A Fair and Open Discussion (Athesim V.S Religion)

[dadof10]

The 'complexity' of the universe is non-issue. There's no cosmic scale with which to gauge how 'complex' the universe is. We have only our minds, and it is our very limited understanding of the universe that makes it seem 'complex' to us.

I was not making a comparative statement, I was using the word "complex" to describe the millions (billions?) of random events that must have happened to get where we are now.

I notice you didn't answer the question Which seems more reasonable, intelligent design or randomness? Is there a third option?

Ironically, one example is the kalam cosmological argument...which a theistic argument.

Namely:

1) Whatever beings to exist has a cause

2) The universe began to exist

3) Therefore the universe has a cause

One of the supports of the KCA that philosophers like Bill Craig utilize is the 'impossibility' of an actual infinite. Namely, the universe cannot have existed for infinity past, since traversing an actual infinity of time cannot be accomplished. The universe must have had a beginning of its existence, so it must have a cause, as premise 1 argues. This means God cannot be infinite for the same reason the universe cannot be infinite. Time began at the big bang singularity, so nothing can come 'before' it, since this is incoherent.

I'm not altogether sure of the nuances of Craig's KCA, but since Craig is a deist this seems like a reasonable take:

A common objection at this point is that if an actual infinite cannot exist, and God is infinite, then God cannot exist. This objection is based on a confusion of the terms "infinite" and "actual infinite." An actual infinite is a technical concept found in set theory that refers to sets and collections, not to single beings. To deny that an actual infinite can exist is to deny that a library with an actually infinite set of books or a museum with an actually infinite number of paintings can exist. God, on the other hand, is a being, not a set or collection of things, and hence God is not an actual infinite. It should be noted that kalam defenders do not dispute the legitimacy of the actual infinite as a mathematical concept. Craig writes that what kalam defenders argue "is that an actual infinite cannot exist in the real world of stars and planets and rocks and men" (Craig, The Existence of God, 42). In fact, until Gregor Cantor's work in set theory, mathematicians rejected the existence of an actual infinite as a mathematical concept. But Cantor himself denied the existential possibility of the actual infinite. In correspondence with the Pope, he even suggested that the existential impossibility of the actual infinite could be used in a mathematical-metaphysical proof for the existence of God.

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/whomade.htm

I'm not sure if when Craig says "is that an actual infinite cannot exist in the real world of stars and planets and rocks and men", he is ruling out things outside of time, which would seem to make sense. I'll have to do some more research.

This creates a problem for advocates of the KCA, so they argue for 'simultaneous causation' of the universe by God. Namely, that he is not temporally prior to the universe...he is atemporally or ontically prior to the universe as a timeless being. Then he became temporal at the beginning of the universe.

Despite a number of sophisticated arguments used to support this view, it ultimately, imo, is flawed by contradiction. By definition, a timeless being cannot change. Anything stated about a timeless entity is, by definition, timelessly true. God can never be timeless and become temporal, since this involves a changed state of affairs, all of which are temporal relations.

I agree with you on this. I don't think God changed in any way. A Being outside of time can't change.

If the universe had a beginning, God had a beginning. We're left with a situation where the alleged causal and effectual positions of God and the beginning of the universe exist simultaneously meaning there was never a god without the universe, and therefore no way for God to bring the universe from 'potentiality' to 'actuality'. So God cannot exist.

A lot of words to ask "If everything must have a cause, what caused God?" I think the key is mentioned above, that God is outside of time and that would remove Him from the "actual infinite" argument, if Craig means that the impossibility of the actual infinite only applies to things within time. But, as I said, I need to research it more.

 

[wavy]

William Lane Craig? A 'deist'?

:rolling

Bill Craig (philosopher, NT scholar) is one of Christianity's foremost apologists.

Thanks,
Eric

 

[dadof10]

William Lane Craig? A 'deist'?

:rolling

Bill Craig (philosopher, NT scholar) is one of Christianity's foremost apologists.

Thanks,
Eric

Right, in the broad sense of the word (that's why the small "d" in deist). He believes in a Diety (Creator) as opposed to being an athiest. Christianity fits into that catagory along with Islam and Judaism.

 

[turnorburn]

I wonder where the op went.? another question lets put atheism on the
stand. Why not prove there is no God, be careful of what you say,
everything we say is recorded in our memory's, I tell you God thought
of everything Praise God!

 

[dadof10]

William Lane Craig? A 'deist'?

