The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[Davian]

Of course it is not demonstrably true, none of us were there when it happened!

So which is more reasonable to accept, that someone created the universe, or that nothing created the universe?

False dichotomy. There are other possibilities that have been raised in this thread that you have yet to address.

"Someone" implies a person created the universe. How did a person get there?

It has been stated several times, I recommend you avail yourself of the data, and draw your conclusions from it.

Point out where your claims were testable and falsifiable.

Very relevant indeed, since the naturalistic theories of evolution and the origin of life are rife with assumptions and unscientific assertions that multiply causes, events, circumstances and chances unnecessarily, it is far more reasonable to believe that God created this marvelous universe and us in it.

No, it is irrelevant. Even if we did not have scientific theories of evolution and cosmology, your assertions would not default to being true.

Unless of course you don't like the idea that God made you and that you are accountable to Him.

Well, you haven't established that "God made me", so this accountability that you speak of can be dismissed until then.

But are you now telling me how I live my life, outside of the belief that deities are possible or not? Have you any idea of how I live, love, give? Heck, I even donate money to the church our family attends, lol.

According to Davian.

Nor do I equate God with your average garden variety deity who exists only in the minds of the uninformed or ignorant.

Your arguments fail, so you resort to name calling. Are we done here?

Oh, but I would ask: How you reconcile Genesis ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth") with all of this "data" you have?

 

[Elioenai26]

Oh, but I would ask: How you reconcile Genesis ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth") with all of this "data" you have?

The universe began to exist, therefore it has a cause.

The universe includes time, space, and matter.

Time, space, and matter began to exist.

Therefore, the Cause is ________?

Davian you are a 48 year old married man and one who no doubt thinks himself to be somewhat intelligent.

Can you not logically fill in the blank?

If you dont want to then just say so, but your position is becoming increasingly groundless.

 

[Davian]

False dichotomy. There are other possibilities that have been raised in this thread that you have yet to address.

"Someone" implies a person created the universe. How did a person get there?

Point out where your claims were testable and falsifiable.

No, it is irrelevant. Even if we did not have scientific theories of evolution and cosmology, your assertions would not default to being true.

Well, you haven't established that "God made me", so this accountability that you speak of can be dismissed until then.

But are you now telling me how I live my life, outside of the belief that deities are possible or not? Have you any idea of how I live, love, give? Heck, I even donate money to the church our family attends, lol.

Your arguments fail, so you resort to name calling. Are we done here?

Oh, but I would ask: How you reconcile Genesis ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth") with all of this "data" you have?

The universe began to exist,

That is a possibility.

therefore it has a cause.

Not necessarily. See my comment back on post #55. I think you missed it.

The universe includes time, space, and matter.

The 'universe' being the set of everything, that would make sense.

Time, space, and matter began to exist.

It would appear so.

Therefore, the Cause is ________?

I'm still waiting for you back on post #55.

Davian you are a 48 year old married man and one who no doubt thinks himself to be somewhat intelligent.

Can you not logically fill in the blank?

You have yet to establish that there is a "blank" which requires an occupant.

If you dont want to then just say so, but your position is becoming increasingly groundless.

What was my position?

Are you not going to address those other points in my post?

 

[Elioenai26]

This still presumes that the 'big bang' is an event, that is, something that takes place in space-time, where your cause-and-effect argument might apply.

Ok Davian, this is post #55.

I am going to allow you to elaborate on this seeing as how there exists no question here.

State your case.

 

[Davian]

Ok Davian, this is post #55.

I am going to allow you to elaborate on this seeing as how there exists no question here.

State your case.

It simply points out that the cosmological argument, as you have presented it here, makes too many presumptions.

If I were you, I would rephrase the argument, or drop it. No, I do not know how to rephrase it so that it works.

 

[Elioenai26]

It simply points out that the cosmological argument, as you have presented it here, makes too many presumptions.

If I were you, I would rephrase the argument, or drop it. No, I do not know how to rephrase it so that it works.

Name the presumptions.

 

[Davian]

Name the presumptions.

There's one on post #55.

 

[Elioenai26]

There's one on post #55.

Name one assertion in post #55 that is not founded in scientific observation or philosophical argumentation.

