Beginning Of The Universe Evidence Of God's Existence

[R. S. Martin]

OK, but can you actually divide up one hour into infinite parts? I am not talking theoretically, but actually. That is the rub. It is all fine on paper, it is when you try to actually apply the concept to the real world that you run into trouble.

 

I'm not sure that I should be responding to this post...I barely understand these very abstract concepts but that is exactly the basis on which I feel driven to respond. All of this post is so very abstract that one is hard pressed to see how any of it relates to the real world as it is experienced in everyday life by human beings. Now suddenly, when the atheist's ideas don't agree with the Christian's ideas, the Christian pulls out the argument that: Wait a minute--this doesn't work in real life.

 

LNC, please don't take this as an assault on your personal character. Perhaps I have been around for too long. I have seen, without exception, that evangelical scholars resort to lies when necessary to make their arguments. They use deceptive and misleading statements and hide in the footnotes, etc. The topic of this post is so complex that I would not know it if you "led me around the light."

 

So I am asking the atheists on here whether this is an "evangelical dodge" or whether this is a legitimate argument that LNC is bringing against Asimov here. I hope it is okay raising this issue.

[R. S. Martin]

I see Asimov posted while I was writing. Maybe he dealed with the issue. I haven't read his post yet.

[R. S. Martin]

Must the Beginning of the Universe Have a Personal Cause?: A Rejoinder, by William Lane Craig

That link was posted on his forums in a similar discussion to this one. I'm posting it here in case anyone in interested in a deeper understanding of Craig's view of God.

[Jeff H]

As this whole discussion about infinite time is getting rather tedious for me to read, I'd like to put in my two cents

 

Yet, you still have to show that it is possible in the actual physical world and that is your problem in two aspects. First, it presents a logical problem which you have not even attempted to answer; and second, you have no empirical evidence that any such infinite actually exists in the real world. I would assume that you are an empiricist and would require such evidence before latching onto such a problematic explanation.

...

I mean to Get from point A to point B. One cannot cross, bridge, or span an infinite amount of moments, minutes, hours, etc. Yet, here we are at today...

...

What is today? I have arrived here even though there is supposedly and infinite amount of time prior to today.

...

But to be an infinite set you would have to assume that the future part of the set is real now, otherwise it is not an infinite set. It is like having a one ended stick, it is not possible. IOW, we are at a finite terminus now, but supposedly there is no terminus at the other end. That is like a one ended stick.

...

OK, but can you actually divide up one hour into infinite parts? I am not talking theoretically, but actually. That is the rub. It is all fine on paper, it is when you try to actually apply the concept to the real world that you run into trouble.

...

Right, we now you are getting the argument. We haven’t crossed an infinite time, but we should have it time in past infinite. Get it? The only way that time could be infinite is if all future time was real at this moment, which defies logic and intuition. We are at a finite point now, which indicates that the other end is finite also. I am making sense, and now you are apparently seeing the implications. You cannot just pretend that time goes to infinity in the future, to time to truly be infinite, it must be infinite now. You start getting into the problem of non-tensed time.

You state that it is a problem expressing infinity in the "real world". You also ask whether it is possible to divide an hour into infinite parts. This reminded me of a classic thought experiment that Zeno, an ancient Greek philosopher, came up with. I guess it's not technically "real world" since it is a thought experiment, but it is at least more concrete than time.

 

Zeno talks about distance, instead. He tells a story about a tortoise racing against Achilles, but the details aren't important. What he mentions, essentially, is that in order to cross a distance, you must cross half that distance. And in order to cross that half-distance, you must cross half of that half-distance. And so on. To cross a distance of 10 feet, you first have to cross 5 feet, but first you must cross 2.5 feet, but you must first cross 1.25 feet....and so on. To infinity. You can indeed always divide these distances in half. Eventually you would be dealing with microscopic distances, but you could still do it. And yet, we still have no problem walking across a room. This an instance where an infinite set is easily traversable.

 

Moving it back to time, we can see that in order to go through an hour of time, we must first go through half an hour....but before that, a quarter of an hour...but before that, an eighth of an hour....etc. And yet, I don't think you had much difficulty doing that in the past hour. The infinite set is traversable, making it logically possible.

 

In terms of extending this out to an infinite time in general, we could say that we "start" at ∞. After one unit of time (take your pick...days, hours, minutes, whatever), we would be at ∞ - 1. The next unit would bring us to ∞ - 2, then ∞ - 3, and so on. These are real numbers with a real value, although in the abstract mathematical form they appear to be somewhat meaningless. However, they do correspond to a specific point of time, and therefore are translatable into reality. Eventually, if you kept subtracting numbers, you would reach ∞ - ∞, which of course is 0. The point is that it sounds abstract, but it is no different than any other measurement which has divisible units.

[Asimov]

I would also like to point out that William Lane Craig argues using Cantorian Set Theory, which of course was set up to correspond to reality and make sense of how infinities correspond to reality.

 

LNC brought up some supposed paradoxes:

 

For example when dealing with infinities, it is possible for a part of the collection to equal the whole collection. Or, if you subtracted all the odd numbers of an infinite set you still end up with an infinite set. These are just some of the logical paradoxes in dealing with set theory. Now, the next problem for an empiricist is that we have never seen a physical infinite in reality.

