This post is my submission for the "Faith" edition of the 
Blog Carnival.
Many atheists reveal that their main obstacle to belief is their revulsion to the concept of faith. Not a revulsion to reasonable, everyday faith (like sitting in a chair and believing it will hold you up), but specifically to faith in an unseen, intelligent creator of the universe.
It's an understandable objection. I'm disgusted with the beliefs of many people in my own church on the subject. Very few who claim to be Christians have any interest in subjecting their beliefs to scrutiny of any kind, and some end up elevating faith to a form of deity all its own. Faith then becomes a force we can utilize to shape our own destinies. Many evangelists (especially the TV kind) would lead you to believe that if you would only have enough faith and "speak positive words into your life" then nothing bad would ever happen to you.
Of course, this philosophy cannot stand up under even the slightest actual examination of Jewish or Christian scripture, but that's of no concern to "Word of Faith" followers. It's the religious equivalent of a get rich quick scheme. "Don't bore me with doctrine. I'm only interested in what makes me feel good about myself. And if I get results, what I believe must be correct."
So this oft held pseudo-Christian concept of faith has admittedly earned much of the distain Christianity as a whole receives from atheists. However, a philosophy cannot logically be judged by the actions and beliefs of those who claim to follow it.
I believe that the faith the Bible calls Christians to have is one based in sound reason, not in unquestioning acceptance.
The more science discovers in the pursuit of truth, the more convincing the evidence for a God becomes. In the past century we've gone from believing that the universe has eternally existed to all but proving that the universe had a definite beginning. Of course, if a creator does exist then this is exactly what one would expect to discover.
Science must deal with what is measurable and observable. This logically includes anything within our universe, and at the same time excludes anything that might exist outside of it. Therefore, any theory about what might exist beyond our scope of observation is pure speculation with no hope of ever being proven through research.
The consequence of this fact is obvious: All theories about what caused the Big Bang that began our universe -- whether it is a god, an extra-dimensional infinite universe generator, a Big Crunch, or even a spaghetti monster -- are inescapably unscientific. Ironically, this unanswerable question is the most profoundly important question in science. In fact, the pursuit of this question looms as the very foundation of science itself.
So how can we approach it? To hold any convictions about the origin of the universe requires faith in that which is unseen and unmeasurable. Since that is the case, only logic -- not evidence -- can guide us to a feasible conclusion.
We know that our universe cannot have always existed. Not only could the cosmos not have passed through an infinite number of moments to reach any specific point in time (i.e. "now"), but the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the universe would have dispersed all of its energy an eternity ago. Our universe would be cold, dark, and lifeless.
If we say that the Big Bang was preceded by a Big Crunch, that merely begs the question. It's as pointless as theorizing that life on Earth was created by aliens. You are then forced to ask, "Who created the aliens?" A universal cycle of expansion and contraction cannot have been occurring for an infinite length of time for the same reasons I stated in the last paragraph, so we must also rule out this "oscillatory universe" theory.
How about some sort of extra-dimensional "universe generator", churning out an infinite number of possible universes that exist parallel to each other? Okay. I have no problem with that idea. But where did it come from? What created the "universe creator" with such a purpose? Might there just as easily be a "'Universe creator' creator"?
Hopefully you're beginning to see the problem. No matter what natural explanation we invent to explain the origin of the universe, the need for a cause behind the cause always arises. Why?
Here are two things that we know to be true logically:
1) Every event ever observed has had a cause.
2) Every decision originates in a mind.
The universe as we know it is the product of a chain of causes. At the beginning of this chain sits an explosion that resulted in the existence of everything we know -- matter, energy, even time itself. By necessity this explosion had to be caused by something, and as I have already demonstrated, it is not logical to assume that this cause was something else of which the same question must be asked. So an uncaused cause must exist at the root of all things. And the only logical uncaused cause must be capable of making the decision to create our universe at a specific, measurable point in time. Therefore, the only logical uncaused cause must be a transcendent intelligence.
If you just experienced a negative knee-jerk reaction to that statement, I urge you to ask yourself why. Is your objection like Einstein's initial objection to the Big Bang; that it sounds too much like the God of Christianity being forced into the realm of science? By no means should we appeal to the miraculous in order to explain away causes we have not yet discovered in our universe, but we are not speaking of a gap in understanding. We are speaking of the event that created understanding, time, physicality, and ultimately our capacity for pondering these things in the first place.
