By Ryan Hemelaar
- Everything that has a beginning has a cause
- The universe had a beginning
- Therefore, the universe has a cause
The first premise seems obviously true as it is deeply rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing. To say that something can pop into being uncaused out of nothing I think is worse than magic. For at least in magic, you have the magician and maybe a hat, but here you have nothing being caused by nothing, yet coming into existence. It seems absurd.
However, some people try to object by saying, "Ah, so that means God would have to have a cause as well". Simply, no. Remember, the first premise is: "Everything that has a beginning has a cause", God never had a beginning, thus needs no cause. I'll explain later in this article why God cannot have a beginning.
Now I will present two philosophical arguments and one empirical argument as to why the second premise is true, that the universe had a beginning.
- An actually infinite number of things cannot exist in reality.
- A beginningless series of events is an actually infinite number of things.
- Therefore, a beginningless series of events cannot exist in reality.
A distinction needs to be made here from things that are potentially infinite, and those that actually are. For example, a line of finite distance could potentially be subdivided infinitely. You can just keep on dividing parts in half forever, but you will never arrive at an actual "infiniteieth" division. Now the first premise asserts, not that a potentially infinite number of things cannot exist, but that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
If actual infinities could occur in reality, absurdities would occur. For instance, let's take a look at David Hilbert's brain-child, appropriately dubbed, 'Hilbert's Hotel'. Imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms that are all occupied. A new guest arrives at the hotel wanting to check in, and the clerk says, "Why of course!" and shifts the person in room 1 to room 2, the person in room 2 to room 3, the person in room 3 to room 4 and so on... So that means room 1 has become vacant and the guest gladly checks in.
But now let's suppose that an infinite number of the new guests arrive to this fully occupied hotel asking for rooms to stay in. The clerk says, "Of course, we can fit you in", and proceeds to move the person in room 1 to room 2, the person in room 2 into room 4, the person in room 3 into room 6, and so on (by moving the existing guests to a room that is double their old room number). We see that now all the odd-numbered rooms become free (doubling of any number becomes even) and the infinite number of guests happily move into their rooms. Yet all the rooms were occupied before the guests arrived.
We see that the hotel clerk's actions are only possible if the hotel is a potential infinite, such that new rooms are created to absorb the influx of guests. For if the hotel has an actually infinite number of rooms and all the rooms are full, then there is no more room. Therefore, an actually infinite number of things cannot exist in reality. A beginningless universe has an infinite number of past events, therefore, the universe has a beginning.
Now the second philosophical argument I will present does not deny that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist. However it argues that a collection of an infinite number of things cannot be formed by successive addition. The argument can be stated as follows:
- The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition.
- A collection formed by successive addition can never reach an actual infinite.
- Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite.
The first premise is obvious. If the universe never had a beginning then in order for us to have arrived at today, temporal existence has had to traverse an infinite number of past events, one event after another. However before the present event could occur, the event immediately prior would have to occur, but before that one could occur, the event prior to that one has to occur, and so on ad infinitum. So as one gets driven back and back into the infinite past, no event could ever occur as they are all dependent on a prior event. Thus, if the series of past events were beginningless, the present event could have never occurred, which is absurd. But the present has occurred so thus there must have been an independent cause at the beginning, also known as a first cause. Being the first cause, it therefore must be uncaused (meaning it can have no beginning, it must always be).
The second premise can also be described as the impossibility of counting to infinity. For if we count each new element that we add to a collection, we can always add one more. Therefore, one can have a potential infinity, but can never reach an actual infinity.
Someone might say that while it is impossible for a collection to reach an infinite number of items by having a beginning and adding members one by one, an infinite could be formed by never beginning but having an ending point. However, this view seems equally absurd, for if you cannot count to infinity, why would you be able to count down from infinity?
Imagine if someone counted down from infinity one number per day, and they finally finished counting today. The question I want to ask is, why did they only finish counting down today? Why not yesterday, or the day before, or a year ago? For since the same amount of time would have had elapsed on any of those other days as today, namely an infinite amount of days. In fact, if we look back at any day in past, we should see the person will have already finished, which is absurd.
Since an actually infinite number of things cannot be reached by successive addition, it shows that there are not an infinite number of past events, meaning the universe had a beginning and there must be a first cause.
Now I will turn to a discussion regarding the empirical proof for the second premise. The second law of thermodynamics states that anything left to itself will tend towards more disorder/entropy. Since the universe is a closed system, the amount of entropy in the universe will be constantly increasing. So therefore, if the universe was infinite in age by never having a beginning, the amount of entropy in the universe would be an infinite amount. The universe should be at complete equilibrium with uniformity everywhere, and with absolutely nothing occurring. Is the universe in such a state today? Obviously not. Therefore, the universe had a beginning.
Now that we have firmly established that the two premises in the Kalam Cosmological argument are more plausibly true than false, the conclusion necessarily follows that the universe has a cause. The next step is to discover, what can we know about this cause? Well, obviously the cause must be outside both space and time, so thus immaterial and timeless. If the cause is timeless then the cause must also be changeless, as changes can only happen within time. A changeless being can never change, so that is another reason why God cannot have a beginning.
But not only can we know that the cause of the universe is transcendent, but I would contend that it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect, such as the universe? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the first event are present from eternity then the effect should exist from eternity as well, that is to say, the universe should be eternal. But as we've seen, that is impossible. The only way for a timeless cause to create an effect in time is if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create the universe in time. So not only are we brought to a timeless, immaterial, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, spaceless and unimaginably powerful cause, but also to a personal Creator. This, as Thomas Aquinas would say, is what everybody defines as "God".
For more information on this argument, please see Dr. William Lane Craig's book, The Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Okay, let's go!
ReplyDeleteI accept that everything that has a beginning has a cause. But 'universe' means 'everything that exists', and you think god exists, so he must have a beginning if he is in the universe. So, let's redefine universe to mean "Matter, space and time." God can easily be outside these - in another dimension, perhaps? Can we agree that the cause exists outside these three things, in another dimension?
Now, to infinity!
Philosophically, there is no reason to limit the total number of days before today. You used the idea of Hilbert's Hotel, and proposed that it is possible to add to a potentiactual infinite set (an infinite set with a beginning). Of course that it true. In fact, you can add any amount to an infinite set. The total number will not change (it will still be infinite), but each discrete new item will be included.
We see that the hotel clerk's actions are only possible if the hotel is a potential infinite, such that new rooms are created to absorb the influx of guests. For if the hotel has an actually infinite number of rooms and all the rooms are full, then there is no more room. Therefore, an actually infinite number of things cannot exist in reality.
I don't see that this logic follows, it only shows that it is possible that time could be potentiactually infinite. It is still possible to have an actual infinite number of days.
The second premise can also be described as the impossibility of counting to infinity. For if we count each new element that we add to a collection, we can always add one more. Therefore, one can have a potential infinity, but can never reach an actual infinity.
Again, as I showed above, you can add to an infinite set. The total number did not change, it is still infinite, but the discrete new item has been included.
If the universe never had a beginning then in order for us to have arrived at today, temporal existence has had to traverse an infinite number of past events, one event after another. However before the present event could occur, the event immediately prior would have to occur, but before that one could occur, the event prior to that one has to occur, and so on ad infinituim.
If the universe never had a beginning, then each day must arrive. If you begin on one day and traverse them in sequence, you are correct in saying the "day will never come". But actual infinites do not have a start day - by definition it has no beginning at all. It has been progressing day by day forever, it is a beginningless timeline. So, adding one day to an actual infinite is inevitable- it arrives on schedule and is added to the infinite timeline. This is because there has never been a time when the number of days was finite, it has always been infinite (an actual infinite, rather than a potentially infinite set with a beginning - a "room 1"). This is obviously true working into the past as well. Every past day must arrive, because there was no beginning and no end day. As explained above, I can count to infinity in an actual infinite set, and the same goes for counting backwards. Each day must arrive, because the actual nature of the infinite set prevents there being an end to the days. Think of it like a mobius strip... man, I love those things.
So, I do not feel that you have firmly established that the universe has a beginning - it could quite possibly not have.
Now, I'm going to accept your 2nd law of thermodynamics, just for fun (and b/c I am a biologist, not a chemist) and agree with you that space, time and matter had a beginning. It is difficult to grasp the idea of space and time coming from no space and time - a beginning-less past makes more sense to me than time out of no time, but I'll run with it.
And, as I said at the beginning, I accept that the first cause must be outside of space, time and matter, in another dimension.
So, that means the first cause must be self-existent, timeless, immaterial and non-spatial. All this I agree with. The first cause must then have caused space, time and matter to emerge from the other dimension into this one. Or, shall we say, space, time and matter to emerge from no space, no time, no matter.
So far, you have not shown any compelling evidence that the uncaused event was a personal god. It could have been a natural phenomena.
These other dimensions, outside of matter, time and space, would surely have had natural laws of some kind, otherwise, by your own reasoning, they would have been chaos, which even god could not survive in, as the first cause needs an infinite amount of entropy, otherwise it is subject to change, and therefore could not be the first cause. Matter as we know would not exist, but there would still be some parallel to our natural laws, and these phenomena may be sufficiently powerful enough to cause space, time and matter to emerge from that dimension into ours.
For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect, such as the universe? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the first event are present from eternity then the effect should exist from eternity as well, that is to say, the universe should be eternal.
I have shown above, how god cannot exist in the universe as you have defined it, he must exist in another dimension, separate from time and space and matter. I have also shown that the dimension of the first cause must have order, infinite order in fact, and thus be subject to natural laws, which could have effected phenomena that caused space, time and matter to emerge from that dimension into ours.
But, then, I have also show that it is philosophically possible for the universe to have no beginning.
So, my question is this - why god and not no god?
Why a personal god rather than a powerful natural phenomena causing emergence of matter, time and space from a no matter, no time, no space dimension?
You have made a big leap from "a first cause" (which I can support) to "a personal god" which I have not seen you present compelling evidence for.
Anyway, just having some fun, deep breath! BTW:
I like you guys, hope to meet you some day.
William Lane Craig called - he wants his argument back ;)
ReplyDeleteAnyway, if there is no time then causality doesn't work. Your theory postulates that there was such a period (although when it happened is obviously impossible to answer). Accordingly, if the universe resulted from that period - it does not require a cause. Easy.
Why you choose to insert God in there is beyond me - it goes against ockhams razor.
Anyway - why your God, or any personal God (well, because it suits you is the answer). In any event, you are no closer to actually discovering any truth, you havent made any actual conclusion - you have just made a (wrong) argument to support your theology.
People aren't that dumb anymore. We can see through that lie.
I'll come back to the article later - I just wanted to vent.
Well the definition of 'universe', according to Wikipedia is: 'everything that physically exists; the entirety of space and time'. God is not physical and outside both space and time, so the term universe does not include God.
ReplyDelete"I don't see that this logic follows, it only shows that it is possible that time could be potentiactually infinite. It is still possible to have an actual infinite number of days."
I used the example of Hilbert's Hotel to show the absurdities that arise if an actually infinite number of things could exist in reality. Obviously a hotel that has all it's rooms full cannot create unoccupied rooms by just moving the existing guests to different rooms. I could give further examples where similar absurdities would occur if they existed in real life. And since a universe that has no beginning requires an infinite amount of past events, the universe must have had a beginning.
"But actual infinites do not have a start day - by definition it has no beginning at all. It has been progressing day by day forever, it is a beginningless timeline."
But as I showed, that is absurd. If you just keep extending the causation chain further and further back, today will never occur if there is no independent cause at the start of that chain. Even if the chain is really really long, a first cause is still required.
Moreover, if you count the number of events from today back into the past, 1, 2, 3, 4... will the count ever reach an actual infinity? No. Since an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition, the universe must not be beginningless.
"infinite order in fact, and thus be subject to natural laws"
Why would God be subject to natural laws? Natural laws deal with things within the universe; for things that are physical. God is outside the space and time, thus non-physical, so why would God be subject to natural laws?
"Why a personal god rather than a powerful natural phenomena causing emergence of matter, time and space from a no matter, no time, no space dimension?"
