Friday, July 12, 2013

God of Abraham and the gods-of-the-gap (Part II)

We must start from the beginning. 

No matter what kind of scientific argument used to debunk the non-eternal universe From the cosmic egg to the infinite multiverse [ Grossman,L., Death of the eternal cosmos, New Scientist 213(2847):6-7,14 January 2012] the truth remain “All evidence we have says that the univese had a beginning” [ Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin, Tufts University, Boston(USA), January 2012.] The universe is indeed had a beginning.

When the Non-eternal Cosmos known as Big Bang first proposed by a Catholic Priest named Fr. Lemaitre (in 1927 though it took four years(1931) before the public notice it); scientific communities awarded it with skepticism: Lemaitre’s notion unpleasant says astrophysicist Sir Arthur Eddington (a man no other than his professor). For them, it is irrational to imagine that it took millions of year to pass before the universe came into existence; 

But a pious priest explained:

If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions of space and time would altogether fail to have any meaning at the beginning; they would only begin to have a sensible meaning when the original quantum had been divided into a sufficient number of quanta. ['The Beginning of the World from the Point of View of Quantum Theory', Nature (1931), 127, 706.]

These are not palatable to all, seeing the proposal a clear religious plot based on biblical book of Genesis masquerades as Physical Science. Hanne Alfven considered the Big Bang to be a scientific myth devised to explain creation:

"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory [Big Bang]. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing. 

He boldly and surely proclaimed that

"There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."[Hannes Alfvén Quoted in Anthony L. Peratt, 'Dean of the Plasma Dissidents', Washington Times, supplement: The World and I (May 1988),196] taken from website:

Fr. Lemaitre’s cosmological argument [Big Bang] pointing out that the universe had a definite beginning wherein no time and space exists, in which all were concentrated at one point. Not so long, modern scientific findings says it is true when in winter of 1998 a two of astronomers in Berkeley, California, made a similar, startling discovery. They were both observing supernovae – exploding stars visible over great distances – to see how fast the universe is expanding. In accordance with prevailing scientific wisdom, the astronomers expected to find the rate of expansion to be decreasing, Instead they found it to be increasing – a discovery which has since "shaken astronomy to its core" (Astronomy, October 1999).[Midbon, Mark. "'A Day Without Yesterday': Georges Lemaitre & the Big Bang." Commonweal (March 24, 2000): 18-19.]

From Big Bang and beyond, physical science can explain how material/empirical stuff works, some are not yet and waiting for full explanation. BUT prior to Big Bang, a day without yesterday, natural physical science loss its potency – a Metaphysical realm where no material laws bounded by time and space are applicable.

The Uncaused-cause – the unmoved-mover

We have an idea that prior to Big Bang, no physical measurable empirical thing exist; not an empty space but a true nothingness – an absolute negation of material existence. So it is wrong to say that ‘we don’t know’, we know it. 

By following this line, we know the fact that there is no ‘gap’ rather, it is a ‘boundary’ between the complete absence of existence (of natural, empirical, finite, physical measurable matter) and the existence of it.

From the beginning, also the beginning of all Physical laws; whatever begin to exist have an adequate antecedent cause (known as Law of Causality); our universe begin to exist, so there must be an antecedent cause. What cause it? We know the fact that there is no physical matter can compete with, in short, Natural physical science has no explanation to offer with, because it can’t! Science can claim theoretical knowledge in so far as a thing is ‘physical’ and is ‘measurable’, therefore, suffice to say that there is one contender left and a simple common sense is needed to believe that this antecedent cause (using reason and logic itself) says it is a ‘Supernatural’ cause (supersedes Natural physical limitation), a metaphysical immeasurable infinite non-matter.

But it never stops there, we know from Physical law that the time is not separate from and independent of space (thanks to Albert Einstein), our antecedent cause exist before the time, space and physical law itself begin to exist, (again, by reason and logic itself says) it has no beginning therefore no need a cause to begin its existence, rightly to say it is not bounded by Law of Causality or any Physical Law we could imagine of – thus it is Uncaused-cause (Ipsum Esse, an existence of itself).

This Physical Law that speaks of Law of Causality also says, From nothing, nothing comes; our material physical universe exist – therefore the uncaused-cause (the supernatural metaphysical eternal immeasurable infinite non-matter) create it out of nothing – thus so powerful (creatio ex nihilo).

