Abu Hamid Al Ghazali developed an argument in the 9th century against traditional Greek philosophy that the universe is necessary (eternal). The kalam cosmological argument began with the efforts of ancient Christian philosophers like John Philoponus of Alexandria to refute Aristotle's doctrine of the necessity of the universe. His argument is: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. the universe began to exist 3. the universe has a cause.
VigorousAtheist: You're #1 on that list has no basis in reality. There is no scientific explanation to how something "has a cause". Also, just because something has a cause, doesn't give you the right to plug in a "god" into the equation.
It's called the god of the gaps. It's where people like you find little unexplained mysteries in the universe and say "oh that HAS to be god".
Also, can you explain to me how god was created?
Response
you have objections to premise 1. (Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.) So in your experience, anything can exist without a cause? Can you name them? Despite common knowledge and scientific evidence that everything has a cause, you choose to believe that premise 1 has "no basis in reality"?
so you assume that atheism is true in that if atheism is true, then the universe has no explanation. The logical equivalent to that statement is if the universe has an explanation, then there is a God.
There are abstract objects and concrete objects. Abstract objects have no effect on other objects such as mathematical entities like numbers and number sets. Concrete objects can cause effects in the world.
The universe consists of all matter, energy, and time space reality. This is fact. It follows that if the universe has an explanation, then that cause must be an immaterial being outside of time/space reality. There are 2 entities that fit that bill: an abstract object like a number. But numbers do not cause anything. The only explanation is an eternal transcendent mind which is what God is.
Premise 1. says whatever begins to exist has a cause. God is eternal, outside of time and space, therefore has no cause.
Again, The big bang theory shows that the universe is expanding, therefore the universe had a beginning. And if the universe has a beginning, then the cause is God.
It's not logical to state that the universe came from nothing. Why would nothingness be so discriminatory? Why doesn't anything else come from nothing? In the video, it is explaining that even if you had all the necessary environmental factors for a living cell, a living cell would not assemble. That's a compelling argument for an intelligent designer--God.
When you come to this realization, we can go over how God has revealed himself in the Bible. God Bless!
VigorousAtheist:
Any supposed source of the universe would, by definition, be outside of space/time. This means that such a source, whatever it might be, is not a proper referent for the term "cause", since something must come *before* something else to be a cause of that something else. Put simply, causality is a time bound concept, so it cannot be applied outside of the universe. Thus, any question about the origin of the universe is not askable (the technical term is "nonsense'), much less answerable. Thus, you have not even asked a question, and in no way have you supported the idea of a deity.
Not having a cause does not require that something will remain random and acausal. It just describes that it starts that way, or rather that it's start is that way. You have no proof whatsoever that a GOD did this. You're only plugging a god into the equation.
You still have refused to answer the big question. If nothing can have a cause, or nothing can come from nothing, then WHERE DID GOD COME FROM.
"god is eternal, outside of time and space, therefor has no cause"
Wow. what a completely cowardly way out of the argument. If you can use this excuse for god, you can use the same excuse for the mysteries of the universe.
"if the universe has a beginning, then the cause is God"
Sorry but the OVERWHELMING majority of scientists believe this to be total nonsense. But i guess they're ALL wrong right?
"It's not logical to state that the universe came from nothing."
You really need to brush up on your scientific history. Not one modern scientist(who has any credibility) says that the universe came from nothing.
Bone up on your quantum physics, 'nothingness' does not exist in this universe, even space has a fabric. There's a good possibility that it cannot exist outside our universe. You are creating a god because of your anthropomorphic sense of incredulity. The universe and all the evidence it provides demonstrates that nature is perfectly capable of being self creating. snowflakes do not need a creator because they are the product of natural laws, so too is the universe.
And do you HONESTLY believe in the bible? You do know that the bible is FULL of fallacies right? Do i even have to list them right here?
You do know that the universe is BILLIONS of years old, which makes the story in the bible about creation impossible.
When are you going to open your eyes and realize that you were BRAINWASHED into believing a fairytale?
And what makes YOUR fairytale more likely or true than the THOUSANDS of others???
Response
Cause: 1. Noun A person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition. God fits this description.
What i stated made sense. Stick to the premises. You cannot refute any of them.
