/lit/ - Literature

lol

Big Bang cosmology put to bed the Newtonian assumptions of infinite time and mass in our observable universe. Funny enough, modern anti-theists say that religion desperately claims that the Big Bang theory is compatible with Geneses as a last ditch attempt to look reasonable, but in reality, the theory was first proposed by a Catholic priest. Even St. Augustine, in 400 AD, did not think the first ten chapters of Geneses as literal historical truth, but used to teach the dogma of the Fall.

Everything we “see” appears to be quite finite (10^53 Kg of visible mass and a finite amount of dark matter) and with a beginning about 13.7 billion years ago. The discovery of additional universal constants that must all together interact to make the universe capable of supporting life makes it exceedingly improbable that it could all happen by “cosmic chance”. The constants are such that minor changes in ANY of them would make the formation of life statistically impossible. That is to say or very existence as living entities and the observation that a random occurrence of the anthropic values of our universe’s constants is so remote to be virtually impossible without multiversity theory, which as anyone with a knowledge of anthropic theory knows that there is less proof for this than which atheists say theists have for God. Here Occam’s razor comes into play and all this theory does is play with infinites, which as discussed above, are not found in a finite creation.

There’s an insane sophistication and intelligence behind it all – it must be purposed. The scientific data is so compelling that it is now more reasonable to believe in a super-intellect setting the values of the constants at the inception of the universe than to disbelieve it. Persistent atheists such as Fred Hoyle having seen the data and its implications openly declared a belief in a super-intellect. Even the high priest of atheism, Dawkins, attmitted that he was no longer an atheist, but an agnostic anti-theist who could possibly except the possibility of deism as a rational hypothesis on the creation of the universe. How he keeps all his fans has yet to be seen.

In any case, here we have an amazing case for a god (lowercase g.) To move forward from an intelligent designer to the theistic God of Christianity is the proposed purpose of this essay.

Now, I am not yelling, "Read this and you will become Christian." This essay will not make you a Christian, for that requires faith. This essay is what a Catholic like my self would build his faith on. A man is not absolutely 100% sure his house will not burn down when he goes to bed. While he is 99.99999% sure, the man takes it on faith and common sense that he can fall asleep with burning to death, and thus uses faith built on reason in a way that pure unadulterated logic would have left a man staying up all night with buckets of water on his dresser. Science itself is based on the faith that this universe is rational and can be understood at a 1 to 1 ratio with our brains..It did not have to be that may. It may not actually be that way. However as humans, we take it as Faith that it is. Any attempt at logic requires faith in principles logicians call axioms. They are statements on which all logic is built, and thus require faith because while it is good that a man can be scientific and doubt things, a man cannot doubt everything lest he go mad. With that in mind, let us move to our first point.

Qualities

As shown above, the idea of an Intelligent Designer (ID), is simply a rational, rather convincing (at least, in the author's mind) hypothesis on the creation of the universe.
Now, under the assumption that this ID did exist, what would it be like? What quantities would it have? Here are a few I have complied.

Spaceless—because it created space.
Timeless—because it created time.
Immaterial—because it created matter.
Powerful—because it created a whole universe out of nothing.
Intelligent—because the creation event and the universe was precisely designed in a very exact way.
Personal—because it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something (impersonal forces can't make choices.)
Purposeful-- As well, this ID's creation would have a purpose, for a logical being does not do something for no reason, even if that reason is just for fun.

Now, how would this ID view its creation? This is a far greater thing to think about then some people think, for within in lies how time meshes with eternity. The Thomistic (and neo-Augustinian) view is thus. Because this ID would be outside of time, after all it created time from nothing in eternity. This would mean that this ID would not perform actions, as that requires a before and after, but would simply ACT. Present tense. Everything this ID did would be one eternal action, seeing all moments of time as you might see every page of a book when looking at it’s side.

Let us stop for a moment, and backtrack a few steps.

Now that we have stated that the universe (as we know it) has a purpose or reason behind it (the ID’s purpose in creating it,) we must think for a bit. Being completely logical, the configuration of the universe would no doubt match the reason for it’s creation. Now, as far as we know it, the known universe is made up of 17 different constants. They describe the relative strength of gravity, the binding force of an atom, the charge of an electron, the speeds of light, and other things.
These constants aren’t the result of some prior cause. They don’t really come from anywhere - they just are what they are. They are woven into the fabric of the universe with no real explanation. Now, this is almost so peculiar as to be overlooked, but look what would happen if these constants were changed a bit.

