Connecting the Dots: Part Two

We've established, not even by cosmology but logical necessity, that the universe requires a beginning. Everything that begins to exist requires a cause. What sort of criteria would then apply to this cause? I will attempt to put it all together.

1. That which caused the universe to exist must itself exist outside of the universe. The million dollar word is "transce

ndent".
2. The cause must be generated from conscious or personal being as opposed to unconscious and impersonal force. That which is unconscious cannot choose to act on it's own. That which is personal contains a will and can choose to create.

This, my friends, is the reasoning behind the necessity for that which caused the universe to be not only transcendent but also personal. I know that not everybody believes in the notion of God but at least you know now that not everybody follows blind faith. Some of us do employ reason.

Connecting the Dots: Part One

According to current scientific observation, our universe is expanding and it's rate is increasing. What does this mean to us? There are two options. Either it will continue to expand indefinitely and experience what is known as thermodynamic heat death or it will reach the threshold of elasticity and finally collapse upon itself prompting another iteration of the big bang/big crunch cycle. Either

 way, the universe cannot itself be eternal and must have had a definitive beginning of it's existence. I'll explain why.

Indefinite expansion under the eternal universe hypothesis:
1. The process leading to thermodynamic heat death would have had an infinite duration of time to reach it's conclusion.
2. Our universe has not experienced thermodynamic heat death.
3. The eternal universe hypothesis cannot be true under the indefinite expansion model.

Oscillating universe model under the eternal universe hypothesis:
1.Our universe is currently in a state of expansion.
2. Assuming the universe were eternal, we would have an infinite number of iterations of this cycle.
3. To reach any iteration of the cycle, there would therefore be an infinite number of cycles that must be traversed.
4. Infinity cannot be traversed.
5. Therefore, the eternal universe hypothesis cannot be true under the oscillating universe model.

Either way you look at it. The universe have had a beginning of it's existence. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Therefore, what caused the universe to exist? What criteria must be fulfilled in this cause?

Free Will and Determinism Paradox

This has been a topic which has grieved me greatly and has led me on a arduous search for information ranging from philosophy, the quantum mechanics uncertainty principle, and seemingly random radioactive decay. Yes, I've been all over the place.

Essentially, free will in the manner in which I am referring to is the faculty that allows us to bear the moral responsibility for our choices. If our will was not free, how can we be held accountable. This didn't mesh well with my currebtly held concept of a completely deterministic universe. It appeared to me that will was utterly dependent on causality and causality I saw as being in complete control of by God Almighty.

This posed a myriad of problems towards my existing paradigm. I had to seek reconciliation or I faced the possibility of living under a perception of reality that doesn't make sense or to abandon faith altogether. Personally, that latter would be exceedingly difficult as I strongly feel I have experienced divine providence. I could attempt to chalk it up to a psychological phenomena but some of the peculiar things experienced were externally verifiable and/or witnessed. More to follow...

What constitutes reality?

      What is it that makes the things in our human experience real? Is it empirical evidence? What about the past? How is it applicable to us and how can we know? The truth (it seems) is that we cannot. We must accept the things we experience and learn what will be useful to us. We observe patterns and judge according to these if we are of the rational ilk.
      There exists remnants of the past that comprise the expanses of human knowledge known as history. By what factors, can we come to a reasonable conclusion that historical evidence is trustworthy? More to follow but I will post as is to see what sort of insight results.
      On that note, let us consider the Gospel accounts and the Old Testament writings. Is there any method in which we can determine their historical accuracy? I suspect the implications may be of dire importance; however, the moral stipulations of which may cause some to seek a way out. They dread the possibility so they look for apparent inconsistencies.
      Do we not consider that if a God designed such a perfect free-will that He would facilitate that process? Yes, stand on whatever ground you like be it Darwinian evolution, paganism, or any world religion but there still remains questions that need to be answered.
      The universe is a creation and it demands a Creator. Do you not understand the simple logic in which we can draw this conclusion? I do not mean to insult the intelligence of any but, rather implore you to use what you have been given. We were given brains to arrive at reasonable conclusions. Therefore, let us reason together.