Uncaused Cause Proof

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308978510' post='2258461']
Well it's a good argument, but how do you know that there was nothing before the big bang? As far as two other hypotheses go, there's the multiverse, which would say that we're the product of a favourable universe among many, Penrose's cyclic universe (in which the universe was not created nor will be destroyed, but go through successive big bangs) and the brane which also was always there.

None of these have good proof to back them up though, the multiverse and brane theory are waiting on string theory to deliver I think and Penrose's theory will be falsified if when we observe gravitational waves.

Though I just don't have faith that whatever caused the universe to "start", if you will, is conscious and intelligent, both of which most religions describe their god to be. Deist and theist.
[/quote]

I'm going to take a couple different angles on this:

1. I think you are creating a "Non-God" of the gaps. Instead of using gaps in science to prove the existence of God, you are using gaps in science to prove the lack of a God. The big bang needs a cause. Lacking a testable atheistic model for this, you create a non-God of the gaps.

2. You have a lot of faith, much more than would be needed to believe in Christianity. All of the atheistic explanations for the existence of a cause for the Big Bang require you to put faith in at least one hypothesis that is untestable, unobservable, and unverifiable. You've admitted that they have no "good proof to back them up." It's much more reasonable to put faith in the claims of Jesus, who proved his authenticity and reliability by rising from the dead.

3. You're just buying time. Even if you have a multiverse or a universe with successive big bangs, the first event in the history of the multiverse requires a cause.

4A. How do I know that there was nothing before the Big Bang? I don't. But as a rational being I believe whatever is most likely. If time, space, and matter came into existence at the Big Bang, they had to be caused by something existing outside the dimensions of time, space, and matter. A cause existing outside of time is eternal. A cause existing outside of matter is a spirit. A cause capable of bringing matter into existence ex nihilo has some pretty amesome powers at least approaching omnipotence. We're starting to see some of the attributes of what we consider to be God here.

4B. Taking a different tack on 4, something has to be eternal. Our options are either matter/energy (we know from Einstein that they are the same), or God. The problem with matter being eternal is that matter causes time. You end up with an infinite regress, which is irrational. (I'd be happy to argue just this point if you doubt that infinite regresses are irrational). With God, you avoid the infinite regress because there is no time until He creates matter. Thus an eternal God is completely rational.

5. Your Non-God of the gaps relies on some bad science. I'm feeling very tempted to do a text dump...see next posts. I'll be posting from Magisreasonfaith.org, a site run by a Jesuit Priest and physicist, Fr. Spitzer.

Edited June 25, 2011 by dells_of_bittersweet

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[b] The Grand Design, or The Murky Metaphysics of Stephen Hawking[/b]

Monday, June 13, 2011
By Kelly Ryan Harriger

Magis Contributor



“Philosophy is dead.”

So declares physicist Stephen Hawking in the early pages of his new bestseller, “The Grand Design.”

He continues: “Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.”

It’s a grand statement to open “The Grand Design,” except that for many, it doesn’t ring true. In fact, one of the fastest growing areas in academics is the discipline of philosophy of science, and it seems that the vast majority of best-selling “science” books are not, as they claim, really about science, but instead about what the science may be telling us. In other words, they’re essentially philosophy books. “The Grand Design,” as it turns out, falls into this category, and is a metaphysical treatise from a great thinker who happens to be a world-renowned theoretical physicist.

“The Grand Design” is a very well-written book, and largely enjoyable to read, but for anyone seeking concrete answers to the questions posed by Dr. Hawking, it ends in disappointment. While the book is filled with explanations and examples of quantum experiments and their highly successful track record (which is the most enjoyable section of the book), the conclusions drawn by Hawking (and co-author Leonard Mlodinow) at the end ignore his own instructions at the beginning of the book. In fact, the book creates more new questions than it answers. This is due in part to the fact that the authors build their argument around M-theory, which is unverifiable by measurement and is considered by many to be little more than mathematical metaphysics. Scientists in any field should first and foremost concern themselves with evidence verified by test-based results. The fact that Hawking is trading on his credentials as a scientist to put forth a philosophical treatise has raised some eyebrows in the scientific community.

Dr. Hawking and Mlodinow open the argument by explaining that since we don’t really know what existed prior to the Big Bang, and because the physical laws that govern the Universe didn’t come into play until some time during the first second after the singularity, we really aren’t in a position to accurately predict anything about what existed before that. To this point, Hawking has remained true to his scientific background, and true to statements he’s made earlier in his career, such as “I don’t demand that a theory corresponds to reality, because I don’t know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with a litmus paper. All I’m concerned about is that the theory should predict the results of measurement.”1 So far, so good.

He then notes that his own theory—the very one which forms the basis for this book—is currently untestable and unlikely to ever yield a model that could be tested. And then, without a moment’s hesitation, he proceeds to launch into a book that proposes a theory for the creation of the Universe based upon the law of gravity, a law which Hawking and Mlodinow have just finished telling us came into existence [i]after [/i]the singularity. If readers are paying attention, they should find themselves saying, “Hey! Didn’t he just claim that those very same physical laws wouldn’t be of any use in building a testable model?”

It’s important to point out that Hawking and Mlodinow propose to use this theory—one based upon mathematical metaphysics—to answer some huge questions that have puzzled mankind since he acquired the ability and need to contemplate his own existence. [i]Why is there something rather than nothing? Why do we exist?[/i]

Before attempting to answer these questions, Hawking first provides us with some background information to help the reader better understand quantum theory. Since the earliest “knowable” state of the Universe consisted of tightly-packed elementary particles, the Big Bang itself must have been a quantum event, as the classical laws did not appear until after the singularity. Once the reader has this background information firmly in hand, Hawking then presents his own model for what might have happened. It’s at this point that one should question Dr. Hawking’s motives, even if one is a loyal fan of the great scientist, because it’s here that Hawking begins to write about his theory as though it were demonstrable fact.

