Hugh Ross and a Proof of a Creator

I noticed from a web search that there has been past discussion regarding the books and Christian theist philosophy of noted astronomer and Christian apologist Hugh Ross. A couple years or so ago I came across a rebuttal to Dr. Ross’s views as expressed in The Creator and the Cosmos. The article was written by an atheistic university philosophy teacher and was published in a humanistic journal devoted to atheistic philosophy. Therefore, I wrote a rejoinder supporting Dr. Ross’s views while hopefully strengthening them with the addition of my insights. It’s a philosophical proof of a creator.

If anyone would be interested in reading it at my personal website (everything is free access there, and it has no ads or donation solicitations), please go to my website's Welcome Page and click on the “Miscellaneous” button link on the left hand side. You can then find it from the table of contents. (I’m too new here to post links.) My website's URL can be found in my profile.

It is based on Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity. At the end of the paper, I link to the paper I am attempting to refute in Dr. Ross’s favor. Please note, my proof only purports to prove the necessity of a creator of some kind. It does not attempt to prove the existence of God in the traditional sense, though such a creator is certainly not excluded by my logical reasoning.

Thank you. I’m new here and hope to stick around for awhile!

Don Schneider

welcome

if you wish to avoid being labeled a spammer, it is better form that you quote from and discuss the content of your arguments here, as opposed to linking to a site (which looks like you are simply advertising, which isn't allowed).

post away though, you will get good feedback

Yeah, that's not the way this forum works. You have to actually jump start the conversation in some way.

At least summarize Ross' argument and your own so that we can get some idea of what you're talking about.

Also, advertising your own website is considered to be in poor taste.

very poor taste, it is frowned here to advertise your own site not saying you purposely did it but, some new members have bn banned right off the bat for doing that.

so.. what is your argument?

unless you want us all to go to your site to argue there? 😬

Originally posted by Wild Shadow
unless you want us all to go to your site to argue there? 😬

which would mean he is advertising 😉

Well, I’m sorry fellows. I didn’t mean to violate protocol. As I said, I read through a thread here from some while ago debating Dr. Ross’s views and arguments and, therefore, I thought anyone interested in that subject might appreciate reading my proof. I would assume that if anyone went to my website and reported back that I was actually selling medications or some such thing that that would be duly noted, and I would doubtlessly be immediately banned as you suggest.

The paper takes about fifteen minutes to read and digest, and it would be difficult to copy and paste it in its entirety due to the logistics of my website. It is also available on Ezine Articles (also for free) and several other sites which picked it up from the article service. However, I would rather anyone interested read it in its original form at my website because I had to edit it somewhat to meet the editorial requirements of the article service.

Anyway, I didn’t mean to be in any way offensive and please accept my apologies if I inadvertently came across as such.

Here is an excerpt:

"This essay is a rejoinder to a paper written by Theodore Schick, Jr., Professor of Philosophy, Muhlenberg College, Allentown, Pennsylvania. The 1998 paper is entitled 'The 'Big Bang' Argument for the Existence of God' and is a rebuttal to the views held by Hugh Ross, noted astronomer and Christian apologist, as expressed within his book The Creator and the Cosmos. The paper was originally published in Philo, the Journal of the Society of Humanist Philosophers.

"The impetus of Dr. Schick’s paper is to discredit Dr. Ross’s contention that the acceptance of the theory of the 'big bang' as the beginning of the universe implies that it must have had a cause beyond the event itself, and Dr. Schick’s corollary contention that such an assertion is nothing but a scientifically updated variation of St. Thomas Aquinas’s 'uncaused first cause' argument to prove the existence of God. As blasphemous as it might sound coming from a Catholic such as me, I acknowledge that Aquinas’s reasoning left something to be desired in this case. I don’t contest Dr. Schick’s views on this point…

"The meat of Dr. Schick’s rebuttal to Dr. Ross’s views is that Dr. Ross positions a higher dimensional time, a time in which the spacetime that we know and live within was created: the creator’s time. Since the big bang is held to be the beginning of time, Dr. Ross argues, that implies it must have had a cause, as did the beginning of everything else. Since the big bang is the beginning of our time, then its cause cannot have been within our time (because an effect must follow its cause); rather, it must have been within the higher dimensional time of the creator that Dr. Ross positions.

