Good day to you, Blake. Hopefully, me and you won't bore the audience, because it could get lengthy.
My apologies for misinterpreting your intentions concerning the tomato analogy/argument.
You assume that we can't have a scientific explanation of what caused the big bang, and that must mean there was a god.
Of course we can't. There are only two types of explanations that can be used - scientific or personal. It can't be scientific, because, as I typed: "since it’s the first state, it simply cannot be explained in terms of earlier initial conditions and natural laws leading up to it".
The branes theory (short for membranes) has a sea of universes that can move about/collide with each other. A collision results in a big-bang explosion, and a new universe is born.
I'm fairly knowledged on the brane theory, but am not particularly happy or excited by it. I remain at unease due to the way you explained the branes theory. I say "unease", because the theory introduces all sorts of complexities that make the mind rattle. Paul Steinhardt, from Princeton University, explains it as thus:
"The model is based on the idea that our hot big bang universe was created from the collision of two three-dimensianal worlds moving along a hidden, extra dimension."Steinhardt is very honest about the model. He writes,
"Our proposal is
based on unproven ideas in string theory" (
A Brief Introduction to the Ekpyrotic Universe)
Of course it is and thankfully scientists like Steinhardt are honest about that. It will never come close to proof because of the fact that dimensional worlds are brought into the picture
and "hidden, extra dimensions". This is just incredulous, as I'm sure you can see. It's merely an unjustified attempt to bring in all sorts of incredibly complex ideas in an attempt to make certain individuals feel comfortable about the belief they hold.
I also have to chalenge your first premise, that everything that begins has a cause. It is your premise, so you should offer some supporting evidence. I can tell you that there are many events on the microscopic level that happen spontaneously, such as radioactive decay, and spontaneous deexcitation of electrons. Steven Hawking has also shown that it is probable that a universe like ours could come to exist without a cause. I don't understand the physics myself, but it is out there.
I wasn't expecting a challenge. I mean, it's so intuitively obvious, in my opinion. How can something come from
absolute nothingness? Probably the most skeptical person who ever lived, David Hume, even said he would never assert such an absurd proposition stating that something can come from nothing.
C.S. Lewis reminds us,
“There never was a time when nothing existed; otherwise nothing would exist now.”
Before I proceed, let me define what I mean by “cause”. Cause - something that produces something else, and in terms of which that other thing, called the effect, can be explained.
There is ocular, demonstrable proof. I see a baby coming into existence from something. I see a book coming into existence from something. Everything I see has a cause. Of course, because, as I asked, how can something come from absolute nothingness.
There’s the law of cause and effect, which backs me up - I.e. there must be a cause in order for an effect to exist.
William Craig, in his debate with Quentin Smith, proclaims,
“Now is the premise self–evident? Well, it's rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come out of nothing. Out of nothing, nothing comes. And to me that surely is evident when you think about it.
If there is absolutely nothing—no space, no time, no energy, no matter—then something cannot just come out of nothing[/b]. At least, it seems to me that the premise is far more plausible than its opposite.”
Everything put under the scientific “microscope” that begins to exist has a cause. You disagree, though, and type,
I can tell you that there are many events on the microscopic level that happen spontaneously, such as radioactive decay, and spontaneous deexcitation of electrons. Steven Hawking has also shown that it is probable that a universe like ours could come to exist without a cause. I don't understand the physics myself, but it is out there.
Craig offers a response to Smith on radioactive decay. He says,
“As Smith himself admits, these considerations "at most tend to show that acausal laws govern the change of condition of particles, such as the change of particle x's position from q1 to q2. They state nothing about the causality or acausality of absolute beginnings, of beginnings of the existence of particles.” (Craig/Smith debate)
As far as the de-excitation of electron goes, what about the possibility of D-photons randomly interacting with electrons. I don’t see how this is something coming from absolute nothingness.
You bring up Smith’s article, so I’ll just send you
here. I think Craig is doing just fine in his exchange with Smith, who seems to be just re-stating his arguments. He doesn’t really provide any demonstrable evidence for the proposition “something from absolute nothingness”, but relies on an argument from semantics and authority. Craig also provides an in-depth coverage of other models in his book
Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Whatever it may be, the God hypothesis is definitely the one Occam would've went with... wasn't he a theist, btw?
Unless I’m tired due to lack of sleep, you haven’t touched the teleological argument, yet. My lack of sleep could be the problem, though.
Later, man. Thanks for keeping up with a very interesting discussion.
