Greetings to all God-lovers and God-worshippers who worship in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The atheists think we are nuts. They think we worship figments of our imaginations; they think God, the transcendent/immanent (and imminent!) One is imaginary. Imagine! They know nothing of spiritual realities, they sense nothing of God's Spirit, feel nothing, know nothing of God -- and, as a result, believe they are entitled to be bowed and scraped to as "brights"!
And yet, we try. We offer them arguments, rooted in logical, rationality, and empirical evidence, for the fingerprints and footprints of the Almighty. Inference to the most likely cause, that sort of thing.
One particularly strong argument, that Joe the Agnost should have fun trying to shoot down, is the Kalam argument. It goes like this.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore, the universe has a cause
That cause is God
There's more to it than this. For a run-down, please go to:
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/how-to-defend-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-just-like-william-lane-craig/
Then, come back and post a comment if you like.
The nice thing about this argument is that it kills two birds with one stone. It makes a logical argument for a Creator out of effectual necessity, and it shuts down the smarty-pants question, "oh yeah, well then who created God?", which young atheists use and actually think they are saying something particularly clever.
And that's the way the glad-I'm-saved Ball bounces.
21 comments:
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause
How do we know this? How do we know that uncaused events don't take place?
2. The universe began to exist
What do you mean by the universe? Everything that exists? If so doesn't that include God? Or do you mean everything other than God? But then isn't God in everything anyway?
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause
The universe in the sense of "everything" cannot have a cause, since it already includes everything, specifically its own purported cause.
4. That cause is God
Why? Why not the Devil, for instance?
Not convincing.
1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause
How do we know this? How do we know that uncaused events don't take place?
Ans: If you believe this, you have just put yourself outside the realm of the entire history of observed reality. In which case, don't be surprised if an uncaused horse suddenly appears in your living room.
2. What do you mean by the universe? Everything that exists? If so doesn't that include God? Or do you mean everything other than God? But then isn't God in everything anyway?
Ans: I mean neither. I mean the universe which exists in time and space.
3. The universe in the sense of "everything" cannot have a cause, since it already includes everything, specifically its own purported cause.
Ans: The argument is based on the premise that a universe that begins to exist must have a cause outside of itself. It is a generally understood principle that effects cannot have themselves as causes. Perhaps you can provide an example.
4. That cause is God
Why? Why not the Devil, for instance?
Ans: It's definitional. The argument doesn't prove that the God here is necessarily the God of the Bible. If you find it more likely or more convincing that a malevolent sub-being created the universe, that's your call.
Not convincing.
Ans: There's always wiggle-room to reject these arguments.
Did you bother reading the article?
One set of rules for everything EXCEPT god, and another set of rules for god.
Everything (except god of course) has to have a beginning?? Not god though?
Come back to me when god has to play by the rules of everything else - because until that time you've got nothing - hell, using this methodology I could claim ANYTHING!
(please note that as soon as you have to say - no, that doesn't apply to god because he's OUTSIDE of space/time etc. - you've given up and lost.)
"Come back to me when god has to play by the rules of everything else - because until that time you've got nothing
Ans: No, it is you who've got nothing. You have to provide an answer to the question why there is something rather than nothing -- especially when that something is, as we have sought to demonstrate, contingent and caused -- and therefore, by definition, unnecessary.
(God actually stepped into time and space and played by the (moral and spiritual) rules that characterize our universe when he lived a sinless life and then voluntarily took our sins upon himself. The rules by which we play right now are these: the wages of sin is death. He broke the rules and inaugurated eternal life to those who care to accept it.)
- hell, using this methodology I could claim ANYTHING!"
Ans: OK, but remember, you introduced the topic of hell. I was being nice.
(please note that as soon as you have to say - no, that doesn't apply to god because he's OUTSIDE of space/time etc. - you've given up and lost.)
Ans: The argument says that something MUST exist outside of time and space because both time and space had a ground-zero origin at the Big Bang. Because this Something caused time to exist, it must exist outside of time, hence, is timeless (eternal). Not only does a timeless being not need a cause, it cannot have a cause or it would exist in time, not outside of time. So, it is, logically, uncaused and eternal.
Furthermore, since it has the ability to create time and space and matter out of nothing, it has tremendous creative powers. And, since, it acted to do so, it has volition. And, since it created a universe in which rationality and logic are embedded characteristics, we can infer from this that this Something possesses a mind, in which case we are now dealing with a Someone, rather than a something.
