Important!

[Guest JeffCR07]

This question of that which is infinitely small is most certainly an intriguing one, particularly in regards to its relationship with non-existence, however, I feel it is more off topic than is necessary.

Dojo, the answer to your question is relatively easy, though you will not like it. It is, truthfully, much the same as our own (Christian) explanation, though it circumvents God.

Assuming the Big-Bang theory, as has been discussed before, all of matter existed in one infinitely dense, infinitely small "singularity" before the outward projection of matter in what we know as the "Big Bang."

Your question is thus: If all motion exists as a [i]result[/i] of force applied, and this singularity was eternally present, what applied the force that created the change from "singularity" to "big bang?" Ultimately, it is a question of causation.

As I said before, the answer is simple, though you will not like it. Before the Big Bang, what we are considering is something that has never been witnessed in all of the cosmos: A Universal Singularity. The closest we can observe are "minor singularities" that we call "Black Holes." Though we do not know much about them, it seems that math breaks down within a black hole and certain "Laws" of nature fail. It would, then, be logical to assume that, regarding a Universal Singularity, the same would be true, and perhaps on a much larger scale.

Thus the short answer to your question is this: A learned atheist would reply "The problem is that you are trying to apply a 'proof' using math and laws that may not be existant within a Universal Singularity"

or, even shorter "Those rules don't apply"


I hope that helps. Ultimately, as Chesterton said, atheists are like a madman who thinks everyone is out to get him. You cannot convince him otherwise because [i]thats just what the people who are out to get him would say[/i], and you are just trying to make him lower his guard. You cannot refute the argument, you must simply show that there is another option, just as viable, and more appealing.

That being that the world is more than just a series of laws dictating the manner in which matter moves about; it is love and fear and angels and demons and miracles and freedom. The Christian is free to believe both in science and in the supernatural, but the atheist is bound to refuse, absolutely, the supernatural, and accept only the science.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[DojoGrant]

Jeff,

My answer to that response (which is a good criticism, I might add), is that such answers are speculation. Unless we witness the birth of another universe (which, by nature, would have to be outside our own, which is a material impossibility), it could never be proven matter-of-factly.

If the laws of nature can break down completely, then using science as the end-all means of understanding itself becomes fruitless, so it's self-defeating.

[Guest JeffCR07]

This is what I was referencing when I said that it is similar to the Christian response, though it circumvents God.

They ask us "How did everything come into being?" and we respond that "God, who is the uncaused cause, created it, and He is eternal because He is the Master of science and the Author of creation, thus our rules do not apply to him."

We ask them and they respond that "The Universal Singularity was in a state of existence in which our laws of science break down, thus making it impossible for us to understand."

Ultimately, the two arguments are symmetrical, though drastically divided. Neither one disproves the other and, in the eyes of the other both are "speculative," for an atheist will deny Divine Revelation.

They are two "options" ours is just the one that is more open, liberating, and answers more questions, though it demands a greater leap of faith.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[cmotherofpirl]

Well any good cosmologist will tell you, that if you go back to the beginning, the laws of physics don't apply.

Have you read Stephen Hawking?

[Guest JeffCR07]

Yes, he is one of those whose work substantiates the atheist claim that I have established above, along with the work in subatomic forces done by Professor Richard Fienman during the 40's and 50's

[qfnol31]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 8 2004, 08:23 AM'] Well any good cosmologist will tell you, that if you go back to the beginning, the laws of physics don't apply. [/quote]
That's cause gravity=electromagnetic force=weak nuclear force=strong nuclear force.

In other words, it was a fun place! This is all before T=10^(-43) seconds.

[DojoGrant]

Jeff,

I see what you're saying now. The people that I wrote this for, though, deny what cannot be known extensively through science (since the supernatural is not naturally explainable, there is no reason to believe it). Hence, they would be forced to not except any other unprovable theory, which falsifies the notion that atheism is "reasonable."

[cmotherofpirl]

No atheist has ever explained what created the singularity in the first place, or what force moved it. They never will.

It is much easier to believe in a God of order than to think blind chance is the author of all that is.

Atheists are cowards in a little box blindly screaming "it can't be true", because if it was it would require a response.

[Guest JeffCR07]

While I agree with cmom's and dojo's conclusions - that atheism is, ultimately, just as much "faith-based" as catholicism and religion in general, I have to disagree with the broad final statements made by cmom.

In my humble opinion, making a statement of faith is a monumentally difficult task and it is not "cowardice" that leads people to search for other answers. To ask someone to profess a faith in God, who defies reason, the senses, science, and, in fact, all human constructs, is to, ironically, ask someone to believe that that which was dead can once again be alive.

A leap of faith is truly difficult, and, in the case of many, I do not think that "cowardice" is the cause of their inability to take that leap. Reason is. Our culture has placed "reason" on such a pedestal and has enshrined it so thoroughly, that to think that anything more is necessary in the understanding of the universe is "unreasonable" and thus illegitimate.

If atheists are in a box, that box is their own mind, but I don't think I would ever call them a coward for being there, they simply do not yet understand.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[cmotherofpirl]

But I don't think belief in God "defies reason, the senses, science, and, in fact, all human constructs ".

I think it is the only logical response to the universe.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I agree with the sentiments that back your statementit makes me think of Plato's Allegory of the Cave. A person who has once seen the truth and understands it to be the truth cannot return to a belief that the shadows on the wall are "reality." In the same way, you and I, who accept Christ as the one true Logos, the Word of God and the Light of the World, cannot conceive of returning to a process of thought that does not include Him.

That having been said, we must remember that it takes significantly more than pure reason to get to faith in Christ. Moreover, having lost the sanctifying Grace that God gave us, through Original Sin, we have aquired in its place the concupiscense that is the result of that sin. Thus our nature itself is "duel" we naturally seek God, for we are made in His image, and we naturally drive ourselves away from Him in our tendency towards sin.

Those people who do not accept Christ are merely acting accorded to our nature, which has been twisted by sin. I would not consider this "cowardice."

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jul 8 2004, 08:21 AM'] infinitely small will always take up some space, because small implies some kind of size.

nothing implies ...nothing emptiness...blankness
smallness does not equal nothingness. [/quote]
Smallness does not imply nothing, but infinitely small does. It's a bit of a pain to prove mathematically but I assure you there is no such thing as the "smallest positive number".

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jul 8 2004, 02:24 PM']

Those people who do not accept Christ are merely acting accorded to our nature, which has been twisted by sin. I would not consider this "cowardice." [/quote]
Jeff I am not talking about Christ, but of God.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I realise this, and truly, I know what you are trying to say, I am (poorly, I might add) simply trying to point out that we, who are finite, have a very hard time, especially unguided, comprehending an Infinite God. Buddhists have come up with a very different explanation that Christians did, whose explanation was very different from that of the Greeks, whose explanation was very different than that of the Taoists or disciples of Confucius. Nihilists and Atheists have existed in every Age. I am merely trying to point out that doubt is part of our twisted, fallen nature, and it is the inevitable result of our concupiscense. You know that my faith is the same as yours, and we do not really disagree about anything, I am merely saying that faith is not "easy" and so a lack of faith is not "cowardice"

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff