Are we born as atheists, or are we born as believers?

Davian · Dec 18, 2015

aiki said:
...
Why do I think the universe is created? Ex nihilo, nihilo fit.

1.) Anything that begins to exist has a cause.

Only from what we have observed from within this universe. I would be hesitant to speculate (literally) outside of that.

2.) The universe began to exist.

Speculation. Do you mean this current instantiation of the Cosmos? The hypothetical multiverse?

3.) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Speculation on speculation.

What sort of a cause brought the universe into being?

1.) Timeless.
2.) Spaceless.
3.) Immaterial.

That's three things that it isn't.

4.) Immensely powerful.

Why would it need to be immensely powerful?

5.) Personal.

How so?

PsychoSarah · Dec 19, 2015

Crazy thought: we are born neither. In order to have a position on a topic, the basic premise of the topic must be introduced into our lives, and not only are we not immediately introduced to the concept of deities right after we are born, but we lack the capacity to comprehend such concepts for more than a year after that point.

fhansen · Dec 19, 2015

ChristJudgeOfAll said:
What's the default position?

We're born as atheists for all practical purposes, without knowledge of God even if it exists in vague form like some long-lost memory. This is why revelation and grace is so critical. Adam essentially separated humanity from God, and this separation is the essence of original sin. Man was made for communion with God, apart from Whom man can do nothing (John 15:5). Adam thought otherwise. God never abandoned man however, working with him throughout the ensuing centuries via covenants and His relationship with a chosen people, all ultimately aimed at restoring the individual communion with Himself that man desperately needs in order to have life and life abundantly.

At a point in history, after man had time to collectively mature by experience, having the chance to learn the hard way of his failings to find happiness and satisfaction and righteousness on his own, Jesus arrived on the scene. He was the full revelation of God, what man needs. With Jesus, Who leads us to and reveals the Father, we can now enter rest; man can reconcile with God, re-establishing the relationship that was shattered at the Fall. With the New Covenant, the prophecy of Jeri 31:34 comes true: "No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord, because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest".

This is the knowledge man needs. This personal knowledge and relationship is called "faith". It is the communion of man with God, whereupon He may do a work in us, a work of grace that we cannot achieve on our own, of placing His law in our hearts and writing it on our minds, fulfilling the other part of Jeremiah's prophecy, 31:33.

So we're born dead, lost, in need of being born anew as this knowledge is imparted to us, as we accept this gift of faith.

stevevw · Dec 19, 2015

ChristJudgeOfAll said:
What's the default position?

We are all born believers and are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife. As a child and even as an adult we can look out into the universe and nature and instinctively know that there is something behind what we see. Studies and research shows that we have these ideas and beliefs in us from birth and they dont need to be taught to us or we are not indoctrinated with them. They just are a part of the normal and natural human being.

Humans 'predisposed' to believe in gods and the afterlife
http://phys.org/news/2011-05-humans-predisposed-gods-afterlife.html

Religion is natural
In the last few years, there has been an emerging body of research exploring children's grasp of certain universal religious ideas. Some recent findings suggest that two foundational aspects of religious belief -- belief in divine agents, and belief in mind-body dualism -- come naturally to young children.
http://www.yale.edu/minddevlab/papers/religion-is-natural.pdf

KCfromNC · Dec 20, 2015

stevevw said:
We are all born believers and are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife.

Being predisposed to something doesn't mean that we do it. Please stop intentionally confusing the two.

stevevw · Dec 20, 2015

KCfromNC said:
Being predisposed to something doesn't mean that we do it. Please stop intentionally confusing the two.

I never said anything about anyone doing something. I was pointing out that we have this inbuilt knowledge or predisposition to believe in divine concepts. They come naturally to us. Whether we then pursue those particular beliefs is another thing.

But because we have these inbuilt beliefs we have to do something with them dont we. Whether thats choosing to cast them aside and replace that with an atheist view, choose a particular religious belief, choose new age mystical beliefs, choose astrology or believe in ghosts or whatever is up to the individuals. But the fact that we have these concepts and they come easy to us means that they are a part of us and a part of life. Being a part of us and life means that they are a natural thing that comes as part of being human just like the need to have sunlight, food and love. Normally if you find something that comes easy to you its not a bad thing and is something that is well suited to you.

aiki · Dec 20, 2015

bhsmte said:
Ok. I must have missed how you defeated it.