If it is some natural phenomena, then the necessary and sufficient conditions for the universe would be present from eternity, so thus the universe must be present from eternity as well. But it is not. Therefore, we are left with a personal agent who willingly created the universe in time.
I;m not going to address this article in full detail as Kozi has dealt with a lot and I have already knocked over your "everything that has a beginning has a cause" premise - which is clearly silly. But I would like to address this bit of monumentally lazy logic:-
ReplyDeleteNow that we have firmly established that the two premises in the Kalam Cosmological argument are more plausibly true than false, the conclusion necessarily follows that the universe has a cause. The next step is to discover, what can we know about this cause? Well, obviously the cause must be outside both space and time, so thus immaterial and timeless. If the cause is timeless then the cause must also be changeless, as changes can only happen within time. A changeless being can never change, so that is another reason why God cannot have a beginning.
Huh? You can't just assume a premise to your argument - that is a fundamental flaw in this article. But let me show you why it is completely wrong.
Firstly, you are breaking a law of thermodynamics here which provides that energy and matter may be converted but cannot be created or destroyed. The fact is that there has been no observation that breaks this law of thermodynamics. In fact, your premise "everything that has a beginning must have a cause" does in fact break that rule. Why? well all matter, energy etc that has every been observed has just been a conversion from another form. Since E=mcc in this universe, we cannot say that we have ever observed an actual "beginning" of matter or energy (of course, Kalaam lived before einstein so we can ignore him this fault - you of course cannot be free to wallow in such ignorance). Thus the initial premise of the argument fails. If so, you cannot then use that premise to assert that the universe had a beginning. You don't actually know that.
Secondly, Science has only ever led us back to the singularity in space time. It does not go back before that singularity because a singularity is the most basic ordered structure in the universe thus there is no information which can be gleaned from it. In other words, the singularity could have been caused by objects colliding with each other or dimensions converging on a single spot and we would have no observable data for that event.
Thirdly, as we understand it, time exists in this universe. If the universe converted from a pre-existing state into this one then it may have started time outside of the event in the pre-existing state. Accordingly, your argument makes a fatal error in failing to consider the universe as generally relative to a pre-existing state. Let me introduce you to Albert Einstein. If we were to take ourselves outside of the universe and roll time backwards while the universe reverted to the singularity then would we see the singularity in that form for as much time as we could reverse (infinte) or would the singularity pop into existence? You cannot actually answer that question - thus your premise fails because it makes assumptions about the nature of spacetime that we do not actually know.
Finally, I think that you do not properly understand infinity as a complex number. You say that we cannot have an actual infinity. I would then ask, ok - if we had an infinite piece of string and you cut it into to two - how long would the remaining pieces be? Similarily, if time is infinite (which it must be in at least a general relativity sense) and I look backwards - will their be infinite days? The answer is yes. The issue is where you are standing. The only place that an infinite series is not possible is when you are standing at the start or end of it. Are you presently at the beginning or the end of time? No, then you cannot assert that infinite time is not possible.
Grrr - go and do a science degree and figure these things out. In spite of that you still don't realise that your conclusions are based on your presuppositions. As douglas adams pointed out, the answer is 42, its the question thats the problem. Where are you asking questions from?
I used the example of Hilbert's Hotel to show the absurdities that arise if an actually infinite number of things could exist in reality. Obviously a hotel that has all it's rooms full cannot create unoccupied rooms by just moving the existing guests to different rooms. I could give further examples where similar absurdities would occur if they existed in real life. And since a universe that has no beginning requires an infinite amount of past events, the universe must have had a beginning.
ReplyDeleteStrawman - the hotel never had infinite rooms. duh. Still you struggle with complex numbers.
But as I showed, that is absurd. If you just keep extending the causation chain further and further back, today will never occur if there is no independent cause at the start of that chain. Even if the chain is really really long, a first cause is still required.
Another strawman, if there is an infinite series of days then the universe must traverse each day at a time. How do you know this isn't one of those days. By your definition, the universe doesn't experience any days at all - thats absurd.
Moreover, if you count the number of events from today back into the past, 1, 2, 3, 4... will the count ever reach an actual infinity? No. Since an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition, the universe must not be beginningless.
An infinite series can not be observed where you observe the first or last of the series. By starting from 1 you automatically negate the infinity. Again, you don't understand complex numbers.
I'll be back later - gtg
I think that Alex popped a few of the things too, but I will reiterate. We agree on the position of god as outside the universe, BTW. All good there.
ReplyDeleteYou can add any number of things to an infinite set, as I explained in my first post. Any maths teacher will tell you. The total will not change (it will still be infinity), but you have added a discrete new unit. If there is infinity things, you can add infinity more discrete new things, and still have infinity. This is pretty basic mathematic theory.
Since an actual infinite cannot be formed by successive addition, the universe must not be beginningless.
The first half is correct - an actual infinity cannot be formed by successive addition. But an actual infinity is NOT a potentiactual infinity. Actual infinity does not begin that is why it cannot be created in the same way as a potential infinity. It did not begin finite and become infinite as counting up or down to infinity would be. Successive counting means you START somewhere, actual infinity means no matter where you START, it is not the BEGINNING. So every day is just the next day in the sequence, as expected, no closer or further from the beginning. Perhaps the easiest way for you to comprehend this is to imagine that they keep moving the finish line, so you run towards it, yet it is always the same distance away, no matter how many steps you take. You have covered ground (counted days) but the ground between you and the finish has not diminished (you have infinity days to go). This is an actual infinity, and it could apply to the universe easily, so the universe could be beginningless.
And, as Alex pointed out, if an actual infinite set is impossible, how did the first cause get around it? Why is it not not subject to cause? I'm not just talking about infinite time here, either. How did a first cause manage to have any effectual presence without a beginning? Don't forget - I am not just talking about infinite time! Singularity and big bang are being excluded from this discussion, but they need not be!
Why would God be subject to natural laws?
By your own admission. You said that god must be timeless and changeless, since change happens in time, therefore, he must have infinity entropy. Entropy happens with order in a system - laws!
I said Matter as we know would not exist, but there would still be some parallel to our natural laws...
I do not imagine that the laws are the same as natural laws in this dimension, but there must be some control. If the word "natural" confuses you, let me describe it as "dimensional". Some dimensional laws must exist inside the dimension that exists outside of our universe. A dimensional force may act in its own fashion within that dimension, forcing space, time and matter to emerge into no space, no time and no matter.
As Alex pointed out, if this can occur dimensionally, why god? Occam's razor says if it can happen independent of god (which it can, as dimensional forces pull or push space, matter and time into no space, no time and no matter) why would there be need for a god? Moreover, why a personal god? What evidence is presented in this arrangement that god is a sentient being? That is the biggest leap of all.
You presented a case for a first cause - you have not shown any evidence or reasoning that the first cause MUST be a personal god.
Gee I really do babble a lot don't I? Need to cut my word limit a bit!
ReplyDeleteI think the real problem with your argument (apart from all the other problems that are clearly apparent) is that you are beginning from an unimaginably powerful and therefore complex creator. As you are aware, thermodynamics requires that all things go from simple ordered systems to complex chaotic ones within a particular macro state. This doesn't defeat evolution because we have a massive boost of energy coming from the Sun which allows for the increasing complexity on this planet. But where did God get his massive boost of energy? It is actually contra the laws of physics and logic to begin with something that is massively complex. Thus
ReplyDelete1. God must be the simplest form possible; or,
2. God does not exist.
Because we know that the singularity is the simplest form that can be (indirectly) observed and we know that the singularity was not personal because being personal indicates complexity beyond the simplest possible form, it is most likely that God does not exist.
Now, even if you insist that God exists outside of space and time - it becomes clear that you do not have any evidence for that conclusion - other than the initial presupposition that God exists. Thus, because that cannot be independently verified and because it is capable of being the result of human imagination (Anslems ontological argument is actually proof that God can result from human imagination) therefore we can rationally and reasonably conclude that God does not exist.
Furthermore, if God does exist outside of time and space then there can be no capacity for him to affect time and space - thus the events described in the Bible such as:-
1. Adam and Eve;
2. The Flood,
3. The immaculate conception
4. The resurrection
etc etc cannot be the result of God. However, nothing in those tales preclude them from being the result of human imagination. Accordingly, we can rationally and reasonably say that God does not exist. At the very least, we can say that God is not the God described in the Bible. And we can certainly say that Jesus was not the embodiment of God.
You may not realise that it was one of the reasons that the Kalaam argument was 'lost' - because it proves God cannot intercede in this plane of existence. Thus, Islam stopped using it because it shows that Allah could not inform the prophet mohammed.
"Firstly, you are breaking a law of thermodynamics here which provides that energy and matter may be converted but cannot be created or destroyed."
ReplyDeleteHowever, if there is no universe, there are no physical laws (such as the laws of thermodynamics). It was only once the universe was in existence did the physical laws start to operate. So thus, the creation of the universe does not break the first law of thermodynamics, as it wasn't in existence yet.
"Grrr - go and do a science degree and figure these things out."
Yet you yourself have not done a science degree either. Moreover, it doesn't seem you've got it figured out that you couldS make fundamental mistakes like above regarding thermodynamics.
"In fact, your premise "everything that has a beginning must have a cause" does in fact break that rule."
That premise is not just talking about an item's physical matter having a beginning at some point, but including all items that have a beginning in the form that they are in, has a cause. For example, we could say a seed had a beginning, not just meaning that the actual matter for seed had a beginning, but that the form/arrangement that the matter is in also had a beginning. So that seed in its current form did have a beginning, so therefore has a cause (came from a tree).
"Kalaam lived before einstein so we can ignore him this fault"
Kalam is not a person, but rather a philosophy within Islam (dealing with determinism). This argument had its origins with the Muslim scholars in the 9th century AD, and it was further developed by both Jewish and Christian apologists centuries after.
"Science has only ever led us back to the singularity in space time."
Yes, because Science only deals with the physical universe. That is why the metaphysical inuitions come into play here, as that singularity needs a cause.
"You cannot actually answer that question - thus your premise fails because it makes assumptions about the nature of spacetime that we do not actually know."
Umm, if you want to use that as an objection to the premise, you are the one with the burden of proof to show why your objection is true. On the other hand, I have already shown why it is most plausible that this premise is true.
"The only place that an infinite series is not possible is when you are standing at the start or end of it."
We are at the end of time at this present moment, because the future does not exist yet. So if the universe is eternal, there should an infinite amount of time in the past, but as you even admitted, absurdities arise if an actual infinite exists (such as what is infinity minus infinity?).
"infinity does not begin that is why it cannot be created in the same way as a potential infinity."
The only way an actual could come to exist in the real world would be to be instantiated in reality all at once, simply given in a moment. To try to progressively instantiate an actual infinite in the real world would be hopeless, for one could always add one more element. So for example, if our hotel of infinite number of rooms were to exist in the real world, it would have to be instantaneously created ex nihilo by the divine fiat, 'Let there be...!' But even God could not instantiate the infinite hotel room by room, one at a time. No reflection on His omnipotence, for such a successive completion of an actual infinite is absurd.
The only way a collection to which members are being successively added could be actually infinite would be for it to have an infinite 'core' to which additions are being made. But then it would not be a collection formed by successive addition, for there would always exist a surd infinite, itself not formed successively but simply given, to which a finite number of successive additions have been made. But clearly the temporal series of events cannot be so characterised, for it is by nature successively formed throughout. Thus, prior to any arbitrarily designated point in the temporal series, once has a collection of past events up to that point which is successively formed and completed and cannot, therefore, be infinite.
"if an actual infinite set is impossible, how did the first cause get around it? Why is it not not subject to cause?"
It could not be a first cause, if it has a cause for itself. I am not proposing that the first cause has been around for an infinite amount of time, but rather the first cause is outside of time and thus, has always existed.
"Singularity and big bang are being excluded from this discussion, but they need not be!"
The Big Bang Theory fits in perfectly with Theism, and supports the second premise that the universe had a beginning.
"since change happens in time, therefore, he must have infinity entropy. Entropy happens with order in a system - laws!"
God has no entropy, because God is immaterial! Only material things can have entropy. God is not bound by any of the physical laws in the universe, because God is not in the universe.