 

A part of a collection is equal to the whole collection in an infinite set. Not a paradox. Why? The set of all natural numbers is a superset of the set of all odd numbers. The two sets have the same cardinality (size), one is just a superset of the other. In that sense, the set of all natural numbers is "more" than the set of all odd numbers, being that the set of odd numbers is contained within the set of all natural numbers.

 

Same goes for subtraction and adding. Subtracting from an infinite set creates a subset of it. Adding to a set creates a superset.

 

I must also point out that LNC is arguing for God's existence, in which God is a being with infinite properties, who supposedly is able to surpass LNC's issues of an actual infinity.

 

If we look at God as a being with infinite properties such as omnipotence, in which God can do anything logically possible, God could create one world. He could create two worlds. The set of the number of possible worlds that God could create is infinite, yet LNC doesn't appear to notice that while he's trying to point out issues with a naturalistic universe in which a God does not exist and infinities are possible, he's pleading that we accept God as an actual infinite thus contradicting his very argument.

[Asimov]

So I am asking the atheists on here whether this is an "evangelical dodge" or whether this is a legitimate argument that LNC is bringing against Asimov here. I hope it is okay raising this issue.

 

It's not a dodge, but that's not really the point. William Craig argues that an actual infinite is impossible, I argue that they are possible. LNC is arguing in lieu of Craig and presumably using his argumentative techniques.

 

Bringing up whether or not we've seen an actual infinity is an irrelevant red herring since we are only arguing for possibilities. If I wanted to argue the same way, I would ask LNC to produce God empirically.

[R. S. Martin]

I always get extremely uncomfortable when people get this precise and technical in describing God. I get uncomfortable as in "you can't possibly know this stuff about another entity outside your own self, and therefore your description is highly unlikely to be true." I was taught to revere God as the most powerful, most benevolent, and most knowing being in existence. When Christians then undertake to describe every aspect and attribute of God as though writing a computer science course, I feel like this wonderful God whom Paul Tillich called the Ground of Being is reduced to a philosophical concept made to serve the purpose of some human philosophical or theological battle. To me, this comes across as sacrilege of the most vile sort possible, especially since it is done by Christians in the name of God.

 

I would just like to see some evidence that this God exists.

 

I don’t believe that finite beings will ever be able to fully describe an infinite being, it seems impossible to me. However, God has described and revealed aspects of Himself in the Bible, so I believe that we can know meaning aspects about God.

 

Yes, if it really is God whom we can see in nature and in scripture, etc., then it would seem that God had sufficiently revealed himself and that each individual must experience God for him or herself just as we do other persons. Let's bring this to a more personal level. I have over the course of a few weeks had some interaction with you on the internet. I could write a detailed profile of your personality, your thought structure, your internet habits and behaviour as I experienced it. And that is what it would be--my experience.

 

But doing this is totally inappropriate. It is a serious violation of your privacy, your personal space, and your right to be a person in your own right. Yet that's only the beginning of the problem.

 

It also takes away the right of other forum members to experience you naturally. It obligates them to deal with MY prejudices and judgments of you. They have a right to see you for who you are and to interact with you as a person in your own right. They have a right to get to know you bit by bit as it suits their own unique personalities, backgrounds, life experiences, etc.

 

If this applies to a human being, how much more so to the Ruler and Creator of the universe?

 

I don’t know that I have ever said, or hopefully even insinuated that I could explain God exhaustively.

 

Even if I wrote out the kind of profile about you that I mentioned above, I would not have done an exhaustive profile of what I might be able to do. I might also be able to speculate on your Myers-Briggs Personality Type, your up-bringing... You get the picture. A human being is such a complex being that writing exhaustively on a mere mortal is a major task. And it is a serious violation of rights for all parties involved. Again, if this applies to a mere mortal, how much more so to the Ruler and Creator of the universe?

 

Add to this that, according to religious teaching, each individual human being is supposed to have a more intimate relationship with this God than with their closest human counterpart. We're talking about seriously personal stuff. How is a detailed description of God and attributes not a violation of personal rights for all involved?

 

As stated, it seems like sacrilege of the vilest sort. Yet theologians have engaged in this kind of things for many centuries. It just seems so utterly WRONG.

 

On to Tillich.

 

Tillich was a gifted preacher and survived many difficult times in coming from Nazi Germany; however, where I would differ with him is in his perspective. He took a very existential perspective of man somehow trying to work his way to God. Man is not sinful and separated from God as the Bible would describe, but inherently good, but merely flawed and off course. God, to Tillich was not a personal being, as the Bible describes, but being itself.

 

Tillich's theology is biblically sound according to Jesus' and Paul's teachings. The conclusion that humans are inherently good coming from a man who escaped Nazi Germany is a mighty strong testimony, don't you think? I have done a lot of reading and thinking about what makes people the way they are. It has been proven that when all the dysfunctional behaviour is healed and removed humans are good. If humans are not subjected to these damaging influences in the first place, but are instead put under healthy and mature guidance adapted to their specific emotional and behavioral needs, they will grow into well-adjusted adults by about age 25. This proves to me that humans are inherently good.

 

Regarding your last sentence, that is what we are here to discuss. One evidence that is being debated is the Kalam Cosmological argument. A second argument would be the argument from design. A third would be the moral argument. There are others, but consider these first.

