In kind of the same line of thought as my last post, I want to talk about things on a big scale. Like, universal. So I'm gonna take for granted that we all agree on the basic model of our universe as a limited, noninfinite space. Most scientists agree on the speculation that if you were to travel in a completely straight path through the universe for long enough, you'd end up in the same place you started. Scientists also agree that the universe is expanding from a central point, which indicates that it had a chronological beginning. Our universe, basically, is a limited system governed by a very specific set of laws, familiar laws such as gravitation, nuclear force, elecromagnetism, and time. The combination of these forces forms a predictable pattern that governs how matter behaves under the influence of these laws. The prediction of this pattern is what we call "logic". What's important to realize is that these laws that govern our universe are completely arbitrary; just as easily as there is a law that stipulates mass is attracted to other mass, there could have been a law that stipulated the exact opposite, and then we'd live (or more likely wouldn't live) in a completely different universe. There is no observable reason why these laws are there. They just are. So how did all this get stuff, these laws and this matter, get here? If the universe is expanding, how did it start? Your answer might simply be the Big Bang, but in our universe, every action has another action that caused it; every physical action in our universe is actually a reaction. So what gave the universe its initial action? What sparked the Big Bang and set it all in motion? My answer: God. You atheists and agnostics out there might scoff at this notion, but hear me out.
Let's turn our gaze outside the universe. None of the laws that apply in our world, like time, nuclear force, and the mysterious force I mentioned in my last post that keeps matter in existence, nessecarily apply here. This is the plane that I believe God, or the creator of the universe, or whatever you want to call it, inhabits. And I'm not talking the God of any particular religion. I'm just talking the thing that created our universe. This God is not a physical being, because things can only exist physically in our universe, where the laws of physics apply. He is not made of matter, because matter can exist only in our universe under the laws that say it is there. I believe that this God is the big something I was referring to in my last post, the something that holds matter in existence and that created the laws under which our universe functions. How did he create it then? How did he create everything out of nothing? That's physically impossible!, you might say. Yes, physically impossible. But conservation of mass and conservation of energy are just another pair of arbitrary laws that exist only in our universe. You also might ask, "Okay, then what created this 'God' character?". My answer is nothing. This is possible because time does not exist outside of our universe. There is no sequential chain of events, no before and after. Outside the universe, God's existence for a second means his existence forward and backward in time for infinity. If you have been asking these questions, then you're probably just not thinking big enough yet. Outside our universe, not a single law that governs our universe is nessecarily true. This includes logic. Outside our universe 2+2 may well equal 5, for all we know.
Thus, to the best of my ability, I have supported the argument of a removed-creator-type God, who created the universe and now resides outside of it, as an observer. However, I'm not nessecarily opposed to the idea of an interventionist God, one who can interfere with the events in the universe. Think about it: wouldn't something so powerful that it can call everything into existence out of absolute nothingness be powerful enough to alter his own creation? And that's all for now. Hope you enjoyed.
Duncan~
ReplyDeleteI'm really liking your blog! You bring some very interesting points to light! I don't completely agree, however, with the relationship this entry shares to your last post. It feels as though some of the logic used in the former is incongruous with the logic used in the latter.
In your last post about the "small picture," you mentioned that matter, while divisible at certain levels, would eventually reach a pure and final form incapable of being broken down any further. (Coincidentally, this is what the Greeks believed and the reason they used the word "atomos" or "indivisible.") Granted, it's difficult to imagine "something" that could be infinitely divided, but I believe that such a limitation is imposed primarily by the psyche. We believe only as far as we can see, hear, smell, taste, and touch. As soon as something leaves the realm of observable reality (perhaps by getting too small,) we discontinue our belief in it.
In your third post, you discuss a deity that resides outside our plane of being, whose existence defies observable reality (by superseding natural laws like gravitation, electromagnetism, or the need for linear cause and effect.)
I feel that if you can argue for the existence of this hypothetical entity, you are somewhat obligated to acknowledge the potential for matter to be infinitely divided. Belief in both examples requires that you forgo your dependence upon sensory stimuli and take a leap of faith that there will be things that defy earthly, Euclidean logic. If you believe in the god that transcends time and space, what justification is there for dismissing the possibility that matter might do the same? (In other words, if a second can be stretched into infinity, why can't a particle be chopped into infinity as well?)
I hope that what I wrote here made a little sense and that I understood your posts as they were meant to be read. Language is often too crude an instrument to convey ideas. I'm excited by what you're doing here and look forward to reading more! Une autre!
-Eric
Dammit, I just saw that Eric said all I wanted to say about the last post! :-P
ReplyDeleteWhat you outline here are points of the First Cause and Fine Tuning in the Universe.
The problem with the First Cause argument is that outside of time the whole concept of 'Cause and Effect' ceases to exist.
Fine Tuning is an incredibly interesting principle.... if the Universe were just a LITLLE bit different... it would have been COMPLETELY different... so different that there may not be any way for intelligent life to come into existence.... but, if there was no way for intelligent life to come into existence who would've been there to observe such a universe.
This is the Anthropic Principle.
There are multiple explanations.
Explained in detail here:
http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/intermediate/responding-to-the-goldilocks-enigma.htm
But basically;
Either there's one universe or there's many... and if the first is true either we're VERY lucky or something did the fine tuning for us... or in the second case, the number of universes necessary is just inconceivable.
This might lead nicely on to the next post on free will.
Jon Brod