Alright. I believe the only assumption I'll be making is the truth of the Law of Non-contradiction. I'm taking all of this from R.C. Sproul's recent video series "Defending Your Faith" (which is based on his book by the same name).Here is my best attempt to summarize his messages.There four ways to describe existence as we know it. That is, all theories of existence can be categorized into four descriptions:1. Illusion2. Self-created3. Self-existence4. CreatedIllusion can, I think, be disregarded since there is no rational reason to accept that everything is illusion. Self-creation implies a contradiction: in order for something to be self-created it would have to be before it was. That's not rationally conceivable.We know the universe is not eternal via Einstein, Entropy, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It began to exist at some point. That is, it is not self-existent/eternal.In order for anything to exist (which we do--cogito ergo sum--at the minimum), something self-existent must exist. Something which exists in and of itself. If this "something" to not be self-existent, but to exist, we need the ultimate existence--the exister which can give existence to something else. It was once believed that the universe could be this self-existent thing. But we know this is impossible. It is not us; it is not the universe. Both began to exist at some point. If the universe is the natural realm, what we need is a super-natural exister. Thus, God.I'm sure I didn't explain this as well as Dr. Sproul, so I'll try to help you with any difficulties in understanding. Basically, the idea is this: for anything to exist, something must be self-existent. The universe is not self-existent, therefore it is created. Behind its creation is a self-existent (eternal) entity. God.
Atheism and morals...
- Thread starter Atheist.85
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Atheism is an impossibility. In order to be one you would have to be able to catagoriclly deny the very existence of God. And since nobody has or ever will posess all knowledge of every catagory in existence, you would have to acknowlege that God could exist within the knowledge you don't have. The moral question is moot.
(Ek Pyros;34637)
In order for anything to exist (which we do--cogito ergo sum--at the minimum), something self-existent must exist. Something which exists in and of itself.
You're going to have to define "self-existence" more clearly for me, I'm afraid. "Exists in and of itself" sounds to me like it applies to every substance I can think of. Clearly I'm not understanding. However, in general, this sounds very much like a classic cosmological argument, which fails for a number of reasons. (Hopefully, my failure to comprehend "self-existence" doesn't render most of these objections irrelevant).First and foremost is that the step between realizing the necessity of a first cause, and equating that first cause with God, is unjustifiable. All we have identified is that there is something which must precede the universe which is as of yet not understandable by science. So what we are really left with is the statement "science doesn't know everything yet, and one of the things it doesn't know yet is how the universe began to exist/how anything began to exist." That doesn't imply God at all. All sorts of things that science couldn't comprehend were used as proofs of God in the past, and they became obsolete as science progressed. There is no guarantee that science will eventually understand everything, or that it will understand how things began to exist. But there is no guarantee that it won't either, and insofar as that possibility is both present and also implied by the history of science, this is in no way a proof that God is the only solution to this problem.Secondly, it most certainly does nothing to validate most of the finer points about religion (like Christian ethics) that were the brunt of the original discussion. Indeed, if we're looking for an explanation of how anything could come to exist, "a mysterious process that science doesn't know about yet" seems sufficiently explanatory. It's quite a leap to say that this process or entity was intelligent, self-aware, or capable of consciously exerting his will, it's another leap to say that it was God, and it's an even bigger leap after that to start saying anything about religious practice, ethics, salvation, or Christ. Indeed, it seems like a complete nonsequiter to go from God as an explanation of the universe's origin to anything resembling Christianity. It would be as though Isaac Newton saw an apple fall, and said "Ah ha! I know the force that explains this behavior! It is called gravitation, the force in which objects with mass attract each other! And, by corollary it is also necessary that we be saved through faith in Jesus Christ, and we ought to observe the Ten Commandments..." God as a religious symbol, rather than a cosmological explainer, is completely irrelevant to the proof you just gave.Lastly, and I'll bring this up only as a tangent as it's not a field that I'm particularly well-versed in, it may be fallacious to speak in terms of "causality" (or in this particular example, "creation") to begin with. Such terminology implies temporal relations, but when we speak of the origins of the universe we are referring to a situation in which time may not even exist. Indeed, I was somewhat surprised when you stated as a basic postulate at the beginning that the universe could not possibly be eternal or cyclical as this is precisely the model which has been presented by a number of physicists. In short, looking at the history of the universe in a linearly temporal fashion may be completely missing the point.Also,(bytheway)
Atheism is an impossibility. In order to be one you would have to be able to catagoriclly deny the very existence of God. And since nobody has or ever will posess all knowledge of every catagory in existence, you would have to acknowlege that God could exist within the knowledge you don't have. The moral question is moot.
You could make the same argument but replace "Flying Spaghetti Monster" with God and say that not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an impossibility. With rational proof, the burden of proof is on the positive view, not the negative one. Indeed, your view leads to complete contradiction as it's actually impossible to default to believing every view that we can't disprove. We can neither disprove that God exists nor can we disprove that he doesn't exist - ought we to believe both?I just find it so surprising that so many Christians are intent on proving God rationally when, to me, it has always been an issue of faith. If we could reason our way there, salvation through faith in Christ would be a completely trivial matter. But it's not - it's a struggle.
In order for anything to exist (which we do--cogito ergo sum--at the minimum), something self-existent must exist. Something which exists in and of itself.
