Post by DrGadget on Jun 30, 2008 7:37:02 GMT -5
1. Overview.
The universe was created supernaturally. God is the only supernatural being that fits the requirements of “Creator”. Therefore, God created the universe.
2. Natural Laws.
There are two natural laws involved here. One is Causality, and the other is Conservation. Let’s look at each.
Causality, or “Cause and Effect”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
"Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B the effect.
Conservation, or more specifically, the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy
There is a Law of Conservation of Mass, and a Law of Conservation of Energy. They state that matter and energy can never be created nor destroyed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
Combine these and you get the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, more commonly known as E=MC2. It states that matter can be destroyed, but only when converted to energy, or it can be created, but only at the expense of energy. It combines the two individual laws into one all-encompassing law of Conservation.
These are immutable natural laws. We have no way of circumventing them. Nothing we can see is capable of circumventing them. They cannot be bypassed by any natural means or human intervention.
3. Origin of the Universe.
The universe is here. Therefore there are two possible explanations for this.
a. The universe was always here.
b. The universe came into being.
But now let’s take another look at those natural laws.
a. If the universe was always here, then it exists without anything causing it. Therefore the existence of the universe is in violation of the Law of Causality.
b. If the universe came into being, then its appearance occurred in violation of the Laws of Conservation.
(1) The universe could have come from a huge ball of energy that initiated the Big Bang. This would be consistent with the Laws of Conservation.
(2) However, the existence of the energy ball itself would have to be examined as well. It either came into being or was always there. Coming into being would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy. Always having been there would violate the Law of Causality.
(3) Something else could have created the energy ball. But no matter how far back you go, you are ultimately faced with the fact that the original source of the universe violated at least one of these laws of nature. The conclusion is inescapable.
The universe is here. No matter how the universe exists, it stands in violation of natural law. The universe cannot exist naturally. The universe must exist supernaturally. It is the only way.
This means that the Big Bang did not create the universe. Without supernatural intervention, the universe would not exist. It’s not scientifically possible.
Big Bang physicists would have you believe that the laws of nature were somehow “suspended” during the Big Bang. Then they say the source of the energy ball was caused by metaphysics.
“Metaphysics” is a fancy way of saying something magical happened. It means they really don’t know. X occurred. This is not very exact science.
As for the laws of nature being suspended, that would mean that science didn’t apply. This, in and of itself is unscientific. To say that something outside the realm of science occurred is the same as giving up and saying they don’t know for sure, so it was magic.
So basically, here’s what Big Bang physicists are saying:
A big ball of energy appeared by magic, and then magically created the universe. But it was all done naturally by itself, and had no supernatural cause. Specifically, there was no being called “God” that caused the universe. We really don’t know anything at all about what happened, but we are 100% sure it had nothing to do with God.
Well, excuse me if I have a hard time accepting any of that as “science”.
4. What Is Science?
Science is the gaining of accurate knowledge through observation and experimentation.
a. If you can observe it, and perform experiments on it, and gain accurate knowledge from it, then it is science.
b. If you can’t observe it, and you can’t perform experiments on it, and the only “knowledge” you gain comes in the form of guesswork, then it’s not science.
5. Is It All an Illusion?
I have presented this reasoning before to the Big Bang adherents. When they could find no flaws in this logic, they tend to fall back to the philosophy of looking at the universe as a big illusion. What if the universe isn’t really here? What if we’re living in “The Matrix”? What if this is all a big dream?
It’s really interesting to see what’s going on here. In an effort to preserve the proper function of natural laws in conjunction with all we see, the Naturalist is willing to sacrifice the entire universe! After all, if the universe doesn’t exist, then the natural laws have been satisfied. I have no idea what good natural laws would be if there is no universe, or where such laws would apply (without a universe), but this is the mental retreat where some Naturalists will escape to in an effort to avoid dealing with the problems of Causality and Conservation.
This is, of course, a tactic to dodge the fact that they can’t explain the existence of the universe in accord with the laws of nature. Again, I refer you back to what science is. It’s all based on observation.
If you look around at the world and the stars, if you feel the grass under your feet, if you hear birds chirping, if you smell the scent of flowers in the air, if you taste the salt in seawater, then you are gaining information from observation. All five senses are useful in scientific observation.
