There is absolutely NO contradiction whatsoever between religious faith and science

SciWriter said:
Jan, you must have neglected the information thus far, the gist of which was that Atlas cannot be standing upon smaller and smaller turtles all the way down.


Here is the Kalâm cosmological argument, noted by Stenger, which is drawn from Islamic theology. The argument is posed as a syllogism:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

So, is the first premise self-evident?

In fact, physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. When an atom emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus. Energetic particles come into and out of existence without cause. They are beyond the edge of the world of cause, that world being the classical world.

[There is uncertainty. The ‘certain’ is thus deader than a doornail.]

Instead of predicting individual events, quantum mechanics is used to predict the statistical distribution of outcomes of ensembles of similar events. But neither quantum mechanics nor any other existing theory can say anything about the behavior of an individual nucleus or atom. The photons emitted come into existence spontaneously, as do the particles emitted in nuclear radiation.

The kalâm argument fails both empirically and theoretically without ever having to bring up its second premise about the universe even having a beginning. All is as it would be if there were no God.

Every time we try to measure what an atom does, we get a different answer. [This then is the answer. That realm is causeless.]
Click to expand...

Wow how beautifully and simply put! :thumbsup: Scientists rule !
 
SciWriter said:
Jan, you must have neglected the information thus far, the gist of which was that Atlas cannot be standing upon smaller and smaller turtles all the way down.


Here is the Kalâm cosmological argument, noted by Stenger, which is drawn from Islamic theology. The argument is posed as a syllogism:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

So, is the first premise self-evident?

In fact, physical events at the atomic and subatomic level are observed to have no evident cause. When an atom emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus. Energetic particles come into and out of existence without cause. They are beyond the edge of the world of cause, that world being the classical world.

[There is uncertainty. The ‘certain’ is thus deader than a doornail.]

Instead of predicting individual events, quantum mechanics is used to predict the statistical distribution of outcomes of ensembles of similar events. But neither quantum mechanics nor any other existing theory can say anything about the behavior of an individual nucleus or atom. The photons emitted come into existence spontaneously, as do the particles emitted in nuclear radiation.

The kalâm argument fails both empirically and theoretically without ever having to bring up its second premise about the universe even having a beginning. All is as it would be if there were no God.

Every time we try to measure what an atom does, we get a different answer. [This then is the answer. That realm is causeless.]
Click to expand...
However, Logic tells me that things always happen for a reason; otherwise there is no reason for them to happen. Therefore they ought not to happen in so far as logic is concerned. This truth cannot change, and is absolutely true regardless of whether or not things appear to us as if to change without a cause. It is never reasonable to think that something can come out of nothing by its own. Unless, we refuse the law of non-contradiction... :shrug:

We cannot escape the fact that there must be such a thing as a timeless cause that explains its own being. If something changes, it is because something causes it to change. So, heres my argument.

1. Time, merely means that physical beings are in a state of change. This does not mean that all beings must be identified with change (if I'm correct, this is an example of the fallacy of composition). At most, it can only mean that there are beings that are in a state of change or becoming. Therefore to say that there is no "before" time, can only mean that there is no "change" before time. It does not mean that there is no "being" before time. Please note, that no one is saying that there is no such thing as a being that is not caused. One is only saying that anything which begins to change has been caused to change by previous conditions or actualities.

2. Before there can be any change at all, there has to be such a thing as "being". Therefore "being" transcends time and is the cause of it.

3. If we accept that there is no change before time, then whatever exists before time, must be timeless and pure actuality; as in, its very being is expression without potentiality. To put it another way, the First cause must be by its very nature a changeless "cause"; as in, it does not "become" a cause, rather it is a timeless cause in respect of its nature.

4. And as for the nature of that cause, such a being cannot be an inert physical object, since inert physical entities only change because something has caused them to change, regardless of whether it is a classical cause or something we know nothing about. The potentiality to change cannot come out of no-where, unless we choose to violate the law of non-contradiction.

5. Therefore, the first cause cannot be said to have a reasonable causal relationship with the universe, unless it has in its being a personal nature with an eternal will to create entities.

