There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[outhouse]

One must be cautious of theist like this.

Its common for them to use two truths first for credibility, to then promote personal fantasy.

 

[Alt Thinker]

Ah, you are still around? Any progress on part 4 of the contradiction in the Gospels?

Still around. Only posting a few things I can do off the top of my head. Managing family business on and off via phone/email and also tending to three dogs. I will get to part 4 (empty tomb) when I can and then go back and start replying to you.

 

[cottage]

Oh, I am sure they are, however, that is not what you asked me. You said "Are you saying atheists that use brainwashing techniques are impartial and without mindless bigotry?" and I said "no" because I wasn't saying that.

So you weren’t saying those that use brainwashing techniques were not impartial or mindless bigots, but at the same time you’re contradicting yourself here by saying they are!

What do you believe the God of classic theism is?

The omnipotent creator and sustainer: the Supreme Being

No, I did not say "‘Did our Universe just come into being by random chance,.", that was part of the quote I gave in response to your request.

It wasn’t a quotation it was a statement, and you confirm the point I’m making in what you write below:

Yes, I am arguing towards a particular end that I believe via my faith, however, I am not being bias, which is why I use words like "superior entity" or "a God" so as to be impartial, but mainly to be honest. I know God exists, however, I do not know the details of his existence. That is why I ask you what you mean by a God of classical theism

So we’re talking about the same concept then.

I always take a deep breath whenever anybody claims to have objections to Kalams cosmological argument. It is just Newton's Law on motion. Cause and effect, so if you disagree with Kalam then you disagree with Sir Isaac Newton.

Well of course I don’t disagree with Newton! We couldn’t exist for moment without what we understand as the principle of causation. But “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction” isn’t a demonstrable truth any more than “All A-type things precede B-type things, thus no A-type things, then no B-type things” is a necessary truth.

I do not have sufficient time to conduct multiple involvement in several different threads, however, if you have a point to make, or an opinion to express, that in anyway critiques the existence of divinity, then I will respond with refutations.

Coming up, My six objections to the Kalam argument.

 

[cottage]

I always take a deep breath whenever anybody claims to have objections to Kalams cosmological argument. It is just Newton's Law on motion. Cause and effect, so if you disagree with Kalam then you disagree with Sir Isaac Newton.

I do not have sufficient time to conduct multiple involvement in several different threads, however, if you have a point to make, or an opinion to express, that in anyway critiques the existence of divinity, then I will respond with refutations.

I’ll give you my six objections to the cosmological arguments, to include the Kalam version. Here is the first, which is two parts:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
P2. The universe began to exist
Conclusion: Therefore the universe was caused to exist

Objection 1.

The major premise (P1) is a false.

No things in the physical world, automobiles, computers, tables and chairs etc begin to exist as if there was nothing there in the first place, not objects, not thoughts, not even children. This synthesis doesn’t occur with the introduction of something that didn’t previously exist and then began to exist but comprises a change or variation in the form of pre-existent existent matter (ex-materia). And all phenomena, even our ideas and most fantastic imaginings are not created and do not appear from nothing but are abstracted and compounded from general experience.

Since premise 1 false it follows that Premise 2 is a fallacious inference; the conclusion therefore is not demonstrated.

Here is William Lane Craig’s alternative formulation of the cosmological (Leibnizian) argument.

1.Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence that explanation will be a transcendent, personal being.

3. The universe is a contingent thing

4. Therefore the universe has an explanation of its existence. (From 1, 3)

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being.
(From 2, 4)

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

Objection 2

Let’s be clear, “Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence” is a euphemism for all contingent things are caused. So:

Premise 1 “Every contingent thing has a cause of its existence”

This is an unproven question-begging assertion. It cannot be demonstrated that all contingent things must have a cause and it certainly cannot be inferred that the contingent world as a whole must have a cause. And we cannot have recourse to the argument from contingency since that is itself a contingent proposition and beyond demonstration.

Premise 2: “The universe has an explanation for its existence.”

This statement does not follow from Premise 1.