 

I know full well what we are here to discuss, given that I started this thread and later arranged for you to join us....I looked at your links. There is no name of author for the links on the Kalam and moral arguments. The design argument is a long convoluted philosophical article. I was taught that Christianity is a religion appropriate for uneducated slaves and children. I think we should not need many years of sophisticated education in order to understand Christianity. All the same, I have done a degree in theology. I have done a batch of courses in anthropology. I have sat under forty years of sermons.

 

I have read the Bible. I lived on the farm all my life--until I moved to the city a few years ago. I lived out of the garden for 45 years. I know all about nature and growing things. I probably knew how seed turned into dinner before I was six years old and definitely before I knew about things called evolution. I don't know why but it never ever made any sense to me that nature was evidence of God. Never.

 

I understood the seasons. There are four of them here in Southern Ontario where I have lived all my life. The seasons are marked by: clothing, food, weather, activities. That's the way it was for us who lived next to the soil. The human connection with the cycle of life itself is so fundamental that I must have understood it even as a little child. Life could be experienced with the senses day by day with the passing seasons. It was the subject of daily conversation. And then they told me that this is evidence of God's existence.

 

In my mind there has always, since childhood, been an automatic disjunction. I don't know why. Possibly because the connection with life is more basic and more logical and fundamental. When the snow goes away in spring one can hear the melt water trickling away into the life-giving earth. Maple syrup in the bush and maple sugar and taffy in the house, not to mention home-made donuts and maple syrup. As the days grow warmer one see the buds grow fatter on the trees, and then smells the new green grass growing again, then the profusion of spring flowers with smell and sight. And the lovely warm breeze and sun on the skin. Dandelions are among the greens that push up through the newly awakened earth and make for delightful dishes. Each month brings its own special dishes, along with its unique weather and agricultural activities. Needless to say, each plant, crop, and activity has its own smell.

 

When the height of summer is barely passed the plow is pulled out and the folding down for winter begins. Winter wheat is planted. Later crops are brought in. September comes around with danger of killing frost. One lives with the nose to the wind. No tv, no radio, and mostly not even a newspaper. Just instinct and common sense. Maybe someone heard that someone said that the forecast was for frost so that means we bring in the pumpkins before we sleep tonight. The smell of fall is heavy with old leaves and mature plants. Everything is ready to go to sleep for another year. Nature is tired and has done its duty for another year. So are we. We have worked long and hard and look forward to cozy winter evenings in the house. The sky itself looks different from what it did in the spring because of the slant of the light.

 

And then November comes and some days the snow flies. Christmas comes and all the buildings have been winterized; storm windows have been put up, loose shingles tacked down, and doors fixed for the winter storms. Fresh snow has its own special smell. In the early morning when it is still too dark to see, even when the cold pinches my nose, I have been surprised to "just know" that we've got a new blanket of light new snow. I'd pull a hand out of a mitt and check and sure enough we'd gotten a layer of light new snow. It really does have its own special smell.

 

To see the earth blanketed with several feet of pure white snow "feels" so right. It's a holiday from the hectic summer schedule. It's also a fight for survival. Somehow, there is a satisfaction to experience the raw human will to survive pitted against the elements of the universe. Last winter I found myself stranded at a bus stop in a blizzard for twenty minutes. I forget the details. I keep forgetting about the incident. But often, when I pass that specific bus stop something inside of me nudges my memory: DANGER.

 

Then I search my memory to figure out why I get that feeling. And I remember that oh yeah, that was where I was stranded in the storm. But it was only 20 minutes; how come it seemed like forever? I think the fact that it hits me this strongly so many months later is evidence on what level of physical survival I had been threatened...

 

Now the memories return. I had actually found myself somewhat disoriented. I had wanted to find a faster way out of the storm, rather than wait for the next bus. So I had started walking. In the process I had found myself in the middle of the street or somewhere that I had not intended to be. When I realized that I was disoriented I knew I had to stay put for my own safety and wait for the next bus. There was a bus shelter to break the wind but no heat. It was my best bet and I live to tell the story.

 

I think this shows how humans are part of the cycle of life on the most elementary level--life-giving new sap and plants in spring and elemental struggle for survival in winter. I see no reason to worship it. But experience it, enjoy it, and respect it. In fact, for myself, to worship it would be to remove myself from it. I am part of it and must take my place responsibly.

 

I see no evidence for God in any of this. So much for the argument from design.

 

As for the argument from morals. As already argued, humans cannot be proved to be inherently evil. The Bible itself talks about natural affection and law written on the heart. Thus, even the Bible testifies of the natural goodness of the human being, if we look for it. Of course, the Bible is so internally inconsistent and contradictory that we can make it say whatever we want it to say. Here I wrote several entries on morals. The entry of Sept. 12 appeared first on Richard's working view of morals on WLC forums. No one--Christian or otherwise--has yet told me how I should improve that post so I suppose my moral standards must be pretty good. Either that, or no one has seen it.

