The skeptics ask "If you creationists think the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't
God need a cause?"
If God created the universe, then who created God?
This week on Creation Magazine LIVE!
Welcome to Creation Magazine LIVE!
My name is Richard Fangrad.
and I'm Thomas Bailey.
This week on Creation Magazine LIVE! our topic is a common, question, "If God created the
universe, then who created God?"
Now this question can get a little complicated
so it's worth taking some time to think it through.
That's right.
And we actually have an article with that exact title on the website at creation.com/whomadegod
that you can check out to help you do that…
But we can start with a simple answer to the question, who created God?
By definition God is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question 'Who created
God?' is actually an illogical question.
Right.
It's like asking "Who is the bachelor married to?" or "How many square circles
are there?" or something like that.
That's right.
So, while that's a correct answer, a more sophisticated questioner might ask,
"If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn't God need a cause?
And if God doesn't need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?
Why do you need to invoke God as a cause of the universe
if you believe in things that are uncaused?"
Those are the kinds of questions that we'll dive into today.
That's right, and a good reply for Christians to begin with is to use the following line of reasoning:
1) Everything that has a beginning has a cause.
2) The universe has a beginning.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
It's important to note that not everything needs a cause, only things that had a beginning.
The universe requires a cause because it had a beginning,
and we'll talk about that in a few minutes.
The Bible makes it clear that God, unlike the universe, had no beginning,
so doesn't need a cause.
Yes, and in addition to that, the study of physics tells us that matter, space and time
are a package deal – they all have to happen together.
So time itself would have to begin together with matter and space.
Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe then, He is also the creator of time.
And since He's the creator of time itself, He's not limited by the time dimension He created,
so He has no beginning in time as the Bible says.
God is 'the high and lofty One that inhabits eternity' as it says in Isaiah 57:15.
So He doesn't have a cause.
And in Psalm 90 verse 2 says, "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you
had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God."
But, let's face it, that's a hard concept for the human mind to grasp – we just cannot
comprehend existence without time.
And because it's hard to comprehend, skeptics sometimes use that as an excuse to reject
the idea that the God of the Bible exists.
But the problem doesn't go away if you think the universe somehow created itself!
Something has to be eternal no matter what your worldview is.
Either there is an eternal God that created or there is eternal matter that created.
The problem is there is good evidence that the universe definitely had a beginning.
This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
So, when we get back we'll show you the evidence that
the universe definitely had a beginning…
In his second letter, the Apostle Peter links Jesus' second coming and judgment of the
whole world to the historical reality of Noah's flood.
He prophesied: "… in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and
following their own evil desires.
They will say, 'Where is this "coming" he promised?
… But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and
the earth was formed out of water and by water.
By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed."
And Genesis is clear: the words all, every, everything, and entire are used eight times
in chapter 7 to describe what was covered or destroyed by the flood.
Genesis 7:23 says, "Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out".
In the same way the Flood was real and global, so too will the second coming of Jesus be
real and the whole world will be judged.
To find out more from Creation Ministries International, visit our website, CREATION.com.
Well if you've just tuned in, this week we are asking the question "If God created
the universe, then who created God?" and what we saw is that when you look into it
a little bit deeper it can get a little more complex than you might think initially.
No matter what your worldview is, given the concept of cause and effect, then sooner or
later you have to accept the idea that something must be eternal.
So, either there is an eternal God that created,
or matter is eternal and it gave rise to the universe.
The problem with matter being eternal is there is good evidence
that the universe definitely had a beginning.
So matter is not eternal.
OK, so how do we know that?
It can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.
Now, there are 4 laws: the zeroth, the first, the second, and third.
(Don't ask!)
And the second and third laws are the most familiar, so let's review those laws.
The 1st Law states that the total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
And the 2nd Law states that the amount of energy available for work is running out,
or you could say entropy, the measure of disorder in the universe, is increasing towards the maximum.
Now if the total amount of mass-energy is constant and limited, and the amount of usable
energy is decreasing, then the universe can't have existed forever, right? -- put them together
and that's what you get, otherwise it would already have exhausted all of its usable energy.
The end result is what's called 'heat death' of the universe.
Heat death is when all the stars have used all their fuel, all the radioactive atoms
would have decayed, every part of the universe would be the same temperature, and no further
work would be possible.
It's when all the energy sources in the entire universe would be completely spent.
So, the obvious conclusion is that the universe began a finite time ago – so matter and
energy are not eternal.
And it began with a lot of usable energy.
Today we see this energy winding down.