You're going to have to define "self-existence" more clearly for me, I'm afraid. "Exists in and of itself" sounds to me like it applies to every substance I can think of. Clearly I'm not understanding. However, in general, this sounds very much like a classic cosmological argument, which fails for a number of reasons. (Hopefully, my failure to comprehend "self-existence" doesn't render most of these objections irrelevant).First and foremost is that the step between realizing the necessity of a first cause, and equating that first cause with God, is unjustifiable. All we have identified is that there is something which must precede the universe which is as of yet not understandable by science. So what we are really left with is the statement "science doesn't know everything yet, and one of the things it doesn't know yet is how the universe began to exist/how anything began to exist." That doesn't imply God at all. All sorts of things that science couldn't comprehend were used as proofs of God in the past, and they became obsolete as science progressed. There is no guarantee that science will eventually understand everything, or that it will understand how things began to exist. But there is no guarantee that it won't either, and insofar as that possibility is both present and also implied by the history of science, this is in no way a proof that God is the only solution to this problem.Secondly, it most certainly does nothing to validate most of the finer points about religion (like Christian ethics) that were the brunt of the original discussion. Indeed, if we're looking for an explanation of how anything could come to exist, "a mysterious process that science doesn't know about yet" seems sufficiently explanatory. It's quite a leap to say that this process or entity was intelligent, self-aware, or capable of consciously exerting his will, it's another leap to say that it was God, and it's an even bigger leap after that to start saying anything about religious practice, ethics, salvation, or Christ. Indeed, it seems like a complete nonsequiter to go from God as an explanation of the universe's origin to anything resembling Christianity. It would be as though Isaac Newton saw an apple fall, and said "Ah ha! I know the force that explains this behavior! It is called gravitation, the force in which objects with mass attract each other! And, by corollary it is also necessary that we be saved through faith in Jesus Christ, and we ought to observe the Ten Commandments..." God as a religious symbol, rather than a cosmological explainer, is completely irrelevant to the proof you just gave.Lastly, and I'll bring this up only as a tangent as it's not a field that I'm particularly well-versed in, it may be fallacious to speak in terms of "causality" (or in this particular example, "creation") to begin with. Such terminology implies temporal relations, but when we speak of the origins of the universe we are referring to a situation in which time may not even exist. Indeed, I was somewhat surprised when you stated as a basic postulate at the beginning that the universe could not possibly be eternal or cyclical as this is precisely the model which has been presented by a number of physicists. In short, looking at the history of the universe in a linearly temporal fashion may be completely missing the point.Also,(bytheway)
Atheism is an impossibility. In order to be one you would have to be able to catagoriclly deny the very existence of God. And since nobody has or ever will posess all knowledge of every catagory in existence, you would have to acknowlege that God could exist within the knowledge you don't have. The moral question is moot.
You could make the same argument but replace "Flying Spaghetti Monster" with God and say that not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an impossibility. With rational proof, the burden of proof is on the positive view, not the negative one. Indeed, your view leads to complete contradiction as it's actually impossible to default to believing every view that we can't disprove. We can neither disprove that God exists nor can we disprove that he doesn't exist - ought we to believe both?I just find it so surprising that so many Christians are intent on proving God rationally when, to me, it has always been an issue of faith. If we could reason our way there, salvation through faith in Christ would be a completely trivial matter. But it's not - it's a struggle.
Garbage Man
New Member
- Feb 7, 2008
- 16
- 0
- 0
- 38
[quote name='Ek Pyros;34483]I can show you God exists with 100% rational certainty' date=' if you'd like. I KNOW with my MIND God exists.[/QUOTE']Please do so, I very much want to see this proof.[quote name='Ek Pyros;34483]After all' date=' the fool is the one who denies God's existence.[/QUOTE']I don't think it's foolish to not assume the existence of something for which there is no concrete evidence. But then again, you claim to have proof of God's existence, so maybe you can prove me wrong. (You are, in fact, the first person, christian or no, I have ever met who claims to have literal and demonstrable proof of God's existence.)[quote name='Ek Pyros;34637]We know the universe is not eternal via Einstein' date=' Entropy, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It began to exist at some point. That is, it is not self-existent/eternal.[/QUOTE']I find your choice of arguments interesting... so many christians I know believe their faith to be in opposition to such cosmological science. Can I take it that you believe faith in God and scientific study are not contradictory and can be reconciled? (Just curious.) But...[quote name='Ek Pyros;34637]Basically' date=' the idea is this: for anything to exist, something must be self-existent. The universe is not self-existent, therefore it is created. Behind its creation is a self-existent (eternal) entity. God.[/QUOTE']That doesn't make sense; like Lunar says, everything is technically "self-existent". It may be that, as you say, you just haven't explained the idea very well.[quote name='bytheway;34642]Atheism is an impossibility. In order to be one you would have to be able to catagoriclly deny the very existence of God. And since nobody has or ever will posess all knowledge of every catagory in existence' date=' you would have to acknowlege that God could exist within the knowledge you don't have. The moral question is moot.[/QUOTE']This is a valid argument against a person who says "God definitely does not exist", because they can't know such a thing. But another definition of "atheism" could mean "against religion(theism)". It is impossible to say with authority that God definitely doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean believing in the christian God is the only alternative.[quote name='Lunar;34664]First and foremost is that the step between realizing the necessity of a first cause' date=' and equating that first cause with God, is unjustifiable. All we have identified is that there is something which must precede the universe which is as of yet not understandable by science. So what we are really left with is the statement "science doesn't know everything yet, and one of the things it doesn't know yet is how the universe began to exist/how anything began to exist." That doesn't imply God at all.[/QUOTE']Exactly. The suggestion that "science can't explain the origin of A, therefor A was made by God" is a logical fallacy, because it presumes that God is the only possible explanation when we don't have all the answers yet. It could be any of a multitude of possible explanations that we can't imagine yet.[quote name='Lunar;34664]All sorts of things that science couldn't comprehend were used as proofs of God in the past' date=' and they became obsolete as science progressed.[/QUOTE']This is known as the "God of the gaps" fallacy. In 1900 we didn't know what was above the sky, so that's where heaven was. Until we launched rockets and found... oh, that's where space is, no heaven to be seen. Uhh... heaven is an alternate plane now, you can't reach it with a rocket![quote name='Lunar;34664]There is no guarantee that science will eventually understand everything' date=' or that it will understand how things began to exist. But there is no guarantee that it won't either, and insofar as that possibility is both present and also implied by the history of science, this is in no way a proof that God is the only solution to this problem.Secondly, it most certainly does nothing to validate most of the finer points about religion (like Christian ethics) that were the brunt of the original discussion. Indeed, if we're looking for an explanation of how anything could come to exist, "a mysterious process that science doesn't know about yet" seems sufficiently explanatory. It's quite a leap to say that this process or entity was intelligent, self-aware, or capable of consciously exerting his will, it's another leap to say that it was God, and it's an even [i']bigger[/i] leap after that to start saying anything about religious practice, ethics, salvation, or Christ.[/QUOTE]I consider it rather arrogantly prideful of people to assume they know the answer to all things, or worse, to assume they deserve the answer to all things. Why do some people have such a hard time accepting that there are things for which the only current answer is "we don't know"?[quote name='Lunar;34664]Indeed' date=' it seems like a complete nonsequiter to go from God as an explanation of the universe's origin to anything resembling Christianity.[/QUOTE']That's exactly what it is, you know your stuff.[quote name='Lunar;34664]Lastly' date=' and I'll bring this up only as a tangent as it's not a field that I'm particularly well-versed in, it may be fallacious to speak in terms of "causality" (or in this particular example, "creation") to begin with. Such terminology implies temporal relations, but when we speak of the origins of the universe we are referring to a situation in which time may not even exist. Indeed, I was somewhat surprised when you stated as a basic postulate at the beginning that the universe could not possibly be eternal or cyclical as this is precisely the model which has been presented by a number of physicists. In short, looking at the history of the universe in a linearly temporal fashion may be completely missing the point.[/QUOTE']Good points. It is already proven that "time" is a relative concept; the flow of time is slower in gravity wells (e.g., Earth's surface) than in space. Causality isn't uniform everywhere.[quote name='Lunar;34664]Also' date='You could make the same argument but replace "Flying Spaghetti Monster" with God and say that not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is an impossibility. With rational proof, the burden of proof is on the positive view, not the negative one. Indeed, your view leads to complete contradiction as it's actually impossible to default to believing every view that we can't disprove. We can neither disprove that God exists nor can we disprove that he doesn't exist - ought we to believe [i']both?[/i][/QUOTE]Don't forget Russell's Teapot! We don't know it isn't there![quote name='Lunar;34664]I just find it so surprising that so many Christians are intent on proving God rationally when' date=' to me, it has always been an issue of faith. If we could reason our way there, salvation through faith in Christ would be a completely trivial matter. But it's not - it's a struggle.[/QUOTE']This is my entire thesis on christianity. I say that if you can seriously claim that you "know" or can "prove" God's existence, you have already missed the point entirely. (And I'm not an ignorant outsider, I was raised Christian for all my childhood and adolescence.)