"Some dimensional laws must exist inside the dimension that exists outside of our universe."
I do not see why there 'must' be laws that are imposed on God if he is outside the entire universe. You are yet prove why that is true.
"why would there be need for a god? Moreover, why a personal god?"
As I have explained already, both in the article and in my previous comments, there is only two options. Either the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the first event are present from eternity or not. If they are, then the effect will exist from eternity, that is to say, the universe will be eternal. But if they are not, then the first event could never occur, since the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the first event could never arise. Since we have seen that the universe could not have existed from eternity, the only other option is that the cause is a personal agent who wills from eternity to create a temporally finite effect.
"But where did God get his massive boost of energy? It is actually contra the laws of physics and logic to begin with something that is massively complex."
I laughed when I read this. You are erroneously thinking that God is a material being in our Universe. Your argument is totally fallacious.
"Now, even if you insist that God exists outside of space and time - it becomes clear that you do not have any evidence for that conclusion"
Alex, it sure is amazing that have forgotten what this article said, for if you remembered what it had said and followed the logic, you would know that I gave good reasons as to logically why the cause must be outside the universe. For if the cause is part of the universe, then the cause would have to exist before it existed, which is absurd to the highest degree.
"Furthermore, if God does exist outside of time and space then there can be no capacity for him to affect time and space"
Why is that? God would see what is happening everywhere in the universe at every point in time. And if he created a massive universe like this, of course he would be powerful enough to change things in this universe.
So as we have seen, the premises of this Kalam Cosmological Argument are more plausibly true than false, so it follows logically and necessarily that the universe has a cause who is transcendent, powerful, and personal.
1. Laws of Thermodynamics
ReplyDeleteOk, the trick you are trying to pull here is saying that because it was before the universe existed then we can insert any laws of physics (or no law of physics) into that spot. Well, you insist on a God character being there - that is technically a state of being which you insert without evidence or proof.
In order to support your hypothesis you would have to be able to say that God can exist in "nothingness". Now, to my knowledge, "nothingness" is not a state that has ever been observed and therefore you cannot make statements about how it would work.
Consider this, does your conception of the universe involve a discrete (maybe eliptical) physical universe set within a sea of this "nothingness"?
Again, we have never observed any state (mathematically or indirectly) prior to the big bang which could be called "nothingness". As I have noted, the singularity deletes all information about prior states because it is the most simple state possible (no information other than its existence). And yet, you choose to make statements about the nature of that prior existence for which you have no evidence - the burden is on you.
Furthermore, as the singularity contained all possible matter and energy and matter and energy are convertable (E=Mcc) and we have not observed a state prior to the big bang we cannot say that anything has every had a beginning. It is simply not within our observations.
Thus the Kalaam argument remains unreasonable.
Regarding your seed analogy, it is clear that such a statement is fundamentally incongruous to a first cause because we can identify the cause of the seed (ie a tree). Thus it is within a different class of things to a supposed "first cause" - It would be the same as saying that the seed came from nowhere, and that is not the analogy that you make. Thus I stand by my (correct in my opinion) statement that
your premise "everything that has a beginning must have a cause" does in fact break that rule."
Re: We are at the end of time at this present moment, because the future does not exist yet.
Thats a crock - we would only be standing at the end of time if the next moment in this dimension did not proceed. Thats a really poor argument - in particular because infinites necesarily require sets and that any set must be read from point to point. Thus the set is only said to begin or end that the beginning or completion of the set. As time is continuing (in any direction mind you) then we cannot say that the set has been completed - thus we are not at the "end of time" - logic please.
Re: Humberts hotel.
Clearly you didnt get the point - if the analogy were true the number of hotel rooms is an actual infinite - that is, any point within the dimension stated (hotel rooms in this case) contains a part of the set. Whereas the guests represent an potentiactual infinite - that is, the set is being increased without limitation within the dimension. Thus, a potentiactual infrinite will never observably reach the limits of the actual infinite set in which it exists. Similarly for time - although we are experiencing this moment in time, it is only "our point of view" time being added to the set such that we are like the potentiactual hotel guest. Time itself, being a dimension within space is not shown to have any limits (IE, if time was running backwards generally relative to the big bang, how far could you go - what would stop you?). Thus, time could well be an actual infinite
As a side point, I don't want to get you completely down about time - it is a difficult subject that even Einstein had problems with and my actual views do not completely correspond with those stated above (its primarily rebuttal to your groundless statements). I would like to share the following with you however. (In reality, I consider it is most likely that time is a derivative dimension caused by the convergence of primary dimensions within a larger multiverse thus, it is more likely that while time has a cause, the convergent dimensions creating time do not - ie, they are infinite - Sting Theory I, II, IIA and M theory in the GUT).
The problem is that you are imposing your point of view on an (possibly) actual infinite. Because your point of view (being human) necesarily has a beginning and end date - it does not cover the potential range of an actual infinite. Thus, you are tricked into believing that such actual infinites are impossible - whereas it is really your potentiactual infinite which is limited.
Re: The Big Bang Theory fits in perfectly with Theism, and supports the second premise that the universe had a beginning.
It doesn't fit with Genesis 1. Furthermore, for a Big Bang to proceed within the laws of physics in the observable universe then the universe (given its magnitude) must be older than 6,000 years - Hubble would say more like 15,000,000,000 years. How do you account for this massive inconsistency? Even better - please say that you are becoming at least a little bit rational and that the world is older than 6000 years.
"Some dimensional laws must exist inside the dimension that exists outside of our universe."
I do not see why there 'must' be laws that are imposed on God if he is outside the entire universe. You are yet prove why that is true.
Because a timeless state is subject to logical propositions and mathematics - ie,
1. In a timeless state nothing can move
2. Nothing moves
3. Therefore, this is a timeless state
Even if there are no observers for this statement - it is still true. Thus, logical laws and mathematics exist in all states - including nothingness. Of course, no-one has ever observed how nothingness works, so this could be contentious. Since you are the one positing that God can exist in this state then perhaps it is for you to prove the characteristics of "nothingness" - oh yes, it would appear so.
I laughed when I read this. You are erroneously thinking that God is a material being in our Universe. Your argument is totally fallacious.
This is what I don't get, you totally accet that complexity is the result of earlier causes and yet you are allowed to posit that God, which we must assume is pretty complex, can exist without any cause. It is bizarre this double standard - its not reasonable, its called faith.
the cause must be outside the universe.
You have shown no such thing. In order to do that you would have to show:-
1. The actual event of transition from "outside the universe" to the universe - which you have not.
2. What exists outside the universe - which you have not.
3. If there was nothingness - how was there a transition from nothingness to somethingness, which you have not.
Rather, you have inserted a personal agent without any evidence whatsoever. How do you know that the universe is not the result of interacting probabilities within nothingness. Or that universes aren't created according to every possibility for interaction between logical and mathematical propositions and that we exist in one which can support life.
There is no actual evidence for your proposition that the universe is not itself, self creating. After all, your personal agent - God is. Why can the same logic not be applied to the universe (or a wider multiverse). That is to be rank hypocrisy.
Ryan, you WTFBBQPWND!
ReplyDeleteOk, somewhere in this long post you mentioned why should God be subjected to natural laws &etc.
ReplyDeleteFair enough. Your basic argument is that God is an external agent, (probably infinite?), and not bound by the laws of the universe. Now tell me, if the laws of this universe don't apply to your God how can you prove God's existence with logic?
The logic you use is a part of this universe. Science/math is basically logic in symbols. The source of that logic is a human brain, and that human brain is part of the universe, made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, some metals etc. The brain is subject to natural laws; logic, the product of that brain, is therefore a product of and bound by the same laws as well.
So how can you use logic to prove the existence of God?
By the way, don't plagiarize. William Lane Craig used this argument a long time ago, at least acknowledge him when you use his reasoning.
"tell me, if the laws of this universe don't apply to your God how can you prove God's existence with logic?"
ReplyDeleteGod is not bound by the physical laws of the universe because he is not physical. However, God can only still act within his own nature, and act in a logical way.
"So how can you use logic to prove the existence of God?"
I would say logic is abstract. It was not developed by Aristotle, but rather, discovered.
"William Lane Craig used this argument a long time ago, at least acknowledge him when you use his reasoning."
I did acknowledge him. Look at the bottom of the article.
I'm honestly not convinced by Hilbert's Grand Hotel as anything special in regards to reality. All it points out is that our intuitive sense dies out with infinity, and breaks down an implicit assumption that the whole cannot be the same size as a part of the whole. There is no paradox in proper terms, only an unintuitive result.
ReplyDeleteAnd just because it's unintuitive and seems unreal, it's not necessarily contradictory with reality. We're justified in believing in non-local events, but they're incredibly anti-intuitive.
So from this, I'm not convinced that the universe "has no beginning". Furthermore, if you're going to apply that argument, anyway, then you'll have to admit quantized time and a definition of "events" that gives the universe a finite number of events within which to function, rather than a continuum. That proper expression of making everything finite doesn't just apply to physical events, either, but also mental and conceptual, as any proper model of all existence must include within it mental events.
If the Universe was created, and God had always existed, how long was he around before he decided to create the universe? Even if time didn't really exist , there is that "area" before the universe, where only God existed. And what did he do before creating the universe? Twiddle his cosmic thumbs? And if this "area" doesn't exist, how can God be infinite if he couldn't have existed before the universe was created, where it was only him?
ReplyDeleteOk. now hear this. I AM 13! and let me tell u this.
ReplyDeleteAtheists pretend they dont believe in god so they can do bad things without feeling they need to make up for it.
Believers believe because the thought of not having a greater being or a purpose in life is just too scary.
September 16, 2008 at 9:33 AM
Really? You believe this is a valid argument?
ReplyDeleteYour very first premise is flawed (in that you cannot prove the universe has a beginning). I mean, I understand you're just theorizing, but you're building a lot of ideas on complete speculation.
And also infinity is not a quantity itself, it's the idea of constantly-increasing quantities, and therefore immeasurable and meant to be expressed as an idea only.
"Your very first premise is flawed (in that you cannot prove the universe has a beginning)."
ReplyDeleteThat's the second premise, and I provide three reasons why that second premise is true. If you want to dismiss it, you must refute each supporting argument.
"And also infinity is not a quantity itself, it's the idea of constantly-increasing quantities"
Incorrect. In my two philosophical proofs, I am talking about an actual infinity. From Wikipedia: "An actual infinity is something which is completed and definite and consists of infinitely many elements." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_infinity
Why does the concept of actual infinity apply to time? Couldn't I just as easily assert that it is a potential infinite?
ReplyDelete"Why does the concept of actual infinity apply to time? Couldn't I just as easily assert that it is a potential infinite?"
ReplyDeleteWell, if someone wants to assert that the universe is eternal, then they are saying that time is an actual infinite.
If the universe (and thus time) had a beginning, then time is only a potential infinite (for it will never reach an actual infinite).
I realize that this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but the nitpicker in me feels compelled to point out a glaring logical flaw in an earlier comment ...
ReplyDelete...a timeless state is subject to logical propositions and mathematics - ie,
1. In a timeless state nothing can move
2. Nothing moves
3. Therefore, this is a timeless state
This commits the basic logical flaw of affirming the consequent. I could just as easily propose,
1. On rainy days the sun does not shine
2. The sun is not shining
3. Therefore it is a rainy day
(Even though it could be cloudy without precipitation, snowing, or the middle of the night.)
Again, I realize that the cited argument was illustrative only and not necessary to the discussion ... I'm just nitpicking for whatever it's worth. O:-)
WHAT CAUSED GOD
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying that nature naturally tends towards entropy, or in otherwords disorder. You then say that because of this, everything would be in perfect order now. Unless we are talking anarchist politics, I fail to see how something increasingly disordered should be in perfect harmony.
ReplyDeleteHow dare you try to prove or disprove the existence of God or the beginning of the universe. No matter what you believe in, there is nothing you can present to definitively confirm your theory and that is what it is, a "theory".
ReplyDeleteThe base belief in a higher power is meant to be based on faith. Meaning that we take it on faith that he/she/it/God exists. If we were able to find proof of a higher power that would negate the point of religion. Religion gives us answers to the unexplained. As humans we want to discover the unknown and religion helps us fill in the gaps until we complete our journey of discovery. Finding proof of God will always be impossible based upon the definition of higher powers and of religion.