From this point forward, Hawking’s language and word choice clearly suggests that he firmly believes it to be a demonstrable fact, and once he begins writing in this mode, his earlier, carefully-worded caveats are completely ignored. M-Theory is no longer an untestable model of a unified theory. It appears to become the firm belief of Dr. Hawking that this is indeed how the Universe began, and he lays it out with authority. If this was not what he meant to imply, then it was a gross oversight not to say so. Hawking’s mind and his grandly-realized ideas draw tremendous respect from the general public, and for him to so strongly argue for something for which he cannot provide any evidence is, to put it lightly, a bit irresponsible. His words carry weight, and when he speaks, people listen. Anyone who has followed the controversy since the release of this book knows exactly what I’m talking about. Hawking not only lays out a metaphysical argument against a creative intelligence, but has recently gone on record with anti-faith comments not supportable with any facts or science. If one is going to use science to make a point, one should provide scientific evidence to make that point. Hawking simply counters one metaphysical idea with an opposing metaphysical idea, and counts on his considerable reputation as a physicist to add weight to his argument.

From a scientific point of view, the primary problem with Hawking’s argument for a universe “from nothing” is that he builds his case with quantum physics. Hawking and Mlodinow have chosen a single interpretation of quantum mechanics known as the Copenhagen interpretation, although this is only one of many possible interpretations. Hawking’s idea isn’t entirely without merit, however, but it does take huge leaps of logic. While quantum theory is one of the most successful theories known to science, its success resides in the study of small elemental systems, not large objects, and not entire universes.

It’s been noted that if we were to try to test quantum theory on large objects, such as objects the size of golf balls, we’d be dealing with distances and speeds such as a millionth of an inch over the course of a century. Hardly the sort of situation that lends itself to a testable model. Most of the criticism of Hawking’s theory is that it attempts to use a theory that works on small systems such as one composed of protons and electrons, and apply it to something the size of a universe. It’s akin to suggesting that since a basketball can be bounced, Jupiter could also be bounced providing you could find a surface large enough from which to bounce it. What is possible in the quantum world doesn’t automatically extrapolate to the classical world.

Additionally, Hawking largely ignores another aspect of quantum physics, one championed and explored by fellow physicist Roger Penrose. Penrose has gone on record claiming that no unified theory of the Universe will ever be complete without accounting for consciousness. Penrose even takes this idea a step farther, and to Hawking, perhaps a step too far. Penrose believes that the only thing linking the quantum world with the classical world is consciousness…human consciousness. This is a startling statement, but then we must remember that quantum theory tells us that the reality of the physical world depends upon our[i] observation [/i]of it.

Some physicists like to soften this idea by suggesting that the reality of the physical world [i]appears[/i] to depend upon our observation of it, but others insist that the first statement was entirely accurate, and completely supported by empirical evidence. Quantum experiments have demonstrated with 100% accuracy that our observation of what is to be measured [i]actually produces[/i] the physical reality of what is to be measured. It’s a startling reality that is referred to as “the skeleton in the closet” of modern physics.2 This idea, when really explored, suggests some mind-blowing conclusions pointing toward teleology, which is why most physicists like to steer clear of it, Hawking among them.

In fact, while Hawking does briefly mention the role of consciousness in quantum mechanics, he mostly sweeps the issue under the rug. If you were to look at the index of the book, you’d find no references to “mind” or “consciousness,” although this issue is one of the central mysteries of quantum mechanics. While mentioning John Wheeler’s work with delayed-choice experiments, the writers do not mention that Wheeler’s original conjecture suggested that his successful experiments implied an observer-dependent universe.

Perhaps one of the most profound questions ever asked in a science book can be found in John Polkinghorne’s book, “Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction.” As he cautiously leads up to the issue of the conscious mind and its uneasy marriage with the quantum world, he asks: “At most times and in most places, the Universe has been devoid of consciousness. Are we to suppose that throughout these vast tracts of cosmic space and time, no quantum processes resulted in a determinate consequence?”3

If the importance of that question didn’t grab your attention, you weren’t paying attention, and I’ll ask you to read it again before proceeding. If you knew the answer to that question, you’d know the very answers to the questions asked by Hawking earlier.

If it’s true that the physical realities of the classical world depend upon our observation of them—and keeping in mind that quantum experiments prove this to be absolutely true 100% of the time—then the most logical conclusion drawn from this evidence suggests that mind is the originator of matter, and not the other way around, as the materialist view claims. If one wished to argue in favor of this idea, one would have the most successful scientific theory ever on their side. Therefore it’s no surprise that Hawking, who no doubt is completely aware of this fact, chose to ignore its implications in his book, while pushing ahead with a metaphysical theory about how a universe can spring into existence “from nothing.”

The fatal flaw in Hawking’s theory has been pointed out again and again by his critics, who come from all belief systems. The flaw in his theory goes beyond the theist/non-theist argument, and runs head-on into a brick wall grounded on simple logic. Hawking’s entire argument for a universe that springs into existence from nothing is flawed because it presupposes an already-existing, information-rich system that includes gravity. Keep in mind that Hawking has already warned us that we cannot speculate about what existed [i]before[/i] the singularity using physical laws that appeared [i]after[/i] it.

Hawking’s “nothing,” as it turns out, isn’t really nothing after all. Nothing is total non-being, total blankness. On this fact alone, Hawking’s theory falls flat, as it requires the preexistence of an eternal system that he fails to explain. This doesn’t prevent him from making a very grand claim by stating that a universe can appear out of “nothing.” If the reader has been paying attention and is aware of this fact while reading the conclusions made in the book, then Hawking’s conclusion is groundless, and is reduced to metaphysical musings built upon a house of cards. One needn’t be a physicist to figure out that Dr. Hawking leaves many contingencies unexplored. Simply paying attention to what Hawking said earlier in this book and others is sufficient. His argument for a “universe from nothing” fails on logical grounds, as it contradicts his earlier statements (which are supported by scientific data). Hawking already realizes the issues and has previously stated as much: “Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”4

Why, indeed.

In the end, the existence of the Universe and its original cause doesn’t lend itself to a testable model, and remains hidden by layers upon layers of contingencies. It’s at this point that the philosophers step in, scientific or otherwise, and it’s here that the battle rages, perhaps endlessly. And yet, as I mentioned earlier, Hawking’s idea isn’t without merit, and it’s a fascinating glimpse into a brilliant mind at work. His contributions to the scientific world are immeasurable and have helped cosmologists move forward in leaps and bounds. But for reasons known only to Stephen Hawking, simply trying to explain the Universe and the physical processes that keep it going aren’t enough for him. He also feels the need to disprove a concept that clearly vexes him, and it’s nowhere more apparent than in “The Grand Design.” For now, anyway, God appears safe from Stephen Hawking.

