How To Make Money From Surveys

The Journal of the Society of Humanist Philosophers*, the paper was originally published in *Philo. As expressed within his book *The Creator and the Cosmos*, noted astronomer and Christian apologist, the 1998 paper is entitled *"The 'Big Bang' Argument for the Existence of God"* and is a rebuttal to the views held by Hugh Ross. Pennsylvania, allentown, muhlenberg College, professor of Philosophy, . Jr, this essay is a rejoinder to a paper written by Theodore Schick.

Schick's views on this point. I don't contest Dr. I acknowledge that Aquinas's reasoning left something to be desired in this case, as blasphemous as it might sound coming from a Catholic such as me. Thomas Aquinas's "uncaused first cause" argument to prove the existence of God. Schick's corollary contention that such an assertion is nothing but a scientifically updated variation of St. And Dr, ross's contention that the acceptance of the theory of the "big bang" as the beginning of the universe implies that it must have had a cause beyond the event itself. Schick's paper is to discredit Dr. The impetus of Dr.

Schick echoes my youthful inquisitiveness: Dr, ) In his paper. " (The priest's response was less than memorable. Always is and always will be' then why can't we just say the same about the universe, "If it is sufficient to assert that 'God always was, i once had the effrontery to ask a priest in religion class, as a Catholic high school student?

" . . . David Hume wondered the same thing. Why not just admit that the universe is uncaused and cut out the middleman, "But if we're willing to admit the existence of uncaused things?

Ross positions. It must have been within the higher dimensional time of the creator that Dr, rather, then its cause cannot have been within our time (because an effect must follow its cause); since the big bang is the beginning of our time. As did the beginning of everything else, that implies it must have had a cause, ross argues. Dr, since the big bang is held to be the beginning of time. A time in which the spacetime that we know and live within was created: the creator's time, ross positions a higher dimensional time. Ross's views is that Dr. Schick's rebuttal to Dr. The meat of Dr.

Schick rebuts this argument as follows: Dr.

" Let alone the existence of a transcendental god, he does not succeed in proving the existence of a higher dimensional time, because Ross begs the question about whether the universe has a cause. He is assuming that the universe has a cause to prove that the universe has a cause. So Ross is arguing in a circle. But the big bang argument uses the premise that the universe has a beginning in time to arrive at the conclusion that the universe has a cause. "This argument arrives at the conclusion that the universe has a beginning in time by assuming that the universe has a cause.

A creator of at least some sort, more precisely, the existence of God or, albeit unwittingly, it is an understatement to judge it ironic that I perceive that such a renowned atheist proved. Albert Einstein himself, self-professed atheist in scientific history, i appeal to none other than perhaps the most venerated, for the benefit of my argument! The universe) had a cause, therefore, ross's argument lacks to assume that the big bang (and. My intention within this essay to attempt to provide the justification that Dr, therefore, it is. Schick is correct. Dr.

" with all events within the universe (including particles seemingly being created without a cause via vacuum fluctuations) occurring at the confluence of four-dimensional points, but rather as an unified structure called "spacetime, with the result being that the universe can no longer be viewed as being composed of space and time, time is reduced to a mere fourth dimension, " In this scheme of reality. Now usually referred to as the "block universe, who first pointed out to him that his special theory of relativity implied a four-dimensional universe, einstein's erstwhile math teacher. Dr, it was Hermann Minkowski.

) The World Trade Center at the precise floor and instant that the first plane hit, 2001, (For example: September 11.

" Present and future of spacetime all exist contemporaneously and there is no privileged moment within spacetime solely entitled to call itself "the present" or "now, the past, here lies the point most relevant to the thrust of this essay: Within the block universe scheme of reality. But eventually came to embrace it, einstein himself was at first most reluctant to accept such a view of reality. Dr.

) Einstein himself certainly seemed to accept its validity as there is a letter written by him to the widow of a recently late associate in which he attempts to comfort her by pointing out that her late husband and she were presently enjoying many happy moments together in other parts of the universe. Dr, however. (Some attempt to argue that such a view is a misinterpretation of the theory.

Then how could the cause in this example have preceded its effect when the baby and his or her parents exist contemporaneously and eternally, and if by definition a cause must precede its effect, present and future all exist contemporaneously, but here is the rub: If the past? For every baby (effect) there was a transaction (cause) between a sperm and an egg. I think it can be safely asserted that we all accept the existence of the phenomenon of cause and effect.

By a creator of some sort, the undeniable order that permeates our reality and renders our very existences possible must likewise have been imposed from without, by the artist), . But rather from order imposed from without (i.e, just as a painting's obvious orderly composition did not result from any event within the canvass. It didn't in our spacetime, that is. The only tenable answer that I can discern is: it didn't.

Then nothing within our spacetime could have been created within it any more than a now static Rembrandt masterpiece could have created and ordered itself, along the lines of a motion picture rendering the illusion of motion from a series of still frames), if the universe is static (with motion (and change) being a mere illusion--exactly as Parmenides and Zeno argued--. The concept of cause and effect implies a sequential creation.

Which cannot be the case if both the cause and the effect have always existed simultaneously, a cause must precede its effect within existence, quite simply. Exactly as a painting does upon completion, and then became static, ross argues. Exactly as Dr, the reality that we live within and perceive must have been sequentially created (thus accounting for the obvious causes and effects we observe) in a higher dimensional time, rather.

As to them their universe appears simply to have always been and thus cannot have been created within its own dimension of time, then by what means would they have to discover the true nature and origin of their existences other than by deducing that whatever logic and order they perceive must have been imposed from without, unless the author was able and chose to communicate with his or her creations? Seems just as real to them as our universe (or "multiverse" if the MWI of quantum mechanics should be correct in fact) does to us (in our higher dimensional time), contained within the pages of the book, and that their universe, assume that the characters within a novel could somehow gain sentience and intelligence, as a thought experiment.

The laws of physics) must have come from without, . The only logical conclusion is that the dynamic force that forged our now static universe via causes and effects (i.e, therefore. To argue otherwise would be a contradiction in terms. Dynamic forces cannot exist within a stagnant universe. Schick and others are for the reasons I have presented. Just as I believe Dr, they would be very wrong; " In this hypothetical scenario. That their--unbeknownst to them--literary universe simply "just is, that is. Schick and many others do. The alternative would be for them to reason as Dr.

Her or its plane of existence the answer to these questions can be scientifically fathomed as they cannot be here within the logic of our reality, " and in his, someone or something "just is, the only answer I can suggest is that somewhere along the line, as incomprehensible as the mystery is. How can anything exist at all? That is what I term the "ultimate mystery" of existence. How can one avoid an infinite regress of creators? How then can one account for the creator's origin?

A view which this essay attempts to refute as scientifically illogical, he argues against the existence of any creator at all, on the contrary. Schick is certainly not arguing in favor of one version of a creator over another. Dr. The nature of whom or which is beyond the scope of this essay, then it is evident that our spacetime had a creator (existent or once so), einstein's theory is correct--as on empirical grounds it certainly appears to be--. I only claim that if Dr, rather. It is not my contention that I can solve the ultimate mystery to which I referred.

My basic point is one derived from the prevailing paradigm that contemporary physicists labor within: relativity and the block universe it implies. I contend that my conclusion cannot be simply dismissed as such because my basic argument goes beyond the normal intuitive attitudes that intelligent design adherents commonly put forth in support of their views, although my arguments might transpose to a typical "intelligent design" thesis, in summation.