I don't think you did. I think you just don't want to admit that you were mistaken. Look, God is, by definition, of a different order of being than all the contingent things that constitute our universe. He is the Creator, not the Creation. It is no more a case of special pleading to say God is different fundamentally from His Creation, than it is special pleading to say that a square is fundamentally different from a circle. God, in order to be God, must necessarily exist transcendent to His Creation in an uncaused state. That is simply in the nature of being God. There is, then, for the Christian, no such thing as a contingently-existing God. Any "God" who is brought into being cannot be God. And, as I said, in respect to non-contingency numbers and sets of numbers also exist as a necessity of their own being. So, God is not entirely unique in this respect, which further erodes the charge of special pleading.

Selah.

aiki · Dec 20, 2015

Davian said:
Only from what we have observed from within this universe. I would be hesitant to speculate (literally) outside of that.

This doesn't make any particular difference to my point.

Davian said:
Speculation. Do you mean this current instantiation of the Cosmos? The hypothetical multiverse?

There is no such thing as the multiverse. It is a fiction, a totally unsubstantiated theory. The Big Bang Theory, which indicates that the universe began a finite time ago in the past, however, is not. And it is so well-established by evidence that it has for several decades now continued to be the dominant, mainstream scientific theory concerning the beginning of the universe. Referring to it, then, as "speculation" is simply intellectually dishonest.

Davian said:
Speculation on speculation.

See above.

Davian said:
That's three things that it isn't.

Yes. And so?

Davian said:
Why would it need to be immensely powerful?

Weak things don't bring universes full of the energy evident in our own into being.

Davian said:
How so?

For an external cause of the universe must be beyond space and time and therefore cannot be physical or material. Now there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either abstract objects, like numbers, or else an intelligent mind. But abstract objects are causally impotent. The number 7, for example, can't cause anything. Therefore it follows that the explanation of the universe is an external, transcendent, personal mind which created the universe, which is what most people have traditionally meant by "God."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/personal-god#ixzz3uspr6DW9

We've concluded that the beginning of the universe was the effect of a first cause . . . . Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal and yet the effect which it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then why isn't the effect eternal? How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect?

. . . There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to say that the cause of the universe's beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation "agent causation," and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. For example, a man sitting changelessly from eternity could freely will to stand up; thus, a temporal effect arises from an eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By "choose" one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/personal-god#ixzz3uspxZUuF

Selah.

Davian · Dec 20, 2015

aiki said:
This doesn't make any particular difference to my point.

It does; I am pointing out where you are mistakenly stating speculation as fact.

There is no such thing as the multiverse.

There are no such thing as gods.

That was easy. ^_^

It is a fiction, a totally unsubstantiated theory.

From what I understand, it is a hypothesis supported by the maths involved.

In a paper posted last month to the physics preprint website arXiv.org, Bousso and a Berkeley colleague, Lawrence Hall, argue that the Higgs mass makes sense in the multiverse scenario, too. They found that bubble universes that contain enough visible matter (compared to dark matter) to support life most often have supersymmetric particles beyond the energy range of the LHC, and a fine-tuned Higgs boson. Similarly, other physicists showed in 1997 that if the Higgs boson were five times heavier than it is, this would suppress the formation of atoms other than hydrogen, resulting, by yet another means, in a lifeless universe.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ations-lend-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis/

Gods have no such support.

The Big Bang Theory, which indicates that the universe began a finite time ago in the past, however, is not. And it is so well-established by evidence that it has for several decades now continued to be the dominant, mainstream scientific theory concerning the beginning of the universe. Referring to it, then, as "speculation" is simply intellectually dishonest.

See above.

You are mistaken. The Big Bang theory is not about origination; it only speaks to the nature of the cosmos from its earliest moments.

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[1][2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Yes. And so?

Are you unable to provide a positive ontology for this thing you posit to exist?

Weak things don't bring universes full of the energy evident in our own into being.

It is my understanding that observations of the universe show that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

http://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

For an external cause of the universe must be beyond space and time and therefore cannot be physical or material. Now there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either abstract objects, like numbers, or else an intelligent mind. But abstract objects are causally impotent. The number 7, for example, can't cause anything. Therefore it follows that the explanation of the universe is an external, transcendent, personal mind which created the universe, which is what most people have traditionally meant by "God."

