What evidence for God

[diosangpastol]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God
I. The Kalam Cosmological Argument

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


In Defense of the Kalam

“Why does the universe exist?”

Have you ever asked yourselves this question? This is a question that has hounded the thoughts of man since time immemorial.

Well, the typical atheistic answer has always been 'we just do' and that the universe just 'exists' eternally and uncaused. But recent discoveries in mathematics and cosmology does much to cast doubt on this claim.


I.I. The universe began to exist

I.I.I. Philosophical Confirmation of Premise (2)

Actual Infinites and Reality

The very first of these problems are problems to do with actual infinites existing in physical reality. Most mathematicians recognize that actual infinites are mere ideas in your mind that have no place in reality. Why? Well, when dealing with actual infinites, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? And an infinite series of temporal events just is such an actual infinite.

In order to unpack this point, we must first distinguish between actual infinites and potential infinites. An actual infinite, indicated by the symbol aleph ℵ0, is an infinite that is complete. It is a number that is greater than the set of all natural numbers, {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...}. That is to say, all the elements of the infinite set is already there. A potential infinite is a number that always approaches the infinite but never actually gets there, represented by the symbol of a lying-down 8, the lemniscate, ∞. Say, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9... Such an infinite is really indefinite instead of infinite.

I.I.I.I. Impossibility of an Actual Infinite

1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
2. A beginning-less series of events in time entails an actually infinite number of things.
3. Therefore, a beginning-less series of events in time cannot exist.

Premise 1:

Premise 1 draws it's strength from the logical contradictions that we would expect to see were actual infinites be possible in reality. Hilbert's Hotel, Craig's favorite illustration of the concept, will serve to illustrate this contradictions. And I quote:

“As a warm-up, let’s first imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Suppose, furthermore, that all the rooms are occupied. When a new guest arrives asking for a room, the proprietor apologizes, “Sorry, all the rooms are full,” and that’s the end of the story. But now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and suppose once more that all the rooms are occupied. There is not a single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose a new guest shows up, asking for a room. “But of course!” says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room #3 into room #4, and so on, out to infinity. As a result of these room changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest gratefully checks in. But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were already occupied!” [1]
​

Now, does anyone really think that such a Hotel could exist in reality? Obviously not. Our rationality then behooves to reject such a possibility but in doing so, we reject the possibility of an eternal universe.

Premise 2:

Premise 2 is obvious in it's implications. If the universe has existed for infinite time it would be an example of just such an actual infinite which we know to be absurd. Craig's choice of words here is interesting. By choosing to define time as events rather than as moments, he preempts a possible objection to the argument, that is that moments are relative.

Conlusion:

The conclusion we then draw from the argument is that the universe is not eternal and thus had a beginning to it's existence.


I.I.I.II. Impossibility of an Actual Infinite through Successive Addition

1. The series of events in time is a collection formed by successive addition.
2. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite.

Premise (1) is fairly obvious. It states that a series of events in time, our temporal reality, is formed by successive addition of events. Say 1 second + 1 second + 1 second...

It is premise (2) that forms the core of the argument. It states that such a collection so formed is really a potential infinite, that is indefinite, and would never actually form an actual infinite. For think about it: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10... will always be approaching infinity but would never actually get there since an actual infinite is a number that is greater than the set of all natural numbers.

But since the series of events in time is a collection formed by successive addition, and a series so formed cannot be actually infinite, it follows logically that the series of events in time is not actually infinite.


I.I.II. Scientific Confirmation

 

[diosangpastol]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God I. The Kalam Cosmological Argument

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


In Defense of the Kalam

“Why does the universe exist?”

Have you ever asked yourselves this question? This is a question that has hounded the thoughts of man since time immemorial.

Well, the typical atheistic answer has always been 'we just do' and that the universe just 'exists' eternally and uncaused. But recent discoveries in mathematics and cosmology does much to cast doubt on this claim.


I.I. The universe began to exist

I.I.I. Philosophical Confirmation of Premise (2)

Actual Infinites and Reality

The very first of these problems are problems to do with actual infinites existing in physical reality. Most mathematicians recognize that actual infinites are mere ideas in your mind that have no place in reality. Why? Well, when dealing with actual infinites, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? And an infinite series of temporal events just is such an actual infinite.

In order to unpack this point, we must first distinguish between actual infinites and potential infinites. An actual infinite, indicated by the symbol aleph ℵ0, is an infinite that is complete. It is a number that is greater than the set of all natural numbers, {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...}. That is to say, all the elements of the infinite set is already there. A potential infinite is a number that always approaches the infinite but never actually gets there, represented by the symbol of a lying-down 8, the lemniscate, ∞. Say, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9... Such an infinite is really indefinite instead of infinite.

I.I.I.I. Impossibility of an Actual Infinite

1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist.
2. A beginning-less series of events in time entails an actually infinite number of things.
3. Therefore, a beginning-less series of events in time cannot exist.

Premise 1:

Premise 1 draws it's strength from the logical contradictions that we would expect to see were actual infinites be possible in reality. Hilbert's Hotel, Craig's favorite illustration of the concept, will serve to illustrate this contradictions. And I quote:

“As a warm-up, let’s first imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Suppose, furthermore, that all the rooms are occupied. When a new guest arrives asking for a room, the proprietor apologizes, “Sorry, all the rooms are full,” and that’s the end of the story. But now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and suppose once more that all the rooms are occupied. There is not a single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose a new guest shows up, asking for a room. “But of course!” says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room #3 into room #4, and so on, out to infinity. As a result of these room changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest gratefully checks in. But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were already occupied!” [1]
​

Now, does anyone really think that such a Hotel could exist in reality? Obviously not. Our rationality then behooves to reject such a possibility but in doing so, we reject the possibility of an eternal universe.

Premise 2:

Premise 2 is obvious in it's implications. If the universe has existed for infinite time it would be an example of just such an actual infinite which we know to be absurd. Craig's choice of words here is interesting. By choosing to define time as events rather than as moments, he preempts a possible objection to the argument, that is that moments are relative.

Conlusion:

The conclusion we then draw from the argument is that the universe is not eternal and thus had a beginning to it's existence.


I.I.I.II. Impossibility of an Actual Infinite through Successive Addition

1. The series of events in time is a collection formed by successive addition.
2. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite.

Premise (1) is fairly obvious. It states that a series of events in time, our temporal reality, is formed by successive addition of events. Say 1 second + 1 second + 1 second...

It is premise (2) that forms the core of the argument. It states that such a collection so formed is really a potential infinite, that is indefinite, and would never actually form an actual infinite. For think about it: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10... will always be approaching infinity but would never actually get there since an actual infinite is a number that is greater than the set of all natural numbers.

But since the series of events in time is a collection formed by successive addition, and a series so formed cannot be actually infinite, it follows logically that the series of events in time is not actually infinite.

 

[diosangpastol]

I.I.II. Scientific Confirmation

I.I.II.I. The Expansion of the Universe

This purely philosophical conclusions are supported by recent advances in the field of cosmology. The discovery of the cosmological red shift and cosmic background radiation served to confirm the hypothesis formulated by Friedman and Lemaitre. Both scientists formulated independently of one another a theory that eliminates the need for what Einstein called a 'fudge factor' in his General Theory of Relativity. They did this by predicting the expansion of the universe.

This prediction sparked what is called one, if not the single most, spectacular discovery in the history of science. As John Wheeler exclaims, “Of all the great predictions that science has made over the centuries was there ever one greater than this, to predict, and to predict correctly, and predict against all expectation a phenomenon so fantastic as the expansion of the universe?” [2]

This prediction was confirmed by two scientific discoveries over the past century, the discovery of the cosmological red shift by Edwin Hubble and the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

The expansion predicted by the Friedman-Lemaitre model thus predicts that as one goes back in time, the universe is compressed into a mathematical singularity prior to which nothing existed, not even time and space. The implication is that this singularity then forms a boundary in the finite past to space and time itself. PCW Davies comments:

“If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.”[3]​

This singularity then expanded to form the universe in the event known as the Big Bang. The standard Big Bang model then, as formulated by Friedman and Lemaitre, predicts a universe that is not eternal in the past but began to exist a finite time ago. Now, scientists have been trying for the past century or so, to craft a model that precludes the universe beginning to exist but none so far has had much success. The 20th century history of cosmology can perhaps be described as a series of failed attempts to craft a working alternative model to the standard Big Bang model.

