Evolutionists have a very short list of possible replies to what is, by any standard, a very reasonable question. Their replies can usually be assigned one of four categories: 1) They will try to divorce the question of origins from the entire rest of science, 2) they will apply divine-like qualities to matter by saying it is eternal, 3) they will resort to a pseudo-philosophical “uncaused” origin of matter, or 4) they will admit they know of no natural explanation but will still not consider the possibility of a supernatural explanation. None of these options are very scientific.
The question, “where did matter come from?” is more profound than some people might realize at first hearing. Without the Big Bang, there is no “where” from which matter can come. Neither is there a “where” to which matter can come because there was not even space. Neither was there a before the Big Bang because there was not even time. There was nothing. No space. No time. No matter. Literally nothing! Then, suddenly, there was everything. All the matter/energy that would ever exist suddenly appeared. Even space and time just appeared. Out of nothing, instantly there was everything. Poof!
Of course, I've heard some people invoke “exotic” theories like quantum mechanics and other principles of physics in an attempt to explain the non-origin of everything but that just begs the question. Where did physics come from? One cannot invoke any natural law to explain the origin of the universe without first presupposing the “uncaused” existence of natural laws. If natural laws – like gravity – exist, then they too must have poofed into existence with the rest of the universe.
I think we should change the name of the Big Bang to the Big Poof!
Poof! Time began!
Poof! There was space!
Poof! There was matter!
Poof! There was energy!
Poof! The matter began to expand!
Poof! Chemicals became alive!
There was no cause. There was no purpose. There was no god. These things just happened all by themselves.
Sometimes, evolutionists ridicule creation by calling it, “magic.” It's a rather blatant attempt to make creationism sound unappealing by describing it with loaded words. I usually try to avoid using such a lazy argument myself but, in this case, I'm not sure how else to describe it. People who deny a supernatural origin of the universe are believers in poofism.
1) They will try to divorce the question of origins from the entire rest of science, ...
ReplyDeleteThis is not particularly different from your option [4] below; it is a statement that there are questions we can investigate and others that, at least at this time, yield no testable hypotheses.
There is another point. A history of the American Civil War does not require a detailed explanation of why English-speaking peoples came to settle North America, much less a detailed explanation of why there is a North America. The truth of a proposition about the Emancipation Proclamation does not require a dissertation on the English Civil War a couple of centuries earlier. By the same token, evidence of, and explanations for, billions of years of evolution does not require a detailed explanation of where matter came from: you can't make one area of science go away by pointing out unanswered questions on a different subject.
2) they will apply divine-like qualities to matter by saying it is eternal,
I assume that this applies to, e.g. cyclic universes, ekpyrotic cosmologies, and the idea that space-time existed before the universe and spawns universes through quantum instabilities, as well as more or less steady-state cosmologies (which are out of fashion). It seems to me that the assumption that something is eternal, but not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, is more parsimonious than the contrary assumption. You basically seem to be arbitrarily trying to assert that assumptions or conclusions you find unpalatable are somehow intrinsically illicit.
3) they will resort to a pseudo-philosophical “uncaused” origin of matter,
Again, you seem to be asserting that only you can posit uncaused causes. This requires more justification than you seem to be providing.
4) they will admit they know of no natural explanation but will still not consider the possibility of a supernatural explanation.
I would think that admitting that you don't know the things that, in fact, you don't know, is an essential component of science. If you insist that lightning is caused by Perun throwing his might ax, and that those who insist on seeking a natural explanation are "lightning poofists," you won't get very far in the scientific investigation of meteorology. Science seeks for testable explanations; "supernatural" forces that can produce any possible combination of effects and are consistent with any experimental outcome are not, from a scientific point of view, "explanations" at all.
One cannot invoke any natural law to explain the origin of the universe without first presupposing the “uncaused” existence of natural laws.
Again, if you must posit something eternal and uncaused, it seems more parsimonious to load it with as few attributes and powers as necessary. A supernatural Lawgiver requires some sort of uncreated, uncaused Nature of His own. Why is this assumption more legitimate than the assumption of an uncreated, uncaused nature that doesn't have unlimited power and knowledge and benevolence?
Steven J,
DeleteThanks for your comments.
As I said above, one of the possible responses to the question, “Where did everything come from?,” is to assign divine-like qualities to the universe. I admit that God is the eternal, un-caused, first cause. I guess I assumed my position was obvious but perhaps I should have pointed it out again in this post. Regardless, unbelievers want to posit a similar creator but say it's not God.
Skeptics want to claim natural laws created natural laws. Of course, they don't like it when I describe it that way. They like to say there must be a natural explanation for the origin of the universe but balk when I tell them they're saying nature created nature.
Let's face it, anything that is caused, is caused by something else. The cause for nature cannot be nature. It must be super-natural by definition. So skeptics want us to believe there is a super-natural, eternal, un-caused cause for the universe – BUT IT'S NOT GOD!! It's just something LIKE God.
When I hear skeptics invoking a god-like non-god, I say they're in denial.
Thanks for visiting. God bless!!
RKBentley