:rolling

Bill Craig (philosopher, NT scholar) is one of Christianity's foremost apologists.

Thanks,
Eric

What was I thinking...Theist, not deist...Sheesh

 

[JMM]

I wonder where the op went.? another question lets put atheism on the
stand. Why not prove there is no God...

Yeah, what happened to the TheAtheist? He/she started this thread on a Christian forum, most likely knowing that this topic would blow up like it has (on its 5th page and still counting), and yet has not posted anything since. Where'd ya go, my dear atheist friend?

...be careful of what you say,
everything we say is recorded in our memory's, I tell you God thought
of everything...

What exactly is THIS supposed to mean?

 

[turnorburn]

I wonder where the op went.? another question lets put atheism on the
stand. Why not prove there is no God...

Yeah, what happened to the TheAtheist? He/she started this thread on a Christian forum, most likely knowing that this topic would blow up like it has (on its 5th page and still counting), and yet has not posted anything since. Where'd ya go, my dear atheist friend?

...be careful of what you say,
everything we say is recorded in our memory's, I tell you God thought
of everything...

What exactly is THIS supposed to mean?

If you look it up in the bible then you'll understand that is if God opens the
eyes of your understanding, everything we say will be gone over on the
day of judgment just ask him. :yes

 

[ProphetMark]

I was impressed with something Paidion posted a while back, so as he hasn't mentioned it in this thread, at the risk of getting threatening letters from his lawyers about breach of copyright, here is...

Scientific Proof of Supernatural Creation

The efficacy of this proof depends upon the following three premises:

1. The Universe is finite. (Note: "Universe" means the total of all matter and energy that exists.)

2. The first law of thermodynamics holds, i.e. , within a closed system matter (and its equivalent, energy) cannot be created nor destroyed.

3. The second law of thermodynamics holds, i.e., the total energy within a closed system is continuously decreasing in its level of availability. In other words, entropy is increasing within any closed system. (Or in layman's terms, the system is "running down".

Notes on the premises:

1. The first premise in generally accepted within the scientific community. In fact a finite Universe is implied by the widely accepted "big bang" theory. This theory states that all matter and energy existed within a very small volume of space, smaller than a molecule of water, and since that time has been expanding, resulting in the Universe as we know it.

2. The first and second laws of thermodynamics are considered to be the most widely accepted generalizations known to science.

The Proof:

1. Since the Universe is finite, it is, itself, a closed system. Thus the first and second laws of thermodynamics apply to it.

2. Either the Universe always existed, or else it came into being (either instantaneously or over a period of time), or it is still coming into being.

3. The idea of the Universe always existing contradicts the third premise. For an infinite amount of time would have passed, plenty for entropy to have increased to the extent of inert uniformity. Thus the Universe did not always exist, but had a beginning, or is still coming into being.

4. If the Universe (total of all matter and energy) had a beginning, then its matter and energy couldn't have come into being within itself. For this would contradict premise 2. The same applies if the Universe is still coming into being.

Conclusion: Since the Universe had a beginning, and its matter and energy could not have arisen within itself, then it must have come into it from outside itself, from outside nature itself. That which is outside nature is the Supernatural. Thus the production of matter and energy within the Universe had a Supernatural Source.

Note: Of course, this conclusion in no way implies the characteristics of the Supernatural Source, whether personal or impersonal, and if personal, whether benign or malignant.

 

[wavy]

So, Mr. Prophet,

Did the beginning of the universe entail the beginning of time itself?


Thanks,
Eric

 

[ProphetMark]

So, Mr. Prophet,

Did the beginning of the universe entail the beginning of time itself?


Thanks,
Eric

Good question.
I'm not sure. Possibly.

 

[Free]

I'm going to say yes, time began with the creation of the universe.

 

[dadof10]

I'm going to say yes, time began with the creation of the universe.

Me too. It seems logical that time would have to be created if the universe was, and that it would have to be created by Someone outside of it.

 

[mondar]

I'm going to say yes, time began with the creation of the universe.

* Mondar looks into his crystal ball.
* He sees Free agreeing to the concept of time beginning at creation. He observes in the ball that Free might even be familiar with general and special relativity, and that the speed of time is relative to speed in space and gravity.
* Mondar peers deeper into the crystal ball, he says "ahhh yes," and peers even deeper. He thinks he sees Free answering wavy's next question in this way....
* "...because God is not and never was bound by space/time, and exists eternally outside time."
* Well, I dont know about all this crystal ball stuff, kind a weird.

