Quick: how many Morgans does it take to change a light bulb?
The light bulb was working just fine. Problem is: Danny keeps changing a perfectly good light bulb. Every time I screw it back in, he unscrews it.
Take the following gem:
At 9:20 AM, May 10, 2006, Daniel Morgan said...
“I'm going to post something on cosmology soon. People seem to think that all the energy/matter in the universe had to be created, especially ex nihilo, when the Law of Conservation states the contrary, as does "something from nothing" logic. Of course, Christians have no problem assigning eternity to their God, but don't realize that time itself is a feature of the Big Bang, but that the energy/mass/matter of the Big Bang existed prior to the expansion (matter as we know it today resulted from the cooling, but the singularity was emphatically NOT mass/energy-less).
Oh, dear, where do we begin?
i) Let’s spell it out one more time for Danny, and let’s go real slow.
Creation ex nihilo does not contradict the law of conservation, for creation ex nihilo assumes that there was nothing in existence (excepting God) prior to creation. That’s what makes it creation ex nihilo, Danny.
If nothing except for God existed before he made the world, then there would be no law of conservation, since there would be no nature, no natural forces, no natural laws, nothing for a law of conservation to work with.
Now Danny denies the operating premise. He thinks there was something around before the big bang. He apparently believes in some sort of oscillating universe.
That, however, doesn’t mean that creation ex nihilo contradicts the law of conservation. Rather, it means that Danny has one operating assumption, and creation ex nihilo has another.
Poor Danny can never wrap his furry little brain around the opposing thesis. He constantly blends his own position with the opposing position by imputing an assumption to the opposing position which the opposing position denies, then accuses the opposing position of inconsistency between the conclusion and the premise, even though the premise is his own premise, and not the contrary premise of the opposing position.
Given preexistent mass/energy, then, by definition, creation ex nihilo is false, but in that event, what creation ex nihilo contradicts is not the law of conservation, but the given.
When a disputant is this incurably dense, there’s nothing you can say to make him see the light, but you can point out his error for the benefit of other readers.
ii) Incidentally, creation ex nihilo doesn’t mean that something comes from nothing, as if it just pops into being all by itself. There was already an existent or Being: God.
This is something else that Danny continually misses.
iii) The idea that time began with the origin of the world has been around since the days of Augustine. The problem is not with what Christians understand, but with Danny’s perennial ignorance of historical theology.
iv) In the same vein, Danny doesn’t know what is meant by assigning eternality to God. It doesn’t mean assigning endless duration to God. Rather, it means that God is timeless. Hence, there was never a time when God did not exist.
As usual, Danny is utterly clueless about the opposing thesis. Ever single step he takes is a misstep, piling one faulty assumption atop another.
v) But there are even more problems. He says that “that time itself is a feature of the Big Bang,” but he goes on to say “that the energy/mass/matter of the Big Bang existed prior to the expansion.”
But if time began with the big bang, then there’s no timeline which he can retroject into the singularity; hence, his appeal to temporal priority is nonsense.
So much for his oscillating universe, which assumes a relative timeframe of expansion and contraction.
vi) How does Danny happen to know what the laws of physics were before the big bang? Wouldn’t’ the big bang erase any trace evidence of the “preexisting” universe?
vii) Likewise, why assume an alternative universe must be governed by the same laws and constants of nature?
vii) Needless to say, the oscillating universe is not the only cosmological theory on the market. It’s just the theory du jour.
I suppose Loftus will complain that I’m being disrespectful. He’s right. Respect is earned. If and when Danny can cobble together an intellectually respectable argument, I’ll treat it with respect.