 

I did read somewhere that some Christians think it is because of God's existence that atheists are moral. All one can do with arguments like that is shrug. That kind of argument is not based on reason or experiment but on wishful thinking and self-gratification. In other words, these Christians find it gratifying to believe that their religion is so all-encompassing that the universe itself would collapse if their own religion did not exist. Air can be proven to exist by creating environments without air. No environment can be created without the Christian God if the Christian God is as all-encompassing as this belief holds. Because it is unfalsifiable (to qualify for a scientific hypothesis a concept must be falsifiable; it must be possible to prove it wrong) it is merely a belief.

[R. S. Martin]

So I am asking the atheists on here whether this is an "evangelical dodge" or whether this is a legitimate argument that LNC is bringing against Asimov here. I hope it is okay raising this issue.

 

It's not a dodge, but that's not really the point. William Craig argues that an actual infinite is impossible, I argue that they are possible. LNC is arguing in lieu of Craig and presumably using his argumentative techniques.

 

Bringing up whether or not we've seen an actual infinity is an irrelevant red herring since we are only arguing for possibilities. If I wanted to argue the same way, I would ask LNC to produce God empirically.

 

 

Thank you. That answers my question.

[Ouroboros]

I don’t argue that God used a proxy, I believe that he did it directly.

So the Kalam argument is based on what you believe? That's very precise and logical.

 

In fact, I don’t believe anything existed other than God until the creation of the universe. To argue that God used proxies is again is not the most parsimonious explanation, nor is it necessary that God used a proxy. For what reason and by what evidence would you argue that God used a proxy? How does that help your argument or hurt mine?

The Kalam argument is based on the assumption that God exists, and he didn't use a proxy, even before the argument try to make it's conclusion. That's not syllogism.

 

I am not sure what your reasoning is for going down this road. Tell me why your other explanations would have higher or even equal probability to the explanation that God created the universe. What are your explanations? Multiplying gods does not equate to a better explanation, but in fact, a more difficult explanation as it fails Occam’s razor.

Not at all. Everything I've learned so far about science and physics would be better explained with infinite regressions.

 

How is a quantum event a better explanation? Doe you have evidence that a quantum event can survive more than a fraction of a second?

Huh? I don't think you know what quantum events are.

 

Do you have evidence that a quantum event can occur sans matter and energy?

Matter and energy do appear randomly for very short times, yes. And quantum events are not causal, even though they're deterministic in a sense of probability, they're not caused.

 

I have not seen any evidence of either, so I don’t see that as being a better explanation, but rather, it still fails the test of 2LOT and the weak energy condition problem previously discussed.

So you're saying that science is wrong, because you're basing your argument on a few laws in science? Read up on Schroedinger's Cat and the Heisenberg's Uncertainty.

 

From where do you believe the energy and matter came for this quantum event?

What I'm expressing are the things I've learned by reading scientific books and magazines. So I'm pretty much repeating the things I've learned from the scientific community.

 

The best causal explanation for why the singularity began its expansion, is (IIRC) a quantum event.

 

Another problem with your theory is the orderly progression that we see in the early universe. Physicist Paul Davies says of this, "If new organizational levels just pop into existence for no reason, why do we see such an orderly progression in the universe from featureless origin to rich diversity?" He goes on to say it shows "powerful evidence that there is 'something going on' behind it all." (from The Cosmic Blueprint New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability to Order the Universe)

Yet it does. Search for Vacuum Energy.

 

Right, I already posted that my terminology was not very precise. Thanks for pointing that out again. Actually, what really is happening is that wills the universe into existence coinciding with his act of creating space and time. God’s omniscience does not know the limits of space and time, so he knows all unbounded by space and time. I would argue that God knows everything that happens in space and time even when space and time are not existent. To say that God will create the universe in the future when it and time do not exist is an illogical and false statement, since time does not exist. So, my language and my thinking later last evening were not an accurate reflection of what I believe reality to be. If God exists outside of space and time as many believe, there are no future and past events. If God exists within space and time when the universe is created, then at that point, on only then are there future and past events.

Boy, you really don't see it. You keep on using verbs on God's nature, and you can't. Every verb IS by its pure nature of being a VERB, something that require, demands, necessitate, and demands TIME. You can't make a creature/being/object/thingy that can act while not acting on a time. You just can't. It doesn't matter how much you spin your God, but he is either in stasis, or he is bound by causality like us.

 

You say you would "argue" that God "knows" everything that happens in space and time, but so far I don't see any argument that can show that. First of all you are forced to prove that actions can be done without the concept of time.

[Ouroboros]

I have not defined God as non-temporal. I have also said that when God wills the universe into existence, that time also come into existence simultaneously. Also, you have to show me your reasoning as to why has to be time-bound in order to act. Some philosophers even discuss a separate type of metaphysical time that exists prior to cosmic time.

Sigh. Metaphysical time is a framework of time. Granted it's not the same time line as ours, but it is a time. And that's exactly what I'm getting at. Thank you. You finally admit that God exists within his own time-system. I doubt there are any philosopher that argue that acts can be done without a time system.

 

Speaking of Philosophy, maybe you should read about the arguments AGAINST the Kalam and Cosmological argument in the Philosophy dictionaries? I look it up in four different dictionaries, and three of them critique the Kalam. And even one of my books for introduction in Logic even use formal logic to prove it's wrong. So maybe you should pick up those books instead? Just a suggestion.

