Pete U - If you would like a read on your particular question, I would suggest both the link in my longer message and the one below on the existence of God:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm

I would also argue in the other direction though - what evidence do you have (in particular since science has shown that the universe could not expand/contract for ever) that the universe has always existed?

nola - I'm not claiming the Universe has always existed. The available evidence supports a 'beginning' - colloquially, the Big Bang. The available evidence does not give any clue as to whether or not there was a 'cause' and what it was if there was one. The universe exists. It will continue to do so because it does, not because God quite likes it (kind of like a cosmic fishtank).

As for the link - anything that contains, in essence, 'faith denies proof, because with proof it wouldn't be faith' can be dismussed as evidence. Douglas Admas did this one far better than I ever could.

I apolgise - we've ended up in the circular argument territory that these discussions always end up in (albeit in a friendly, non-shouty way).

@Pete

No not so much evidence as an analogy, and a common one so I assume that you've heard.

A) It's no refutation of the argument to demand physical evidence for something that everybody agrees isn't physical (you think non-existant I think spiritual, but we both agree not physical).

Stephen J. Gould
"Science can only work with naturalistic explanations; it can neither affirm nor deny other types of actors (like God) in other spheres (like the moral realm, for instance)"

Gould is by no means a theist, but he understands rightly the limitations of science in this particular instance. Therefore asking for evidence of something that we all agree is not physical is not a refutaion.

B) God, according to the beliefs of the Christians here, is spiritual and not a part of the world. Take an author of a book of a book. He isn't a character in the book and he isn't subject to the plotline of the book. He can open the book anywhere and begin inspecting at any point in the timeline. Yes, revising perhaps. Your argument amounts to "A Ha! Who wrote the author?!?!". The time and space of this universe are properties of this universe. Why do you make the assumption that someone or something from another place has to be affected by the time and space of this place? A being that could bring the Universe into being may not need a beginning.

Pete U - I will take it that you did not read the link then, given your response, because Mr. Admas' quote does not really make any sense in the context of what Aquinas had to say anyway. If you had read what Aquinas said, you would see that he believes the existence of God to be demonstrable and not strictly an article of faith. Rather, it is from this that faith follows (note the reply to objection 1 in Article 2).

In addition, it is necessary, given the laws of physics, that something kicked off the big bang and that the matter somehow got there. The simple rules of cause and effect demand that all material effects have a cause, so if the universe did not always exist, then what made it start to exist?

nola - before the the Big bang, there is no 'time', so no before. Unfortunately, I don't believe we will ever determine the 'cause' of the universe, in the same way we never determine the root cause of abiogenesis. to ascribe it to god without defing a cause for God gets you back into handwavium, I'm afraid.

And I read the second link, not the Aquinas one. And it clearly says that the existance of God is non-demosntrable, becuase that would put it in the realm of scientific fact, and not faith.

Pete U - I agree that we can not know with scientific certainty the cause of the universe nor how life came to exist on earth. What we do know, however, is that for some reason or another, the universe does exist and life did somehow get started on earth, so something had to make that happen. God, however, as I defined Him (and I really can't define God, because He is far beyond my ability to do so), is without cause, because he IS (i.e. I am who am).

Also both links were to Aquinas (different sections of the Summa). I am not sure where in there you read that the existence of God is non-demonstrable (maybe in the objections), but in the format Aquinas uses, the objections are what others say that contradict what Aquinas is about to say, and then in the on the contrary, I answer that, and reply to objections sections he gives his answer. To quote briefly "I answer that, Demonstration can be made..." and then he continues from there.

PeteU- but that argument puts you squarely on the same page as the theists. According to your own argument we're saying "We don't know, so Yes" then by necessity you're saying "We don't know, so No"

and St. Thomas Aquinas does have a pretty good argument. Of the things that can be said of him "irrational" and "illogical" don't seem to fit.


Even the agnostic approach (while logically more tenable) is just sitting the fence and trying to put off a decision. Either God exists or he doesn't there is no "I don't know" option.

nola - Why can't the Universe just 'be', in the same way you postulate God just 'is'?