Quantum physics has opened an entirely new world that only now is becoming known to the general public. Some of the questions raised by this fascinating world seem best addressed by philosophy. Science can tell us how it works, but science appears confounded by why it works the way it does. Yet for many, the findings of science are enough to sustain them. Scientific discovery provides a sense of wonderment that makes them feel they’re a part of something truly amazing, part of a beautiful and mysteriously connected system capable of producing their own intelligence and ability to wonder. Others may comprehend the same scientific facts, feel the same sense of wonder, and beyond it, through the mist of their earthly senses, see the hand of God.

[b]Endnotes: [/b]

1 “The Nature of Time and Space,” by Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, p. 121, Princeton University Press.

2 “Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness,” by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, p. 13, Oxford University Press.

3 “Quantum Theory: A Very Short Introduction,” by John C. Polkinghorne, p. 51, Oxford University Press, USA.

4 “A Brief History of Time,” by Stephen Hawking, p. 190, Bantam Books.

About the Author: Kelly Ryan Harriger spent most of his professional career in Los Angeles, California, as a professional communications writer, and he has over 20 years experience in the business, having worked in both advertising agencies and corporate marketing groups. Over the years, the demands of his career helped create a practical understanding of the need to identify clear goals and then write toward them without wasting a reader's time. In addition to his career as a copywriter, he also worked as a reader and story consultant with the William Morris Agency in Beverly Hills for five years, where he developed strong skills at identifying clean, tight storylines for motion picture projects. Kelly Harriger currently lives in Pennsylvania where he owns and operates Pickering Street Productions, a small marketing consultant and copywriting business. He is the author of [url="http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/news/the-grand-design-or-the-murky-metaphysics-of-stephen-hawking/%22God:%20An%20Unauthorized%20Biography.%22"]"God: An Unauthorized Biography."[/url]

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

I apologize for the length I can be quite wordy. haha.
[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1308972959' post='2258384']
You know when the idea of the Big Bang was first hypothesized, it was resisted by many scientists of the time! It was held for a long time that the universe was eternal, and this was easier to fit in an atheist paradigm.
[/quote]

This idea may be historically true that people believed this, but an eternal universe does not actually preclude an eternal, necessary being. If matter were in fact eternal, the question arises "where does motion and change come from?" The ancients were actually the first to ask this question. Heraclitus proposed that in reality all things were just "change." Motion and things becoming other things and reproducing meant that nothing was real but all things were change and there are no real substances. Parmenides, however, concluded that matter and substances are really just one and since matter is eternal a principle of change could not be introduced into it; therefore change is an illusion. A third opinion is that of Aristotle, a realist. He supposed that change was real but that things were in fact things/substances. He said that if matter was eternal, there need not be a principle of change within it. One thinks of an inert matter, maybe something like the big bang here. However, we know there is change so we must conceive of substances in a certain way: matter (as the principle of individuation) and a quiddity (that which makes the thing what it is/that which is common to all things that fit this category). The quiddity can change so that a thing becomes something else and the matter is given a different form accordingly and we see a new object that really is something new. Now if matter is eternal why does it change and a better question: why do things move (Aristotle understood well the idea of inertia that "objects will remain at rest of in motion until acted upon by an outside force)? Wouldn't all of matter just have been inert the whole time and never changed and never given a new form/quiddity (Parmenides)? Or wouldn't matter just have been eternally moving and therefore nothing be really real but in eternal flux (Heraclitus)? Aristotle proposes that for there to be motion and change and real substances at the same time there must be this mechanism of matter and quiddity/form within the matter (two principles that aren't really anything without one another since without form there are no things that the matter can be and without matter there is no principle of individuation that allows a form to be something) as well as one that imposes these principles. If matter an eternal principle there must be one that accounts for the principle of change and the ideas of the form. Aristotle calls this eternal, necessary being "Nous" or Mind that thinks and makes these forms a reality to be educed in matter for us to come to know. However, one must note that this "Nous" is not understood as the creator God for the greeks but it does show that simply having an eternal but changing universe does not fit into an atheistic philosophy, that is if one wants to be a realist and say that there are actual things that we come to know rather than saying everything is simply "change."

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1308974508' post='2258406']
I don't see any problems with it, other than "there must be a [i]being[/i] that exists outside of time, and has the power to call the universe into being."

I would call the uncaused cause the uncaused cause, and not god.
[/quote]

The problem is then the question, "what would a thing need to be to be an uncaused cause?" A thing would need to be eternal and seemingly unmoved, while being able to move or cause without being caused itself. This means that there is nothing higher than it that can move it. Its being would necessarily be eternal, and thus not be material since matter is what accounts for individuation and is necessary for change. It is only in this sense can one understand an unmoved mover. If the unmoved mover were material, it could be moved, hurt, changed etc necessarily as per the definition of matter. However, if the unmoved mover were not material then such a causer or mover could cause or allow matter to change by introducing something new into it. One has to think vertically not horizontally when thinking of the uncaused cause. It is the only way to escape the idea of something causing it. However, then one raises a slew of new questions, what type of "mode of being" would such a thing necessarily have to be able to introduce new objects/change into matter (in a manner similar to the way I have described above)? If there is nothing greater than it that can move it or has caused it, one begins to move into the questions that St. Thomas and St. Anselm and even Aristotle and Plato asked about such a being and the answers they arrived at.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309022439' post='2258637']
I'm going to take a couple different angles on this:

1. I think you are creating a "Non-God" of the gaps. Instead of using gaps in science to prove the existence of God, you are using gaps in science to prove the lack of a God. The big bang needs a cause. Lacking a testable atheistic model for this, you create a non-God of the gaps.[/quote]

I must say this is the first time I've ever seen anybody say "Non-God of the gaps". LOL

I would say that my position is one of complete ignorance. I entertain different hypotheses, god being among them, but ultimately know that at least from my perspective that nothing can be really known about any of them if they can't be reached.