All these attempts however came to what could be called a watershed with the publication by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin of the theorem that now bears their name. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) Theorem predicts that any universe that is on average expanding even at a very minimal rate is not past-eternal and had an absolute beginning. This applies even to cyclic models of the universe and even to eternal inflationary multiverses. Vilenkin, in his book, is blunt about the implications of this theory, “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”[4]

The BGV Theorem single-handedly sweeps aside all the most important attempts to find an alternate model of the universe that does not involve an absolute beginning.


I.I.II.II. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

There is a second scientific confirmation however that involves a law that is so well understood especially in comparison the the relatively controversial standard model. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, elements within a closed system tend to, over time, result in a state of rest, ie thermodynamic equilibrium. For examples of this law at work, take water inside a bath and disturb it. You will observe the disturbance gradually cease until a state of rest reemerges in the absence of further stimuli.

The argument then is elegant in it's simplicity. If the universe is such a closed system and has existed for infinite time, why is it not now in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium? The conclusion can only be that it has not, in fact, existed for infinite time, thus serving as further confirmation of premise (2).



I.II. The Causal Principle

In light of this evidence, atheists are forced to conclude that the universe, if it began to exist, came from nothing. But surely, this makes no sense? Out of nothing, nothing comes. A metaphyisical principle that is both necessary to science and a principal principle for our understand of the world. This causal principle is everyday confirmed in our experience of the world. It is confirmed empirically by every observation by science since the dawn of mankind. Empiricists thus have the strongest of motivations to accept premise (1).



I.III. Nature of the Cause / Conclusion

We have thus far deduced that the universe began to exist and it had a cause. What then can we deduce of the nature of this cause? It must be timeless since time began to exist. It must be spaceless since space began to exist. It must be immaterial and changeless prior to the creation of the universe. It must be enormously intelligent and enormously powerful to have caused the universe into being. And finally, it must be a 'personal mind'.

The Cause being a Personal Mind

1. An eternal cause precedes an eternal effect – a ball weighing down on a matress from eternity past will always have a matress being weighed down. If the cause is eternal, the effect must also be eternal bar 'agent causation'. The only possible exception is a personal mind that freely chooses to produce it's effect.
2. Only two objects are immaterial, abstract objects and minds – we know of only two things that fit the criterion if being immateral. Abstract objects, like numbers and propositions, and unembodied minds. It cannot be abstract objects since abstract objects are causally effete, ie they don't cause anything. It follow then that the cause is an unemboidied mind.

Infinite Regress of Causes

Occam's Razor will then shave off any further causes to just one necessary cause. We are thus left with a cause of the universe that is necessary in it's nature, is timeless, spaceless, immaterial and changeless, enormously powerful and enormously intelligent, and lastly personal. And that is what we minimally mean when we speak of God.

P.S. I'm posting this here so you guys could ask you questions and we can have a discussion on this outside the strict confines and limitations of a debate. Don't be shy about the questions, this is as much training for me as an attempt to spread this material to more people. Cheers!




[1](William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, p118)
[2](John A. Wheeler, “Beyond the Hole,” in Some Strangeness in the Proportion, ed. Harry Woolf (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1980), 354)
[3]( P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1978), 78–79.)
[4](Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One, 176.)

 

[Vendetta]

Love, the emotion? Are you seriously asking whether or not we can "prove" emotions exist?

You can....just hook the brain up or in this case the head to an fMRI then show a.man or woman pictures of loved ones.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Well, I believe that any professional historian will disagree with you.