CA - I respectfully disagree. Agnosticism is no more logical than full-blown belief. And not believing in things that you cannot see the evidence of isn't logical (and while I cannot point at love, or explain exactly how gravity works, or see the impact of quantum physics, I can observe the effects of all these phenomena).

Both - I never said that Aquinas was 'illogical' or 'irrational'

We're going round in circles. I'm in the 'There is no evidence, so No' camp. I don't believe in the existance of any of the many creators that have been postulated through human history. I spend more time arguing about the Christian God, because that's the version I'm most familiar with (I grew up going to church, was a Sunday school teacher). I'd take the same stance with Allah, Odin or Zeus.

Logic fails when the question 'What created God' is met with 'Ah, but he's special' - the universe might be special (or it might be one of a mutitude). Perhaps they're popping up all the time.

Pete U - The universe actually can't just "be." It is currently in a state of expansion (which means it was smaller at some point), so it had to start somewhere (i.e the big bang). However, it is not possible that it was always (as in infinity) in this state because if it was, there is no way it would have blown up because then it was not in this state for an infinite amount of time. Thus there has to be a "before" the big bang.

In addition, as I have stated previously (and I would have to find source material for this, but I could probably do so with some effort), science has determined that the universe would not be able to expand and contract an infinite number of times because it would eventually run out of energy to do so. Thus, it can not have existed for an infinite amount of time, and it therefore must have a beginning. For something to have a beginning, another agent must have made that beginning occur.

And if you want to postulate that the new universes could be "popping up all the time" I would argue that such a statement is far more unlikely than the existence of God because something would have to cause them to appear (though I guess God could do that).

Considering that energy and matter can be converted back and forth, but not destroyed, there is no way the universe could run out of energy. If it converted to all mass and collapsed upon itself, the resulting megamass would result in another big bang. Unless you can provide documented evidence of this supposed running out of energy, I have to press the bullshit buzzer on it.

nola2172: "Pete U - I agree that we can not know with scientific certainty the cause of the universe nor how life came to exist on earth. What we do know, however, is that for some reason or another, the universe does exist and life did somehow get started on earth, so something had to make that happen. God, however, as I defined Him (and I really can't define God, because He is far beyond my ability to do so), is without cause, because he IS (i.e. I am who am)."

nola - I agree that we can not know with scientific certainty the cause of the the sun going around the earth every day. What we do know, however, is that for some reason or another, the sun does appear every morning in the east and disappear every evening in the west, so something has to make that happen. Apollo, however, as I defined Him (and I really can't define Apollo, because He is far beyond my ability to do so), is without cause, because he IS (i.e. I am who am). ...so from this it is clear that Apollo (in a fiery chariot, most likely - after all how else is he going to do it?) is the cause of the sun going across the sky. See... since the sun going around the earth is quite beyond our current understanding it only follows that there must be a spirit realm wherein a god or gods make it happen... it is only logical.

Draugnar - That will admittedly take me a while to do since on a quick search, the Internet is mostly polluted with a bunch of nonsensical garbage (not that that is new to anyone), so I will have to go find my source material. When I do manage to do so, I will get back with you.

Dexter_Morgan - Your comments there are disingenuous and you and I both know it. We can observe quite clearly (in particular from things we have sent into space) how the revolution and rotation of objects works. And anyway, this is similar to the "if you can't argue with it, make fun of it" approach that I pointed out earlier. Interesting, at no point did you actually answer my question, you just threw humor at it.

Nola - nope, no before. Until the Big Bang, no time. Therefore, no before. Still a beginning, but no before.

Also, given the quantum nature of reality, and the fact that new particles are formed from the frothing reality that is space, why can't the strat be those fluctuations. Remember, we are still 'missing' a huge proportion of the mass of the Universe. When we understand that better (or refine the model) then we might have an even better understanding of the Universe.

I'll try and phrase my challenge a different way. For God to create the universe with as much interaction and involvement as He is credited with (setting up all the constants, starting life), God must be pretty complex - probaly comprable with the Universe, albeit with different parameters. How is it then that the Universe needs an external 'cause', but God does not? To paraphrase Paley "If I find a God, does that not imply the existance of a Godmaker?"