If it's winding down so-to-speak it must have been wound up somehow, so it definitely
had a beginning.
Right, OK, so, the conclusion from physics is that the universe had a beginning, but
there are people who accept that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause.
Well, people seem to be willing to believe all sorts of strange things these days just
to try to avoid belief in God!
But look, it's self-evident that things that have a beginning have a cause.
No one, no sane person anyway, really denies this.
All of science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied.
I mean, so would all of law enforcement!
If the police didn't think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled
house then why investigate?
That's right, yes.
If you're at that point then you should just never ask the question 'Why?' ever
again, because there doesn't need to be an answer.
Exactly.
If you are saying something had a beginning but didn't have an outside cause then the
only option is that it was 'self-caused'.
Self caused - right. But the universe cannot be 'self'-caused.
Actually, nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it
came into existence.
And that just don't make no sense!
And it's not very scientific.
Right, that too.
OK, let's summarize a bit here before we move on.
Number 1. The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
Yes.
Number 2. It is unreasonable to believe that something could begin to exist without a cause.
Which means, number 3,
The universe needs a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
And, number 4, God, as the creator of time, is outside of time.
Since He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, God, therefore,
doesn't need a cause.
There are people who don't want to believe in the Creator God of the Bible, so they try
to poke holes in these statements.
So we need to spend some time discussing some common objections to this line of reasoning.
But what we'll show you is that the facts we observe provide evidence that is
consistent with the Bible.
And lots of people just don't like that.
And just because people don't like the idea that there is a God who they're accountable
to doesn't make God disappear, or make this line of reasoning unsound or wrong.
There are two ways to properly refute an argument: either show that it is logically invalid,
or, show that at least one of the premises is false.
So, when we get back we will see if the answer to 'Who created God?'
stands up to scrutiny.
We'll see you in just a minute…
Creation Ministries International focuses on the Bible's first book, Genesis,
and the creation/evolution issue.
Many of our speakers are scientists with PhDs who, before joining CMI, were employed in
various scientific fields.
Creation Ministries speakers go to churches equipping and encouraging people with the
message of the truth and authority of the Bible and its relevance to the real world.
To locate upcoming CMI events or inquire about booking a speaker into your church, visit CREATION.com.
On this week's episode, we are exploring the question, "If God created the universe,
then who created God?"
This is a very popular question and today we hope to provide some tips for Christians
on how to answer it.
That's right, yes.
We've ended up with 4 conclusions, and here they are again:
1. The universe (including time) can be shown to have had a beginning.
2. It is unreasonable to believe that something could begin to exist without a cause.
3. Therefore the universe requires a cause.
4. Since God has no beginning in time, He doesn't need a cause.
There we go.
OK, so we also said there are two ways to refute an argument intellectually: 1) Show
that it is logically invalid or 2) Show that at least one of the premises is false.
So, let's look at the first one: Is the argument valid?
A valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false.
Note that validity doesn't depend on the truth of the premises, but on the
form of the argument.
So, the form of the argument here is valid; it's of the same form as, for example: All
whales have backbones; Moby Dick is a whale; therefore Moby Dick has a backbone.
So, the only hope for the skeptic is to dispute one or both of the premises.
OK, so now let's ask, are the premises true?
There are 2 of them there, number 1 and number 2 in the list.
Let's look at the first one: Does the universe have a beginning?
Some have promoted an idea called the Oscillating Universe Theory, which includes the notion
that the universe had no beginning.
So, what is the Oscillating Universe Theory?
It's an idea that combines the Big Bang (that most of you, I'm sure, have heard of)
with what's called a Big Crunch, and that's not a candy bar (though it might
make a good candy bar) and this is part of a never ending, never beginning cycle.
The theory proposes that the universe could collapse to the state where it began and then
initiate another Big Bang.
It would pass through the phases of expansion (Big Bang) and the phases of contraction (Big Crunch).
If that's the case, then the Universe that we live in right now, the one we see around us,
exists between the Big Bang and the Big Crunch.
Right.
So, these Oscillating universe ideas were popularized by atheists, like the late Carl
Sagan and Isaac Asimov, to avoid the notion of a beginning, with its implications of a Creator.
But as we just mentioned, the Laws of Thermodynamics undercut that argument, because an oscillating
universe cannot get around those laws.
Yeah, it's not going to do that.
Each one of these hypothetical cycles, or oscillations, would exhaust more and more
usable energy.
This means every cycle would be larger and longer and slower than the previous one (less energy),
so looking back in time there would be smaller and smaller higher energy cycles.