 

[Davian]

Name one assertion in post #55 that is not founded in scientific observation or philosophical argumentation.

I see how we have moved from 'presumptions' to 'scientific observation or philosophical argumentation'.

"Everything that begins to exist, has a cause."

You have presumed that this is an absolute.

Is the 'big bang' is an "event" - something that takes place in space-time - where your cause-and-effect argument might apply?

Also, as I asked earlier, how you reconcile Genesis ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth") with all of this "data" you have?

 

[Elioenai26]

I see how we have moved from 'presumptions' to 'scientific observation or philosophical argumentation'.

"Everything that begins to exist, has a cause."

You have presumed that this is an absolute.

Is the 'big bang' is an "event" - something that takes place in space-time - where your cause-and-effect argument might apply?

Is there any plausible, logical, rational reason that premise (1) should not be taken as true?

If so what are those reasons? State your case. If you have no good argument as to why it should not be taken as true, then you should accept it as true. Now notice I have said "should", of course you do not have to accept this at all! But if you do not accept it, you committ what Arthur Shopenhauer calls the "taxicab fallacy." That is, the causal principle is not something you can just dismiss as not being applicable once you've arrived at your destination.

You also forget, or fail to understand Davian, that the causal principle is not a physical law like the law of gravity or the law of thermodynamics which are valid for things only within the universe. Premise (1) is based on a metaphysical principle: being cannot come from non-being, something cannot come into existence uncaused from nothing. The principle therefore applies to all of reality, and it is therefore metaphysically absurd that the universe should just "pop" into being uncaused out of nothing.

Also, as I asked earlier, how you reconcile Genesis ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth") with all of this "data" you have?

The evidence and data at our disposal demands that an immaterial, nonspatial, timeless being (Mind) created the the material universe (all matter, all space, and all time) out of nothing. Or creatio ex nihilo.
It is the simplest, most logical, rational, reasonable explanation for reality. God, therefore, created the universe as is recorded in Genesis 1:1.

See my signature as well.

 

[Davian]

Is there any plausible, logical, rational reason that premise (1) should not be taken as true?

If so what are those reasons? State your case. If you have no good argument as to why it should not be taken as true, then you should accept it as true. Now notice I have said "should", of course you do not have to accept this at all! But if you do not accept it, you committ what Arthur Shopenhauer calls the "taxicab fallacy." That is, the causal principle is not something you can just dismiss as not being applicable once you've arrived at your destination.

The argument, as you have presented it, states an absolute. If it is not an absolute, then your argument is faulty. Demonstrate that it is an absolute, rephrase the argument, or drop it.

Your "If you have no good argument as to why it should not be taken as true" line is not a replacement for you doing your homework.

You also forget, or fail to understand Davian, that the causal principle is not a physical law like the law of gravity or the law of thermodynamics which are valid for things only within the universe. Premise (1) is based on a metaphysical principle: being cannot come from non-being, something cannot come into existence uncaused from nothing. The principle therefore applies to all of reality, and it is therefore metaphysically absurd that the universe should just "pop" into being uncaused out of nothing.

Who claims that?

Demonstrate the validity of this "being cannot come from non-being" principle.

The evidence and data at our disposal demands that an immaterial, nonspatial, timeless being (Mind) created the the material universe (all matter, all space, and all time) out of nothing. Or creatio ex nihilo.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

Can you possibly describe this supposed being in terms of what it is, rather than what it is not?

Have we ever observed a 'mind' that was not an emergent property of a brain?

It is the simplest, most logical, rational, reasonable explanation for reality.

No, it is not. For one, you will need to provide a testable definition for this deity that you claim to exist. I have no idea how 'simple' this thing is.

God, therefore, created the universe as is recorded in Genesis 1:1.

So you propose that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" is an accurate summary of the events following the big bang? Is it not short on a few details, maybe some timing? And what of the rest of Genesis? Do you take that literally?

 

[Elioenai26]

The argument, as you have presented it, states an absolute. If it is not an absolute, then your argument is faulty. Demonstrate that it is an absolute, rephrase the argument, or drop it.

Your "If you have no good argument as to why it should not be taken as true" line is not a replacement for you doing your homework.

Davian, this is a philosophy forum. I expect you to have some kind of idea with regards to what a philosophical syllogism is. I also expect you to have some kind of idea as to what the purpose of a premise is in a syllogism.


I am not going to give you an introduction in philosophy. I suggest you either go to a university or learn on your own before you make statements like the one you just made.

Demonstrate the validity of this "being cannot come from non-being" principle.

It need not be demonstrated. You can take it as self-evident Davian.

Unless of course you can provide us with an example of how being can come from non-being.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

We have these God-given instruments called logic, reason, and rationality. I suggest you start applying them, even if you do not believe in God.

Have we ever observed a 'mind' that was not an emergent property of a brain?

Who says that a mind of necessity must be the emergent property of a brain?

No, it is not. For one, you will need to provide a testable definition for this deity that you claim to exist. I have no idea how 'simple' this thing is.

The universe is His handiwork, I would consider this vast proof of His being.


It is so simple that children in elementary school understand it.

So you propose that "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" is an accurate summary of the events following the big bang? Is it not short on a few details, maybe some timing? And what of the rest of Genesis? Do you take that literally?

Maybe you should read the book of Genesis again. Maybe you will learn something.

 

[Belk]

If you do not know, then why not logically conclude that a timeless Creator created the universe and the earth and the people in it.

It is the simplest, most logical, most sound conclusion from the data we have.

Do you have a theory that takes all the evidence and explains it in a consistent, logical, coherent manner?

If you do, remember to apply Ockhams Razor to it. It is a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions.

If not, then why not accept the statement: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."?

Why is that simpler then simply admitting we do not know?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Davian, this is a philosophy forum. I expect you to have some kind of idea with regards to what a philosophical syllogism is. I also expect you to have some kind of idea as to what the purpose of a premise is in a syllogism.

You set a horrible example for other Christians. You realize that, right?

And Craig's argument fails because the premise one can't be shown to be true. Simple as that.

Hand waving that away with "It's intuitively true." is intellectually dishonest.
Trying to change the burden of proof is intellectually dishonest.

Face it, Craig is a shyster. A huckster. A used care salesman of bad ideas who can't argue his way out of a paper bag, but is able to fool people who apparently don't know any better.

 

[Gracchus]

If you do not know, then why not logically conclude that a timeless Creator created the universe and the earth and the people in it.

Using that criteria and that reasoning, we could "logically conclude" that the universe was blasted into existence by fairy farts.

It is the simplest, most logical, most sound conclusion from the data we have.

Well, it is every bit as logical as fairy farts.

Do you have a theory that takes all the evidence and explains it in a consistent, logical, coherent manner?

Yes, but you seem to be a bit confused by logic and coherence.

If you do, remember to apply Ockhams Razor to it. It is a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions.

Not quite. It says to make only the necessary assumptions. But then we have to check those assumptions to see if they make sense and conform to the real world.

If not, then why not accept the statement: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."?

Because we could say with equal justification, "In the beginning, the Flying Spaghetti Monster passed a meatball."

 

[Davian]

Davian, this is a philosophy forum. I expect you to have some kind of idea with regards to what a philosophical syllogism is. I also expect you to have some kind of idea as to what the purpose of a premise is in a syllogism.

I am not going to give you an introduction in philosophy. I suggest you either go to a university or learn on your own before you make statements like the one you just made.

Of what value is a syllogism based on faulty premises? If they don't work for Craig, why would they work for you?

It need not be demonstrated. You can take it as self-evident Davian.

Or not. I will take it as not demonstrable.

Unless of course you can provide us with an example of how being can come from non-being.

That is as nonsensical as your life-is-impossible-from-non-life argument. What happened to that one?

We have these God-given instruments called logic, reason, and rationality.

More supported assertions.

I suggest you start applying them, even if you do not believe in God.

I do wonder sometimes, if there was a deity of some sort, would she be impressed by efforts such as yours?

Who says that a mind of necessity must be the emergent property of a brain?

That would be a "no", then.

The universe is His handiwork, I would consider this vast proof of His being.

Then 'his being' is of no scientific significance.

It is so simple that children in elementary school understand it.

Do you have an elementary school child in your neighbourhood? If you do, have him sign up here, and explain what you have not been able to.

Maybe you should read the book of Genesis again. Maybe you will learn something.