And if we take the logic that the Universe existed in potentio, and did not need a 'cause', then it is entirely logical and possible that there may be many universes. It's certainly one line of thought in cosmology, but finding the evidence might be hard.... (It's only really useful as a thought experiment I think)

When I see a magician perform a trick, and I admittedly have no idea how they did it... but I'm not inclined to assume that the magician actually employed "real magic" or the help of spirits to make the lady disappear or whatever. When I see something I can't explain I assume it is because I don't have enough information and that there is a perfectly reasonable natural explanation for it. Why? Because: 1) it is the simplest explanation, 2) it has been the explanation for every other such occurrence in the past. I do realize that in a small way I am making an assumption... I am assuming that things are explainable within the universe without creating whole new universes or realms or systems of magic. ...seems to me that my assumption is far far smaller than the person who does create whole new imagined universes or realms or systems of magic to explain something they don't understand.

Pete U - This is a bit tricky to explain, so I will try to do it briefly. We (people) are of a certain nature (and I mean that in the philosophical sense). Part of that nature is that we have bodies composed of various substances that are governed by certain laws, one of which is that we are caused. God, however, is of a different nature (he is not material and thus not subject to material laws) that does not required him to be caused. Paley's statement, taken to infinity, implies nothing other than that a first mover is necessary for there to be movement, and this first mover is God.

As far as your arguement that there is no time before the Big Bang, you would have to agree that there was space (otherwise the bang could not go anywhere) and thus there would also be time, because the existence of time and space are not contingent upon anything happening within them. And anyway, how would the big bang "create" time? That does not make any logical sense.

Since we are having fun discussing a number of different things here, I will bring up another (I apologize if it was brought up before). Do those of you who believe that there is no God believe that people have free will, or that we are merely deterministic machines (albeit complex ones)? I would think you more or less be forced to anwer machines because a free will would require that we have a non-material aspect of our being given that matter is subject to laws (and is thus not free). A lack of free will, however, is contrary to our social existence and general experience and would imply that there is no right, wrong, good, evil, etc. because machines can not be be evil because they have no choice.

Pete U - Interesting point about love. There is certainly some evidence to suggest that the feeling of Romantic love is largely a chemical reaction in the body. As a consequence the feeling of eros tends to diminish with time. The commitment to a spouse and love of her/him doesn't need to though. Altruism and agape' provide more of a problem (as you said you cannot point to them, only the consequences of the phenomenon). But by pointing to a feeling and accepting your interpretation of that feeling; you're accepting the very type of evidence that Christian's point to about the existence of God. The presence of the Holy Spirit, largely is a feeling that he is there. Christians point to evidence of the phenomenon and interpret it according to the feeling they have in just the way that you point to love and interpret it according to the feeling you have. It doesn't follow that love is unreal. So it shouldn't of necessity follow that God is unreal. According to he same evidence that you accept with regard to other.

Before you say that it's purely internal and subjective, wait for just a second. Love by necessity has an object. Even in the absence of an object of love people feel the desire for it. Hence the desire leads to the object. Why wouldn't the same is true for God? Isn't it making up special rules for him to say that this is the impulse that really doesn't have an object?

@ dexter
Okay with the dismisssal of "whole new realms" and "systems of magic" which none of profess to have magical power so it seems a bit off the point. But for your assumption to be true, there actually has to be no other realm or spirit.

Let's take a secular idea of the soul or spirit so as to make it less about God and more about spirit.


Here's my example (of course you can write it off as me lying to you and something with no empirical evidence, but that's retreating into materialism to refute something we agree can't be material):

As a martial artist of some thirty years of experience, I was introduced to a metaphysical (as far as anyone can tell concept). My intructor blindfolded me and set me in a circle of other students from the class. His instructions were to turn to the student who was looking at me. I was completely confused and in order to avoid looking like an idiot I tentatively started to turn. Then I felt it. An unmistakeable pull in one direction and I stopped turning when I stopped feeling the pull. My instructor told me to take off the blindfold and I was facing the only person in the room to be looking at me. Perhaps you've had the feeling too? Look up and someone is watching you. He termed this as ki (spiritual energy that flows from the body).