Premise 3: “The universe is a contingent thing.”

This is not disputed, since no contradiction is implied in denying necessity.

Premise 4: “Therefore the universe has a beginning.”

This is in accordance with current cosmological thinking and is not disputed.

Premise 5: “Therefore the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being”

This does not follow since premise 2 is unproven.

The truth of premises 1 and 2 isn’t demonstrated; therefore once again the conclusion doesn’t follow and the argument is therefore specious.

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

 

[cottage]

I always take a deep breath whenever anybody claims to have objections to Kalams cosmological argument. It is just Newton's Law on motion. Cause and effect, so if you disagree with Kalam then you disagree with Sir Isaac Newton.

I do not have sufficient time to conduct multiple involvement in several different threads, however, if you have a point to make, or an opinion to express, that in anyway critiques the existence of divinity, then I will respond with refutations.

Objection 3

1. “Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.”

We can perhaps agree that trivially things in the universe appear to have an explanation, that is to say where two events are observed to be linked by association as in whenever B then A, but that does not demonstrate causal necessity.

2. “The universe has an explanation for its existence.”

If the universe as a whole is explained by a transcendent, personal being, then that being must by the same token have a reason or explanation to explain itself in terms of explaining the world.

3. “The universe is a contingent thing.”

This is not disputed.

4. “Therefore the universe has a beginning.”

This is in line with current cosmological thinking and is not disputed.

Premise 5: “Therefore the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being”

In the case of a transcendent, personal being there is nothing to explain contingent existence on those terms that doesn't run to a contradiction. Therefore there is no transcendent, personal cause.

And here is how I arrive at that conclusion:

The first premise insists that ‘every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence’, and then makes fallacious mega-leap to premise 2. The first premise even if true can only be applied within the world. In that first premise Craig is referring to the argument from contingency, which very roughly is that anything that exists, but need not exist, will only be accounted for by something that does exist and for which there is no possibility of its non-existence; it will therefore necessarily exist. But of course that argument is itself a contingent statement. A thing can exist contingently without having to answer to a supposed necessarily existing thing, and with no contradiction implied. But anyway to say every contingent thing has an explanation for its existence can only be argued by inference from the contingent world! So the argument begins by begging the question.

Things in existence can be shown to have an explanation in terms of some other thing, so then we presume to extend this principle to things that can’t be shown to exist. So we say if things in the world have a reason or explanation, then the world itself must have a reason or explanation for being what it is. But that reason or explanation for the world must by the same token have a reason or explanation to explain itself in terms of explaining the world.

Leibniz said: "No fact can be real or existing and no statement true unless it has a sufficient reason why it should be thus and not otherwise". According to the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) nothing happens by chance and a thing that doesn’t have to exist but does exist needs a reason for its existence. And this sufficient reason he said will be God, an intelligent being that freely chose to bring the world into existence. Perhaps Leibniz overstates the principle, but his argument backfires on him for it is immediately evident that to say an intelligent, personal being freely choose to bring the world into existence is to assign a purpose to the act of creation, which must be the case whether or not the PSR is a criterion of truth. If, as it is argued in classical theism, God is a personal conscious being, omniscient and omnipresent, then no act of creation happens by accident, chance, or adventitiously but only by his will alone.

The world isn’t a necessary aspect of God, and while God’s eternal existence doesn’t demand an explanation, the finite world of creatures does require an explanation or a reason for its creation. And according to Christian theism, God the creator wants a personal relationship with his creation, and as I’ve explained there is logically only one agent that can profit or gain from this arrangement – and it isn’t the formerly non-existent creatures! I think it is clear from that statement that an eternally existent God requires something he does not already have, which is an immediate contradiction even before we consider the implied emotional content, for by no amount of sophistry can it be argued that the greatest conceivable being is at the same time, or at anytime, not wholly entire or in some way incomplete. And it is utterly absurd even to think of created beings gratifying the needs or emotional requirements of the Supreme Creator.
So the contradiction becomes evident because there is a supposed Supreme Being, who, by very definition of the term, is a complete entity that wants for nothing and yet intentionally brought the world of creatures into being. But since nothing existed prior to the act of creation there was nothing that could profit, gain, or benefit from the act other than God himself. Therefore if God intentionally created the world with a purpose, that could only be for his own sake or advantage (as described above). But as the Supreme Being is a concept already augmented without limit an act of creation is purposeless, which is absurd.
There are only the two possibilities mentioned above, one contradicts the concept of a self-sufficient Supreme Being (i.e. that he has needs or desires), and the other is logically absurd for it amounts to saying a no-thing is something.