That does not mean God does or does not exist, that question must be answered by each of us individually and cannot be dictated to us by anyone
Ah, but Yogi, for those who believe in the Bible, there is a passage that claims that "what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, if one accepts on faith what the Bible teaches, one must therefore accept that belief in God is not only acceptable to all, but inevitable to all — in other words, that the existence God can be demonstrated through nature/science rather than being a leap of blind faith — even that his existence becomes obvious by studying nature/science.
At least, that's what the Bible claims.
I will give you that, but the bible was written by men as an interpretation of the word of God.
ReplyDeletePersonally I do not need to find proof for my own belief in a higher power. I accept my belief in God from "blind faith" and the belief that I feel a greater design around me that connects everyone and everything.
Everyone needs to come to their own conclusion however. There is no right or wrong about a belief in a higher power. It is about what you, as a person, believe in and nobody can or will be able to take that away from you.
have you ever heard the word "fallacious"?
ReplyDeleteCongratulations! You are the smartest person in the world, in fact, the first to ACTUALLY prove god's existence? Here's your Nobel Peace Prize. Get a clue you geek. If this helps you go to sleep at night thinking that when you die something super-special will happen, then by all means, believe it. But no, this proves nothing. This is just one more theory in a universe with an infinite number of fallacy-ridden "theories" developed by the brains of children raised in church, moved to college, and then "figured it all out." No ONE will ever "figure it out." Such is the beauty of the universe.
The only way to prove that god exists, is to prove he does not exist. The only way to prove god does not exist, is to prove he does exist.
ReplyDeletei believe in magic
ReplyDeletebecause it makes sense
why is that tree there
magic
what is green+phone book
magic
so yeah
you can join my church
its awesome
How dare you label your thought process as "logical?" You come to the conclusion that God is: "timeless, immaterial, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, spaceless and unimaginably powerful cause, but also to a personal Creator."
ReplyDeleteYou think that the infinite existence of a timeless, immaterial, blah blah blah blah called God is more likely than God not existing?
I have no problem with people's religious and spiritual beliefs. But if you're diving into the A is more plausible than B territory, you better be arguing with reason when you get to your conclusion. And you are not.
What your definition of God is: an excuse to not have to answer the question of how he was created. How would you respond if I came up to you and said:
"Your car is gone, and my cat took it. Not me."
And you said: "For your cat to take my car and drive away with it, it would have to be enormous, intelligent, have opposable thumbs, self-awareness, 20-20 vision, the ability to break into cars and the ability to jump-start a car."
And I say: "That is what everybody defines as 'my cat.'"
You can come to the conclusion here. It's based on logic.
The Belief in a god only makes you stupider. The belief in a god, and then getting a degree in science and still believing in god is just unimaginable. The only reason you went into science was probably to find a way to prove that god existed. But when you found that there was no way to prove it, you try and spew bullshit that other people wrote (that was already proven wrong) and then twist it to the point that whatever you put in place of something in there, has to be true. When someone says the Bible was ment to be interpreted in your own way, is an excuse to use the Bible in any way shape or form. It's like this. If I where to say "Beat him" You could interpret it into 2 phrases. Hitting someone, or, winning a race. The difference is, the bible is being read as bits, rather than a whole. So when it says something like, "beat him, kill him", someone comes along, and puts a 1 next to "Beat him," and a 2 next to "Kill him" and people think that they are completely different things. Take your bible and shove it up your ass. Jesus was a philosopher, that was all he was. He did not die and come back to life. He died, and he stayed dead. He did not make someone see again when they where already blind. Its like saying, oh, the eye doctor made me see again, he must be god! When all he did was prescribe you a pair of glasses to enhance your vision.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDan B and Jerk Douglas you have both had a rant and added a few ad hominem arguements that theists are stupid. Despite this you have added nothing to the discussion other than to confirm that you have no idea what the bible says and are opposed to Christianity.
ReplyDeleteJust a little suggestion... read the article and make your objections from the article and you will not come across as so ignorant and rude. If you don't believe the bible why don't you tell us why rather than rant that it is all full of trash?
Sam - there is a logical flaw in your arguement that lets you down like a lead ballon:
ReplyDeleteYou need absolute knowledge of the universe to proove that God does not exist and to proove His existance you only need to encounter Him once!
Unless you are claiming to have all knowledge (something even Einstien wouldn't do) you have destroyed your arguement. God has revealed Himself as timeless, absolutely powerful etc and as such prooves His existence.
No one will ever know whether there is a God or not. Period. You can accept the fact or deny it. Period.
ReplyDeleteDo you want to know why I do not believe in god? Because there is no physical proof of his existence. Sure, Jesus existed. He was a philosopher. I find there to be no reason to believe in a god. As I say, to believe in God as a personal gain, would mean you do not believe in God himself, but rather, the good fortune you could reap from such belief. An example of this would be when someone told me they believed in god, and I asked him why. His answer, was that if you did believe in god, and he was real, then you would go to heaven, and if he did not exist, than there was no real harm done. But to not believe in god, means, if he is real, you go to hell, and if he does not exist, nothing happens. So they decided to believe in god for the soul purpose of self gain. I am an Atheist. I do not hide it, but neither do I try to force it upon others. Kozi, as you can see, is trying to force "God" onto others. The way I see it, if you have to convince someone that he exists, what makes you so sure that what you are saying is even correct? There is no logical proof to prove god exists, nor is there physical proof to his existence. The only thing you can do, is have faith that said being existed without having proof. I myself, have faith that he does not exist, and I live my life that way. Just because you think something is wrong, doesn't mean it is wrong, it is simply your opinion. This is the reason why the U.S. is so screwed up.
ReplyDeleteDan you claim you are not trying to "force" your views on anyone. Have you actually read what you wrote previously?
ReplyDeleteTake your bible and shove it up your ass. Jesus was a philosopher, that was all he was. He did not die and come back to life. He died, and he stayed dead. He did not make someone see again when they where already blind.
You were very forcefully claiming that the bible is false and Jesus is not risen. Don't give me this "I don't force my views on others so niether should you" business. I at least am honest enough to say yes I am trying to convince you and others of the truth of the bible.
As for the proof for God's existance (physical/logical)... If you hypothetically can follow me consider the following.
ReplyDeleteGod is eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and personal. As such He is beyond our complete comprehension but at the same time has revealed things we can understand in history, literature, archeology and science. There are events in history that cannot be explained in terms of the natural world. Examples of this are the miracles and ressurection of Jesus (as witnessed to by Josephus, Pliney, and Tacitus - all non-christian authors of repute and contemporary to the events) these things are not possible for man to do. Read the gospels if you want a list. Likewise you could look to the history and archeology of the Old testament which confirms the validity of the narrative and leaves you with the choice as to if you accept the person behind it. Also in science you have cases like the bird which literally could not evolve thus scuttling that model and leaving you with a universe that has millions of marks of design.
So you have God who yes Betsy cannot be logically proven in the theoretical sense. But at the same time you have revelation of Him in every sphere of this world in a clear and objectively verifiable way.
So I believe in God yes, that informs my perspective yes, but that does not mean that my faith is unsupported and as such is not only an opinion. Do you have support for your faith?
And even if you buy the main thesis... then this leads to that the universe must have a cause?
ReplyDeleteSo... does this mean the cause must be GOD? not really...
The arguments that this cause would have to be god is the worst and most dopey part of the whole argument!
Karl you have overlooked something important!
ReplyDeleteGod has revealed Himself to us in a way that is verified by and anchored in reality. If you don't think the bible is reliable, your arguement is not with Christians but rather the historians, archeologists, and linguists. The personality that caused the universe has reveal Himself to mankind, there is no need to argue your way to Him.
it doesnt matter how many papers people write against god or with god. its about what you believe! i could care less if you were athiest christian or jewish. shut the fuck up and live life how YOU wanna live it. spreed the word of your faith (if you want)but DONT expect people to follow. controversy means that there ISNT a right answer. everyone is different and it should be left at that. so all this bullshit about who is right it crap. its all right....just maybe not to you, but to someone. . .
ReplyDeleteThis is interesting... But if God were timeless himself, and had no beginning or cause, then how could he possibly have created anything?
ReplyDeleteI would argue that knowledge precludes creation. You claim that God consciously created the universe, and that there was a purpose. In order that there was a purpose, someone must have known this purpose. How would God know? Did he learn it? If so, how did he learn it? He must have made the decision to do it. What basis could he possibly have for this decision? Even if this argument did lead to some point outside the universe, it certainly doesn't point to any kind of sentient entity.
I would also say that experience precludes knowledge. How, then, could anything be known outside the realm of time? Nobody has ever documented having knowledge of any experience outside of our dimensions.
On the topic of dimensions, does it not also seem logical that a thing BEYOND our time-spatial dimensions would utilize further dimensions? Any n-dimensional object must mathematically include the (n-1)th dimension. For instance, I, an object existing in space-time, cannot exist as such without a horizontal dimension. By your argument, there cannot be infinite dimensions. We can draw two conclusions, then:
A) God does not utilize our dimensions, and he is on a lower/more basic dimension than us. This means that we would also utilize God's dimension, therefore negating his being outside our realm of reality. Also, he would be unable to utilize our dimensions
B) God utilizes higher dimensions than ours, meaning that he must also utilize our dimensions. This again negates his being outside our reality.
Eh... That's all I've got for now. I really think that proof is a fascinating study, though. This has been very stimulating to read and analyze.
This is interesting... But if God were timeless himself, and had no beginning or cause, then how could he possibly have created anything?
ReplyDeleteGood thought, I hope this sheads some light on it. God made time and as such is not bound by it's constraints. By nature the one who makes something is greater than that which they make. To assume that outside of time God is unable to act is to forget this basic fact.
How, then, could anything be known outside the realm of time? Nobody has ever documented having knowledge of any experience outside of our dimensions.
It has been documented. You appear to be unaware that this is exactly what is recorded in the bible. Jesus claimed to be from before time (existence,experience and knowledge). The prophets also claimed to be hearing from God who is eternal (ie outside of time). The historically fulfilled prophecies they both made confirm extra/outside dimentional knowledge (outside of time). Therefore while logically it doesn't fit, the practical and historical facts affirm the reality.
God utilizes higher dimensions than ours, meaning that he must also utilize our dimensions. This again negates his being outside our reality.
Hmmm mathmatics re the nature of the universe is complicated enough, I think you might be stretching it a bit far to be making conclusions about God who is from outside the universe.
The above point comes close to what is afirmed in the bible though. God who made the universe and as such is outside it, is present through out the universe.
Interesting thoughts - thanks for your imput.
Hey,
ReplyDeleteWithout everyone getting angry and defensive and offensive, can I put forward this idea?
I once heard the claim that for order to arise from chaos as it has done with the balanced structure of today's galaxies, stars and life, the chances of this occuring are equivalent to a tornado that drives through a rubbish pit and produces a Boeing 747 by pure chance.
Just an idea, don't flame me for it. Have a nice day!
I refuse to believe in god as there are so many different ways to philosophically say "god". god can be understood to be an otherworldly figure, as the bible makes "him" out to be, or it could simply be a force. A force of nature, perhaps? Cause when you stop to think about it, everything in nature is perfectly categorized into groups. Different groups of life, different groups of elements, even different groups of stars. Ever notice, on the periodic table, that every element shares similar traits with at least one other? It all boils down to the atoms. Atoms influence all of nature, they are the building blocks here. These groups that I speak of are a direct result of atoms. They all have similar traits within the groups because their atomic makeup is similar. So in a sense, the force of the atom is god.
ReplyDeleteGod is changeless, yet he is also personal and able to decide to create the universe? If your fancied God exists outside of time, not subject to change, he must remain an entirely static entity incapable of doing anything. But then if you think he did create the universe, something must have changed, which implies time, which implies he must have a beginning. And he can't be the cause of himself, so someone must have created him. You can't stave off the infinite regress by saying 'Oh well, you know, time doesn't apply here because I think God isn't subject to time'. It's childish logic and, embarrassingly, it doesn't even hold water. One of the larger holes in the argument. At least you write lucidly (though it does make it clearer when you slip up).