As an instructor I did the same with my students. It's no parlor trick, it works or it wouldn't be taught in martial arts class. We're nothing if not pragmatists. It is particularly strong in families. I left the building the first time my wife did it. I walked down to the coner of the strip and then walked back to check. When I peaked around the corner, she was blindfolded and facing me. Which preclude sound being the trigger. I've had people posit that it's pheromones or olfactory in nature, but that could hardly seems likely from outside of the building.

My conclusion: That people do in fact have a link that can be termed as a spiritual link.

In progression through the ranks, I've learned Kiatsu and Reiki that both utilize Ki to heal others. The Chinese have Qi-Gong which is similar and has been studied empirically and found to produce results.

The presence of Ki flowing through the body can be felt, but not quite measured. The effects though, the phenomenon as you said, can be observed. Hence there is evidence for the human spirit or soul. And as such evidence for existence beyond the material.

It's not an assertion that God exists, but an assertion that the human tendency to describe themselves in terms of a body, mind, and spirit are accurate and reasonable.

nola2172, not at all. Yes, I'm using humor... but apparently you miss my point. what was your question? You mean the one about what made the universe start to exist? First of all - what makes that question qualitatively different than any other question that man used to not have an answer for? A couple of thousand years ago the sun "going around the Earth" was quite a mystery... and it was very tempting to insert a god into the model because we could not imagine a natural explanation. Well... what makes this different?? We are tempted once again to insert a god into a model because we can not currently imagine a natural explanation. It doesn't sound any different to me.

But in answer to your question about the start of the universe... Well... I can't say I know that... but based on conservation of mass/energy I must assume that there was always something. You do not get something from nothing. I tend to believe on that known principle that the universe has always existed in some form... obeying physical laws, conserving mass and energy, etc. Until I have evidence to the contrary that seems to me to be the most straightforward model. No, I can't imagine it... but then I also can't imagine quantum physics... and I have some significant problems imagining relativity - even though both of these have already been shown to exist and to obey natural laws. I know my mind is limited... I'm more inclined to recognize that then to create/imagine a quick fix like a God that I can understand but doesn't really explain anything and makes all kinds of assumptions that I have no evidence for. The universe doesn't have to be understood for it to exist. It exists. Just because the model of a god can be understood does not make it more likely... just as Apollo being readily understood by the Romans did not make that model more likely than a natural explanation.

**the phenomenon as Pete U said**

Dexter_Morgan - The reason I may have missed your analogy is because you were discussing two completely different things. The Apollo business was about explaining a specific natural phenemon. The existence of the universe is about existence itself, not how something specific works.

As stated previously, I will have to go dig up my source material on continuous expansion/contraction, but this will take me a while since I have to find it (in printed form).

@ dexter again

You seem to be relying on the notion that God is an explanation for natural phenomenon. We've already agreed that science is a great way to search for truth in the obsevable world. Beyond that you seem to be relying on the idea that it just doesn't make sense to beleive in God.

For most believers, that is the one's I've spoken to. The idea that God is the easy explanation for hard questions doesn't have much substance. Dyson Freeman, Asa Gray, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Francis Collins and many more are devout Christian and devoted scientists. THe notion that a scientific approach to science means necessarily menas the need for a approach to everything doesn't seem to fit with my experience. Poetry, literature, history, theology, geography, philosophy, etc. These are all valid disciplines that relfect the presence for other approaches than science in exploring human knowledge. I am second to none in my admiration to science, but I do not see it as the only means of acquiring knowledge. It seems that in the need to be scientific about everything you're denying other equally valid methods of discovery.

@Crazy Anglican, there was a horse named Clever Hans who could do amazing feats of arithmetic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans It turns out, of course, that the horse was demonstrably responding to unconscious cues given by those testing him. Clever and perceptive, yes... but not doing arithmetic.