The concept of eternity stretches my mind. Everything I observe on this earth had a beginning. People are born, grow old and die. Trees that once existed, fall down and rot, and return back to the earth. But God has no beginning, and no end? God is not like us.

Eternity... when we've been there 10,000 years, it has only just begun. But does eternity even have years, or months, or does it even have days? Hours, or minutes? Does eternity have time? What is time in eternity? Will there be a tomorrow and a yesterday in eternity?
Rev 22:5 And there shall be night no more; and they need no light of lamp, neither light of sun; for the Lord God shall give them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever. I know the light that comes from the sun, it is winter in Pennsylvania, and those lovely warm photons are so nice in the winter. Will God shed photons? I see a red leaf. Is that leaf red, or am I just seeing a red spectrum of light that is reflected off that leaf? Will light be of a different nature in eternity then it is now? How will God be the light? If God will be the source of light, what will it be like, to look at God? What will it be like to look into his face? God is not like us.

God must be a fascinating being. If he is eternal, he exists on the other side of the beginning. He exists outside of time, but Jesus had a human life, and he was born, he woke up to the sun coming up, he went to sleep when the stars came out. Yet Jesus, as a member of the trinity shares completely in the essence of divinity. So then God not only exists out of time, he can also be found within time. God is everywhere, at all times, and out of time. God is not like us.

God sent his Son into his own creation to take the humble form of a servant. His Son left behind all that glory. He suffered the worse possible humiliation in death on the cross at the hands of his own creation. A creation that rebelled, and hated him. A creation that shook its angry defiant fist in his face. God is love, he loved us while we were yet sinners. What forgiveness. God, how lovely of a being he must be. How shocking his greatness. How imponderable his majesty. And how astonishing his grace? We are not like God, and God is not like us. He is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. God is light, and in him, there is no darkness at all.

Was there time before creation? Maybe not, but there was Light.

 

[turnorburn]

Revelation 22: 1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.
3 And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
4 And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.
7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.
8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
21 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.

Atheists heed these words your eternal soul depends on it.

 

[wavy]

I'm going to say yes, time began with the creation of the universe.

Then you run into the problems I already touched upon about the incoherence of time beginning at the beginning of the universe and God causing the universe.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[dadof10]

I'm going to say yes, time began with the creation of the universe.

Then you run into the problems I already touched upon about the incoherence of time beginning at the beginning of the universe and God causing the universe.

Again, was Time created or does it just happen to exist along with matter and space? Which is a more reasonable theory?

 

[mondar]

Concerning time, we are most likely beyond the realm of scripture. The scriptures does not actually tell us everything about eternity past and eternity future.

To hypothetically express that a concept of eternity is then inconsistent current laws of physics and a concept of time does little more then raise a question that only expresses the hardness of a human heart. How can one look beyond the current laws of physics and postulate what the laws of physics will be like on the other side of eternity?

Nevertheless, I hope readers will notice presuppositions. It is a presupposition that we can judge a divine being on the basis of laws of physics that this divine being created. Can anyone logically prove that God is under the laws of physics? Of course the reverse is true, I cannot prove that God is above the laws of physics. How can a limited being like me, prove the existence of an eternal and perfect being that is beyond time.

It seems to me this whole discussion gets back to a point I have previously made. Is science the only method of truth? If science is the only acceptable epistemology, then why cannot scientists put that epistemology in a test tube and demonstrate that there is no more knowledge beyond science? In spite of this logical inconsistency, the atheist, or agnostic, will continue to function only within his own epistemology . He will continue to expect to apply the laws of physics to God and eternity. Functioning within this atheistic paradigm, it makes perfect sense that eternity is impossible. On the other hand, functioning within theistic presuppositions, the concept that God is the creator of the laws of physics makes perfect sense. It is then totally logical that deity exists on the other side of eternity.

Wavy, you are previously admitted knowledge beyond science, yet you are not now functioning on a level which allows only scientific knowledge? How can you possible know that the laws of physics we currently know will be the same on the other side of eternity? Are you not asking us to think as thought scientific knowledge is the only knowledge?

 

[JMM]

Can anyone logically prove that God is under the laws of physics? Of course the reverse is true, I cannot prove that God is above the laws of physics.

Stalemate.

Functioning within this atheistic paradigm, it makes perfect sense that eternity is impossible. On the other hand, functioning within theistic presuppositions, the concept that God is the creator of the laws of physics makes perfect sense. It is then totally logical that deity exists on the other side of eternity.

