Alternate Title: Big Bang Bites Man!
Okay, so let me state something for the record. What I'm about to offer is not meant to be a compelling proof of God's existence. My answer is not evidence but faith which, contrary to the opinion of some, is not akin to fairy tales (unless you think your mother's love is akin to fairy tales - hopefully not the ogre-ish kind.) It is meant to be a response to the atheist assumption that belief in God is not rational. By the end of this post, my hope is that you can at least sit back and say "I get it" and see that there is validity to the theistic proposition that matter/energy/spact/time isn't all there is.
So.
One of my problems with Dawkins is that he ignores the philosophical dimension of Christianity and attacks the very ugly caricature of a religion that he's created. For example, he ignores the necessary questions raised by Big Bang theory, such as: "What caused it?" The question of first causes has been around for hundreds of years. Basically the idea is this: The universe contains and is everything physical. It is made of matter and energy in all their forms existing in a matrix (that just means spatial context) of space and time. Before the Big Bang (and I use the word "before" metaphorically here, since there was no "before" due to time not existing, time being a physical substance) there was nothing. Then there was something. What was the cause of that first explosion of light and energy?
Yes, yes, some posit that there has simply been an infinite number of explosions, universal expansions, and eventual contractions. Two rseponses: First, that only pushes back the question, where did all this matter come from? Nothing comes from nothing, so where is all this from? Second, recent evidence is that the universe is accelerating in its expansion, not slowing down as it should. A question: Where is the "energy" coming from to cause space to expand at an ever increasing rate? Who's driving this crazy thing?
Are there several answers? Certainly. Are they logical? They may well be. But my point here is that the universe needs a cause, something which itself is non-physical and does not require that matrix of space and time to exist. If we compared the whole physical universe, with all its matter/energy/space/time to a globe of water, we would need a First Cause that was able to exist outside that globe of water. Again, "outside" here is used metaphorically. The theist's answer is that, if we move down the checklist, we see some familiar things. So we need something that would Cause or Create (check.) This thing needs to be non-physical in nature (dare we use the word- spiritual? check, check.) As a non-physical reality this Thing therefore is without measure both physically and in time, since it is outside of that bubble of the Universe (and here, we can use the word, infinite- check, check, check.) This is the theist's God.
I know, I know, there is nothing in this exploration that requires the Christian God. No, it doesn't and you could believe this theory and attach all sorts of religions to it. That's fine, and Deism is a god example of where you could go. The point, again, is to show that the theistic proposition is a rational one, not the lump of superstitions presented by Dawkins. You may disagree with the theory, but you should at least allow that it is reasonable. Oh, and there are good articles on the history of the Big Bang theory (I get a kick out of that one) and St. Thomas Aquinas and Big Bang Theory.
For the record, let's call this Proposition A.
9 comments:
Since we are talking about physic theories here, I would like to inquire about a certain "Truth". The Law of Conservation of Energy states that Matter is neither created nor destroyed correct? But as you said, scientists have proven that the universe is expanding an accelerating rate. Ergo atomos amplior habemus (rough latin sentence I know. Translation, Therefore we have more matter). How does one explain this.
On a side note, well written article and arguement. You brought up both sides of the issue, and, not creating a "strawman" eloquently defended your point. This Aquinas article looks rather interesting.
Jeremy W.
Jeremy,
The fact that there is any matter or energy at all is evidence that at some point the Law you cite was broken. The only way the Law can be pure through infinity is for there to be no energy or matter ever. Neat idea, that. Where the heck did it all come from.
But yes, what's the impetus for the acceleration? Of course, there could be an answer. The theist doesn't shy away from those answers if they show up, since his primary argument lies outside of the physical universe and therefore cannot be quantified.
The fact that it can't be quantified is both good and not. We can't ever "know" the truth of it and therefore we must choose to believe or not through an act of the human will. That's the point, I think, for God NOT writing his signature somewhere in the fossil record for us to conveneniently find. That sort of revelation is too cheap, like finding a penny on the sidewalk.
the fact that more things are filling up His creation may account for the fact that it is speeding up. don't ask me how, but it makes sense in my hea. matter was created at the moment of creation, and can only be destroyed when the tower falls.
cryptic? i dig.
Johnson, that "A day without a yesterday" article completely blew mind mind. I'd like to thank you because I will no long be able to sleep tonight and i have an essay tomorrow.
Brett, you just made my day.
Johnson,
I applaud you:
you have successfully convinced me that not only do science and religion work together, but they are intertwined.
By the way Johnson,
I was interested by your definition of cynicism earlier today so I looked a littler further into it.
It comes from a group of ancient Greeks who called themselves the Cynics during the fourth century BC.
These Cynics rejected all conventions: religions, manners, housing, dress or even decency. They lived a simple and unmaterialistic lifestyle.
If we were to look at this as a definition to cynicism, I would not call myself a cynic by any means.
However, a modern definition of the word is as follows:
"Showing a disposition to disbelieve in the sincerity or goodness of human motives and actions."
If we were to consider that the current definition of cynicism, I would argue that I do think that humans act more in their self-interest than in communal love. I would argue against the sincerity of NOT ALL but some human beings and they motives.
I would, however, like to point out that I appreciate the good in people. Most people deserve recognition as being good, enlightened people. I simply do not have the courage (and yes, I do think it takes courage) to accept all humans as being pure and good until proven otherwise. I would argue that, upon meeting a person, I give them the benefit of the doubt, but if they prove themselves to be less than good before I get to know them properly, then my respect for that person is lost.
Ben, I can see where your coming from. I myself am sometimes too swift to deal out death and judgement. But people have a way of surprising you when you least expect them to. Just for example, I knew a guy who took advantage of one of my severely intoxicate friends. I hated him after that. I literally did not let him into my house. Never spoke more than a couple mumbled words to him, and these were usually followed by curses evoking dark powers. It caused a lot of strife just because I was not backing down. But finally I relented and just took the time to actually talk to him, he turned out to be a good guy. I think you need to give people more than just the benefit of the doubt. I dont know how to be more specific, I can't really word it well, but these are just my beliefs. I believe now, that people are good, and am willing to allow them mistakes, sometimes on multiple occasions. But the whole point of this story is that if your quick to judge, eventually you will become a vary old, bitter, and intolerable man. You feel wronged by the world someway, and thus have developed this mind set, which is fair, but at the same time, we need to be compassionate.
Jeremy W.
i realize this is older but i hope it gets answered, Im very curious.
How are we sure that nothing actually existed before everything?
Post a Comment