Refuting ICR(Part II): The Triune Universe

triune-universeThis is the second part of my ongoing series, ‘Refuting ICR’. You can read the first part here. It is, obviously, an attempt to refute the supposed ‘line of evidences’ proposed by The Institution of Creation Research. This article is about the second line of the supposed evidences, ‘The Triune Universe’ (I don’t have any idea what that means). While I hoped to find something new, because the title indeed was a bit sketchy, I found the same age old typical arguments I commonly get. However, let’s start.

1. Time, space and matter.
It starts with the statement “There is an immeasurably and unimaginably huge universe out there (even though the most important part of it appears to be here)”.
I didn’t add that bracket-phrase, and it is funny that they did it. At first glance, it sounds like a sarcastic phrase, but in a moment you realize that it is a christian site where the article is present, so it can’t be sarcastic.
Any effort to determine the cause of the universe is purely hypothetical“, I suppose this to be a key phrase they are using in this article, and this phrase is factually wrong. Let’s read the justification they gave for this, “No human was there to observe the processes, so any attempt to understand events of pre-history (especially original events) must, therefore, be based on “belief systems,” or presuppositions”. Hey guy, this is not philosophy about which you are speaking, it is science. Just because you didn’t ‘see’ the thing happening, doesn’t mean that we can’t ‘know’ that it is probable that the thing happened. Take the Big Bang theory for reference, we didn’t see big bang happening, but there is actual empirical evidence that it happened. We know that the Big bang is the probable explanation for the large-scale evolution of our universe. We don’t ‘belief’ that big bang happened, we know that it is likely that big bang happened.
“While the theories and ideas may be many, the presuppositions can only be of two sorts: 1) there is an infinite series of causes, going back into infinite time, with no ultimate Cause; or 2) there exists an uncaused First Cause that was “outside” or transcendent to the universe”, I already responded to this nonsense, you can read the first part of this series for reference.
“Many scientists today conduct their research based on their presupposition or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world—that which can be seen around us—and thus they do not accept that any ultimate Cause exists”
No, they don’t. It is not a positive ‘presupposition’ that nothing exists beyond the natural world. It is just the lack of temptation to develop an ad-hoc explanation for everything we see, the famous “God did it”.
“Scientists at ICR hold to the presupposition that the “uncaused First Cause” is the Creator who exists outside of the physical creation He made”
First of all, they don’t have a scientific mind if they submit to a particular ideology while pretending to do science. Science is free from any other ideology, belief systems, ‘presuppositions’ etc. and should be.
“Time is not eternal, but created”
It is a scientific claim they are making through this statement, unfortunately, I didn’t find any mathematical model, even not a logical justification, developed to justify this claim. So, I can take it as a pointless dogmatic statement, which is very common among believers.
“Yet even more amazing (and the universe is amazing) is the historic fact that the Creator-God, after purposefully creating the time-space-matter universe, chose to enter it in the God-human person of Jesus Christ—for the sole purpose of providing a means by which humanity could have a personal relationship with the Creator”
Okay okay, thank you for enlightening me, I will surely be converted to Christianity after reading enlightening logical, scientific and rational conclusion (I don’t have any words).

2. The logical implications.
” Applying the principles of cause and effect, it is clear that scientific logic indicates that the Cause for the universe in which we live must trace back to an infinite First Cause of all things. Random motion or primeval particles cannot produce intelligent thought, nor can inert molecules generate spiritual worship.

  • The First Cause of limitless space must be infinite.
  • The First Cause of endless time must be eternal.
  • The First Cause of boundless energy must be omnipotent.
  • The First Cause of universal interrelationships must be omnipresent.
  • The First Cause of infinite complexity must be omniscient.
  • The First Cause of spiritual values must be spiritual.
  • The First Cause of human responsibility must be volitional.
  • The First Cause of human integrity must be truthful.
  • The First Cause of human love must be loving.
  • The First Cause of life must be living.

We would conclude from the law of cause-and-effect that the First Cause of all things must be an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, spiritual, volitional, truthful, loving, living Being!”
Oh really, the entire rhetoric path you took to come to this conclusion, is pathetically flawed. Cause and effect doesn’t work in the quantum level, science doesn’t, by definition, hold any presupposition, nor it should. Every single claim you made in these supposed two ‘lines of evidences’ are either unjustified or based on flawed justification. I mean, what the…? Well I will leave the rest to the reader.

I will leave it just here. Thank you for reading and understanding. If you have any queries, ask them in the comments, I shall happily answer them.

Our facebook page: Refuting God

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Refuting ICR(Part II): The Triune Universe

  1. I especially liked these two paragraphs:

    We would conclude from the law of cause-and-effect that the First Cause of all things must be an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, spiritual, volitional, truthful, loving, living Being!”

    Oh really, the entire rhetoric path you took to come to this conclusion, is pathetically flawed. Cause and effect doesn’t work in the quantum level, science doesn’t, by definition, hold any presupposition, nor it should. Every single claim you made in these supposed two ‘lines of evidences’ are either unjustified or based on flawed justification.

    Keep up the good work, rounaqb! You are a good God-arguments refuter. Clever and intelligent. Easy to follow your thoughts.

    BTW, I recommend you to start tagging your posts. If you’ve got the time needed, also tag all already published posts. I think it’s time for you to introduce the tag cloud. That would make your blog much more user-friendly.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. As you develop your blog–and seek to grow in your knowledge and understanding of the arguments you are attempting to refute–I’d love to see you progress beyond stuff like ICR. I mean, I can easily defeat my nine year old daughter in a philosophical debate; but that’s hardly worth celebrating. In any event, keep up the writing and thinking and I look forward to reading more in the future!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s