We are getting pretty close to inferring the existence of what we have traditionally understood as "God" as the inference to the most likely cause.
People can choose to believe whatever they wish.If you think there is a God or Gods, please by all means knock yourself out..
However, the minute you try to stick that belief system down my throat, be it by state or church decree, that is the day I and many others push you and your doctrine, dogma and idols to the ground and walk on by...
I will not bow to any man or 'God', and those that try to force their own belief system on me will rue the day they tried.
RKBall: "You have to provide an answer to the question why there is something rather than nothing"
This is the problem with religious people - they think EVERYTHING should have an answer, and in the absence of one they think it's perfectly acceptable to insert god.
Don't have an answer? That's fine, 'god did it' - right!?
Some questions MUST be answered with an "I don't know (yet)" - and inserting god into the answer is called 'giving up'!
RKBall: "God actually stepped into time and space and played by the (moral and spiritual) rules that characterize our universe..."
I always get a laugh when christians talk about the jesus story like it's true in any way!
Hello!! It's a mythical story that defines YOUR religion - it's not some historical fact that everybody believes is true. In fact - common sense rules that it's NOT true and unless you can suspend reality ( like a good christian) you would laugh at such a story!
"However, the minute you try to stick that belief system down my throat... that is the day I and many others push you... to the ground and walk on by..."
Kursk: We discourage threats of violence on this site.
Kursk: You have self-identified as Astrological Sign: Pisces
Zodiac Year: Horse.
Do you have a rational justification for these beliefs?
"Hello!! It's a mythical story that defines YOUR religion - it's not some historical fact that everybody believes is true."
How do you know that it's mythical? Were you there to disprove it? Have you studied what secular historians believe and say about Jesus?
Or is all this just wishful thinking on your part?
//Whatever begins to exist has a cause//
This is rather curious wording, isn't it? It implies that there are two kinds of things: those that begin to exist, and those that do not.
I have to wonder, what falls into the category of things that do not begin to exist?
If God is the only answer to that question, then I can't help but ask: isn't this just question-begging?
"If God is the only answer to that question, then I can't help but ask: isn't this just question-begging?"
No, it is not. Because, at this point in the argument, we are simply making a statement from human experience. Things that come into existence, like a baby, or a song, or the noise of a big explosion, etc., invariably have a cause.
If you want to go the other way -- Everything that exists has a cause", you run into an even bigger problem -- an infinite series of cause-effects. An infinity with a starting point but no end is possible, but an actual infinity with no beginning is inconceivable. You will bust your brain trying to conceive of it.
That is why philosophers for thousands of years have posited the logical necessity of a First Cause, itself Uncaused. It's the way reality-as-we-know-it works.
A person can use the expression 'Causeless Causation' to identify two very opposite points of view. To an evolutionist it means that there is no 'cause' things just happen. To a Christian Yahweh is without cause for He is "I AM" and therefore is the Cause that brings causation.
RKBall: "How do you know that it's mythical?"
Because it fits the official definition of "myth". Go to www.m-w.com and look it up! It fits the definition to a TEE!
RKBall: "Were you there to disprove it?"
Irrelevant. I'm not there to "disprove" santa claus either but nobody is claiming santa claus is anything other than a myth.
In my 37 years of life, all of my scientific training, all of my everyday experiences, indicate that people don't die for several days and then come back to life. It's just NOT believable in the real world... it a myth.
RKBall: "Have you studied what secular historians believe and say about Jesus?"
Some... but who cares? That lots of people believe Xenu seeded the earth with humans doesn't make scientology true - there's always a sucker willing to believe anything (as religion in the world today clearly shows).
RKBall: "Or is all this just wishful thinking on your part?"
What is it with (some) christians that you think I would "wish" the jesus christ story wasn't true? Why would I "wish" that? It's like my lack of belief in god - it's not something I "wish" were true, it's simply where the evidence leads me!
I don't ~want~ the jesus christ story to be myth, that just happens to be what it is.
And as seems to be the method of RKBall - you have (once again) dismissed the body of my comment and focused on one statement at the end.... why is that? Because you agree with me or becuase (as I've suggested) you've got nothing?
Because it fits the official definition of "myth". Go to www.m-w.com and look it up! It fits the definition to a TEE!