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/personal-god#ixzz3uspr6DW9

We've concluded that the beginning of the universe was the effect of a first cause . . . . Now this is exceedingly odd. The cause is in some sense eternal and yet the effect which it produced is not eternal but began to exist a finite time ago. How can this be? If the necessary and sufficient conditions for the production of the effect are eternal, then why isn't the effect eternal? How can all the causal conditions sufficient for the production of the effect be changelessly existent and yet the effect not also be existent along with the cause? How can the cause exist without the effect?

. . . There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to say that the cause of the universe's beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation "agent causation," and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present. For example, a man sitting changelessly from eternity could freely will to stand up; thus, a temporal effect arises from an eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By "choose" one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist. So the cause is eternal, but the effect is not. In this way, then, it is possible for the temporal universe to have come to exist from an eternal cause: through the free will of a personal Creator.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/personal-god#ixzz3uspxZUuF

Selah.

Presuppositional apologetics fail.

Do you have any scientific citations?

aiki · Dec 21, 2015

Davian said:
There are no such thing as gods.

That was easy.

You're quite right. There is only one God.

Davian said:
From what I understand, it is a hypothesis supported by the maths involved.

In a paper posted last month to the physics preprint website arXiv.org, Bousso and a Berkeley colleague, Lawrence Hall, argue that the Higgs mass makes sense in the multiverse scenario, too. They found that bubble universes that contain enough visible matter (compared to dark matter) to support life most often have supersymmetric particles beyond the energy range of the LHC, and a fine-tuned Higgs boson. Similarly, other physicists showed in 1997 that if the Higgs boson were five times heavier than it is, this would suppress the formation of atoms other than hydrogen, resulting, by yet another means, in a lifeless universe.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ations-lend-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis/

This does not defeat my point about there being actual evidence for the multiverse. Interesting hypothetical mathematical models aside, there is no empirically observable evidence at all for a real multiverse.

Davian said:
Gods have no such support.

God may be inferred quite readily from what we observe of the universe in which we live.

Davian said:
You are mistaken. The Big Bang theory is not about origination; it only speaks to the nature of the cosmos from its earliest moments.

Perhaps you need to read again what I wrote:

"...it is so well-established by evidence that it has for several decades now continued to be the dominant, mainstream scientific theory concerning the beginning of the universe."

I don't say anything about origin here, only the beginning of the universe. These are related things, perhaps, but not identical ones.

Davian said:
Are you unable to provide a positive ontology for this thing you posit to exist?

Is there something wrong with the characteristics I've already suggested? Is it not possible for God to be immaterial, eternal, uncaused, omnipotent and personal? I don't see why not.

Davian said:
It is my understanding that observations of the universe show that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero.

The idea of a zero-energy universe, together with inflation, suggests that all one needs is just a tiny bit of energy to get the whole thing started (that is, a tiny volume of energy in which inflation can begin). The universe then experiences inflationary expansion, but without creating net energy.

http://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/

LOL! Tell me the net energy of the universe is zero after you've baked in the hot sun for 12 hours unprotected! In any case, the net energy idea promoted in particular by Stephen Hawking is a mathematical model, not an observable fact of the universe. As it turns out, there is virtually no empirical evidence for this model, which is why your quotation starts out, "The idea...suggests..."

Davian said:
Presuppositional apologetics fail.

Do you have any scientific citations?

Apparently, you don't understand what a presuppositional apologetic is. The quotations I provided laid out a deductive argument for the personal nature of the Cause of the Universe, not a presuppositional one.

Selah.

bhsmte · Dec 21, 2015

aiki said:
I don't think you did. I think you just don't want to admit that you were mistaken. Look, God is, by definition, of a different order of being than all the contingent things that constitute our universe. He is the Creator, not the Creation. It is no more a case of special pleading to say God is different fundamentally from His Creation, than it is special pleading to say that a square is fundamentally different from a circle. God, in order to be God, must necessarily exist transcendent to His Creation in an uncaused state. That is simply in the nature of being God. There is, then, for the Christian, no such thing as a contingently-existing God. Any "God" who is brought into being cannot be God. And, as I said, in respect to non-contingency numbers and sets of numbers also exist as a necessity of their own being. So, God is not entirely unique in this respect, which further erodes the charge of special pleading.

Selah.

You have yet to demonstrate (other than simply assert), that God is anything.

Davian · Dec 21, 2015

aiki said:
You're quite right. There is only one God.