[quote]2. You have a lot of faith, much more than would be needed to believe in Christianity. All of the atheistic explanations for the existence of a cause for the Big Bang require you to put faith in at least one hypothesis that is untestable, unobservable, and unverifiable. You've admitted that they have no "good proof to back them up." It's much more reasonable to put faith in the claims of Jesus, who proved his authenticity and reliability by rising from the dead.[/quote]

I wouldn't put it that way. Sure it takes an unfounded belief for these hypotheses, but this argument is more in line with deism, which is simpler than any theistic religion from which attributes and characteristics of this uncaused cause follow. I don't have faith for theism. Deism is more valid IMO.

I also don't see the Bible as sound historical evidence for extraordinary claims such as Jesus' resurrection and miracles.

[quote]3. You're just buying time. Even if you have a multiverse or a universe with successive big bangs, the first event in the history of the multiverse requires a cause.[/quote]

True, it would just be one step away from us on the infinitely long chain of infinite regress (which I think is the ultimate problem here). Is there good reason to think that we weren't created by something that was itself created and had a beginning?

[quote]4A. How do I know that there was nothing before the Big Bang? I don't. But as a rational being I believe whatever is most likely. If time, space, and matter came into existence at the Big Bang, they had to be caused by something existing outside the dimensions of time, space, and matter. A cause existing outside of time is eternal. A cause existing outside of matter is a spirit. A cause capable of bringing matter into existence ex nihilo has some pretty amesome powers at least approaching omnipotence. We're starting to see some of the attributes of what we consider to be God here.

4B. Taking a different tack on 4, something has to be eternal. Our options are either matter/energy (we know from Einstein that they are the same), or God. The problem with matter being eternal is that matter causes time. You end up with an infinite regress, which is irrational. (I'd be happy to argue just this point if you doubt that infinite regresses are irrational). With God, you avoid the infinite regress because there is no time until He creates matter. Thus an eternal God is completely rational. [/quote]

Going into speculation here: how do you know this omnipotent uncaused cause is [i]consciously capable[/i] of creating a universe?

Just to make my points clearer, I perfectly accept that there could be an uncaused cause (infinite regress doesn't sit well in the mind) but it's really the attributes of this cause that I don't accept so easily.

[quote]5. Your Non-God of the gaps relies on some bad science. I'm feeling very tempted to do a text dump...see next posts. I'll be posting from Magisreasonfaith.org, a site run by a Jesuit Priest and physicist, Fr. Spitzer.[/quote]

Essentially I think so far whatever knowledge that can't be reached somehow isn't science, but philosophising. Arguments for and against god (if outside the realm of science) are also not science.

If, however, whatever cause that happens outside the universe (if there is an "outside") won't have an effect here, then I guess for know we're left with only philosophy.

Edited June 25, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote]Additionally, Hawking largely ignores another aspect of quantum physics, one championed and explored by fellow physicist Roger Penrose. Penrose has gone on record claiming that no unified theory of the Universe will ever be complete without accounting for consciousness. Penrose even takes this idea a step farther, and to Hawking, perhaps a step too far. Penrose believes that the only thing linking the quantum world with the classical world is consciousness…human consciousness. This is a startling statement, but then we must remember that quantum theory tells us that the reality of the physical world depends upon our[i] observation [/i]of it.

Some physicists like to soften this idea by suggesting that the reality of the physical world [i]appears[/i] to depend upon our observation of it, but others insist that the first statement was entirely accurate, and completely supported by empirical evidence. Quantum experiments have demonstrated with 100% accuracy that our observation of what is to be measured [i]actually produces[/i] the physical reality of what is to be measured. It’s a startling reality that is referred to as “the skeleton in the closet” of modern physics.2 This idea, when really explored, suggests some mind-blowing conclusions pointing toward teleology, which is why most physicists like to steer clear of it, Hawking among them.[/quote]

I think that this is very interesting.

I guess most scientists don't like it because it gets twisted into Deepak Chopra-like wu wu all the time, not to mention suggests some uncomfortable kind of solipism.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1309030539' post='2258675']
The problem is then the question, "what would a thing need to be to be an uncaused cause?" A thing would need to be eternal and seemingly unmoved, while being able to move or cause without being caused itself. This means that there is nothing higher than it that can move it. Its being would necessarily be eternal, and thus not be material since matter is what accounts for individuation and is necessary for change. It is only in this sense can one understand an unmoved mover. If the unmoved mover were material, it could be moved, hurt, changed etc necessarily as per the definition of matter. However, if the unmoved mover were not material then such a causer or mover could cause or allow matter to change by introducing something new into it. One has to think vertically not horizontally when thinking of the uncaused cause. It is the only way to escape the idea of something causing it. However, then one raises a slew of new questions, what type of "mode of being" would such a thing necessarily have to be able to introduce new objects/change into matter (in a manner similar to the way I have described above)? If there is nothing greater than it that can move it or has caused it, one begins to move into the questions that St. Thomas and St. Anselm and even Aristotle and Plato asked about such a being and the answers they arrived at.
[/quote]

"However, then one raises a slew of new questions, what type of "mode of being" would such a thing necessarily have to be able to introduce new objects/change into matter (in a manner similar to the way I have described above)?"

Exactly. Assuming that this universe is in fact just one step away from the beginning of infinite regress, how does the complex and intricate theology of theistic (interventionalist and non indifferent one god) religions follow from there?

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309033305' post='2258697']
"However, then one raises a slew of new questions, what type of "mode of being" would such a thing necessarily have to be able to introduce new objects/change into matter (in a manner similar to the way I have described above)?"

Exactly. Assuming that this universe is in fact just one step away from the beginning of infinite regress, how does the complex and intricate theology of theistic (interventionalist and non indifferent one god) religions follow from there?
[/quote]

If one posits everything has a cause then one has an infinite regress, but to avoid the regress one does not need a complex intricate theology. One simply needs an understanding of "the Nous" or the Platonic one. I would highly recommend reading some Aristotle on the topic. One gets a robust theology only after having deduced through reason that such a being exists and then believing that such a God reveals himself to humanity. One can know "that" God exists through reason; however, one can only know "who" God is through His self-revelation.