 

Again, I have not come to any conclusions on that topic; however, tell me your reasoning as to why God could not act without actually becoming time-bound. You have said it but never told me why that is the case; and I know of plenty of philosophers who would beg to differ with you. So, please tell me your reasoning.

Can you open your mouth, in zero seconds? Can you think a million thoughts before a Planck Time has expired? Can you life your hand without time goes by? Every act is by experience and definition based on a "Before-and-after." Think about this. Before God created the Universe, there were no Universe. Then God Created the Universe. Do you see those two phrases? Before, and Then are keywords showing a temporal sequence of events. If God is non-temporal, even in his own sphere of existence, there never were "Before the Universe." The Universe must have existed for ever.

 

The only way to explain God as an acting God, is to give him his own time line. But then, unfortunately, he becomes bound by causality, and ... sorry to say, he must also be placed in the argument that "A God Created God."

 

There is no person by the name of Kalam. I never said that everything that Plato and Aristotle taught or believed was heresy, just that the concept of multiple gods is heresy.

Okay. But the Kalam, Cosmological, First Cause, Unmovable Mover,... all these arguments... NONE in the Bible. NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM!!! All of them are un-biblical.

 

Why do you say that the OT and NT teaching is far from Kalam? The Bible clearly teaches that the universe came into existence in the finite past and that God created the universe out of nothing. However, I never said that Craig bases Kalam from the Bible; I am not sure from where you came up with that claim.

It does not teach that God is without time. It does teach that God can change. It does teach that God can be angry and regret his actions. It does teach that he told the oceans to create life in them, and not himself. You want me to go on?

 

Does it matter from where the Kalam argument comes? Actually, it is rooted in philosophy and Aquinas first popularized the argument. The Kalam version also comes from Islamic thinkers, so it is not even a Christian version of the argument. However, I don’t know why its origin somehow invalidates the use of the argument. That is what is known as the genetic fallacy.

*sigh* I didn't say that. I didn't say the origin invalidated the argument.

[Ouroboros]

In other words, he's attempting to prove that -∞ is a number.

[Ouroboros]

It's not a dodge, but that's not really the point. William Craig argues that an actual infinite is impossible, I argue that they are possible. LNC is arguing in lieu of Craig and presumably using his argumentative techniques.

Doesn't WC however argue that an infinite future is possible? In other words, actual infinite is fine, as long as it fits a persons belief?

[Asimov]

It's not a dodge, but that's not really the point. William Craig argues that an actual infinite is impossible, I argue that they are possible. LNC is arguing in lieu of Craig and presumably using his argumentative techniques.

Doesn't WC however argue that an infinite future is possible? In other words, actual infinite is fine, as long as it fits a persons belief?

 

Not as far as I know. If a set has a beginning, it's not an infinite set.

[LNC]

OK, so obviously we have generated a lot of discussion around the topic and that is good and exciting. The bad news is that I won't be able to answer each of you individually as I have a full time job, a family, school, and other responsibilities to attend to. So, at some point, I will try to post a summary post to address as many of the issues as possible. Not the best arrangement, but unless someone is willing to replace my income so that I can spend the day addressing each issue individually, it won't be necessary. I don't have the luxury of infinite time after all! I may not be able to post again until tomorrow or sometime during the weekend.

[LNC]

OK, so obviously we have generated a lot of discussion around the topic and that is good and exciting. The bad news is that I won't be able to answer each of you individually as I have a full time job, a family, school, and other responsibilities to attend to. So, at some point, I will try to post a summary post to address as many of the issues as possible. Not the best arrangement, but unless someone is willing to replace my income so that I can spend the day addressing each issue individually, it won't be necessary. I don't have the luxury of infinite time after all! I may not be able to post again until tomorrow or sometime during the weekend.

 

Sorry, I meant it won't be possible, not necessary.

[Ouroboros]

OK, so obviously we have generated a lot of discussion around the topic and that is good and exciting. The bad news is that I won't be able to answer each of you individually as I have a full time job, a family, school, and other responsibilities to attend to. So, at some point, I will try to post a summary post to address as many of the issues as possible. Not the best arrangement, but unless someone is willing to replace my income so that I can spend the day addressing each issue individually, it won't be necessary. I don't have the luxury of infinite time after all! I may not be able to post again until tomorrow or sometime during the weekend.

Finally something we DO share!

 

To give you a background, how my life looks like: I got five kids, 3 still living home, one of them paraplegic and has been going in and out of hospital for the last 7 months (or so). On top of that I have a part-time job, and go to school part-time. Besides that, my girls go to a weekend acting school, and have auditions every second weekend. So one explanation to why we might not really understand each other, could be that I don't have enough time to spend on writing a well organized paragraph to convey my thoughts, or to pull up the research, articles, books etc, where I got most of my thoughts and ideas from. Many of the things I talk about are based on (or summarized) from things I've read or studied. I suggest you just go to the Library and look for the MacMillan's Dictionary of Philosophy (if I remember the title right), which is the most comprehensive set of books about philosophy (and yes, W. Craig is in there, I think it's the same William at least), and look for the Cosmological Argument and see if they're completely off in their criticism of it (a bit different than my critique, but still a valid, philosophical, logical critique). (If the set wasn't so darn expensive, and if I had space, I'd get a set of my own.)

 

--

 

Correction: MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

[Ouroboros]

Not as far as I know. If a set has a beginning, it's not an infinite set.