The only ones that I am aware of are characters on books, and there are plenty of them.

Discover almost 4,000 gods, goddesses and spirits from around the world

http://www.godchecker.com

This does not defeat my point about there being actual evidence for the multiverse.

You said, "totally unsubstantiated". But, you go ahead and move those goalposts around as you need to.

Interesting hypothetical mathematical models aside, there is no empirically observable evidence at all for a real multiverse.

There is no empirically observable evidence at all for a real gods, but does that concern you?

God may be inferred quite readily from what we observe of the universe in which we live.

Do you mean that character in a book named "God" that [allegedly] walked and talked in a garden that has no evidence of having existed, poofed people and animals into existence, and later, in a manner contrary to the modern understanding of genetics, populated the planet with a tiny group of individuals and animals that survived a global flood in an unbuildable boat, a flood that killed the dinosaurs in a manner that only *appears* to be 65 million years ago, because the Earth is really only somehow 6000 years old, yet remains, by every object measure to date indistinguishable from nothing? Observations of the universe do not support that story.

Perhaps you need to read again what I wrote:

"...it is so well-established by evidence that it has for several decades now continued to be the dominant, mainstream scientific theory concerning the beginning of the universe."

I don't say anything about origin here, only the beginning of the universe. These are related things, perhaps, but not identical ones.

beginning |biˈginiNG| noun [ usu. in sing. ] the point in time or space at which something starts

origin |ˈôrəjən| noun1 the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived.

I didn't say identical, but they do seem interchangeable. :wave:

Is there something wrong with the characteristics I've already suggested? Is it not possible for God to be immaterial, eternal, uncaused, omnipotent and personal? I don't see why not.

I asked, are you unable to provide a positive ontology for this thing you posit to exist?

LOL! Tell me the net energy of the universe is zero after you've baked in the hot sun for 12 hours unprotected!

A perfect demonstration of how unfamiliar you are with modern cosmology.

Is the Bible a fairy tale because it has talking animals in it?

In any case, the net energy idea promoted in particular by Stephen Hawking is a mathematical model, not an observable fact of the universe. As it turns out, there is virtually no empirical evidence for this model,

The model is consistent with astronomical observations.

A generic property of inflation is the balancing of the negative gravitational energy, within the inflating region, with the positive energy of the inflaton field to yield a post-inflationary universe with negligible or zero energy density.[5][6] It is this balancing of the total universal energy budget that enables the open-ended growth possible with inflation; during inflation, energy flows from the gravitational field (or geometry) to the inflaton field—the total gravitational energy decreases (i.e. becomes more negative) and the total inflaton energy increases (becomes more positive). But the respective energy densities remain constant and opposite since the region is inflating. Consequently, inflation explains the otherwise curious cancellation of matter and gravitational energy on cosmological scales, which is consistent with astronomical observations.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

which is why your quotation starts out, "The idea...suggests..."

Quote mine fail. That snippet refers to the potential energy required to "start the process", not to explanations of current observations.

Apparently, you don't understand what a presuppositional apologetic is. The quotations I provided laid out a deductive argument for the personal nature of the Cause of the Universe, not a presuppositional one.

The failure of the argument is that it presupposes an external cause, the nature of causality at a point time that we are unable to observe, and minds without brains. And, it is not even an argument for the Christian "God". WLC just slips that in with some slight-of-hand and hopes no one notices.

Do you concede that you do not have scientific citations to support your position?

Neochristian · Dec 21, 2015

Agnostic

Eight Foot Manchild · Dec 21, 2015

aiki said:
So, you largely ignored these comments.

And will continue to, as they are irrelevant. If you feel philosophically ill-equipped to substantiate your assertions, you shouldn't make them in the first place.

aiki said:
You're very quick to assert (and assume) what I am doing.

It takes very little time to identify naked assertions, yes.

aiki said:
I believe the Bible is the Word of God because it bears what I consider to be marks of the divine upon it.

1.) Thematic unity.
2.) Fulfilled prophecy.
3.) Preservation/survivability over time.
4.) Archaeological/historical accuracy.
5.) Transformative power.
6.) Correspondence to reality.

I don't believe for one second you can substantiate any of this.

But suppose I grant all of it. Every single point. Does that get you any closer to gleaning whether they are divine revelations?

