Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Cosmology, and it's place in Theology

Hello again, my faithful few readers. I'm about to BLOW YOUR MIND! With information you've likely already seen, and understood.

First, I'll talk about something brought up by a Creationist, in one of my hour long discussions with them. The Cosmological Argument for God's existence. I shall point out that, while I'm no Physicist, I was able to figure a few things out just with logical thought. He, on the other hand, was a physics major, so I found it hard to believe he'd use this argument.

The argument is as follows: http://www.carm.org/apologetics/apologetics/cosmological-argument

1. Things exists
2. It is possible for things not to exist
3. Whatever has the possibility of non-existence, yet exists must have been caused to exist
a) Nothing can bring itself into existence, because it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical.
4. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence.
a) An infinite regression of cause ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence.
b) Since the Universe exists, it must have a cause.
5. Therefore there must be an uncaused cause of all things.
6. The uncaused cause must be God.

There is little to nothing wrong with this... Excepting, of course, parts 2 through 6.

Things exist. Yes they do. If anyone says otherwise, they're an idiot, or they're insane.
But is it possible for things not to exist? Who says? Have we managed to observe things not existing? Or things changing from existence to non-existence? No? Then where is the validity of the statement.

Given that things can be non-existent, which we don't know, why can't they bring themselves into existence? They must exist to bring themselves into existence. Once again, HOW DO THEY KNOW? Bringing something into existence, be it matter, energy, or something completely different, hasn't occurred in an observable way, during our time. We can't say that something must exist to bring itself into existence, because we have nothing to base this off. Just saying it's logical doesn't make it so.

The main problem with this argument is the baseless assumptions. An infinite regression of causes would have no initial cause. But that isn't a problem. Imagine this: A man builds a time machine from some schematics he'd found. He goes back in time, and places the schematics back into the place he'll find them. Without him finding the schematics, he wouldn't build the time machine, and be able to give himself the schematics, so he can build a time machine to give himself the.... seems kind of silly huh? But, since he found the schematics, he will always build the machine, and always find the schematics. No paradox, just some uncaused schematics. The same analogy could be used with Shakespeare, except that one of his books is given to him in the past, so he can publish it to become famous, etc.

Therefore, there is no real need to add God as an uncaused cause.

One could also say that the Universe itself is the uncaused cause. It may have always existed. It may be caused by an outside force that is not sentient, or even "alive". Why, it could also be that WE create the universe, when we travel back in time to witness the Big Bang. We don't know, but it IS explainable without an imaginary friend. And that is all this describes anyway. That SOMEONE created everything, whether it be God, Allah, Zeus, The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Wolverine.

Anyone who has been fooled by this sly deception of logic, please, feel free to contact me, so we can let the healing begin. Eventually, I will actually talk about theology. Look out for that, cause I'll be bringing more mouldy old ideas, and cooking them till their digestible. I'll also bring tasty new ideas... if I have any.

Until next time, Fui fides tantum in testimonium.


  1. Nice blog! after reading this post (and going through all of your old ones - sorry I'm a little slow) I've come to realise we have the same fascination in human behaviour or how "people work", especially in regards to religious belief and evolution.

    I have to recommened the book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins if you have not read it already - a complete argument against theology. Personally I am 100% athiest as well, and love having a good debate with someone who has conflicting beliefs. I'm all for people believing in an omnipotent presence if it helps them sleep at night/live there life, jeez, even the flying spaghetti monster or 'pastafarianism'is fine by me (maybe moreso than others), but as soon as it comes to forcing your beliefs on others I think many religions cross the line. As an athiest I merely wonder why religion in general needs to be 'believed' in the first place, or what forces/causes certain types of people to follow a particular kind... just don't get me started on Xenu =P

    Needless to say, I will be following future posts!

  2. Thank you Carissa. It always good to meet someone with a similar societal view. I'm glad to know you'll be reading. I have many things to say, and hopefully, I'll get some people to debate.

    If you'd like me to do a post on a particular topic, send me an email, or comment it, or even send me a message on facebook. It's all in the contact me page.

    Wow... that makes me sound like a robot. Meh, the info is there, and I hope you enjoy my future posts.

    Fui fides tantum in testimonium

  3. After reading "a Brief history of Time" the 1st cause can be explained by the law of uncertainity, from that the anthropic principle is the collective name for several ways of asserting that the observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the life observed in it. The principle was formulated as a response to a series of observations that the laws of nature and its fundamental physical constants remarkably take on values that are consistent with conditions for life as we know it rather than a set of values that would not be consistent with life as observed on Earth. The anthropic principle states that this apparent coincidence is actually a necessity because living observers wouldn't be able to exist, and hence, observe the universe, were these laws and constants not constituted in this way.

  4. I'll put it simply. I hope.

    Things only exist because we observe them.

    If a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

    I answer, how do you know the tree fell? You have to observe an action to prove its existence. Otherwise, there are an infinite number of theories that can explain why the tree is no longer standing. From the most likely (Tree falls) to the least likely, but also physically possible (tree instantaneously, and without sound, came to be on the ground).

    The point is, without observation, nothing can be said to exist at all. No one can observe any gods, so we must assume they do not exist.

    They do not exert a force on our universe or interact with our universe. They have no possible way of being observed. Therefore, we have to assume they do not exist.

  5. Forgot this.