So, the multicycle model could have an infinite future, ending with a heat death, that we
mentioned already, but it can only have a finite past.
It had a beginning.
Even that model.
That's right.
There are other problems with this too.
There are many lines of evidence showing that there is far too little mass for gravity to
stop expansion and allow cycling in the first place.
And according to the best estimates, the universe only has about half the mass needed for
the theoretical re-contraction.
This includes all luminous and non-luminous matter, as well as any possible contribution
of neutrinos to the total mass of the universe.
In addition to that, there's no known mechanism that would allow a bounce back
after a hypothetical 'big crunch'.
As Professor Beatrice Tinsley of Yale explained, even though the mathematics says that the
universe oscillates, "There is no known physical mechanism to reverse a catastrophic big crunch."
So, when you get off the paper and into the real world of physics, those models start
from the Big Bang, expand, collapse, and that's the end.
So, this attempt to get around premise 1 (that the universe had a beginning) doesn't work.
So premise 1 stands, and we'll look at the other one when we get back…
Many people think that Charles Darwin first thought of the idea of natural selection.
However, others prior to Darwin described the concept, although they sometimes used
slightly different terminology.
For instance, Carl Linnaeus, the creationist 'father of taxonomy' wrote of a
'struggle for survival' in nature.
Similarly, James Hutton wrote about the concept of natural selection.
Probably the most influential character was Edward Blyth, an English chemist and zoologist
who wrote major articles on natural selection two decades before Darwin published the
Origin of Species.
Darwin differed in trying to use the concept of natural selection to promote
the idea of unlimited change.
However, modern studies of natural selection have revealed that it is limited.
It can only select between variations that already exist—it is incapable of producing
the new genetic information required for true evolutionary change to occur, such as growing
feathers on a reptile.
Natural selection is not evolution.
To find out more from Creation Ministries International, visit our website, CREATION.com.
OK our subject this week is about the question, "If God created the universe, then who created God?"
This is a popular question that even children in Sunday School struggle with.
But, we've been unpacking the answer to the question in a lot more detail than the
average child would normally understand.
Part of the reason is that the content for this week's show is not from "Creation"
magazine, which is where the content normally comes from, but this time it came from our
other magazine publication, "The Journal of Creation".
"Creation" magazine is our family magazine and it's in its 40th year this year, 2018,
is the 40th year of the magazine.
The magazine has been changing lives all around the world since 1978.
Its faith-building content shows people that the Bible really is true, right from the very
first verse, even in an area of Scripture where many people think it's definitely
not true: Genesis 1-11, where the details of creation and a global flood are recorded.
That's the family magazine.
"The Journal of Creation" is where you can read cutting-edge, peer-reviewed research
papers by Bible-believing scientists from all over the world.
And the article on which today's show is based was originally published in the Journal.
Maybe that's why it's a wee bit more technical than our usual show.
But we're going through this slowly, so hopefully most of you can keep up.
For details, you can read the article at creation.com/whomadegod
OK. Now, let's get to the second premise we were discussing.
Just for review let's see the 4 statements again.
There they are.
Now let's focus on number 2, you can see it there.
And to get around that one you would have to deny the concept of cause and effect, which,
I mean that sounds ridiculous, but some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this
cause and effect principle and can produce something from nothing.
For example, Bible skeptic Paul Davies writes: "… spacetime could appear out of nothingness
as a result of a quantum transition.
… Particles can appear out of nowhere without specific causation … Yet the world of quantum
mechanics routinely produces something out of nothing."
No, this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics.
Yes, it is.
Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing.
Davies himself even admits on the previous page of his article that his scenario, quote,
'should not be taken too seriously.'
That's good advice.
Theories that the universe resulted from a quantum fluctuation have to assume that there
was something to fluctuate.
Their 'quantum vacuum' is a lot of matter-antimatter potential, not 'nothing'.
And it has to be 'fluctuating' somewhere not nowhere.
Now we asked Dr Jonathan Sarfati who wrote the article that today's show is based on,
we asked him about this because his own doctoral thesis included practical research regarding
quantum mechanics.
We asked him the following, "Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates the
cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing.
Is that true?
Well, I have plenty of theoretical and practical experience at quantum mechanics
from my doctoral thesis work.
For example, my specialty is Raman spectroscopy.
This is a quantum mechanical phenomenon.
Light comes in discrete energy packets or photons.
Also, molecules vibrate in discrete energy amounts as well.
Raman spectroscopy shines laser light on to a sample and some of the light scatters back
at a different frequency.
