Thursday, July 30, 2009

Something the Antitheist Can't Deal With

In attacking the cosmological argument, most antitheists, even supposed learned ones such as Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins, resort to the infinite regression problem. That is if God created the universe then who created God? This is simply a stupid question. The definition of God precludes the ability for Him to have a beginning. God is uncreated and eternal. That means it is logically incoherent to say He has a beginning. An uncreated being cannot have a creator by definition. The only thing left for antitheists to do in this case is to ignore the premises or simply deny them.


Onesimus said...

That old question “if God created the universe then who created God?” ignores a couple of very important facts.

You refer to one of these: that God is uncreated and eternal. Now that might be a bit too big of an idea for the human brain to comprehend. As finite creatures we have trouble comprehending an infinite Creator.
But despite that human weakness atheists should at least intellectually acknowledge that believers CLAIM that God had no beginning and was not created.

On the other hand, the atheist DOES acknowledge that the universe had a beginning, that at some point it actually came into being.

In that childish question regarding “who created God” they are creating a dilemma from a false foundation. They try to divert the weakness of their own atheist belief (that everything came from nothing) to the beliefs of the theist by presenting a nonsensical scenario, that is: who created the uncreated?

Jc_Freak: said...

Well, the atheist usually starts with a strong man of the cosmological argument (which is actually the argument you are referring to. The ontological argument states that something God must exist because He is the best idea possible, and idea which exists is better than an idea that isn't). They claim that the argument is that the universe must have a beginning because it is complicated, or beautiful or something else like that. With such a beginning point, it is easy to suggest the infinite regression charge.

Fortunately, that is not the cosmological argument. The argument states that because the universe is bound by time it therefore must have a beginning. And if it has beginning then it must have a cause.

bossmanham said...

Whoops, you're right. I had ontology on the brain I think. I think ontology is automatically implicit in the refutation of the infinite regression argument anyway. One argues for a belief in God based on the fact that nothing can't produce anything, therefore that has to be God since it would take a being of which nothing higher could be imagined.

Thanks for catching that.

Steven said...

There's something strange about the universe the atheist would have us believe in: it just happens to have the right fine-tuning for life, it just happened that extremely complex life-forms basically built themselves uncaused by anything with a mind or intelligence, it just happens that these life-forms became enormously intelligent human beings with feelings, consciousness, and so on, and it just so happens that these human beings made up this whole story about God and we don't really have to worry about him anymore, 'cause, y'know, we have science and everything, so we can just have sex with whoever we want and everything is fine, and when we die it's all over, so we don't have to worry about answering for those few times we messed up. It's too good to be an atheistic universe; it's as if atheism is this magical view where everything just fits together perfectly without being made to do so and it does so completely randomly.

natamllc said...

Yeah Steven, "....a mind or intelligence,....".

That's right and I still cannot understand with my mind and intelligence how a mind and intelligence came out of nothing?

Is it true it took a really really really long time to become something like a mind with intelligence? That's stupidity isn't it? I mean to say, stupid as slow of heart to believe!

But, I guess, give Athiests another billion times a billion times years times years into the future and things will finally come fast enough for them to believe faster than slower?

One Theologian, a Dr. J Sidlow Baxter said it best in my view:

God did not create our minds and intelligence to think backwards into eternity! He created our minds and intelligence to think forwards into eternity!

Oh, you don't think so? Well, go ahead, close your eyes and start thinking then! :)

H.S.Pal said...

