Beginning Of The Universe Evidence Of God's Existence

[Ouroboros]

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.

No, adding a God beyond the Quantum Event is non-parsimonious, so if you go the route of adding A God to the formula, we can add an infinite amount of Gods. The Occam's razor cuts a conscious God out of the picture. You can't claim an addition to an explanation to be the simplest explanation.

 

The First Cause is just "A Cause", not "A God who Caused." The agent of the cause is not necessarily an intelligent, conscious, or aware creature of supernatural powers. A First Cause is just that, a cause.

 

Look, the first premise states that each things that exists was caused, some (or many) of those causes in this world, right now, are non-intelligent. A star is formed from matter that is centrifuged through gravity... what's the conscious being in that? Are you telling me that every cause in the world, for every things that exist, is somehow aware? A rock hits another rock and splits it... because it was thinking about doing it? THAT is ridiculous. So causes are not necessarily sentient beings, but most of the time it's just matter or energy. Hence, the First Cause, if Premise 1 is true, would be more likely Matter or Energy or any other form of non sentience. That's the natural following from the argument, not "God".

 

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

It's no problem. Infinite regression of infinite universes and existence is not a problem. How is it a problem? You mean it's a problem for you to grasp or understand? Well, that's more a matter of you not being able to get it, than it being a problem.

 

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.

What? 15 possible explanations for quantum events? And you deflect by just declaring it's solved through our lack of knowledge about it? What are you? You pick one part of science and math to support your argument, causality and infinite sets, but when science contradicts your argument, then suddenly science is ignorant and incomplete?

 

Like I said before: Your argument is based on special pleading. You want one thing, but refuse another, you pick and without complete foundations or reasons.

 

Basically your point is: everything that fits with Kalam is true, but when science don't fit with Kalam, Kalam is still true and science is then wrong. Great! Then there's no need to discuss anymore, because you refuse to look science in the eye and study what it say and accept what it finds, only because you rather believe a faulty argument. Get real!

 

 

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

Vacuum fluctuations go in and out of existence, without causal ties to events around it. So what is causing it? We don't know. But one thing is clear, we DON'T KNOW

 

So to claim that causality is uniform and unchanged in everything, everywhere, and all the time, is based on an assumption that it is. We don't know, and so far, quantum events occur according to statistics rather than causes. The cause is a clock of statistical probabilities, and not the idea of "the que ball hits the eight ball, and the eight ball goes into the pocked." Premise one is based on faulty science.

 

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.

Okay. I can accept that. The reason why we got into this side-track was based on certain comments and phrases you used earlier. You made statements about God, and I had questions for you, and you weren't really clear about what you meant.

 

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.

Right. I agree with that one, but we started the conversation about God's nature. God's existence as a temporal agent must have started with his first act, by creating time, and his existence before that first event was a mere state of being the "blue-print" for the Universe. Right?

 

 

 

In the quantum theory of gravity, a vacuum is the absence of spacetime--an emptiness so thorough we can scarcely imagine it. Loop gravity describes how each increment of energy added to this vacuum generates a new atom of spacetime.

(From SciAm Oct/08)

 

Oh, wait, those evil scientists must be wrong. They're just guessing. No, the Kalam argument must be true, because that's not a guess; Kalam is the ontological truth, because it is revealed through a spiritual awareness and metaphysical understandings... Bah!

[Ouroboros]

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.

That's not what I'm talking about. The Bible also tell us stories about how God talks to Satan, or that he commands heavens and earths, etc. Or that he changes his mind, like Noah, and the rainbow. So That particular God doesn't not fit to the non-temporal, unmovable God which is defined by Aristotle.

 

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.

At least you admit that it's Christianity that claims Ex Nihilo, and not science.

 

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.

So there are two different Gods in the Bible then. One which is the same as Zurvan/Ouroboros, the guardian of time, creator of God, the God, YHWH, who speaks, talks, and acts, and changes... It is getting very close to Gnosticism. You're combining two different natures with one God. You have to make up your mind. The unmovable God is ... UN-movable, and is not Temporal. Or maybe the answer is that God didn't exist either until the First Cause? I like that idea better. God YHWH came into existence, just like the Universe, at the moment of the First Cause.

 

 

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.

Thanks. (Some light in the tunnel? ) I will tell you more about the accident later (PM maybe). And the audition is my daughters. They want to sing, act, all that stuff. And some agents have called, but we had to cancel the appointments because of a waterleak! Argh!

 

And the McMillan is THE Enc of Phil. It's the Bible. Unfortunately I think the last edition was 67, and only supplements after. But look up Cosmological Argument, and also, Causality. (W Craig is in there too, which is pretty cool.) You probably have to go to the campus library to find it though; I doubt the public library got it (unless it's a bigger one).

[LNC]

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...

 

I will be interested to read the article. It sounds awfully similar to the oscillating theory which has long ago been abandoned. But, I will read it for myself and see what it says. You do sound excited to see this article which hasn't even been out long enough to be critiqued. You also seem to have already written off Kalam over this article. It must be the last statement in science on the subject. Somehow, I don't think it is or will be.

[Asimov]

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.

 

Set theory makes no differentiation between potential infinities and actual infinities, that's just a fabrication in Craigs head. Each moment of our existence exists finitely, but everything exists finitely in an infinite chain of finite connections, that's the point.

 

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.

 

And since Craig accepts Set Theory, and Set Theory makes no differentiation between potential and actual (since mathematics are abstract by definition), we have good reason that infinities are not mutually exclusive from space or time.

 

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.

 

Each of the people in this infinity exist simultaneously, so now YOU'RE committing the categorical error.

 

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.

 

1. I'm not arguing that causality doesn't exist. I argue that it doesn't necessarily exist, since we know that events exist without causes a la quantum mechanics.

2. I'm not stating that the universe is ultimately ontologically necessary, so your objection is irrelevant. The universe is a set of things and events, not a thing or event itself.

3. There is no problem with entropy, since Newtonian Mechanics don't necessarily apply outside of our local region of the universe.

 

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.

 

Of course it does, since Set Theory makes no differentiation between potential and actual.

[R. S. Martin]

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.

 

I'm tired tonight and in addition I'm pretty much burned out from arguing with Christians who are intent on twisting the words of atheists to mean what the atheists very clearly did not intend to say. It make absolutely no sense to say an atheist agrees that there are no morals without God. Without belief in God the atheist cannot attribute morals to God.

 

I agree with wonderer or whoever on WLC explained that morals are subjectively defined by all humans. However, I see how Christians do objectify their morals--at the cost of intellectual and personal integrity. For example, WLC's "Divine Command Theory" allows for God to violate all ethics and commit genocide if he sees fit. If Christians think God tells them to do something heinous, they can do it in cold blood and with a clear conscience. That is the implications of objective morals. In my opinion, they are unethical because the common sense and human feeling have been divorced from personal responsibility.

 

Your contention that Paul Tillich's theology is unbiblical can only be defended with your specific hermeneutics. The Evangelical Lutheran Seminary where I did my degree used to use Tillich's Systematic Theology as a standard text for their intro Systematic Theology course until a newer series became available in the same tradition. I provide this information so that you know I am not speaking with an atheist bias.

 

My atheist bias does show up when we get deeper into Tillich. I like his existentialist approach. I can live quite easily with the idea that God equals Ground of All Being. However, he then takes things one step further and has a God above God. He insists that there really is a supreme God of faith. That is where I disagree.

[Asimov]

Even with God objective morals don't exist.

[Ouroboros]

Even with God objective morals don't exist.

Amen to that.

[Ouroboros]

I will be interested to read the article. It sounds awfully similar to the oscillating theory which has long ago been abandoned.

Not much trust in science there? So Big Bang is useful, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the axiomatic stance on universal principles, are all good, but not the other things? I understand. Only science that fits religion is true science.

 

The oscillating idea has been scrapped, pretty much, and I think it had to do with the non-euclidean structure of space. Quantum gravity is taking it from a different approach (is my understanding). Big Bang has been under scrutiny for a while, and there are competing theories that are showing up (the last couple of years). Quantum gravity isn't brand spanking new, but it isn't very old either. However, it seems like it's the first theory that can account for some of the problems Big Bang theory could not.

 

But, I will read it for myself and see what it says. You do sound excited to see this article which hasn't even been out long enough to be critiqued.

You mean there's no peer-review? That's true. There's another theory that hasn't been proven yet, and is one of the fundamental flaws in the Kalam argument: universal uniformity. There's no way to prove that the current laws that govern the Universe actually do follow the principles of causality. And if your religious stance is correct, and God might be doing miracles, then we should have observable non-causal events in nature, and hence the argument that everything is a linear causal chain is already wrong from start. Miracles and influence from an active and temporal God must be included in the first premise, which it isn't. So the Kalam argument assume that God does not influence or affect current state of nature, so it can make an argument for a First Cause event. It's like eating the cake and still having it.

 

You also seem to have already written off Kalam over this article. It must be the last statement in science on the subject. Somehow, I don't think it is or will be.

I wrote of Kalam a while back. This article didn't change my stance on it. My problem is that I can't bring you the arguments as elegant and suave as the ones I've read. Many of my arguments are lifted from other philosophers, scientists and mathematicians counter arguments to the First Cause. But I know I'm not as good as explaining them, and I don't have time to search for articles and facts to show you exactly what I'm talking about. For instance, I know I've read in many places that Quantum Events are non-causal, but do I have quotes from famous people to give you? Sorry, but no. I only give you the summary of the things I've read the last couple of years. I don't care for collecting or archiving all the quotes, articles, and references, since there are so many other things that are so much more important to me. But every time I open a more extensive encyclopedia in Philosophy and read about the First Cause/First Mover/Cosmological/Kalam argument, I see how the counter-arguments are piling up. You might want to search for Kant's, or JS Mills's, or Bertrand Russell's opinions about the Cosmological argument, and you'll see I'm not alone in these views. (And they go at it more swiftly and to the point than I do.) Just grab a copy of "History of Western Philosophy" by B. Russell, and look in the index for I think it was the Cosmological (or maybe even Kalam) argument.

 

Btw, you do know that Kalam (If I recall correctly) was a heretic (supposedly science based) version of Islam. W Craig borrow that argument and tried to fix it. And I do get what he's saying about "actual infinite", but the problem is that his solution doesn't prove God, but only prove a First Causal Event (instead of First Causal Agent), and science agree that the first quantum event was outside of our time and space, but it disagree that this quantum event was somehow caused in turn by God, or that it is God itself. And if any of the competing models to Big Bang is starting to take hold, there are new explanations to infinite energy, and neither First Cause or 2nd law of thermodynamics really hold up anymore. (Ekpyrotic model, multi-verse, bubble universes... many theories, any of them is enough to counter balance "actual infinite.")

 

You see, I don't have an emotional problem with the infinite. I can imagine and accept the infinite past and the infinite future. Only when people have a problem accepting that fact, do they have to find a way of "stopping" their thoughts of infinite regression. It's a matter of the acceptance of your mind. To say that "infinite regression can't exist because it's silly" or to say it's stupid, weird, incomprehensible, or unthinkable, are not logical approaches. There are no argument against infinite regression, especially if we invent a "First Cause" that exists non-temporal. Then than non-temporal-first-cause is already "infinite", and we have already accepted the possibility of the infinite-past. If that is already accepted, it really doesn't matter if it is an infinite-regression or an infinite-static-image. You believe there is an imaginary friend who thinks about you, outside the universe, space, and time. I believe our universe is just one out of an infinite amount of universes, and the "time line" outside out universe, space, and time is infinite. No different, except I don't think the "outside" is intelligent or sentient in any way, while you do. And I find no reason to why a First Cause Event is the same as a supernatural creature. None, whatsoever. And to me, to jump from the argument for a First Event to a First Agent, is a fallacy. You're jumping to a conclusion that wasn't in the argument, so to me, that is definitely a special pleading. My God is the same as the First Cause Event. Is no argument.

 

Do remember to that Aristotle (250 BCE) invented one of the first First Cause/First Mover arguments. Then the Muslims were studying the greek philosophers while the Christians were deep in the dark hole of ignorance, and they picked up the First Cause, and made it to the Kalam argument. Then the Catholics woke up from their slumber, and then they picked up the First Cause from the greeks too. Then comes W Craig, and he picks it up from all of them. While all along, there has been opposing voices, there seems to be no end of the reinvention of the wheel. But what's really interesting is: the argument proves that the Greek gods are the true creators, and it proves that Allah is the creator, and it proves that the Catholic Church is the only way to God, and it proves that modern protestants are the only carries of the true God. The same argument can not prove all these different faiths to be true at the same time, so something is seriously wrong with the argument, and you should be able to see it. And it is what I keep on saying, it doesn't prove a GOD, but it only proves (at best) an Event.

[R. S. Martin]

Even with God objective morals don't exist.

Amen to that.

 

I was referring to Craig's Divine Command Theory in his article on the Slaughter of the Canaanites. I will quote part of the article to illustrate (underline and bold-face added):

 

 

I think that a good start at this problem is to enunciate our ethical theory that underlies our moral judgements. According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses....God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative.

 

.....

 

So the problem isn’t that God ended the Canaanites’ lives. The problem is that He commanded the Israeli soldiers to end them. Isn’t that like commanding someone to commit murder? No, it’s not. Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder. The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.

 

On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command.

 

All right; but isn’t such a command contrary to God’s nature?....

 

He explains that God's love is manifest in the fact that he held back judgment four centuries until the Canaanites were bad enough to annihilate. He went so far as to keep his own chosen people in slavery in Egypt all those centuries for this special moment in time when the Canaanites had finally become wicked enough to be annihilated. Thus goes Craig's reasoning for a loving God.

 

I don't know too much about objective and subjective as it is meant in philosophy. However, if a person thinks an act becomes ethical because God commands it, to me that seems like morals being imposed or dictated from the outside. I am of the impression that this is the ultimate definition of "objective."

 

My observation of the behaviour of the Christians on Craig's forums would indicate that they are not stupid (as we so often charge) but that they--at least the more intelligent ones--are fully aware of the contradictory decisions, judgments, and statements they make. However, they use a different criteria for deciding logic than we do. "Logic" is imposed by their religion. The end result of the argument has to prove that their religion is right. They begin with the presupposition that God exists and dictates morals. Everything they do, say, think, and believe will prove that point.