Premise 1: Whatever begins to exist, has a cause. We understand this to be true in every day life. Your lunch comes from some plant/animal, Cars are made from specific components, etc.
there are objects that exist necessarily, or have an uncaused existence, most notably, numbers. They're uncaused existence is part of their nature. We understand this to be true of God as well. He is eternal, always existed. However, numbers, ideas and other abstract objects cannot cause anything because that's what makes them abstract. So the most plausible explanation for the beginning of the universe is God.
Premise 2: The universe began to exist. We understand this to be true from the big bang theory and evidence that the universe is expanding. This is a scientific, observed fact.
If the universe began to exist (which is true), then,
Premise 3: The universe has a cause. Since the universe consists of all matter, energy, time and space, then the cause must be a necessary (eternal) immaterial being outside of time and space. We understand this to be God, who is necessary and uncaused.
VigorousAtheist
Wow. you must have completely not read my message.
I clearly proved to you that "cause" does not refer to the universe. And even if it did, you can't plug your god into the equation with no proof whatsoever.
"Whatever begins to exist, has a cause"
Yes, in our UNIVERSE. So whatever happened before the universe does not equate to what you are talking about.
I advise you to read this very carefully-
"An objection against the theist implication of the proposition is that even if one accepts the argument as a proof of a First Cause, it does not identify that First Cause with God. The argument does not go on to ascribe to the First Cause some of the basic attributes commonly associated with, for instance, a theistic God, such as immanence or omnibenevolence. Rather, it simply argues that a First Cause (e.g. the Big Bang, God, or an unarticulated First Cause) must exist.[16] It might be argued, however, that the Big Bang is not an acceptable first cause as the event clearly began and is quite finite. Hence the first premise in both formulations above seems to exclude this conclusion as a possibility. Furthermore, even if one chooses to accept God as the First Cause, there is an argument that God's continued interaction with the Universe is not required. This is the foundation for beliefs such as deism that accept that a god created the Universe, but then ceased to have any further interaction with it."
"We understand this to be true of God as well. He is eternal, always existed."
Yeah cause you read it in a book. Sorry but biblical "science" doesn't even hold a candle to real world science, which coincidentally disproves it.
And again, you're misconstruing what "exist" means. At least you got off of the bandwagon of "the universe came from nothing".
Listen to what you're saying. Your trying to find mysteries in the universe(to only fail) and then stepping back and saying that god himself doesn't need an explanation. It's an extremely childish argument.
You have refused to address my other points like the fact that the bible is FULL of fallacies, lies, murder, rape, etc etc. Or the fact that 93% of scientists don't believe in god. Or the fact that atheists have a higher average IQ than religious fanatics. Doesn't that last one tell you something? Doesn't that show how brainwashed you truly are?
Response
So you're saying that only things within the universe can be caused. This is a logical fallacy in which you use certain laws of metaphysics for the universe but then change views to object to any causality of the universe. Premise 1 is not only a law of nature like gravity that only applies to the universe, but it is a metaphysical law that applies to all being, all reality.
You use this same logical fallacy in your objection to the Bible. You say that the Bible cannot be true because it speaks of violence, rape and murder, yet you object to any evidence I bring up from the Bible. You are not being logically consistent.
I brought up the fact that the universe cannot come from nothing because that is effectively what you're saying if the universe has no causality which is absurd.
You cannot get away from these premises. The more you try, it shows that you are simply deluding yourself from the truth. Albert Camus, Bertrand Russell, Nietzsche, and Sartre have also stated life is absurd if there is no God. Sartre has no basis making marxism his purpose in life because it's not consistent with the idea that there is no purpose without God. It's self delusional.
There will always be atheists and I cannot convince anyone to come to any spiritual understanding. Paul, guided by the Holy Spirit puts it well when he says, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned." It doesn't matter how much evidence one can present, personal knowledge of God is God given. I still pray Anthony Flew, who now recognizes there is a God, to come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. I will pray for you too.
Take care.
When I find that a person is running from a straight forward argument it's obvious they are not interested in genuine dialogue. They are arguing for the sake of arguing and it's at this point I can shake the dust off and move on. One day, we will all stand before our creator and take an account for our response to how God has revealed himself. Many will have no excuse for rejecting Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment