WidowMakers wrote:3) As am I. I was simple showing that there are issues in relying solely on this theory to "prove" naturalistic beginnings.
4) My point was that all things in our universe require a cause. Since the cause cannot exist in the universe that did not exist before the cause, the cause must exist outside of the universe. A creator is that cause.
You now say what is the cause of the creator.
And I say why does the creator need a cause if our understanding of cause and effect is based inside our universe. I.E. A creator exists outside of our universe/laws/facts so we cannot understand him or his ways.
Basically regardless of our understand of the creator, if the universe could not have come into existence by itself, something must have made it.
5) Again God cannot be part of this universe because he could not have created it. Lets put it this way. If God is part of the universe that means the natural laws of the universe also apply to God. Then everything we have said earlier requires God to have a cause and be finite.
And if that is the case we are right back to "well what was the cause for everything and God?" And by looking over what was talked about, the answer is something outside or universe. Something that cannot be contained within the laws of it or th minds of man.
So we are back to the fact that a creator needs to exist outside our our universe.
Look, no one is going to "prove" anything. As we both agree, theoretical physics now suggests that particles can and do wink in and out of existence. I know enough about quantum physics to know that within its parameters is one explanation for the existence of the universe that - Occam's razor here - dispenses with the need for a super-complex intelligence to also exist. That is a HUGE saving. Nature is big on parsimony.
I know enough to know that physics suggests an origin for the universe that was contained within itself, in other words. I believe Stephen Hawking talked about the pre-inflationary cosmos being not a singularity, but rather a 'smear' of probabilities. It's not an intuitive concept - but neither is much of quantum theory. That doesn't detract from its applicability and accuracy, however.
But you inisist on adding an infinitely complex intelligence to the start of this process. It doesn't make sense. I keep bringing up the amount of complexity necessary for this creator to posess because the most complex object we know of - the human brain - took billions of years to develop and evolve, and so to tack on something far more complicated to th start of everything, especially when physics suggests it is entirely unecessary, makes no sense.
Apply the argument from design to this creator!
You may argue again that whatever exists outside the boundary of space and time is not constrained by logic, physics, etc etc but that's not really an argument, it's a cop out. And it's unnecessary.
A lovely exercise that proves nothing.
are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