 

Note, I said "will prove." I use the future tense intentionally. I have observed close-up when things were taken out of context, twisted and distorted, to prove a point they wanted to make. No amount of reasoning could influence the person to change his position, though there were nuances of language that indicated he knew he was intentionally twisting things to favour his biases. I can provide more details on this if it is requested.

 

Honesty, as most people understand it, plays little or no role in the matter. "Honesty" is defined by them the same as "logic," i.e. that which proves their religion and God to be correct.

 

It makes for an alternative reality. Ronald H. Nash wrote about World-Views in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas, Zondervan, 1992. He makes it seem like no big deal--like all of us can just go to the world-view mall and choose which one we'd like to live by. I guess for people removed from the reality of both their feelings and the natural world, they have little else left. All of this meshes exactly with what happened to me, and helps me give shape to the demon that haunts me. It makes for a situation where a person does not go by that which seems right based on an innate sense of decency. But they say they go by decency, honesty, and logic. I'd like to just call it a double denial and be done with it.

 

I discussed these issues with like-minded people yesterday (it was Sunday after all, right? even for atheists), and concluded that Christians talk the talk; they just stop short of also walking the walk. However, they claim to walk the walk. They do this by redefining the words, as described above. Edmund Cohen discusses this at length in Mind of the Bible Believer. It lets them have their cake and eat it, too.

 

So that's my perhaps somewhat rough and tumble argument for objective morals. I think they are immoral and unethical. However, I think this may be what the Christians are talking about, and it's not just Craig's people. I think this applies to conservative Christians across the board because it meshes with my own experience, as stated, and also with the ones Cohen writes about in the 1980s.

[R. S. Martin]

In light of the above post, I would like to respond to LNC's argument that morals are evidence of God's existence. LNC, all I can say is that the kind of morals conservative Christians live and die by are not morals that are good for our world. The god of whom such morals are evidence is a monster who should not be emulated. What I posted here has not been refuted or improved upon by any Christian todate.

[Asimov]

I don't know too much about objective and subjective as it is meant in philosophy. However, if a person thinks an act becomes ethical because God commands it, to me that seems like morals being imposed or dictated from the outside. I am of the impression that this is the ultimate definition of "objective."

 

No, the ultimate definition of objective in any sense would be that it is independent of a mind. External to the mind, that is.

My observation of the behaviour of the Christians on Craig's forums would indicate that they are not stupid (as we so often charge) but that they--at least the more intelligent ones--are fully aware of the contradictory decisions, judgments, and statements they make. However, they use a different criteria for deciding logic than we do. "Logic" is imposed by their religion. The end result of the argument has to prove that their religion is right. They begin with the presupposition that God exists and dictates morals. Everything they do, say, think, and believe will prove that point.

 

Note, I said "will prove." I use the future tense intentionally. I have observed close-up when things were taken out of context, twisted and distorted, to prove a point they wanted to make. No amount of reasoning could influence the person to change his position, though there were nuances of language that indicated he knew he was intentionally twisting things to favour his biases. I can provide more details on this if it is requested.

 

You can't make a logical argument about morals and God while presupposing God and him dictating morals.

[R. S. Martin]

I don't know too much about objective and subjective as it is meant in philosophy. However, if a person thinks an act becomes ethical because God commands it, to me that seems like morals being imposed or dictated from the outside. I am of the impression that this is the ultimate definition of "objective."

 

No, the ultimate definition of objective in any sense would be that it is independent of a mind. External to the mind, that is.

 

 

The Christians must mean something different by "objective" because they think God, i.e. mind of God, is supreme and that morals come from him. They call it objective morals.

 

My observation of the behaviour of the Christians on Craig's forums would indicate that they are not stupid (as we so often charge) but that they--at least the more intelligent ones--are fully aware of the contradictory decisions, judgments, and statements they make. However, they use a different criteria for deciding logic than we do. "Logic" is imposed by their religion. The end result of the argument has to prove that their religion is right. They begin with the presupposition that God exists and dictates morals. Everything they do, say, think, and believe will prove that point.

 

Note, I said "will prove." I use the future tense intentionally. I have observed close-up when things were taken out of context, twisted and distorted, to prove a point they wanted to make. No amount of reasoning could influence the person to change his position, though there were nuances of language that indicated he knew he was intentionally twisting things to favour his biases. I can provide more details on this if it is requested.

 

You can't make a logical argument about morals and God while presupposing God and him dictating morals.

 

I think you are responding to my statement that I bolded just now. I understand you to be saying that isn't logical.

1. Many Christians will respond with "Faith is not logical."
   
2. Some evangelicals today argue that faith is reasonable and can be defended with logic; it's all a matter of world views.
   
3. They have redefined the term "world view" to mean something other than is normally meant by the term. See below.
   

Here's something from my post above that I probably should expand on:

 

Ronald H. Nash wrote about World-Views in Conflict: Choosing Christianity in a World of Ideas, Zondervan, 1992. He makes it seem like no big deal--like all of us can just go to the world-view mall and choose which one we'd like to live by.

 

That is the impression I get from my interactions with these people. So I see the concept of world views--as they mean it--as all these globes on their axes on a shelf in a department store. Secular Humanism. Christianity. Toaism. Hinduism. Buddhism. Etc. They seem to think that each world view has its own set of rules re what constitutes logic. This can also be called dogma. Dogma, however, is defined by dictionary.com as being a set of authoritative principles that cannot be proven. I looked it up earlier today because I was charged with holding dogmatic beliefs on a more fundamentalist level than any religious people.

 

I think that is a major misconception on the part of Christians. My statements are, first of all, not beliefs so much as statements about reality; more on this below. I have read practically no atheist literature outside exC and similar forums. Thus, I have had no opportunity to learn "atheist dogma" to promolgate. What I use to argue the fallacies of their dogma is well-thought-out concepts hammered out on the anvil of life experience. In other words, I seek to understand the truth of reality as it is experienced through the human experience. They reduce this to the "atheistic world view" that I picked up off the shelf of the world view department store and call it dogma. They are simply wrong.

 

When they are speaking, they will make statements along the lines of, "As a Christian, this is how I see things..." All of this is indicative of "world view" conceptualization, i.e. each person chooses his or her own world view and lives by the rules of logic inherent to it. This way they get to make the rules for what constitutes science, the definitions of words (see Cohen on redefinition of words), what constitutes reality and truth, etc. Without informing anyone that they have redefined the words, they will speak to larger society about logic, science, truth, reality, etc. In fact, it seems to me that they have redefined the concept "world view" itself. Normally, when we talk about a world view, we mean the way things look to an individual based on his/her cultural, historical, and geographical background.

 

They seem to have taken "world view" and developed it into world. I say "seem" because I'm trying to make sense of it all myself; I don't feel like I have definitive evidence to prove my point. I'm not sure how to discuss it with the people themselves. It would require a person to be willing to look critically at his/her own way of thinking. So far, I have been unable to get anyone to do this on less subjective topics.

