rules come from still would exist. Note that the Wolfram type programs are themselves all products of (human) design.
-------------------------------------------------------------
4) The biochemical process that is life has become couscious, self-aware, with a mind and a will of its own.
So?
Before you go further, you'd best define "conscious", "self-aware", "mind", and "will", then demonstrate that none of them exist in, say, a chimp. Or a dog.
I don't think I really have to do that. I can accept that dogs or chimps might have some level of consciousness too. That other life forms might have some sort of consciousness is not an answer to why consciousness exists. You may think by consciousness, I was talking about a soul. I don't think there is scientific evidence for or against the existence of a soul. I'm not asking you to leap to believing in a mysterious soul though, I'm just saying we are conscious beings with minds of our own and free will. I think you'd agree that you are conscious and have free will.
I think you'd also agree that life is a set of complicated chemical reactions, self-sustaining and reproducing chemical reactions. Essentially that's all our living bodies are, a very complicated conglomeration of chemical reactions.
Now looking at life as simply a set of related chemical reactions, can you agree that the idea of chemical reactions with consciousness is pretty wild? How did that happen? Given that the chemical reactions we give the name "life" to came into existence, what are the odds that those chemical reactions would develop conscious minds? Seem pretty slim to me. Again we are "lucky".
----------------------------------------------------------
These things are both evidence of a Creator and evidence the Creator is deeply interested in the beings he has created.
Suppose I granted all your argument but that. Why couldn't the creator just set it up as an entertainment device to see what happens?
Now we're into theology, speculating what is going on in God's mind. Theoretically, I suppose he could be motivated by a desire for entertainment. I guess someone could choose to believe that if they wanted. To me though, the universe seems a lot of trouble to go to for entertainment. Particularly, the making of conscious self-aware chemical reactions seems to me to point to some purpose more serious than entertainment. If we were just zombie-like beings, responding only to stimuli and instinct, it would be easier to think we're just beings in some giant virtual game God created. But I don't think either of us is a mindless zombie.
I don't think we can read God's mind though. So our ideas of God's purpose may be speculation.
---------------------------------------------------------
Did you say he is omniscient and already knows? Then do you have free will? And what does that mean, anyway?
I don't know if I said. I will say that thats my belief though. The issue of how we can have free will given God's omniscience is a tough question though.
I think we can only make a weak stab at them based on the Creator of our time dimension not being of it or subject to it. Perhaps the Creator is not subject to time at all and can simultaneously see the past, present and future at once. Or perhaps the Creator is subject to a totally different time dimension than ours in which movement in both (or more) directions is possible. So we could have free will within our timeline, but God not being independent of our timeline would know know our past, present and future simultaneously. Okay, that is just speculation.
-------------------------------------------
Your, problem, I think is you are attempting to argue for one side of a point that cannot be settled. You can no more prove there is a God than I can there isn't.
I would say I'm trying to say that belief in God is rational. At least as rational as belief in exploding black holes, white holes, infinite universes, abiogenesis. etc. All those are theoretical constructs, things we can't see or have any real evidence of, yet there are people who believe in them and they believe those beliefs are "scientific" and rational. If believing in things like infinite universes and white holes is rational, belief in a Creator is very rational.
There's another rational reason to believe. Remember me talking above about luck again and again?
Well, let's suppose a Mr. Lucky Louis Luciano walks into a convenience store, buys a lottery ticket, and wins the weekly lottery. Okay, he really was lucky, huh? Now let's suppose next week he does the same thing and wins again. And again the next week. How many times does he have to win the lottery for people to rationally believe Luciano isn't just "lucky" but that the lottery is fixed?
Well, we're serial lottery winners too. The fine-tuning of the universe is one lottery won, the origin of life another, the origin of conscious life another. I think I'm perfectly rational in saying we're just not lucky, people, this game is rigged! |