**In fact, the resurrection of Christ does not fit mythological accounts for a number of historical reasons. I suggest you study what the historians say about it.
In my 37 years of life, all of my scientific training, all of my everyday experiences, indicate that people don't die for several days and then come back to life. It's just NOT believable in the real world... it a myth.
**Again, you need to study the resurrection as an historian. It may be unlikely, or improbable, but the historical evidence is that the disciples themselves needed to be convinced, and, once they were, they were unshakeable in their testimony that "God raised Christ from the dead" -- to the point of martyrdom.
**Besides, if atheists believe that a coherent, rational, ordered universe with morally aware conscious beings can just pop into existence out of nothing, why can't an already existing person come back to life? Wouldn't that be a lesser event?
RKBall: "Have you studied what secular historians believe and say about Jesus?"
Some... but who cares? That lots of people believe Xenu seeded the earth with humans doesn't make scientology true - there's always a sucker willing to believe anything (as religion in the world today clearly shows).
So -- the world's best and most eminent historians are merely suckers according to your worldview? If you don't believe historians, why do you believe scientists.
You owe it to yourself to read Gary Habermas or N.T. Wright on the resurrection before you dismiss it as myth.
RKBall: "Or is all this just wishful thinking on your part?"
What is it with (some) christians that you think I would "wish" the jesus christ story wasn't true? Why would I "wish" that? It's like my lack of belief in god - it's not something I "wish" were true, it's simply where the evidence leads me!
**Well, for one reason, he claims that God has committed all future judgment to himself, and he makes some pretty stringent demands on his followers and on mankind in general. It would be quite reasonable to earnestly hope that it was a myth.
I don't ~want~ the jesus christ story to be myth, that just happens to be what it is.
** How do you reach such epistemological certainty without even doing due diligence?
And as seems to be the method of RKBall - you have (once again) dismissed the body of my comment and focused on one statement at the end.... why is that? Because you agree with me or becuase (as I've suggested) you've got nothing?
Historical evidence, philosophical evidence, scientific evidence, and the witness of the human heart -- for meaning, significance, worth, value, immortality, etc., along with the witness of God in Scripture, all line up to point towards a theistic reality in general, and a Christian worldview in particular.
Of that I have no doubt.
RKBall: "the resurrection of Christ does not fit mythological accounts for a number of historical reasons"
Such as.....
"you need to study the resurrection as an historian"
No I don't. It's ridiculous in concept and not worthy of actual "study"... in the same way that the Xenu story scientologists believe isn't worthy of study.
RKBall: "but the historical evidence is that the disciples themselves needed to be convinced, and, once they were, they were unshakeable in their testimony that 'God raised Christ from the dead'"
Wow... really? You mean to say that your bible says that a bunch of goat herders 2000 years ago believed it enough to die for it?? Well, I take it back - it's totally believable now (roll eyes).
Come on! All your little story shows is that there were gullible people 2000 years ago - much like today.
" if atheists believe that a coherent, rational, ordered universe with morally aware conscious beings can just pop into existence out of nothing, why can't an already existing person come back to life?"
Hmmm... so much wrong with this statement!!
1. Atheists don't (necessarily) believe that we just "pop"ed into existance. Atheists just don't believe in god - that's the only requirement.
2. There is evidence (the big bang) for how the universe started, there is NONE for resurrection.
3. Why do you have to answer everything? It's perfectly acceptable to say 'I don't know (yet)' - not knowing the answer for something is no reason to insery god, since this just opens up more questions.
"the world's best and most eminent historians are merely suckers according to your worldview?"
No. Just the ones who think JC rose from the dead...
"If you don't believe historians, why do you believe scientists."
That's easy - science is peer-reviewed and always verifiable.... history - not so much.
"read Gary Habermas or N.T. Wright"
Yeah - like a couple of christians are going to be unbiased in their approach!
If these historians had anything new to say on the subject they would make the news - but instead the resurrection remains a myth.
"How do you reach such epistemological certainty without even doing due diligence?"
What makes you presume I haven't done "due diligence"?
I really see no need to believe something which not only has no evidence, but is also so ludicrous that it makes me laugh (water to wine, world-wide flood, resurrection). It's so UNBELIEVABLY unbelievable that I have a hard time understanding how it's got so many people suckered!
"Historical evidence, philosophical evidence, scientific evidence..."
