God vs. Naturalism

To support my claim, I will present the following arguments: 1. Arguments for an initial being 1.1 Pool Table argument 1.2 Corroborating evidence 2. Arguments for intelligent design 2.1 Fine Tuned Universe argument 2.2 Evolution 1. Arguments for an initial being 1.1 Pool Table argument This is an argument that I made up during discussions with my brother. I struggled with it because I was still a militant atheist then (Sorry atheists for betraying you. My brother is still an atheist so it's not all bad! ) This argument is very similar to many other arguments such as: Aquinas' "Uncaused first cause" argument [1], Plato's "Self-originated motion" argument [2] and William Lane Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument [3]. So it turns out that I wasn't so smart after all! The argument: 1. Premise A: Every cause was either caused or uncaused (Null Hypothesis) 2. Premise B: There is a finite number of past causes. 3. Let n be the number of past causes and let C be the set of all causes that ever existed: c1, c2, c3 . .. cn 4. Now choose any cause cx from the set of causes C. Using Recursive process 5. Does cause cx have at least one preceding cause causing it? 6. If the answer is no, then cx is an uncaused cause. End of proof 7. If the answer is yes, then cx has at least one preceding cause causing it 8. Let cy be any of the causes that caused cx 9. Remove cx from the set of all causes C. Now the size of C will be reduced by 1 10. Now make cx = cy and repeat steps 5 to 10 The recursive process will loop until either: a. An uncaused cause is found in step 5; or b. After a maximum of n-1 iterations, the size of set C will become 1. At that point, there's only one cause left in the set. There are absolutely no other causes available that can cause it. Therefore, this single cause must be an uncaused cause. End of proof. Conclusion: The logic above, if the premises are true, concludes that there must exist at least 1 uncaused cause. There's no escape. I called this argument the Pool Table argument. I argued that if we had full knowledge of all physical things and physical laws, we could determine where each ball in a pool game will end up being, and I could even trace it backwards. The problem was that damn white ball! I could never predict how it would be hit. For my opponent to refute my argument, he must either challenge my premises or challenge the validity of my logic. My opponent may argue that Premise B that "there's a finite number of past causes" is not necessarily true. In order to keep this discussion concise, I would like to first ask my opponent if he agrees that there can only exist a finite number of past events. If he disagrees, I will show in the next round why this premise is true. Now that I proved that there must exist at least 1 uncaused cause, let's examine some of the properties of an uncaused cause: 1. An uncaused cause must have behaved in a certain way that's not predetermined. Such a cause couldn't have been naturally caused! 2. The cause acted freely. If it wasn't free, then what made it act this way? The answer is nothing. 3. A cause that acted freely must have some form of intelligence. By intelligence I don't mean cleverness, but I mean a being with the ability to apply knowledge and skills [4]. An unnatural, free and intelligent cause is definitely best explained by the God hypothesis than by Naturalism. There's no doubt that this is a real challenge to the naturalistic view. Looks like I scored first! 1.2 Corroborating evidence The Big Bang theory is a well accepted theory that confirms that the universe has a beginning [5]. The Borde-Guth-Valenkin theorem also proves that the universe had a beginning [6]. The BGV theorem also states that any universe with an expansion rate of greater than zero must have a beginning and cannot be past-eternal. Even if you argue that this universe was caused by a previous universe which was caused by another universe… you will eventually have to reach a universe that simply began. These theories only support the initial claim that there exists at least one uncaused cause which somehow (directly or indirectly) led to the creation of our universe. I argue that these theories support the God hypothesis. When scientists presented evidence that the universe wasn't eternal in Hawking's 70th birthday, Lisa Grossman described it as the worst birthday presents ever. She argues that "…physicists, including Hawking, tend to shy away from cosmic genesis. A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. " I think any reasonable reader would argue that this only makes the God hypothesis more likely that Naturalism. 2. Arguments for intelligent design 2.1 Fine Tuned Universe argument This argument is a very well known one that I wouldn't be surprised if my opponent has a prepared rebuttal for it! But I find this argument so fascinating and so strong. Basically, the universe is governed by many constants. For example: π = 3.14159…, G (Gravitational constant) = 6.67384… × 10-11 and many like those. What's interesting is that if these constants were slightly different, the universe wouldn't come to existence as we know it. By that, I mean there will be no stars, no planets and certainly no life. In order to start off the universe in a state of low entropy, so that there will indeed be a second law of thermodynamics, the factors must be within 10^10^123 [8]. This number is so insane and I majored in mathematics! If the gravitational constant was off by 1 over 10100, the gravity force would either be too strong and the universe would collapse on itself, or it would be too weak and not form any stars [9]. If you tell me that this was simply random, I will actually get upset! You may argue however that these numbers are just what they are. They don't need some God to monkey with the numbers, similar to number 2 or number 1,000,000. They are what they are. However, scientists disagree. They argue that "the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise" [9]. In other words, these values didn't have to be what they are and they are not unique in any special way. I argue that this argument strongly corroborates the argument that the universe was intelligently designed which supports the God hypothesis. Naturalism can hardly explain the precision of a fine tuned universe. 2.2 Evolution You might think that I am absolutely insane to bring evolution to support my argument! After all, some argued that evolution buried God [10]. I am not trying to discredit evolution. Natural selection is a very gradual process [11]. Very simple cells evolved to more complex organisms through this very slow process over billions of years. Naturalists argue that this process occurs naturally and didn't necessitate a divine intervention. Naturalists argue that the origin of life began with the origin of the first self replicating molecule [12]. Since these are not found yet, I will look at some of the oldest cells on Earth called bacteria [13]. Those billions of years old cells are in fact very complex. They have very complex molecular machines [14], have complex DNA and its parts interact with each other. What I want to demonstrate to the reader is that there is no such a thing as a simple cell. Darwin realized that this theory has some limitations. He argued "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. " [15] So the question is: Are there any organisms, organs or biological functions that couldn't have possibly been formed naturally (by numerous, successive, slight modification)? The answer is yes. For the first self replicating cell to exist, it would need that ability to replicate, must have DNA and would need a few complex molecular functions. The first self replicating cell could not have possibly been formed through natural selection, because it's the mother of all formation. There are only two possible explanations: Pure luck or intelligent design. Given the complexity of the cell, no matter how much you downplay it, it is astronomically implausible that a complex structure to exist randomly. I argue that intelligent design is by far the more plausible explanation to the origin of life than naturalism. This poses a problem to the naturalistic view. In an interview for the documentary "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed", Richard Dawkins is open to the idea that other alien species might have "intelligently designed" the first replicating cells [16]. I am not naïve to suggest that Dawkins is supporting the God hypothesis in any way or form. I am simply asking the reader that it's very reasonable to believe that intelligent design was behind the origin of the universe. Thank you. Sources [1] . http://www.ewtn.com... [2] Macmillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1967), Vol. 2, p. 232 [3] . http://www.reasonablefaith.org... [4] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [5] . http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu... [6] . http://arxiv.org... [7] . http://www.newscientist.com... [8] . http://www.ws5.com... [9] Paul Davies, The Mind of God (1993), p. 169 [10] . http://www.theguardian.com... [11] . http://www.darwinwasright.org... [12] . http://www.newscientist.com... [13] . http://learn.genetics.utah.edu... [14] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [15] . http://darwin-online.org.uk... [16]