We had a previous exchange on the "If God is all powerful, can He make a rock" thread ([url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=113257&st=0&p=2250727&#entry2250727"]the link[/url]). My post was number 21 about God being without limit on his act of being or [i]esse[/i], basically to be that which is uncaused and cannot be caused. To have that though, you have a being with infinite qualities, including no limit on life. We note that things are inferior when they are lifeless and this is a constraint on them since they do not move of their own accord and cannot rightly be said to introduce things from the outside but rather just affect other objects. If one is being true to the language used to describe the introduction of change into matter than you in some way has to say the "uncaused one" does in fact have life and act eternally in accord with such a nature. Since to say he is without life is to impose an essence and therefore limitation on the limitless being.

Edited June 25, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1309036419' post='2258727']
If one posits everything has a cause then one has an infinite regress, but to avoid the regress one does not need a complex intricate theology. One simply needs an understanding of "the Nous" or the Platonic one. I would highly recommend reading some Aristotle on the topic. One gets a robust theology only after having deduced through reason that such a being exists and then believing that such a God reveals himself to humanity. One can know "that" God exists through reason; however, one can only know "who" God is through His self-revelation.[/quote]

Yeah, Aquinas' unmoved mover does that very well, and reaches an answer (or rather the beginning) but from that you can only really conclude a few consequences such as such a beginning [i]must[/i] be simple, otherwise it is made of parts, and parts come from somewhere and interacted with eachother somehow to make that being and so something with parts or the result of interaction could not be the beginning. It's a necessary conclusion to the idea.

But what doesn't follow is that that simple beginning is consciously capable of designing and creating a universe which works, at least for us to observe, and that's the basis for both theism and deism, though theism then goes on to say that the cause intervenes consciously and intelligently in the universe with purpose. To me it just doesn't follow and is made even more counter intuitive because intellgience requires parts (I may be making the same mistake I'm accusing people who don't seem to go outside their own experience when making claims about god's nature but a simple uber intelligence just doesn't make sense to me).

There is also a possibility that we were created by intelligent beings who were themselves created, and I don't reject that either.

As for god revealing himself, I believe that people project their own minds (anthropomorphized) onto the universe and call it god. Though to compare with the image of an old man in the sky, just as that old man is very powerful (superman), the god mind is as well (supermind) tied in with logical conclusions and necessary conditions. That's my conception of the theistic conception, at least.

[quote]We had a previous exchange on the "If God is all powerful, can He make a rock" thread ([url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=113257&st=0&p=2250727&#entry2250727"]the link[/url]). My post was number 21 about God being without limit on his act of being or [i]esse[/i], basically to be that which is uncaused and cannot be caused. To have that though, you have a being with infinite qualities, including no limit on life. We note that things are inferior when they are lifeless and this is a constraint on them since they do not move of their own accord and cannot rightly be said to introduce things from the outside but rather just affect other objects. If one is being true to the language used to describe the introduction of change into matter than you in some way has to say the "uncaused one" does in fact have life and act eternally in accord with such a nature. Since to say he is without life is to impose an essence and therefore limitation on the limitless being.
[/quote]

Now it's about definitions and the meanings that we attach to them. "Intelligence" is one such word IMO, and so is "life". In what sense exactly? Because at least in this universe without physical cause, life couldn't exist, unless you already believe in immaterial ghosts as such. There are also different levels of life, going from things such as viruses (whether they're alive or not is disputed, though most seem to say that they are, but not in the same sense that we and other forms such as bacteria are.) How would you recognise life from non life? If you were to stumble on some alien form, with no prior experience or knowledge, how would you know, especially if it were way more advanced than us, just as we are way more advanced than a bacteria?

A bacteria is alive, but would you say that it interacts with it's environment of its own accord? At least in the same sense we do? How do you separate the appearance of intelligence (what we would see as it) from actual intelligence?

Edited June 25, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[Mr.Cat]

1. Assumption of causality is questionable.
2. Special pleading for uncaused cause.
3. Identity of uncaused cause questionable.
4. Not testable or demonstrable.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309032764' post='2258694']
I must say this is the first time I've ever seen anybody say "Non-God of the gaps". LOL

I would say that my position is one of complete ignorance. I entertain different hypotheses, god being among them, but ultimately know that at least from my perspective that nothing can be really known about any of them if they can't be reached. [/quote]

That's what it comes down to. We can't reach God, or another universe, so the only way to come to a conclusion at this point would be if one was somehow revealed to us.

But wait-that's already happened. God had revealed Himself to mankind in the person of Jesus Christ, who rose from the dead. That's incontrovertible evidence of His deity. (I know this is an unqualified statement-I'll back this up further on)


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309032764' post='2258694']
I wouldn't put it that way. Sure it takes an unfounded belief for these hypotheses, but this argument is more in line with deism, which is simpler than any theistic religion from which attributes and characteristics of this uncaused cause follow. I don't have faith for theism. Deism is more valid IMO.

I also don't see the Bible as sound historical evidence for extraordinary claims such as Jesus' resurrection and miracles. [/quote]

Once we agree that there's an uncaused cause existing outside of our Universe, and outside of time, space, and matter, we don't need to go further with this proof. It proves that there is for certain a "something" powerful enough to create the universe. Since we can't observe this "something, " it's at least reasonable to believe that it is rational. From this point, we get to the rational part through other arguments.

The key here is that we can't observe this "something" unless He reveals Himself to us. But as I said in the previous segment of this post, He has, in the person of Jesus Christ. I'm not sure why you don't believe the Bible-it's the single most verifiable document from antiquity.

