How could a sensible person believe in the bible?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And I would disagree about the significance of the internal harmony of the Bible, too. There are many significant logical inconsistencies within the Bible, both in terms of stated facts and doctrine. Also considering that that some parts of the Bible are near universally considered not to be the absolute factual truth should say enough about it's internal inconsistencies.

Even the marked dissimilarity in the general character of the God described in the Old Testament compared to the God of the New Testament was enough to convince Marcion and others that they were in fact two separate beings.

 

[joeboonda]

Now, if you could, please illustrate how you know that human beings, for example, have a creator and are thus "creations".

We had a beginning thus we were created. See next 2 posts.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We had a beginning thus we were created.

Hang on... you're changing your argument. Here's what you said before:

A creation has a beginning and a creator.

Are you now saying that all things that have a beginning must have a creator?

Are you also implying certain characteristics for that creator?

 

[joeboonda]

This is from Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics

If God created the universe, then who created God?
Answering the Critics
A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A number of sceptics ask this question. But God by definition is the uncreated creator of the universe, so the question ‘Who created God?’ is illogical, just like ‘To whom is the bachelor married?’

Though if the original premise was "all people are married", then asking that question would indicate that the premise was incorrect.

So a more sophisticated questioner might ask: ‘If the universe needs a cause, then why doesn’t God need a cause? And if God doesn’t need a cause, why should the universe need a cause?’ In reply, Christians should use the following reasoning:

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.1
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

Point 2 is a matter for some debate. At the very least, it can't be stated with absolute certainty. You could probably get some good discussion going at an astrophysicist's convention on this topic.

Also, I'm not even sure that point 1 can be taken as an axiom. If the universe is considered to contain time, then I don't know if the concept of causality has much meaning outside the universe's confines.

Since God, by definition, is the creator of the whole universe, he is the creator of time. Therefore He is not limited by the time dimension He created, so has no beginning in time—God is ‘the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity’ (Is. 57:15). Therefore He doesn’t have a cause.

I still don't think this is a very good argument to explain why a deity specifically is exempt from causality*, but the universe is not.

*as well as the high priest Melchizedek, if you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

In contrast, there is good evidence that the universe had a beginning. This can be shown from the Laws of Thermodynamics, the most fundamental laws of the physical sciences.

• 1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
• 2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, or entropy is increasing to a maximum.

Let's look at what the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics actually says:

The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

I don't pretend to know all the science behind it, but I know that the conditions of the Big Bang are demonstrably shown to be beyond the limits of modern science: above Planck Temperature (i.e. the temperature at which matter is so excited that all subatomic particles break down into energy), for instance, quantum physics no longer works as we understand it.

Personally, I think it's more honest to say "we don't know for certain what's beyond the Big Bang" than to say "that's where God lives!" Even laws that describe how everything in the universe operates break down when you venture outside the actual universe.

Now, what if the questioner accepts that the universe had a beginning, but not that it needs a cause? But it is self-evident that things that begin have a cause—no-one really denies it in his heart. All science and history would collapse if this law of cause and effect were denied. So would all law enforcement, if the police didn’t think they needed to find a cause for a stabbed body or a burgled house. Also, the universe cannot be self-caused—nothing can create itself, because that would mean that it existed before it came into existence, which is a logical absurdity.

It's not necessarily logical absurdity, especially at the microscopic or quantum level, and therefore at all levels.

What causes diffusion, for example? When you place a few drops of food colouring in a bowl of water, why will the water be a uniform shade when you come back to it?

What causes electrons to behave the way they do in the two-slit experiment?

In Summary

• The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
• It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
• The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
• God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.

- No, the universe (including time itself) can't be conclusively shown to have had a beginning (also, if time is a property of the universe specifically, then any notion of a "beginning" for the universe is meaningless).
- It is no more reasonable to believe that something could just have always existed without a cause.
- As I've pointed out, the universe does not necessarily require a cause.
- This argument that "God is outside of time" is an example of special pleading. Further, it does not follow from anything presented in this version of the First Cause argument that the uncaused cause must necessarily be conscious, intelligent, or match the Christian notion of God.

Objections

There are only two ways to refute an argument:

1. Show that it is logically invalid
2. Show that at least one of the premises is false.

1. Check.
2. Check.

a) Is the argument valid?