Garbage Man
New Member
- Feb 7, 2008
- 16
- 0
- 0
- 38
God started to call me, when I did not know Him yet. He practically started to show me His love, when I was totally "in mess". He started to change me inside and at the same time my circumstances. He has healed me. He has given the Holy Spirit to dwell in me, to strenghten and given wisdom. He has basically turn my life totally "upside down" FOR BETTER. The things that I haven't even asked Him, He has given me. And all the 'things' will disappear one day, but there is soul inside of us and I can feel God's presence in my life right now, that soul is all that is left at the end of everything. I just love to be close to God and feel His presence. He is practical God. He lives today. He changes things. And He is so loving.
You're going to have to define "self-existence" more clearly for me, I'm afraid. "Exists in and of itself" sounds to me like it applies to every substance I can think of. Clearly I'm not understanding. However, in general, this sounds very much like a classic cosmological argument, which fails for a number of reasons. (Hopefully, my failure to comprehend "self-existence" doesn't render most of these objections irrelevant).
Something which was not created. That's a good enough definition, I think.
So what we are really left with is the statement "science doesn't know everything yet, and one of the things it doesn't know yet is how the universe began to exist/how anything began to exist."
The problem with assuming that science can answer such questions is that science cannot in and of itself ever answer questions of the supernatural (that is, science as you see it). The universe came from nothing. No physical part of what we know as the physical universe existed before the universe. This has nothing to do with time or its flow, so don't get lost on that track again. It is impossible for the universe to have existed forever--to have no beginning. Since it is all we know as natural existence, something super-(that is, above from the Latin)-natural must have created it.
Secondly, it most certainly does nothing to validate most of the finer points about religion (like Christian ethics) that were the brunt of the original discussion. Indeed, if we're looking for an explanation of how anything could come to exist, "a mysterious process that science doesn't know about yet" seems sufficiently explanatory. It's quite a leap to say that this process or entity was intelligent, self-aware, or capable of consciously exerting his will, it's another leap to say that it was God, and it's an even bigger leap after that to start saying anything about religious practice, ethics, salvation, or Christ. Indeed, it seems like a complete nonsequiter to go from God as an explanation of the universe's origin to anything resembling Christianity.
I don't believe I went anywhere near the topic of my self-existent Creator being Jehovah, so must of what you wrote I'll ignore.As far as this assertion against his intelligence or self-awareness, I think the Teleological argument would be applicable here. I'm sure you're familiar with it, but for those reading this who are not, it is basically this:1. Every design has a designer.2. The universe is highly designed.3. Therefore, the universe has a designer.The first premise is key to this discussion as it implies intelligence. Self-awareness comes into play when one asks the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Obviously for something to be created, the creator must have a point in creation.
Such terminology implies temporal relations, but when we speak of the origins of the universe we are referring to a situation in which time may not even exist. Indeed, I was somewhat surprised when you stated as a basic postulate at the beginning that the universe could not possibly be eternal or cyclical as this is precisely the model which has been presented by a number of physicists. In short, looking at the history of the universe in a linearly temporal fashion may be completely missing the point.
The time factor does not matter. I'm surprised you don't see the fallacies behind cyclical or eternal universe theories. A number of physicists, it would seem, need to remember several things, among which are their math, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and some philosophical reasoning.If you'd like to go into some specific theories, be my guest. But all of them imply a beginning. All of them imply having come from something other than the universe. Even quantum fluctuation cosmology (I think that's the right term), which I see a lot more of from atheists than cyclical or eternal universe theories, fails to account for where the quantum flux came from.I'd suggest William Lane Craig's website (reasonablefaith.org) for these matters.
There is no guarantee that science will eventually understand everything, or that it will understand how things began to exist.
I'd like to add that sometimes philosophy, not science, holds the answers.
I don't think it's foolish to not assume the existence of something for which there is no concrete evidence.
Take it up with the psalmist. And Paul.
I find your choice of arguments interesting... so many christians I know believe their faith to be in opposition to such cosmological science. Can I take it that you believe faith in God and scientific study are not contradictory and can be reconciled?
I haven't met these Christians. Apparently they have some sort of misology. I know faith and scientific study do not contradict one another, or rather scientific truth, because God created this universe. If we accurately study it, how can we contradict Him? If we are accurate, we always find ourselves led back to His truth.
That doesn't make sense; like Lunar says, everything is technically "self-existent". It may be that, as you say, you just haven't explained the idea very well.
Hopefully I've rectified the situation above.
Good points. It is already proven that "time" is a relative concept; the flow of time is slower in gravity wells (e.g., Earth's surface) than in space. Causality isn't uniform everywhere.
When you say "causality isn't uniform" you're going to have to be more specific. That one seems to be erroneous, but hopefully you can clarify for me.I feel like I need to restate my original thesis. If I lose you all again this time, I'll just give you some links:You and I exist. We have not existed forever (at least, that's the rational assumption). The universe existed before we did; however, it has not existed forever (not a temporal "forever" but forever in the since that it had a beginning--it did not exist, then began to exist at some point). Since the universe is all we know to physically exist ("the natural world" if you will), something supernatural, which itself never began to exist but has always existed, must have caused it to exist. This never beginning to exist but always having existed is what I meant by self-existent. Something which was not caused into existent.