At the risk of starting a long debate on a tangential topic, let's go through just some of the supporting evidence in favor of the Gospels:

1. Independent corroboration of Jesus' life by non-Christian historians of the time. In particular, Flavius Josephus, a Romanized Jew, wrote the following in one of his history books:

[quote name='http://life.liegeman.org']
Born in 37 AD to a Jewish priestly family, Josephus was later adopted into the family of the Roman Emperor Vespasian. His writings contain references to [url="http://life.liegeman.org/historymaker/extern3.html#James"]James the Just[/url] and [url="http://life.liegeman.org/historymaker/extern3.html#John"]John the Baptist[/url]. But the most famous is the [url="http://life.liegeman.org/historymaker/extern3.html#Testimonium"]'Testimonium Flavianum'[/url], concerning Jesus. Most scholars accept that this passage has been altered by a later Christian hand; but even if we strike out the suspect portions completely, we are still left with this, acknowledged as authentic by the vast majority of scholars:

"At this time there was Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who performed (surprising / wonderful) works, and a teacher of people who received the (truth / unusual) with pleasure. He stirred up both many Jews and many Greeks. And when Pilate condemned him to the cross, since he was accused by the leading men among us, those who had loved him from the first did not desist. And until now the tribe of Christians, so named from him, is not extinct."[/quote]

[quote name='my high school religion book']
"The Talmud contains 12 references to Christ. All of them are filled with hatred of the very name of Jesus. Christ's miracles are not denied but ascribed to magical arts which he had brought from Egypt. His death by crucifixion is placed 'on the eve of passover.' "
"In a letter of exhortation addressed by a certain Syrian named Mara to his son Serapion (between A.D. 73 and 160) Christ is called the 'wise king of the Jews' who was murdered by His own people."
[/quote]

In no documents of the time are there any contradiction of the Gospel accounts.

Most non-Christians wouldn't admit to the genuineness of Jesus' miracles, but these references show that Jesus was a real person whose Gospel references fit the verifiable facts in secular sources.

2. The gospel writers were eyewitnesses who died for what they wrote. No one would die for a lie.

3. The gospels exist unaltered. The earliest nearly complete Gospel, the Papyrus Bodmer II (containing John's gospel) agrees with current manuscripts.

4. The gospels are free from obviously fabulous or legendary material. Though the Gospels describe miracles and supernatural events, they do so in a matter-of-fact way, without the fabulous or legendary material common to Greek and Roman myths. The authors clearly make no attempt to make the apostles look heroic, as any legendary work would have, but describe them with all their human faults and failings. (I copied this point from my religion textbook)

I would love to have a big debate on the genuineness of the Gospels, but I'll leave it at that for now.


[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309032764' post='2258694']
True, it would just be one step away from us on the infinitely long chain of infinite regress (which I think is the ultimate problem here). Is there good reason to think that we weren't created by something that was itself created and had a beginning?
[/quote]

Logically, there's no problem with believing that we were created by something else that was created, in the same way that humans have created new species through genetic modification. However, we know from the testimony of Jesus that we were created by God.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309032764' post='2258694']
Going into speculation here: how do you know this omnipotent uncaused cause is [i]consciously capable[/i] of creating a universe?
[/quote]

From Divine revelation.

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1309032764' post='2258694']
Just to make my points clearer, I perfectly accept that there could be an uncaused cause (infinite regress doesn't sit well in the mind) but it's really the attributes of this cause that I don't accept so easily.
[/quote]

Consider your points clarified.

Edited June 26, 2011 by dells_of_bittersweet

[stevil]

This is basically the cosmological argument.

Three major issues I have with it:
1. Over simplification
2. Unproven, untested, assumption
3. The conclustion exactly equals the assumption

When ithe cosmological argument states that the universe was caused or had a beginning there is an over simplification of the term universe. This over simplification confuses the result of the big bang with all of the enrgy, time and space that is in existence and it assumes that all of the energy was created during the big bang.
Scientists know what happened from now up until a few split seconds after the big bang (about 14 billion years ago). They do not know what happened before the big bang. The don't know where the energy that made up the big bang came from. It is possible that the big bang came from a massive black hole. It is even possible that the big bang was a result of two black holes colliding.
Scietnists and cosmologists know that the space/time of our universe (that which is expanding from the big bang) is flat, this means that our universe will not go into a perpetual expand and contract cycle. Our universe will continue to expand away from the big bang and will dissipate into virtual nothingness.
It is possible that space itself is infinite in nature, with space being simply a 3 dimentional coordinate system. It is possible that our big bang is simply one of many that occur in the vastness of space and given that space could be infinite in nature then there is likely an infinite amount of big bangs that have happened (e.g. an infinite amount of universes)

Scientest and cosmonlogists now understand nothing to not be nothing at all. In actual fact it appears that nothing is impossible. Quantum fluctuations are occuring all the time, everywhere, this phenomonon has been detected and measured. It essentially means that particles and energy come into existence and out of existence spontaneously all the time. It is yet to be discovered how a stable state of existence of a particle occurs from this phenomonon. What this means is that "empty space" might well be a breeding ground for existence and that existence iwould be inevitable, would not require a creator or cause and would not require any intelligence.

The assumptions of the cosmological argument assume that there is an uncaused intelligent being, that knows everything before anything existed, that exists without a requirement for existence of itself, is not bound to the contraints of existence (spacial, temporal, and material). This assumption goes further to assume that there is only one being of ths type and that this being is what would be classified as a god.
It then assumes that energy requires a cause, thus far, apart from the observed quantum fluctuations, humans have not worked out how energy can be created via any cause or if it indeed requires a cause.

With the conclusion of the Cosmological argument being exactly equal to the assumption of the argument we could simply replace the injection of god with anything (say X) and our conclusion using the Cosmological argument will be anything (i.e. X)

Atheists, most Scientists and most Cosmologists tend to put unknowns into the unknown basket and continue their search for the truth rather than to assume a theological answer based on unprovable stories.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[media]http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/files/pdfs/magis_factsheet.pdf[/media]

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309060704' post='2258824']
This is basically the cosmological argument.

