This latest conversation took me for-fucking-ever to get to and to finish. Unfortunately, you’ll find many redundancies and repetitions. Because it’s taken so long and I’m frankly so tired of it, I’ve provided no commentary at the end. My text is in italics. Steve’s is in bold.
I understand you may choose not to respond. I’ve answered all of your questions, including the one on whether I’d like to interview acquaintances of yours who also witnessed God.
>something cannot come from nothing Anton. if you are a scientist you understand basic causation.
I’m a linguist, which is a kind of scientist. And yes, I understand causation, but just because we don’t know the cause of something 1. doesn’t mean there wasn’t one and 2 doesn’t mean it was what we assume it to be. My understanding of current cosmology is that time began with the universe, thus, there was no “before” the universe. Thus, no “cause” in the traditional sense.
>where did the soup of organic chemicals come from?
As far as I’ve heard, some from the atmosphere, some from the ground, some maybe even from space. I’m not entirely sure. Sagan might say that it all came from star material. My understanding of current cosmology is that it all ultimately came from a highly dense singularity. But don’t quote me on that. :)
>you always face the problem of causation. nothing we have observed empirically works that way. the only logical explanation is an uncaused cause.
That may seem attractive, sure, but it still requires explanation. Where did the “uncaused” cause come from, how did it get there, why did it do what it did, etc.? If current cosmology is correct and time began with the universe, there is no need for an “uncaused” cause. If the universe is infinite, there is still no need for an “uncaused” cause. Why is it theists find the notion of an infinite god so acceptable, but the notion of an infinite universe so unacceptable? They’re the same notion, merely with different names.
>an intelligent designer. the deeper science goes in understanding the radical complexity and intricisy of the Universe the more they see intelligent design as the only viable explanation.
Can you name a single legitimate, peer-reviewed, non-creationist-funded scientist who has proved, not asserted, but proved that there was, in fact, an intelligent designer? Are you saying that the appearance of patterns and complexity means that such observances were designed? The issue I see is even if we were to accept the ID idea, it still needs to be proved.
Moreover, everything I’ve heard from legitimate, peer-reviewed scientists such as Hawking is that the laws that we’ve already observed, such as gravity, explain the complexity we see. Continue reading