If the strong force constant (the force of interaction between neutrons and protons) had been made 2% higher, there would be no hydrogen. If it had been made 2% lower, there would have been nothing but hydrogen. Both scenarios would mean no stars, no supernova, no stardust and to form solid matter and certainly no possibility of life as we know it.

If the electromagnetic force constant had been 1 in 10^39 higher or lower, there likewise would have been no stars, with the same above result

If either the gravitational constant or weak force constant had been 1 part in 10^50 higher or lower, the universe would have blown completely apart (that means each atom would have separated from each other atom by lightyears) or it would have collapsed into a black hole. Both scenarios mean no life of any kind.
If the rate of expansion of the universe at the time of the Big Bang had been 1 in 10^11 higher or lower, the same disastrous result from above would have occurred.


This list could go on for a while, but I think the point is made.

This is what I conclude from these above points. This ID, looking at each individual moment of history, would have had a purpose for it. As well, the purpose of it’s creation seems uniquely made to produce life. From this I find thus: This ID seems to care (not yet, so much about individual life yet, but) about the existence of human life upon this rock we call Earth.

>As of this moment, the vast majority of scientific discovery, philosophical inquiry and gathered data points to a finite universe that had to be a product of an Intelligent Designer.

>of an Intelligent Designer.

Why just the one? When i see these things they always say AN intelligent designer.

Why not six, or a million or an infinite number?

I mean, if you were walking in a field and found a pocket watch, you wouldn't assume just one guy had made it, and mined all the ore and laid the crystal?

No, you'd assume a whole watchmaking industry, and a market of customers who needed to know what time it was.
Why assume just one creator then?

doesn't make sense.

>Implying a First Cause = designer
>Implying intricacy = intent

I could go on, but I think you get the point.

>>3311146
>
Occams Razor, as well as article 3 of this page http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1011.htm

>>3311146

Because our inability to find ONE intelligent designer could simply be handwaved away with "you're dumb and can't find Him...uh, I mean can't find 'it'". If you propose six million intelligent designers, everyone will ask where they all are.

Of course people ask the same question when you only propose one intelligent designer but that's because ID is an utter joke and crypto-evangelical bullshit of the deepest and most desperate dye.

>>3311150
I am not as smart as I think. What do you mean?

>>3311155

>mfw a creationist attempted to invoke Occam's Razor near me

>>3311146
>six million
oy vey, it's like a second shoah

>>331117

If you actually read the essay, I say that I am not a creationist. I am a Catholic. The big bang theory was first proposed by Father Georges Lemaître. Stop making a Strawman argument.

athiests maddened [x]

“If God created everything, then who created God?”

Human beings exist inside time, so we naturally think of things having a beginning and an end. Everything in the universe needs a creator because it didn’t exist at one point in time.

God, however, exists completely separate from time. In fact, time is just some idea that God thought up. So the assumptions and limitations we put on things in the material universe don’t apply to God.

When you toss out the impact of time, then concepts like “before” and “after” cease to have any meaning. “Beginnings” and “endings” don’t make any sense either without time. So God, who exists outside time, has no beginning and no end. He just is.

There have been so many religions. How do you know that yours is correct?”

This is also known as the “one more god” objection. It begins by noting that human cultures throughout time have always come up with religions. Some worshipped the mountain closest to their village, others worshipped the sun or moon, and others worshipped trees.

An atheist friend might points out that you disbelieve in all of those gods. So to the members of those religions, you are an atheist. Then he says your religion is just one more on this sequence of arbitrary and false religions. Your atheist friend concludes by saying he just rejects one more religion than you do – yours.

First, while Christians reject many of the conclusions of other religions, we don’t reject them completely. We can find common ground even with a tribe that worships the ancestral tree. They believe in some type of god. They believe they owe their existence to that god. They believe that god deserves their recognition, respect, and worship. So in that measure, we stand hand in hand.

From there we can use logic to determine things about God. What kind of qualities would we find in God? Is it one God or many gods? Is it a good God or a bad god? Is it omnipotent or limited? We used reason and logic to find the answers to some of these questions already.

Here is the crux of the issue: The “one more god” objection is nonsense if you view religion as a search for truth. The presence of disagreement doesn’t mean there is no correct answer. When scientists were trying to figure out what model of the atom was the most accurate, no one ever said, “You guys cannot agree, therefore there are no atoms.” That would be an incredibly stupid thing to say. Yet that is essentially what the atheist is saying.

Ultimately, our search for the truth leads us to the God who introduced Himself as, “I am who am.”

“God is just created by society to promote order.”

At first this objection seems very strong because widespread belief in God definitely brings order to society. Society depends upon people behaving themselves even when no one is looking. Inventing a person who is always watching is certainly a good way to keep people in check.