Someone or Something?

We know from Physical world we live in, the ‘Laws’ that govern our society are the result and reflection of ‘mind/s’; Physical Law exist (eg. Law of Causality) therefore this ‘Supernatural metaphysical immaterial uncaused-cause is a “Thinking Being”.

Can Human mind compete as a source or these laws are a mere product of human mind? 

These Laws pre-exist mankind, even if we go all the way up where no human exist, the Law of Causality for example still exist, you cannot say that during the time when no human exist, a red apple fruit can bring itself into existence without any antecedent cause. These Physical Laws were discovered thru observation by humans and not created by humans.

But these Laws refers to the physical nature of things that do exist and absolutely contingent on physical material existence, a descriptive statements about the nature of the reality we observe, therefore, if the universe did not exist, the Physical Laws would have nothing to apply to. These are simply a fundamental property of material existence?

If you think it is irrational to make a no purpose law, intended to nothing for nothing, so with the statement. Of course these particular Physical Laws are made and intended for a particular purpose for a particular material things. There is no Law of Causality if nothing begin to exist because the law has nothing to apply to; it is a matter of question like why this particular reality that we observe with, behave as such and not the other way around? Why there are some set of particular standard that they cannot go beyond? Why this material existence entails a fundamental properties that can’t be apart from its existence? The uncaused-cause ‘thinking being’ is rational, he made a ‘laws’ because there is ‘something’ that can be apply with. 
Clearly, God is a greatest being one can think of.

What is the difference of your God to my invisible pet Dragon?

This originated from Russell’s Teapot or the latest version called Flying Spaghetti Monster used to satirize theistic beliefs.

The premise of this argument is that If a claim is not empirically provable, then it is same category as fictionalized or a deliberately imaginary made up. Question: Do they consider Human Equality as fiction? Going back, common sense dictates that this is a complete Strawgod Argument because it falsely redefines the opposing position he doesn’t believe in by making up something that is more easily attackable using false comparison and distorted version. This would be like a person who doesn’t believe in a blue SUV as a good car, instead of attacking the car, he gets a blueberry and describe it with worse description he could imagine. The point? The blue SUV car and the blueberry are the same thing because they’re both blue. [Attacking a distorted version of opposing position does not constitute an attack on the position itself]

This also means a mere play on words, knowing the one who uses this argument don’t believe in pet dragon, they insist it as a valid comparison. Let see if this really has a ground to stand.

St. Anselm used the so called ontological argument whereas:

 1.    Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.
 2.    The idea of God exists in the mind.
 3.    A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in  the mind.
 4.    If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being—that which exists in reality.
 5.    We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
 6.    Therefore, God exists.

His pet Dragon is not a greater being that can be conceived of, it could be killed by an invincible Slaying Dragon Knight using a double edge sword made of diamond. (but this slaying dragon knight is also not a greater being that can be conceived of, it could also be killed by another greater being and so on; making an infinite regress of someone greater being that can be conceived of; so in the end, we end up of a being which no greater can be conceived - no other than the God). Now his invisible pet dragon is dead. But if he insists that his Dragon pet has same attribute to my God, a being than which no greater can be conceived? Gladly to say that he was talking about God and mistakenly call him a ‘pet Dragon’ because only God has that definition: God is a being than which no greater can be conceived – a being which exists both in the mind and in reality (the Uncaused-cause whose being is an existence of its own and can create great material physical universe out of nothing). His pet Dragon did not exist but my God exist both in mind and in reality and he supported it.

image credit goes to :


  1. what makes the different of eternal cosmos to a cosmos with beginning?

  2. Well, an eternal, infinite cosmos (universe), has no beginning thus no need for cause to exist and renders the concept of god irrelevant and useless.

    The infinite, eternal universe does not require god (cause to begin) because it is already there.


Comments submitted must be civil, remain on-topic and not violate any laws. We reserve the right to delete any comments which are abusive, inappropriate or not constructive to the discussion.
Though we invite robust discussion, we reserve the right to not publish any comment which denigrates the human person.
This is a supervised forum and the Admin of CatholicPoint retains the right to direct it.
We also reserve the right to block any commenter for repeated violations

You May Like also:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...