6. Also, such a being has to be perfect, since there can be no potentiality in a first cause. Therefore all things that are proper to the nature of a first cause, must already be actual and realized from all eternity, in so far it is the cause of all beginnings. Hence the saying that God is pure actuality.

Conclusion. It is not a matter of comprehending the nature of the first cause, but rather it is about understanding what it must be, regardless of how we may feel about it aesthetically speaking.
 
Mind Over Matter said:
However, Logic tells me that things always happen for a reason
Click to expand...
Please lay out that "logic" for discussion. I think that in this case you mean "experience"

Unless, we refuse the law of non-contradiction...
Click to expand...
Could you give me a link to this law please?

This truth cannot change
Click to expand...
What truth?

It is never reasonable to think that something can come out of nothing by its own.
Click to expand...
Why is this "reasonable"? Again because of daily experience from our limited perspective.

We cannot escape the fact that there must be such a thing as a timeless cause that explains its own being.
Click to expand...
This "fact" seems to be another assumption.

1. Time, merely means that physical beings are in a state of change.
Click to expand...
Does it?
Time, in physics, is considered to be a fundamental dimension, like length etc.

Therefore to say that there is no "before" time, can only mean that there is no "change" before time. It does not mean that there is no "being" before time.
Click to expand...
Excellent, let's follow this line of "logic":
God exists (because he just does, okay?). And he's a being.
The current situation is that there's no time. But that's okay too, because god is a being and beings can exist with or without time.
But, because there's no time there can be no change.
Therefore god can't do anything, because that would be change (which is not possible without time).
Poor bored god. Bored stiff, in fact.

2. Before there can be any change at all, there has to be such a thing as "being". Therefore "being" transcends time and is the cause of it.
Click to expand...
Oh, nice one.
No time = no change.
Therefore no being can come into existence to cause time.
Stuck.

Or: no time = no change but a being can cause time. Therefore there must have always been a being and therefore there must have always been time.
Fail.

3. If we accept that there is no change before time, then whatever exists before time, must be timeless and pure actuality; as in, its very being is expression without potentiality. To put it another way, the First cause must be by its very nature a changeless "cause"; as in, it does not "become" a cause, rather it is a timeless cause in respect of its nature.
Click to expand...
What?
Back to the previous one. A changeless cause (whatever that means) where there is no time (to allow change) will not alter. Therefore no time or anything else will arise.

4. And as for the nature of that cause, such a being cannot be an inert physical object, since inert physical entities only change because something has caused them to change, regardless of whether it is a classical cause or something we know nothing about. The potentiality to change cannot come out of no-where, unless we choose to violate the law of non-contradiction
Click to expand...
Yet, since there is no time and therefore no change is possible, it must be inert. No activity (change) can happen.

5. Therefore, the first cause cannot be said to have a reasonable causal relationship with the universe, unless it has in its being a personal nature with an eternal will to create entities.
Click to expand...
Are you getting the picture yet?

6. Also, such a being has to be perfect, since there can be no potentiality in a first cause. Therefore all things that are proper to the nature of a first cause, must already be actual and realized from all eternity, in so far it is the cause of all beginnings. Hence the saying that God is pure actuality.
Click to expand...
If something is perfect then it is also equally inert since any change to perfection would of necessity be a change away from perfection. Unless god is no longer perfect, of course.

Conclusion. It is not a matter of comprehending the nature of the first cause, but rather it is about understanding what it must be, regardless of how we may feel about it aesthetically speaking.
Click to expand...
What it MUST be. I like that.
And the "regardless of how we may feel about it" is a particularly nice touch.

How're you feeling now?
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Dywyddyr; your thoughts are my thoughts.

Reasons for happenings can't endlessly go on, MM, but if one wants a first cause then no-thing would be favored over the everything of a Being, which would also still be a system with thing parts.

Wonder how long it took for the Guy to invent time.

Many are cold but few are frozen. (Movement is natural, not stillness)
 
Dywyddyr said:
Oh, nice one.
No time = no change.
Therefore no being can come into existence to cause time.
Stuck.

