[Texas Songwriter]

However, if the universe has not come to be but has always existed, then it either has no cause or has an eternally ongoing cause.I will need to comment on the first portion of your sentence..."if the universe has not come to be..." then one must conclude it has always existed." If it has always been, and if entropy is true, then the universe has has 'plenty of time' for the atomic and subatomic particles to be infinitly dispersed into a cosmic ocean of nothingness, approaching absolute zero. But....here we are discussing this subject.

Yes, it is logically possible for the universe to have always existed, but the problem with your assertion is that it is practically and actually factually not the case. Einstein, asserted the theory of the General Theory of Relativity and Eddington and Hubble proved that this theory was, in fact, the case that the universe had a beginning. Wilson and Penzias found the cosmic background radiation of the initial event of creation (they received the Nobel Prize in science for their discovery). George Smoot, NASA project manager for the COBE (cosmic background explorer) brought photographs which revealed the ripples of heat energy from the echo of the initial event of creation. This was further solidified by the findings of WMAP revealing the heat 'echo' of creation. Smoot, atheist extraordiaire, said, "For those who believe in a Creator it is like looking at the fingerprints of God". All of these scientist, atheist (except Eddington) were out to prove there was no moment of creation. Hawkin, trying to disprove a beginning, resorted to 'imaginary numbers' for his theory of a beginning...but admitted, in the end, they were imaginary...and in fact there was a beginning (from "A Brief History of Time".

Finally I will take you back several hundred years to a philosopher named Leibniz, who asked the pertinent question, "If there is no God, why is there anything at all?"

[aruanan]

If it has always been, and if entropy is true, then the universe has has 'plenty of time' for the atomic and subatomic particles to be infinitly [sic] dispersed into a cosmic ocean of nothingness, approaching absolute zero. But....here we are discussing this subject.

That's assuming a fixed amount of matter and energy to start with and a finite space within which to exist. Remember also that you're assuming that "a cosmic ocean of nothingness" has some sort of attributes, but nothing is nothing.

The so-called heat signature of the big bang is a characterization of a phenomenon that doesn't necessitate the existence of a big bang, rather, it was the idea of a big bang, arrived at by a premature interpretation of red shift as being evidence of recessional velocity, that gave rise to this interpretation of the cosmic background radiation. That interpretation is by no means certain or even likely now that we know that at least a large portion of that red shift is intrinsic to certain types of matter and an indication of their age rather than their physical velocity through space.

[aruanan]

Finally I will take you back several hundred years to a philosopher named Leibniz, who asked the pertinent question, "If there is no God, why is there anything at all?"

This is begging the question and involves itself in a contradiction. It is saying, "Something cannot exist without a cause; that cause is God, who exists without a cause."

More on the background radiation thing later. I must have some coffee first.

[betty boop]

Finally I will take you back several hundred years to a philosopher named Leibniz, who asked the pertinent question, "If there is no God, why is there anything at all?"

Ah! Leibniz's questions! There are actually two main ones, and they are (IMHO) absolutely fundamental, in that they root or ground all human knowledge:

(1) Why are things the way they are, why not some other way?

(2) Why is there anything at all, why not nothing at all?

Question (1) cannot be answered if one presupposes that "all that there is" is the product of random development. Randomness does not have any principle that can tease "matter" into existence as particular lasting things — for the same reason that we do not find an astronomical number of "transitional species" in the fossil record....

Question (2) cannot be answered on the presupposition of randomness either. For to say that something is "random" implies the existence of something that is not random in nature. If something actually exists and persists, it seems clear to me it cannot be "random."

At this point, Christians have no trouble whatsoever in assigning the cause of specificity and lastingness, and first and final causes to God.

But Richard Dawkins — a certifiable maniac — goes ga-ga anytime anyone would suggest such a thing.

It came to my attention recently that the infamous Jeffery Skilling, of Enron fame, was a hard-core Darwinist who literally "culled" one-fifth of his employees every year to (in effect) prove Darwin's maxim of "survival of the fittest." He is also a major "groupie" of Professor Dawkins....

We can all see what Mr. Skillings has wrought.... NOT a good example to follow, IMHO FWIW.

But the attraction of Darwin for Mr. Skillings, I gather, is that Darwin is promulgating a totally amoral "sociobiology."

Thank you so much, TS, for your excellent observations!