Stop right there.... there is NO scientific evidence for god. NONE. You're living in a pipe dream thinking that there is.
And "historical evidence"?? That points to humans passing these same stories (varying a little, but almost always containing the same stuff) down for tens of thousands of years. Christianity is just another in a long line of human religions - used to explain the unexplainable, to comfort the human spirit.
Christianity is NO different than greek gods, egyptian gods, cave-man gods... no different - all wrong.
"...all line up to point towards a theistic reality in general, and a Christian worldview in particular."
It never ceases to amaze me the hubris of the thiests. Your religion "in particular" eh? Sure buddy, of course ~yours~ is the one TRUE religion (roll eyes).
"Of that I have no doubt."
Sadly I believe you.
RKBall: "the resurrection of Christ does not fit mythological accounts for a number of historical reasons"
Such as.....
* Too little time and geographical space between the alleged events and the first verifiable documentation of them -- see Gary Habermas
* Copious correspondences between details in NT accounts and historical/geographical/archeological information -- see N.T. Wright
etc.
"you need to study the resurrection as an historian"
Wow... really? You mean to say that your bible says that a bunch of goat herders 2000 years ago believed it enough to die for it?? Well, I take it back - it's totally believable now (roll eyes).
The idea that persons distant in time and place were less intelligent and more gullible is a fallacy, and, frankly, unkind. None of the witnesses were goat herders, but you wouldn't know that because you think the less you know about the historical situation the better.
" if atheists believe that a coherent, rational, ordered universe with morally aware conscious beings can just pop into existence out of nothing, why can't an already existing person come back to life?"
Hmmm... so much wrong with this statement!!
1. Atheists don't (necessarily) believe that we just "pop"ed into existance. Atheists just don't believe in god - that's the only requirement.
True.
2. There is evidence (the big bang) for how the universe started, there is NONE for resurrection.
Untrue. There is abundant historical evidence for the resurrection -- which you haven't bother to study. So, turn off your caps.
"the world's best and most eminent historians are merely suckers according to your worldview?"
No. Just the ones who think JC rose from the dead...
I didn't say that these historians believed that Christ rose from the dead -- but you wouldn't know that because you revel in your ignorance of historians' work.
"If you don't believe historians, why do you believe scientists."
That's easy - science is peer-reviewed and always verifiable.... history - not so much.
Much of what passes for science today is not, in fact, verifiable -- take a look at evolutionary psychiatry for example.
"read Gary Habermas or N.T. Wright"
Yeah - like a couple of christians are going to be unbiased in their approach!
Everyone has presuppositions and biases, no one disputes that. But, logic is still logic, and evidence is still evidence.
"How do you reach such epistemological certainty without even doing due diligence?"
What makes you presume I haven't done "due diligence"?
Because you admitted as much in a previous post.
I really see no need to believe something which not only has no evidence, but is also so ludicrous that it makes me laugh (water to wine, world-wide flood, resurrection). It's so UNBELIEVABLY unbelievable that I have a hard time understanding how it's got so many people suckered!
The fact that you find it unbelievable does not make it untrue. In fact, if your brain is undesigned, why should you have any confidence at all in it as a reliable processor of information? The only thing its wired for, according to darwinists, is brute survival -- not truth-detecting in matters of history, philosophy, etc.
"Historical evidence, philosophical evidence, scientific evidence..."
Stop right there.... there is NO scientific evidence for god. NONE. You're living in a pipe dream thinking that there is.
* Big-Bang
* "Laws" of Physics -- with "beautiful" mathematics
* Existence of immaterial numbers and mathematics
* DNA as encoded information
* Fine-tuned constants of the universe
* Beings with inbuilt, persistent moral sense and conscience
Man, atheistic scientists who discovered some of these things have shifted belief to theism because of these very findings -- where have you been?
And "historical evidence"?? That points to humans passing these same stories (varying a little, but almost always containing the same stuff) down for tens of thousands of years. Christianity is just another in a long line of human religions - used to explain the unexplainable, to comfort the human spirit.
Christianity discomforts as much, or more, as it comforts. The issue isn't comfort -- it is truth.
"...all line up to point towards a theistic reality in general, and a Christian worldview in particular."
It never ceases to amaze me the hubris of the thiests. Your religion "in particular" eh? Sure buddy, of course ~yours~ is the one TRUE religion (roll eyes).
