| | Hello to everyone,
I am reading this book: True and Reasonable by Doug Jacoby
And there is an argument for God which I am having some
trouble with. The argument is quoted below.
p28
THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE
One of the simplest and most convincing indications of the existence of a supreme being is the investigation of the origin of the universe.
Three questions must be asked:
1)Did the universe have a beginning or not?
2)Is the universe caused or uncaused?
3)Was that beginning personal or impersonal?
Universe Exists --> no beginning (universe eternal)
|
beginning --> uncaused (no laws)
|
caused --> impersonal (personality, an illusion)
|
personal
Beginning: Let us start with the fact of the existence of the universe. (I am aware that there are some philosophers who question the existence of the universe or reality itself, but we do not have time to discuss the obvious.) The universe had adefinite beginning, according to scientists. The universe has been expanding as a result of a massive explosion between 10 and 20 billion years ago, according to the calculations of cosmologists and astrophysicists. Before that time, matter and energy existed in one super-condensed mass. Before this definite beginning point, there was no universe.
Someone might argue that the universe has always existed. But if that were the case, the universe would have wound down, or "stopped ticking," long ago. Like any other machine, according to the laws of physics (entropy), the universe cannot run forever; it would need maintenance, new parts, and a qualified mechanic to keep it in working order. Without the "Mechanic" the whole system would run down in a matter of time (what scientists call "heat death"). Thus we see that it simply is not possible that the physical world has always been. Science and the Bible are agreed that the world has been in existence for a limited time only.
Cause: If the universe was caused, then there must have been a cause. If it was uncaused, then it just "happened," and there was no cause. Which was the case? (Remember the watch?) The evidence we see in our world points to physical law, order and direction. Everything fits into the overall system in a remarkable way. Scientists proceed on the assumption that there is order in the world, that the observations they have made at one time and place are useful for understanding other situations as well. If there were no law and order in the physical world, there would be no science. Since the world is orderly (it can be described by physical laws), how could this order have just "happened" if, before the order, there was no law or order? If order came from non-order, or disorder, surely there was a force acting on the non-ordered material to bring the ordered world into existence. It is that simple. The universe must have been caused.
Personality: We have established that the world had a beginning and that this beginning was caused. But how do we
account for the elements of personality that we see in the world today? I mean things like love and hate, reason and reflection, music, art, worship, and philosophy? What could have made impersonal matter or molecules take on a personal nature? If there is no spiritual, or non-physical, part of the universe, where did personality-non-physical characteristics in human beings-come from? Clearly there must have been some element of a personality present at the beginning. Thus the universe had a personal beginning.
Conclusion: We have reasoned that the universe had a personal, caused beginning. This cause was obviously incredibly powerful, logical, and personal, to account for what we observe today. Most people call this first cause "God." (In all fairness, however, it must be said that this argument doesn't tell us whether there is one God or many, or how powerful he is, or even whether he is good or evil.)
The argument proves the existence of God, and suggests that the God of the Bible is the one who created the universe. One thing is certain: the atheist, who claims that the world's origin and existence can be explained without any reference to God, is ignoring the evidence.
God can be experienced. But which God? What is he like? And exactly what do we mean by God? We must take this up in the next chapter.
CONCLUSION
Is anyone at home? Yes, there is a God at home in the universe. He is still there, and he has not left us without evidence of his existence. The entrance of his Son into history and the record of the Bible provide proof even more convincing than the reasons we have studied in this chapter. We will soon explore what is meant by the "Son of God" and the "Word of God" (Chapters 4 and 5). Before we do that, however, we need to sharpen our picture of God himself.
My troubles:
Scientists do think the universe was a ball of matter/energy which exploded and will continue to expand forever. The author's point that nothing existed before the explosion is obviously absurd as things cannot arise out of nothing. Does this mean that the ball of matter/energy existed before the explosion eternally, as energy is conserved? If so, what caused the explosion? If it didn't then we might think that the univers is oscillating between an explosion, expansion, contraction and another explosion. But this would be a perpetual motion machine, defying the laws of thermodynamics.
I think that at this level of investigation, the question is not a scientific one as we cannot test the hypothesis. Is there any argument that can be made about the origins of the universe?
The business about personality is the confusion of entities with attributes of entities. And I don't really have a problem with that. Though I wonder what a good objective definition of personality is? Do animals have personality? When you observe the behavioural differences between a dog and a cat, for example they appear to have different personalities which we can define: subservient vs aloof for example. But this is really just us personifying the animal; projecting our conception of human qualities onto animals.
|
|