Are you sure about that? I thought the set of prime numbers was considered an infinite set.

 

And I do think W. Craig makes an argument for infinite future, but I could be wrong.

[Asimov]

Not as far as I know. If a set has a beginning, it's not an infinite set.

Are you sure about that? I thought the set of prime numbers was considered an infinite set.

 

And I do think W. Craig makes an argument for infinite future, but I could be wrong.

 

Oops, you're right! The set of prime numbers is a subset of all natural numbers, and the set of prime numbers is infinite...so you're right.

 

[Ouroboros]

Oops, you're right! The set of prime numbers is a subset of all natural numbers, and the set of prime numbers is infinite...so you're right.

That's alright... I'm a master of making bloopers like that.

[LNC]

I am making two posts in response to all the posts since my last. Sorry for the delay, life is pressing in from all sides. RSM, since your posts were of a different nature from the others, I thought I would split yours out separately.

 

LNC, please don't take this as an assault on your personal character. Perhaps I have been around for too long. I have seen, without exception, that evangelical scholars resort to lies when necessary to make their arguments. They use deceptive and misleading statements and hide in the footnotes, etc. The topic of this post is so complex that I would not know it if you "led me around the light."

 

I am not claiming all knowledge or infallibility, that is why we should test ideas, whether they come from a theist or an atheist to see whether they correspond to reality and are coherent, as just two of a number of tests of truth. That is the purpose of this exchange. I am curious as to whom you are referring when you say that Evangelicals resort to lies to make their arguments.

 

However, overall I am very encouraged by the tone of the exchange that we are having. It has been very civil and though provoking. I have been in too many exchanges that devolved into ad hominem and rancor on both sides of the discussion.

 

It also takes away the right of other forum members to experience you naturally. It obligates them to deal with MY prejudices and judgments of you. They have a right to see you for who you are and to interact with you as a person in your own right. They have a right to get to know you bit by bit as it suits their own unique personalities, backgrounds, life experiences, etc.

 

If this applies to a human being, how much more so to the Ruler and Creator of the universe?

 

The only problem with this analogy is that God, through the prophets of old and through Jesus Christ revealed himself to us. If the Scriptures are historically accurate, and I have no reason to doubt that they are not, then we have God’s revelation of himself to humankind. That is not the same as someone projecting what we believe God to be like from our interactions and dealings with him.

 

Tillich's theology is biblically sound according to Jesus' and Paul's teachings. The conclusion that humans are inherently good coming from a man who escaped Nazi Germany is a mighty strong testimony, don't you think? I have done a lot of reading and thinking about what makes people the way they are. It has been proven that when all the dysfunctional behaviour is healed and removed humans are good. If humans are not subjected to these damaging influences in the first place, but are instead put under healthy and mature guidance adapted to their specific emotional and behavioral needs, they will grow into well-adjusted adults by about age 25. This proves to me that humans are inherently good.

 

I would disagree that Tillich’s theology is Biblically sound as it is contradictory to clear teaching in the Bible. As you say, Tillich saw people as inherently good; however, the Apostle Paul and others saw the opposite. Paul in Romans 5 tells us that we have inherited a sin nature from Adam that has affected every person since then. It is not that we always do bad things; however, we cannot ultimately resist from doing bad things. Paul also tells us in Ephesians 2 that we are dead (in relationship to God) in our trespasses and sins. However, God didn’t leave us there, in vs. 4 Paul tells us, “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved”. So, by sending Jesus Christ to die for our sins, God has made a way to reconnect us to himself and deal with our sin problem. In the OT, Jeremiah speaks of the heart being desperately wicked and deceitful above all things (Jer. 17:9)

 

I see no evidence for God in any of this. So much for the argument from design.

 

That is cool that you grew up on a farm in Canada. My pastor for nearly 20 years grew up in Calgary on a farm. In fact, his parents lived there, to over 100 years of age, on that same farm. He used to ride the tractor memorizing Scripture and trying to preach like Billy Graham (and he does a great imitation). His name is Erwin Lutzer, and he has been pastor of Moody Church in Chicago for nearly 25 years. It is funny, the two of you come from similar backgrounds, yet have completely different conclusions about God and his design.

 

As for the argument from morals…

 

As I mentioned earlier, the Bible does not speak of man as inherently good. Yes, man has God’s law written on our hearts, and we rebel against it constantly, and that includes Christians. As for your discussion about the supposed inconsistencies of the Bible, those have been addressed and answered for many years. In regard to your exchange on morals, I would also have a number of problems with Richard’s argument, and I am not sure to which of your posts you are referring. So, I don’t know that commenting on that exchange would be fruitful. If you would like to be specific as to what you are referring, I would be glad to interact with you on it.

 

I did read somewhere that some Christians think it is because of God's existence that atheists are moral.

 

This may be a misunderstanding of the argument. The argument is that without God, objective moral values cannot exist. That premise has been agreed to by atheists on WLC’s website. If you don’t agree, maybe you could explain to me how objective morals could exist apart from God’s existence.

[LNC]

Showing you that there are no issues with an infinity as it relates to reality is showing you that infinities exist. If time is infinite, then infinities exist. Your point is moot, anyways, since I don't have to show that an infinity exists in order to refute your claims that they can't.