1. Assume God created the world
2. It is irrational to say a personal being freely and intentionally created the world for no purpose
3. He did create the world for a purpose
4. Therefore there was a need or purpose that benefitted God
5. The Supreme Being requires nothing since he is perfectly complete and entire
6. If 5 is not true then God is not the Supreme Being.
7. Premise 5 is true by definition
8. God had needs, desires, or unfulfilled wishes (4)
9. Therefore God is not the all-sufficient Supreme Being
If the premises are true then the conclusion that follows must also be true.
We can summarise the above argument like this:
P1: If God is the Supreme Being then he wants for nothing
P2: God wanted a relationship with his creation
Conclusion: God is not the Supreme Being

 

[cottage]

I always take a deep breath whenever anybody claims to have objections to Kalams cosmological argument. It is just Newton's Law on motion. Cause and effect, so if you disagree with Kalam then you disagree with Sir Isaac Newton.

I do not have sufficient time to conduct multiple involvement in several different threads, however, if you have a point to make, or an opinion to express, that in anyway critiques the existence of divinity, then I will respond with refutations.

Objection 4
If it is commonly argued by theists that God created the world ex nihilo, but that is absurd for even God cannot create something from nothing, and of course it wouldn’t be an explanation to say God created the world ex materia (out of existing matter) for that would require a further explanation. Rather than defend the ex nihilo argument as miracle, which still means the objection of a logical impossibility must be confronted, and theists explain this as the world not actually coming from nothing but coming from God himself. But the world cannot come from God himself if the Supreme Being is conceptually perfect and simple that is to say without composition, having no parts. For God cannot cause something to come from himself that is not wholly God-like, and since there can be no parts to God, then there can be no parts of God that are inferior or contradictory to his essence and perfection. And yet the world is imperfect and contrary to the Deity’s supposed essence and perfection, which informs that no deity is the Supreme Being.

1: By definition God’s essence is perfect, unchanging, and complete; and being simple has no parts.

2: If anything comes from God’s essence it cannot be inferior (premise 1)

3: The world is composed of parts, subject to change, and inferior to God

C: Therefore the world cannot have come from God himself.

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

Objection 5

Causation is a feature of the world and causes precede their effects in time, but God is eternal and outside of time. William Lane Craig agrees but says God exists timelessly, without creation, and temporarily since the moment of creation that is brought about as an act of free will. Craig says ‘A person can exist changelessly and then freely execute a certain intention because free will doesn’t require any antecedent determining conditions.’ But God is not a person in the ordinary way that we think of a person. God cannot logically be not-God and if God is unchanging and unchangeable then he must remain an eternally existing atemporal being. So the problem isn’t God acting per se but acting in a changed state. Now it isn’t problematic (at least for some philosophers) for God to be temporal but everlasting, existing in each moment of time. But that isn’t what is being advocated. So if God is unchanging and unchangeable then he cannot alter what he is, i.e. an atemporal being so as to come into temporal existence to bring about a temporal effect. The argument is saying God had to create time and contradictorily alter his unchanging and unchangeable self and become temporal in order to create the world. From the point where he entered time God was evidently no longer what he was before the change. There is the evident contradiction in one of God’s definitional essences, that he unchanging and unchangeable, since he now exists in temporality, and secondly that he had to implement that change that contradicts the very definition of God in order to bring into being an inferior, contingent, and finite existence.

CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

Objection 6

I’m holding this one back until I’ve seen your responses.