Evasion noted. Again, do you take Genesis literally, or not? You are the one that brought it up.

I asked a while back, but I don't think you answered; how much $$ have you spent on stuff from WLC?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

creatio ex nihilo[/I].
It is the simplest, most logical, rational, reasonable explanation for reality. God, therefore, created the universe as is recorded in Genesis 1:1.

See my signature as well.

No, the data does not demand that at all. In fact, it is a nonsensical proposition. You are claiming that nothing (immaterial), nowhere (non-spatial) and at no time (timeless) brought into existence everything, including space and time. The kind of cause you are postulating is radically unlike any other cause we observe in the universe.

I also don't understand why you think God must the simplest explanation for the existence of the universe. I don't think "God did it" is a sufficient explanation at all. But supposing that it were an explanation, it would only add another level of complexity for us to explain.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Are you saying that we cannot know anything about the origin of the universe?

No, I am not saying that at all. But anything that we can know about the origins of the universe does not need to invoke the existence of supernatural causes.

Saying that a timeless, nonspatial, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent Creator created the universe is the best logical explanation for the scientific data we have Archaeopteryx.

Saying that something is immaterial is equivalent to saying that it is nothing. And saying that nothing is really something (e.g. a Creator being), and that that something has properties such as omnipotence makes no sense whatsoever.

In all of my posts, I have never made a reference to, nor stated indirectly or directly, that time existed before time. That is a contradiction.

What I have said is:

Prior to the universe (space, time, matter) coming into existence, there existed a timeless, nonspatial, immaterial Mind with volitional capabilities who chose to create the universe. This act of creation was instantaneous and the effect (the universe) was simultaneous with the Cause's act of creating. Time came into existence the instant the universe was created, for time is a property of the universe.

You just contradicted yourself. If time came into existence with the universe, then it makes no sense to even say "prior to the universe".

And if the act of creation was supposedly simultaneous, such that the cause and the effect co-occurred at exactly the same time (again, how can you even speak of time in this context?) then it would be impossible to determine which is the cause and which is the effect. The supernatural might have been the effect, rather than the cause.

Why do they maintain that "supernatural forces" were at work? Very simply because the Big Bang was the beginning point of the entire physcial universe. Time, space, and matter came into existence at that point. There was no natural world or natural law prior to! Since a cause cannot come after it's effect (to maintain that it could would be to violate the Law of Causality) nor can an effect be greater than it's cause, natural forces cannot account for the Big Bang. Therefore, it logically and rationally follows that there must be something outside of nature, something that transcends the natural, to be able to accomplish this. That is what supernatural means, above, or beyond the natural.

Again with the "prior to"?

You are assuming something about causality that you may not be justified in assuming. You are assuming that causality itself is supernatural. It must be by your account or otherwise causality would also have begun to exist only from the point of the Big Bang onwards. This assumption is not warranted by any of our observations of cause-and-effect. We only ever observe natural causes and their natural effects. In this way no effect is unlike its cause. A supernatural cause is unlike any other cause because it is apparently immaterial and so on. By what unique mechanism of causality can a supernatural cause exert its effects? We can develop theories to explain the interaction of matter, and the mechanisms that cause certain natural events. That is where our concept of causality is useful to us. You want to excise it from this context in which it finds meaning and apply it to a context that is entirely unfamiliar to us and where the concept finds no application.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Elioenai26, I think on an implicit level you are aware that the concept of causality cannot be used to describe supposedly supernatural entities that exist is no time, in no place, and apparently consist of no substance. Even as try to apply the concept to these supposedly timeless causes you invoke time (e.g. "prior to the Creation there existed..."). That is because our concept of causality applies to things happening at a time and in a location relative to other things. That is how we use the word in everyday language to describe events. When we talk about one thing causing another "to happen", it is always based on the observation of some change occurring in some stimulus at some time. We notice changes accumulating across time and we attribute those changes to certain events. The idea that causality can also apply to events/actions/processes/entities that do not "happen" at a time or in a location is unfamiliar territory to our human experience. So unfamiliar in fact that causality breaks down when you try to talk about it -- the concept ceases to function because it is stretched to fit an idea of a "cause" so different to any other.

 

[KCfromNC]

And who caused the first person to exist.

There was no first person.