Something which was not created. That's a good enough definition, I think.
So what we are really left with is the statement "science doesn't know everything yet, and one of the things it doesn't know yet is how the universe began to exist/how anything began to exist."
The problem with assuming that science can answer such questions is that science cannot in and of itself ever answer questions of the supernatural (that is, science as you see it). The universe came from nothing. No physical part of what we know as the physical universe existed before the universe. This has nothing to do with time or its flow, so don't get lost on that track again. It is impossible for the universe to have existed forever--to have no beginning. Since it is all we know as natural existence, something super-(that is, above from the Latin)-natural must have created it.
Secondly, it most certainly does nothing to validate most of the finer points about religion (like Christian ethics) that were the brunt of the original discussion. Indeed, if we're looking for an explanation of how anything could come to exist, "a mysterious process that science doesn't know about yet" seems sufficiently explanatory. It's quite a leap to say that this process or entity was intelligent, self-aware, or capable of consciously exerting his will, it's another leap to say that it was God, and it's an even bigger leap after that to start saying anything about religious practice, ethics, salvation, or Christ. Indeed, it seems like a complete nonsequiter to go from God as an explanation of the universe's origin to anything resembling Christianity.
I don't believe I went anywhere near the topic of my self-existent Creator being Jehovah, so must of what you wrote I'll ignore.As far as this assertion against his intelligence or self-awareness, I think the Teleological argument would be applicable here. I'm sure you're familiar with it, but for those reading this who are not, it is basically this:1. Every design has a designer.2. The universe is highly designed.3. Therefore, the universe has a designer.The first premise is key to this discussion as it implies intelligence. Self-awareness comes into play when one asks the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Obviously for something to be created, the creator must have a point in creation.
Such terminology implies temporal relations, but when we speak of the origins of the universe we are referring to a situation in which time may not even exist. Indeed, I was somewhat surprised when you stated as a basic postulate at the beginning that the universe could not possibly be eternal or cyclical as this is precisely the model which has been presented by a number of physicists. In short, looking at the history of the universe in a linearly temporal fashion may be completely missing the point.
The time factor does not matter. I'm surprised you don't see the fallacies behind cyclical or eternal universe theories. A number of physicists, it would seem, need to remember several things, among which are their math, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and some philosophical reasoning.If you'd like to go into some specific theories, be my guest. But all of them imply a beginning. All of them imply having come from something other than the universe. Even quantum fluctuation cosmology (I think that's the right term), which I see a lot more of from atheists than cyclical or eternal universe theories, fails to account for where the quantum flux came from.I'd suggest William Lane Craig's website (reasonablefaith.org) for these matters.
There is no guarantee that science will eventually understand everything, or that it will understand how things began to exist.
I'd like to add that sometimes philosophy, not science, holds the answers.
I don't think it's foolish to not assume the existence of something for which there is no concrete evidence.
Take it up with the psalmist. And Paul.
I find your choice of arguments interesting... so many christians I know believe their faith to be in opposition to such cosmological science. Can I take it that you believe faith in God and scientific study are not contradictory and can be reconciled?
I haven't met these Christians. Apparently they have some sort of misology. I know faith and scientific study do not contradict one another, or rather scientific truth, because God created this universe. If we accurately study it, how can we contradict Him? If we are accurate, we always find ourselves led back to His truth.
That doesn't make sense; like Lunar says, everything is technically "self-existent". It may be that, as you say, you just haven't explained the idea very well.
Hopefully I've rectified the situation above.
Good points. It is already proven that "time" is a relative concept; the flow of time is slower in gravity wells (e.g., Earth's surface) than in space. Causality isn't uniform everywhere.
When you say "causality isn't uniform" you're going to have to be more specific. That one seems to be erroneous, but hopefully you can clarify for me.I feel like I need to restate my original thesis. If I lose you all again this time, I'll just give you some links:You and I exist. We have not existed forever (at least, that's the rational assumption). The universe existed before we did; however, it has not existed forever (not a temporal "forever" but forever in the since that it had a beginning--it did not exist, then began to exist at some point). Since the universe is all we know to physically exist ("the natural world" if you will), something supernatural, which itself never began to exist but has always existed, must have caused it to exist. This never beginning to exist but always having existed is what I meant by self-existent. Something which was not caused into existent.
(Ek Pyros;34779)
Something which was not created. That's a good enough definition, I think.The problem with assuming that science can answer such questions is that science cannot in and of itself ever answer questions of the supernatural (that is, science as you see it). The universe came from nothing. No physical part of what we know as the physical universe existed before the universe. This has nothing to do with time or its flow, so don't get lost on that track again. It is impossible for the universe to have existed forever--to have no beginning. Since it is all we know as natural existence, something super-(that is, above from the Latin)-natural must have created it.
Actually, I really don't see how you could possibly separate the issue of time from this. You're very locked into the idea of causation, and a self-caused object being the only thing that could start a chain of causation. But you grant God the possibility of being self-caused, while you patently dismiss the possibility of the universe, via said theories about time, being self-caused. Why is one of these so much crazier than the other?But, barring that objection, and the objection that there's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" about the origins of the universe, what we are left with from this argument is the proof of "Some element that has not yet been explained by science." I take it you're going to agree with me, since you seem to have admitted the need for a second argument to prove that this element is God.(Ek Pyros)
I don't believe I went anywhere near the topic of my self-existent Creator being Jehovah, so must of what you wrote I'll ignore.
But it has to be, in order for your argument concerning Christian ethics (which was the original topic of this thread) to mean anything. We were originally discussing whether Christian morals had any more objectivity than atheistic morals, and if all you have provided is an explanation for the origin of the universe, and not any ethical content, then it gives no objectivity to Christian ethics.(Ek Pyros)
1. Every design has a designer.2. The universe is highly designed.3. Therefore, the universe has a designer.
This is a classically circular argument. Yes, design implies a designer. But design is precisely what is in question. Was the universe designed? Or did it simply come to be through natural causes? That's the very question at hand, and you can't simply presuppose the answer to it in premise 2. The universe is highly complex, certainly. But complexity does not imply design.