But when you think about it, this argument is actually an argument for our side. We believe that humans were created to believe in God and follow His will. So why should it surprise us when society functions better when people believe in God.

Atheists convince themselves that God is a tool of dictators, so why don’t dictators ever use God? Every dictatorship has a secret police force and security cameras to keep track of people. They have posters with the dictator’s image everywhere to remind people he is watching.

Throughout history we’ve seen that Atheist societies descend into tyranny. A society with God doesn’t need to secret police and ubiquitous cameras – belief in God is what keeps us truly free.

>>3311192
joe, people are going to rip you apart for this or simply ignore your essay, but honestly I enjoy this. A bit of variety, and committed with the best intentions. Godspeed.

>>3311200
Thank you for the rational comment. What are your personal views on the subject?

Cool metaphysical hokum, OP. Too bad no one that matters is going to take it seriously

>>3311208
How is this hokum? I tried to be clear and rational whenever possible.

>>3311208
>mad

>>3311234
I know you are but what am I?

>>3311215
Because it's metaphysics, like I said.

>>3311236
ur dum

>>3311239
Not true. Metaphysics has gone out of favor in many philosophical circles, but I appreciate your showing your ignorance right away so I know better than to ever take you seriously.

>>3311236
ho·kum (hkm)
n.
1. Something apparently impressive or legitimate but actually untrue or insincere; nonsense.
2. A stock technique for eliciting a desired response from an audience.

Unless this is "untrue or insincere" (which if it is, please show me,) how can it be called hokum?

suppose the universe changes its constants every trillion years. for almost the entire span of time, there would be no possibility for life- but for the billions of years it's possible life would exist and therefore able to observe it. how do you know the deck hasn't been shuffled over and over and we happen to be the arrangement that has the suits perfectly lined up?

>>3311242
lel

>>3311215

I wouldn't say it's hokum, but it's certainly pap. You bring up nothing of importance that hasn't already been dismissed by thinking people and, though you try to deny it, you have come into this in a very Magic Word Evangelicalism style: "If I can just explain why I believe in God, everyone else will also be able to come to believe in the array of cognitive failures that have allowed me to attain to this belief" is how it sounds to civilized men. You touch on things like "irreducible complexity" and other a posteriori nonsense-- you even touch on surveillance theory without realizing that it supports the creation of religion on utilitarian grounds rather than because the metaphysical claims of religion are factually correct. You make assertions of no value, in other words, and your thread is bad.

>>3311243
A lot of the words you use (e.g. Timeless, Spaceless, etc.) are so far removed from the way we actually experience reality that they become meaningless

>>3311244
Suppose that due to the second law of thermodynamics we can show that the universe is (only) 14ish billion years old. As well then, what could change a constant save it's creator?

I would have more respect for you if you were just happy with an irrational faith in God, they way I have my perfectly irrational (and yes, I do mean IRrational) belief in science, rather than doing all these mental gymnastics that make no sense to any sane person and are a waste of time

>>3311279
>sanity

>>3311279
>belief in science
Okay, you're an idiot.

>>3311251
"hasn't already been dismissed by thinking people"
"civilized men"
*facepalm*
Try your ad homonym arguments elsewhere.
In any case, if the only real way irreducible complexity is nonsense is the existence of a multi-verse, which while it is just as sound of a theory as ID for the universes creation I reject it on account of occams razor. All it is is playing with infinities.

>>3311155

You're using Occam razor wrong here. Look at the case of the watch again:

It would be no more appropriate to assume a single watchmaker if you found a watch on the beach than it would be to assume a single parent of you found a baby in a manger.

Occam only said you shouldn't needlessly multiply entities. He also cautioned against needlessly restricting them. Simply because you know that Alexander wrote a book, you need not assume that all books were written by Alexander.

>>3311302

In what wise are you not playing with infinities by concluding that allpowerful deities exist?

>>3311279
I have a rational belief in science (The universe was created by an supremely logical being, thus the universe is supremely logical,) as well as a "rational" faith. It would take a lot of mental gymnastics to come to the atheistic worldview as well.

>>3311304
Of corse! That is why I directed you to Summa to supplement the fact that a creator(s) must be perfectly simple and thus singular.

>>3311309
Fair point. I thought of that just as I posted. However, the idea still stands that the simpler a thing is, the more likely it is to work or exist. That why is why I propose an ID rather then a multi-verse.

>>3311112
>Intelligent Designer
Stopped reading here.

>>>/sci/
Have fun being laugh at.

