God is Real

Contingency, Cosmological and Creation These three topics of debate converge with each other, so I will merge them. Pro argued, “The Big Bang Theory is accepted as a solid theory of the Universe beginning, therefore the Universe is contingent.” To recap, the argument from contingency rests on the point that a contingent universe would compel us to explain the cause of the universe. And, like any gap, the gods can fill it. The universe may or may not be contingent, but Pro hopes that my acceptance of the Big Bang model would compel me to accept that the universe is contingent, making way for the explanation of gods. Beside the failures of the god-of-the-gaps style of argument (lack of explanatory power and plausibility), the fallacy of Pro’s above argument rests in the common belief that the Big Bang model explains the existence, as opposed to non-existence, of the universe. Unfortunately, however, the Big Bang theory explains no such thing. According to reference [1]: “The earliest state of the universe that cosmologists have determined to be unpreceded by a state of a different kind is the state constitutive of the Planck era, which occupies the first post-t0 interval of length 10-43 second.” The big bang model does not explain this earliest state. As a maximally condensed point, it is merely one of many states of the universe as we know it, and that hypothesized earliest state provides no more reason to accept a contingent universe than the current state of the universe. I illustrated my point about the fallacy of the god-of-the-gaps style of argument with the pre-scientific mystery of lightning bolts. Pro objected, “Lightning bolts come from clouds which we can see with our eyes easily. We are talking about the existence before, well, existence. When did time begin? How did the Universe get made? What was before the Universe? As you can see, lightning bolts are not a good comparison [to] the creation of all of existence.” The objection is irrelevant, because the analogy is adequate given that both lightning bolts and the existence of the universe are were/are mere scientific mysteries, not evidence that is strongly expected by the explanation of gods, though the gods may explain them much like any other natural mystery. My argument can be more effectively rebutted by specifying how the hypothesis of the gods explains the existence of the universe with more explanatory power and more plausibility than if the hypothesis were applied to explain lightning bolts. Design If I misunderstood this argument, then Pro can help his case by providing an example of a mindless “object that acts for an end.” The theory of evolution refutes the line that “An object that acts for an end, but does not itself have a mind, must have been created [by] a being with a mind,” as it applies to the only natural mindless actors for an end that I am aware of--living organisms. Perhaps Pro has some other type of object in mind, but I am aware of what that type of objects may be. First Mover Pro asked, “Con, are you trying to go into the argument of quantum fluctuations?” Quantum vacuum fluctuations are not central to my argument, so we can leave it out. The invocation of modern physics was not necessary, because the argument was first undercut by the simpler Newtonian physics. In the model of Isaac Newton, one object does not cause a second object to move, but movement (or, more technically, acceleration) is caused by forces. That is what is explicit in the first and second laws of motion. Newton’s first law of motion is (added emphasis): “If the total force on an object is zero, its center of mass continues in the same state of motion” [2]. The second law of motion is expressed as F=ma, where m is the mass of an object, F is the total force acted on the object, and a is the resulting acceleration of the object [3]. Newton’s second law approximates all changes in movement of any macroscopic object, a law that is more exactly defined by the equation of Einstein’s theory of general relativity, in which forces (not objects) remain the relevant instigators of acceleration. The argument from first mover was formulated long before Isaac Newton, when material objects were believed to be the causes of movement of other material objects, and the argument has substance only within that mistaken paradigm. Clarification of Challenge Pro enquired, “Would you mind elaborating a little more on this challenge? Have I not explained the logic behind belief in God?” You have explained the arguments for belief in God. The problem is that your methodology is poor--you use rote logic with premises that beg the question. I strongly suggest arguments for the gods using the more-common styles of argumentation, which are probabilistic, not discrete or absolute in certainty. You may choose your own methodology, but I recommend the criteria of explanatory power and plausibility, which are two of the five criteria of Argument to the Best Explanation [4]. Such criteria are common in theological debates, and they seem to be the greatest weaknesses of your argument. “Explanatory power” is the ability of the hypothesis to expect the evidence. For example, do we strongly expect the present universe from the existence of the gods? If so, how? “Plausibility” is the ability of the hypothesis to be expected from everything that we commonly accept. For example, do any of the gods fit what we generally know about the universe? If so, how? References [1] Q Smith, “The uncaused beginning of the universe.” Philosophy of Science, 1988. [2] B Crowell, Newtonian Physics, Ed 2.2, 2003, page 102. [3] Ibid, page 106. [4] C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions, p. 19.