History is written with a bias, by all historians, that is why you have so many schools of history - authoritarian, totalitarian, social history, gender history, etc., because each history is written through a framework, our perceptions of history is seen through that particular framework -- history cannot be anything but subjective. Mathematics, science, on the other hand are not subjective -- they are prone to the scientific method -- the humanities are not.

Truth is subjective in the sense that there is no such as material "truth," truth is in the eye of the beholder, that is. My truth is not your truth.

Written history is subjective yes based on who wrote it, but history in itself is not. They are two different things.

And about truth, you're not talking about truth here, you're talking about perception, which is subjective. Your "truth" may be different from my "truth," but that doesn't make either "truths" true.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

It's cool that we agree, to some degree
But an emotion and ideas are not concepts as-is.

Yes they are. They are subjective, conceptual. You cannot measure subjective things.

Ideas are real, they exist, people come up with ideas.
Emotions are real, people feel emotions, people live by emotions, some more then others, but emotions guide the way people live their lives.

I'm not saying they aren't real, I'm saying they aren't physical. Yes they exist, but not a physical objects/entities. Just because people can feel emotions it doesn't mean that those emotions are "real" ie.: objective. Don't confuse the emotion with the reaction to the emotion or the actions people take because of the emotion/concept(s).

It all becomes problematic when we begin to try to reduce these emotions and feelings into categories, into atoms, etc. Because how does one define emotions?

Who's doing that? You can't reduce emotions to atoms because they aren't objective. And I've never seen someone try to do so either. You have?

Physically people can feel love,

yes.

and I think physically people can feel God or sense God.

The question is then . . . is God a concept? That is, is he a creation of man?

I clearly asked you this, and you seem to be confused as to the difference to subjectivity and objectivity.

Perhaps the God we all know from television and thousands of interpretations is, but is God not just an articulation of creation of everything, or a source?

No, every definition for a "god" is too vague to say this is so.

In that sense, someone or something had to create all of this -- this universe -- and that is God, therefore it must be real?

Not only is this an assumption, you've leapt way over logic to get to this point.
Question: Do you believe god to be subjective or objective?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

To make this easier, my stuff is bolded in red

The Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God
I. The Kalam Cosmological Argument

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. Assumption that things begin to exist.
2. The universe began to exist. An assupmtion.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. And yet, another assumption.


In Defense of the Kalam

“Why does the universe exist?” Like, OMG, IDK, OK?

Have you ever asked yourselves this question? Yes.This is a question that has hounded the thoughts of man since time immemorial.

Well, the typical atheistic answer has always been 'we just do' and that the universe just 'exists' eternally and uncaused. And the typical theistic answer is that SOME DIETY or COSMIC FORCE did it and he just exists. But recent discoveries in mathematics and cosmology does much to cast doubt on this claim. 1) what discoveries? 2) There is doubt cast on the fact that we exists?


I.I. The universe began to exist Assumptions galore!!!

I.I.I. Philosophical Confirmation of Premise (2) Philosophical confirmation. Wha?:sarcastic

Actual Infinites and Reality

The very first of these problems are problems to do with actual infinites existing in physical reality. Most mathematicians recognize that actual infinites are mere ideas in your mind that have no place in reality. Like God? OH! You want some ice for that BURN?!!!Why? Well, when dealing with actual infinites, (Could you name one confirmed "actual infinity?") mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? I could be wrong but I believe that it's still infinity because infinity does not equal infifity. And an infinite series of temporal events just is such an actual infinite.

In order to unpack this point, we must first distinguish between actual infinites and potential infinites. An actual infinite, indicated by the symbol aleph ℵ0, is an infinite that is complete. It is a number that is greater than the set of all natural numbers, {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...}. That is to say, all the elements of the infinite set is already there. A potential infinite is a number that always approaches the infinite but never actually gets there, represented by the symbol of a lying-down 8, the lemniscate, ∞. Say, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9... Such an infinite is really indefinite instead of infinite.