 

[Serenity7855]

I’ll give you my six objections to the cosmological arguments, to include the Kalam version. Here is the first, which is two parts:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence
P2. The universe began to exist
Conclusion: Therefore the universe was caused to exist

Objection 1.

The major premise (P1) is a false.

No things in the physical world, automobiles, computers, tables and chairs etc begin to exist as if there was nothing there in the first place, not objects, not thoughts, not even children.

I would agree, in part. I do not know enough about thoughts but I am sceptical as to whether you can include an intangible item.

This synthesis doesn’t occur with the introduction of something that didn’t previously exist and then began to exist but comprises a change or variation in the form of pre-existent existent matter (ex-materia).

Yes, I agree

And all phenomena, even our ideas and most fantastic imaginings are not created and do not appear from nothing but are abstracted and compounded from general experience.

As I have said, I do not know if I agree with ideas and imagination. I am thinking that a sixth sense, or the power of the Holy Ghost, would dismiss that from your list, however, tangible objects that contain atoms in there structure are the product of the combination of atoms that form molecules which are used to make chairs and cars.

Since premise 1 false it follows that Premise 2 is a fallacious inference; the conclusion therefore is not demonstrated.

Hang on, nothing you have thus far written proves premise one to be false. A chair began to exist at the point of the big bang, as did the car and you and me. We were caused to exist as a direct result of the big bang. Now, as it happens, I believe that our spirit body, what ever that maybe, has always existed, even before the big bang, in the same way as God has always existed. I believe that existence is intelligence based and our spirits have been created by the clumping together of these intelligences to produce a refined spirit that is timeless, massless, spaceless and energyless. We are literally sons and daughters of God. Please do not pick me up on that, it is anecdotal.

Here is William Lane Craig’s alternative formulation of the cosmological (Leibnizian) argument.

1.Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence that explanation will be a transcendent, personal being.

3. The universe is a contingent thing

4. Therefore the universe has an explanation of its existence. (From 1, 3)

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being.
(From 2, 4)

I have not come across this one before so I cannot make comment on it.

Objection 2

Let’s be clear, “Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence” is a euphemism for all contingent things are caused. So:

Premise 1 “Every contingent thing has a cause of its existence”

This is an unproven question-begging assertion. It cannot be demonstrated that all contingent things must have a cause and it certainly cannot be inferred that the contingent world as a whole must have a cause. And we cannot have recourse to the argument from contingency since that is itself a contingent proposition and beyond demonstration.

Everything that exists in our world is the result of the big bang that caused them to exist. It is not a complex or intricate synopsis. It is simply that everything, in reality, has a cause to its existence. Elements were caused by the big bang so everything that contains elements has a cause. Of course you cannot prove it but in cosmology the big bang is an axiom, so, based on that premise 1 remains and accurate and true statement.

Premise 2: “The universe has an explanation for its existence.”

This statement does not follow from Premise 1.

Well, of course it does. The universe has been brought into existence, so, it naturally follows that there is an explanation for how that happened, whether that explanation is cause-less or caused.

Premise 3: “The universe is a contingent thing.”

This is not disputed, since no contradiction is implied in denying necessity.

Premise 4: “Therefore the universe has a beginning.”

This is in accordance with current cosmological thinking and is not disputed.

Then if you are fine with this, you have to accept that everything that came out of the big bang has a beginning as well.

Premise 5: “Therefore the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being”

This does not follow since premise 2 is unproven.

Well, I do not consider that premise two is the reason for the falsehood. The fact is that nobody knows what the cause was. That is a leap of faith that only Christians can take. My argument is that when considering possible causes then God should be on the list.

The truth of premises 1 and 2 isn’t demonstrated; therefore once again the conclusion doesn’t follow and the argument is therefore specious.

Well, I cannot see how premise 1 or 2 can be wrong, for reason I have already stated

 

[Parsimony]

Yes, it did. There was no naturalistic explanation for Lightning, therefore, it was considered to be a supernatural event, even to the point of it being the gods getting angry. It is like the miracles performed by Jesus. A miracle is a supernatural event. No one could explain how he did it, however, in todays world, much of what he did can be explained using medical science, so, it is no longer a supernatural event, it is a natural event that takes place everywhere around the world every day. Abiogenesis will cease to be a supernatural event as soon as we replicate it. I do not believe that will ever happen. It is "God Science" and should be a testimony builder to all Christians everywhere.