So ask yourself, "Which faith is more reasonable?": Faith that our amazing universe -- full of staggering complexity built upon profound simplicity, with life arising and thriving seemingly in defiance of every natural law -- has a purpose, and that the need for an uncaused cause is inescapable, or faith that the existence of our universe is pure happenstance, a cosmic accident; that every beautiful thing we observe that leaves us awe-stricken is without meaning or value, and that defying all logic and reason our universe burst into existence with no cause whatsoever?
Barring empirical evidence to support either faith, I have to go with the faith that logic leads me to hold.
I thank God that he made the choice so obvious.
"Faith that our amazing universe -- full of staggering complexity built upon profound simplicity, with life arising and thriving seemingly in defiance of every natural law -- has a purpose..."
"Purpose" is a monkey word. If all humans ceased to exist, the word purpose would have no meaning in the universe. Theists tend to forget that they themselves are the result of the universe unfolding over time. All life is a result of this order-out-of-disorder.
Some assumptions I detect:
1. If the universe had a beginning, it must have had a creator.
2. If there is a creator, it must be god.
3. If there is a god, it must be the god I believe in, and not one of the thousands of other gods humans have believed in over the centuries.
Take these assumptions out of the post and it would almost be worth considering. Actually, it wouldn't, because then there would be nothing left.
I really do try to read this stuff, but the misunderstanding of science, reality, and the universe irks me. It offers me nothing but assumptions and poorly-reached conclusions.
Posted by: Mookie | February 16, 2006 at 10:41 AM
Mookie: You think if I took the God of Christianity out of my post there would be nothing left? That's a strange thing to say, because He's not even part of my argument.
I make it clear in my post that the intelligent creator could be anything capable of making a decision and existing outside of our universe. Why I believe that the god of Christianity is the one true god as opposed to super-intelligent extra-dimensional squid monsters or something else is not taken into account. I have merely attempted to explain why it is logical to believe that our universe was created. Nothing more.
It seems that your allegiance to your own opinion is causing you to color my blog entry in a way that was never intended.
Posted by: SuperPope | February 16, 2006 at 10:58 AM
"I thank >>God<< that he made the choice so obvious."
And your name is SuperPope. I think my point stands.
Posted by: Mookie | February 16, 2006 at 11:34 AM
That line merely hints at the conclusion I have arrived at personally, not the conclusion you should arrive at based on my argument. Did you only read the last line of my post?
Your statement about my handle being SuperPope is ad hominem...and your assessment of the name is probably inaccurate. I am not Catholic. SuperPope is a cartoon character I made up. You can watch the animation here: http://www.planetnintendo.com/superpope/spep1.html
Posted by: SuperPope | February 16, 2006 at 11:40 AM
SuperPope said:
"Can you name one idea that did not originate in a mind?
Can you name one inanimate object that has ever made a choice?"
No, I do not know of any ideas or choices that have not originated in a mind. However, I also do not know of any ideas not originating in a physical brain.
Both of these questions seem to be straw-men arguements since my theory does not require ideas existing without minds and I also already argued against your reasoning that the uncaused cause would have to make a choice. You have yet to answer that arguement.
Posted by: stupid anonymous | February 16, 2006 at 02:42 PM
Thanks for the thoughts Dave. I haven't thought about the universe, it's creation, and God's part in the creation in what seems like an eternity. I have problems with your argument but I also have a theory to propose though this being your blog, I'll keep my theorizing to myself.
Problems:
1. Every event ever observed has a cause. - This cannot apply to the creation of the universe because I nor you have observed the creation of the universe. You cannot use the argument as a basis for the argument.
2. Every decision originates in a mind.
This statement doesn't define a decision or a mind. Is a computer a mind? Is a solar system a mind? How do we make decisions? Are they based upon our past experiences and prejudices; the alignment of our neurons? I could make the case for our decisions being no more made than they are ordained by the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology.
I do not disagree with you Dave. I do believe in a cause, but neither of your "logical" statements are a solid foundation for your argument.
Posted by: fridayzluck | February 16, 2006 at 08:53 PM
Stupid Anonymous: I did respond to your theory. Your inanimate universe generator is not on equal footing with a creative consciousness. Go back and read my response again if you missed it. Please don't just keep reiterating your opinion. I don't want to keep responding with the same refutation.
The bottom line is this: Without choice, nothing new can occur. Without cause, there can be no effect.
Fridayzluck: How many years has it been since I've heard from you? Anyway, nice to have you commenting.
You're taking issue with my choice of words, actually. Whether or not we observed the event is irrelevant. Causality is a natural law. Since the Big Bang was the first event to take place in our universe, I see no logical justification for exempting it from the same need for a cause that must be applied to everything else.