I.I.I.I. Impossibility of an Actual Infinite

1. An actually infinite number of things cannot exist. Well, we have no proof that such exists.
2. A beginning-less series of events in time entails an actually infinite number of things.
3. Therefore, a beginning-less series of events in time cannot exist. Yeah, but where does God come in?

Premise 1:

Premise 1 draws it's strength from the logical contradictions that we would expect to see were actual infinites be possible in reality. Hilbert's Hotel, Craig's favorite illustration of the concept, will serve to illustrate this contradictions. And I quote:

“As a warm-up, let’s first imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Suppose, furthermore, that all the rooms are occupied. When a new guest arrives asking for a room, the proprietor apologizes, “Sorry, all the rooms are full,” and that’s the end of the story. But now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms (I feel bad for that housekeeping staff.) and suppose once more that all the rooms are occupied. There is not a single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose a new guest shows up, asking for a room. “But of course!” says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room #3 into room #4, and so on, out to infinity. As a result of these room changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest gratefully checks in. But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were already occupied!” [1]

​

Now, does anyone really think that such a Hotel could exist in reality? Obviously not. Our rationality then behooves to reject such a possibility but in doing so, we reject the possibility of an eternal universe.

Premise 2:

Premise 2 is obvious in it's implications. If the universe has existed for infinite time it would be an example of just such an actual infinite which we know to be absurd. Craig's choice of words here is interesting. By choosing to define time as events rather than as moments, he preempts a possible objection to the argument, that is that moments are relative.

Conlusion:

The conclusion we then draw from the argument is that the universe is not eternal and thus had a beginning to it's existence.


I.I.I.II. Impossibility of an Actual Infinite through Successive Addition

1. The series of events in time is a collection formed by successive addition.
2. A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite.
3. Therefore, the series of events in time cannot be actually infinite.

Premise (1) is fairly obvious. (Yeah, so? get to the point.)It states that a series of events in time, our temporal reality, is formed by successive addition of events. Say 1 second + 1 second + 1 second...

It is premise (2) that forms the core of the argument. It states that such a collection so formed is really a potential infinite, that is indefinite, and would never actually form an actual infinite. For think about it: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10... will always be approaching infinity but would never actually get there since an actual infinite is a number that is greater than the set of all natural numbers.

But since the series of events in time is a collection formed by successive addition, and a series so formed cannot be actually infinite, it follows logically that the series of events in time is not actually infinite.


I.I.II. Scientific Confirmation Whaaaaaaa?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Nonbevliever_92, My posts are red.
.I.II. Scientific Confirmation

I.I.II.I. The Expansion of the Universe

This purely philosophical conclusions (I can tell already that this chall be funny.)are supported by recent advances in the field of cosmology. The discovery of the cosmological red shift and cosmic background radiation served to confirm the hypothesis formulated by Friedman and Lemaitre. Both scientists formulated independently of one another a theory that eliminates the need for what Einstein called a 'fudge factor' in his General Theory of Relativity. They did this by predicting the expansion of the universe. (Alright, I'm with you so far.)

This prediction sparked what is called one, if not the single most, spectacular discovery in the history of science. As John Wheeler exclaims, “Of all the great predictions that science has made over the centuries was there ever one greater than this, to predict, and to predict correctly, and predict against all expectation a phenomenon so fantastic as the expansion of the universe?” [2]

This prediction was confirmed by two scientific discoveries over the past century, the discovery of the cosmological red shift by Edwin Hubble and the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

The expansion predicted by the Friedman-Lemaitre model thus predicts that as one goes back in time, the universe is compressed into a mathematical singularity prior to which nothing existed, not even time and space. The implication is that this singularity then forms a boundary in the finite past to space and time itself. PCW Davies comments:

“If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme, we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. For this reason most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.”[3]
​

This singularity then expanded to form the universe in the event known as the Big Bang. The standard Big Bang model then, as formulated by Friedman and Lemaitre, predicts a universe that is not eternal in the past but began to exist a finite time ago. Now, scientists have been trying for the past century or so, to craft a model that precludes the universe beginning to exist but none so far has had much success. The 20th century history of cosmology can perhaps be described as a series of failed attempts to craft a working alternative model to the standard Big Bang model. (Dear lord I've fogotten what I asked in the OP this has gone on so long...)