But if you dismiss everything you see, feel, hear, smell, and taste, and state that the universe is a dream or an illusion, then you are not basing your conclusions on observation. Without observation, there is no science. You can make theories all you want, but real science requires observation. If the whole world is all an illusion, then all observations become meaningless and you can’t ever be sure of anything. If you’re not sure of anything, then any “knowledge” you have gained is not accurate, is it? Many of these people steer themselves into thinking that nothing can be proven absolutely. This is a by-product of dismissing the importance of observation.
The philosophical theory that all we see and know is some kind of illusion is most definitely NOT based on scientific observation. It is the exact opposite of science. It is the attempt to utterly disregard everything we observe.
So when I point out to a Naturalistic Scientist that the universe can’t possibly exist according to natural law, and he tries to say that maybe the universe doesn’t really exist, then he has in fact departed from all scientific thinking in making that argument. He will tell himself that the Creationist is the dreamer and he is the scientist, but in reality, those roles have been reversed. I am applying proven scientific principles and he has regressed into a philosophical playground.
The universe is here. All science points to the existence of the universe. Anyone who says otherwise is not being scientific in the least. He is a dreamer, a philosopher, perhaps a mental adventurer, but not a scientist. It’s an interesting “what if” scenario, but there’s no scientific proof whatsoever that the universe is all an illusion.
I believe I’ve thoroughly beaten this dead horse. We need never hear it neigh again when discussing actual science. Moving on...
6. The Universe is Here Supernaturally.
We have ruled out the universe existing in accordance with natural laws.
We have ruled out the notion of the universe not existing.
The universe does exist, and it does so in defiance of at least one natural law.
Therefore, the universe MUST exist supernaturally. If it’s not here naturally, then it absolutely positively must be here supernaturally. Scientifically and logically, this is a fact.
7. Naturalistic Science is Foolish.
Since we know for a scientific fact that the universe exists supernaturally, what does that say about Naturalistic Science? Naturalistic Science is the realm of thought devoted to proving how the universe is here naturally with no help at all from a supernatural power. We have proven that such a thing is not scientifically possible. The words “Naturalistic” and “Science” do not belong together. Observing the universe in an intellectually honest manner cannot possibly lead you to the conclusion that it is all here of its own accord.
Trying to prove Naturalistic Science would be like trying to prove how fish swim without water, or how electricity works without electrons. Or maybe you would like to explore the possibility of how a drive-in movie works but you don’t believe in projectors, so you try to prove how the light just magically appears on the screen by itself. Whatever you come up with has to be utter nonsense. Spending billions of dollars will not help you. Getting a team of well-respected scientists to mock projectors as being “unscientific” will not make you any more right. You have purposely introduced false parameters that make it all impossible. You have gone out of your way to ignore all meaningful observations. These errors are introduced so pervasively at such a fundamental level that the entire effort becomes futility.
I am reminded of a skit from Monty Python’s Flying Circus, where John Cleese is cross-eyed. He sees two of everything. Behind him is a picture of Mount Kilimanjaro with its notable peak. But he sees two peaks, being cross-eyed. He says that he sent a team of mountain climbers up the mountain to build a bridge between the two peaks. It is immediately hilarious to the viewer, because Cleese doesn’t see the fundamental and irremediable problem with his plan. The bridge cannot possibly be built. This is obvious to everyone except him. Thus the viewer enjoys laughing at his blind foolishness.
Scientifically proving that the universe exists naturally is like building a bridge between the two peaks of Mount Kilimanjaro. It can’t be done. Attempting to do so just makes you look foolish.
Naturalistic Science is the intellectual equivalent of a silly Monty Python skit.
8. How Do We Know Naturalistic Science is Foolish?
For one, we have already proven that the universe is here supernaturally. Attempting to show how it is here naturally can’t work.
But also, consider the fruits of Naturalistic Science. There are none. Real science produces real products.
Lasers for CD players, that record wonderful songs.
Magnetics storing information on computer hard drives.
Rocketry sending men into outer space.
Hydrodynamics in building huge dams that generate electricity.
Chemical science that gives us non-stick cookware.
Medical science giving us drugs to control allergies.
Atomic science giving us nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants.
Biological engineering giving us new strains of crops that resist insects and disease.
Aerodynamic science gives us helicopters and jumbo jets.
Whatever the field of science, the result is always the same. There is a useful end product. Not only do these products work, but they work reliably. You can be confident in them working, because they are based on science. You can trust your life to them working. Would you step foot on a commercial airliner if there was a 50/50 chance that it would crash halfway to the destination? Of course not. You are quite confident you’ll get there in one piece.