Part I
Earlier it was impossible for us to give any satisfactory answer to this question. But modern science, rather we should say that Einstein, has made it an easy task for us. And Stephen Hawking has provided us with the clue necessary for solving this riddle. Actually scientists in their infinite wisdom have already kept the ground well-prepared for us believers so that one day we can give a most plausible and logically consistent answer to this age-old question. Let me first quote from the book “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen Hawking:
“The idea of inflation could also explain why there is so much matter in the universe. There is something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.”
Here the question stops. So the clue is this: if we can ultimately arrive at zero, then no further question will be raised, and there will be no infinite regression. What I intend to do here is something similar to that. I want to show that our God is a bunch of several zeroes, and that therefore no further question need be raised about His origin. And here comes Einstein with his special theory of relativity for giving us the necessary empirical support to our project.
God is a Being. Therefore God will have existence as well as essence. So I will have to show that both from the point of view of existence as well as from the point of view of essence God is zero. It is almost a common parlance that God is spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal, and all-pervading. Here we are getting three zeroes; space is zero, time is zero, change is zero. But how to prove that if there is a God, then that God will be spaceless, timeless, and changeless? From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light both distance and time become unreal. For light even an infinite distance is infinitely contracted to zero. The volume of an infinite universe full of light only will be simply zero due to this property of light. A universe with zero volume is a spaceless universe. Again at the speed of light time totally stops. So a universe full of light only is a spaceless, timeless universe. But these are the properties of light only! How do we come to know that God is also having the same properties of light so that God can also be spaceless, timeless? Scientists have shown that if there is a God, then that God can only be light, and nothing else, and that therefore He will have all the properties of light. Here is the proof.

H.S.Pal said...

Part II
Scientists have shown that total energy of the universe is always zero. If total energy is zero, then total mass will also be zero due to energy-mass equivalence. Now if there is a God, then scientists have calculated the total energy and mass of the universe by taking into consideration the fact that there is also a God. In other words, if there is a God, then this total energy-mass calculation by the scientists is God-inclusive, not God-exclusive. This is due to two reasons. First of all, even if there is a God, they are not aware of the fact that there is a God. Secondly, they do not admit that there is a God. So, if there is a God, then they have not been able to keep that God aside before making this calculation, because they do not know that there is a God. They cannot say that they have kept Him aside and then made this calculation, because by saying that they will admit that there is a God. At most they can say that there is no God. But we are not going to accept that statement as the final verdict on God-issue, because we are disputing that statement. So the matter of the fact is this: if God is really there, then total mass and total energy of the universe including that God are both zero. Therefore mass and energy of God will also be zero. God is without any mass, without any energy. And Einstein has already shown that anything having zero rest-mass will have the speed of light. In other words, it will be light. So, if God is there, then God will also be light, and therefore He will be spaceless, timeless. So from the point of view of existence God is zero, because he is spaceless, timeless, without any mass, without any energy.

H.S.Pal said...

Part III
Now we will have to show that from the point of view of essence also God is zero. If there is only one being in the universe, and if there is no second being other than that being, then that being cannot have any such property as love, hate, cruelty, compassion, benevolence, etc. Let us say that God is cruel. Now to whom can He be cruel if there is no other being other than God Himself? So, if God is cruel, then is He cruel to Himself? Therefore if we say that God is all-loving, merciful, benevolent, etc., then we are also admitting that God is not alone, that there is another being co-eternal with God to whom He can show His love, benevolence, goodness, mercy, compassion, etc. If we say that God is all-loving, then we are also saying that this “all” is co-eternal with God. Thus we are admitting that God has not created the universe at all, and that therefore we need not have to revere Him, for the simple reason that He is not our creator!
It is usually said that God is good. But Bertrand Russell has shown that God cannot be good for the simple reason that if God is good, then there is a standard of goodness which is independent of God’s will. Therefore, if God is the ultimate Being, then that God cannot be good. But neither can He be evil. God is beyond good and evil. Like Hindu’s Brahma, a real God can only be nirguna, nirupadhik; without any name, without any quality. From the point of view of essence also, a real God is a zero. Mystics usually say that God is a no-thing. This is the real God, not the God of the scriptures.
So, why should there be any need for creation here, if God is existentially, as well as essentially, zero?
But if there is someone who is intelligent and clever enough, then he will not stop arguing here. He will point out to another infinite regression. If God is light, then He will no doubt be spaceless, timeless, etc. Therefore one infinite regression is thus arrested. But what about the second regression? How, and from whom, does light get its own peculiar properties by means of which we have successfully arrested the first regression? So, here is another infinite regression. But we need not have to worry much about this regression, because this problem has already been solved. A whole thing, by virtue of its being the whole thing, will have all the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness. It need not have to depend on any other external source for getting these properties. Thus no further infinite regression will be there.
H. S. Pal