All these attempts however came to what could be called a watershed with the publication by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin of the theorem that now bears their name. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) Theorem predicts that any universe that is on average expanding even at a very minimal rate is not past-eternal and had an absolute beginning. (hasn't that already been debunked?)This applies even to cyclic models of the universe and even to eternal inflationary multiverses. Vilenkin, in his book, is blunt about the implications of this theory, “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”[4]

The BGV Theorem single-handedly sweeps aside all the most important attempts to find an alternate model of the universe that does not involve an absolute beginning. (Some theorems just refuse to listen.)


I.I.II.II. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

There is a second scientific confirmation however that involves a law that is so well understood especially in comparison the the relatively controversial standard model. According to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, elements within a closed system tend to, over time, result in a state of rest, ie thermodynamic equilibrium. For examples of this law at work, take water inside a bath and disturb it. You will observe the disturbance gradually cease until a state of rest reemerges in the absence of further stimuli.

The argument then is elegant in it's simplicity. If the universe is such a closed system and has existed for infinite time, why is it not now in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium? (To be fair, just because we haven't seen degradation doesn't mean that it's not degrading, and we're not exactly sure that the universe is a closed system.)The conclusion can only be that it has not, in fact, existed for infinite time, thus serving as further confirmation of premise (2).



I.II. The Causal Principle

In light of this evidence, atheists are forced to conclude that the universe, if it began to exist, came from nothing. But surely, this makes no sense? (It came form a diety of course. That in turn came out of nothing...wait...) Out of nothing, nothing comes. (And from the darkness comes, BATMAN!!!) A metaphyisical principle that is both necessary to science and a principal principle for our understand of the world. This causal principle is everyday confirmed in our experience of the world. It is confirmed empirically by every observation by science since the dawn of mankind. Empiricists thus have the strongest of motivations to accept premise (1).



I.III. Nature of the Cause / Conclusion

We have thus far deduced (assumed)that the universe began to exist and it had a cause. What then can we deduce of the nature of this cause? It must be timeless since time began to exist. It must be spaceless since space began to exist. It must be immaterial and changeless prior to the creation of the universe. It must be enormously intelligent and enormously powerful to have caused the universe into being. And finally, it must be a 'personal mind'.(AssumptionsAssumptionsAssumptionsGalore!!!)

The Cause being a Personal Mind

1. An eternal cause precedes an eternal effect – a ball weighing down on a matress from eternity past will always have a matress being weighed down. If the cause is eternal, the effect must also be eternal bar 'agent causation'. The only possible exception is a personal mind that freely chooses to produce it's effect.
2. Only two objects are immaterial, abstract objects and minds – we know of only two things that fit the criterion if being immateral. Abstract objects, like numbers and propositions, and unembodied minds. It cannot be abstract objects since abstract objects are causally effete, ie they don't cause anything. It follow then that the cause is an unemboidied mind.

Infinite Regress of Causes

Occam's Razor will then shave off any further causes to just one necessary cause. We are thus left with a cause of the universe that is necessary in it's nature, is timeless, spaceless, immaterial and changeless, enormously powerful and enormously intelligent, and lastly personal. And that is what we minimally mean when we speak of God.

This is such a tired argument, though. If "god" can exist without needing a cause, why can't the universe? And why does "god" have to be the cause and not All-powerful Purple Penis Pixies with tender Turquoise Teats?

P.S. I'm posting this here so you guys could ask you questions and we can have a discussion on this outside the strict confines and limitations of a debate. (You know this is the debate forum right?)Don't be shy about the questions, this is as much training for me as an attempt to spread this material to more people. Cheers!

meh.



[1](William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, p118)
[2](John A. Wheeler, “Beyond the Hole,” in Some Strangeness in the Proportion, ed. Harry Woolf (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1980), 354)
[3]( P. C. W. Davies, “Spacetime Singularities in Cosmology,” in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1978), 78–79.)
[4](Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One, 176.)