That's because certain amounts of a photon energy are absorbed to set the molecules vibrating.
From the wave number and intensity of the spectral bands, we can work out the masses
of the atoms and force constants of the bonds causing the bands.
All of this is testable and repeatable science.
Anyone else should get the same Raman spectra under the same conditions.
That is, these quantum mechanical effects really do have a cause.
They don't come from nothing!
If I really thought that, then I may as well burn my PhD thesis and all
the spectroscopy journals should quit.
OK, so no quantum mechanics does not violate cause and effect.
And here's another thing, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular
universe appeared at a particular time.
Why was it a universe instead of say, a banana or cat?
This universe can't have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence,
because it wouldn't have any properties until it actually came into existence!
OK, so according to science the universe can't come from nothing.
Let's tackle the last one, a rather desperate tactic by skeptics to avoid a theistic, a
God-centred, conclusion.
And that is to assert that the universe being created in time is simply 'incoherent'.
If it's incoherent then we don't need to think about it apparently.
But we need to explain that a little bit more.
Right. So, Paul Davies, who we heard from before, correctly points out that since time itself
began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened
before the universe began because that would have to be 'in time'.
But he claims that causes must precede their effects.
So if nothing happened 'before' the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless
to discuss the cause of the universe's beginning.
Wow!
The Christian philosopher and debater William Lane Craig revealed a hole in Davies
philosophical knowledge.
Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation.
Immanuel Kant gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion, it rests while
simultaneously causing a depression in the cushion.
Craig explains creation like this: The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative
act and of creation simultaneously coming into being.
Lastly some such skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative,
because that's the nature of science.
So, this can't be used to prove creation by God.
But you can't have it both ways: skeptics like to say that the Bible is wrong because
of science, but if science appears to be more consistent with the Bible, then, well, science
is tentative anyway.
Oh yeah, OK, it's just a copout.
So, let's review what we've said.
We've been looking at the question, If God created the universe, then who created God?
And the answer is, God has always existed.
Something must be eternal, either the universe, or God.
And the universe cannot be eternal, so the only thing that makes sense logically, is
that God has always existed.
And we'll be right back…
What are the theological consequences of adding 'millions of years' to Genesis?
How does it impact doctrines such as the Gospel, sin, the atonement?
Refuting Compromise is the most powerful biblical and scientific defence of a straightforward
view of Genesis.
Loaded with scientific support for a recent creation in 6 real days, it demolishes all
attempts to twist the biblical text in order insert 'millions of years', bringing clarity
into an area usually mired in confusion.
Must reading for Bible college students and anyone involved in church leadership or teaching.
Get your copy at CREATION.com
Welcome back.
Now as we mentioned earlier most of the content for these programs comes from Creation magazine.
Hence the name Creation Magazine LIVE.
Many of the main articles from previous issues (back issues) are now online at CREATION.com
The website is a massive database of free, faith-building information, and it's quite popular.
Visitors sometimes send in feedback.
John F. from the Philippines had a question that is sort of related to today's topic.
He wrote, "Hi, I found your site very interesting it is also one of the best sites to refute evolutionism.
I am firm believer in God and the reality that we are not just a result of chance.
There is a great intelligence behind the universe. I have this question below:
What does creation.com say about the
simulation theory which is gaining evidence?
The theory says that the universe is a simulation and we are living in it."
OK.
And one of our staff, Shaun Doyle responded, and here are some highlights from the response,
we're not going to get to the whole thing, here are some highlights:
"I wouldn't say that it's 'gaining evidence'.
People may be talking about it recently in greater numbers than before because the 17th annual
Isaac Asimov Debate at New York's American Museum of Natural History discussed this topic."
He continues, "Let's say that we live in a simulation.
Question: what is a 'simulation'? … if we are in what can be properly termed a 'virtual
world' or a 'simulation', then there still must be a real world from which the
virtual world arises, by the very meaning of those terms."
"Another idea that they talked about was an infinite regress of simulations within simulations.
But for every virtual world, there needs to be a world from which it arose.
As such, if we have an infinite regress of virtual worlds, we also have an infinite regress
of worlds that they arose from."
"And ask yourself, what is the simplest conclusion: that we're on a 5th level simulation,
or that we're living in a real world?
Clearly the latter.
As such, without any evidence for being in a simulation,
we have no reason to suppose that we are in one."
That's right, yes.
And then Shaun poses a question worth considering.
If we're in a simulation and can't tell the difference between it and the real world,
then our senses and memory must be pretty unreliable. Right?