ReplyDelete"If your fancied God exists outside of time, not subject to change, he must remain an entirely static entity incapable of doing anything."
ReplyDeleteThat does not logically follow. God himself is timeless and changeless, but that does not mean he cannot decide to do anything. For a personal agent or mind that makes a decision does not change itself (still timeless), but can still will things into existence (without changing).
That is the only way a finite universe can come into being from a timeless cause if it is a personal agent who wills the universe into existence.
"'Oh well, you know, time doesn't apply here because I think God isn't subject to time'."
Well that is the only way. For the creator of the universe cannot be his own creation. That means that God is not within space and time, so thus must be timeless. There is no the other way.
i fully intend to smash everything said on this blog post in a single sentence:
ReplyDelete"You have no idea what god is."
this is important because you're saying all kinds of things like "god is outside time" or "god is not matter" or "God never had a beginning" or whatever else.
meanwhile, behind all this philosophical ramble (even though it's not bad as logic) you're BSing! because the FACT is you have no idea what "god" is!
ALL that your argument attempts to prove is this: "there was a cause to the big bang"
but no where in your argument is there an attempt to prove that this cause fits any useful definition of "god" and as well there shouldn't be.
A) you never defined what "God" is
B) you have no way to know whether your definition of "god" is correct.
therefore, i must conclude that your argument while it certainly is "fun" to consider.. is still practically useless.
i look forward to your response and encourage your continued philosophical interests and postings.
"A) you never defined what "God" is"
ReplyDeleteWell by the end of the article I believe that I did define what we mean by 'God'. To quote: "So not only are we brought to a timeless, immaterial, uncaused, beginningless, changeless, spaceless and unimaginably powerful cause, but also to a personal Creator. This, as Thomas Aquinas would say, is what everybody defines as "God"."
Whether a person actually has that definition for the word 'God' is pretty much irrelevent as the article proves the existence of a creator with the characteristics listed above.
"B) you have no way to know whether your definition of "god" is correct."
Well what we as Christians define as God is proven through the article. But it does not prove the Hindu concept of God (pantheistic) or any other concept that is different from above.
It's not philosophically sound. You're making assumptions about God all throughout your entire concluding paragraph. I'll try to show you what i mean..
ReplyDeleteI think it's pretty clear that you're assuming God "must" be this way or that whenever you run out of logical proofs. See Capitals:
"THE ONLY WAY for a timeless cause to create an effect in time is IF THE CAUSE IS A PERSONAL AGENT WHO FREELY CHOOSES to create the universe in time."
We (meaning "you" just as well as it means "i") have no way of knowing whether that statement is true that the only way for a timless cause to create an effect in time is by being a personal agent.
The extra-universe (outside of our own and which our universe was born from) may have all sorts of plainly physical means of creating time-based universes.
We have no idea what exists outside our universe, what physics it requires to function or whether time-based universes serve as the basic, elemental, building block of a vastly larger system.
Hence, (assuming all your other premises to be true) your argument is not unreasonable. It simply doesn't require a personal God. It is not an absolute proof.
Unless you can point out something that i missed.
"have no way of knowing whether that statement is true that the only way for a timeless cause to create an effect in time is by being a personal agent."
ReplyDeleteWell I reached that conclusion simply by a logical progression from my previous premises. I'll try and explain it in a bit more detail here.
For a being that is timeless (and God must be timeless as he is outside of time and space), it must also be changeless. This is because changes can only occur within time. That means that the first cause will never be able to change at all. Thus the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the universe must be present from eternity. But if they are present from eternity, the universe must also be present from eternity. But the universe is not eternal (as per second premise in KCA), therefore the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the universe were not present from eternity.
But the universe does exist today, so therefore at one point the necessary and sufficient conditions were there (but not from eternity). So then, the question is how can a timeless and changeless cause change to create the universe. It seems the only explanation is if the cause is a personal mind which chose within itself to create the universe a finite time ago. For a mind itself is still unchanging when it makes decisions within itself.
"The extra-universe"
We have no good reason to postulate other universes besides our own, as there is no evidence for them. Furthermore, it does not throw out the necessity of a first cause, which must be personal (as per above). For a first cause must be uncaused, and thus timeless and changeless.
I hope this clears it up for you.
First of all.. My very first point restated: You have no way of knowing whether you know everything there is to know, and hence you have no way to be CERTAIN that the proof you have is sufficient. This is the strongest logical defeat of ANY certainty. This world we live in that God may or may not have created is one where certainty does not belong to us. We have no way to know even if God's own voice is his or if it is that of a demon's. Lack of certainty is your "God-given" right. This is important.
ReplyDeleteTo illustrate a bit: Imagine you had left your briefcase home and only you and your wife had a key to the apartment. sure enough, hours later you return to find no one home and your briefcase gone. it would certainly be reasonable to assume that the cause of your briefcase's disappearence were your wife because she had the MEANS to take it. But sure enough, your wife denies having taken it. You can insist all you want that since she was the only person with a key, it must've been her. But there may be another explanation that you're unaware of. Hence, you still logically have uncertainty as to whether or not your wife took your briefcase.. and also uncertainty as to whether or not the First Cause is a personal agent.
"Well I reached that conclusion simply by a logical progression from my previous premises."
**Actually, you didn't.** You never made a proof for a personal agent. You simply said: "it must be" and you also said: "It SEEMS the only explanation is if the cause is a personal mind which chose within itself to create the universe a finite time ago. For a mind itself is still unchanging when it makes decisions within itself." - but this is not a proof. This is a theory. A suggestion as to an explanation but it lacks the power of a good clean syllogistic proof.
Other Issues:
1A) You've neglected the possibility that the "unchangable extra-universe" (what you and thomas would call "God") may well be REQUIRED as a part of it's unchanging ways to create time-based universes as a part of it's unchanging and powerful function.
1B) You've assumed that the extra-universe has made any choice at all, and that it hasn't just produced what it MUST produce. (same point, different angle)
2) Also, your model does not disallow for multi-verse theory. This "unchangable extra-universe" may well produce billions upon billions of universes just like ours that grow and collapse either in sequence or possibly all co-existing. Again, it might do this as a function of it's existence without being a personal agent and without making a choice.
Just because you have seen no evidence for multiple universes, that doesn't mean that they don't exist.
in case it wasn't clear, the theme of my criticism is: I'm sorry, but this proof of yours still offers you no certainty about what "God" (aka. "The Extra-Universe".. aka. "that which is outside of our universe") is.
ReplyDeletealso, i would love to see an argument for "God" being a personal agent. I think i've demonstrated how this needn't be the case.
you don't need to see a proof, just start talking to Him. the proof is in the answers.
ReplyDeleteWe're more than just beings endlessly travelling along an asymptote. (You want proof of an asymptote also ;-) )
how do you describe a third dimension to a 2-dimensional being? how do you teach someone to swallow? How do you describe blue to a blind person? How can you describe the sound of cello to one who is deaf?
It doesn't require hilbert spaces, chaos theory, or string theory to describe god, it just involves being still and knowing Him. It really is that simple.
Delusion.
ReplyDeleteyour stringing theories together that were never actually meant to work with eachother. most of theories are not widley accepted, and when you string them all together the collective credability is not good. also none of these theories were ever actually intended to apply to this subject, meaning you've pretty much magnled all of these theories beyond slavation. intersting, but essentially worthless. nice try.
ReplyDeleteprimovoce,
ReplyDeleteyou need a proof whenever you're making a philosophical argument that claims to prove god's existence.
Hi Nice Debate Here
ReplyDeleteI would just like to ask if you can prove that there is only one God at work? Why not 10 Gods? Or a 100?
(I personally believe that there's one God, but please give me some logical explanations)
"and hence you have no way to be CERTAIN that the proof you have is sufficient"
ReplyDeleteI agree that it does not lead to an absolute certainty for the conclusion. I don't think any argument that deals with the real world can offer that, as we do not have absolute knowledge about everything in the universe.
However, it does result in the conclusion being at least more plausibly true than false.
Even if there were extra universes that caused our own, there would still need to be a timeless and changeless first cause. I cannot imagine anything but a personal agent being able to do something while in a timeless state. Can you offer a suggestion?
I agree it is a possiblity (for almost anything is possible), but it is much less plausible than the personal agent explanation. This is because firstly, we have no evidence of extra universes, and secondly, we have no idea how a non-personal timeless cause can do anything in such a state. So the simplest explanation is that the cause of the universe is a personal agent, and so thus is the preferred one.
"I would just like to ask if you can prove that there is only one God at work? Why not 10 Gods? Or a 100?"
ReplyDeleteWell, the Kalam Cosmological Argument only leads to the existence of one cause to the universe. So to postulate causes beyond necessity (that have no evidence for) is the least preferred explanation. So therefore, it is more plausible that there is only one God.
Your argument makes some degree of sense-- if you have an imagination. A very flexible imagination.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that I don't respect religion, but I think the idea of a god is absurd (you seem to like that word). I'd rather decide my own fate, thank you very much.
"It's not that I don't respect religion, but I think the idea of a god is absurd"
ReplyDeleteYou didn't give any reasons why you think an idea of a God is absurd. Moreover, to rationally say that you need firstly refute my logical argument that I gave in support of God's existence, and then provide a positive case for your own position.
"I'd rather decide my own fate, thank you very much."
But Julia, if someone decides they want to go to Heaven, it doesn't mean they will automatically go there simply because they have this desire. A person is let only into Heaven based on the criteria God has set.
And God has said that you must be perfect to get into Heaven. But none of us are, for we have all lied, stolen, lusted, etc. So therefore, God cannot let us into Heaven. In fact, because God is just He must actually punish us in eternal Hell in order that justice is satisfied because we have sinned.
But the good news is this, even though we are not perfect, Jesus Christ lived a perfect life and died on the cross 2000 years ago. The reason why He died was so that He can take the punishment that we deserve in Hell, He can take it on the cross. That way, God's justice is satisfied and God will see us as perfect on the day of Judgement. But what you must do to receive Jesus' forgiveness is trust that only because He died on the cross for your sins can you go to Heaven, and then also repent of your sins. If you do that, you will actually go to Heaven after you die.
Nice argument.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot define god in the restriction of your material being. The word "God" already holds you back in "seeing" what "IT" really is about. God cannot be defined by mere parole or written words, "GOD" has to be fealt.
ReplyDeleteOpen your eyes and see the constant miracles....
God can only be realized and that too not with your senses, intelligence or logic. He is beyond our material world, but everything we can see is a manifestation of Him only. This Universe is objectified God. Everything you think is of you is only a part of Nature that you have to return while you die. Even the non-tangible assets we have like intelligence and consciousness that are given only to create illusions. This Universe is created by God just for His own amusement and the only part of us, our spirit, can meet Him in reality. So, apply your consciousness and try to realize that you are not the body, not the person, not the mind and intelligence, you are the spirit and you havn't born or neither will die. You are the spirit with infinite power, infinite talent, infinite wishdom. You are not bound to space and time, you have no quality, you have no individuality....
ReplyDeletemore later. Cheers.
I landed here purely by chance and was enthralled. I read out the entire blog and may say that almost everyone has enriched it in some way, though regrettably some chose to use rather uncivil language.
ReplyDeleteRyan Hemelaar was striving to drive a point, even if not fully convincingly, for an abstract God, until Julia's posting. Then he suddenly gave God attributes.
I notice that the theists [gurus, clergy et al] usually flaunt logic and laws of science to prove God's existence - but only up to a point. And at that 'logic-singularity' they suddenly produce opinions and conclusions unsupported by logic. The gullible buy the first part and believe also in the second.
Will Ryan Hemelaar please answer the following questions?
Who IS God? What constitutes a God?
What purpose does He serve for this universe once He supposedly created the laws of science?
What is His objective in creating this space-time called our universe?
Does He carry attributes? Which? And if He is a 'God Without Attributes' [the 'more plausible' scenario'] then would it matter at all if we didn't believe in one?
Which historically has been a more 'Godly' conduct: believing in one, or not believing in one? [I mean who has caused more harm to His universe: the believers or the unbelievers?]