And if something goes wrong, you know it’s not because the science used in making the plane was bad. It was probably human error or worn out parts. Few planes in the last 100 years have crashed solely because of a bad aerodynamic science. The science behind a jumbo jet is solid, even if the plane itself is in need of repairs.
In stark contrast, what are the products we have as a result of all the billions spent researching Naturalistic Science? There are none. There’s no Big Bang generating signal watch. There’s no self-evolving bacteria to cure the common cold. There’s really nothing of value that comes from studying Naturalistic Science. No end product. So why have it? Other than allowing you to do some mental gymnastics, what real purpose does it serve?
Gravity works whether you believe in God or not. Electricity still works whether you believe in God or not. Naturalistic Science can only work if you don’t believe in God. Also, you have to not believe in natural laws, which is pretty ironic. Natural laws (Causality and Conservation) tell us the universe shouldn’t exist.
So basically, to become a Naturalistic Scientist you must turn your back on the laws of nature, so you can devote yourself to a field of study with no tangible benefit to humanity.
9. What or Who Made the Universe?
Short answer – God did.
Only God is powerful enough to overcome the otherwise immutable laws of nature. God is supernatural. By definition, everything He does is a miracle. If He steps on a patch of grass, that’s a miracle. It is literally an Act of God.
10. What About Other Gods?
There are many other stories about the creation of the universe in mythology. The various gods (who would qualify as supernatural beings) create the universe. But these gods all have origins. Zeus was the son of Chronos. Odin was the son of Bur, son of Bori. Well, where did these gods come from? What was the original origin? Eventually, you need an origin that needs no other origin. All the gods of mythology fail this test. For the gods to exist, you would need some mysterious super-god to have created them, one that has no origin.
11. Why the God of the Bible?
Only God is powerful enough to overcome Causality and Conservation. He claims this in the Bible. He alone meets the conditions required of a supernatural being that could make the universe.
a. Causality.
God has no origin. He never came into being. He always was. When God called Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, Moses wanted to know God’s name. In those days, your name indicated the conditions surrounding your birth. Moses means “to draw out”, because Pharaoh’s daughter drew him out of the Nile River. Peleg means “division” because he was born just after the Tower of Babel incident, and the world was being divided. People were splitting up. Esau means red, because he was born with red hair. Your name described where you came from and how you got there.
Moses asked God His name, and God said, “I AM”. What does that mean? It means that if you go back and try to find God’s origin, He’s already there. Go back some more and He’s already there. You will never find God’s origin, no matter how far back you go. He always was.
Many years later, Jesus was talking about Abraham. The Pharisees asked Him how He could have met someone who lived thousands of years earlier. Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” (John 8:58) And if you look at the original manuscripts, you will see that Jesus used the same “I AM” that God told Moses. The Pharisees knew exactly what Jesus was saying and considered it blasphemy, because He was calling Himself God by saying that particular “I AM”. The Pharisees tried to stone Him as a heretic.
Notice Jesus didn’t say, “I was.” He said, “I AM”. God is not bound by what we know as time. No matter what time you go to, God already “AM”. He’s in a perpetual state of being. God is unchanging. He’s always in the present tense. He has no origin. He always was and always will be. He “AM”.
b. Conservation.
God is able to override or ignore the Laws of Conservation. They apply to us, but not necessarily to Him. In the beginning, there was nothing. There was no universe. And then God spoke and it was so. There was no violent Big Bang. It was created in order. Some of it was created on Day 1, some on Day 2, etc. God was able to create something where once was nothing. What did God use to create the universe? He used words. He spoke the universe into existence, layer by layer.
But what if God’s word has diminished as a result of doing this?
(1) If God’s word did diminish as a result of creating the universe, then Conservation is satisfied.
(2) If God’s word held the same power before and after creating the universe, then that means God doesn’t apply Conservation to Himself.
I was prepared to state that God ignored or overrode the Laws of Conservation when He created the universe, but now that I think about it, He probably did not. God puts a very high priority on His own words. Man’s words are ephemeral. God’s words are eternal.
Let’s look at what the Bible says about God’s words.
(1) Jesus is the living Word of God (John 1:1).
(2) God’s words are necessary for Man to live (Matthew 4:4).
(3) God’s word is quick and powerful (Hebrews 4:12).