Three major issues I have with it:
1. Over simplification
2. Unproven, untested, assumption
3. The conclustion exactly equals the assumption

When ithe cosmological argument states that the universe was caused or had a beginning there is an over simplification of the term universe. This over simplification confuses the result of the big bang with all of the enrgy, time and space that is in existence and it assumes that all of the energy was created during the big bang.
Scientists know what happened from now up until a few split seconds after the big bang (about 14 billion years ago). They do not know what happened before the big bang. The don't know where the energy that made up the big bang came from. It is possible that the big bang came from a massive black hole. It is even possible that the big bang was a result of two black holes colliding.
Scietnists and cosmologists know that the space/time of our universe (that which is expanding from the big bang) is flat, this means that our universe will not go into a perpetual expand and contract cycle. Our universe will continue to expand away from the big bang and will dissipate into virtual nothingness.
It is possible that space itself is infinite in nature, with space being simply a 3 dimentional coordinate system. It is possible that our big bang is simply one of many that occur in the vastness of space and given that space could be infinite in nature then there is likely an infinite amount of big bangs that have happened (e.g. an infinite amount of universes)

Scientest and cosmonlogists now understand nothing to not be nothing at all. In actual fact it appears that nothing is impossible. Quantum fluctuations are occuring all the time, everywhere, this phenomonon has been detected and measured. It essentially means that particles and energy come into existence and out of existence spontaneously all the time. It is yet to be discovered how a stable state of existence of a particle occurs from this phenomonon. What this means is that "empty space" might well be a breeding ground for existence and that existence iwould be inevitable, would not require a creator or cause and would not require any intelligence.
[/quote]

As soon as we get into events that could have happened before the Big Bang, we are working with unproven, untested, assumptions. Is it theoretically possible that our universe was created by a collision of black holes? Yes. Do you have any evidence of that? No. Is it the most likely explanation based on the current data? No. You're putting religious faith in something that you can not come to an informed conclusion on-in other words, blind faith.


[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309060704' post='2258824']
When ithe cosmological argument states that the universe was caused or had a beginning there is an over simplification of the term universe. This over simplification confuses the result of the big bang with all of the enrgy, time and space that is in existence and it assumes that all of the energy was created during the big bang. [/quote]

It assumes that we live in a universe and not a multiverse. This is an assumption and not an oversimplification. We can't verify the existence of other universes without visiting them. Assuming a universe is just as valid of an assumption as assuming a multiverse.

Even if there is a multiverse, the first event in the history of the cosmos requires a cause.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309060704' post='2258824']
The assumptions of the cosmological argument assume that there is an uncaused intelligent being, that knows everything before anything existed, that exists without a requirement for existence of itself, is not bound to the contraints of existence (spacial, temporal, and material). This assumption goes further to assume that there is only one being of ths type and that this being is what would be classified as a god.
It then assumes that energy requires a cause, thus far, apart from the observed quantum fluctuations, humans have not worked out how energy can be created via any cause or if it indeed requires a cause.

With the conclusion of the Cosmological argument being exactly equal to the assumption of the argument we could simply replace the injection of god with anything (say X) and our conclusion using the Cosmological argument will be anything (i.e. X) [/quote]

In other words, you're accusing the cosmological argument of begging the question, which is a serious accusation. However, I think you've confused the assumptions with the conclusions, and the conclusions of the cosmological argument with the conclusions of other arguments.

The assumption of the cosmological argument is not that there is an uncaused intelligent being-that's the conclusion if you take it several steps further than the version posted on page 1. The only assumption of this argument is causality. Basically, we're arguing that if you follow all causes back in time, you eventually get to the Big Bang, which itself requires a cause.

At this point, you essentially have two options. 1: the Bang Bang was caused by something material. 2: the Big Bang was caused by something spritual. The issue with 1 is that if your cause is matter/energy (which relativity says is the same), you have a problem with an infinite regress, which is irrational. Whenever you have matter/energy, you create time. If matter/energy have always existed, then time has always existed, and you have an infinite regress. As argued in a previous post, if the big bang (or whatever prior event was the very first event in the multiverse) was caused by something spiritual, infinite time is no longer an issue.

Other posters may be using advanced versions of this argument to get to an intelligent creator, but that's not really what this argument is designed to do. As seen in previous posts, this shows that the uncaused cause is an omnipotent spirit (all powerful, and has no material parts). If an omnipotent spirit is the cause of the universe, it's at least reasonable to believe that this cause is intelligent, but we can use other arguments to prove this. We're not assuming what we have to prove.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1309060704' post='2258824']Atheists, most Scientists and most Cosmologists tend to put unknowns into the unknown basket and continue their search for the truth rather than to assume a theological answer based on unprovable stories.
[/quote]

Are you really on a search for truth? Are you really putting the unknown in the unknown basket? Atheist or theist, our lives should be a search for the truth, and as a Catholic I believe that I've found the fullness of the truth in my faith. My faith is in complete harmony with reason, and I believe that the Catholic Church has the answers to the unknowns. I'm not assuming that the Church is true be because I'm a member of the Church, to the contrary, I'm a member of the Church because through reason I've found that the Church possesses the fullness of the truth in its answers to what remain to you unknowns.

On the other hand, you give the appearance of not being on a quest for truth, but on a quest for any theory that results in atheism-pure, blind, irrational faith. Your atheism requires to to believe in scientific theories that we will never be able to observe, test, verifty, etc. In fact, they don't meet the definition of a theory because a theory is a hypothesis with evidence backing it up. Your blind faith is faith in a mere hypothesis.

By referring to unprovable stories, I assume that means the Bible. Forgetting momentarily about everything outside the 4 Gospels, how do you deny what's in them? See my previous post.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

[size="4"][size="2"]I thought I would quote a small portion of the link I posted earlier...now you'll actually read it. This is actually just a small selection. It's by Fr. Robert Spitzer, a Jesuit Priest and Physicist. See [url="http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/files/pdfs/magis_factsheet.pdf"][url="http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/files/pdfs/magis_factsheet.pdf"]http://www.magisreasonfaith.org/files/pdfs/magis_factsheet.pdf [/url][/url][/size][u]
[b]
Three pre-Big Bang models[/b][/u][/size]
Since the Big Bang has not been proven to be the beginning of the universe, some physicists have postulated some models of a pre-Big-Bang era with the potential for infinite duration (which could avert the need for a beginning and a creation). Three wellknown models are:
• An infinitely bouncing universe
• An eternally inflating multiverse; and
• An eternal universe in higher dimensional space (superstring theory).
There is substantial evidence to indicate the need for a beginning in each of these three hypothetical pre-Big-Bang models (as well as other possible pre-Big Bang models). This evidence for a beginning of the universe (or any multiverse in which it may be situated) will be given in two parts: three pieces of evidence from the law of entropy (Section V) and three pieces of evidence from space-time geometry (Section VI).