A valid argument is one where it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. Note that validity does not depend on the truth of the premises, but on the form of the argument. The argument in this paper is valid; it is of the same form as: All whales have backbones; Moby Dick is a whale; therefore Moby Dick has a backbone. So the only hope for the sceptic is to dispute one or both of the premises.

That's an incorrect definition of "valid argument".

b) Are the premises true?

1) Does the universe have a beginning?

Seeing how, apparently, the current state of science is to say "we're not sure", I don't believe that this question can be conclusively answered "yes".

[quote=joeboonda;915335]
2) Denial of cause and effect



Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics violates this cause/effect principle and can produce something from nothing.[/quote]

Some religious folks, too. It's your contention, apparently, that God was just always there. If an effect implies a cause, then wouldn't the existence of God imply a creator of God?

Also, if there is no cause, there is no explanation why this particular universe appeared at a particular time, nor why it was a universe and not, say, a banana or cat which appeared. This universe can’t have any properties to explain its preferential coming into existence, because it wouldn’t have any properties until it actually came into existence.

I don't see why this is necessary at all, any more than it's necessary to explain why last week's numbers specifically came up in the lotto.

Just because the theists want purpose for creation doesn't mean that purpose is there.

Is creation by God rational?

A last desperate tactic by sceptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is meaningless to talk about what happened ‘before’ the universe began. But he claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened ‘before’ the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to discuss the cause of the universe’s beginning.

Not just Davies claims this. Your whole argument that God can exist without causation is based on the idea that He is "outside of time".

But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a useful critique of Davies,10 pointed out that Davies is deficient in philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) gave the example of a weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig says: The first moment of time is the moment of God’s creative act and of creation’s simultaneous coming to be.
Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the nature of science. So this can’t be used to prove creation by God. Of course, sceptics can’t have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.

As you state, this is considered "tentative", which I suppose is your shorthand for "generally not accepted". Also the last statement is fallacious.

To sum up, let's see where we are:

- you haven't shown that the universe was necessarily caused
- you haven't shown that God could necessarily exist uncaused
- you haven't given a single point as to why the existence of humanity implies a creator (i.e. a purposeful, intelligent cause)

 

[may]

What is the significance of chewing cud?

Also considering that that some parts of the Bible are near universally considered not to be the absolute factual truth should say enough about it's internal inconsistencies.

critics pointed to the fact that the bible said the hare is a chewer of the cud , but did not believe that to be the case , so they were trying to say that the bible was wrong , but now they know that the bible is right all along . so inconsistencies are not always what they seem .

 

[rojse]

If you want to say that everything that exists must have a creator, why does it not apply to God?

Where is this proof that God has had an eternal existence? I haven't picked that one up in reading the Bible.

 

[rojse]

critics pointed to the fact that the bible said the hare is a chewer of the cud , but did not believe that to be the case , so they were trying to say that the bible was wrong , but now they know that the bible is right all along . so inconsistencies are not always what they seem .

Perhaps that ancient people believed this to be the case, and it wasn't proven until the eighteenth century. It hasn't been the first time that scientific evidence has been lost, only to be rediscovered later.

 

[rojse]

To May, although you have found the time to reply to my one statement about rabbits chewing cud, where I had no disagreement with the information you had given, you have not replied to any of my other statements.

I am particularly interested in your argument against me differentiating between your passage stating that the earth was a circle, and you taking this into mean that the world is a sphere.

 

[logician]

Of course, you get back to the question if everything needs a creator, who created god? Was there a first god, or an infinite number of gods? The bottom line is nobody knows what the "beginning" was, and there may never have been a "beginning" as we can understand it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course, you get back to the question if everything needs a creator, who created god? Was there a first god, or an infinite number of gods? The bottom line is nobody knows what the "beginning" was, and there may never have been a "beginning" as we can understand it.

But don't you know? God must be the first and only uncaused cause.

And it logically follows that God must be intelligent, conscious, and made up of a Trinity. Also, it logically follows that He created humans in His own image along with moral rules for them, fully endorses every written thing attributed to Him by Christians, will some day come to judge the living and the dead, wants engraved versions of His rules in our courthouses, hates gay people, hates Charles Darwin, and has a big, white beard.

 

[may]

If you want to say that everything that exists must have a creator, why does it not apply to God?