(4) God’s word goes out in power and never returns void when it comes back to God (Isaiah 55:11). God sends His word out into the world for the purpose of doing something, and that something gets done. God’s word will have accomplishment and prospering.
(5) God makes sure that every last part of His word is fulfilled down to the jot and tittle (Matthew 5:18).
There is a power transfer going on, and this sounds very much like the Laws of Conservation.
God’s word conveys power.
This power goes out from God and does something, and then returns.
The part that especially looks like Conservation is when Jesus said that every jot and tittle of God’s word will be fulfilled. He will account for every word, every letter, every punctuation mark. There is no waste. There is no leftover. It is a 100% conversion. All energy, in the form of words, is accounted for.
It seems that God has chosen to follow the Laws of Conservation after all. He’s still God, and can ignore whichever natural laws that He feels like ignoring. But he has chosen to operate within the limits of Conservation. The “energy ball” sought after by the Big Bang theorists is the Word of God. God used energy to create the universe. But God’s creation was orderly and logical. It was not violent and chaotic.
12. Summary.
Causality and Conservation make it impossible for the universe to exist entirely based on natural laws, making Naturalistic Science a pointless endeavor.
God alone has the power to override or ignore these laws and allow the universe to exist.
God certainly is not bound by Causality, since He has no origin. Nothing caused God to happen. He always was. He always “AM”.
Once Causality has been dealt with, it no longer matters scientifically whether God has chosen to adhere to the Laws of Conservation or not. Either way, He’s still God. Either way, He’s still the only one capable of creating the universe.
Other mythical supernatural beings were not described as having the power to override Causality, and fall short of the qualities needed to create the universe.
Even if you dismiss the God of the Bible as the Creator, you would have to find a Creator who matches the description of the God of the Bible for such a being to create the universe. So why avoid the obvious? God says He did it. He describes Himself as having the right attributes to create the universe. Observation of the universe and examination of the Bible tell us that God perfectly matches the attributes required of the Creator. Remember, real science is based on observation. Ignoring the simple and obvious observation that God is the Creator would be anti-science.
13. Conclusion.
The only possible scientific conclusion is that God created the universe.
The universe was created supernaturally. God is the only supernatural being that fits the requirements of “Creator”. Therefore, God created the universe.
2. Natural Laws.
There are two natural laws involved here. One is Causality, and the other is Conservation. Let’s look at each.
Causality, or “Cause and Effect”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality
"Causality postulates that there are laws by which the occurrence of an entity B of a certain class depends on the occurrence of an entity A of another class, where the word entity means any physical object, phenomenon, situation, or event. A is called the cause, B the effect.
Conservation, or more specifically, the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy
There is a Law of Conservation of Mass, and a Law of Conservation of Energy. They state that matter and energy can never be created nor destroyed.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
Combine these and you get the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, more commonly known as E=MC2. It states that matter can be destroyed, but only when converted to energy, or it can be created, but only at the expense of energy. It combines the two individual laws into one all-encompassing law of Conservation.
These are immutable natural laws. We have no way of circumventing them. Nothing we can see is capable of circumventing them. They cannot be bypassed by any natural means or human intervention.
3. Origin of the Universe.
The universe is here. Therefore there are two possible explanations for this.
a. The universe was always here.
b. The universe came into being.
But now let’s take another look at those natural laws.
a. If the universe was always here, then it exists without anything causing it. Therefore the existence of the universe is in violation of the Law of Causality.
b. If the universe came into being, then its appearance occurred in violation of the Laws of Conservation.
(1) The universe could have come from a huge ball of energy that initiated the Big Bang. This would be consistent with the Laws of Conservation.
(2) However, the existence of the energy ball itself would have to be examined as well. It either came into being or was always there. Coming into being would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy. Always having been there would violate the Law of Causality.
(3) Something else could have created the energy ball. But no matter how far back you go, you are ultimately faced with the fact that the original source of the universe violated at least one of these laws of nature. The conclusion is inescapable.
The universe is here. No matter how the universe exists, it stands in violation of natural law. The universe cannot exist naturally. The universe must exist supernaturally. It is the only way.
This means that the Big Bang did not create the universe. Without supernatural intervention, the universe would not exist. It’s not scientifically possible.
Big Bang physicists would have you believe that the laws of nature were somehow “suspended” during the Big Bang. Then they say the source of the energy ball was caused by metaphysics.