If something has a natural explanation, it is not supernatural. We know that lightning has a natural explanation and as such we know that cavemen would have been incorrect in concluding that it was supernatural. Thinking of something as supernatural and it actually being supernatural are two very different things. The origin of life on Earth is still a mystery. There is no proof yet for either a natural or supernatural explanation. Even if abiogenesis is completely natural, it wouldn't rule out the existence of a higher power anyway.

 

[Serenity7855]

Objection 3

1. “Every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence.”

We can perhaps agree that trivially things in the universe appear to have an explanation, that is to say where two events are observed to be linked by association as in whenever B then A, but that does not demonstrate causal necessity.

2. “The universe has an explanation for its existence.”

If the universe as a whole is explained by a transcendent, personal being, then that being must by the same token have a reason or explanation to explain itself in terms of explaining the world.

3. “The universe is a contingent thing.”

This is not disputed.

4. “Therefore the universe has a beginning.”

This is in line with current cosmological thinking and is not disputed.

Premise 5: “Therefore the explanation of the universe is a transcendent, personal being”

In the case of a transcendent, personal being there is nothing to explain contingent existence on those terms that doesn't run to a contradiction. Therefore there is no transcendent, personal cause.

And here is how I arrive at that conclusion:

The first premise insists that ‘every contingent thing has an explanation of its existence’, and then makes fallacious mega-leap to premise 2. The first premise even if true can only be applied within the world. In that first premise Craig is referring to the argument from contingency, which very roughly is that anything that exists, but need not exist, will only be accounted for by something that does exist and for which there is no possibility of its non-existence; it will therefore necessarily exist. But of course that argument is itself a contingent statement. A thing can exist contingently without having to answer to a supposed necessarily existing thing, and with no contradiction implied. But anyway to say every contingent thing has an explanation for its existence can only be argued by inference from the contingent world! So the argument begins by begging the question.

Things in existence can be shown to have an explanation in terms of some other thing, so then we presume to extend this principle to things that can’t be shown to exist. So we say if things in the world have a reason or explanation, then the world itself must have a reason or explanation for being what it is. But that reason or explanation for the world must by the same token have a reason or explanation to explain itself in terms of explaining the world.

Leibniz said: "No fact can be real or existing and no statement true unless it has a sufficient reason why it should be thus and not otherwise". According to the principle of sufficient reason (PSR) nothing happens by chance and a thing that doesn’t have to exist but does exist needs a reason for its existence. And this sufficient reason he said will be God, an intelligent being that freely chose to bring the world into existence. Perhaps Leibniz overstates the principle, but his argument backfires on him for it is immediately evident that to say an intelligent, personal being freely choose to bring the world into existence is to assign a purpose to the act of creation, which must be the case whether or not the PSR is a criterion of truth. If, as it is argued in classical theism, God is a personal conscious being, omniscient and omnipresent, then no act of creation happens by accident, chance, or adventitiously but only by his will alone.

The world isn’t a necessary aspect of God, and while God’s eternal existence doesn’t demand an explanation, the finite world of creatures does require an explanation or a reason for its creation. And according to Christian theism, God the creator wants a personal relationship with his creation, and as I’ve explained there is logically only one agent that can profit or gain from this arrangement – and it isn’t the formerly non-existent creatures! I think it is clear from that statement that an eternally existent God requires something he does not already have, which is an immediate contradiction even before we consider the implied emotional content, for by no amount of sophistry can it be argued that the greatest conceivable being is at the same time, or at anytime, not wholly entire or in some way incomplete. And it is utterly absurd even to think of created beings gratifying the needs or emotional requirements of the Supreme Creator.
So the contradiction becomes evident because there is a supposed Supreme Being, who, by very definition of the term, is a complete entity that wants for nothing and yet intentionally brought the world of creatures into being. But since nothing existed prior to the act of creation there was nothing that could profit, gain, or benefit from the act other than God himself. Therefore if God intentionally created the world with a purpose, that could only be for his own sake or advantage (as described above). But as the Supreme Being is a concept already augmented without limit an act of creation is purposeless, which is absurd.
There are only the two possibilities mentioned above, one contradicts the concept of a self-sufficient Supreme Being (i.e. that he has needs or desires), and the other is logically absurd for it amounts to saying a no-thing is something.