 

Thus, when they get into a pinch they will qualify that they "speak as a Christian." They will expect their views to be respected because they think one world view is as valid as the next. They do not accept that there is a concrete reality out there that serves as the basis on which humanity normally formulates its concepts and theories. They reduce it to just another world view on a par with their own Christian world view, though infinitely inferior.

 

The attitude these people bring to the table is that the Christian world view is the most logical one and that evidence is on their side; if we atheists don't accept the evidence they produce, that is proof of our unwillingness to accept it rather than of the insufficiency or low quality of the "evidence" provided. Of course, they make sure we know that (in their world view, though they seldom qualify it as such) hell awaits us for rejecting so great an offer, and that all of this--God, heaven, hell--is as real as 2+2=4. What they are out to do is convince us to choose a better world view--THEIR world view. But it's totally up to us--on threat of eternity in a lake of fire if we refuse.

 

If, after a given amount of time--say ten years--the person finds this world view isn't working too well (which the Christian would expect if the world view chosen is anything else than Christian), then person returns to World View Supermarket and tries another one--this time preferably one from the Christian Department. If it is the Christian world view that isn't working, then it is because the person has been doing something wrong--not trying hard enough, not been truly genuine, etc.

 

Now here's an in-house secret. If you happen to be dealing with a Christian Clearing House World View Store, if the world view you find incompetent is any other than a Christian one and if you return it in good-as-new condition, you may be able to exchange it for their own special brand Christian World View free of charge. At the very least, you might get a small refund--let's say it's ten years old and has had a lot of wear and tear, they might not be willing to give a full reimbursement, esp. if you got it at another store. Or, let's say it's a Billy Graham Store and you choose a William Dembski World View, the reimbursement might not be full, either. They really want people to buy their own special product. That's just the way Christians are. (BTW, that's an analogy, lest anyone go looking for these stores. I doubt they exist in the real world.)

 

Back to your comment, Asimov: You can't make a logical argument about morals and God while presupposing God and him dictating morals.

 

I think the Christians would argue that, given the special rules of their world view, you are wrong.

 

I think this is what we are up against in our dialogue with the Christians. Where do we go now? They are still dropping bombs on the Muslims. Muslims are still killing themselves--and others--as the fast track to heaven.

[Neon Genesis]

I think that a good start at this problem is to enunciate our ethical theory that underlies our moral judgements. According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended, our moral duties are constituted by the commands of a holy and loving God. Since God doesn’t issue commands to Himself, He has no moral duties to fulfill. He is certainly not subject to the same moral obligations and prohibitions that we are. For example, I have no right to take an innocent life. For me to do so would be murder. But God has no such prohibition. He can give and take life as He chooses....God is under no obligation whatsoever to extend my life for another second. If He wanted to strike me dead right now, that’s His prerogative.

I think this is probably the most ridiculous excuse for god's actions I've heard from a xtian and I don't understand it. So, basically what they're saying is that god can do whatever it feels like because god says so but humans can't? We have a word for that kind of being, it's called a hypocrite. So, fundies are admitting that they worship a hypocrite which isn't surprising given how many fundies act hypocritical. And isn't this the same kind of logic a dictator like Hitler would use to justify his immorality? In fact, one Sunday during bible class at church, one of the members mentioned that Romans chapter 13 was Hitler's favorite bible verse which wouldn't surprise me if it was true. One example of their hypocrisy is that fundies are cherry pickers when it comes to this excuse for the divine command theory. If immoral actions become moral if god commands them, then since Jesus not only commanded slavery in the bible, but gave specific instructions on how to beat their slaves, then that means slavery is moral and fundies are sinning and defying god's will if they think slavery is immoral. But if you were to ask any Christian today if they thought slavery should be legalized, even most fundies would agree that slavery is immoral even though the bible clearly commands slavery. Not only will fundies defy god, but they'll corrupt the scriptures by changing the word slave to mean servant, as if Jesus telling Christians to beat their servants is somehow much better. These xtians make me sick and I find it repulsive that they think they have the moral high ground over atheists.

[Ouroboros]

I don't see a problem with a God who can act outside of morality per se, since it would under his/her own judgment of applying rules to humans but not have to follow them himself/herself. But I think my problem is rather that Christians keep on saying that God is good, and that doesn't match up with God's freedom of action. To say that "God is good" is to apply our human view of morality and behavior on God, which means to say a statement like that is to declare ones god to be a moral agent of the same moral laws that apply to humans. Basically, God can't be declared "good" and yet to be allowed (or excused) to do "bad" things. The only solution is to just be frank about it and say "God is neither good or bad, he/she/it just do whatever heck he/she wants." I think that's the only true and honest position a Christian can take. If God is said to be good, there must exist a measure with what we can check if God is good or not, or "good" would just because a groundless and irrational statement. But since God "created morality", God wouldn't be under the rules of morality and hence can't be measured against it, and ergo, can't be said to be good (or bad). But that's just my ¢2.

[LNC]

No, adding a God beyond the Quantum Event is non-parsimonious, so if you go the route of adding A God to the formula, we can add an infinite amount of Gods. The Occam's razor cuts a conscious God out of the picture. You can't claim an addition to an explanation to be the simplest explanation.

The First Cause is just "A Cause", not "A God who Caused." The agent of the cause is not necessarily an intelligent, conscious, or aware creature of supernatural powers. A First Cause is just that, a cause.

 

Look, the first premise states that each things that exists was caused, some (or many) of those causes in this world, right now, are non-intelligent. A star is formed from matter that is centrifuged through gravity... what's the conscious being in that? Are you telling me that every cause in the world, for every things that exist, is somehow aware? A rock hits another rock and splits it... because it was thinking about doing it? THAT is ridiculous. So causes are not necessarily sentient beings, but most of the time it's just matter or energy. Hence, the First Cause, if Premise 1 is true, would be more likely Matter or Energy or any other form of non sentience. That's the natural following from the argument, not "God".

 

Can you actually tell me how quantum events lead to the universe? How do quantum events happen sans time? If you suggest that time is past infinite, how does quantum energy overcome the entropy problem? Also, where do the laws of physics originate by which the quantum event must operate in order to produce a universe? Just saying quantum events is not a sufficient explanation, nor does it replace the necessity of a cause of the quantum event, or the energy required for that event.

 

I don’t know what you are referring to in your assertion in the third paragraph. I have not even insinuated that every cause is somehow aware, and I don’t know how you could even suggest that from anything I have written. You are confusing me with a pantheist, which I am not. However, you also don’t argue to your final conclusion that the first cause is non-sentient. The problem with your argument is that the universe would show greater age were the cause an impersonal cause. A rock cannot make itself move; no matter how much time you give it. Therefore, if the conditions necessary for the universe to come into existence always existed, then they would have caused the universe to come into existence an infinite amount of time ago; however, the universe is at most 15 billion years old (more likely about 13.7 billion), so that would seem to rule out an impersonal cause.

 

That's not what I'm talking about. The Bible also tell us stories about how God talks to Satan, or that he commands heavens and earths, etc. Or that he changes his mind, like Noah, and the rainbow. So That particular God doesn't not fit to the non-temporal, unmovable God which is defined by Aristotle.