No. Nothing about any of these criteria can be demonstrated to be a direct indication of anything 'supernatural', let alone 'divine'. Even a miracle, or a purportedly fulfilled 'prophecy' has myriad possible explanations. Particularly, if you allow that 'supernatural' explanations are a meaningful category, the list of possible causes are as boundless as imagination. Picking 'divinity' out of that nebulous sea is utterly arbitrary.

And again, that is your situation granting the best possible scenario for you - that the criteria you listed can be substantiated in any meaningful fashion.

aiki said:
I didn't say the Holy Spirit was itself a revelation (though, in a way, I suppose He is). It is the agent of revelation.

That doesn't help you any. Your epistemological hurdles remain the same.

aiki said:
He has worked in my life to illuminate the truth of God's Word to me, convict me of my sin, strengthen me to do His will, and comfort me in difficult times. As He does, I gain a greater and greater personal understanding of the character, and power, and truth of my Creator.

I dismiss naked assertions out of hand. Moving on.

aiki said:
I simply trust the vetting process of those to whom the writing of the Old and New Testaments were first issued. There had to be the stamp of the supernatural upon the writer and his writing in order for it to be accepted as from God. And who better to recognize this divine "stamping" than those among whom the writers lived and to whom they wrote?

What was that vetting process and why do you trust it?

aiki said:
Profound or not, that's the way it works in the Christian life.

Right. Just like how if you want to believe that I'm forty-seven feet tall, all you have to do is... believe that I'm forty-seven feet tall.

aiki said:
You did not ask me to provide a justification for why I believe the universe is created.

Correct. I asked you to provide an epistemology of revelation. Your assertion of a created universe was implicit in your explanation, which now requires its own justification.

aiki said:
Regardless, it is not circular for me to speak as I do, only consistent. If I believe the universe is created, which I do, then it is perfectly appropriate for me to speak of it as the creation of its Creator.

I believe you believe that. However, you don't get to just assume that as part of your explanation of revelational epistemology. It requires its own justification.

aiki said:
Why do I think the universe is created? Ex nihilo, nihilo fit.
...
1.) Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
2.) The universe began to exist.
3.) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Other posters have already addressed some of the many basic flaws in Kalam. Billy Craig himself has already been thoroughly thrashed in debates with actual cosmologists. Sean Carroll, in particular, left him sounding like a blithering fool.

But I'll share my favorite flaw anyway. Premise 1 is predicated on an inductive inference regarding creation ex materia (from pre-existing matter). It is not-so-cleverly disguised as an inference about creation ex nihilo, which is not an inductive inference at all, but a naked assertion. It falls flat on its face from the outset.

aiki said:
But, you see, I have no reason at all to trust you when you say you're forty-seven feet tall and good reason to think you are not. This is not the case concerning what God says to me in His Word.

It is exactly the case, actually. I couldn't have said it better myself, in fact - I have no reason to suspect there is such thing as divine revelation, and good reason not to.

aiki said:
But I have not made the circular argument you frame here at all.

Yes you have. Your explanations, such as they are, have so far boiled down to restatements of your initial assertion.

aiki said:
And how do you know with any certainty that I am being lied to?

I don't. And neither do you. That's the whole point. There are no means of determining any truth value to your purported 'revelations'.

aiki said:
And the witness of God's Spirit to me of the truth of God's Word is not just a feeling any more than my being taught by a professor at university was just a feeling.

.......

As I said, the Holy Spirit is a Person who interacts with me in the manner I have described above. I discern that this is so in much the same way I discern and interact with other persons.

If that were the case, it would be very easy for you to answer the basic epistemological challenges facing you. So far, you have failed.

aiki said:
What reason do you have to think what you describe here is likely?

Again, I have no reason to suspect either scenario, barring any coherent means of discerning a true 'revelation' from a false one.

aiki said:
But that isn't what is important. Your positive conviction of my claims isn't my goal. I am only interested in showing that my faith is reasonable, which any and all of those arguments do very well.

Depends on what your threshold of 'reasonability' is. Again, I'm sure they appear highly reasonable, provided you already believe the things they purport to demonstrate.

aiki said:
I'm simply telling you what the Christian conception of God is as the Greatest Possible Being. And that conception precludes God being self-contradictory. If I start there, if I accept that God is not self-contradictory, then what I wrote to you is not circular but consistent.

'If I start there...'

That is the entire point under contention, and why your explanation fails in its circularity. You don't get to just 'start there'.

aiki said:
Oh, I have not given you Plantinga's answers. Not even close.