[size="4"][u][b]V. Evidence for a beginning from the law of entropy[/b][/u][/size]
There are three mutually corroborating pieces of evidence of a beginning of bouncing universes (assuming both three-dimensional and higher-dimensional space) that come from the law of entropy. We will first describe the law of entropy and then examine each of the three pieces of evidence.
[b]Definition of the law of entropy[/b]
Isolated energetic systems move from states of organized complexity to disorganized states; they do not move from disorganized states to organized complex ones (because the probability of disorganized states is far greater than that of organized complex ones). For this reason, isolated energetic systems run
down. Examples: billiard balls move from a racked state to a scattered, disorganized state when struck, but not vice versa; a cup of coffee moves from hot state to cool state, but not vice versa; gas moves out of an uncorked bottle but does not flow back into it, etc… Inasmuch as the universe is an isolated system, it too will run down (increase in entropy).

[b]First indication of finite bouncing from law ofentropy ratio of starlight to CMB radiation.[/b]
There are two kinds of electromagnetic energy in the universe: starlight (organized complex spectrum), and cosmic microwave background radiation
(diffuse, homogeneous radiation). Every hypothetical bounce of the universe would convert all starlight into cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. Therefore, if the universe bounced a million times, then the CMB radiation would be a million times greater than starlight. Similarly, if the universe bounced a billion times, then the CMB radiation would be a billion times greater than starlight. If the universe bounced an infinite number of times, then all electromagnetic radiation would be CMB radiation, and there would be no starlight. This is not the case in our universe where CMB radiation is only one hundred times greater than starlight indicating an upper limit of one hundred bounces, if, indeed, the universe bounced at all.

[b]Second indication of finite bouncing from law of entropy – Tolman’s limit[/b]
Every bounce produces increased radiation in the universe; this increased radiation produces increased outward pressure. This increased outward pressure, in turn, produces longer and larger cycles (bounces). Therefore, if one goes back in time from today’s finitely large and finitely long cycle, then one will reach an infinitely short cycle with an infinitely small radius (a beginning) in the finite past. This would constitute a beginning of bouncing, and a beginning of the universe.

[b]Third indication of finite bouncing from law of entropy –low entropy of our Big Bang.[/b]
If the universe were to collapse, there would be a tremendous increase in entropy (as independently calculated by Roger Penrose, Willy Fischler, and Thomas Banks). Therefore, if the universe had oscillated an infinite number of times prior to our Big Bang, entropy should have been at its highest possible level at the Big Bang. In point of fact, the entropy of the universe at the Big Bang was very low, indicating that it did not oscillate an infinite number of times. Indeed it does not seem likely that the universe bounced at all because the odds against our universe having its low entropy at the Big Bang (as calculated by Roger Penrose) is already 1010 to one (which is exceedingly, exceedingly improbable); and if there were a previous bounce, the entropy of the universe at the previous bounce would have been much lower (meaning that the odds against its occurrence would have been higher – if that can be imagined).

The above three pieces of evidence show the exceedingly high improbability of an infinitely bouncing universe (including those conceived to occur in higher dimensional space). It is reasonable to conclude from this that if the universe bounced at all, it did not bounce an infinite number of times, and therefore, had a beginning.

[stevil]

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309145768' post='2258976']
As soon as we get into events that could have happened before the Big Bang, we are working with unproven, untested, assumptions. Is it theoretically possible that our universe was created by a collision of black holes? Yes. Do you have any evidence of that? No. Is it the most likely explanation based on the current data? No. You're putting religious faith in something that you can not come to an informed conclusion on-in other words, blind faith.
[/quote]
I have not stated what has happened but merely offered a couple of possibilities from the enormously large amounts of possibilities to consider. I find it a lot of fun and very thought provoking to try and come up with ideas on what might of happened. Of course they are all valid (including the god possibility) until some contrary proof is discovered. I don't believe in any of them as they are not fact. I am certainly keeping my eyes open with regards to scientific and cosmological discoveries. Very exciting stuff indeed.

[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309145768' post='2258976']
It assumes that we live in a universe and not a multiverse. This is an assumption and not an oversimplification. We can't verify the existence of other universes without visiting them. Assuming a universe is just as valid of an assumption as assuming a multiverse.

Even if there is a multiverse, the first event in the history of the cosmos requires a cause.
[/quote]
I am not assuming a multiverse, I actually don't like the term multiverse as it implies that the universes relate to each other in some way. Maybe like how planets relate to each other as they travel around stars (solar system) or how solar systems relate to each other as they travel around a black hole (galaxies). I certainly would not term all the universes in space as being within one big multiverse. Of, course it is possible that some universes do rotate around within a multiverse and that possibly there are many multiverses. It really is amazing to think about the possibilities.

With regards to infinite regress, I don't think you understood what I was talking about with regards to it being impossible to have nothing and that existence in inevitable given the nature of space and the phenomena of quantum fluctuations. Anyway, there might be other natural phenomena that creates energy/matter as well, it does seem likely to me, given the data that scientists and cosmologists have presented, that energy/matter is an inevitable consequence of “nothing”.


[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309145768' post='2258976']
At this point, you essentially have two options. 1: the Bang Bang was caused by something material. 2: the Big Bang was caused by something spritual. The issue with 1 is that if your cause is matter/energy (which relativity says is the same), you have a problem with an infinite regress, which is irrational. Whenever you have matter/energy, you create time. If matter/energy have always existed, then time has always existed, and you have an infinite regress. As argued in a previous post, if the big bang (or whatever prior event was the very first event in the multiverse) was caused by something spiritual, infinite time is no longer an issue.
[/quote]

The issue with this is that you are ignoring the fact that it is impossible to have nothing and that quantum fluctuations occur all the time and everywhere.

You are also trying to ignore the problem of proving that something spiritual exists and that it is capable of creating energy/matter.



[quote name='dells_of_bittersweet' timestamp='1309145768' post='2258976']
Are you really on a search for truth? Are you really putting the unknown in the unknown basket? Atheist or theist, our lives should be a search for the truth, and as a Catholic I believe that I've found the fullness of the truth in my faith
[/quote]

I am continuing to search and so is science.

But as you have stated that you have found the fullness of the truth, hence I would assume you have stopped searching.