>>3311323
you're conclusion doesn't follow :perfectly simple doesn't imply singular. It might imply, say, the root pf the first twelve primes or something. You're presuming to knowledge that you don't have

>>3311169

Don't worry, my theology professor had the same trouble:

>Big Bang cosmology put to bed the Newtonian assumptions of infinite time and mass in our observable universe.

Well our observable universe is limited to our observations. As for the actual universe a recursive evolution would essentially be infinite time.

>Quantum Theory has expanded the horizons of ontology to make science contend with the new evidence (information fields & non-location) for things like non-materialistic “information-like” dimensions of physical reality

Quantum theory (I assume you mean theoretical physics) has nothing to do with ontology. It has no "value statements" besides that of the numbers and math.
I'm not sure what your background is in Physics, but "information fields and non-location" as you say, formal abstract systems, have existed since before Plato's Forms. You seem to be implying some ideal plane of existence, but although popular science does pander to mysticism, don't mistake the waveform of an electron for the electron itself!

>All implying a causative power from an uncaused-cause that transcends time-and-space also know as God.
Ignoring the scientific misconceptions you posted before this sentence, you have established no necessity that a caused cannot be without a causer, or that First Cause is transcendent in hierarchy somehow. Furthermore even if we do accept your claim about the universe it is not necessary that this First Cause fits into any theological model, or is even sentient.

>>3311336
If you are going to stop reading before I make a point out of your own arrogance, naturally you would laugh. However, now I will post this to the sci board.

If you want some general advice here, take this:

Gods are a weird bunch, and it doesn't do for for people to fuck around with them. Nobody ever benefited from it and most were lucky to slide by skin intact. They don't think like us, they don't act like us and if there's a heaven, then its for their sort and not ours and we probably wouldn't like it anyway.

better the cold marl and the fading blossoms and an end to things.

There's never been a god showed up with better morals than the worst man in a prison drunk tank, nor better morals than a spoiled child.

>>3311346
I have almost no background in Physics. I think I may have skewered what Robert J. Spitzer was saying in his book "New proofs for the existence of God.. And as for the necessity of an uncaused cause, please google "philologos the universe created itself"

>There’s an insane sophistication and intelligence behind it all – it must be purposed.

This is a non-sequitor. I could watch rain fall on a pond, are the myriad waves "purposed"? Well yeah, because God made it rain. Oh great, now we've come full circle.

I always find it funny when people apply causation to atemporal affairs. Asking "what happened before the big bang?" is literal nonsense wrought by misconception. Time is an abstract model of space, before the big bang there was no space, no time. Causation is only relevant in systems of space sequenced by time.

Most of this seems to be based on some sort of existential bias. Pointing out aspects of the universe: Constants, biology, evolution, our existence, etc. And asking "Why is that so?" is the same as saying "It is."

Were space slightly emptier, life couldn't exist and you couldn't ponder it. But citing that the universe is such that things are what they are hardly supports any notion that they are crafted or intended "to be".

>>3311384
When Hawking, Krauss, and the like claim that science can now answer the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” they are being misleading. They are not answering the question as philosophy has traditionally understood it – “Why is there being rather than nonbeing?” They are instead making a flagrant equivocation. They are equating "something" with "nothing." ”. To say that vacuums have energy and energy is convertible into mass, is to deny that vacuums are empty. And so, contrary to their claims, science cannot explain how something could come from nothing. At best, it could merely explain how something might have come from something else, which is anticlimactic and unimpressive.
An unmoved mover(s) is still needed.

>>3311368
>I have almost no background in Physics.

That is evident.

>>3311384
As well, the ideas of energy moving, creating waves, as well as the complexity of water and the water cycle point to either an ID or a multiverse.

>>3311405
And it is evident that you are just proposing an ad homonym attack.

>>3311398
>o say that vacuums have energy and energy is convertible into mass, is to deny that vacuums are empty.
You are playing semantics with the word Vacuum. Whatever definition of Vacuum you personally adopt, you must be willing to concede that it contains spacetime, and it contains the potential for gravity to act on an object within the vacuum.

>ad homonym attack.

man, that is one delicious phrase

>There’s an insane sophistication and intelligence behind it all

and i agree, it's like li po and the small stones: this level of sophisticate detail would imply insanity, and not a slight neurotic one either. Given what we know of the actions of gods, this is your most convincing argument.

tl;dr

>>3311430
>li po and the small stones
what this is? just sounds interesting is all

>>3311541


I actually got that wrong. It was Du fu.

He supposedly came upon an example of hydrological sorting on a beach, and was appalled that a benevolent god would spend so much time and energy arranging that all the rocks should be categorized according to size, while there was so much disharmony among men.