Something which was not created. That's a good enough definition, I think.The problem with assuming that science can answer such questions is that science cannot in and of itself ever answer questions of the supernatural (that is, science as you see it). The universe came from nothing. No physical part of what we know as the physical universe existed before the universe. This has nothing to do with time or its flow, so don't get lost on that track again. It is impossible for the universe to have existed forever--to have no beginning. Since it is all we know as natural existence, something super-(that is, above from the Latin)-natural must have created it.
Actually, I really don't see how you could possibly separate the issue of time from this. You're very locked into the idea of causation, and a self-caused object being the only thing that could start a chain of causation. But you grant God the possibility of being self-caused, while you patently dismiss the possibility of the universe, via said theories about time, being self-caused. Why is one of these so much crazier than the other?But, barring that objection, and the objection that there's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" about the origins of the universe, what we are left with from this argument is the proof of "Some element that has not yet been explained by science." I take it you're going to agree with me, since you seem to have admitted the need for a second argument to prove that this element is God.(Ek Pyros)
I don't believe I went anywhere near the topic of my self-existent Creator being Jehovah, so must of what you wrote I'll ignore.
But it has to be, in order for your argument concerning Christian ethics (which was the original topic of this thread) to mean anything. We were originally discussing whether Christian morals had any more objectivity than atheistic morals, and if all you have provided is an explanation for the origin of the universe, and not any ethical content, then it gives no objectivity to Christian ethics.(Ek Pyros)
1. Every design has a designer.2. The universe is highly designed.3. Therefore, the universe has a designer.
This is a classically circular argument. Yes, design implies a designer. But design is precisely what is in question. Was the universe designed? Or did it simply come to be through natural causes? That's the very question at hand, and you can't simply presuppose the answer to it in premise 2. The universe is highly complex, certainly. But complexity does not imply design.
(Lunar;34435)
That is a very strong claim. Do you have any statistics to back up rampant adultery among atheists? Every statistic that I've looked at says that, sadly, atheists actually have divorce rates that are at worst equal to and in some cases lower than most Christians.http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htmhttp://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/divorce.htmIt strikes me as very wrong to say that atheists are necessarily acting selfishly. How do you reach that conclusion? Not all atheists are ethical egoists. If you have ever interacted with one you will know that most of them are very concerned with interests other than their own.
Does the atheist actually report and make a record of every act of adultery?No! the world does not always make everything known publicly and records and surverys are not really a reliable source as they are limited to the number of people whose do not all tell the truth. As many people count themselves as a christian who are not in the true sense of the word a 'believer' then it is bound to show unrealistic results. And most surveys represent a small number of people not full true statistics because some people lie.The word of God teaches that believers are taught of God. John 6:44-45 and Isaiah 54:13. In Galatians it shows that those who really belong to the Lord who walk in the Spirit.Galatians 5:18-26.18.But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19.Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20.Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21.Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22.But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23.Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24.And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25.If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26.Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.What I know and have learnt is that those in the Spirit do not do the things of the flesh.Galatians 5:16-17.16.This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17.For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. So if christians are divorcing or committing adultery what does this tell you?You see even when men beat their wives, a christian man who loved God and his neighbour would not harm anyone, his partner especially.We see that in the Lord Jesus we have truth and that those who are in the Spirit are not deceived by atheists or their surverys and believers who falsely claim to love God and their neighbour. Reality is not what men would have you think and in 1 Corinthians 13:6.6.Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; We see Love rejoiceth in truth is not the flesh view it always agrees with Gods truth. So how we view the acts of someone is always about truth and Love. Believers who part for excuses like we have grown apart and we were arguing and could not get along. Were not living in truth, for God shows us that a man must love his wife like his own body and so much he would lay down his life. Corinthians and Ephesians. He likens a mans love for his wife to that of Christ and the Church his bride.Do you think couples who claim to be believers who divorce for reasons of the flesh, were ever really believers in the Spirit and obedience to God and our Lord?Putting God first and loving God is not about our feelings and thoughts.But about his feelings and thoughts about us in his word.If we look at Gods word and his will and way for our lifes. Do they match up?I am not judging atheists. I am saying their moral codes are not based on the selfless love which puts God first but on their own wills and not any love for God or others. faithful.
That is a very strong claim. Do you have any statistics to back up rampant adultery among atheists? Every statistic that I've looked at says that, sadly, atheists actually have divorce rates that are at worst equal to and in some cases lower than most Christians.http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htmhttp://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/divorce.htmIt strikes me as very wrong to say that atheists are necessarily acting selfishly. How do you reach that conclusion? Not all atheists are ethical egoists. If you have ever interacted with one you will know that most of them are very concerned with interests other than their own.
Does the atheist actually report and make a record of every act of adultery?No! the world does not always make everything known publicly and records and surverys are not really a reliable source as they are limited to the number of people whose do not all tell the truth. As many people count themselves as a christian who are not in the true sense of the word a 'believer' then it is bound to show unrealistic results. And most surveys represent a small number of people not full true statistics because some people lie.The word of God teaches that believers are taught of God. John 6:44-45 and Isaiah 54:13. In Galatians it shows that those who really belong to the Lord who walk in the Spirit.Galatians 5:18-26.18.But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19.Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20.Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21.Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22.But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23.Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 24.And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. 25.If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26.Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another.What I know and have learnt is that those in the Spirit do not do the things of the flesh.Galatians 5:16-17.16.This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17.For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. So if christians are divorcing or committing adultery what does this tell you?You see even when men beat their wives, a christian man who loved God and his neighbour would not harm anyone, his partner especially.We see that in the Lord Jesus we have truth and that those who are in the Spirit are not deceived by atheists or their surverys and believers who falsely claim to love God and their neighbour. Reality is not what men would have you think and in 1 Corinthians 13:6.6.Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; We see Love rejoiceth in truth is not the flesh view it always agrees with Gods truth. So how we view the acts of someone is always about truth and Love. Believers who part for excuses like we have grown apart and we were arguing and could not get along. Were not living in truth, for God shows us that a man must love his wife like his own body and so much he would lay down his life. Corinthians and Ephesians. He likens a mans love for his wife to that of Christ and the Church his bride.Do you think couples who claim to be believers who divorce for reasons of the flesh, were ever really believers in the Spirit and obedience to God and our Lord?Putting God first and loving God is not about our feelings and thoughts.But about his feelings and thoughts about us in his word.If we look at Gods word and his will and way for our lifes. Do they match up?I am not judging atheists. I am saying their moral codes are not based on the selfless love which puts God first but on their own wills and not any love for God or others. faithful.