Where is this proof that God has had an eternal existence? I haven't picked that one up in reading the Bible.

(Psalm 90:2) Before the mountains themselves were born, Or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land, Even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God.

(1 Timothy 1:17) Now to the King of eternity, incorruptible, invisible, [the] only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
​

(Revelation 1:8) "I am the Al´pha and the O·me´ga," says Jehovah God, "the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty."

 

[may]

Perhaps that ancient people believed this to be the case, and it wasn't proven until the eighteenth century. It hasn't been the first time that scientific evidence has been lost, only to be rediscovered later.

yes the bible is always right regardless of what people may think.

 

[may]

To May, although you have found the time to reply to my one statement about rabbits chewing cud, where I had no disagreement with the information you had given, you have not replied to any of my other statements.

I am particularly interested in your argument against me differentiating between your passage stating that the earth was a circle, and you taking this into mean that the world is a sphere.

The original-language word translated "circle" at Isaiah 40:22 may also be rendered "sphere." Certain Bible translations read, "the globe of the earth" (Douay Version) and "the round earth."—Moffatt.

 

[may]

over 3,000 years before the famous scientist Sir Isaac Newton explained that the planets are held in empty space by gravity, the Bible poetically stated that ‘the earth is hanging upon nothing.’ (Job 26:7) Consider also this poetic description of the earth’s water cycle, recorded some 3,000 years ago: "All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again." (Ecclesiastes 1:7, New International Version) Yes, the Creator of the universe is also the Author of the Bible.

 

[may]

at a time when most people believed that the earth was flat, the Bible spoke of "the circle [or, sphere] of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Consider also this poetic description of the earth’s water cycle, recorded some 3,000 years ago: "All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full. To the place the streams come from, there they return again." (Ecclesiastes 1:7, New International Version) Yes, the Creator of the universe is also the Author of the Bible.

Except that other Biblical passages seem to identify "the place the streams come from" as underground springs; I'm not aware of one Biblical verse that identifies rain as the source of streams.

I've read (external to the Bible) that it used to be believed that water flowed underground from the oceans back through springs to feed rivers. Every Biblical passage I've read that touches on the subject of where water comes from seems to be consistent with this belief... which all makes one question whether the author actually did have knowledge of the water cycle.

Here is an example of what I'm talking about:

Psalm 104:10-11:

10 He makes springs pour water into the ravines;
it flows between the mountains.
11 They give water to all the beasts of the field;
the wild donkeys quench their thirst.

 

[camanintx]

In Summary

• The universe (including time itself) can be shown to have had a beginning.
• It is unreasonable to believe something could begin to exist without a cause.
• The universe therefore requires a cause, just as Genesis 1:1 and Romans 1:20 teach.
• God, as creator of time, is outside of time. Since therefore He has no beginning in time, He has always existed, so doesn’t need a cause.

Objections

There are only two ways to refute an argument:

1. Show that it is logically invalid
2. Show that at least one of the premises is false.

Your premise that the universe and time have a beginning is based on Ensteinian physics, however there are problems with that assumption. Physicists have been trying for decades to resolve the conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. Some of these new theories allow for the idea of a cyclic universe with no beginning. If one of these theories does eventually replace relativity and the big bang, would that disprove the existence of God?

 

[camanintx]

at a time when most people believed that the earth was flat, the Bible spoke of "the circle [or, sphere] of the earth." (Isaiah 40:22)

And yet anyone who seriously believes the Earth is flat point to the Bible as proof.

 

[joeboonda]

Your premise that the universe and time have a beginning is based on Ensteinian physics, however there are problems with that assumption. Physicists have been trying for decades to resolve the conflict between relativity and quantum mechanics. Some of these new theories allow for the idea of a cyclic universe with no beginning. If one of these theories does eventually replace relativity and the big bang, would that disprove the existence of God?

I believe scientists have recognized the universe had a beginning. No theory of man can disprove the existence of God to me. Just like all the logic I can offer to prove the existence of God will not prove it to one who does not believe. When I see certain things in the creation, I believe in a Creator. Others see the same things and see evolution. I believe God laughs at the wisdom of man and makes himself known by foolish things to the simple. He takes the wise in their own craftiness, they are entangled in their own devices:

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
1 Corinthians 1:25
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1 Corinthians 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.