“Metaphysics” is a fancy way of saying something magical happened. It means they really don’t know. X occurred. This is not very exact science.
As for the laws of nature being suspended, that would mean that science didn’t apply. This, in and of itself is unscientific. To say that something outside the realm of science occurred is the same as giving up and saying they don’t know for sure, so it was magic.
So basically, here’s what Big Bang physicists are saying:
A big ball of energy appeared by magic, and then magically created the universe. But it was all done naturally by itself, and had no supernatural cause. Specifically, there was no being called “God” that caused the universe. We really don’t know anything at all about what happened, but we are 100% sure it had nothing to do with God.
Well, excuse me if I have a hard time accepting any of that as “science”.
4. What Is Science?
Science is the gaining of accurate knowledge through observation and experimentation.
a. If you can observe it, and perform experiments on it, and gain accurate knowledge from it, then it is science.
b. If you can’t observe it, and you can’t perform experiments on it, and the only “knowledge” you gain comes in the form of guesswork, then it’s not science.
5. Is It All an Illusion?
I have presented this reasoning before to the Big Bang adherents. When they could find no flaws in this logic, they tend to fall back to the philosophy of looking at the universe as a big illusion. What if the universe isn’t really here? What if we’re living in “The Matrix”? What if this is all a big dream?
It’s really interesting to see what’s going on here. In an effort to preserve the proper function of natural laws in conjunction with all we see, the Naturalist is willing to sacrifice the entire universe! After all, if the universe doesn’t exist, then the natural laws have been satisfied. I have no idea what good natural laws would be if there is no universe, or where such laws would apply (without a universe), but this is the mental retreat where some Naturalists will escape to in an effort to avoid dealing with the problems of Causality and Conservation.
This is, of course, a tactic to dodge the fact that they can’t explain the existence of the universe in accord with the laws of nature. Again, I refer you back to what science is. It’s all based on observation.
If you look around at the world and the stars, if you feel the grass under your feet, if you hear birds chirping, if you smell the scent of flowers in the air, if you taste the salt in seawater, then you are gaining information from observation. All five senses are useful in scientific observation.
But if you dismiss everything you see, feel, hear, smell, and taste, and state that the universe is a dream or an illusion, then you are not basing your conclusions on observation. Without observation, there is no science. You can make theories all you want, but real science requires observation. If the whole world is all an illusion, then all observations become meaningless and you can’t ever be sure of anything. If you’re not sure of anything, then any “knowledge” you have gained is not accurate, is it? Many of these people steer themselves into thinking that nothing can be proven absolutely. This is a by-product of dismissing the importance of observation.
The philosophical theory that all we see and know is some kind of illusion is most definitely NOT based on scientific observation. It is the exact opposite of science. It is the attempt to utterly disregard everything we observe.
So when I point out to a Naturalistic Scientist that the universe can’t possibly exist according to natural law, and he tries to say that maybe the universe doesn’t really exist, then he has in fact departed from all scientific thinking in making that argument. He will tell himself that the Creationist is the dreamer and he is the scientist, but in reality, those roles have been reversed. I am applying proven scientific principles and he has regressed into a philosophical playground.
The universe is here. All science points to the existence of the universe. Anyone who says otherwise is not being scientific in the least. He is a dreamer, a philosopher, perhaps a mental adventurer, but not a scientist. It’s an interesting “what if” scenario, but there’s no scientific proof whatsoever that the universe is all an illusion.
I believe I’ve thoroughly beaten this dead horse. We need never hear it neigh again when discussing actual science. Moving on...
6. The Universe is Here Supernaturally.
We have ruled out the universe existing in accordance with natural laws.
We have ruled out the notion of the universe not existing.
The universe does exist, and it does so in defiance of at least one natural law.
Therefore, the universe MUST exist supernaturally. If it’s not here naturally, then it absolutely positively must be here supernaturally. Scientifically and logically, this is a fact.
7. Naturalistic Science is Foolish.
Since we know for a scientific fact that the universe exists supernaturally, what does that say about Naturalistic Science? Naturalistic Science is the realm of thought devoted to proving how the universe is here naturally with no help at all from a supernatural power. We have proven that such a thing is not scientifically possible. The words “Naturalistic” and “Science” do not belong together. Observing the universe in an intellectually honest manner cannot possibly lead you to the conclusion that it is all here of its own accord.