1. Assume God created the world
2. It is irrational to say a personal being freely and intentionally created the world for no purpose
3. He did create the world for a purpose
4. Therefore there was a need or purpose that benefitted God
5. The Supreme Being requires nothing since he is perfectly complete and entire
6. If 5 is not true then God is not the Supreme Being.
7. Premise 5 is true by definition
8. God had needs, desires, or unfulfilled wishes (4)
9. Therefore God is not the all-sufficient Supreme Being
If the premises are true then the conclusion that follows must also be true.
We can summarise the above argument like this:
P1: If God is the Supreme Being then he wants for nothing
P2: God wanted a relationship with his creation
Conclusion: God is not the Supreme Being

Look, I can see that you have put a great deal of time into this, which is why I gave a rebuttal to your first post on it, however, I cannot continue to debate on this particular cosmological argument as I have not seen it before and I do not entirely hold with all the premises. This is what I refer to as Kalams cosmological argument.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

 

[Bunyip]

Look, I can see that you have put a great deal of time into this, which is why I gave a rebuttal to your first post on it, however, I cannot continue to debate on this particular cosmological argument as I have not seen it before and I do not entirely hold with all the premises. This is what I refer to as Kalams cosmological argument.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The other versions of the Kalam that Cottage posted were attempts to strengthen the weaknesses in the version you have just posted.

Premis one fails simply because it is false - no, not everything that begins to exist has cause. More importantly we have no experience of ex-nihilo creation from which to draw a premis.

 

[Serenity7855]

Objection 4
If it is commonly argued by theists that God created the world ex nihilo, but that is absurd for even God cannot create something from nothing, and of course it wouldn’t be an explanation to say God created the world ex materia (out of existing matter) for that would require a further explanation. Rather than defend the ex nihilo argument as miracle, which still means the objection of a logical impossibility must be confronted, and theists explain this as the world not actually coming from nothing but coming from God himself. But the world cannot come from God himself if the Supreme Being is conceptually perfect and simple that is to say without composition, having no parts. For God cannot cause something to come from himself that is not wholly God-like, and since there can be no parts to God, then there can be no parts of God that are inferior or contradictory to his essence and perfection. And yet the world is imperfect and contrary to the Deity’s supposed essence and perfection, which informs that no deity is the Supreme Being.

I do not believe in a magician God. God is omnipotent, able to do all things that can be done. You cannot produce a planet from out of a magicians hat. The word creation was intended to mean "brought together" that God took the matter that already existed in the universe and made the earth from existing matter. I do not believe in it coming from him or created from nothing.

1: By definition God’s essence is perfect, unchanging, and complete; and being simple has no parts.

I do not know that, plus it is not relevant to my eternal progression.

2: If anything comes from God’s essence it cannot be inferior (premise 1)

I do not believe that anything came from God.

3: The world is composed of parts, subject to change, and inferior to God

Exactly, so it would be an impossibility.

C: Therefore the world cannot have come from God himself.

No, I totally agree.