You're very locked into the idea of causation, and a self-caused object being the only thing that could start a chain of causation. But you grant God the possibility of being self-caused, while you patently dismiss the possibility of the universe, via said theories about time, being self-caused. Why is one of these so much crazier than the other?
Woah there. I NEVER said God was "Self-caused." I said He is self-existent. He exists without having been caused into existence.
"Some element that has not yet been explained by science."
I'm interested to know how science could ever explain something supernatural. The most it can do is rely on logic and philosophy to define a cause or reality of the situation, but science alone cannot (by definition) give you any answer of that nature.
But it has to be, in order for your argument concerning Christian ethics (which was the original topic of this thread) to mean anything. We were originally discussing whether Christian morals had any more objectivity than atheistic morals, and if all you have provided is an explanation for the origin of the universe, and not any ethical content, then it gives no objectivity to Christian ethics.
This must be a common misconception among my opponents that a person can talk about one thing and not speak of another thing at the same time... I don't believe I began this thread. I have not gone into any moral argument other than to say that atheism's idea of morality is irrational. Please don't put words in my mouth.I deduce or infer Jehovah from other avenues. If you'd like to get into why I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior as depicted in the Bible, and why the moral code prescribed therein is true, we must venture into historical questions of accuracy, etc. related to the text. And also the Moral argument. The Cosmological argument let's us know that something supernatural created this universe. Something supernatural and self-existent. I never made the claim that it alone validates the Bible's morality.
This is a classically circular argument. Yes, design implies a designer. But design is precisely what is in question. Was the universe designed? Or did it simply come to be through natural causes? That's the very question at hand, and you can't simply presuppose the answer to it in premise 2. The universe is highly complex, certainly. But complexity does not imply design.
The syllogism was presented so that it may be discussed further if you wish. It is not circular in any fashion.I would love to see your evidence that the universe came to be as it is now through natural causes. For you see, the probability of such occuring is beyond what mathematicians accept as the threshold of possibility (1 in 10^75 I believe). It is beyond the chance of selecting one atom at random in the universe (there are 10^70 atoms in the universe).I've seen your assertion of mere complexity (or as another forumer called it, "structure) before. But the question we must consider then is at what point complexity becomes design? Certainly when you have mathematical impossibility versus design, the rational response is to infer design.Here is a more specific syllogism for you:1. Every design had a designer.2. As verified by the Anthropic Principle, we know beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe is designed.3. Therefore, the universe had a designer.I think the biggest problem opponents such as yourself face lies in the cosmological constant--the energy density of empty space. The fine-tuning behind it has been conservatively estimated to be at least one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. That's 10 followed by 53 zeroes.There are many more constants and anthropic principles which only further demolish the fantasy of natural causation. I believe one researcher compiled a list of 150 or so such constants. But I think the simple watch analogy by Paley would suffice for any rational person.I guess you'll either deny these principles or appeal to some mutliverse theory. Oh well. Those choices fail as well.
Woah there. I NEVER said God was "Self-caused." I said He is self-existent. He exists without having been caused into existence.
"Some element that has not yet been explained by science."
I'm interested to know how science could ever explain something supernatural. The most it can do is rely on logic and philosophy to define a cause or reality of the situation, but science alone cannot (by definition) give you any answer of that nature.
But it has to be, in order for your argument concerning Christian ethics (which was the original topic of this thread) to mean anything. We were originally discussing whether Christian morals had any more objectivity than atheistic morals, and if all you have provided is an explanation for the origin of the universe, and not any ethical content, then it gives no objectivity to Christian ethics.
This must be a common misconception among my opponents that a person can talk about one thing and not speak of another thing at the same time... I don't believe I began this thread. I have not gone into any moral argument other than to say that atheism's idea of morality is irrational. Please don't put words in my mouth.I deduce or infer Jehovah from other avenues. If you'd like to get into why I believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior as depicted in the Bible, and why the moral code prescribed therein is true, we must venture into historical questions of accuracy, etc. related to the text. And also the Moral argument. The Cosmological argument let's us know that something supernatural created this universe. Something supernatural and self-existent. I never made the claim that it alone validates the Bible's morality.
This is a classically circular argument. Yes, design implies a designer. But design is precisely what is in question. Was the universe designed? Or did it simply come to be through natural causes? That's the very question at hand, and you can't simply presuppose the answer to it in premise 2. The universe is highly complex, certainly. But complexity does not imply design.
The syllogism was presented so that it may be discussed further if you wish. It is not circular in any fashion.I would love to see your evidence that the universe came to be as it is now through natural causes. For you see, the probability of such occuring is beyond what mathematicians accept as the threshold of possibility (1 in 10^75 I believe). It is beyond the chance of selecting one atom at random in the universe (there are 10^70 atoms in the universe).I've seen your assertion of mere complexity (or as another forumer called it, "structure) before. But the question we must consider then is at what point complexity becomes design? Certainly when you have mathematical impossibility versus design, the rational response is to infer design.Here is a more specific syllogism for you:1. Every design had a designer.2. As verified by the Anthropic Principle, we know beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe is designed.3. Therefore, the universe had a designer.I think the biggest problem opponents such as yourself face lies in the cosmological constant--the energy density of empty space. The fine-tuning behind it has been conservatively estimated to be at least one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. That's 10 followed by 53 zeroes.There are many more constants and anthropic principles which only further demolish the fantasy of natural causation. I believe one researcher compiled a list of 150 or so such constants. But I think the simple watch analogy by Paley would suffice for any rational person.I guess you'll either deny these principles or appeal to some mutliverse theory. Oh well. Those choices fail as well.
(Faithful;34856)
Does the atheist actually report and make a record of every act of adultery?
Does the Christian?(Faithful)
the world does not always make everything known publicly and records and surverys are not really a reliable source as they are limited to the number of people whose do not all tell the truth. As many people count themselves as a christian who are not in the true sense of the word a 'believer' then it is bound to show unrealistic results. And most surveys represent a small number of people not full true statistics because some people lie.
Surveys are not a perfect measurement, but they're the best we got. Where are you basing your assertion that atheists are rampant adulterers?(Ek Pyros)
I'm interested to know how science could ever explain something supernatural.