He says this, "why should we consider our sense perception
and memory beliefs generally unreliable?
See, to be able to judge them as generally unreliable, we need some means of doing so.
But we can't get outside of our own sense and memory beliefs to do so!
So there's no way to do that apart from using our sense and memory faculties.
But if we do, we end up assuming the general reliability of our sense and memory faculties
to deny their general reliability.
So, such skepticism about the reality of the physical world by and large ends up having
to presume what it tries to deny."
That's fun!
Wow!
To read the entire response you can go to creation.com/simulator.
You know, that's really pretty far out there.
Imagining alternate realities and so on.
But this is where some evolutionists are going, isn't it?
Yes, and they imagine, for example, multiple universes to try and explain why this one
happens to fits us so well.
That's right. Even though there's no evidence of other universes.
Even though there's no evidence, yes.
It couldn't have been designed just for us, could it?
No!
God-forbid if that happened!
You know what, creation.com/free-mag – if you go there you can view
a free digital issue of the magazine.
You can flip through it, if you like it, subscribe.
Again, the information in the magazine is what this show is based on.
If you've enjoyed this show, we'll see you next week.
For more infomation >> True Colors 2018 opening - Duration: 7:29. 
For more infomation >> Rocket League (Collector's su Nintendo Switch) ⋆ considerazioni di un non giocatore ⊷ #gon_Pensieri - Duration: 10:56. 
For more infomation >> Hướng dẫn Khắc phục TIẾNG KÊU ĐẦU xe Honda Winner 150 | CLUB RACING 2 | - Duration: 6:24. 
For more infomation >> Opel Corsa 1.3 CDTI ECOFLEX S/S BUSINESS+ airco | navi | cruise - Duration: 1:00. 
For more infomation >> DIY Slide Wire Canopy Kit
For more infomation >> 2018-01-30: Minuta s XB - Duration: 1:08. 
For more infomation >> JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE S 2018 : POUR SUCCÉDER À LA VERSION NIGHT EAGLE ? - Duration: 3:21. 
For more infomation >> Mercedes-Benz S-Klasse S 350 d L AMG Line | COMAND | Luchtvering | Panoramadak - Duration: 1:01. 
For more infomation >> Nissan Note 1.2 DIG-S Connect Edition | Sport Pack | 360° Camera | Navigatie | Climaat & Cruise Con - Duration: 0:58. 
For more infomation >> Porsche 911 3.8 Carrera S Gesigneerde 50th Anniversary Edition 832/1963 - Duration: 0:54. 
For more infomation >> SsangYong Rexton RX 270 XDi S / LEER ; TREKHAAK - Duration: 0:59. 
For more infomation >> Lily-Rose Depp épanouie, elle s'affiche dans une posture inattendue aux côtés de sa tante ! - Duration: 2:16. 
For more infomation >> Fiat 500 TWINAIR TURBO 500 S (Clima,Bi-Xenon,16" LM Velgen) - Duration: 0:59. 
For more infomation >> Suzuki S-Cross 1.6 Comfort (Cruise,Airco,Elekramen) - Duration: 0:45. 
For more infomation >> Suzuki S-Cross 1.6 EXCLUSIVE (Panodak,Trekhaak,Clima,Cruise) - Duration: 0:41. 
For more infomation >> Suzuki S-Cross 1.6 EXCLUSIVE SUNROOF (Cruise,Clima,Panodak,PDC) - Duration: 0:44. 
For more infomation >> Volkswagen up! 1.0 MOVE UP! BLUEMOTION AIRCO, ELEKT. R+S, STOELVERWARMING, CENTR.VERGRENDELING - Duration: 0:54. 
For more infomation >> Suzuki SX4 1.6 SHOGUN NED.AUTO, 1STE EIGENAAR, AIRCO, ELEKT. R+S, LM-VELGEN, ZEER NETJES - Duration: 0:59. 
For more infomation >> Audi A4 Avant 1.8 TFSI S EDITION - Duration: 1:00. 
For more infomation >> Il s'est lavé le visage avec ceci, sa femme n'arrivait pas à le reconnaitre tant il paraissait - Duration: 6:23. 
For more infomation >> Audi TT 2.0 TFSI TTS ROADSTER QUAT. S-TR Baseball - Duration: 0:57. 
For more infomation >> MINI Clubman 1.6 COOPER S CHILI - Duration: 1:00. 
For more infomation >> L'énergie scintillante de la Nouvelle Lune du 18 décembre 2017 - Duration: 6:27. 
No comments:
Post a Comment