I do not have an explanation for your martial arts blindfold experience. I do know, though, that we do respond to things that are only unconsciously perceived... very small sounds, reflections of sounds off objects, movements of air, sensing of heat, subtle unconscious auditory cues given by the other participants (see Clever Hans), pheromones as you mention, etc. It is an amazing experience you describe (and I do not doubt it, by the way). It certainly points up that our usual conscious perception is pretty limited and that there are many things we perceive unconsciously. I still continue to be skeptical that there must be a spiritual explanation. Truly double blind tests of psychic phenomena continue to either show negative results or be unreproducible (and therefore probably flawed).

...and what if we were to find that people could read each other's minds? I don't think that would prove a spirit world... after all it could be explained by a different sense. Sixth sense, as they say. Such a discovery would expand our view of the natural world by including a new kind of energy (mental energy or thought energy or whatever) but I don't see how that would necessitate a separate realm.

Nola - is this what you're looking for?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_crunch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
Essentially the energy can't run out but the second law of thermodynamics can still get us by changing it all into uniform heat which is then unable to do any useful work.

nola said: "Dexter_Morgan - The reason I may have missed your analogy is because you were discussing two completely different things. The Apollo business was about explaining a specific natural phenemon. The existence of the universe is about existence itself, not how something specific works."

@nola, on the contrary... how the universe came to be in its present form is most definitely about how something works. We do not understand how it works currently - and may never - but that it does not follow that it therefore didn't work according to natural laws. Lack of a proof is not proof of a lack. And yes, we can apply that to God... I have no proof that God doesn't exist. But you also have no proof that there isn't a natural explanation for the mysteries we haven't yet figured out. I know there are natural explanations for mysteries. Countless mysteries have been explained over the centuries - and 100% of them had natural explanations... 0% have had supernatural explanations.

As a side note, there's a common saying that given enough time and a room full of monkeys with typewriters, they'll eventually create all the works of Shakespeare. As it turns out, this isn't true, as heat death is almost certainly to occur before they finish.

can someone tell me what the mainstream of cosmology believes? it seems that much of the discussion here concerns differences between a steady state and a big bang explanation for the nature of the universe. my sense is that the big bang theory is more consisent with observed phenomena. are you all aware that it was first advanced by a Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre. he believed that this was phenomenologically consistent with the concept of creation. I believe Einstein and many others were, at first, steady state adherents, but were "converted" to the belief in the big bang theory. it is not inconsistent then, with creationism. i'm not saying that there's an old man sitting in a really nice chair somewhere. just that the big bang theory, and much of the data, is somewhat unsatisfying in revealing the first cause.

Dexter_Morgan - I will state succinctly that nothing can cause itself. Therefore, there is no material (or natural, or whatever similar word you want to use) cause for the existence of matter. God, however, as existence/being itself, does not need a cause.

And your contention that there are no miracles lacks any evidence whatsoever, you have just stated it out of thin air. The various miracles of Christ (which I assume you believe to be false, but the only existing evidence indicates that they are true) could not possible have occured "naturally" unless Christ knew an awful lot more about science than all of humanity that currently lives (pretty unlikely if he is not divine). Also, I would be interested in your explanation of the events that took place at Fatima early last century.

@nola2172, God does not need a cause because you (and millions of others) say so? To define something as not needing a cause and then turning around and saying that that is why it doesn't need a cause is a bit circular. If God doesn't need a cause because he *is* existence... then why not say the universe doesn't need a cause because it *is* existence.

By your logic the only existing evidence regarding Joseph Smith and his gold plates is his testimony and the testimony of four witnesses - which support his claim... therefore it must be true. By the same logic Fatima must also be true. There are many stories of miracles throughout the ages... Christ can lay claim to some of them - I do not see how a claim of a miracle is proof of a miracle. There are, of course, no accounts of miracles by Christ outside those made in the Bible. No Roman historian gives such an account... no non-Christian attested to any phenomena (and you could be reasonably sure that there would be skeptics even after seeing something... such as in U.F.O. sightings, for example). Evangelists and voodoo practitioners claim all kinds of miracles or intercedings by spirits into our world... and there are many witnesses to these events. There are also suckers born every minute.