That's just the point, though. Until we've arrived at the conclusion of God, all "supernatural" means is "something that science can't explain yet."(Ek Pyros)
This must be a common misconception among my opponents that a person can talk about one thing and not speak of another thing at the same time... I don't believe I began this thread. I have not gone into any moral argument other than to say that atheism's idea of morality is irrational. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I'm not putting anything into your mouth. You claimed that without God, morals became brainwashing, perversion, and self-centeredness; then you claimed that you could objectively prove that God exists. Unless you felt compelled to go on a completely irrelevant and pages-long tangent, I would like to assume that your definition of "God" contains some ethical content so as to mean something with respect to the moral problem.(Ek Pyros)
I would love to see your evidence that the universe came to be as it is now through natural causes. For you see, the probability of such occuring is beyond what mathematicians accept as the threshold of possibility (1 in 10^75 I believe). It is beyond the chance of selecting one atom at random in the universe (there are 10^70 atoms in the universe).
That's a fallacy; the probability of any particular long combination of events occurring will always be incredibly low simply because there are so many different possibilities to weigh it against. And, if you're talking about the universe coming to be as it is today, well, it's had an awfully long time to get there, so when you throw in a tiny possibility like that - which is already a bloated and inaccurate figure for the reasons I gave above - and give it 13.7 billion years, improbable things are going to happen.(Ek Pyros)
Here is a more specific syllogism for you:1. Every design had a designer.2. As verified by the Anthropic Principle, we know beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe is designed.3. Therefore, the universe had a designer.
I'm not familiar with this Anthropic Principle, but after taking a quick look at it it seems as though it's both extremely shaky and under a considerable attack from scientists who claim it is not valid and impossible to verify scientifically. As such, it's not looked upon seriously in contemporary science. Indeed, the principle itself seems to presuppose the conclusion of this argument.(Ek Pyros)
There are many more constants and anthropic principles which only further demolish the fantasy of natural causation. I believe one researcher compiled a list of 150 or so such constants. But I think the simple watch analogy by Paley would suffice for any rational person.
You ought to read David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. It addresses the teleological argument, and the watchmaker analogy in particular, in great detail. There are a ton of reasons why the watchmaker analogy doesn't work. For one, analogies require a number of analogous examples, but with the watchmaker case, there is only one example (the universe). And drawing an inference from one case has never been sound. Secondly, it's an anthropocentric view. Design is only one of the many ways in which we observe complexity coming into being in the world. Look at vegetation, for example - a seed's growing into a plant also produces a complex organism. Or genesis - two beasts reproducing give rise to children, who exhibit complex physiology, behavior and social structures. Lastly, the analogy brings us to ridiculous conclusions, and it seems that we have selectively accepted only one of them (that the universe was designed). The first watch was probably not made correctly or perfectly on the first try - so by analogy, God probably messed up and made many universes before getting to this one! Also, how often is it that only one person contributes to the design of a complex mechanism? Maybe there are many Gods that all worked on the universe together! These conclusions are clearly not what we want to accept, but they are what the watchmaker analogy leads us to.It has been sort of fun going down the laundry list of classically flawed arguments for the necessity of God's existence, but the best I've seen you offer is an argument whose strongest conclusion is that the origins of the universe are really difficult for science to explain at this time, and then, just as theologians and philosophers of religion have done with so many other things that science used to be unable to explain, appeals to a deus ex machina, all the while shrugging off all the sticky points concerning temporality. This is extremely unscientific and not at all satisfying to me as a rational thinker. It is particularly unsatisfying considering that you admitted in your last post that your arguments have nothing to do with morals, which is what this was originally about, so I think I am going to give this thread a rest.
Does the atheist actually report and make a record of every act of adultery?
Does the Christian?(Faithful)
the world does not always make everything known publicly and records and surverys are not really a reliable source as they are limited to the number of people whose do not all tell the truth. As many people count themselves as a christian who are not in the true sense of the word a 'believer' then it is bound to show unrealistic results. And most surveys represent a small number of people not full true statistics because some people lie.
Surveys are not a perfect measurement, but they're the best we got. Where are you basing your assertion that atheists are rampant adulterers?(Ek Pyros)
I'm interested to know how science could ever explain something supernatural.
That's just the point, though. Until we've arrived at the conclusion of God, all "supernatural" means is "something that science can't explain yet."(Ek Pyros)
This must be a common misconception among my opponents that a person can talk about one thing and not speak of another thing at the same time... I don't believe I began this thread. I have not gone into any moral argument other than to say that atheism's idea of morality is irrational. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I'm not putting anything into your mouth. You claimed that without God, morals became brainwashing, perversion, and self-centeredness; then you claimed that you could objectively prove that God exists. Unless you felt compelled to go on a completely irrelevant and pages-long tangent, I would like to assume that your definition of "God" contains some ethical content so as to mean something with respect to the moral problem.(Ek Pyros)
I would love to see your evidence that the universe came to be as it is now through natural causes. For you see, the probability of such occuring is beyond what mathematicians accept as the threshold of possibility (1 in 10^75 I believe). It is beyond the chance of selecting one atom at random in the universe (there are 10^70 atoms in the universe).
That's a fallacy; the probability of any particular long combination of events occurring will always be incredibly low simply because there are so many different possibilities to weigh it against. And, if you're talking about the universe coming to be as it is today, well, it's had an awfully long time to get there, so when you throw in a tiny possibility like that - which is already a bloated and inaccurate figure for the reasons I gave above - and give it 13.7 billion years, improbable things are going to happen.(Ek Pyros)
Here is a more specific syllogism for you:1. Every design had a designer.2. As verified by the Anthropic Principle, we know beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe is designed.3. Therefore, the universe had a designer.
I'm not familiar with this Anthropic Principle, but after taking a quick look at it it seems as though it's both extremely shaky and under a considerable attack from scientists who claim it is not valid and impossible to verify scientifically. As such, it's not looked upon seriously in contemporary science. Indeed, the principle itself seems to presuppose the conclusion of this argument.(Ek Pyros)
There are many more constants and anthropic principles which only further demolish the fantasy of natural causation. I believe one researcher compiled a list of 150 or so such constants. But I think the simple watch analogy by Paley would suffice for any rational person.