 

First, understood correctly neither the Hebrew nor the Greek would properly be interpreted as God changing His mind. God said of the people during Noah’s time that he was grieved. That doesn’t indicate that He changed His mind. Unless you have some other example, I see none. As for God speaking with Satan, I don’t know what that proves, and I am not sure what you mean that God commands the heavens and the earth. So, you have not made your case.

 

At least you admit that it's Christianity that claims Ex Nihilo, and not science.

 

The idea of nothing (matter, space, time) existing until the singularity has been the common view since Hawking, Ellis, and Penrose studied the effects of the Big Bang on the GTR back from 1968-1970. That space and time came into existence with the singularity. No space and time equals no-thing or what we commonly call nothing (physical).

 

So there are two different Gods in the Bible then. One which is the same as Zurvan/Ouroboros, the guardian of time, creator of God, the God, YHWH, who speaks, talks, and acts, and changes... It is getting very close to Gnosticism. You're combining two different natures with one God. You have to make up your mind. The unmovable God is ... UN-movable, and is not Temporal. Or maybe the answer is that God didn't exist either until the First Cause? I like that idea better. God YHWH came into existence, just like the Universe, at the moment of the First Cause.

 

How would you possibly come to that conclusion based upon what I wrote? I think you are confused about what the Bible means when it says that God is immutable. It doesn’t mean that God is some force that never changes. That is a god of deism. The God of the Bible is personal, which means that He acts, wills things to happen, has emotion. How God is immutable is that He cannot change His nature, which is true, good, loving, etc. So, God doesn’t change His mind because, that would indicate that God made a bad decision. However, God can and does grieve as His creation (whom He created with free will) rebels against His loving rule.

 

Thanks. (Some light in the tunnel? ) I will tell you more about the accident later (PM maybe). And the audition is my daughters. They want to sing, act, all that stuff. And some agents have called, but we had to cancel the appointments because of a waterleak! Argh!

 

And the McMillan is THE Enc of Phil. It's the Bible. Unfortunately I think the last edition was 67, and only supplements after. But look up Cosmological Argument, and also, Causality. (W Craig is in there too, which is pretty cool.) You probably have to go to the campus library to find it though; I doubt the public library got it (unless it's a bigger one).

 

I am glad to hear that you are getting some encouragement, and I will continue to pray for you and your family. Water leaks can be frustrating. We recently had a huge rainstorm that brought water into the basement, fortunately, no damage, but it is always scary to see water where it shouldn’t be.

[LNC]

It's no problem. Infinite regression of infinite universes and existence is not a problem. How is it a problem? You mean it's a problem for you to grasp or understand? Well, that's more a matter of you not being able to get it, than it being a problem.

 

That really isn’t an answer to the paradox, could you try again?

 

What? 15 possible explanations for quantum events? And you deflect by just declaring it's solved through our lack of knowledge about it? What are you? You pick one part of science and math to support your argument, causality and infinite sets, but when science contradicts your argument, then suddenly science is ignorant and incomplete?

Like I said before: Your argument is based on special pleading. You want one thing, but refuse another, you pick and without complete foundations or reasons.

 

Basically your point is: everything that fits with Kalam is true, but when science don't fit with Kalam, Kalam is still true and science is then wrong. Great! Then there's no need to discuss anymore, because you refuse to look science in the eye and study what it say and accept what it finds, only because you rather believe a faulty argument. Get real!

 

Please go back and reread my response. Nowhere did I say that there were 15 possible explanations for quantum events. I said that there are a variety of explanations for how quantum works, and if you are familiar with quantum theory, you would be aware of that. Regarding quantum events, I will ask again to answer the questions above to show me how quantum events can be the ultimate explanation and cause of the universe.

 

In what way am I special pleading? Please explain.

 

You have not shown any evidence to shows that science invalidates the Big Bang, which is ultimately what you are arguing against. Science has nothing to say about Kalam as it is a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument. Yes, it uses scientific evidence within the argument, but it is based upon Big Bang cosmology, which is what you are ultimately arguing against. However, it will take more than one article in Scientific American to refute Big Bang. So, if you have science on your side, you need to make more than assertions or to throw around terms like quantum events, you must actually be able to explain why and how they refute our well established understanding of Big Bang.

 

Vacuum fluctuations go in and out of existence, without causal ties to events around it. So what is causing it? We don't know. But one thing is clear, we DON'T KNOW

 

So to claim that causality is uniform and unchanged in everything, everywhere, and all the time, is based on an assumption that it is. We don't know, and so far, quantum events occur according to statistics rather than causes. The cause is a clock of statistical probabilities, and not the idea of "the que ball hits the eight ball, and the eight ball goes into the pocked." Premise one is based on faulty science.

 

Exactly my point, you cannot assume this to be an ontological event, but at best, an epistemological problem. Here is the problem with your second statement, you are now denying science rather than confirming it. Science is based upon causality, even the study of causality has to be based upon that principle; otherwise the science you quote becomes self-refuting. We could never ultimately trust science. So, if you argue that causality is not uniform then stop using science and start arguing philosophy.

 

Okay. I can accept that. The reason why we got into this side-track was based on certain comments and phrases you used earlier. You made statements about God, and I had questions for you, and you weren't really clear about what you meant.

 

Glad we cleared that up.

 

Right. I agree with that one, but we started the conversation about God's nature. God's existence as a temporal agent must have started with his first act, by creating time, and his existence before that first event was a mere state of being the "blue-print" for the Universe. Right?

 

I wouldn’t agree with your last statement as God existing as a “mere state of being the ‘blue-print’ for the universe” as that takes away from who God is as a self-existent personal being,

Your statement reduces God to some deistic type of force, and I don’t agree with that.

 

In the quantum theory of gravity, a vacuum is the absence of spacetime--an emptiness so thorough we can scarcely imagine it. Loop gravity describes how each increment of energy added to this vacuum generates a new atom of spacetime.

 

(From SciAm Oct/08)

 

Oh, wait, those evil scientists must be wrong. They're just guessing. No, the Kalam argument must be true, because that's not a guess; Kalam is the ontological truth, because it is revealed through a spiritual awareness and metaphysical understandings... Bah!

 

I read the article, and my question is do you want to base your beliefs on this?

 

“The universe, in short, has a tragic case of forgetfulness. It may [emphasis mine] have existed before the big bang, but quantum effects during the bounce wiped out almost all traces of prehistory.”

 

That, as well as a lot of other information in the article seemed pretty speculative to me. And here is another gem to overcome entropy.

 

“This principle, known as the second law of thermodynamics, is an argument against an eternal universe…The right amount of cosmic forgetfulness may come to the rescue by presenting the young, growing universe with a clean slate irrespective of all the mess that may have built up before.”

 

I am sorry, but that is just not the way that the 2LOT works. Where does the new energy come from? Answer: nowhere because that would violate the 1LOT. It is the problem that ultimately sunk oscillating models of the past. The bottom line is that this article has been out for a matter of days and the Big Bang theory for decades, I think Big Bang has undergone far more testing than this model. But, it will be interesting to see how it is received and whether it survives for long.

[LNC]

Set theory makes no differentiation between potential infinities and actual infinities, that's just a fabrication in Craigs head. Each moment of our existence exists finitely, but everything exists finitely in an infinite chain of finite connections, that's the point.

 

Yet, you have to assume that future time is infinite or somehow actualized now. And that is the point of faith on your part.

