God

Pro affirms that he believes God always existed, but he nonetheless maintains that the concept of the universe always existing is incomprehensible. 1. The concept of "existing" is a sensible concept independent of to what it is applied. It don't believe that ghosts exist, but the concept "ghosts exist" is perfectly sensible one. One might posit something ridiculous like "peanut butter sandwiches have always existed" and even though no one believes it true, just about everyone knows what it means. The idea that the universe always existed is in Buddhism, for example, so we know there are 600 million people who have no difficulty comprehending it. Hinduism has a similar concept of an endless procession of recreated universes, with something always having existed. I don't believe there is a defect in the Christian conceptual apparatus that makes the concept of "always existed" inconceivable. It is conceivable, they just don't believe it is true. 2. Let's suppose that "always existed" cannot be conceived. As I pointed, out we know that are a lot of things that cannot be conceived, like wave-particle duality, that are true even though they cannot be conceived. That's using "conceived" in the sense of meaning "can be related to day to day experience. " Things that cannot be so conceived can nonetheless be described mathematically. So "always existed" means that time extends infinitely far in the past. Alas, it may be that time had a beginning. If so, that is something of which we definitely cannot conceive. Even so, it can be understood mathematically. In sum, there is no necessity that things need to be conceivable to be true. Pro continues, "In 4, I understand how worm holes were made it's just that how or where do the materials/organisms needed to make a worm hole come from? It's unexplainable. .. but in my opinion only God would make sense. " The materials always existed. It's not necessary that it makes sense in analogy to the observed world. Pro asks, "So where do we come from? If there was or is evolution going on where did the first organisms come from? " That's a subject for a different debate. However, one theory is that the origin was in replicating molecules. In other words, evolution can work on non-living molecules. Random permutations that make a molecule better able to replicate would tend to survive, permutation that inhibit replication would "die out. " Viruses are an example of replicating molecules: "Viruses are non-living microscopic particles that attack healthy cells within living things. They do not have the characteristics of living things and are not able to metabolize food. To metabolize means to change food energy into chemical energy that the body can use. Viruses are not alive, so they do not have a need for food like living organisms. Viruses do not have an organized cell structure. They are so light that they can float in the air or water, be passed on to other organisms if touched, and fit anywhere. The virus injects its own DNA structure into healthy cells where new virus cells grow. " . http://library.thinkquest.org... It's sometimes asked where the random variations that drive evolution come from. One source is cosmic ray ray strikes that alter molecular structure. The great majority of these variations will cause damage and subsequently not endure. However, a very few enhance survival, and those endure. While organism are too complex to occur by chance, the simplest replicating molecules are not too complex to occur by chance. "Now astronomers have detected an amino acid - one of the building blocks of proteins - in interstellar dust clouds in our galaxy. The discovery of glycine in space suggests that interstellar molecules may have played a pivotal role in the prebiotic chemistry of the Earth" . http://physicsworld.com... Pro tells us, once more, even though it is irrelevant to the debate, "I am a Christian and I do believe God has existed forever though. " I have always wondered why Christian belief is so fragile that is must be endlessly affirmed. Note that Christians often assert that they cannot get through a whole school day without merely affirming their faith in silent prayer, but must have a formal prayer ceremony to make a greater affirmation. Muslims must be recharged five times a day. Generally, if one believes something to be true, it doesn't have to be endlessly reaffirmed. We do not recite the multiplication tables daily for fear that if we do not something will be lost. Anyway, back to the debate. The question was whether existence of the universe implies that God exists. I offered six arguments as to why the existence of the universe did not imply the existence of God. Pro said, "I don't disagree with anything you have argued. .. " Pro never addressed arguments 1, 5, and 6 so they stand unrefuted. Arguments 2, 3, and 4 provided alternative concepts of a universe that always existed. Pro said that the concept of a universe that always existed was incomprehensible. However, it is perfectly comprehensible to Buddhists, Hindus, and many other religious faiths. It is certainly comprehensible to scientists. Beyond that, it can be true even if it cannot be related to everyday experience. The resolution is negated.