Objection 5

Causation is a feature of the world and causes precede their effects in time, but God is eternal and outside of time. William Lane Craig agrees but says God exists timelessly, without creation, and temporarily since the moment of creation that is brought about as an act of free will. Craig says ‘A person can exist changelessly and then freely execute a certain intention because free will doesn’t require any antecedent determining conditions.’ But God is not a person in the ordinary way that we think of a person. God cannot logically be not-God and if God is unchanging and unchangeable then he must remain an eternally existing atemporal being. So the problem isn’t God acting per se but acting in a changed state. Now it isn’t problematic (at least for some philosophers) for God to be temporal but everlasting, existing in each moment of time. But that isn’t what is being advocated. So if God is unchanging and unchangeable then he cannot alter what he is, i.e. an atemporal being so as to come into temporal existence to bring about a temporal effect. The argument is saying God had to create time and contradictorily alter his unchanging and unchangeable self and become temporal in order to create the world. From the point where he entered time God was evidently no longer what he was before the change. There is the evident contradiction in one of God’s definitional essences, that he unchanging and unchangeable, since he now exists in temporality, and secondly that he had to implement that change that contradicts the very definition of God in order to bring into being an inferior, contingent, and finite existence.

I don't know if God has changed to become a part of the temporal world. I do not know if he is subjected to time as we are. How do you define time. I am told that it is the result of light that allows us to experience time. Is it possible for a timeless being to exist in a universe governed by time. I see no reason why not, that being the case God has not changed. Maybe that is why he cannot directly intervene in our time governed world. I do not agree with everything that WLC says, just that which makes sense. I am not even a lover of his particular faith, far from it.

When Did Time Begin?

We float along the river of time. But does that river have a source? Where did time come from? Some believe time and space are one thing, and the Big Bang started the cosmic clock. Others believe the universe existed for almost half a million "years" before light could move and time began. Still others say time is older than our universe. But what if time itself is an illusion? Incredible new experiments may hold the answer. One groundbreaking experiment gives us the power to punch holes in time…and another may create a machine that operates outside time’s boundaries!

When you're having fun, time flies. Waiting in a traffic jam, not so much. Your birthday was last month, and your mortgage payment is due in a few days. The fact that we perceive time is certainly no illusion. But is it really there, or is it something we invented?

Early on in human history, we decided to start measuring the days and weeks, and eventually hours, minutes and seconds. Time was useful in organizing society, planting crops and getting ready for dates. Things worked extremely well until scientists started muddling it all up.

In the 17th century, English scientist Isaac Newton was pretty sure time existed as a universal constant. But in 1908, Hermann Minkowski, expanding on one of Einstein's ideas on the relationship between space and time, suggested a space-time continuum. This theory held that space and time were inextricably mixed, with all events occurring along the same timeline. Einstein presented his theory of general relativity not long after this and proposed that time is but an illusion.

Around the same time (if you believe in time, that is), the field of quantum mechanics grew out of an effort to explain the relationship between matter and energy. This presented a little problem for scientists trying to create a single, unified theory to account for the universe and its component parts. Quantum mechanics requires the existence of time to work. General relativity does not.

http://www.sciencechannel.com/tv-shows/through-the-wormhole/season-5-episodes.htm

 

[Serenity7855]

If something has a natural explanation, it is not supernatural.

Agreed

We know that lightning has a natural explanation and as such we know that cavemen would have been incorrect in concluding that it was supernatural.

Agreed

Thinking of something as supernatural and it actually being supernatural are two very different things.

It is supernatural for as long as you do not have a naturalistic explanation for it. If you were a caveman Lightning would be a supernatural event, simply because you do not possess the knowledge and intelligence to see how it is produced. In today's world it is common knowledge that lighting is caused by natural phenomena so it is no longer supernatural.

The origin of life on Earth is still a mystery. There is no proof yet for either a natural or supernatural explanation.

I agree

Even if abiogenesis is completely natural, it wouldn't rule out the existence of a higher power anyway.

I vehemently agree.

 

[Parsimony]

It is supernatural for as long as you do not have a naturalistic explanation for it. If you were a caveman Lightning would be a supernatural event, simply because you do not possess the knowledge and intelligence to see how it is produced. In today's world it is common knowledge that lighting is caused by natural phenomena so it is no longer supernatural.

If that's the case then supernatural might as well be a codeword for "I don't know how this happens", which makes the term fairly empty.

 

[Sapiens]

It is supernatural for as long as you do not have a naturalistic explanation for it.

BS. If you don't have an explanation for it, a simple shrug of the shoulders will work until you do.