You ought to read David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. It addresses the teleological argument, and the watchmaker analogy in particular, in great detail. There are a ton of reasons why the watchmaker analogy doesn't work. For one, analogies require a number of analogous examples, but with the watchmaker case, there is only one example (the universe). And drawing an inference from one case has never been sound. Secondly, it's an anthropocentric view. Design is only one of the many ways in which we observe complexity coming into being in the world. Look at vegetation, for example - a seed's growing into a plant also produces a complex organism. Or genesis - two beasts reproducing give rise to children, who exhibit complex physiology, behavior and social structures. Lastly, the analogy brings us to ridiculous conclusions, and it seems that we have selectively accepted only one of them (that the universe was designed). The first watch was probably not made correctly or perfectly on the first try - so by analogy, God probably messed up and made many universes before getting to this one! Also, how often is it that only one person contributes to the design of a complex mechanism? Maybe there are many Gods that all worked on the universe together! These conclusions are clearly not what we want to accept, but they are what the watchmaker analogy leads us to.It has been sort of fun going down the laundry list of classically flawed arguments for the necessity of God's existence, but the best I've seen you offer is an argument whose strongest conclusion is that the origins of the universe are really difficult for science to explain at this time, and then, just as theologians and philosophers of religion have done with so many other things that science used to be unable to explain, appeals to a deus ex machina, all the while shrugging off all the sticky points concerning temporality. This is extremely unscientific and not at all satisfying to me as a rational thinker. It is particularly unsatisfying considering that you admitted in your last post that your arguments have nothing to do with morals, which is what this was originally about, so I think I am going to give this thread a rest.
I've already addressed this point. Maybe you missed it. Supernatural means above nature. Beyond nature, if you will. Science cannot by definition explain anything of that realm. Philosophy, logic, etc. can. But science will never avail you.That's just the point, though. Until we've arrived at the conclusion of God, all "supernatural" means is "something that science can't explain yet."
It does. But we haven't gotten there yet, have we?Actually, what I said was that morals should be those things--not that they necessarily are. Maybe I didn't make that clear. What morals should be without God are pragmatic ideologies. They are not, obviously, which leads me to believe that many atheists are not honest thinkers.You claimed that without God, morals became brainwashing, perversion, and self-centeredness; then you claimed that you could objectively prove that God exists. Unless you felt compelled to go on a completely irrelevant and pages-long tangent, I would like to assume that your definition of "God" contains some ethical content so as to mean something with respect to the moral problem.
13.7 billion? Take that and more, please! We're talking about constants! Time does not alter constants...Or have you moved on to evolution?That's a fallacy; the probability of any particular long combination of events occurring will always be incredibly low simply because there are so many different possibilities to weigh it against. And, if you're talking about the universe coming to be as it is today, well, it's had an awfully long time to get there, so when you throw in a tiny possibility like that - which is already a bloated and inaccurate figure for the reasons I gave above - and give it 13.7 billion years, improbable things are going to happen.
Of course it's under attack...these are the same scientists who suppose, leaving science behind, multiverse and other assortments of theories to escape the inevitability of the Designer inference. Talk about circular reasoning! Just read some of their quotes. I'd suggest Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator and William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith.I'm not familiar with this Anthropic Principle, but after taking a quick look at it it seems as though it's both extremely shaky and under a considerable attack from scientists who claim it is not valid and impossible to verify scientifically. As such, it's not looked upon seriously in contemporary science. Indeed, the principle itself seems to presuppose the conclusion of this argument.
You should read William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith.You ought to read David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. It addresses the teleological argument, and the watchmaker analogy in particular, in great detail.
Thanks to natural laws/constants (i.e. the design we discussed above). Humans grow from embryos. Thanks to DNA. Which is information. Which implies intelligence. Thanks for helping my case.Look at vegetation, for example - a seed's growing into a plant also produces a complex organism.
The analogy is not perfect--hardly any analogy is. However, it suffices for design--not perfect design. A watch is hardly representative of the universe in all manners. I'd have to label this a straw man. The original analogy is a comparison between a watch and a stone which emphasizes the appropriate point: the difference between the two objects which is OBVIOUS, INESCAPABLE design. We know ancient artifacts were designed, though they were crudely done so. That doesn't eliminate design. Nor does it mean they didn't work appropriately. We exist--if the universe was designed with that goal in mind, it suceeded. But then who are we talking about? Eternal God--omniscient God. It wouldn't take more than one try for such a being to get it right.The first watch was probably not made correctly or perfectly on the first try
Ockham's Razor. And if there were multiple deities, why don't we see diverse designs in these constants, etc? They are all unified. That's not a rational inference.About Hume bifurcation between watches and organisms:Maybe there are many Gods that all worked on the universe together!
Answers in Genesis]David Hume said:William Lane Craig writes, "Paley's argument...is in fact not vulnerable to most of Hume's objections, as Frederick Ferre has point out."It has been fun, hasn't it?It has been sort of fun going down the laundry list of classically flawed arguments for the necessity of God's existenceScience will never really explain it, etc. It will take more than mere science, etc. There are other ways to explain it accurately, etc.whose strongest conclusion is that the origins of the universe are really difficult for science to explain at this timeHilarious.appeals to a deus ex machinaWho said it was all scientific? Nor do I find you so rational as you fancy.This is extremely unscientific and not at all satisfying to me as a rational thinker.You assumed I said something I didn't. Your fault. We will get there, though. The first item is to establish God. Then we can go into the Bible and its accuracy.That is, if you return to this thread.EDIT: I'm still waiting for a more specific explication of how temporal considerations eliminate causation.It is particularly unsatisfying considering that you admitted in your last post that your arguments have nothing to do with morals
I get ALL of my morals from the Bible- and strictly from the Bible. I do not get them from "culture" or from my neighbor or from television- unless what I have learned from directly fits with scripture. Therefore I have to go back to scripture and check many morals we are told are "right" against the Word of God. If it does not fit with scripture or if it's a variation- if it's been changed to fit the "needs" of someone's point of view, than it is not moral and it is not at all acceptable.(Galatians 1:6-9 KJV) "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."Going along with this strain- atheists can indeed have morals if what they believe aligns itself with the word of God. And many times a lot of atheists have beliefs that do just that. For example, (Luke 6:31 KJV) "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke 6:31 NIV) "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (AKA The Golden Rule.) Most people would agree that this statement is true... a lot of people agree with much of the Bible in fact; but they also have the tendency to chop out the parts that don't agree with them.Here is a thought- Every good and perfect thing comes from God. Those who choose not to be His children can still be blessed if they follow His laws. Consider a non-religious family who raises their children in many of the same ways that God has told us to raise our children. They can have awfully nice kids- because this good thing, their well-behaved, moral children etc. came from God. God blesses those who follow His laws. Period. Whether or not they choose to accept His saving Grace is another subject altogether.(James 1:17 KJV) "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."
Similar threads
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 255
- Replies
- 1
- Views
- 291
- Replies
- 25
- Views
- 696
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 156