Content by : Ken Johnson
My notations : In red
I have dramatically edited this for visual reference as the original post was "wall of text" however none of the content has been altered.
On the question of the beginning of the universe, I see two possibilities. [Strawman] [False dichotomy]
[The Opening Premise]A. There was no causative agent, and the whole thing started spontaneously for no reason. OR,
B. There was a causative agent, and the whole thing started because something started it.
In other words, A. a godless cosmos, or B. the universe has a creator. [Personal inference] [Strawman] [False dichotomy]
I seek to assign a plausibility rating to A and B.First, B.
How feasible is it that some "Will", or intellect is responsible for the
design of the laws of physics, the space-time continuum, and the creation
of the mass-energy from which the cosmos is constructed?
From the perspective of a human mind, it seems unfathomable.
But if we imagine beyond the scale of the human mind, we must admit that it
is at least somewhat plausible that minds of a greater scale could
exist.
So, at the very least, we can say "why not?".
Now option A.
The pre-universe void was suddenly, spontaneously filled with matter and
energy that eventually expanded into today's visible universe. [Unsubstantiated detail being presented building
"strawman"]
Plausible? I say no. [Personal inference response based on
strawman]
The reason I consider this option implausible is based on simple logic.
Thousands of scientists, over hundreds of years have noted the laws of physics, and although we can not yet produce a complete explanation for every observable phenomenon, we know at least this: every single event (physical, chemical, biological) that has ever been observed can be seen to follow the laws of cause and effect.[Note 1]
No single event has ever been observed to occur unless the circumstances of matter, energy, time, and space give rise to that occurance. [Citation?] [Note 1]
If at some point in the past there was no universe [Unsubstantiated claim]
, and then, for no reason, there suddenly was [Citation of this detail?][Building second strawman argument]
, that would be the only event in the history of the universe that was not subject to the laws of cause and effect. [Unsubstantiated claim][Citation of this detail?]
Many critics of theism enjoy referring to the "magic man in the sky" to suggest the implausibility of a creator. [Argument Ad-Populem] [ad-hoc ad hominem] [ Weighted wording : Note 7]
But to suggest that the Big Bang occurred spontaneously, in the complete absence of a causative agent sounds to me even more like magic. [Citation of such claims?][ Weighted wording : Note 7]
If the very inception of the cosmos was not subject to the laws of cause and effect [subjective based on strawman #2]
would it not stand to reason that the resulting universe would be similarly unrestricted? [Unsubstantiated claim]
Yet we never see examples of empty space suddenly becoming a star. [Note 2] [Unsubstantiated claim]
Even in quantum mechanics, where certain particles can theoretically wink in and out of existence, necessary conditions must exist first. Creation is never a magical event.[ Weighted wording : Note 7]
What is the plausibility that a cosmos could "poof" into existence completely independently of the laws of cause and effect, only to spend the next 13.8 billion years rigidly enslaved to those laws? If the birth of the universe were so magically spontaneous, would we not continue to observe similar spontaneity now and then? [Note 3] [ Weighted wording : Note 7]
[Statements of Conclusion]
To me it seems that option A is a near zero plausibility. [Based on a strawman and inferred claims of detail]
There is simply nothing in science to explain a mechanism of action for spontaneous...anything.
Option B,although similarly unverifiable, at least does not appear to violate the laws of physics. [Note 4]
In statistical analysis, even a one in a million chance is infinitely more plausible than a near zero chance. [Note 5-1]
I do not suggest that any of man's written bibles are valid, nor do I endorse the God of Abraham, or the God of Jesus, or the God of Joseph Smith. These gods are all flagrantly imbued with obviously human personality characteristics.[Arent these all 'Abrahamic' ?]
But we must acknowledge as logicians that absence of proof is not proof of absence. [Note 5-2]
The very fact of our universe's obedience to the laws of cause and effect hints at an overseeing authority. [Unsubstantiated claim]
If somewhere there were a universe in which events occurred magically, THAT would more likely be a godless universe. THAT universe could have as it's inception a spontaneous event. And maybe a few unicorns. [Note 6]
1 -
In referential terms, a stars birth occurs in a time frame that is insignificantly small when compared to the age of the universe.
While this is not 'sudden' in human terms of seconds, minutes etc. I would pose that the use of word "sudden" is quite subjective to our human concept of time frames (seconds minutes etc.).
Human life, let alone scientifically advanced humans at a point where we can make observations of the universe has been in existence for a tiny amount of time.
Such events that you described may well have happened or even be happening. We have not been around long and have not yet properly observed enough of the universe to make such bold claims.
More on shifting burden of proof and absence of evidence (with some specifics about statistical observations) can be found here: Click to visit
But if we imagine beyond the scale of the universe, we must admit that it is at least somewhat plausible that other universes could exist.
So, at the very least, we can say "why not?".
Hence: such magical universe type can exist and these would not require "an overseeing authority"
And so; we must now comprehend that universes can exist without "an overseeing authority"
And now... Occam’s razor: Understanding that a universe can exist without "an overseeing authority" or alternatively the universe has to have a prerequisite "overseeing authority"(Occam’s poses that the answer which has the fewer requirements may likely be more suited, the argument now can be phrased as follows)
Universe = Universe
orOverseeing authority = Universe
The more simplistic being a componant of one part (Universe) and therefore, with your own logic and the help of Occam’s we find that you own argument now refutes your affirmative claim.
