Fourth Rebuttal - Mitch Hodge

It seems that once again you have tried to twist my words and shift the burden of proof when it is not the case that you have born yours. Your attempts to make my position seem incredulous have only seemed to have weakened your position, because rather than take the objections seriously and offer evidence as to why you think your model is sufficient to address such rebuttals, you scoff at them which more often than not is a cover for not having an answer. I will address your points in the order which you have given them.

1) Saying that the age of galaxies and stars is part of the Big Bang model does not suffice as an answer to how it is possible that if the universe began all at once that there are entities within that universe which are of different age. Here, the burden is on you, or your favorite authority, to explain how this is possible. How can it be that a universe which is made of 90 some odd elements and four forces (if current science is correct) which supposedly all began at once, have materials and elements within itself which are a different age. Let us not talk of stars and galaxies here, but of the very building blocks of the universe. If you claim that the universe is capable of making 'its stuff' itself, then there is no need for a divine creator.

Now, what does this show? If the universe is made of entities which are of different age, then there is no conclusive way scientifically to stop the regress unless it could be determined that there was at least one object which was the oldest in the universe, and it was made of nothing which came before it. This of course, would require an investigation of the entire universe which is beyond today's capabilities, but it is a legitimate problem for science and the proof of its cosmological conjectures nonetheless. After all, the true back bone of science is evidence and not theory.

By seeing the universe as a collection of finite objects, it is certainly not the case that it undergirds your second premise. In fact, it flat out denies your second premise (that the universe began to exist). What I am saying is that there is no such PARTICULAR thing as the universe, and if there is no such PARTICULAR thing, then it cannot begun to have exist. Think of it this way. What I have in my pocket is a collection of coins and bills, as well as a couple of receipts, a lighter, and some lint. Let me call this collection X. Now, does it really make since to ask when it was that collection X began to exist? If so, then it cannot be the case that X came into existence until the last item was added. If I take something out of my pocket, then the collection ceases to be X, and therefore X ceases to exist. (But it should also be noted that all of the items in X predate X, and they will endure past X.) Or, is X something of its very own which exists whether it has anything in its collection? Of course, as I defined it, this is not possible.

Now, if you deny that the universe is a collection of things which make it up, then just what is the universe? This is the question which I have been asking all along which you have not answered. Is the universe really a thing in itself? This is what I am asking, and I am indeed curious as to your answer.

By the way, where did I get this bizarre cosmological outlook that the universe is not a particular thing, but a set of things? Well, it was certainly not from cosmologists. Cosmologists talk about the universe, but i have never yet read or heard one define it. So, I had to turn to other sources. Look at these with me if you will:

Funk and Wagnall's Standard Encyclopedic Dictionary.
UNIVERSE: n. 1) The aggregate of all existing things; the whole creation embracing all celestial bodies and all of space; the cosmos. 2) In the restricted sense, the earth. 3) Human beings collectively; mankind.

The American heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
UNIVERSE: n. 1) All existing things, including the earth, the heavens, the galaxies, and all therein, regarded as the whole; the cosmic macrocosm. 2) a. The earth together with all its inhabitants. b. mankind. 3) The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.

As you can see, when I parade "this line of reasoning" that the universe is not a particular thing, but a set of things, it is not some "untenable" position, but a definition of the universe.

2) This particular point is the one that I am eager to address. Here you have misrepresented me to the utmost, and it is symptomatic of what you have done to many of my rebuttals. You obviously did not read me closely, or even at all, if you think that I asked for empirical evidence for God. In fact, if you will go back and read what I have written in the past few rebuttals, you will find that I say the exact opposite. Moreover, I started out saying that I thought it was just as foolish for a theist to try and give empirical evidence for an immaterial being as it is for an atheist to deny the existence of God based on empirical evidence! Here, you took nothing less than a cheap shot by misleading the audience as to what I have said and maintained in this argument. While this is certainly the most blatant case, it is not the only one. In fact, in the subsequent rebuttal after the first, I there too had to keep you from twisting my words into saying something other than what they did. I would beg you to pay closer attention to what I have written, and if nothing else, then represent me fairly and accurately when stating my position!

3). Again, even after I called you on this the first time, you are still repeating the same error again, and misrepresenting what it is that I have said. It is not the case that I am offering another theory to the Big Bang. What I am saying is that the Big Bang is not the only theory available. You started this debate by setting the Big Bang Theory before us as true, and I merely have pointed out that if the Big Bang theory is true, and it is incompatible with the other competing theories (which it is), then it must be the case that the competing theories have been proven false. I then stated that it is not the case that these theories have been proven false, and then asked you to defend your assertion that the Big Bang theory was true by these lights. The logic behind this is simple:

If x and y are theories, and x cannot be true if y is true and vice-versa, then;

1) If x is true, then y is known to be false.
2) If y is not known to be false, then the truth of x has not been ascertained.
3) y is not known to be false.
4) Therefore, the truth of x has not been ascertained.