>>3311609
i gotcha,interesting to think about i suppose, i don't believe in an ID (disclaimer), but i feel like the process of cosmological creation wouldn't be that intricate or "neurotic" (if speaking of an intelligent designer) if you just had the power to do it, just set the costants so atoms stick together, have the different constants interract with each other and go, this doesn't speak for the creation of life of course, but just a thought, here take this recommendation dog

http://qntm.org/responsibility

really good short (like real short) story pertaining to this subject... kinda sorta

http://www.simulation-argument.com/

further reading, not fictional with actual scientific and logical backup this time

>>3311242
>Not true. Metaphysics has gone out of favor in many philosophical circles,

No, just your e-atheist circles. Anyone with half a brain knows metaphysics is necessary, given that you can't do science, philosophy, or abstract though without it.

Guys, guys, guys. Everything that exists in actuality must first have existed in potentiality. If you have a string of actuality and potentiality without something that always existed and never existed in potential, than everything always existed in potential, and nothing can actually exist.

Now, proving first actuality=theistic God is a bit more difficult. Samuel Clarke is one of the people who formulated an argument for proving that, but its too long to waste on /lit/.

String theory.

"1/0" is a paradox; in a way that "0/1" is not. Nothing can be divided by zero. If one approaches the formula from the positive side, it would appear that the answer is an infinite positive value. If one approaches the formula from the negative side, the opposite is true. Thus, anything divided by zero is simultaneously positive and negative infinity. "One over Zero" is a paradox in another way too, in a way that transcends mere arithmetic. One is something, and Zero is nothing. The fact that the universe holds something over nothing, that it prefers to exist, rather than not exist, is fundamentally absurd. No being can ever come to deserve its own birth. 1/0 is a cry out against mere logic and efficiency. Stuff exists. All existence, all truth, cannot be ultimately justified: it can only be described, explained, and enjoyed.

1/0 is illogical. 1/0 is irrational. 1/0 is impossible. 1/0 is transcendentally unfair.

1/0 is true. Deal with it.

>>3311134
Spaceless-Timeless-Powerful-Intelligent-Personal-Purposeful beings, that is, entities that are of a spiritual nature could be inferred from the causes you outline, but not necessarily God. I would put forward that Gnosticism could make a good deal of sense out of our universe than traditional Christianity.

As a Catholic, you accept theistic evolution right? Evolution involves the killing and death of countless lifeforms. And yet that was the method used to create man? This differs from the problem of evil in that there's no blaming man for this; this is not post-fall. Now the creative act itself is involved in creating suffering. (If you don't believe in evolution- fair enough but the Dawkins of this world keep their fans by refuting people like you).

Not only that- this creator created matter, limited and ever changing matter, its effects best seen through the decay of our own bodies.

So to your list I add one more attribute- Flawed. But this means that, for his imperfect power, there must be a greater perfect power from which he draws his positive attributes. Thus Gnosticism- with its lesser creator god and its greater god above god is a legitimate way of understanding the universe. I know you disagree with me- but why?

(I have issues with other things you said, particularly with the jump between the production of life from constants and getting purposed design out of that, but other anons have pointed it out).

if the non-living elements of the universe created life, what does that say about the universe

>>3311955
That it exists. and that parts of it are more organized than others.

>>3311962
but you cant say that theres no POSSIBILITY that it could mean there is a non-observable organization to the universe that is somehow related to life.

obviously it makes perfect sense to dismiss life as matter behaving in a very sophisticated organized way. but i feel like theres something wrong about doing that

>>3311976

There's no reason to dismiss any possibility that accounts for observable phenomena. That's what makes it tricky. you end up having to choose your working hypothesis from what you know and can observe, or at least test. otherwise you have an infinite number of possibilities.

if god exists why should i give a shit about his existence?

>>3311398

I have no idea what you are referring to, arguing about Ultimate Reality, First Cause, and Unmoved Movers, is fine and all, but please do not cite science as a source if you don't understand it, I don't mean to patronize, but it simply does not support your argument and ignores the real issues.

My criticism of your position is that you are ascribing properties in meaningless fashions.
Applying time, cause and effect, a property of our universe - space itself is just the lowest levels of energy, the "rest position"- to a state inherently outside that universe, is ridiculous.

Ascribing this First Mover personhood is equally ridiculous. Think, deliberate, act, feel- How do these things exist before existence, before time or space. How can a being that knows everything feel emotion? Is not anger, or fear, or gratitude a reaction to stimuli, new knowledge gained and understood?

The declared need for this Ultimate Reality person is founded, without justification I say, in Causality. Furthermore there has been no justification made for reality being caused.

You should recognize the logical error in purporting complexity, a property of one system, to evidence a system completely separate.