I didn't say that my religion is the one true religion. I am saying that Jesus Christ is the true Lord, Savior, the divine Logos by which the world is created and is sustained.
I am more sure of Jesus Christ's existence than I am of my own.
But, then again, I'm just a stinky goat-herder.
"Too little time and geographical space..."
Both of the reasons you presented are not evidence that JC rose from the dead. And the second one is particularly pathetic - that the bible talks about (some) real places and real events does not make the entire book true (or believable). Harry Potter talks about the London train station - does that make Harry Potter real?
"The idea that persons distant in time and place were less intelligent and more gullible is a fallacy"
No it's not. People, 2000 years ago, thought the stars were holes in the firmament. They thought the sun revolved around the earth. They had no idea what caused lightening.
In short - they were ignorant. People of that time ~would~ in fact be much easier to fool... but that isn't the point - the point is that you could trot 1000 people into my front yard and have them all proclaim to have been abducted by aliens, and I still wouldn't believe them. Ratchet that number up to a million people and the believability of the story remains the same - namely unbelievable.
"There is abundant historical evidence for the resurrection..."
That NOBODY takes seriously!!
I don't know why you are pounding this point so hard... it's only the most FRINGE, utterly loony sects of the christian church that take that story literally! It's not a story that is even remotely believable.
"you revel in your ignorance.."
Oh the irony... it's laugh out loud funny!
"Much of what passes for science today is not, in fact, verifiable"
By definition they wouldn't be "science" then... Of course things like 'creation science' are not science, but nobody would claim it was.
"The fact that you find it unbelievable does not make it untrue"
I agree.
"In fact, if your brain is undesigned, why..."
Oh god, not that again. The brain IS undesigned!
"* Big-Bang"
Not evidence of god, just a decent theory/hypothesis for how the universe started.
"* "Laws" of Physics -- with "beautiful" mathematics"
Why should that require god?
"* Existence of immaterial numbers and mathematics"
Now you're not making sense...
"* DNA as encoded information"
Again - what god is needed?
"* Fine-tuned constants of the universe"
Yikes! Did you type this with a straight face?
You probably see a puddle on the ground and wonder about the marvelous god that created the hole in the precise way as to fit the water perfectly!! If I said no to that you'd say: 'but the water fits the hole perfectly! You can't think that's a coincidence!'
Of course the water in the hole is the way (shape/size) it is BECAUSE of the hole - not the other way around.
These "fine-tuned constants" you speak about aren't there for us - we're the way we are because of these constants. If they were different we would simply be different.
Seriously - this has been thoroughly debunked many many times. It's so trivial that I can't imagine an adult bringing it up
"* Beings with inbuilt, persistent moral sense and conscience"
You take all of these things and make them fit your beliefs - which is fine... but I don't see ONE SINLE thing there that implies a god.
"I didn't say that my religion is the one true religion. I am saying that Jesus Christ is the true Lord, Savior, the divine Logos by which the world is created and is sustained."
Oh - sorry. So it's not ~your~ brand of christianity, but it's still christianity. Same diff... christianity is the one TRUE religion then... whatever...
"I'm just a stinky goat-herder."
I seem to have struck a nerve... I don't have anything against goat herders - honestly!
//"If God is the only answer to that question, then I can't help but ask: isn't this just question-begging?"
No, it is not. Because, at this point in the argument, we are simply making a statement from human experience. Things that come into existence, like a baby, or a song, or the noise of a big explosion, etc., invariably have a cause.//
But what from human experience tells us that there are things with no beginning?
"But what from human experience tells us that there are things with no beginning?"
Nothing from direct observation. But reality may be greater than direct human experience. Unlike the reductionist scientific method, philosophical pursuit of reality does not limit itself to the sandbox of human experience -- and that is not a knock on science -- it is extremely good and valuable in its self-limited domain of materialistic cause-effect.
But, maybe universe is bigger than the domain of science. "I" think so -- and science has no adequate answer for the existence of an "I".
Thanks for the comment.
Okay. Thanks for taking (what I perceive to be) a fair bit of time and effort to answer the question. That tells me that you thought it a point worthy of consideration.
It seems clear to me that the Kalam Cosmological argument begs the question, but it seems equally clear to you that it doesn't. Perhaps you're as baffled by my position as I am by yours. I don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye (or is that I-to-I?) on this, but it's been fun!
Post a Comment