You shouldn't have invoked him, then.

aiki said:
So don't deceive yourself into thinking you know all there is to know about the epistemology of the Christian worldview.

I know enough to say it is vacuous. I'll let you know if that ever changes.

aiki said:
This doesn't answer my question or my observation.

Yes it does. Your critique is predicated on the assertion that because I haven't read a particular account of Christian epistemology by your pet apologist, I must not be interested in meaningful interaction. That is a flimsy accusation.

aiki · Dec 26, 2015

Davian said:
You said, "totally unsubstantiated". But, you go ahead and move those goalposts around as you need to.

Don't need to. You've not substantiated in any concrete way the reality of a multiverse. Mathematical models of a multiverse are interesting but they do not substantiate the actual existence of such a thing.

Davian said:
There is no empirically observable evidence at all for a real gods, but does that concern you?

Making empirical observation the sole basis upon which to establish the reality of a thing is absurd. There is no direct empirical evidence for integrity, or beauty, or satisfaction, or joy, either. I cannot boil beauty in a test tube, or weigh a pound of joy on a scale, or pressure-test integrity, but these things nonetheless exist. I can't tell you where the number seven exists; it doesn't have an address or a specific geographical location; I can't tell you how much the number seven weighs, or what the number seven smells like, or what the boiling point of the number seven is, but the number seven nonetheless exists. Clearly, the empirical method has very narrow limits to the information it can impart to us about reality.

God is by His very nature a supernatural Being. How, then, can the empirical method, which is limited to observations of the material, natural universe, be expected to establish His existence? Quite obviously it cannot. But the empirical method is not the only way we come to knowledge of reality. Logic and reason can lead us to knowledge of reality; so can historical inquiry; introspection and personal testimony are also viable means of coming to know things. If I don't take a narrow, scientistic approach to knowledge I can very easily obtain evidence for God. This doesn't, however, mean scientific data has no place in theistic arguments. It does. The Cosmological Argument and the Argument from Fine-Tuning, for example, both employ scientific data in their reasoning, as does the Argument from Information.

Davian said:
the point in time or space at which something starts

origin |ˈôrəjən| noun1 the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived.

I didn't say identical, but they do seem interchangeable.

As I said, they are related but not identical. "Origin," as I typically use the word, has to do with derivation, not beginning point. A starting line on a racetrack is not identical to the fellow who painted it. The former is a beginning point, the latter is the origin of that beginning point.

Davian said:
A perfect demonstration of how unfamiliar you are with modern cosmology.

This is a rather obvious deflection of my point.

Davian said:
Is the Bible a fairy tale because it has talking animals in it?

No, but it is a supernatural tale.

Davian said:
A generic property of inflation is the balancing of the negative gravitational energy, within the inflating region, with the positive energy of the inflaton field to yield a post-inflationary universe with negligible or zero energy density.[5][6] It is this balancing of the total universal energy budget that enables the open-ended growth possible with inflation; during inflation, energy flows from the gravitational field (or geometry) to the inflaton field—the total gravitational energy decreases (i.e. becomes more negative) and the total inflaton energy increases (becomes more positive). But the respective energy densities remain constant and opposite since the region is inflating. Consequently, inflation explains the otherwise curious cancellation of matter and gravitational energy on cosmological scales, which is consistent with astronomical observations.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

Being consistent with astronomical observations does not mean the model explains those observations or is actually related to them. Surely you have seen a murder mystery on t.v. where certain hypotheses are offered as to the nature of the murder and the identity of the murderer. Often the hypotheses all appear initially to be consistent with the observable facts and evidence available to the homicide detectives; but they do not, therefore, all correctly explain or directly relate to the actual reality of the events of the murder. And as the show goes on this is revealed until finally only one viable hypotheses remains. As such shows illustrate, apparent consistency with the observable data, with the facts, does not guarantee a legitimate explanatory relationship.

Davian said:
The failure of the argument is that it presupposes an external cause, the nature of causality at a point time that we are unable to observe, and minds without brains. And, it is not even an argument for the Christian "God". WLC just slips that in with some slight-of-hand and hopes no one notices.

Do you concede that you do not have scientific citations to support your position?

