FANDOM


An Unapologetic Apology

This blog marks the beginning of my apology for Christianity. And no, I'm not saying I'm sorry for being a Christian. For those of you who don't know, an apology is a formal defense, usually of one's philosophy/world view.

Also, a note. I decided to confine the question of origins to one blog, as opposed to combining it with other concepts. I think I have written plenty of material here for us to debate/discuss.

Now to begin...

The Origins of the Universe

And thus we shall begin with the beginning. All complete world views must have an answer to this question: how did the universe begin?

Well, there are three choices. 1) the universe created itself. 2) the universe has always existed. 3) Someone created the universe. (I'll explain why it must be someone as opposed to something when we get past the other two.)

Spontaneous Origins: Did The Universe Create Itself?

Let us begin our examination with the first choice, one held to by most atheistic evolutionists. Could the universe have created itself? According to the defenders of this theory, it is a complex question wrapped in quantum mechanics. They believe that the universe could have been created through a quantum fluctuation. To quote evolutionary physicist Victor Stenger,

[T]he universe is probably the result of a random quantum fluctuation in a spaceless, timeless void.... So what had to happen to start the universe was the formation of an empty bubble of highly curved space-time. How did this bubble form? What caused it? Not everything requires a cause. It could have just happened spontaneously as one of the many linear combinations of universes that has the quantum numbers of the void.... Much is still in the speculative stage, and I must admit that there are yet no empirical or observational tests that can be used to test the idea of an accidental origin (1987, 7[3]:26-30, italics in orig., emp. added.).

—Stenger, Victor J. (1987), “Was the Universe Created?,” Free Inquiry, 7[3]:26-30, Summer.

Of course, the lack of empirical evidence may disturb some of my more scientifically-minded readers. Let us look at something for which there is plentiful empirical evidence: The 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

Succinctly stated, this law says "energy cannot be created or destroyed. It can only change forms." This causes an immediate problem... In order for this fluctuation to work, there has to be energy first. So what made the energy?

According to empirical, scientific law, nothing in the physical world can create energy. Obviously, it had to be created, unless choice #2 is correct. There is no way to honestly contradict this statement. Let me convert it into a syllogism, and examine it's validity, in case someone is unconvinced.

No energy can be created by anything bound by the laws of physics. (1st Law)

All energy in its first state was energy. (True by logical structure.)

Therefore, no energy in its first state could have been created by anything bound by the laws of physics.

This is an EAE-1 syllogism, which means a premise that is a universal negative followed by a premise that is a universal affirmative, and then a conclusion that is a universal negative. The number one at the end tells us the position of the middle term (the term not in the conclusion). This syllogism is one of the 24 valid syllogisms. What does that mean? It means that, if the premises are true, 'the conclusion is necessarily true.

So thus, this statement is true, by the laws of science and logic: no energy in its first state could have been created by anything bound by the laws of physics.

What does that mean? It means that energy in its first state, the way in which it first existed, could not possibly have been created by anything bound by the laws of physics. This begs the question, then what created it? Well, the rational conclusion to draw would be: something not bound by the laws of physics. Namely, something outside of the physical world. This conclusion, while supported by science and logic, is not accepted by atheists who believe the universe created itself. But as for me, I will go with scientific laws...

I have dealt a cruel blow to the idea that the universe created itself, but I have hardly scratched the surface on the question of origins. There are three more laws I will consider, on the subject of spontaneous origins.

The Law of Mass Conservation. This law states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. It creates the same problem for those who believe that the universe spontaneously came into being as the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. We can construct this syllogism:

No matter can be created by anything bound by the laws of physics. (Law of Mass Conservation)

All matter in its first state was matter. (True by logical structure.)

Therefore, no matter in its first state could have been created by anything bound by the laws of physics.

Again, this syllogism is valid, and thus the conclusion is necessarily true, since the premises are.

Then we have the Law of Causality, or the Law of Cause and Effect. It states that every effect has a cause. This law may not be accepted by all of my readers, but I'd like to challenge you to show me even one example of any effect that had no cause. Empirical and observational evidence support this law, and I will take observation over speculation any day of the week. Now, the argument made by this law if fairly well known:

Every effect has a cause.

The universe is a effect.

Therefore, the universe has an cause.

This is an AAA-1 syllogism, another one of the 24 valid ones. If the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true. Now, I realize some people may not believe that everything has a cause, but I challenge you to prove otherwise. Any possible experiment that we could carry out would prove that effects must have causes, and I will go with the empirical evidence over the speculation that this law might have an exception.

Like the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, these two laws prove the existence of a non-physical reality. Why? Because, if nothing can create matter that is bound by scientific law, and everything bound by the laws of physics has to have a cause, then there has to be something that is not bound by the laws of physics. Namely, something outside of the physical world.