Also, why or how an intelligence makes a decision is irrelevant to my point. You're changing the subject. If God chose to create the universe because he had a weird dream after eating a bad chili dog, what do I care? The point is that the decision was made, otherwise you and I wouldn't be here to discuss it.
BY THE WAY: I don't want people getting the idea that they're arguing with an idea that an average guy like me made up. This post is just my own rendition of the "Kalam Cosmological Argument" and why I think it makes so much sense.
Posted by: SuperPope | February 17, 2006 at 12:30 AM
I stumbled upon your blog and found the tone of your writing sufficiently different from the usual dribble of religious apologists to assume that you actually have a desire to find "the truth", what ever it is, instead of just reiterating age old lies in support of some sinister powermongering. Assuming that being the case, I've a few point to address in your post.
"Since that is the case, only logic -- not evidence -- can guide us to a feasible conclusion."
Two questions: What is evidence? What is logic? Answering the former using dictionary.com: "A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment." Logic is usually understood synonymous to reasoning. The conclusion is that logical proof is evidence. (If this appears nitpicking, I assure you it is not. These are profound questions worth pondering for any "truthseeker". I.e. what is knowledge?)
"so we must also rule out this "oscillatory universe" theory." (by II law of thermodynamics) The Big Bang (if it happened) is a special or a boundary case, and necessarily warrants different considerations than any ordinary event in the universe. Perhaps observed statistical "laws" (such as the II law of thermodynamics) do not apply?
"1) Every event ever observed has had a cause.
2) Every decision originates in a mind."
1) Really? That would be assuming that these causes have always been investigated. Doubtful. (Note: I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong.)
2) The device (a computer), that I'm writing this on, is making millions of decisions all the time, while I'm typing. I wouldn't say that my PC has a mind.
"And the only logical uncaused cause must be capable of making the decision to create our universe at a specific, measurable point in time."
Why a specific point in time? Wouldn't any point do? In fact, I believe you mentioned that time may not exist outside our universe.
"Barring empirical evidence to support either faith, I have to go with the faith that logic leads me to hold."
The torturous logic that you used to get to this conclusion suggest that you have a lot more blind faith in you than you give yourself credit to.
Posted by: TheSnake | February 17, 2006 at 06:32 AM
I suppose by your definition, then, I am using "logic" to refer to evidence that is not empirical; that cannot be collected or tested in any tangible sense.
So you are saying that somehow the Big Crunch recreates precisely all of the energy that the universe ever had (as it must, because even a slight loss of energy would have caused an eternally oscillating universe to become a Big Fizzle an eternity ago)? This is an unprovable assertion. You are essentially saying that the laws of Thermodynamics apply to everything in our universe except for the moment in which it began. At that point, you appear to believe we must say that something supernatural occurred that we cannot ever hope to understand, because if that is not the case then we would have to allow for the necessity of a creator.
That fallacy is known as an "appeal to mystery": Something that Christians are often accused of doing.
Your analogy of the computer is flawed, in that the computer was created by men to have the capacity to make calculations. Also, it is incapable of making "decisions" that it has not been programmed to perform by a person with a mind, or without your direct input. You can stick with that analogy if you want, but it supports my conclusions, not yours.
From our point of view, the Big Bang occurred at a "specific point in time" in that we are a measurable number of years past its occurance. This is all I was saying.
My "torturous logic" is based entirely on what is known or can be known. Yours is based on groundless conjecture about how the laws that govern reality might be different beyond our scope of vision. That is why I say my belief is the most reasonable and requires the least amount of faith.
Posted by: SuperPope | February 17, 2006 at 10:42 AM
(Let me Cliff Claven for a moment)
Actually Normie the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would be negated by the collapse of space.
The entropy effect is because of a loss of usable energy (otherwise it would contradict the first law of therm). The energy still exists as radiant heat, but with space collapsed in on itself, the heat would be regained by the particles that would eventually recombine into the singularity. But - the universe is accelerating not slowing down, so the liklihood of a Big Crunch is slim.
Posted by: fridayzluck | February 17, 2006 at 12:31 PM
Superpope, from my POV you are the one who keeps repeating your point. You keep saying that choice is necessary, but I already gave an explanation that did not need to involve choice. Your refutation so far has consisted of repeating that "without choice, nothing new can occur" and bringing up the issue of time, which I responded to by saying that time does not necessarily have meaning outside our universe and that having something happen at a certain time does not necessarily involve choice (like a timer). Maybe I missed a refutation by thinking you were responding to someone else? It might help our discussion if you used quotes.
