From: igevolution@earthlink.net
Date: Tue Apr 22 2003 - 13:16:25 EDT
My apologies for the attachment. The text of the argument follows:
Evangelizing the Big Bang Proponents
The dominant scientific idea today, with regard to the origin of the universe, is the Big bang theory. Most people who do not get their view of origins exclusively from scripture believe in this theory. Many Christians would like to know how to disprove it; they feel that it is inadmissible in a theistic worldview. There is a way, however, to use this very theory as an entrée into an evangelistic discussion. The Big bang theory caused many astronomers to become believers when it was first accepted. Its story is one that closely follows the basic early events of the Genesis account. In fact, far from needing to be disproved, the Big Bang stands as a wonderful tool in the hands of modern evangelism. Science has finally arrived at a story for the creation of the universe that closely adheres to our religious tenants. In order to be able to use this tool, it is first necessary to understand the basics of the Big Bang model. Following a brief primer on the theory, this !
essay will introduce the reader to the arguments that may be drawn from it.
The Big Bang has been characterized in popular minds as an explosion of some super-dense, super-hot thing that existed eternally in the past. This is a gross misconception of the theory. The Big Bang is not an explosion as much as it is an expansion, and that expansion did not happen at some moment in the depths of time; it began the part of reality we call time and continues today. In fact, it is the continuing expansion of the universe that first clued Edwin Hubble in to the idea of a Big Bang in the 1940’s.
What is the Big Bang, then? In brief, it is the beginning of everything. At the beginning of time (time=0 sec), something came from nothing. An expansion began from nothing, in a dimensionless, timeless, existence without matter or energy. Does science know why or how this happened? No. Our physics and math can take us through history back to the day of creation, but they stop working just before we reach the magical moment. Our laws break down at an amazingly small fraction of a second after the Big Bang (time=1x10-39seconds, or a decimal followed by 39 zeros and then a 1 seconds). Until our knowledge in this area of physics improves, we will not be able to tell you why or how, just that it happened. At time=0 sec, an expansion began with an indescribable amount of energy and velocity. The fabric of the universe, made up of four dimensions (height, width, length, and time) sprang from nothing and expanded outwards at a velocity greater than the speed of light. At !
this moment, the universe was too hot, and was traveling too fast, for matter to exist.
According to Einstein’s theory of general relativity, e=mc2, when matter (m) is accelerated past the speed of light (c), it ceases to be matter and is transformed into a specific amount of energy (e). All of what is matter today was energy then. As the universe cooled off (due to its expansion) and slowed down (due to gravity), however, matter became possible. At first, this matter was traveling very near the speed of light, and so any collisions between the most fundamental particles of matter (called quarks), did not cause them to stick together and form larger particles, such as protons, neutrons, and electrons. They were still too hot and traveling too fast. However, as the fledgling universe continued to cool off and the matter slowed down, these collisions became subject to the strong and weak nuclear forces that hold particles and atoms together. First, electrons became possible. Then, protons and neutrons followed. Eventually, it was possible for these part!
icles to stick to each other and form hydrogen and helium nuclei. Once temperatures had dropped again, the electromagnetic force allowed positively charged nuclei to attract negatively charged electrons. At this point, the first atoms were born.
It was a very long time (tens of thousands of years) before the universe was cool enough to allow chemistry to occur, since the most stable bonds are very low-energy things. So, for a great while, the universe was a sea of hydrogen and helium. Only very much later (in the millions of years), did recognizable stars and solar systems form, which produced as waste products the heavier elements that we are familiar with. In summary, then, the Big Bang tells the story of the formation of space (the original and ongoing expansion), time, energy, and matter.
How can this be used as an evangelistic tool? The secret lies in another well-established piece of knowledge: Aristotle’s principle of causality. Aristotle stated that, “Everything that comes to be has a cause.” In other words, if it didn’t exist before, and at some point it exists, there must be a cause for that. To use a familiar example, your parents are your cause. They are responsible for your existence. Aristotle’s principle has a natural corollary, or consequential statement. “There cannot be an infinite regress of causality.” In other words, the line of causes cannot stretch back forever into the past. At some point, there must be an “uncaused cause,” something that caused things to be without requiring a cause itself. Aristotle’s uncaused cause has frequently been called “Aristotle’s god.” Who or what is Aristotle’s god in light of the Big Bang, which is certainly the first thing that was caused by it in our universe? Let’s !
first see what it is not.