Trying to prove Naturalistic Science would be like trying to prove how fish swim without water, or how electricity works without electrons. Or maybe you would like to explore the possibility of how a drive-in movie works but you don’t believe in projectors, so you try to prove how the light just magically appears on the screen by itself. Whatever you come up with has to be utter nonsense. Spending billions of dollars will not help you. Getting a team of well-respected scientists to mock projectors as being “unscientific” will not make you any more right. You have purposely introduced false parameters that make it all impossible. You have gone out of your way to ignore all meaningful observations. These errors are introduced so pervasively at such a fundamental level that the entire effort becomes futility.
I am reminded of a skit from Monty Python’s Flying Circus, where John Cleese is cross-eyed. He sees two of everything. Behind him is a picture of Mount Kilimanjaro with its notable peak. But he sees two peaks, being cross-eyed. He says that he sent a team of mountain climbers up the mountain to build a bridge between the two peaks. It is immediately hilarious to the viewer, because Cleese doesn’t see the fundamental and irremediable problem with his plan. The bridge cannot possibly be built. This is obvious to everyone except him. Thus the viewer enjoys laughing at his blind foolishness.
Scientifically proving that the universe exists naturally is like building a bridge between the two peaks of Mount Kilimanjaro. It can’t be done. Attempting to do so just makes you look foolish.
Naturalistic Science is the intellectual equivalent of a silly Monty Python skit.
8. How Do We Know Naturalistic Science is Foolish?
For one, we have already proven that the universe is here supernaturally. Attempting to show how it is here naturally can’t work.
But also, consider the fruits of Naturalistic Science. There are none. Real science produces real products.
Lasers for CD players, that record wonderful songs.
Magnetics storing information on computer hard drives.
Rocketry sending men into outer space.
Hydrodynamics in building huge dams that generate electricity.
Chemical science that gives us non-stick cookware.
Medical science giving us drugs to control allergies.
Atomic science giving us nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants.
Biological engineering giving us new strains of crops that resist insects and disease.
Aerodynamic science gives us helicopters and jumbo jets.
Whatever the field of science, the result is always the same. There is a useful end product. Not only do these products work, but they work reliably. You can be confident in them working, because they are based on science. You can trust your life to them working. Would you step foot on a commercial airliner if there was a 50/50 chance that it would crash halfway to the destination? Of course not. You are quite confident you’ll get there in one piece.
And if something goes wrong, you know it’s not because the science used in making the plane was bad. It was probably human error or worn out parts. Few planes in the last 100 years have crashed solely because of a bad aerodynamic science. The science behind a jumbo jet is solid, even if the plane itself is in need of repairs.
In stark contrast, what are the products we have as a result of all the billions spent researching Naturalistic Science? There are none. There’s no Big Bang generating signal watch. There’s no self-evolving bacteria to cure the common cold. There’s really nothing of value that comes from studying Naturalistic Science. No end product. So why have it? Other than allowing you to do some mental gymnastics, what real purpose does it serve?
Gravity works whether you believe in God or not. Electricity still works whether you believe in God or not. Naturalistic Science can only work if you don’t believe in God. Also, you have to not believe in natural laws, which is pretty ironic. Natural laws (Causality and Conservation) tell us the universe shouldn’t exist.
So basically, to become a Naturalistic Scientist you must turn your back on the laws of nature, so you can devote yourself to a field of study with no tangible benefit to humanity.
9. What or Who Made the Universe?
Short answer – God did.
Only God is powerful enough to overcome the otherwise immutable laws of nature. God is supernatural. By definition, everything He does is a miracle. If He steps on a patch of grass, that’s a miracle. It is literally an Act of God.
10. What About Other Gods?
There are many other stories about the creation of the universe in mythology. The various gods (who would qualify as supernatural beings) create the universe. But these gods all have origins. Zeus was the son of Chronos. Odin was the son of Bur, son of Bori. Well, where did these gods come from? What was the original origin? Eventually, you need an origin that needs no other origin. All the gods of mythology fail this test. For the gods to exist, you would need some mysterious super-god to have created them, one that has no origin.
11. Why the God of the Bible?
Only God is powerful enough to overcome Causality and Conservation. He claims this in the Bible. He alone meets the conditions required of a supernatural being that could make the universe.
a. Causality.