WLC appeals to what he describes as a metaphysical intuition and/or truism: nothing cannot give rise to something. If the universe could just pop into being from nothing, why couldn't horses, or cans of root beer, or bicycles? Why just universes? And why don't we see things just spontaneously popping into existence all the time if such a thing is possible? WLC, then, isn't slipping anything into his arguments, but reasoning from a metaphysical intuition and the complete absence of any concrete reason to doubt this intuition. Things just don't pop into existence, uncaused, out of nothing. This is a presupposition deduced from metaphysical truth, but a perfectly reasonable one, it seems to me.

What's ironic about your criticism of presuppositions is that you possess them too. In fact, there isn't a single person who doesn't have a fundamental set of presuppositions (concretely understood or not) from which they compose their worldview. You seem to presuppose that only what science can observe can be truly known. (Of course, if this is so, you've bought into a self-refuting philosophical assertion.) Most people who reject a theistic worldview presuppose naturalism or materialism.

Science does provide support for the theist's position, but it does not serve as the sole ground of support for that position.

Selah.

Davian · Dec 27, 2015

aiki said:
Don't need to. You've not substantiated in any concrete way the reality of a multiverse.

That would be a different set of goalposts.

Mathematical models of a multiverse are interesting but they do not substantiate the actual existence of such a thing.

Making empirical observation the sole basis upon which to establish the reality of a thing is absurd.

A good position to hold, if you lack such things to support your beliefs. ^_^

There is no direct empirical evidence for integrity, or beauty, or satisfaction, or joy, either. I cannot boil beauty in a test tube, or weigh a pound of joy on a scale, or pressure-test integrity, but these things nonetheless exist. I can't tell you where the number seven exists; it doesn't have an address or a specific geographical location; I can't tell you how much the number seven weighs, or what the number seven smells like, or what the boiling point of the number seven is, but the number seven nonetheless exists. Clearly, the empirical method has very narrow limits to the information it can impart to us about reality.

So how do we know "gods" exist, outside of your imagination?

God is by His very nature a supernatural Being. How, then, can the empirical method, which is limited to observations of the material, natural universe, be expected to establish His existence? Quite obviously it cannot.

Obviously, if "supernatural" is indistinguishable from "imaginary".

But the empirical method is not the only way we come to knowledge of reality. Logic and reason can lead us to knowledge of reality; so can historical inquiry; introspection and personal testimony are also viable means of coming to know things. If I don't take a narrow, scientistic approach to knowledge I can very easily obtain evidence for God. This doesn't, however, mean scientific data has no place in theistic arguments. It does. The Cosmological Argument and the Argument from Fine-Tuning, for example, both employ scientific data in their reasoning, as does the Argument from Information.

What fine tuning?

As I said, they are related but not identical. "Origin," as I typically use the word, has to do with derivation, not beginning point. A starting line on a racetrack is not identical to the fellow who painted it. The former is a beginning point, the latter is the origin of that beginning point.

I was referring to the words as they are used in the common vernacular.

This is a rather obvious deflection of my point.

Your point was in error. The radiation received by the Earth from the Sun has no relation to inflation theory.

No, but it is a supernatural tale.

What do you mean by "supernatural"? How is that different from "imaginary"?

Being consistent with astronomical observations does not mean the model explains those observations or is actually related to them. Surely you have seen a murder mystery on t.v. where certain hypotheses are offered as to the nature of the murder and the identity of the murderer. Often the hypotheses all appear initially to be consistent with the observable facts and evidence available to the homicide detectives; but they do not, therefore, all correctly explain or directly relate to the actual reality of the events of the murder. And as the show goes on this is revealed until finally only one viable hypotheses remains. As such shows illustrate, apparent consistency with the observable data, with the facts, does not guarantee a legitimate explanatory relationship.

Sure, but in this case it not only comports with observations of reality, but offers the greatest explanatory power at this time. Which cosmological model do you adhere to?

Did you know that WLC accepts modern cosmology and evolutionary theory? No global floods, no arks? Same for you? Or are you cherry-picking his work?

WLC appeals to what he describes as a metaphysical intuition and/or truism: nothing cannot give rise to something.

Indeed, also known as a "presupposition". There is no way that science can test this.

If the universe could just pop into being from nothing, why couldn't horses, or cans of root beer, or bicycles? Why just universes? And why don't we see things just spontaneously popping into existence all the time if such a thing is possible?

I have no idea where you got the idea that horses, or cans of root beer, or bicycles could possibly pop into existence. Perhaps you could provide a citation for that.