 

Right, that would be one way of proving that actual infinites could exist in the physical world, but since we have no examples of such, that is ruled out. You have not proved that time is infinite, so again, you haven’t proven that infinites exist within time and space. So, you have not refuted my claim at all. To show that an infinite can exist in theory is not the same as to show that it can be instantiated within space and time.

 

We aren't at a finite terminus now, the stick hasn't ended.

 

Really, does that mean that future time is actualized now? If not, we are at a finite point and any future time is merely potential, not actualized. So, yes, each moment of our existence is just one more temporal point, not an infinite point.

 

I can't actually build a telescope that is so powerful it can see 78 trillion light years from here, that doesn't mean that 78 trillion light years from here doesn't actually exist.

 

And it doesn’t mean that it does either. So we don’t build models assuming that it does unless we have good reason to believe such.

 

A part of a collection is equal to the whole collection in an infinite set. Not a paradox. Why? The set of all natural numbers is a superset of the set of all odd numbers. The two sets have the same cardinality (size), one is just a superset of the other. In that sense, the set of all natural numbers is "more" than the set of all odd numbers, being that the set of odd numbers is contained within the set of all natural numbers.

 

Same goes for subtraction and adding. Subtracting from an infinite set creates a subset of it. Adding to a set creates a superset.

 

Whether you have a subset of an infinite or a superset of an infinite you still have the same amount, an infinite. That is the paradox. Subtract all odd numbers from an infinite set and you still have an infinite set. Add even numbers to an infinite set and you still have an infinite set. That is the logical paradox.

 

I must also point out that LNC is arguing for God's existence, in which God is a being with infinite properties, who supposedly is able to surpass LNC's issues of an actual infinity.

 

Here is what is called a category error. As you might realize from my comments, I am speaking about an actual physical infinite within space and time. God is not physical, therefore he does not face the limits of time or contingency. IOW, an infinite set of contingent events is meaningless as there is no initiator or causal agent.

 

Think of it this way. I ask my neighbor to borrow $100; he gladly agrees, but tells me that first he must borrow it from his neighbor; who gladly agrees, but must first borrow the $100 from his neighbor, and on and on ad infinitum. Question: How long would it take for me to get my $100? Answer: I would never get it because nobody actually has the $100, there is no causal agent to start the infinite chain of contingent events. The same is the case with the universe. It cannot be a series of infinite contingent events without causation. And, to say that the universe is a brute fact without causation is to ultimately deny the principle causation. You would also have to show why and how the universe is ultimately ontologically necessary, not to mention how it overcomes problems like entropy.

 

Bringing up whether or not we've seen an actual infinity is an irrelevant red herring since we are only arguing for possibilities. If I wanted to argue the same way, I would ask LNC to produce God empirically.

 

But you haven’t shown that an actual infinite is possible within space and time. To show that potential infinites may exist is not to show that actual infinites may exist.

[LNC]

What is today? I have arrived here even though there is supposedly and infinite amount of time prior to today.

 

That is the point of the conversation, has there actually been an infinite amount of time prior to today? I find the concept too riddled with problems to believe it to be the case.

 

Zeno talks about distance…

 

The problem of that story is that a finite distance is simply being subdivided up into smaller and smaller sub sets until a potential infinite is reached (not possible in reality however). So, even though a potential infinite is being traversed, it is still in reality an actual finite distance, so it is apples and oranges in regard to this discussion. It actually does more to prove my point that time is finite than to prove that time infinite.

[LNC]

The Kalam argument is based on the assumption that God exists, and he didn't use a proxy, even before the argument try to make it's conclusion. That's not syllogism.

 

No, what I have been saying is that multiplying gods or using proxies is not the most parsimonious explanation, therefore, it is not worth arguing, unless you can give reasons why it would be.

 

Not at all. Everything I've learned so far about science and physics would be better explained with infinite regressions.

 

Really, I am interested in hearing why that is the case. How do you overcome the logical problem of the infinite regression?

 

Matter and energy do appear randomly for very short times, yes. And quantum events are not causal, even though they're deterministic in a sense of probability, they're not caused.

 

The first may be an epistemological problem rather than an ontological problem, there is no definite proof of the latter. Second, to say that quantum events are not causal is to say that one of the over 15 different possible explanations for quantum is the agreed upon explanation, and I have not seen any confirmation of that.

 

So you're saying that science is wrong, because you're basing your argument on a few laws in science? Read up on Schroedinger's Cat and the Heisenberg's Uncertainty.

 

Heisenberg uncertainty is due to an observer effect, therefore it is an epistemological problem, not an ontological problem. Schrödinger's cat is a thought experiment. So, I don’t know what you are trying to prove with these examples.

 

Yet it does. Search for Vacuum Energy.

 

OK, so how are you overcoming the problem with this? I need a more complete explanation.

 

Boy, you really don't see it. You keep on using verbs on God's nature, and you can't. Every verb IS by its pure nature of being a VERB, something that require, demands, necessitate, and demands TIME. You can't make a creature/being/object/thingy that can act while not acting on a time. You just can't. It doesn't matter how much you spin your God, but he is either in stasis, or he is bound by causality like us.

 

You say you would "argue" that God "knows" everything that happens in space and time, but so far I don't see any argument that can show that. First of all you are forced to prove that actions can be done without the concept of time.