Isn't all conjecture about what happens outside our universe groundless conjecture?
Posted by: stupid anonymous | February 17, 2006 at 12:56 PM
I enjoyed reading your reply. I'd like to clarify a few points though. I hope my post isn't going to be too long.
"... I am using "logic" to refer to evidence that is not empirical ..."
Fair enough. But is logic not empirical aswell? I mean, how do we know if the logic we use is sound, if not by applying it and seeing if it works?
"So you are saying that somehow the Big Crunch recreates precisely all of the energy that the universe ever had? ... This is an unprovable assertion."
Well, if the whole universe collapses, the new universe will have all of the energy, due to conservation of energy (which trumps the second laws, since the second law is a statistical law). As to unprovability, the same should be equally true (or false) of the second law applying to the succession of universes. This leads us to the "groundless conjecture about how the laws that govern reality might be different beyond our scope of vision." Is this really groundless? Let's not forget that people throughout history have learned that how they think the universe works doesn't always apply to previously unobserved phenomena. Relatively recent such discoveries that come immediately to mind are the discoveries of the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.
"... the Big Bang occurred at a "specific point in time" in that we are a measurable number of years past its occurance."
Why does that involve a decision?
"Your analogy of the computer is flawed" My intention with that analogy was to point out that it doesn't take that complicated mechanisms to make decisions. Similar decision making occurs, among other things, in simple bacteria, or e.g. light sensitive slime molds. (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8718)
Posted by: TheSnake | February 17, 2006 at 01:12 PM
Going back to your original rebuttal, since you keep reffering to it:
"the uncaused cause of the universe must be capable of making a decision, For example, the singularity which contained all matter that now exists could not have sat inert for any length of time and then exploded. If it were ever going to explode, it would have to explode the instant it existed. This is basic science. Objects at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by an outside force."
First of all universal laws do not necessarily apply to something extrauniversal. Secondly, even if they did apply here, if my theoretical universe generator created a new universe at every moment of its existence then it wouldn't matter that it existed forever because it would eventually create our universe.
Posted by: stupid anonymous | February 17, 2006 at 01:23 PM
Fridayzluck and TheSnake: You guys are absolutely right about the Big Crunch. I don't know what I was thinking. I guess it's because I had already dismissed the oscillatory universe theory years ago based on obvious criteria, such as the impossiblity of an infinite loop going backwards in time and -- as Fridayzluck mentioned -- the apparent accelleration of our universe's expansion.
Stupid Anonymous: you haven't given an explanation that did not need to involve choice. Here's a paraphrase of our conversation:
---
You:"There could be a thing like a timer that could create our universe without making a choice.
Me:"No, somebody would have to make a choice to create the timer, so that doesn't answer the question."
You:"But a timer wouldn't have to make a choice, so there doesn't have to be a choice."
Me:"I already said that didn't work."
You:"You didn't answer my question."
Me:"Yes, I did."
You:"No, you didn't."
---
"Isn't all conjecture about what happens outside our universe groundless conjecture?"
Yes. I said that in my original post. That's why I based my argument on what we DO know about the universe. You took the oposite stance and offered as evidence...well, nothing, actually.
TheSnake: "Is this really groundless?" I say "yes", because what occurs outside our universe cannot be known. There is just no point in excusing our scientific difficulties by appealing to the possibility that inherently unknowable variables might solve our problem. That can never be a proof. That is why you and I both must have faith in whatever we believe about the origin of our universe.
"Why does that involve a decision?" Because a beginning inherently points toward a beginner. When you start showing definite beginnings to things you realize that the chain has to end somewhere. Logically the thing it ends with has to be eternal, must transcend physical laws and be capable of causing all of the matter and energy in the known universe to explode from a single pinpoint. That's why most of the scientific community hated and made fun of the Big Bang theory when it was initially proposed. An infinite universe -- although illogical -- freed us from the need to explain how the universe came into existence. If the universe has a beginning, then logic tells us that a cause is inescapable. Hence science's difficult struggle to find that cause and all of the absurdly random theories that have arisen in an attempt to explain it apart from an intelligent creator.
Posted by: SuperPope | February 17, 2006 at 03:49 PM
TheSnake: Sorry, forgot to respond to the last part of your comment.
You would rather believe in an eternal, transcendent bacteria than in an intelligent creator? Is that because it would make you greater than your god? ;)
Posted by: SuperPope | February 17, 2006 at 03:54 PM
Ok, I think I understand the problem better now. You're asking what in my theory created the thing that created the universe?
If that is indeed your question about my explanation, then I agree that that is a good question. But the same question can be asked of your God. I suspect that both questions would have the same answer.
Like you said in your article "an uncaused cause must exist at the root of all things". But then you seemingly contradict this statement by demanding a cause for every possible first cause that I make up.
Your God is a certain way, correct? Why is it that way as opposed to any other way? Why did it create the universe this way and not any other way? Are this God's characteristics all just random chance?
I don't see why you want evidence from me. I'm not trying to show that my explanation is true, just that it is possible; as possible as your theistic explanation.
BTW, I found a problem with the timer analogy so I'm just going to call my first cause the universal generator from now on.
Posted by: stupid anonymous | February 17, 2006 at 04:45 PM
Oh, and about the bacteria thing: you asked earlier why someone would believe in something unnecessary. I agree that that is silly/wrong/whatever. So why believe in a complex, concious God if a simple "bacteria" is all that is required by your criteria for first cause of the universe?
Posted by: stupid anonymous | February 17, 2006 at 04:52 PM
Two considerations:
1) The 2LoT came about as a result of this universe's physics. There is no logical reason to extrapolate it to the singularity, and especially through the singularity to the other side if an endless cycle of crunch-bang is true (as I think it is). If supersymmetry holds, then string theory will give us (one day) more than logic or mathematics or theoretical inference to substantiate this, but real evidence
you also must consider that cause-effect breaks down at the quantum level to quantum indeterminacy. if our universe expanded (it didn't come from nothing) from a singularity which encapsulated the characteristics of quantum dynamics, we have no reason to think in terms of "this caused this which caused this which". time itself is relative to the observer, and within this singularity no time is passing as it moves through these quantum states, and thus no one "causes" the other. it is only upon expansion that time begins.
2) God existed (supposedly) in an infinite eternal nothingness, without the passage of time. Time itself was created (ditto) not "at a point in time" but out of nothingness. The age of our universe does not depend on when (in god's eternal bliss) time itself came into being, only how much time has passed since that point. The arguments against god's causes are unfalsifiable, since god is unfalsifiable, but we really must examine them anyway, for the sake of sound thinking: what could make an all-powerful, content, peaceful god decide to bring about a universe? Some aspect of god's existence pre-universe was made "better" by it?
Posted by: Thinking Freely | February 18, 2006 at 04:37 AM
Two things:
1. Regarding causality: Spontaneous nuclear reactions?
2. '"Is this really groundless?" I say "yes", because what occurs outside our universe cannot be known.'
That's exactly my point. We don't know, so we can't assume that observed laws apply. That's why I don't hold any beliefs regarding the origin of the universe.
Posted by: TheSnake | February 18, 2006 at 10:34 AM
The dreaded cyclic universe theory raised from the dead. I actually prefer this theory because of it's symmetry and it's historical precedent. Think of all the mythology that suggests a cyclic universe. The Norse Worm/Dragon eating itself being the most prominent. Very good stuff.
Posted by: Jeremy | May 08, 2006 at 09:26 PM
It is just begging the question to assume that God had us in mind when natural selection just acted on what was at hand to produce us.We are our own purposes. We discern naturally what is good or bad for us, other animals and the enviornment without recourse to a divine source for morality.Actually, the inverse is true of theists who actually when they use reason and real facts and not the whims of those men of yore do morality, they follow our sense of morality,not theirs.Evolution implanted in us the moral sense, not God as Paul alleged. We naturalists just do what all do in the rest of their lives when they depend on facts and reason. We do it in regards to the supernatural and the paranormal- the transcendent.
Posted by: morgan-lynn lamberth | May 10, 2007 at 10:19 AM
"..natural selection just acted on what was at hand to produce us."
"Evolution implanted in us the moral sense..."
Blind natural processes aren't capable of "acting on" things or "implanting" things. You're personifying the intangible. You're giving meaning to what you believe is random. It just doesn't work.
It seems rational to say that we "discern naturally what is good or bad for us", but unfortunately the argument just doesn't hold water. If there is no God then there is no right or wrong, only what happens to be annoying to you at any given moment. So by your way of thinking, while you might not like the idea of rape, you could hardly blame someone who was a rapist. They would only be acting out what they were genetically/environmentally programmed to do. Without an objective moral law, no one can rationally condemn another person's behavior, no matter how disgusting we may find it to be.
Posted by: SuperPope | May 10, 2007 at 10:17 PM