WLC, then, isn't slipping anything into his arguments, but reasoning from a metaphysical intuition and the complete absence of any concrete reason to doubt this intuition. Things just don't pop into existence, uncaused, out of nothing. This is a presupposition deduced from metaphysical truth, but a perfectly reasonable one, it seems to me.

Of course it does, to you. But you need to hold this presupposition. I can simply say, I don't know. You are the one left standing there without support for their position. :wave:

What's ironic about your criticism of presuppositions is that you possess them too. In fact, there isn't a single person who doesn't have a fundamental set of presuppositions (concretely understood or not) from which they compose their worldview. You seem to presuppose that only what science can observe can be truly known. (Of course, if this is so, you've bought into a self-refuting philosophical assertion.) Most people who reject a theistic worldview presuppose naturalism or materialism.

I do neither.

Science does provide support for the theist's position, but it does not serve as the sole ground of support for that position.

What else do you rely on? Confirmation bias? Wishful thinking? Religious dogma?

stevevw · Dec 27, 2015

Just a thought on the beginning of the universe. If we say that everything is deteriorating and will eventually end then it must have had a beginning. If time and space as we know it began with the beginning of the universe then what ever was before this didn't operate with time and space. So something had to have started our universe that didn't have time and space. Whatever started our universe can be said to have come from something and that may have also come from something ad infinity. So we have to either get back to something that was already there to be begin with and didn't need a beginning. Some say that this is God the creator because these are His qualities being Omnipotent and omnipresent.

quatona · Dec 27, 2015

stevevw said:
Just a thought on the beginning of the universe. If we say that everything is deteriorating and will eventually end then it must have had a beginning. If time and space as we know it began with the beginning of the universe then what ever was before this didn't operate with time and space. So something had to have started our universe that didn't have time and space. Whatever started our universe can be said to have come from something and that may have also come from something ad infinity. So we have to either get back to something that was already there to be begin with and didn't need a beginning. Some say that this is God the creator because these are His qualities being Omnipotent and omnipresent.

Well, you started with a premise about "everything", and ended with a conclusion that violated said premise.

madaz · Dec 27, 2015

stevevw said:
Just a thought on the beginning of the universe. If we say that everything is deteriorating and will eventually end then it must have had a beginning. If time and space as we know it began with the beginning of the universe then what ever was before this didn't operate with time and space. So something had to have started our universe that didn't have time and space. Whatever started our universe can be said to have come from something and that may have also come from something ad infinity. So we have to either get back to something that was already there to be begin with and didn't need a beginning. Some say that this is God the creator because these are His qualities being Omnipotent and omnipresent.

How does y

stevevw · Dec 27, 2015

quatona said:
Well, you started with a premise about "everything", and ended with a conclusion that violated said premise.

Well the conclusion that the universe had a beginning and that everything deteriorates and therefore has a beginning has been verified by scientists so thats not in question. As you would have noticed I said that some people say that God is the reason that caused a beginning and needs no beginning Himself. So I havnt concluded anything but have offered one possibility. If we then say it wasn't God then whatever this thing may be it has to have always been there and it existed before time, space, matter and energy. It must have contributed to the beginning of our universe as we know it. So it has to be something beyond the parameters of what we understand about cause and effect because there was no time to allow that scenario. If you want to use a multiverse or string theory idea like some scientists use to avoid the beginning problem then you would have to eventually go back to a beginning for the first universe created.

Unless you want to step outside the parameters of how we understand cause and effect then there would be no other conclusion. Thats why scientists are moving beyond the normal parameters of verifiable science by using things like string theory and now M theory because no logical conclusion based on our understanding of cause and effect could explain how the beginning of the universe happened. These theories can allow almost anything and everything to happen. Its almost like they are making the theories to fit the conclusions themselves. So thats almost appealing to the same thing that people do when they use God as the answer because He is also beyond the parameters of cause and effect. So my offer of God as one possibility is no different than what scientists have been offering with their far fetched ideas. None can be verified and all are beyond the parameters of the calculations of cause and effect.

Are we born as atheists, or are we born as believers?

fallible

Chaotic Neutral

Oldbie

inquisitive

Regular Member

inquisitive

Regular Member

Regular Member

fallible

Regular Member

Newbie

fallible

Well-Known Member

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness

Regular Member

fallible

inquisitive

"God"? What do you mean??

dyslexic agnostic insomniac

inquisitive

Similar threads