A return, and a new revelation

Hello faithful readers, I the Stranger have come back from finals week death (special case of resurrection, for another example please see Glorifindel) but with gusto and a whole slew of new ideas and stories for you all to enjoy (or at least read and consider). I hope to post some of these soon but the ideas I have are just too good to write in a hurried manner so it may be some time before my better ones come forth for your viewing pleasure. However, I would like to whet your appetite with a little something that I've been mulling over.

This is my latest apology for the defense of theism (in general) which is meant to appeal to the logic of scientists and atheists everywhere. I thought of this when in the final few weeks of my apologetics class and upon reading Dawkins The God Delusion had it solidified in my mind as a potential candidate for philosophy (I kid you not, I'm really considering putting a lot of time into this argument, quantifying it logically, making a prose version, researching it, and writing it into a dissertation). I'm so excited about it that I might even make it my thesis for my senior year depending on what people think of its validity and strength. So, without further adieu I'll introduce you to the concept (if you haven't had your ear talked off already).

Scientists in general are in agreement with the theory of the one-bounce big bang as the origination of the universe (I, personally, do not know if this is a proper interpretation of the evidence but it is at the very least possible). Our universe is governed by necessary physical and chemical laws which act and react to their fullest necessary extent. In other words, when sodium and chloride react to make table salt (NaCl) they can't help themselves, they just do. Their electron clouds have just enough space to fill each other out and become stable so they are unalterably attracted to each other. If you pour a bucket full of chloride into a vat of sodium of equal amount, given enough time to fully integrate, every single one of those elements will compound to make molecules without exception. This is the definition of the phrase, "fullest necessary extent" the elements react to each other and bond with each other until they no longer have the capability of bonding any more.

Now, the source from which our universe originated (for it is a logical anathema to think we came from nothing at all) is either another universe like ours (except much more complex and more energetic to an extreme degree) or it is an essential, infinite in matter and energy, coherent, and energetic (that is acting and reacting chemically and physically with itself). If it is another finite universe which gave cause to ours then that universe must also have had a source to its own creation. This therefore makes an infinite chain until we finally break down and admit that there is indeed an essential and infinite source.

Yet, why must the source be infinite in matter and energy, coherent and energetic as well? If this ultimate source was essential (having the property of always existing and of always being in existence) then it would run out of energy if it did not have infinite matter AND energy (energy converts into matter, and matter into energy constantly). Also, we have matter and energy in our universe and the source from which this universe comes must also have had at least as many elements as we see in our universe (otherwise none of them would exist). Coherence is just my fancy way of saying it's not utterly random and that it is located in a single mass (albeit, infinite). If this source did not have the coherence of necessary laws then it would never have created a universe such as ours which does have necessary and coherent laws we would, again, be rather different than we are. I use the word "energetic" to convey that the source is acting, doing things. Basically, a source may be essential and indeed infinite in every conceivable way but made of a noble gas or of some other inert substance which would ultimately cause it to do nothing at all. If this were the case, once more, our own universe would not even exist.

So, it is necessary to accept that this source of which scientists postulate must indeed be infinite in energy and matter, coherent, essential and eternal, and energetic. Alright! Here comes my major premise, hold on to your seats.

If we apply the law of necessary full extent of physical and chemical reaction as dictated by the different laws that must indeed govern this source then that source will always act and react to the fullest extent of its power. What is this sources ability and energy? Infinity! If sodium and chloride reacted to each other in this source they absolutely must continue to do so for eternity and with infinite energy and matter. Why? Because of two reasons, this source has to be infinite in both energy and matter. Everything about it cannot help but be infinite in energy and matter, infinity doesn't just apply to the limitless number of items but to each individual item itself. For example, in this source if we were to examine just one atom of pure energy (which must also exist in this source) we would never be able to quantify just how much energy it really has in there. It would just keep on going, and going, and going for eternity. Each individual "atom" (if there is such a thing in the source) must by extension of the word infinite be unlimited. If we somehow created a giant space window to see the source we would not be able to look at it because of the infinite light coming out which would (by necessity) illuminate our entire universe with unstoppable light. So much for being able to see ever again...

That's just how powerful, and scary, infinity is. Now, if the natural reactions inside this source really did cause it to spontaneously "overflow" and create the universe in which we now live then there are two necessary results. Number one, our universe must be infinite in energy and matter and number two our universe would not be a closed system because the source would still be continuing to send in energy and matter, for eternity. Here is where I call upon the German astronomer Olber. Olber created a paradox which basically states this, if we lived in a universe of infinite age with an infinite amount of stars distributed equally across the sky (as infinity would indeed demand) then we would not have a nighttime! We see the void of space and if nothing else in all of our understandings of thermodynamics and science lead us to believe that we will one day experience entropic death (if something else doesn't happen before then) then the very fact of voids in space should tell us we live in a finite universe. Also, the relative stability of the universe should tell us we live in a closed system. If we didn't live in a closed system our world (and other worlds or stars) would be randomly sucked into alternative universes or have other stars, galaxies, or even universes, randomly pop into our own! In order for any life to have existed on our world from the atheist scientist perspective this is necessary, we must have a closed system, otherwise there would never have been enough stability to foster life.

So the scientist is left with a dilemma because of the source's necessary full application of all of the actions and reactions which occur in it. They must therefore accept one of the two following options, either the source really did cause the universe like they postulate but had one more attribute to its list and that of intelligence or all of their scientific knowledge, all their laws and theorems, everything man currently accepts as chemistry, physics, quantum mechanics, and etc. is absurdly incorrect and must be rejected as untrue.

I have to make a name for this argument (which is an argument from cosmology) so I'd appreciate some suggestions. I know that it assumes that the scientists are right about how the universe came to be but I'm alright with this assumption if it furthers the cause of Christ. Also, if you see any inconsistencies or illogical steps please inform me because everyone I've shared this with has so far been unable to make any objection to the argument once they understand what it's claiming. If you have any questions about it or don't understand it please tell me. Here's a numbered format of the argument which is much shorter but by itself is hard to understand, that's why I wanted you to read the prose version (because I could explain things in simpler terms).

Given: The science of physics as true as well as the theory of the big bang.

1. The universe appeared as a singularity.

2. The source of the universe’s appearance is

a. Essential

b. Eternal

c. Infinite in energy

d. Infinite in matter

e. Coherent

3. If the types of physical laws which govern the un-intelligent source of all things are like the physical laws in our universe then they apply to the fullest necessary extent of power.

4. If they do apply to the fullest necessary extent then all the actions of the source will be infinite in energy, matter, and time.

5. If the source truly did create the universe then the universe would be infinite in energy and matter and would still be gaining energy from the source.

6. The universe is a closed system because of stability

7. The universe is a finite system because infinite energy or infinite matter would necessitate no void of space.

8. There is a void.

9. Therefore, either the source was an intelligent force intentionally limiting the amount of matter and energy He used to create the universe or all of the laws of physics as we understand them are completely false.

Dt