God has no origin. He never came into being. He always was. When God called Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, Moses wanted to know God’s name. In those days, your name indicated the conditions surrounding your birth. Moses means “to draw out”, because Pharaoh’s daughter drew him out of the Nile River. Peleg means “division” because he was born just after the Tower of Babel incident, and the world was being divided. People were splitting up. Esau means red, because he was born with red hair. Your name described where you came from and how you got there.
Moses asked God His name, and God said, “I AM”. What does that mean? It means that if you go back and try to find God’s origin, He’s already there. Go back some more and He’s already there. You will never find God’s origin, no matter how far back you go. He always was.
Many years later, Jesus was talking about Abraham. The Pharisees asked Him how He could have met someone who lived thousands of years earlier. Jesus said, “Before Abraham was, I AM.” (John 8:58) And if you look at the original manuscripts, you will see that Jesus used the same “I AM” that God told Moses. The Pharisees knew exactly what Jesus was saying and considered it blasphemy, because He was calling Himself God by saying that particular “I AM”. The Pharisees tried to stone Him as a heretic.
Notice Jesus didn’t say, “I was.” He said, “I AM”. God is not bound by what we know as time. No matter what time you go to, God already “AM”. He’s in a perpetual state of being. God is unchanging. He’s always in the present tense. He has no origin. He always was and always will be. He “AM”.
b. Conservation.
God is able to override or ignore the Laws of Conservation. They apply to us, but not necessarily to Him. In the beginning, there was nothing. There was no universe. And then God spoke and it was so. There was no violent Big Bang. It was created in order. Some of it was created on Day 1, some on Day 2, etc. God was able to create something where once was nothing. What did God use to create the universe? He used words. He spoke the universe into existence, layer by layer.
But what if God’s word has diminished as a result of doing this?
(1) If God’s word did diminish as a result of creating the universe, then Conservation is satisfied.
(2) If God’s word held the same power before and after creating the universe, then that means God doesn’t apply Conservation to Himself.
I was prepared to state that God ignored or overrode the Laws of Conservation when He created the universe, but now that I think about it, He probably did not. God puts a very high priority on His own words. Man’s words are ephemeral. God’s words are eternal.
Let’s look at what the Bible says about God’s words.
(1) Jesus is the living Word of God (John 1:1).
(2) God’s words are necessary for Man to live (Matthew 4:4).
(3) God’s word is quick and powerful (Hebrews 4:12).
(4) God’s word goes out in power and never returns void when it comes back to God (Isaiah 55:11). God sends His word out into the world for the purpose of doing something, and that something gets done. God’s word will have accomplishment and prospering.
(5) God makes sure that every last part of His word is fulfilled down to the jot and tittle (Matthew 5:18).
There is a power transfer going on, and this sounds very much like the Laws of Conservation.
God’s word conveys power.
This power goes out from God and does something, and then returns.
The part that especially looks like Conservation is when Jesus said that every jot and tittle of God’s word will be fulfilled. He will account for every word, every letter, every punctuation mark. There is no waste. There is no leftover. It is a 100% conversion. All energy, in the form of words, is accounted for.
It seems that God has chosen to follow the Laws of Conservation after all. He’s still God, and can ignore whichever natural laws that He feels like ignoring. But he has chosen to operate within the limits of Conservation. The “energy ball” sought after by the Big Bang theorists is the Word of God. God used energy to create the universe. But God’s creation was orderly and logical. It was not violent and chaotic.
12. Summary.
Causality and Conservation make it impossible for the universe to exist entirely based on natural laws, making Naturalistic Science a pointless endeavor.
God alone has the power to override or ignore these laws and allow the universe to exist.
God certainly is not bound by Causality, since He has no origin. Nothing caused God to happen. He always was. He always “AM”.
Once Causality has been dealt with, it no longer matters scientifically whether God has chosen to adhere to the Laws of Conservation or not. Either way, He’s still God. Either way, He’s still the only one capable of creating the universe.
Other mythical supernatural beings were not described as having the power to override Causality, and fall short of the qualities needed to create the universe.
Even if you dismiss the God of the Bible as the Creator, you would have to find a Creator who matches the description of the God of the Bible for such a being to create the universe. So why avoid the obvious? God says He did it. He describes Himself as having the right attributes to create the universe. Observation of the universe and examination of the Bible tell us that God perfectly matches the attributes required of the Creator. Remember, real science is based on observation. Ignoring the simple and obvious observation that God is the Creator would be anti-science.
13. Conclusion.
The only possible scientific conclusion is that God created the universe.