Thanks, everybody. And the BlogMaster.
There is no physical space. Where is it? The universe is all absolute particles with intrinsic properties and interactions. Space is abstract.
ReplyDeleteThere is no physical time nor any dimension of its kind. It is all in our mind. It is a perceptual illusion. It is only used to parametize change. Change is brought not by time but by expended energy, all because of particle interactions.
Lastly, mathematical tricks do not necessarily represent the truth about the physical world.
God is eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent and personal.
ReplyDeleteThis here is actually what confuses me as to an existence of god actually. If he is omniscient, then why bother test any of us, He knows what we will do, how we will react, and which path we will take. Why propose a heaven and a hell that only those who believe in God will go to if that same God knows who will believe and who will not. That is what makes no sense to me.
BTW, I have not read the entire set of comments and debates, but what I did read seems very interesting and above any level of my argumentation so I will stay out of that.
"Who IS God? What constitutes a God?"
ReplyDeleteGod is the sovereign creator of the universe and is uncaused, powerful and personal. The argument proves the existence of such a being.
"What purpose does He serve for this universe once He supposedly created the laws of science?"
Sustaining the universe, and looking at everyone's actions in order that justice may be carried out against lawbreakers after we die. This is because God is good, shown by the Moral Argument. God can also change things that occur in this world.
"What is His objective in creating this space-time called our universe?"
He created the universe for His glory. And He'll receive glory from saving sinners through the death of Jesus Christ, and by justice being carried out upon those in Hell.
"Does He carry attributes?"
Yes. He is loving, good, omnipotent, omniscient, personal, uncaused, just, creator, etc. These all can be proven through the Argument from the Resurrection.
"Which historically has been a more 'Godly' conduct: believing in one, or not believing in one?"
Those not believing in a God have done much worse conduct than those believing in one. For if we look at the 20th century, 20 million people were killed in the name of religion. But if we look at the same period of time, Atheistic Communism killed over 200 million people unjustly. These statistics are from the UN, by the way.
So it is clear who is the more moral. But regardless, that is not a good test for truth. For that does not prove whether there is a God or not. For if someone wants to dismiss a belief because of the actions of the people who hold that belief, that person is committing the fallacy of appealing to consequence. So instead, we should look at where the evidence leads, and I can safely say that it leads to there being a God, and that God being the God of Christianity.
If he is omniscient, then why bother test any of us, He knows what we will do, how we will react, and which path we will take.
ReplyDeleteGod didn't make this Earth simply for a test for us, He made it for His glory. But we broke God's laws, so God has to uphold His justice and therefore must punish us if we have no Saviour for our sins. Thankfully, Christ can be our Saviour if we repent and trust that He died on the cross for us (not simply believing that God exists).
That said, it is true that God knows what we are going to do, but it doesn't logically follow from that that we are not responsible for our own actions.
Ryan Hemelaar wrote:
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of creation is "Sustaining the universe, and looking at everyone's actions in order that justice may be carried out against lawbreakers after we die."
Which means God was not omniscient 'before' humans acted and let God 'look' at their actions!
"He created the universe for His glory. And He'll receive glory from saving sinners through the death of Jesus Christ, and by justice being carried out upon those in Hell."
How did Jesus Christ enter here? So far not one argument has been put forth warranting his existence.
Besides, had God not created the humans in the first place, some of them would not have acted badly and gone to hell. So isn't God directly responsible for humans's hell?
"He is loving, good, omnipotent, omniscient, personal, uncaused, just, creator, etc"
Someone jokingly made these remarks. I quote without my comments:
Can God create a space He cannot enter into? Either way He is not omnipotent.
Can God enter a space He had not known of? If He can, He is not omniscient and if He cannot He is not omnipotent.
It would appear that Omniscience and Omnipotence are attributes that can contradict and cancel each other.
Thanks, Hemelaar.
But we broke God's laws, so God has to uphold His justice and therefore must punish us if we have no Saviour for our sins. Thankfully, Christ can be our Saviour if we repent and trust that He died on the cross for us (not simply believing that God exists).
ReplyDeleteThat said, it is true that God knows what we are going to do, but it doesn't logically follow from that that we are not responsible for our own actions.
But would not God know that we are going to break His laws and what he wants of His world? Why do we need a savior if He in turn basically creates that savior for us if He creates everything. It just doesn't seem to make sense, why create us if He knows we will break His laws?
Universe has a begining? So you was there or something?
ReplyDeleteThousands of science men and women can't decide on this (read about continuos Big Bang theories please) and you use it to demostrate God's existence?
Tobby is a dog.
Tobby is yellow.
Dogs are yellow.
Don't be ridiculous...
Just a recommendation:
ReplyDeleteZeitgeist
Watch that video on youtube. There you have your God's cause: power and money.
and you use it to demostrate God's existence?
ReplyDeleteTobby is a dog.
Tobby is yellow.
Dogs are yellow.
Straw man! You're using the grossest of misreprisentation here as anyone who bothers to read the article could see. There is a valid sylogism used in the article, this doesn't even approach a refutation but rather falls into the realms of the juvinile and silly.
As for Zeitgeist, well you can believe unfounded propaganda if you want... but the theories of Christianity in particular being only about money and power are laughable in the face of the self sacrificial love modeled flawlessly by Jesus and DEMANDED by Him of those who follow Him. Here's one of many instances:
"You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
Lastly on the big bang theory there is one problem with the theory. It demands that there be something at the begining (matter in the form of the singularity). This effectively means that matter is eternal (especially with the expansion/contraction model of ongoing 'bangs') - which is something even the atheistic philosophers will not tolerate, its called infinite regress and is acknowledged by all (bar the occational crackpot) as been impossible.
The other issue is why/how did the singularity explode? And pertinent to us why don't the black holes (singularities) in the universe now explode likewise?
The theory stretches a long way but how these two points are explained away is pure fantasy.
As opposed to the probable and realistic work of an infinite, immaterial, all powerful, all wise,
personal God who began and maintains the universe. The begining requires both emense power (see big bang theory) and preplanned fine tuning of even the smallest of subatomic interactions so that life will be possible. The maintenance of the universe so that it would produce life in its varied forms is beyond the work of evolution due to impossible forms being present (birds for one) and evidence of top down design and hierachies of interdependent design (the feather, the knee joint, the wing, the krebb's cycle - shall I continue?) and lastly not enough time (upper limit of 10000 years as carbon 14 has been found in diamonds - so much for the billions of years old!).
So Ricardo if you want to disagree that's fine but don't parade the whole "science vs God" thing around as though science (God's wonderful serving boy) agree's with your prejudice!
How did Jesus Christ enter here? So far not one argument has been put forth warranting his existence.
ReplyDeleteAffable just read a history book, there is consensus that not only did Jesus exist as a real human being but also that the biblical account of his life is reliable. It is the extreme fringe of historians (most of which are not qualified to comment) that suggest Jesus did not exist and that the new testament accounts are legend.
Besides, had God not created the humans in the first place, some of them would not have acted badly and gone to hell. So isn't God directly responsible for humans's hell?
No, you are physically able to keep the moral law's demands (nothing physical stops you from lying and blaspheming) and not only that but you are born with a moral conscience (despite you ignoring and muffling it). Both these things mean that you are inexcusable for your wrong doing. God made you fully capable of doing good but you CHOOSE to do wrong. As such God is justified to condemn your life outside of the saving work of Jesus.
Can God create a space He cannot enter into?... Can God enter a space He had not known of?.... It would appear that Omniscience and Omnipotence are attributes that can contradict and cancel each other.
As for the above innane set of assertions. You have just said something that is logically contradictory. I may as well say that just because an atheist cannot know Jesus personally today they cant disprove Him or God then they aren't atheist and don't therefor exist!
Corey - On the topic of apparent contradictions in God I would first of all point out that just because two apparently contradictory qualities are present does not necessarily mean the contradiction is real. For example physists are quite satisfied that light is both a particle and a wave. Contradiction? No a paradox because both are quantifiably true. Likewise the soveriegnty of God and human moral responsibility are only apparently contradictory, when really you have a paradox.
C'mon David Gee, you are just a foundamentalist. Go and take your torch to burn some scientists with your amazing super-knowledge.
ReplyDeleteCircular Thinking, NEVER explains nothing. They are absolutely subjetive, you can even demonstrate that 1=2 with them. So please read a bit.
Where the hell have you read that there is consensus on Jesus' existence??? Of course there is, in your Catholic University's Library...
But there is NO HISTORIC RECORD AT ALL (out of the bible, of course) on his contemporaneous writings, about his acts or his simple existence. Roman travelers NEVER heard about him, that temple NEVER got destroyed and so on.
Catholic Religion is just a transformation of the Pagan Religion invented by people in its last try to keep the Roman Empire in one piece.
You want believe in God? I respect it. But if you are talking about Jesus, because he is The One, with prooved existence, and that the other 4.500 millon people are wrong (poor of them)... How simple you are.
Religion = Power. Power sustained in simple people who lives in fear. The Cancer of the world.
Damn, what I've said... I'll go to hell :(
C'mon David Gee, you are just a foundamentalist...
ReplyDeleteHmm, as opposed to an angery atheist with an agenda? You cant sweep it under the carpet that easy Ricardo. You may not like what I have said and disaggree with it, but unless you have something to refute it it stands. BTW personal incredulity is not a refutation.
Circular Thinking, NEVER explains nothing....please read a bit.
Please give some evidence that what is in the article is circular reasoning. Otherwise as I said the valid sylogism of the universe having a begining and a maker stands.
Where the hell have you read that there is consensus on Jesus' existence???...there is, in your Catholic Uni's Library...there is NO HISTORIC RECORD AT ALL on his writings, his acts or his simple existence.
Where have I read this? Have you not heard of Tacitus, Josephus, or Pliny the Younger then? I have read of his existence, acts and resurrection in their contemoraneous writings. I believe some of this is covered in two other posts on this site.
http://operation513.blogspot.com/2008/07/did-constantine-give-us-bible.html
and
http://operation513.blogspot.com/2008/09/is-there-any-proof-of-jesus-besides.html
Now it is a given that those who would study Jesus' life and history the most would be Christian scholars. But until you can come up with sound historical reasons for your assertions(aside from your own scepticism!) their works are still standing as support for the biblical Jesus within the community of historians.
As to your dismissal of the Bible as a valid ancient text; do you realise that you have effectively cast doubt on virtually the entire ancient world? The bible has more manuscriptic support than any ancient work. So tell me did Rome exist then? Perhaps Athens - was that a myth? Was Julius Ceasar only metaphorically waging war on the Gauls in the accounts of the Gaelic Wars?
You patronisingly tell me and other Christians to go and read. Yet from the poverty of your arguments you appear to need to take your own advice. You have gone from sneering at my reasoned (admittedly) intellectual response to your post to talking down to me as though I know nothing of the world. Ad hominem is a very low form of debate, often revealing more about the user than the one it is used on.
Oh, and BTW we are Protestants not Catholics.
You want believe in God? I respect it... How simple you. Religion = Power. Power sustained in simple people who lives in fear. The Cancer of the world.
Odd how when you put your comments side by side the whole respect thing is revealed as the throw away sop that it is. If you really mean that comment, go away and rethink your words for they are immensely disrespectful.
Cancer of the world? not quite, show me where those holding to biblical Christianity have done anything deserving that title. As opposed to consistent atheism which has in the last century killed more people through systematic government funded slaughter than any of the world wars.
Doh you should start a TV show. You are really funny.
ReplyDeleteTacitus were born was 50 or 60 years C.A., and lived in western Europe. Pliny and the others lived later too. That don't demonstrate nothing as they weren't there and sow nothing. How do you want me to tell you Historic references when I'm tellig you that they don't exist, buddy...
I really can't understad why you don't see a "circular reasoning" in the article. Well as you apparently don't know, this is by definition a circular argument:
1. something.
2. so something.
3. then something.
But the FUNIEST of your response... So Atheim killed more than Reigion? Tell me just ONE War not started by Christians (God bless U.S.A), Arabs or Judish...
BTW Protestants mean the same to me. They are just a bit cleverer as they decided not to continue paying the Rome Pope's wars...
