From: "Chris Ho-Stuart" <> Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,aus.religion > The study of logic is the study of the form of arguments, independent > of the application. > > Above you give a syllogism: > > Matter exists. > Therefore matter came from something. > > We can make a substitution and get the same argument in other ways. > > Light exists. > Therefore light came from something. > > God exists. > Therefore God came from something. > > If the argument with "matter" is valid; (valid being a technical > term here) then so also is the argument with "God". > > The the argument with "God" is not valid, then neither is the > argument with "matter". > > Perhaps there is an additional unstated premise here (and I think > there is). To make the argument complete you need to show all > premises. I cannot see how you can do this without effectively > assuming your conclusion. > > A good way to think of "logic" is that it is the disciplined > exploration of your starting assumptions. Logic does not give > new knowledge; it only draws out knowledge that was already > implicit in the starting assumptions. > > But let's get more concrete. In fact, in modern physics matter > does, often, come from nothing, and vanish into nothing as well. > Modern physics violates our normal assumptions in some quite > drastic ways. But this is not done by deductive logic; it is > a process of induction from empirical evidence. Scientists have > learned to question their most fundamental assumptions in trying > to make sense of this world. > > So personally, I do not accept as a basic rule of inference > that whatever exists must come from something. > > Another assumption we tend to make is that time is a kind of > backdrop to events; so that we can always relate events to > each other by considering which came first; or by wondering > what happened before an event. > > The first assumption -- that we can relate events to each other > simply by "before" and "after" -- was discarded early this century > with the development of special relativity; and the second assumption > (that all events have a "before") was discarded shortly after with > the development of general relativity. > > There is an almost unavoidable tendency for theists giving an > apologetics for God's existence to look to "creation" as something > in the past. Sure, science can explain various processes; but there > has to be something "before" and -- voila -- that is God. > > This is just the the God of the gaps, and the direction > modern physics is taking suggests that this gap may close. It > violates our assumptions, but in fact time may have a beginning, > and it is not the case that we can speak of "before" in all cases. > The conventional Big Bang cosmology has a singularity which is an > origin for spacetime; there is no such thing as "before" the "Big > Bang". Neither can be be confident of calling the singularity an > "event" or consider its "cause". In fact; "singularity" is a term > from mathematics, and it is roughly what you get when you divide > by zero. The singularity is a singularity in the relativistic > equations for spacetime; not a definite event. In fact, what it > really means is that classical physics breaks down and is not > able to describe the events and processes in the very early universe. > > But the "God of the Gaps" advocates can draw little comfort from > the quantum physics which seeks to address those cases. In these > states, time and space and causality and events are radically > different from what intuition would suggest; it is certainly not a > case that time keeps going back as far as you like but a new physics > is needed past a certain point. > > The famous physicist Stephen Hawking is active in considering possible > models for the early universe, and also in trying to explain it in > terms which may help make sense for non-experts. He considers that > approaching the singularity is like travelling north. As you approch > the north pole (singularity) the concept of "going north" becomes > harder and harder to identify. At the pole itself, there is no > one singularity; just a smooth rounded space where north no longer > means what it does in other latitudes. So also with time and the > origins of the universe. > > To consider God again; I think theists are doomed to dissappointment > if they associated God with a beginning in time. Science has all kinds > of unanswered questions; but to stake out a position for God at the > origin in time of the universe is to commit Him to territory that may > turn out not to be there. > > Curiously, the great theological St Augistine anticipated this > circumstance right back in the fifth century, in reflecting on > what God may have done before making the universe. Augustine, in his > "Confessions" affirmed that time is also created by God; and thus > it make no sense to locate God's creative acts in time. God does > not live in the universe as we do (according to Augustine) with > past and future. God exists in an "eternal now". > > Science does indeed present a dilemma for Christians. It has taken > over much that was previously the exclusive domain of the church > to expound. > > In reconciling faith with what we learn of the universe, theists > need to deal with what we see now. It is futile, in a number of > ways, to locate creation in the past. Perhaps it may satisfy some > believers; but it will have little impact on the progress of > cosmology which deals with time and space and events and causes > in ways that play havoc with the simple models that try to map out > a little gap for God some 13.7 billion years ago. ~~~ In big > bang cosmology, there is a point where "matter" forms; prior > to that the energy of the universe was bound up in other more > exotic forms. > > The notion of a "superhot particple" is incorrect, and has nothing > to do with the Big Bang model; and certainly is not corresponding > to the descriptions from the page you cite (which is quite good, > but non-technical; from the cosmology group at the Uni of Cambridge). > > Cheers -- Chris