"[Dr. Schick argues] 'This argument arrives at the conclusion that the universe has a beginning in time by assuming that the universe has a cause. But the big bang argument uses the premise that the universe has a beginning in time to arrive at the conclusion that the universe has a cause. So Ross is arguing in a circle. He is assuming that the universe has a cause to prove that the universe has a cause. Because Ross begs the question about whether the universe has a cause, he does not succeed in proving the existence of a higher dimensional time, let alone the existence of a transcendental god.'

"Dr. Schick is correct. It is, therefore, my intention within this essay to attempt to provide the justification that Dr. Ross’s argument lacks to assume that the big bang (and, therefore, the universe) had a cause. For the benefit of my argument, I appeal to none other than perhaps the most venerated, self-professed atheist in scientific history, Albert Einstein himself! It is an understatement to judge it ironic that I perceive that such a renowned atheist proved, albeit unwittingly, the existence of God or, more precisely, a creator of at least some sort."

If anyone should visit my website and feels as though I misrepresented it or myself in any way, then please report such here and to the moderator. However, I assure you that I did not either in my original post or within my profile information.

Thanks again.

The crux of your argument is that each moment in time consist of an entirely separate universe of matter. Since you go on to build your entire line of thinking on this you need to support it with more than an appeal to one unnamed physicist, people in the sciences disagree on a great number of things.

Don:
Interesting stuff. However, I did not read the entire treatise. Something else you'll find in this forum is that most of us do not want to read long papers (or watch long videos, but perhaps I'm lazier than most). Best to keep it short and sweet, or as Einstein might've put it, "Tell it like you're explaining it to your grandmother."

That said (and perhaps I missed it), why is "Something Always Was" so objectionable? It's the simplest proposition one can make: always a good place to start.

Also, generally speaking, intellectual arguments can, at best, only imply, not prove the existence of a Creator. Ie, discourse in the mental-symbolic realm can only hint of a transcendent entity, much as a shadow (2 dimensional entity) can only hint of the object (3 dimensional entity) casting it.

Sorry if I short-changed anything you said.

Originally posted by Mindship
That said (and perhaps I missed it), why is "Something Always Was" so objectionable? It's the simplest proposition one can make: always a good place to start.

From a scientific stand point baryon decay rules this out. Admittedly, no one has ever witnessed it but apparently it is predicted by a number of different theories.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
From a scientific stand point baryon decay rules this out. Admittedly, no one has ever witnessed it but apparently it is predicted by a number of different theories.

And also, in case I'm not being clear, that Something Always Was does not necessarily mean "God."

Dear Symmetric,

Thanks so much for reading it. It’s most appreciated.

What you say is true, but a great many physicists seem to believe that at least in theory time travel is possible. What are the implications of this? What does every destination that one can travel to have in common? It must exist. Therefore, if the past still doesn’t exist, then why speculate if time travel is possible even in theory? I also gave an example from a letter Einstein wrote that seems to imply that he certainly believed such. (The letter was reprinted in Paul Davies’s About Time.)

If TT is indeed possible, then I am convinced that whoever proves it will also in corollary prove the validity of the “Many-Worlds” Interpretation of quantum mechanics. It’s the only viable option that I can see to get around the “grandfather paradox.” The MWI does nothing to my proof one way or another. It simply transposes into a vastly inflated model of a single-universe reality.

You didn’t say if, if for the sake of argument, my basic premise is correct in fact—the existence of the block universe—, then whether you agree or disagree with my reasoning

Don:

Dear Mind,

To my mind, this seemingly mind-boggling question that I pose as “the ultimate mystery” seems totally incomprehensible. It seems like a Zen koan. Not only can’t I answer it, I can’t even discern how one would go about trying to answer it.

On one hand, it seems like it must have an answer. On the other, it seems as if no answer is possible. This is why I suggest (the best I can do) in my paper that perhaps in whatever proves the primal plane of reality that the logic there is so different than ours that this seemingly unexplainable mystery can be answered in a way we cannot possibly comprehend within the logic of our existence.

The question cuts across all paradigms: atheistic; theistic; and pantheistic. How can existence itself exist? I would call this question many things, but one of them is certainly not “simple.”

Having said that, without trying to sound sarcastic (which is not my intention) perhaps you are a far deeper philosopher than me and can enlighten me and perhaps some others. I, for one, would certainly be appreciative!

Don

I didn't read your article, because imo if you aren't willing to summarize it, its probably not worth the forum's time, and because of the tendency of many christians here to try and use videos and articles to make their arguments for them. However, judging from the excerpts, I really don't get this argument. If it's arguing that if time had a beginning, it must have had a beginning in "higher time" (time2), by that logic shouldn't time2 (and the "creator"😉 have a further cause in time3, and on and on ad infinitum? That seems nonsensical.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
From a scientific stand point baryon decay rules this out. Admittedly, no one has ever witnessed it but apparently it is predicted by a number of different theories.