 

And since Craig accepts Set Theory, and Set Theory makes no differentiation between potential and actual (since mathematics are abstract by definition), we have good reason that infinities are not mutually exclusive from space or time.

 

That was my mistake in representing the position. Craig doesn’t try to prove the existence of actual infinite number of things but the metaphysical impossibility. He states:

1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.

2. A beginningless series of events in time entails an actually infinite number of things.

3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.

 

Each of the people in this infinity exist simultaneously, so now YOU'RE committing the categorical error.

 

Not really as the events don’t occur concurrently, but consecutively. So, the problem is still pertinent to the discussion. We could say that many contingent events that are based upon previous events are happening with causal agents existing simultaneously with those affected.

 

1. I'm not arguing that causality doesn't exist. I argue that it doesn't necessarily exist, since we know that events exist without causes a la quantum mechanics.

2. I'm not stating that the universe is ultimately ontologically necessary, so your objection is irrelevant. The universe is a set of things and events, not a thing or event itself.

3. There is no problem with entropy, since Newtonian Mechanics don't necessarily apply outside of our local region of the universe.

 

Do you have conclusive evidence that these events have no ontological causal basis? I think that would go beyond known science to draw that conclusion. In addition, that would blow out the basis of science all together.

 

The universe is merely a set of event? I thought that the universe was defined as everything that physically exists. That would not be equivocal to your definition.

So, are you telling me that entropy and 2LOT do not apply outside of our local region of the universe? If so, I would like to see some justification of that belief.

[LNC]

I'm tired tonight and in addition I'm pretty much burned out from arguing with Christians who are intent on twisting the words of atheists to mean what the atheists very clearly did not intend to say. It make absolutely no sense to say an atheist agrees that there are no morals without God. Without belief in God the atheist cannot attribute morals to God.

 

What words have I twisted? I think you are twisting my words, or at least editing them. I said that there are no objective moral values without God, not morals. There is a difference. Objective moral values are based upon a standard that transcends our world. If morals are based upon us , even if that means that they somehow evolved, it means that morality is subjective (related to the subject to which they apply), not objective (not dependent upon the subject to which they apply). So, unless morals originate from an independent source outside of us, then they are subjective. I know it seems like a fine distinction, but an important one.

 

I agree with wonderer or whoever on WLC explained that morals are subjectively defined by all humans. However, I see how Christians do objectify their morals--at the cost of intellectual and personal integrity. For example, WLC's "Divine Command Theory" allows for God to violate all ethics and commit genocide if he sees fit. If Christians think God tells them to do something heinous, they can do it in cold blood and with a clear conscience. That is the implications of objective morals. In my opinion, they are unethical because the common sense and human feeling have been divorced from personal responsibility.

 

So, how is seeing morals as objective a compromise of intellectual and personal integrity? I think actually the opposite is true. I am not advocating Divine Command theory, nor does WLC. Morals are based upon God’s immutable nature and character, not merely on his arbitrary command. Now, if morals are subjective, then we are in no position to say that anything is objectively wrong. Rape, murder, child molestation, would all be personal preferences or dislikes, nothing more.

 

However, you do express some inconsistency in your position when you say that God told the people to do “something heinous” and that they can do it “in cold blood with a clear conscience.” Well, if morals are subjective to the person, you should not be saying that as if they did something objectively wrong. Maybe they are unethical to you based upon your conscience and human feelings, yet if morals are subjective to the person then you really have nothing meaningful to say about those people as their consciences and feelings may have told them differently. Now, I don’t believe that morals are subjective nor would I explain these stories this way; however, if objectives are subjective to the individual, then you cannot say that they were really wrong, just different from what you think is right or wrong.

 

Your contention that Paul Tillich's theology is unbiblical can only be defended with your specific hermeneutics. The Evangelical Lutheran Seminary where I did my degree used to use Tillich's Systematic Theology as a standard text for their intro Systematic Theology course until a newer series became available in the same tradition. I provide this information so that you know I am not speaking with an atheist bias.

 

My atheist bias does show up when we get deeper into Tillich. I like his existentialist approach. I can live quite easily with the idea that God equals Ground of All Being. However, he then takes things one step further and has a God above God. He insists that there really is a supreme God of faith. That is where I disagree.

 

To say that I can only come to my view of Tillich as being unbiblical because of my specific hermeneutic is true; the question is whether my hermeneutic is better defended than Tillich’s, and I think that it is for many reasons. The real problem with Tillich and with the hermeneutic that you use is that it is not grounded in objectivity; you can make a text say just about anything you want it to. That is the problem that led to slavery in this country as people read ideas into the Bible (eisegesis) rather than reading meaning out of the text (exegesis). IOW, we want to read our ideas into the Bible rather than understanding them the way that the author intended them to be understood. I have other problems with the Existentialist position that I won’t get into at this time.

[LNC]

Even with God objective morals don't exist.

 

How so?

[LNC]

Amen to that.

 

Maybe you would like to chime in and tell my on what basis you believe this.

[LNC]

Not much trust in science there? So Big Bang is useful, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the axiomatic stance on universal principles, are all good, but not the other things? I understand. Only science that fits religion is true science.

 

The oscillating idea has been scrapped, pretty much, and I think it had to do with the non-euclidean structure of space. Quantum gravity is taking it from a different approach (is my understanding). Big Bang has been under scrutiny for a while, and there are competing theories that are showing up (the last couple of years). Quantum gravity isn't brand spanking new, but it isn't very old either. However, it seems like it's the first theory that can account for some of the problems Big Bang theory could not.

 

Actually, he never addresses how he overcomes 2LOT, which is a problem, I believe, that he needs to address. Now, you accuse me of only believing the science that fits my religion, but I could say the same of you, that you only accept conclusions that fit your worldview. However, it is probably no truer to accuse you of that than it is for you to do the same of me. So, let’s drop that ad hominem claim and stick to the real arguments.

 

I don’t believe that I have ever heard that the oscillating theory was dropped because it had to do with non-Euclidean structures of space. Care to back up that claim with some documentation? To say that Big Bang has been under scrutiny is an overstatement. To say that scientists continue to test the truth of BB and other theories would be more accurate. There have always been and will always be competing theories, we live in a marketplace of ideas which is healthy. As for your last sentence, I am not sure exactly what you

 

You mean there's no peer-review? That's true. There's another theory that hasn't been proven yet, and is one of the fundamental flaws in the Kalam argument: universal uniformity. There's no way to prove that the current laws that govern the Universe actually do follow the principles of causality. And if your religious stance is correct, and God might be doing miracles, then we should have observable non-causal events in nature, and hence the argument that everything is a linear causal chain is already wrong from start. Miracles and influence from an active and temporal God must be included in the first premise, which it isn't. So the Kalam argument assume that God does not influence or affect current state of nature, so it can make an argument for a First Cause event. It's like eating the cake and still having it.