 

I am not sure to what you are referring in my post. I am saying that God’s act of creation coincides with the beginning of time. My explanation of God’s nature is not the same as God in some way taking on those attributes. God is omniscient; that is his eternal unchanged nature. I said nothing about God acting in timeless existence. God’s omniscience is a properly basic definition of God, not something about which philosopher’s argue. The question is not what such a being is like, but whether such a being exists.

 

Speaking of Philosophy, maybe you should read about the arguments AGAINST the Kalam and Cosmological argument in the Philosophy dictionaries? I look it up in four different dictionaries, and three of them critique the Kalam. And even one of my books for introduction in Logic even use formal logic to prove it's wrong. So maybe you should pick up those books instead? Just a suggestion.

 

I have and will do again.

 

Can you open your mouth, in zero seconds? Can you think a million thoughts before a Planck Time has expired? Can you life your hand without time goes by? Every act is by experience and definition based on a "Before-and-after." Think about this. Before God created the Universe, there were no Universe. Then God Created the Universe. Do you see those two phrases? Before, and Then are keywords showing a temporal sequence of events. If God is non-temporal, even in his own sphere of existence, there never were "Before the Universe." The Universe must have existed for ever.

 

The only way to explain God as an acting God, is to give him his own time line. But then, unfortunately, he becomes bound by causality, and ... sorry to say, he must also be placed in the argument that "A God Created God."

 

God doesn’t have a mouth, he is not a material being. Being God and omnipotent and omniscient, he is not limited by physical limitations of thought. Your last statement of the fist paragraph is what we are discussing and I find no basis to draw such a conclusion. You have not shown any contradiction to God creating time and space. If God acted, meaning that he caused anything to happen, time would begin with that act. Time is the measurement of the passing of a sequence of events. God’s act is the first of that sequence. So, there is not contradiction.

[LNC]

Okay. But the Kalam, Cosmological, First Cause, Unmovable Mover,... all these arguments... NONE in the Bible. NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF THEM!!! All of them are un-biblical.

 

The fact that Kalam is not explicitly in the Bible does not equate to the concept being unbiblical. The fact is the Bible does say “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” The concept of creating ex nihilo (out of nothing) comes from the Bible, so you are wrong about the concept of the first cause and unmoved mover not being in the Bible, they are actually Biblical concepts.

 

When the Bible speaks of God’s creation it uses the Hebrew word bara’ which literally means that he created without use of previously existent materials. The word appears thirty eight times in the OT in the Qal stem and ten times in the Niphal. These two stems are used only of God and not men. It speaks of the uniqueness of God’s work as compared to man’s fashioning or making objects out of already existing materials.

 

It does not teach that God is without time. It does teach that God can change. It does teach that God can be angry and regret his actions. It does teach that he told the oceans to create life in them, and not himself. You want me to go on?

 

If God created the universe out of nothing as the Bible indicates, that would include all matter, space, and time came into existence at the creation event. Regarding God’s unchanging nature, try Psalm 102:26-27; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17; Numbers 23:19 for starters; if you need more examples, I would be happy to share more. Regarding the oceans, you would have to tell me which verse you are talking about because I know of none that would indicate that. Please go on with other examples as well if you like.

 

*sigh* I didn't say that. I didn't say the origin invalidated the argument.

Then what was the point of stating your ideas of from where Kalam may have originated? I guess I was confused because it seemed that you were in some way trying to invalidate the argument from its origins.

 

To give you a background, how my life looks like: I got five kids, 3 still living home, one of them paraplegic and has been going in and out of hospital for the last 7 months (or so). On top of that I have a part-time job, and go to school part-time. Besides that, my girls go to a weekend acting school, and have auditions every second weekend. So one explanation to why we might not really understand each other, could be that I don't have enough time to spend on writing a well organized paragraph to convey my thoughts, or to pull up the research, articles, books etc, where I got most of my thoughts and ideas from. Many of the things I talk about are based on (or summarized) from things I've read or studied. I suggest you just go to the Library and look for the MacMillan's Dictionary of Philosophy (if I remember the title right), which is the most comprehensive set of books about philosophy (and yes, W. Craig is in there, I think it's the same William at least), and look for the Cosmological Argument and see if they're completely off in their criticism of it (a bit different than my critique, but still a valid, philosophical, logical critique). (If the set wasn't so darn expensive, and if I had space, I'd get a set of my own.)

 

It sounds like you have a challenging life. Was your son/daughter in an accident? I will be praying for you and him/her. What are you auditioning for? I am not familiar with MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but I will try to check it out. I enjoy our exchanges and hope we can keep them up as our schedules permit.

[Ouroboros]

Front page on Scientific America, October 2008: "Forget the Big Bang: Now it's the Big Bounce - Quantum gravity theory predicts the universe will never die."

 

And in the article, they talk about the big implosion which caused the big expansion, i.e. a big bounce. Would it be fair to science to say: No, it can't be, because the Kalam argument MUST be right?

 

So if Quantum Gravity is proven right, it would mean that the Kalam argument have to be rewritten, to include: First Cause = The Big Implosion.

 

Wouldn't that be neat? Or, wait, maybe we should scrap all science that contradicts 1400 to 2500 old philosophical arguments...