Originally posted by King Kandy
How does it rule out anything? Protons decay into Positrons and Pions, Pions decay into Gamma radiation, and the positron just sits there it seems. But nonetheless, everything is preserved.

The universe is full of baryons. If baryon decay turns out to be true then the universe cannot be infinitely old, if it were there wouldn't be any left.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The universe is full of baryons. If baryon decay turns out to be true then the universe cannot be infinitely old, if it were there wouldn't be any left.

Dear King,

As I stated, my philosophical proof does not purport to prove the existence of God per se, just the necessity for a creator of some sort. That creator could be, among myriad other viable options, a higher dimensional computer programmer as in The Matrix.

A brief summary:

1) By empirical observation we must affirm the existence of causes and effects.

2) By definition a cause must precede its effect: the sperm and the egg must precede the baby in existence.

3) Einstein's STR implies a four dimensional universe in which the past, present and future exist contemporaneously and eternally.

4) If the sperm, the egg and the baby all exist contemporaneously and eternally then how could the sperm and egg transaction have caused the baby?

5) Therefore, the obvious existence of causes and effects must have originally occurred outside our dimension of reality by virtue of some dynamic force and then became static as our reality, just as a painting does when finished by the artist.

Your question concerning the problem of avoiding an infinite regress of creators is what I have been discussing with Mind. My proof only purports to prove the necessity of a creator for our reality. I cannot answer the question as to the origins of our creator or whether he, she or it still exists.

Don

Originally posted by King Kandy
Baryons were formed in the big bang. However the big bang itself, is an existence of sorts.

You don't get to have the Big Band and an infinitely old universe . . .

However the Big Bang doesn't allow people to shoehorn in a creator simply because there is a point of creation.

Originally posted by Don Schneider
You didn’t say if, if for the sake of argument, my basic premise is correct in fact—the existence of the block universe—, then whether you agree or disagree with my reasoning.

It seems like you're trying to have both an unknowable question and an answer to it.

Originally posted by Don Schneider
Dear Mind,

To my mind, this seemingly mind-boggling question that I pose as “the ultimate mystery” seems totally incomprehensible. It seems like a Zen koan. Not only can’t I answer it, I can’t even discern how one would go about trying to answer it.

On one hand, it seems like it must have an answer. On the other, it seems as if no answer is possible. This is why I suggest (the best I can do) in my paper that perhaps in whatever proves the primal plane of reality that the logic there is so different than ours that this seemingly unexplainable mystery can be answered in a way we cannot possibly comprehend within the logic of our existence.

The question cuts across all paradigms: atheistic; theistic; and pantheistic. How can existence itself exist? I would call this question many things, but one of them is certainly not “simple.”

Having said that, without trying to sound sarcastic (which is not my intention) perhaps you are a far deeper philosopher than me and can enlighten me and perhaps some others. I, for one, would certainly be appreciative!

Don

I would not be where I am today without having debated my fellow KMC'ers. 😉 Plus I've read a lot, from both sides of the "God" issue.

Yeah, it is mind-boggling, wonderfully so. That's why I meditate.

Originally posted by Don Schneider
Dear King,

As I stated, my philosophical proof does not purport to prove the existence of God per se, just the necessity for a creator of some sort. That creator could be, among myriad other viable options, a higher dimensional computer programmer as in The Matrix.

A brief summary:

1) By empirical observation we must affirm the existence of causes and effects.

2) By definition a cause must precede its effect: the sperm and the egg must precede the baby in existence.

3) Einstein's STR implies a four dimensional universe in which the past, present and future exist contemporaneously and eternally.

4) If the sperm, the egg and the baby all exist contemporaneously and eternally then how could the sperm and egg transaction have caused the baby?

5) Therefore, the obvious existence of causes and effects must have originally occurred outside our dimension of reality by virtue of some dynamic force and then became static as our reality, just as a painting does when finished by the artist.

Your question concerning the problem of avoiding an infinite regress of creators is what I have been discussing with Mind. My proof only purports to prove the necessity of a creator for our reality. I cannot answer the question as to the origins of our creator or whether he, she or it still exists.

Don

Additionally, the "contemporaneous" existence you propose, only exists in many worlds theory and that is not proven. You have to also address the fact that the big bang could have simply self-fluctuated to cause itself.