Anyway, I found there is no way we can have a normal conversation. You are a pure, cult, nice man of God and I'm just an evil, pesimist, condemned atheist.
Hey, now I've found the REALLY FUNIEST bsht of yout response!!!
ReplyDeleteSo tell me did Rome exist then? Perhaps Athens - was that a myth? Was Julius Ceasar only metaphorically waging war on the Gauls in the accounts of the Gaelic Wars?
No coment...
Aaaand the last one!
ReplyDeleteI'd never tell the Bible is not a good History book, at least in the Old Testament (kings records and that kind of stuff are widely acepted).
But remember that The Holy Church has chosen wich of them are "true" and wich are just apocrypha on their own interest...
...this is by definition a circular argument: 1. something. 2. so something. 3. then something.
ReplyDeleteRight then so Aristotle and Aristotelian thought are just nonsense then? What you are refering to there Ricardo is called a sylogism. It is the most basic of all logical thought. You have used this in various forms throughout your responses to our posts and replies. Don't be rediculous.
But remember that The Holy Church has chosen wich of them are "true" and wich are just apocrypha on their own interest...
Hmm, I could go into the way the canon came about but it would be a waste. How about instead you come up with some evidence to back your claims?
So Atheim killed more than Reigion? Tell me just ONE War not started by Christians (God bless U.S.A), Arabs or Judish...
You're misquoting me - I compared atheism and Christianity. Religion includes both my faith and yours. Christians may be involved in wars and in their role as governers of contries start wars, that was not my point. My point was that Christians do not start or participate in war in the name of Christianity, if they do it is inconsistent with what their faith demands because Jesus said 'Love your enemies, pray for those who hate you and spitefully use you'(see my earlier post also). As opposed to atheism which has as I said comissioned some of the worst attrocities possible while being entirely consistent with it's philosophy.
So which one deserves your title CANCER OF THE WORLD? I'm plugging for atheism.
Tacitus were born was 50 or 60 years C.A., and lived in western Europe. Pliny and the others lived later too. That don't demonstrate nothing as they weren't there and sow nothing...
Now it is my turn to laugh! Do you seriously think this?! That if you are not present at an event and don't see it then you know nothing about it? How do you cope in the world?
I couldn't hold to this if I tried because it means you don't know if anything is true - the world news becomes non-sense, the doctor/dentist/nurse/etc cannot help you because they don't really know anything about those things they have not seen yet. No Ricardo you are quite wrong (laughably so if it wasn't so sad).
The accepted method of good history taking is to investigate events by interviewing eyewitnesses and recording their stories. Then taking what they report as a group you determine what was most likely the way things happened. This is how Tacitus, Pliny, and Josephus came to their conclusions.
If you continue to be irrational like this I fear you may be right and there is no point to this discussion.
You think you are much more clever as you really are, dude. There are huge diferences between syllogisms and circular arguments.
ReplyDeleteThis "syllogism" proposed here just it's not a syllogism. The conclusion -obviously- refers to God as Universe's cause. And God does not follow from its premises. Aslo, both first and second premises are not demostrated to be true, as I told, the best science people of our time are discussing for years about it and there is NO consensus at all. Do you know the syllogism definition? I'm afraid you don't.
This is called a fallacy, my friend, a Syllogistic fallacy. Aristotle would cry if he'd read this.
About History... People of his Time, in his same place DID'T wrote about him. You told me 3 people and you know there aren't much more. I could give you a huge list of people who wrote or traveled exhaustively on that Region in that Time, who said nothing about Jesus:
Philo of Alexandria, Seneca the Younger, Aulo Gelio, Cayo Valerio Flaco, Mestrio Plutarco, Dio Chrysostom, Apollonius of Tyana (born in the same Country, three years after Jesus. And wrote NOTHING about him).
About war...
Christians do not start or participate in war in the name of Christianity
Well yeah they never did, eh? They never burned people, or books, or started cruzades, or eliminated entire cultures in Africa and America... You can call it Evangelization, but Christianity performed the bigger genocide in History.
Of course nowadays they don't start them in the name of God. That's old. New fashion is to make war on terror, war for democracy, war against comunism, war for freedom. But always with the "In God We Trust" flag.
Do you have newspapers in your convent?
Philo of Alexandria (Hmm... of Alexandria - thats Egypt isn't it? Also wrote primarily regarding the jews of Alexandria)
ReplyDeleteSeneca the Younger (This guy is a philosopher and writer of rhetoric/tragedy etc, ie not a historian)
Aulo Gelio(Lived in Rome and Athens and while he wrote on many topics he again was not a historian)
Cayo Valerio Flaco (poet)
Mestrio Plutarco (Admitedly a historian living in Delphi at an appropriate time)
Dio Chrysostom (Well travelled but a philosopher)
Apollonius of Tyana (lived in the right time but most of his work is lost or based on massively inflated reports of third and fourth hand commentators)
So what sounds like an impressive list is really only one or two historians and the rest where writing in genres that would not normally touch on a historical figure like Jesus. Also Ricardo you are basing your arguement on silence which is really very poor. The recorded word of three historians with no vested intrest verses the silence of two others... really its an open close case in favour of what is recorded.
This "syllogism" proposed here just it's not a syllogism....Do you know the syllogism definition? I'm afraid you don't...This is called a fallacy, my friend, a Syllogistic fallacy.
I am well aware of what a syllogism is and also what a syllogistic fallacy is. I also know what a deceptive side step is, which is the above. You are appealing to uncertainty and your incredulity as a reason the universe could not have a begining. Just because there is arguement amoung the scientists as to weather or not the universe began with a bang or not changes little. The philosophical and scientific issues we raised are not affected by that debate. The syllogism stands unless you have something more solid to bring out.
Well yeah they never did, eh? They never burned people, or books, or started cruzades, or eliminated entire cultures in Africa and America...Of course nowadays they don't start them in the name of God...
Do you actually read my posts or just skim them then shoot from your prejudice?
My point was that it is inconsistent with Christian faith to do all of the above, people claiming to be Christians do evil things all the time. The fact that they do these things shows nothing other than the rightness of Jesus's words that the heart of man is deceptively wicked.
Atheism on the other hand has no such situation and rather is indifferent to or confirming of such acts that serve its ends (see the Nazi regime).
Yes! God is everything, You are God, I'm God, the entire Universe is God!
ReplyDeletetherefore because God is everything you can also say he is nothing and that God doesn't exist!
It doesn't matter what we say!
If he exists he'll take care of showing up, If he doesn't exist why bother?
I'm God : D
Dixza, you are not God, because Pantheism is wrong. For logically, the universe must have had a beginning. So if the universe is God, then the universe would have had to exist before it existed in order to create the universe. But that is a logical impossibility.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, God has shown up. He came 2000 years ago and we humans hated Him so much, that we put Him to death. One day He will return. But it will be too late then to start repenting and trusting in Christ's death for our salvation, as God will return to judge the living and the dead.
Hi Ryan. If human is not created by God, then who created human? And if God created human then why some human goes against God? If God has to come this world to save good people and destroy bad people that means He doesn't have any control over us and he is only more powerful than us. This also means God is not the supreme power, rather he is an overpowered alien, right? If this Universe is not a manifestation of God then what this universe is all about? Who created it? If it was a natural process then Nature is more powerful than God!! because Nature creates creature who can go against God. Ryan, you Christians never ever try to realize the truth rather always try to prove that Christianity is the only religion that can reach God. Truth is inside you, try to dig yourself, you will be wise and will get answers to everything. Thanks much.
ReplyDeleteHi all, just chiming in. I went through a handful of the previous comments (kinda like cherry-picking the bible for the nice stuff eh), so please bear with me if I'm doubling up. First a question, then a story, then a funny. Yes, atheists have a sense of humor.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, could a truly devout Fundamentalist Christian (not someone from one of the other 13,000+ sects within the family of Christianity, oh my, that's a lot) please explain to me what exactly they are fighting for again? Are you trying to get the rest of us to believe in an actual creature (namely, your god), a set of ideals to live by (rules and regulations of humanity), or both?
If it's just the creature, could you produce it physically here on Earth (or at least have it set an appointment to show up)? And by physically, I mean something made of elements we commonly find around us, like carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, etc... And it would be nice if it was something that all human beings can see/smell/hear/touch/taste. And it would also be nice if it was something that wasn't reduced to a "personal experience". That leaves a little too much for interpretation.
If it's a set of ideals, could you show us how they are only attainable through a steadfast belief in your selected worldview? By only, I mean these ideals should stand alone as ones that do not appear in other worldviews. And by attainable, I mean that they are things we come to understand, not things we are innately born with (and please don't refer to morals, I don't think killing people is a good thing either... oh sorry, you do - see the bible).
If it's both, then I'm confused. Please explain.
Secondly, I asked an Evangelical once about the Euthyphro Argument. I leave it to all to look this one up. I find it one of the easiest ways to satisfy my particular worldview.
I found his answer a bit disturbing, mostly because it really opens up a big mess for the almighty and all powerful ruler of everything (you know, that creature that has the power to live outside of time and space, create the entire universe out of nothing it had laying around in its vicinity, and breath life into every poor soul alive), but just a tad because it seemed so weak.
His answer was "maybe I should wonder who else may command things", namely Satan. I'd really like to know why a powerful creature such as Yahweh hasn't been able to reign down its might on another creature that exists secondarily (by that I mean that Yahweh has always existed, and Satan hasn't - check the bible on that one), having not the power to exist outside of time and space (apparently, Satan resides in Hell, which apparently, is somewhere inside planet Earth), having not the power to create the universe (maybe he just didn't make it into the credits), and having not the power to give us life (but he sure does have a crafty way of taking it, don't he).
This creature Satan sure does have some godly abilities to be able to run and hide from Yahweh, year after year after year (multiply that a couple million billion times, our clock obviously). And to imagine that such a creature has the power to command things that the powerful and wise Yahweh cannot, it really makes you wonder if Yahweh's got it all figured out.
Anyways, I need some enlightenment. Help a brother out will ya.
And thirdly, a little humor to get the old noggin spinning. Not original, but I really like it.
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.
Your serve.
"If human is not created by God, then who created human?"
ReplyDeleteGod created humans.
"And if God created human then why some human goes against God?"
Because God gave Adam & Eve the choice to follow Him or rebel against Him. They chose to rebel.
"If God has to come this world to save good people and destroy bad people..."
Jesus had to come because God cannot compromise His own nature. He cannot act immorally, or unjustly, therefore He cannot automatically forgive our sins without the punishment being taken.
"Ryan, you Christians never ever try to realize the truth rather always try to prove that Christianity is the only religion that can reach God."
Because Christianity is the only right religion. And no, I do not try and realise the truth within myself, as why would my "innerself" know all the answers? That's completely irrational. In fact, your argument did not logically follow at all.
Who are these Adam and Eve? Is there any historical evidence of them outside the story book? How do you know that they existed? Aren't you arguing illogically?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think only Chirtianity is right? I don’t argue that it is not correct but all religions are just another way to attain God. What do you think, why Buddha has left his crown and gone out? Was he a fool? If the truth was not inside him how he attained God just by meditation? Why millions of Buddhist exists till date and the number is increasing? Same applies for Hindu, Muslim and other religions. First you need to respect all great peoples who tried to make this world a happier place and then you have to be open to accept all them and finally combine them to find the real truth. There are tons of spiritual scripts available to date, you need to dedicate more and more time to study them. Being religious is just a start, like kindergarten, you have to advance so far to actually attain Him.
Thinking every person a sinner is just a bad idea as you can’t think yourself pure and can’t love the world selflessly. Rather thinking every living creature God will help you to serve and love selflessly. Jesus didn’t stopped loving those who killed him, try to understand how big his heart was, and we need trying to be as big in heart as he was.
Thanks for your time.
I forgot Ryan. Wishing you and all other members of this blog a Marry Christmas and happy new year 2009.
ReplyDelete"Who are these Adam and Eve? Is there any historical evidence of them outside the story book?"
ReplyDeleteThey were the first two humans God created. By your calling the Bible a 'story book' shows where your presupposition lies. Much of the Bible was written as historical accounts, so if we have no reason to think they are fabricated, we should not think that they are.