 

[LuisDantas]

There is no need for using so many words. Check page two of this thread.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...es/111236-honestly-why-do-you-need-god-2.html

 

[nonbeliever_92]

There is no need for using so many words. Check page two of this thread.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...es/111236-honestly-why-do-you-need-god-2.html

...........meh.

 

[waitasec]

If "god" can exist without needing a cause, why can't the universe?

:beach:

 

[asketikos]

nonbeliever92 . . . history is biased and subjective, if you're speaking about the PAST, then yes that is objective, but history is not the unbiased fact of what occurred in the past, history is man's interpretation of the past. Truth is subjective, and there are countless academic studies on the matter, which if you really would like, i can guide you to.

Besides that, I can't see this discussion resulting in anything fruitful other than heated rhetoric, like for example claiming that i am "confused" etc.

 

[Orias]

Truth and history are not subjective, btw. The perception of truth is subjective, but truth itself is not. History is not subjective at all.

What exactly is truth?

 

[Ben Masada]

What evidence for God?
I have two that I can remember of:
1) One is in Psalm 19:1 - That the universe declares the glory of God and shows His handiwork.
2) The other is in Ezekiel 20:41 - That by means of Israel, God reveals Hs glory in the sight of the nations. Once Mark Twain was asked for an evidence of God's existence, he answered and said, "The Jews." Now, go and figure what he meant, because such a man would hardly speak nonsense.

 

[LuisDantas]

What evidence for God?
I have two that I can remember of:
1) One is in Psalm 19:1 - That the universe declares the glory of God and shows His handiwork.
2) The other is in Ezekiel 0:41 - That by means of Israel, God reveals Hs glory in the sight of the nations.

Those are statements, arguably testimonials. They don't count as evidence.

Once Mark Twain was asked for an evidence of God's existence, he answered and said, "The Jews." Now, go and figure what he meant. Such a man would not speak nonsense.

I doubt there is or ever was a person who "wouldn't speak nonsense", but Mark Twain certainly wasn't above speaking in jest. His tale about the theft of a while elephant is a marvel of sarcasm.

Incidentaly, Mark Twain was an Atheist.

 

[Ben Masada]

Those are statements, arguably testimonials. They don't count as evidence.

Well, my friend, it is written in the greatest best seller of all times Jewish textbook.
If that's a testimonial or theory, that's doubtly a diehard one. Definitely not to compare to scientific theories which are born and die almost without a span of life.

I doubt there is or ever was a person who "wouldn't speak nonsense", but Mark Twain certainly wasn't above speaking in jest. His tale about the theft of a while elephant is a marvel of sarcasm.

Incidentaly, Mark Twain was an Atheist.

The Essay of Mark Twain About the Jews.
[SIZE=+1]"If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one percent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of, but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvellous fight in the world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?[/SIZE]

Mark Twain
Such an essay could hardly be a joke.

Regarding his being an Atheist, which is the first time I hear of, it must be about the anthropomorphic god of religions, which Nietzsche delared had died. And the same was said about Einstein whom Atheists love to remind us that he was another Atheist. However, when he was asked if he believed in God, he answered and said that all his life was to try to catch God at His work of creation. Then, he went out to deliver a lecture about the expansion of the universe, which has been proved that it continue expanding, but Science is till to find out how. It could be God at His work of creation.
[SIZE=+1]
[/SIZE]

 

[LuisDantas]

Such an essay could hardly be a joke.

I don't necessarily agree, although for the most part I do find myself agreeing with that text. But he is not making any claims about God in there, now is he?

Incidentally, here is a sample of his sense of humor:

Online Reader - Project Gutenberg

Regarding his being an Atheist, which is the first time I hear of, it must be about the anthropomorphic god of religions, which Nietzsche declared had died. And the same was said about Einstein whom Atheists love to remind us that he was another Atheist. However, when he was asked if he believed in God, he answered and said that all his life was to try to catch God at His work of creation. Then, he went out to deliver a lecture about the expansion of the universe, which has been proved that it continue expanding, but Science is till to find out how. It could be God at His work of creation.