 

Oh, but we have eyewitness accounts of people experiencing miraculous events, including the healing of the lame, the raising of the dead, turning water into wine, etc. You see the problem with your viewpoint is that all of science is built upon the principle of causality. So, if you want to do away with causality, then you need to stop arguing your case, for that is based upon causality. Causality is not a religious stance, it is a philosophical observation that has been applied to science, which, by the way, is an offshoot of philosophy. Here is the problem with your statement about Kalam and causality. When something happens that we call a miracle, we do not attribute that as a natural, but rather a supernatural occurrence. If causality is not a valid principle of science, as you suggest, then maybe you can point out some non-causal events that you have experienced. Your example is like eating a cake that just appeared on the plate, while I hold that the cake was baked from ingredients that were the effects of growing (wheat, sugar, etc.), chickens (eggs), cows (milk), etc. I don’t just assume that the cake just popped into existence uncaused, that is not intuitive.

 

I wrote of Kalam a while back. This article didn't change my stance on it. My problem is that I can't bring you the arguments as elegant and suave as the ones I've read. Many of my arguments are lifted from other philosophers, scientists and mathematicians counter arguments to the First Cause. But I know I'm not as good as explaining them, and I don't have time to search for articles and facts to show you exactly what I'm talking about. For instance, I know I've read in many places that Quantum Events are non-causal, but do I have quotes from famous people to give you? Sorry, but no. I only give you the summary of the things I've read the last couple of years. I don't care for collecting or archiving all the quotes, articles, and references, since there are so many other things that are so much more important to me. But every time I open a more extensive encyclopedia in Philosophy and read about the First Cause/First Mover/Cosmological/Kalam argument, I see how the counter-arguments are piling up. You might want to search for Kant's, or JS Mills's, or Bertrand Russell's opinions about the Cosmological argument, and you'll see I'm not alone in these views. (And they go at it more swiftly and to the point than I do.) Just grab a copy of "History of Western Philosophy" by B. Russell, and look in the index for I think it was the Cosmological (or maybe even Kalam) argument.

 

The main problem that I see for you is the problem of causality. You see, as much as you like to cite quantum as negating causality, you are basing that on faith that that your explanation of quantum is the right one, and scientists have not solved that riddle yet. So, you stand in a faith position in your beliefs. I know that you are not alone in your argument; however, appealing to numbers or authority figures is not sufficient for determining truth.

 

Btw, you do know that Kalam (If I recall correctly) was a heretic (supposedly science based) version of Islam. W Craig borrow that argument and tried to fix it. And I do get what he's saying about "actual infinite", but the problem is that his solution doesn't prove God, but only prove a First Causal Event (instead of First Causal Agent), and science agree that the first quantum event was outside of our time and space, but it disagree that this quantum event was somehow caused in turn by God, or that it is God itself. And if any of the competing models to Big Bang is starting to take hold, there are new explanations to infinite energy, and neither First Cause or 2nd law of thermodynamics really hold up anymore. (Ekpyrotic model, multi-verse, bubble universes... many theories, any of them is enough to counter balance "actual infinite.")

 

It depends who you ask. Muslims are not slow to declare other forms of Islamic belief heretical. Sunnis call Shiites heretics, and vice versa, and those are just two of the sects of Islam. Kalam was more philosophy than religion and it was about finding truth through dialectic, much like Plato or Aristotle. Yes, there were Imams who were not too happy about it, but I don’t know that they called these people heretics since they had the right views about Allah. Yes, Craig found this argument and thought it was well thought out and began to think through it and promote it. I think that Craig also points out some valid paradoxes for an actual physical infinite, some of which I have pointed out. The first quantum event could not have been outside of time, as the event itself had to be within time and space since it involved matter in the form of energy, so no, science does not confirm such a thing as it is logically impossible. Here is a hint, events require time, quantum or otherwise.

 

And what would those models be that have supposedly refuted Big Bang cosmology and the 2LOT, because I haven’t read about them in any journals or newspapers? That would be big news if it were to happen, I would think that it would be in all the papers and on TV. Oh, you mean multi-verse, bubble universes, etc? That is what you are staking your claim upon? As Alan Guth says, that is speculation squared. Besides, none of these actually claim what you think they do. multiverses require a beginning. Look up the article “Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete” by Borde, Guth, and Vilenking or “Constraints on spatial distributions of negative energy” by Borde, Ford, Roman both of which indicate that the universe cannot be past-eternal. Guth developed the most common multiverse hypothesis.

 

You see, I don't have an emotional problem with the infinite. I can imagine and accept the infinite past and the infinite future. Only when people have a problem accepting that fact, do they have to find a way of "stopping" their thoughts of infinite regression. It's a matter of the acceptance of your mind. To say that "infinite regression can't exist because it's silly" or to say it's stupid, weird, incomprehensible, or unthinkable, are not logical approaches. There are no argument against infinite regression, especially if we invent a "First Cause" that exists non-temporal. Then than non-temporal-first-cause is already "infinite", and we have already accepted the possibility of the infinite-past. If that is already accepted, it really doesn't matter if it is an infinite-regression or an infinite-static-image. You believe there is an imaginary friend who thinks about you, outside the universe, space, and time. I believe our universe is just one out of an infinite amount of universes, and the "time line" outside out universe, space, and time is infinite. No different, except I don't think the "outside" is intelligent or sentient in any way, while you do. And I find no reason to why a First Cause Event is the same as a supernatural creature. None, whatsoever. And to me, to jump from the argument for a First Event to a First Agent, is a fallacy. You're jumping to a conclusion that wasn't in the argument, so to me, that is definitely a special pleading. My God is the same as the First Cause Event. Is no argument.

 

Do remember to that Aristotle (250 BCE) invented one of the first First Cause/First Mover arguments. Then the Muslims were studying the greek philosophers while the Christians were deep in the dark hole of ignorance, and they picked up the First Cause, and made it to the Kalam argument. Then the Catholics woke up from their slumber, and then they picked up the First Cause from the greeks too. Then comes W Craig, and he picks it up from all of them. While all along, there has been opposing voices, there seems to be no end of the reinvention of the wheel. But what's really interesting is: the argument proves that the Greek gods are the true creators, and it proves that Allah is the creator, and it proves that the Catholic Church is the only way to God, and it proves that modern protestants are the only carries of the true God. The same argument cannot prove all these different faiths to be true at the same time, so something is seriously wrong with the argument, and you should be able to see it. And it is what I keep on saying, it doesn't prove a GOD, but it only proves (at best) an Event.

 

I don’t know why the idea of the infinite should be an emotional problem, it is a logical problem for which you have not given an answer. Listen, you make a lot of unproven assertions that you have shown me no reason to accept. You have not overcome the logical problem of the infinite regression. You have not shown me how something can come from nothing. You have not shown me why Big Bang or the 2LOT have been nullified. You have simply made assertions with no backup. Even the article in SA didn’t address how this scientist overcomes these issues.

I don’t know why you are so concerned about who came up with the concept of the cosmological argument, it doesn’t matter, what matters is whether it comports with reality, and right now, the most widely accepted and tested cosmological model out there is Big Bang and the theory says that the universe had a beginning roughly 14 billion years ago and that matter, space, and time came into existence at the singularity. So, you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with the best cosmological model out there. If you disagree with physicists like Guth, Vilenkin, Borde, and Roman, then give me data to back it up, don’t just give me empty rhetoric. Either answer the philosophical problems with your model with valid logical counter-arguments; and the scientific problems with scientific evidence and data, or you will have to admit that you believe your theory based upon your atheistic presuppositions and faith in them.