Or: no time = no change but a being can cause time. Therefore there must have always been a being and therefore there must have always been time.
Fail.
Click to expand...
You cannot only link time to change as measurement parameter if you add absolute zero into the equation and theory. This would give us no movement and yet we would still have time.
 
Mind Over Matter said:
You cannot only link time to change as measurement parameter if you add absolute zero into the equation and theory.
Click to expand...
Pardon? Do you know what you're talking about because this to me is meaningless.
I suspect (strongly) that you're flailing wildly at having been shown to be wrong on the basis of your own "logic".

This would give us no movement and yet we would still have time.
Click to expand...
So what?
Time is possible with no change, sure. (Well, sort of. Possibly. Etc.). But change is not possible if there's no time.
You're arguing ass-backwards on this one.

Time is what enables change. Change does not "cause" time.
 
Mind Over Matter said:
It was God who created time and stands outside of time.
Click to expand...
Assumption.
But it's comforting to see you retreat back to bland assertions rather than mess about with your spurious "logic".
It makes your posts shorter for one thing.
 
SciWriter said:
The religious cannot answer without resorting to magic or wishes.
Click to expand...
Ok, please answer this without resorting to magic.. Can any event occur that has no cause? That things can happen magically/accidentally without cause? That micro events can flit in and out of existence based on zero history, nor initial conditions? If all events do in fact have causes, then does this require one to accept an objective reality? If we accept the well known response of: "the Universe makes a choice", does this not require an objective reality that is making the choice?
 
Dywyddyr said:
Why is this "reasonable"? Again because of daily experience from our limited perspective.
Click to expand...
It illustrates the lack of an explanation, and does not represent scientific comprehension.

And thus it seems science provides no insight with regard to the possibility of uncaused events.
 
Mind Over Matter said:
It illustrates the lack of an explanation, and does not represent scientific comprehension.
Click to expand...
Not quite.
You claimed "It is never reasonable to think that something can come out of nothing by its own", yet, if you'd bothered to read more extensively on this forum, it has been shown to be not only reasonable, but mathematical AND scientific. As in the link given, in this thread, to Stenger's work on how nothing may give rise to something.
Link provided AGAIN here. The links the OP are what you should be looking at.

And thus it seems science provides no insight with regard to the possibility of uncaused events.
Click to expand...
See above. Something arising from nothing is not exactly the same as "uncaused".
 
Dywyddyr said:
Not quite.
You claimed "It is never reasonable to think that something can come out of nothing by its own", yet, if you'd bothered to read more extensively on this forum, it has been shown to be not only reasonable, but mathematical AND scientific. As in the link given, in this thread, to Stenger's work on how nothing may give rise to something.
Link provided AGAIN here. The links the OP are what you should be looking at.


See above. Something arising from nothing is not exactly the same as "uncaused".
Click to expand...
Let me give you an example. Genetic error has a cause rooted in physical chemistry based on chemic affinity, reaction energy, chemic equilibrium and Brownian motion. These factors conspire to generate random variation at a regular rate. Biological processes that correct errors through use of biological information mitigate the errors so that only a few slip through. It would be incorrect to say that genetic errors have no cause.

The notion from litewave that having no cause is an intrinsic part of reality seems wrong as well. Cause and effect is the null hypothesis in our physical reality. I would be very interested in scientific demonstration of a real effect (an actual event with a beginning) that verifiably has no cause.
 
Why are you harping on about "no cause"?
Where does that question arise?
 
Mind Over Matter said:
Here:
Click to expand...
Okay. It's an assumption.
It's based on everyday experience. Of the universe as it is now.
If you look [again] at SciWriter's post #400 [which you have quoted, and therefore, presumably, read] there are examples in there which also may fall under your definition of "not caused".
But what you're applying the argument to is before the Big Bang. We already know that physics becomes increasingly ineffective the closer we get in time to that event, to the point of failure.
In other words, the "rules" then were not the same rules we have now.
Your claim is assuming that the same rules applied and we know that's not true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top