It's all about the presuppositions, ain't it? You're right, Mondar. Both theist AND atheist arguments make perfect sense, depending on what is presupposed. This is why debates like this have been raging for thousands of years, with nothing ever getting resolved. Both sides, theist AND atheist, are saying about the other side: "why don't they take my words to heart? Why are they so obtuse to my logic? Why don't they GET IT?!!!" :ohwell

 

[mondar]

Can anyone logically prove that God is under the laws of physics? Of course the reverse is true, I cannot prove that God is above the laws of physics.

Stalemate.

Functioning within this atheistic paradigm, it makes perfect sense that eternity is impossible. On the other hand, functioning within theistic presuppositions, the concept that God is the creator of the laws of physics makes perfect sense. It is then totally logical that deity exists on the other side of eternity.

It's all about the presuppositions, ain't it? You're right, Mondar. Both theist AND atheist arguments make perfect sense, depending on what is presupposed. This is why debates like this have been raging for thousands of years, with nothing ever getting resolved. Both sides, theist AND atheist, are saying about the other side: "why don't they take my words to heart? Why are they so obtuse to my logic? Why don't they GET IT?!!!" :ohwell

The question is whose presuppositions are most defensible. I am saying that the only consistent epistemology is a theistic epistemology. While Wavy agreed that science is not all knowledge on a theoretical basis, his statements on time and eternity are based upon an epistemology of science only.

In other words, how can we say what the laws of physics are on the other side of eternity. Today many astrophysicists postulate a big bang. The suggest all the matter in the universe was compressed into the size of a pea. OK, what caused the big bang? I had one atheistic student of physics say that it is proven that some quantum particle or quark started it all. When I asked how this quantum particle did this, I was given an argument from authority (I just have to believe he knew what he was talking about). I later asked an actual physicists this question and he laughed at me and said that it is mere religious speculation as to what caused the big bang. He said there is no answer in science.

So then, my point is not that science is not a means of truth, but that science is not the only means to truth. There is truth beyond science. To apply this to the idea of eternity.... an idea of eternity does not have to be scientifically verifiable. To understand eternity is beyond the laws of physics.

Just think about time as we know it now. OF course the theory of special and general relativity says that measuring time is relative to speed and gravity. If you put a person in a rocket that flies at the speed of light, and it leaves earth and travels 100 light years and returns. It would leave earth and return in the same instant. Time slows, and comes to a stop at the speed of light. Gravity affects time. When starlight passes by the sun, it slows down. How can this be if the speed of light is constant? The answer is that the speed of light does not change, it is time that is relative. So then, time travels at a different rate in the gravitational field of the sun, then it does on earth. In an experiment, NASA had two extremely accurate chronometers. The kept one on earth, and put one in space on a rocket. The one in space came back and was slower then the one that remained on earth. What is time? We measure time in years, months, days, hours, minutes, seconds. Yet, how do we know that the sun will rise in eternity? Will there even be a calendar to measure time? What will a year event mean? In eternity future, what will 10,000 years even mean? What will 10,000 years matter when compared with "forever?" Do we actually even know if events will be sequential? Will space be in height-width-length? Maybe some things will be similar, maybe they will not. How can we know? The only way to know, is if someone from the other side of eternity returns and tells us what it is like. Without divine revelation, the only possible way to judge eternity is by our present senses and experiences. Yet how do we know that we can judge future eternity by the present? We dont, and we can't.

Sooo then, I do not see Wavy's hypothesis that eternity is an invalid concept as either logically consistent or valid. Wavy has affirmed other non-scientific methods of knowledge, but that is the exact epistemology that he is using to make his statements to deny the validity of the concept of eternity. Stalemate? Well, I have not heard from Wavy, and I am guessing I will, but no, I dont think it is stalemate, but rather checkmate.

 

[wavy]

Sooo then, I do not see Wavy's hypothesis that eternity is an invalid concept as either logically consistent or valid. Wavy has affirmed other non-scientific methods of knowledge, but that is the exact epistemology that he is using to make his statements to deny the validity of the concept of eternity. Stalemate? Well, I have not heard from Wavy, and I am guessing I will, but no, I dont think it is stalemate, but rather checkmate.

You're confusing the metaphysical definition of 'eternity' with 'infinity'.

But anyway, 'God', whatever he is supposed to be, cannot transcend logic. And the problem I presented is a logical issue, not just scientific one. In other words, unless my reasoning is non-validating, God cannot exist.

Thanks,
Eric