Debating Atheists

[Guest]

Hi Steve, I have some arguments from atheists about the origin of the the universe, my basic argument was that something doesn't come from nothing, and got a few of the following arguments, could I get some suggestions on how to respond, this guy uses your vocabulary man. Thanks.

Our debate went as follows:

Me: If I were to believe in a creator, would I have to abandon logic to do so?

Them: Yes. A creator is by definition, supernatural, beyond naturalism, ergo, there can be no rational grounds for belief.
Logic cannot point to it's own negation, it's antithesis.

Me: Well...everything I have ever witnessed in this world has had a cause.

Them: Even if this is true, it is a fallacy of composition to apply a natural law found in the universe to the universe itself. And to apply any law to the supernatural is a basic error in ontology itself.

Me: Science knows nothing of existence without cause.

Them: This is simply untrue. In fact, much of 20th century science was a reaction to quantum theory, particularly the copehangen interpretation of quantum theory that that holds that nature is, fundamentally, non deterministic.
Recall Einstein's complaint upon learning of this fact: "God does not play dice".
Before you attempt to simply toss this claim away, realize that Quantum theory is one of the most thoroughly supported theories in science, and it calls your claim here into question.

Me: If science tells us anything it's that without a cause...there is no effect.

Them: Actually, this is philosophy, metaphyics perhaps. Science certainly makes the assumption of determinism, but science does not prove that determinism is valid, and as I have already shown, quantum theory may in fact invalidate this claim altogether.
In short, you can't assume from the fact that science relies on determinism that determinism is actually a proven position.

Me: Something coming from nothing has never been witnessed in a lab.

Them: This is both a fallacy of composition, and a flat-out error. Look into the concept of vacuum fluctuations.

Me: For me to logically believe that everything came from nothing, I would first have to witness an example. This would be the scientific approach.

Them: Only in a limited sense. As Stephen Hawkings stated, the scientific approach is open to theoretical explanations, provided they are based on sound mathematics and that they do not contradict what we already know of the world.
As for your claims about labratory work, I sincerely doubt that you looked into cyclotron/particle accelerator research, or any other type of labratory research into quantum theory. Consider doing so before you continue your argument.

Me: I am not saying that something coming from nothing is impossible and there are probably 50.000 other interesting theories, but if they are not reflected in reality, there is no reason to assume that they happend and there is no reason to set them appart from science fiction.

Them: Again, look into the latest models offered up by cosmology.

Me: Life however has ALWAYS come from life.

Them: It certainly seems so, but it is an error to assume deductive certainty can come from an inductive claim.

Them: Dark matter has been known to come into existence, and then back out of existence with no cause at all. Ask any cosmologist or astrophysicist.

Them: I was looking for a good reference for vaccum fluctuations and virtual particles. The cosmologist edward tryon suggested that the universe itself might be a vaccum fluctuation that underwent hyper expansion, which means that the universe needs no cause.
Of course, the universe needs no cause if it is infinite timewise, and I think the Brane model succesfully illustrates that possibility.
So we have at least two theories in science that possess more explanatory power than the simple causality model, in fact, one of them undermines it!

Them: Does it even make sense to talk about the universe having a cause? Doesn't cause and effect rely on time, which is itself part of the universe? Even if you accept that there is some initial point in time, isn't that merely describing the shape (so to speak) of the universe, since time is Just Another Dimension? Isn't it sort of like saying, "the universe is a cone; time is the axis of symmetry, and space is along circumference of each cross section. The cone has a tip, therefore it must have a creator."?
In other words, isn't saying, "the universe must have a cause," assuming that there is time external to the universe (because otherwise, there can be no 'time' at which the universe didn't exist, so therefore nothing could possibly create it)? Some sort of meta-universe in which our universe exists (and in that case, what created the meta-universe, et cetera)? Or is there some notion of causality that doesn't rely on the existence of time that I'm not aware of?

OK look forward to your responses, thanks

[Guest]

Use their own statements, like this one:

"...it is an error to assume deductive certainty can come from an inductive claim."

This is most of what they have done, deduced something from the latest "fad" theory, as if that were convincing. History is full of research that usually doesn't lead anywhere except to make interesting conversations.

[Guest]

thanks Guest, I'm noticing this the more research i do.
They have brought up alot of scientic theories and terms I was unaware of, but I checked into Lee Strobel's book Case for Creator, it actually touches on alot of the subjects that were brought up in this debate.

[Guest]

Frankly, much of the verbage goes right over my head (as, I suspect, it is intended to). I have never understood quantum physics nor been able to define the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle...but I still know at a glance that my car had a maker, even if I have never seen the factory or workers from which it came.

The dialog above reminds me of Christ's words, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes." (Matt.11:25) What high-falutin' nonsense men must resort to in order to make the ridiculous seem plausible and to avoid noticing what is obvious to any intelligent plain man!

It seems that they give up their position when they say, "As Stephen Hawkings stated, the scientific approach is open to theoretical explanations, provided they are based on sound mathematics and that they do not contradict what we already know of the world."

The postulate of intelligent design is defended by extensive mathematical studies, and does not contradict anything that we know about the world (i.e. our knowledge of the world gives us no reason to favor any theory of "undesigned design" or "information" existing apart from "mind"). On this basis, intelligent design may qualify as agreeing with Hawkings' broader definition of "science."

If we cannot finally prove that God exists to the determined skeptic, neither can they prove that any other postulate has better evidence in its favor.