"Why do you think only Chirtianity is right?"
Because of all the positive evidence for it, such as the resurrrection of Jesus, etc. Moreover, every other religion is logically inconsistent, and therefore not true. I outline this in a recent post on the blog.
"but all religions are just another way to attain God"
They cannot all be worshipping the same God for if you examine the various religions, they are all contradictory to one another. For example, Hindu's believe in a pantheistic concept of God, Christians believe there is only one God (not pantheistic) and that is made up of three distinct persons. While Muslims believe in one God but denies the trinity. So according to the law of non-contradiction, they all cannot be true at the same time and thus cannot be worshipping the same God.
"Buddha has left his crown and gone out? Was he a fool?"
Yes, for he was trying to attain salvation by his works. In this article I explain why that cannot ever work.
"Why millions of Buddhist exists till date and the number is increasing?"
The popularity of a belief does not prove its validity. That commits the fallacy of appealing to popularity. For example, the most popular belief thousands of years ago was that the world is flat. But just because it was popular, did not make it true.
"then you have to be open to accept all them and finally combine them to find the real truth"
Why would I have to combine them or even accept/believe them if they are logically inconsistent?
"Thinking every person a sinner is just a bad idea"
Except that the truth is that we are all sinners in the sight of God and deserve His wrath. Unless you understand that, you will die in your sins and be sent to an eternal Hell. For we are all inherently evil in our natural state, and we are not God. Once we realise that we deserve the wrath of God, and we turn to Christ in repentance and faith, we will then want to love people selflessly because we don't deserve to even live and are so thankful to God for saving us that we want to obey the things He commands us to do.
PS: Merry Christmas to you too.
"please explain to me what exactly they are fighting for again?"
ReplyDeleteSo that you would acknowledge your own sin, turn to Christ in repentance and faith, and thus receive forgiveness of sins.
"And it would be nice if it was something that all human beings can see/smell/hear/touch/taste."
God is incorporal, so why would you think you would be able to see/smell/hear/touch/taste him? Why are you requiring that of Him in order to believe He exists? We can know that He exists through logical reasoning. But if you say, I only believe in things that are tested by the five senses, then you hold a self-refuting worldview. For that rule, that you only accept things tested by the five senses, itself cannot be tested by the five senses. So it's literally self-refuting.
"And it would also be nice if it was something that wasn't reduced to a "personal experience"."
If you notice that on this blog that no such argumentation has been invoked.
"I mean these ideals should stand alone as ones that do not appear in other worldviews."
Only in Christianity can you have forgiveness of sins.
"about the Euthyphro Argument"
The Euthyphro argument is easily refuted and we've had a few posts on this blog about it. For example, this one.
"apparently, Satan resides in Hell, which apparently, is somewhere inside planet Earth"
Both of those statements are incorrect. Satan is not in Hell yet, but rather roams around the Earth like a roaring lion seek out people to decieve (1 Peter 5:8). And Hell is not in this Earth (for this Earth will be destroyed one day by God). Satan obviously cannot create a universe because he is not divine. God created Hell as a place of punishment for the devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41). And one day Satan will be sent to be punished there for eternity (Revelation 12:9), along with the rest of the unbelievers. He has not been sent there yet, not because he is able to hide from God, but because God is holding off his judgment for a little while.
The "Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian" are all based on ignorance of what the Bible actually teaches. It's sad atheists would actually think that it is good argumentation.
I think I said that I had a question, a story, and a funny. The question was to get some clarification, thank you for attempting to provide some. The story was nothing more than that, a story. The funny was not an argument by any stretch. I do find it odd however that you decided to have that take on it. It shows something about you personally, and to that, all I can say is, I forgive you (smiling of course).
ReplyDeleteGuys, I really don't want to piss on your parade. I honestly believe that everyone has a right to see reality any way they want (including you). I suppose you may see it as a sin for not believing in Yahweh to begin with, but I gotta tell ya, you guys are really in deep. However, I'll play along just for fun.
Do you believe the Bible word for word? No deviation in the slightest that is. You actually think that every last word in the Bible, from beginning to end, is the only thing that your god has to say on the matter of everything there is, was, and ever will be?
If you do (and your relentless quoting from it leads me to believe you do), then I suspect you must know the Bible very thoroughly. And if that is the case, you may know something about the history of its writings, and all of the things that didn't make it in. I won't bother to explain. Being the good Christians you are, you already know it all anyways.
There are so many things wrong with the Bible (and the plethora of other holy books out there on the market), and Christianity in general, that it would be impossible to sum them up here. Your lord knows we've tried. And if you're going to paraphrase that, just give in to the temptation of searching the Internet and/or reading a few other books, and I'm certain you'll come across a few things here or there that you may find informative (even if it gets your blood boiling or shaking your head).
And to the others who have taken the time to give these guys something to argue about, just remember a few things (let the paraphrasing begin).
They MUST worship their god, constantly. That means serving him every moment of every day of their lives... and beyond. If they do not, even for a second, they feel uncontrollable guilt. They feel they MUST confess their "sins", in hopes they will be "forgiven". Without their god, they likely have nothing else out there to support them in times of need. No amount of friends and family who all believe in the same god (but in just one of 13000+ ways) would ever be able to fill that void. Love and happiness are meaningless concepts to them in the absence of an almighty deity. And that's a very sad thing indeed.
I feel bad for them. I really do. Not only has their god decided to put off judgment for what seems like an eternity (sorry, no pun intended), but it leaves them out to dry every single day it refuses to come here (again, apparently) and show all of us non-believers that it actually exists. I know you say it will. And so have countless generations before you. I know. I know.
Let me assure you. If there is an afterlife (and I do think its possible, heck, everything is) it most certainly is NOT ruled by a single intelligent creature with the power to command every last atom the known universe contains (and in other times and spaces, apparently). You can use all of the logical reasoning you want, but nothing our minds can perceive would ever come close to understanding the nature of our existence. If you honestly disagree with that, and think your mind does, then you've solved the single greatest question ever posed by anything intelligent enough to ponder it. I would offer that you haven't.
With that, I'll end my comments. You can have the final say (I know how much it means to you). Have an exceptionally great holiday season folks. And remember what Christmas is all about: the birth of 1/3 of a triune deity, who in his infinite wisdom, saw fit to encourage all of us to believe in his other 2/3's.
I've thought all along that it's just wonderful to be here and share my time with all those lucky enough to be here too.
Peace.
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
ReplyDeleteNor are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways
And My thoughts than your thoughts.
“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
And do not return there without watering the earth
And making it bear and sprout,
And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It will not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it”.
39 Then Jesus told him, “I have come to judge the world. I have come to give sight to the blind and to show those who think they see that they are blind.” 40 The Pharisees who were standing there heard him and asked, “Are you saying we are blind?” 41 “If you were blind, you wouldn’t be guilty,” Jesus replied. “But you remain guilty because you claim you can see.
Chuck Norris counted to Infinity--Twice.
ReplyDeleteChuck Norris must be God.
By faith and thru faith is the only logical proof of GOD's existence.
ReplyDeleteGod said .."You will find if you search Me, if you search Me with all your heart"
ReplyDeleteJer 29:3
I searched with all of my heart and have found Him.
My fellow atheists, you rock!
ReplyDeleteNay, the dilemma stands as ever,because one begs the question of His nature. That is the problem with theism- one begged question after another. Craig begs the question of a starting point. Theists beg the question of His attributes, which as incoherent and contradicting eacy other, reveal that He cannot exist- ignositicism. 'Logic is the bane of theists."
Folks, as autonomous beings we owe no duty to any God whislt He faces the one-way street of morally having to put us into a safer place as the argoment the problem of Heaven declares.
Theists ever issue farragoes of labyrinths of sophistry to buttress their credulity, and faith and postulatiion cannot instantiate Him!
Here as there ought to be mountains of evidence in His favor and there is none whatsoever, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of abssence in accord with Charles Moore's auto-epistemic rule and so, is no argument from ignorance whilst faith, the we just say so of credulity rests on the argument from ignorance and begs the question of its subject. Science is acquired knowledge whilst faith, as Sdney Hook notes, begs the question of being knowledge.
Reason can move mountains of ignorance whilst faith rests on the argument from ignorance.This is the presumption of rationalism.
As my fellow atheologian, Keith Parsons, notes:" Occullt power wielded by a treascendent being in an inscrutable manner for unfathomable purposes, does not seem to be any sort of good answer."
And it is Gottfried Wilhem Leibniz's big blunder - the why is there somethng rather than nothng - is that nothng means nothing and so cannot exist.
So, God is the non-concept and the non-answer for this non-question!
The Kalam is just a brain teaser,fellow inqquirers! Those here who espouse only faith just commit logicide with their begged assumption, and so aren't inquirers.
Again," Logic is the bane of theists.'
"Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning."
' Relgion is just mythinformation."
Glory to God for our atheist argumentation!
The Kalam is just another failed argument to overcome the presumption of naturlaism that not ony are natural causes and explanations necessary and efficient but also primary and sufficient: they are the sufficient reason, notwithstanding Leibniz's little blunder.
The presumptions of empiricism, humanism, naturalism, rationalism and skepticism make for that more abundant life that that dead Galilean fanatic never could help achieve!
Reason saves, not that ever dead cult leader!
Hmm, interesting but unfounded griggsy. The evidences for God are present and you thus far lack even a shread of support for your discounting even the cosmological argument let alone the historical, literary and scientific evidences for God's existence and activity. Unfortunately like so many atheists you appear to think that merely claiming Christianity is false and rejecting arguments is the end of the matter and you prove your position. No griggsy you need to provide evidences of your claims and counter arguements. Proclaiming victory before the matter is settled may work in politics but it will never work in the arena of truth claims.
ReplyDeleteYou mention presumptions of your beliefs, good to see you acknowledge that most atheists do not. Have you also considered the outworkings of those pressumptions? Eg your system says there is:
Personal meaning and value from a universe devoid of meaning and values.
Genetic information created ex nil hilo from randomness (Einstein gulf mate...).
Genetic information added to with random additions despite information is destroyed when this happens in ALL other settings (eg language).
Complex physics arrangements which allow life arising from random interactions despite being emensely improbable.
Morality being universal in its basic form despite subjective morality being the only logical outcome from evolution.
Destructive and totalitarian regimes being the rule when atheism is the foundation for society despite the claims of liberation and freedom so loudly touted by those like yourself (Russia, China, Facist Italy/germany etc).
Compare this with the meaning that comes from a personal creator, the liberation that comes from freedom from sin and the undeniable benefit of Christianity on society.
You need to reconsider your position griggsy or come up with some better supports please. God Bless you and please consider what we have written in this blog.
Griggsy, - what would you like 'reason' to save you from ? Already the Logos (let us say, the 'Reason' of God, for this context) has provided the way, the meaning of our life, for us. Exactly where is your 'reason' going to take you ?
ReplyDeleteThis is really the fundamental question here.
What say you ?
how does big bang prove the infinitely dense, zero volume singularity had a beginning ?
ReplyDeleteirfan, you have a wrong view of the Big Bang. As the Physicist P.C.W. Davies explains that the Big Bang is "not just a matter of imposing some sort of organisation or structure upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing."
ReplyDeleteAnd nothing is not a very small something, nothing is nothing.
so the "infinitely dense" is not a existential reality but just a mathemtaical concept ? hence "nothing" ? or was there a beginning to the infinite dense, according to the theory ? hence "nothing" ?
ReplyDeleteDavid, speciousnes doesn't cut it! You aren't addressing my arguments. Your knowledge of science is so flawed.
ReplyDeleteRyan, that nothing are the quantum fields. Study Victor Stenger' books and David Mill's " Atheist Universe,' rather than engaging in sophistry!
Great blog post Ryan Hemelaar. I was looking for more information and detail on the Kalam Cosmological Argument after an Eastern Philosophy class discussion about possible infinite and cycicle model of the universe. Your explanation here is well done. You show a good amount of patience and self control in your responses to comments on your blog post.
ReplyDeleteAre there any other, possibly academic, sources which further discuss the Kalam Cosmological Argument? There is some discussion here in the comments, but 'winning' an argument on the internet is like winning the special Olympics.