 
: [ The discussion begins: why does the universe exist at all?  ]
 
: One of the Laws of Nature, specifying cause and effect seems to dictate 
: (at least to this layman's mind) there must be a causal event.  No
: reasonable alternative exists.

I would argue that causality is actually a property of spacetime; 
causes precede their effects. But if you claim that there must be
an answer to "how" did the universe (our spacetime)  emerge from 
"nothing", science has some good candidates for an answer.

I have always wondered why Christians use the "There are questions
science (or atheism) cannot answer" argument; I hope this is the
appropriate group to ask this question.

The most popular question is the question of origins. Why does the
universe exist, or anything, for that matter?

I think this question should actually be split into two parts, namely

1) Why is there existence? Why anything exists?

and

2) How did the universe emerge from nothing?

It is clear science has nothing to say about the first question. However,
is it a meaningful question, after all?

I would say it isn't. Consider the following:

A die-hard skeptic being (be it human or whatever) attempts to doubt
one's very existence. Since it is so easy to doubt everything else -
I cannot be _sure_ the world exists, it may be my mind fooling me -
can I ever be sure I exist?

However, it is only possible to exist or not to exist. (Someone
insert an appropriate Shakespeare quote here ;-) )

A being that does not exist cannot doubt one's existence.
A being that does exist can doubt one's existence, but this would be
pointless - the being would exist anyway.

Let us return to the original question: why? A being that does not
exist does not need any reasons for its non-existence. This being
is not _sure_ whether anything else exists but his mind, but let
us assume that the world exists independent of the mind (the objectivity
postulate). The question "why anything exists" can be countered by
demanding answer to a question "why there is nothing in nothingness,
or in non-existence". Actually, both questions turn out to be
devoid of meaning. Things that exist do, and things that don't exist
don't exist. Tautology at its best.

I seriously doubt God could have an answer to this question.

Some Christians I have talked to have said that actually, God is
Himself the existence. However, I see several problems with this
answer. First, it inevitably leads to the conclusion that God is
actually _all_ existence, good and evil, devils and angels, us and
them. This is pantheism, not Christianity.

Another answer is that God is the _source_ of all existence.
This sounds much better, but I am tempted to ask: Does God
Himself exist, then? If God is the source of His own existence,
it can only mean that He has, in terms of human time, always
existed. But this is not the same as the source of all existence.
This argument sounds like God does not exist, but meta-exists,
and from His meta-existent perspective, He created existence.
I think this is actually a nonsolution, a mere twist of words.

The best answer I have heard is that human reasoning is incapable
of understanding such questions. Being an atheist myself, I do not
accept such answers, since I do not have any other methods.

The second question: How did the universe emerge from nothing?
belongs to the domain of science, and I, for one, do not doubt the
question can be answered by its methods. Many cosmologists have
suggested that it is entirely possible for universes to emerge
from vacuum (this possibility has been suggested in a recent
Hawking biography; see also Lizhi & Shuxian: Creation of the Universe,
World Scientific, 1989). However, I think the sci groups are more
appropriate for discussions like this.
 
: As far as I can tell, the very laws of nature demand a "why".  That isn't
: true of something outside of nature (i.e., *super*natural).

This is not true. Science is a collection of models telling us "how",
not why, something happens. I cannot see any good reason why the "why"
questions would be bound only to natural things, assuming that the
supernatural domain exists. If supernatural beings exist, it is
as appropriate to ask why they do so as it is to ask why we exist.
 
: I believe the "genetic code" will be entirely deciphered in our lifetimes,
: but we will not see man convert entirely inert material into self sustaining, 
: reproducing life, *ever*.  (I've never been much of a prophet, though. I
: can't even *picture* New York in my mind 8^] ).  I don't believe *any*
: technology would be able to produce that necessary *spark* of life, despite
: having all of the parts available. Just my opinion.

This opinion is also called vitalism; namely, that living systems are
somehow _fundamentally_ different from inanimate systems. Do Christians
in general adopt this position? What would happen when scientists announce
they have created primitive life (say, small bacteria) in a lab?

There is a problem with your prophecy: artificial life has been created,
although not yet in a chemical form. Computer simulations of evolution
contain systems that are as much alive as any bacterium, although
their code is electronic, as well as their metabolism. See a recent book

Steven Levy: Artificial life - The Quest for a New Creation. Jonathan
Cape, London 1992.

Artificial chemical life is just around the corner - after all, no 
spark of life has been found to be necessary; living systems do not
violate any physical laws as we know them. 

: You don't mind if a few of us send up a prayer on your behalf during your
: research, do you?  After all, if we of Christ are deluding ourselves, you
: really have nothing to worry about, eh?

Exactly. This is why I think atheists should _not_ post any evangelical
atheist arguments to soc.religion groups, since people who seek to 
find peace in religions must be allowed to gather together. I would
normally have asked these questions in alt.atheism or talk.religion.misc,
but it seems many Christians do not read these groups. 

Petri