The uncaused cause cannot be any physical object in the universe, since we already know that matter itself came to be after the Big Bang. Consequently, any attempt to worship a thing of any sort, be it an idol, a tree, or a star, is unfounded. It is immaterial. Similarly, the uncaused cause cannot be a force of nature, or any force for that matter, since all energy, and all fundamental forces, came about with the Big Bang. Therefore, any attempt to worship or honor a natural force of nature, such as storms or fire, or even more abstract concepts, such as magical entities within nature, as is done in Wicca or other Pantheistic religions, is unfounded.
The uncaused cause cannot reside within the bounds of space, as these dimensions were caused by it, therefore, worshiping some entity on other worlds or other “dimensions,” as some alien cults do, is without merit. Also, since the uncaused cause existed before the Big Bang, and since time started at the Big Bang, the entity is outside of time, or eternal. Therefore, any deity that came to be in time is not the uncaused cause. These deities would, themselves, require a cause. Another aspect of an entity without time is that it cannot change. To change means to be different at one point in time than at another point in time. If the uncaused cause is not in time, then it cannot change. It is both immutable and eternal. Therefore, it is not some overarching consciousness into which we may one day meld our consciousness, as Buddhists or other eastern religions and philosophies believe. To join our consciousness to it would be to change it by adding ourselves to it. Si!
milarly, we are not pieces of the divine already that have left its unity to live for a while on earth, as our experiences and memories, when reunited with the divine, would again change it in some way.
The uncaused cause existed without the creation of the universe. It was sufficient before (if that word has meaning without the existence of time) all of time, space, matter, and energy came to be. It must be, since it was in existence in order to cause the Big Bang. Consequently, the uncaused cause did not need the cosmos in any way. It was sufficient apart from the cosmos. Therefore, if the uncaused cause created the cosmos anyway, it must have wanted the cosmos to exist. The existence of a desire necessitates the existence of a will, and in large part, the existence of a person. Here, the word person is not meant in the human sense of the word but in the sense of a personality, an entity that is self-aware, has desires, thoughts, and can make decisions. The uncaused cause, therefore, is not an impersonal power, as the satanic church believes; nor is it unconcerned with what it has made, as the deists hold. The entity wanted the cosmos to exist. It would not be lo!
gical for the uncaused cause then to let it spin out of control and not interact with its creation. If it is a person, in this divine sense, and it is neither matter nor energy, then there is only one mode of existence left; it is a spiritual person.
What sort of limits would be imposed on this entity, if any? This being was the cause of all of the energy that exists in the universe. Consequently, the energy in the universe cannot be more powerful that it. The uncaused cause, therefore, is not limited in its ability, since no force in the universe can overcome it. The uncaused cause therefore, is infinitely able to act, or omnipotent.
The uncaused cause is not limited by space and time, since both of these aspects of our reality were caused by it. Consequently, it can exist, if it chose to, everywhere, simultaneously, in its entirety. This has been called omnipresence. Since we know that it is a person, and since its experience cannot be limited by space and time, we know that it is aware of everything that happens everywhere in the cosmos, past, present, and future. Its knowledge is unbounded. It is, therefore, omniscient.
We judge the actions of others and ourselves on the basis of prescribed standards of behavior that are handed down to us from higher authorities. While children, we are subject to the behavioral mandates of our parents. When adults, we must answer to our employers, as well as civil and federal legal codes. These legal authorities are likewise accountable to the populace as a whole and to international law. The basis for determining right and wrong always hinges on something or someone greater than oneself. What, then, would be the basis for judging the actions of the uncaused cause? There would be nothing greater, and so there would be no basis for judgment other than the nature of the uncaused cause itself. Since nothing greater exists, the uncaused cause is incapable of being in error or acting incorrectly. It would never do anything wrong. It is, therefore, all good, or omnibenevolent.
Let us summarize, then, what we have learned about “Aristotle’s god,” or the uncaused cause. It is spirit, eternal, immutable, transcendent from creation, yet concerned with it, immaterial, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. What sort of religions claim to worship such an entity? Only three: the great monotheistic religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. The argument cannot take you beyond these three possibilities, but it can take you a long way in discussions with a secular humanist that believes only in the rationale of the human mind. If they endorse the products of that mind, the Big Bang and Aristotle’s law of causality, then they must bend the knee to one of three possible conceptions of God. After they realize this, the only task that remains is to show them the way to Christ, who is not only Aristotle’s uncaused cause, but also the logos by which all was created.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Apr 22 2003 - 13:12:54 EDT