To my surprise, despite his statements, it seems that there is no consensus that he was an Atheist (I just checked). I can't help but wonder how the culture of the time impacted on him. He sounds very much like a modern-day Atheist, and a fairly militant one at that.

Then again, I keep saying that both belief and disbelief in God are of very little consequence.

Here is a couple of sources:

Positive Atheism's Big List of Mark Twain Quotations

Religion Quotes by Mark Twain

 

[Commoner]

Immaterial means it is spiritual, rather than physical -- therefore the question is rather nonsense, you cannot have physical evidence of what is not physical, and that this is the evidence which I think you are seeking - physical, correct?

No, I'm not seeking anything, as a matter of fact. When somebody says god exists, I expect them to demonstrate that - however they'd like. If they cannot, then their claim is unfounded and is on the same level as my claim that love is caused by transcendental gremlins

Transcendantal gremlins? I'm sorry but I do not understand what you mean by that, and I'm not sure if its a shot at me or my statement? What I meant by my statement was that -- of all the imaginable things to believe in the world, people choose to believe in a similar Creator, an act of faith.

There are many phychological/sociological/cultural etc. reasons why we do that on a multitude of issues - regardless of the truth value of the beliefs. Our brains are similar and we are similar - that's why we like our big daddy in the sky. That isn't evidence of it being real.

Do we really need to discuss if humans are more mentally and spiritually advanced then dogs? The question should by why humans are.

You don't get it. Why does it matter? Why is "mentally advanced" more important than "being able to see better" or "being able to fly"? And furthermore - there is always someone who will necessarily be the best at something - is this so hard to understand? We happen to be best at "thinking" - how is us specifically having this quality instead of another species - such as dogs - evidence of a god?

Why do eagles have such good eyesight? Is that proof of god?

Here though, I think you are unto something my friend:

What is god proof of then? Another god? A god creating god? And what would that god creating god be proof of?

I think that's a wonderful question. Isn't that the point of spirituality, of faith, to ask these questions?

The point wasn't to ask the question, the point was to show how poor the answer "god did it" was. It (1) doesn't explain anything and (2) it poses more problems - namely, who created god.

But I guess my question to you is thus: why ask for evidence? If evidence was presented to you, would you worship God? I'm sure when you ask this question you know that the evidence you seek will not be provided, so why ask this question (not that people shouldn't ask philosophical questions)?

Because people seem to think their beliefs are founded in reality - and they think their actions on the basis of those beliefs are justified. Those actions affect me. Therefore, if they are to be justified - I require a demonstration of their validity. If they cannot provide sufficient justification, then they are not allowed to hurt other people because they displeased their god, they are not allowed to claim condoms are a sin and get people killed. Do you understand why I ask for evidence?

 

[Thief]

Sorry I got here soooooo.....late.

Go back to the singularity.
There is no secondary point.
Without a secondary point....
no geometry....no math,no science....no words,no echo...
no light,no shadow....keep going....no space, no time....

Prior to the singularity...the void.
Yet here we are....and the universe...(one word).

If you approach the discussion... the universe is self starting.....no.
Spirit first.

If you say otherwise, you are the sum of your chemistry.
You fail, when it fails.

Still working from the singularity....
when the expansion begins, all substance would move outward as one....
an ever increasing hollow sphere of energy.....an explosion.....a big bang.

But that is not what you see, looking beyond the obvious night sky.
Thanks to science we know what the little pinpoints of light really are.
We also know they rotate....orbit...spiral....etc...etc..

It is the rotation that speaks of God's existence.
He pinched that singularity, and snapped His fingers.
THEN He let it go 'bang'.

If not .....the hollow sphere...and a dead creation...
would have been the result.

 

[diosangpastol]

sorry for necro-ing the thread, just curios, May I ask why some here cannot spell God correctly and instead used the variant "G-d"? forbidden ?