This may be a hard conclusion for some people to make. In fact, I know it is. But the hard, cold, scientific and logical laws prove the existence of a non-physical reality. Atheistic evolutionists have long hidden behind their claims of scientific correctness, but in fact their theory of spontaneous origins is a nothing but a fable.

Now, there is one more law that is important in this argument, the Law of Biogenesis, a proverbial thorn in the side of atheistic evolutionists. This law is instrumental, but I will not go over it until we discuss the third possible origin of the universe.

One more thing. I'm sure my atheist readers are mentally shouting, but why don't the same things apply to a creator? Why doesn't he need a cause? Etc. The answer is fairly simple: the creator is not bound by the laws of physics (which is basically the sum of my argument so far, that something outside of the laws of physics exists and is the cause of the universe.)

Oh, and here is an excellent article on why quantum mechanics could not have created the universe from nothing: [1]

No Origins: Has the Universe Always Existed?

If you have been willing to accept the logical conclusions drawn from scientific laws that I have elucidated in the previous section, yet don't want to believe in God, this choice might look appealing by now. If the universe has always existed, all the problems posed by those laws go away! However appealing it may be, though, it has even less promise of being correct. This view is not generally held to be scientific. Robert Jastrow (an evolutionist, btw) states it succinctly: "Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment." This is, I think, generally accepted. Such defenders of atheistic evolution as Stephen Hawking, for example, reject the idea of an eternal universe. But still, I will raise an argument against it.

Enter the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. The infamous law that atheists are so quick to say "doesn't apply to evolution". Well, does it? It doesn't tell us much about the primary viewpoint held to by atheists, but it does tell us about this second, less credible view.

The 2nd Law states that energy in a closed system inevitably becomes less usable. The argument I want to employ is simple: if the universe had always existed, then the energy would no longer be usable. Since it is not unusable, then the universe has not always existed.

Now, the common response is: the universe isn't a closed system. This assertion is a paradox, however. If the universe isn't a closed system, then there must be something outside of the universe. But atheists reject this view! According to atheists, the universe (everything physical) is all that exists. If the physical reality is not all that exists, then you have defeated yourself and ceded my point. This applies to the first law of thermodynamics as well.

So, either way, someone who argues against the 2nd law argument defeats their own argument. But enough kicking a dead horse. I'll go over this in more detail if any of my readers actually adhere to it.

Also, if you do have any problems with my argument, read this article: [2] and other articles on this website explaining why thermodynamics apply to the universe. In fact, I suggest reading that article even if you agree with me; it's quite good.

Intelligent Origins: Did Someone Create the Universe?

Those who accept the authority of scientific laws grounded in empirical evidence, and accept the authority of logic, will be forced to reject the above two options. Neither of them have a shred of scientific credibility, but are myths concocted to try and avoid the inevitable. But what is the inevitable? We only have one choice left when the two options above are eliminated. This choice is that someone created the universe. Why someone? Well, it is time to examine the Law of Biogenesis.

The law of Biogenesis states that all life must come from life. It is a scientific law, grounded in empirical evidence and proven by countless experiments. The Law of Biogenesis, and the complete lack of credibility held by abiogenesis are not only discussed in Creationist textbooks, but evolutionist ones. No credible scientist denies the findings of Pasteur, Spallanzani, and Redi, three men who disproved the theory of spontaneous generation (the idea that life can come from non-life).

Atheistic evolutionists may pretend that the law of biogenesis doesn't apply to the first living organisms, but that is wishful thinking, and has no basis in reality. Let us examine a syllogism on the matter:

All life is an effect of life (Law of Biogenesis)

All first life was life (True by logical structure)

Therefore, all first life was an effect of life

This is an AAA-1 syllogism. Once more, one of the 24 valid syllogisms. According to the dictates of logic and science then, the first living organism was an effect of life.

Atheists, naturally, have a hard time accepting this conclusion, despite the fact that it is proven by logic and science. It goes against their most strongly intrenched belief, that nothing beyond the universe exists, that there is only a physical reality.

But this is utterly false. According to logic and the laws of science, a non-physical reality does indeed exist. Because, nothing bound by the laws of physics could have been the cause of the first living organisms. Otherwise, it would have been the first life, and it would need a cause. But we must find someone outside of the laws of physics, someone to whom these laws do not apply. And that means someone who is not physical.

Now, I think my readers will be able to tell why it is someone and not something. Because whatever it is, has to be life, and thus someone.

Now we have established, via laws of science and logic, that a non-physical entity, the cause of the universe, the author of life, the creator of energy and matter, does indeed exist. We have established that there is indeed a creator. But even so, how do we know anything about this creator? How do we know who he is, or even if there is more than one? How do Christians know that this creator is the God of the Bible?

That, my friends, is a question for another blog. I will discuss it, and argue my case in one of the next blogs. So in the comments of this blog, let us keep it exclusively on the subjects I have mentioned.