I agree

I disagree, it is unknown, but that does not necessitate the invocation of the supernatural, again, a simple shrug of the shoulders will do for now.

I vehemently agree.

Yeah, but when it is shown to be natural, as I expect it will be, it drives another nail in the coffin of superstition.

 

[serp777]

My evidence is science. If it would have happened again, or if scientist were to have replicated it, then we would not be here discussing it, or, in Bunyip case, being aggressively defensive of it and lying about it by saying it has been done, it has not, but let's see his evidence for life coming from non-life, naturally, and within the same environment that existed when it was claimed to have originally happened. I look forward to it in anticipation.

Once life exists then life will perpetuate itself throughout our word. Life will naturally spring from life, biogenesis. It would be almost impossible for it to occur again as non-life has been replaced with life so we have to manufacture it in order to undertake experimentations on it. Our world is teaming with life so, please, show me non-life. I genuinely cannot think of any.

Science would suggest that other life in the universe is very likely. THere are approximately 10^80 atoms in the universe. Although this is speculative, the number of atoms in the universe that compose organic molecules in the right conditions for life is probably around 10^50--10^60. There may be much more actually, but I am putting it on the low end. And 10 billion of the last 13 billion years that our universe would be suitable for life to exist (since suns and a few supernovas had to come into existence first).

The number of geneses that occur is = (number of atoms in the universe)*(duration)*(constant); a constant that has the units of (number of geneses)/((number of atoms in the universe)*(duration)). So suppose that there has only been one genesis in the entire universe so far. That would mean the constant for the emergence of life equals 1*10^-64, an incredibly small number. However, this equation would suggest that life should spontaneously occur again somewhere in the next ten billion years. However, if there have been ten geneses so far, then the constant is only 1*10^-63. One hundred would be 1*10^62, and so on.

The point here is that scientists would never be able to observe life spontaneously emerging in the universe during the short hundred year period they have been looking if this were the case, and so to ask for such evidence is unreasonable. Good evidence would be finding alien life on another planet in our solar system like Europa or Enceladus. Since we haven't been able to look at any other environment other than our own planet in terms of searching for life, it's not correct to say that there has been one genesis. No one really knows at this point. So science is not your evidence at all; science hasn't even fully explored other life in our solar system--in other words, science does not have sufficient information to address this question.

 

[Serenity7855]

If that's the case then supernatural might as well be a codeword for "I don't know how this happens", which makes the term fairly empty.

May I suggest that this is only relevant to science and the use of the scientific method. It is also not a case of not knowing. We know that there must have been a rapid expansion, we just do not know the mechanism behind it.

 

[Sapiens]

May I suggest that this is only relevant to science and the use of the scientific method. It is also not a case of not knowing. We know that there must have been a rapid expansion, we just do not know the mechanism behind it.

So we scientists say, "we don't know, might have been ..." but you religionists say, "if we don't know it must have been supernatural." Sounds pretty nuts to me.

 

[McBell]

So we scientists say, "we don't know, might have been ..." but you religionists say, "if we don't know it must have been supernatural." Sounds pretty nuts to me.

They gotta stick god in somewhere...

 

[Serenity7855]

So we scientists say, "we don't know, might have been ..." but you religionists say, "if we don't know it must have been supernatural." Sounds pretty nuts to me.

No surprises there.. If it cannot be explained by naturalistic laws it is bound to be supernatural, regardless as to whether you are a scientist or a Priest.

Only those who use the scientific method can Don the name of scientists, I believe you are retired.

 

[Sapiens]

No surprises there.. If it cannot be explained by naturalistic laws it is bound to be supernatural, regardless as to whether you are a scientist or a Priest.

No. That is only true for those, like you, who are addicted to the argument from ignorance in all its forms.

Only those who use the scientific method can Don the name of scientists, I believe you are retired.

I am a retired from a specific university jog as an Oceanographer, but I still work as a consult on any number of projects. But what is your point? Will you give up being an ignoramusist when you retire? Of course not ... that's the way you think.