[R. S. Martin]

So, how is seeing morals as objective a compromise of intellectual and personal integrity? I think actually the opposite is true.

 

So you dare tell me that I don't know my own subjective experience. Further discussion with you is beside the point.

 

I am not advocating Divine Command theory, nor does WLC.

 

That's a lie. Apparently you haven't read his article. He says: According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended

 

He's using it to defend God.

 

If defending it and using it to defend his religious position is not "advocation" in your book, I'm going to charge you with redefining words to serve your own selfish and dishonest agenda.

 

Morals are based upon God’s immutable nature and character, not merely on his arbitrary command. Now, if morals are subjective, then we are in no position to say that anything is objectively wrong. Rape, murder, child molestation, would all be personal preferences or dislikes, nothing more.

 

Again, you're intentionally overlooking important facts to make yourself, your god, and your religion look good.

 

However, you do express some inconsistency in your position when you say that God told the people to do “something heinous” and that they can do it “in cold blood with a clear conscience.” Well, if morals are subjective to the person, you should not be saying that as if they did something objectively wrong. Maybe they are unethical to you based upon your conscience and human feelings, yet if morals are subjective to the person then you really have nothing meaningful to say about those people as their consciences and feelings may have told them differently. Now, I don’t believe that morals are subjective nor would I explain these stories this way; however, if objectives are subjective to the individual, then you cannot say that they were really wrong, just different from what you think is right or wrong.

 

You talk like a brain-dead moron. I am consistent. You're equivocating all over the place.

 

To say that I can only come to my view of Tillich as being unbiblical because of my specific hermeneutic is true; the question is whether my hermeneutic is better defended than Tillich’s, and I think that it is for many reasons.

 

Of course you think you're right.

The real problem with Tillich and with the hermeneutic that you use is that it is not grounded in objectivity; you can make a text say just about anything you want it to. That is the problem that led to slavery in this country as people read ideas into the Bible (eisegesis) rather than reading meaning out of the text (exegesis). IOW, we want to read our ideas into the Bible rather than understanding them the way that the author intended them to be understood. I have other problems with the Existentialist position that I won’t get into at this time.

 

Just because you've got problems with it doesn't make it wrong. Chances are you and your hermeneutics are wrong. How well you can defend them is beside the point. What is true is what matters. You come across to me as one of those Christians who appeal to authority and majority vote for his foundational tenets of truth. That's about as wrong-headed as a person can be.

[LNC]

So you dare tell me that I don't know my own subjective experience. Further discussion with you is beside the point. Sometimes I think the best solution for Christianity of your type and stripe is the Final Solution.

 

When did I say that you don’t know your subjective experience? I am arguing that you cannot say that subjective experiences can equal objective morality, even if every subjective experience was the same.

 

Wow, you would actually suggest such a thing as the “Final Solution”, and by that I assume you are speaking of the Nazi Final Solution, am I misunderstanding you on this?

 

That's a lie. Apparently you haven't read his article. He says: According to the version of divine command ethics which I’ve defended

 

He's using it to defend God.

 

If defending it and using it to defend his religious position is not "advocation" in your book, I'm going to charge you with redefining words to serve your own selfish and dishonest agenda.

 

I should have qualified my statement as I am not advocating, nor is WLC advocating Divine Command Theory as it is commonly portrayed. IOW, God does not arbitrarily command actions leaving him open to changing his mind on a whim, which is the common understanding of DCT. Craig, as do I, ties God’s commands to his eternal and immutable nature which is good, loving, and perfect. So, I was not lying, just not very precise with my response.

 

You seem to paint me and others with a negative brush pretty quickly, why not first ask for clarification before doing so?

 

Again, you're intentionally overlooking important facts to make yourself, your god, and your religion look good.

 

What facts have I overlooked?

 

You talk like a brain-dead moron. I am consistent. You're equivocating all over the place.

 

Again, instead of the ad hominem attack, why don’t you just explain how I am wrong? Tell me how having a subjective view of morals while at the same time calling someone else immoral is being consistent. Either morals are subjective to a person or they are objective based upon someone or something outside of ourselves and we are subject to them. It can’t be both according to the logical law of excluded middle.

 

Of course you think you're right.

 

No, I think that the hermeneutic to which I subscribe is the most logical and consistent method of interpretation. However, it is not just conservatives who subscribe to this method of interpretation, but liberals as well.

 

Just because you've got problems with it doesn't make it wrong. Chances are you and your hermeneutics are wrong. How well you can defend them is beside the point. What is true is what matters. You come across to me as one of those Christians who appeal to authority and majority vote for his foundational tenets of truth. That's about as wrong-headed as a person can be.

 

No, that is not what I argued is it? I said that it is not based upon an objective standard and therefore, he can and did read whatever interpretation into the passages that he wanted. There is a chance that my hermeneutic is wrong and if you have reason to believe such please show me how and I will consider your reason(s). I think that I have given sufficient reason for my positions which is not an appeal to authority or reason, although, those appeals are not necessarily wrong, just not definitive proof. However, I have not appealed to authority or popularity as a lone or absolute proof.

Now, I would be interested in how your subjective view of morals and truth (if that is part of your definition) can leave you room to criticize God, WLC, me, or anyone else.

[Legion]

Sometimes I think the best solution for Christianity of your type and stripe is the Final Solution.

This does not represent my views in the slightest. I think these kinds of over the top statements are entirely counter productive.

[Asimov]

Yet, you have to assume that future time is infinite or somehow actualized now. And that is the point of faith on your part.

 

No, I don't have to assume it's actualized, you're merely making that assertion by arbitrarily applying a "finite" point called "present".

 

That was my mistake in representing the position. Craig doesn’t try to prove the existence of actual infinite number of things but the metaphysical impossibility. He states:

1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.

2. A beginningless series of events in time entails an actually infinite number of things.

3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.

 

Craig's first premise is unsupported. Craig's second premise is invalid because he confuses an infinite number of events with an infinite number of things.

 

 

Not really as the events don’t occur concurrently, but consecutively. So, the problem is still pertinent to the discussion. We could say that many contingent events that are based upon previous events are happening with causal agents existing simultaneously with those affected.

 

The events occur consecutively, but the people exist simultaenously and the signal velocity of requesting the money is finite as well. It has no application as an analogy.

 

Do you have conclusive evidence that these events have no ontological causal basis? I think that would go beyond known science to draw that conclusion. In addition, that would blow out the basis of science all together.

 

What do you mean? It IS science. Bell's Theorem proved that there are no hidden variables that would allow for a causal relationship, this is basic quantum mechanics.

 

The universe is merely a set of event? I thought that the universe was defined as everything that physically exists. That would not be equivocal to your definition.

 

Why not? You could also say that the universe is a set of things that exist, but that would not apply to all things that did exist and don't exist now. Even things that existed in the past and exist now are not the same.

 

It's more useful to state that the universe is a set of events. In order for events to occur, things need to exist, so it's merely pedantry on your part.

 

So, are you telling me that entropy and 2LOT do not apply outside of our local region of the universe? If so, I would like to see some justification of that belief.

 

Max Tegmarks Infinite Sea has dealth with these issues.