Background
In a debate between Christian
philosopher of science, Dr. William Lane Craig, and atheist professor of
Chemistry, Dr. Peter Atkins, the latter stated (8:37) that he didn’t have to
prove the non-existence of God, but merely demonstrate that appealing to any possible
god is unnecessary to account for the existence of the universe (https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=hVCVt-dvVOc). So I took up his challenge by writing my
paper, “The Scientific Impossibility of Our Universe Creating Itself” which can
be accessed at my website: www.christianityontheoffense.com/articles). Then I announced it in the comment section of
the debate by three weeks ago stating, “The
scientifically-substantiated fact of the Big Bang singlehandedly demolishes
Peter Atkins' claim of a universe coming into existence by naturalistic causes.
Absolute physical nothingness prior to the "zero-volume" cosmic
beginning lacks any possible means to produce anything.” Even more recently I repeat, I posted, “See
my rebuttal of Dr. Atkins’ premise by searching: ‘article, ‘The Scientific
Impossibility of Our Universe Creating Itself.’” Just a few days ago I began receiving multiple
challenges to my position from several opponents now listed; my opponents in red,
and myself in blue. By the way, you may wish to return to this conversation
at a later time since it is possible that other like-minded skeptics may join
the conversation.
Who said there was nothing
before the Big Bang?? And proposing supernatural magic as the origin of
everything because you don't understand science is puerile
What's up Doc? That
authoritative scientists speak of a "zero volume beginning at the BB
indicates the non-existence of anything at all prior to it. How do you know on
scientific grounds that there was something before it? You're just guessing.
Secondly, it is you, the 'reasonable Doc,' who bear the burden of
scientifically accounting for physicality deriving from nothing at all. BTW, I
am "just" (as you imply) a pastor.
@Garrison169
Why not say the universe (or
possibly the multiverse) has always existed and save a step?
Because no empirical evidence
exists that indicates that there is any such thing as a multiverse, a view that
rests instead solely on speculation
@Garrison169
Every discovery in science
began with speculation. It would explain why this universe is so well adapted
to life. Interestingly, there are a few parameters that would make our universe
better for life. Maybe they exist. Your god of the gaps may shrink into
nonexistence if the multiverse is discovered. I can see why you want to deny
the possibility of it. It wouldn't be the first time that religion impeded
science.
Gary Jensen
I am surprised that you are
charging me with the "god-of-the-gaps" ploy. Since it is at this
point in time true that no known or even conceivable naturalistic alternative
of a causal agent has been presented, it is your position which is in principle
committing the parallel fallacy of the "place-holder of the gaps."
"Maybe"-placeholders don't qualify as evidence
@Garrison169
What caused the BB is not yet
known, but that does not mean that your god did it. The god of the gaps will
get smaller as science progresses.
Gary Jensen
My article, "The
Scientific Impossibility of Our Universe Creating Itself," in the first
two paragraphs answers why science has no means to bring a universe into
existence. Correction, should say
first page.
The universe has always existed. Looks like you've wasted a lot of time on hot air.
@DocReasonable
How do we explain the
beginning of the universe? A better question would be WHICH beginning? In 2016,
a team of mathematicians from Canada and Egypt have used a staggering set of
equations to work out what preceded the universe. They didn't find any gods.
They concluded, via quantum mechanics, that the universe basically goes through
four different phases. More importantly they discovered what came before this
universe was -- another universe or more accurately another ‘cosmological
phase’. The universe is expanding, and the expansion is speeding up, but the
team finds that certain modification motivated by quantum mechanics will
ultimately halt the expansion and pull the whole lot back to a near infinite
point – at which stage the universe will start expanding again, as per the Big
Bang.
The problem with your claim
is that the "staggering set of equations" you appeal to excludes
empirical facts and data that can be tested. So that venture does not qualify
as scientific.
So, what are the
'empirical facts and data' that support your religious screed? Were you able to
ascertain the molecules that made up the magical fairy dust Yahweh used to
create an entire universe?
So since it can't create
itself, what then is your alternative?
Please present those
two paragraphs here (which I mentioned at top of this page). And Like I've told
you several times, the universe/reality are eternal.
I did suggest that you read
the article in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics. Non-singular
and Cyclic Universe from the Modified GUP.
Gary Jensen
I will read
it, though I have every reason to doubt it for the very reasons I already
stated.
Indeed, I have just visited
that article. The problem is that even if the universe did collapse back on
itself, the result would be so unstable that no conceivable smooth rebound
would be impossible. Chaos, not cosmos, would result.
If a god did create the universe, it's not the
simple-minded genocidal tyrant of the bible. I hope you're aware of that much,
at least.
I won't address your
simple-minded offensive personal attacks, but instead suggest that you have
failed to offer a sufficient causal agent capable of creating an entire cosmos.
@garyjensen3004 I don't want to read your creationist screed, thanks
anyway
Gary Jensen
When you employ the term,
"universe/reality" I assume you are conflating the words by equating
them. My view is that the universe is instead not eternal as demonstrated by
the "zero-volume" conditions prior to the Big Bang beginning of the
cosmos from out of nothing. I hold further that the God of the Bible (Genesis
1:1) is the only conceivable "sufficient cause" available that can
account for the existence of the finite universe (with respect to both duration
and extent). Neither "magical fairy dust" (as you framed it) nor even
quantum physics.
I sincerely appreciate your questions. However, I notice
that you have yet to offer an alternative, naturalistic, cause of the universe
that stands up to rational (or should I say "Reasonable") scrutiny,
Doc?
Gary Jensen,
NALC Lutheran Pastor, retired © August 27, 2024
Gjensen549@gmail.com ** Christianityontheoffense.com ** offensivechristianity.blogspot.com M.Div. Degree, Luther/Northwestern Theological Seminary ** M.A. Degree in Science and Religion, BIOLA University
No comments:
Post a Comment