This is the brunt of what I am arguing, and the point which you have not answered. If you want to say that the Big Bang theory is true, then you at the very least ought to be able to firmly show that the incompatible competing theories are false. But not even cosmologists have been able to accomplish this. Though Hawking in his book, A Brief History of Time, gives a cursory glance at the Steady State Theory, and states that there were contradictions in the theory which forced it to be abandoned (pp. 47-48) he fails to mention that he is talking about the original theory, and not the updated and less problematic theory which is gaining acceptance in cosmology. In fact, there are a growing number of defenders of Steady State.

Yet, there is another competing theory as well, which I have referred to as the Bang/crunch. As you mentioned previously, one of the problems with this theory is that the universe seems to not have enough mass for this theory to be true. Well, I injected that dark matter seems to solve this problem. You then rebut that the deuterium in the universe is extremely deficient. If this is the response that you wish to make, then I will not argue with you. Why? Because by you stating that the amount of deuterium is extremely deficient by current measurements, you are correct. IN FACT, THERE IS 90% LESS MASS THAN WHAT IS NEEDED FOR THE BIG BANG TO OCCURRED!! (See Angela Tilby, Soul: God, the Self, and the New Cosmology, p. 130. So, your assertion here is a double edged sword. Not only does it undermine the Bang/Crunch theory, but your beloved Big Bang theory as well. So, if your response to my rebuttal was genuine, then the Big Bang theory might as well be dismissed as well given this criteria.

4) As to your original assertion on the impossibility of infinite time, I must confess that I am not as up to date on my infinite set theory as I wish I was. But I assure that I have remained silent because I do not have anything to say at this point on the matter, not because I agree. I have to dig up some notes on the matter, and then I will feel more at ease in handling the problem. As soon as this is done, you might be wishing that I would return to being silent!

5) as to your fallacy of equivocation between physical cause and efficient cause, you have yet to demonstrate that you were not in error. All you have proceeded to do is deny that you committed the fallacy. You claimed in your initial argument that God must be powerful and intelligent to have brought about the "magnanimous entity" which is our universe. How is this not a claim of efficient causation? If it were not for the assumption of efficient causation, then you would not be able to infer that God is powerful and intelligent from the "magnanimous" universe. You can not infer such things from a physical cause, therefore it was a fallacy of equivocation within your argument on the word 'cause'. There is no way that such a statement can be made sense of without an appeal to efficient causation.

6) I do not have to show that being a creator is a necessary property of an immutable being. In fact, it is not a necessary property of such a being. But, theists claim that God is a necessary, simple being. They also claim that God is a creator (do I really need to pull out the long list of theistic references which claim that God is a creator?). If God is a simple being, then being a creator cannot be a property or an accident of God, it must be part of his being. So, it is not my contention that being a creator is necessary for an immutable being (which here again you have twisted my words), but rather that theists claim that God, who is understood by them to be a necessary, simple being, is also a creator. This is what causes the problem with the subsequent claim by theists that God is immutable. Further, I am not claiming that God must create, I am stating that theists say that he did. So, what I am stating is that the assertion that God is a creator, immutable, simple and necessary such as theist make this assertion is to say the least problematic, and to say the most, contradictory. You have yet to give an answer to this, and it seems as though you are wanting me to prove the theists case for him. If you cannot see the problem inherent in these theistic assertions, so much the worse for you, but they are there, and many other theists have recognized them and dealt with them. All I am asking for is the way in which you deal with this problem; to deny that it is one seems hardly appropriate since I found this problem in theistic literature to begin with!

7) As to me asking why the empirical evidence must have an immaterial cause, I agree that you have answered this. Thank you. If we assume that everything physical was CREATED, then we must conclude that it was something that was immaterial. I guess my next question would be, "why must this immaterial thing be God?"

In conclusion, yes, my philosophical gymnastics may have to be used when I try to explain the origin of the universe, if indeed I hold that the universe has an origin. But, the theists philosophical and theological gymnastics are just getting warmed up when they postulate that God created the universe. There is far more to explain than what I would have to do. The theist has to explain why God would create the universe, why he chose to create this universe, why, if he is all-powerful and all-good, he created this universe with obvious deficiencies, why God exists, how God exists, and on, and on, and on, and on. In comparison between the philosophical gymnastics which must be performed, I will gladly settle for mine because I tire easily. In short, then, after long, your job has only just begun. See you at the parallel bars!