• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
That's not correct at all.

The answer most atheists I'm aware of (including myself) is that we don't know how the universe got here beyond the big bang. We aren't justified in making assertions beyond that point.

Theists try to make assertions beyond that point, and they have no justification to do so.



For me personally, I know that either:

1. The universe has existed forever

or

2. It has not

I have good reasons for thinking it has not. Can I prove this like I can prove that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is 180?

No.

Does that keep me from using the Kalam?

No.

Why?

Because all that a deductive argument needs for it to be sound is premises that are true and to be formally and informally valid.

Possibilities come cheap. I make no attempt at proving the epistemic impossibility of an eternally existing universe. Rather, my endeavor is far more modest and that is to simply show that my premises are more plausible than their contradictories.

And I have justification for my premises. I have philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe with a healthy dose of scientific support for those arguments. Your skepticism and doubt in no way serve as defeaters for the clear, concise, scientifically verifiable data that I have for my views.

Aside from all of that Dave, you can know the truth yourself, aside from arguments. You can have a personal and intimate relationship with the Creator of the universe if that is what you desire with all of your heart. The self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit can lead you and guide you into all truth. That's what He does. :)
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Uber Genius
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
No.

Something cannot come from nothing, period.

The universe came from God as an effect in which He was the efficient cause.

The nihilo in ex nihilo refers to what Aristotle distinguished as material cause. There was nothing material out of which God created.

And you know this how?
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
For me personally, I know that either:

1. The universe has existed forever

or

2. It has not

Agreed

I have good reasons for thinking it has not.

Same here

Can I prove this like I can prove that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is 180?

No.

Does that keep me from using the Kalam?

No.

Why?

Because all that a deductive argument needs for it to be sound is premises that are true and to be formally and informally valid.

Then why do you use the Kalam? The first premise isn't known to be true or valid.

Possibilities come cheap. I make no attempt at proving the epistemic impossibility of an eternally existing universe. Rather, my endeavor is far more modest and that is to simply show that my premises are more plausible than their contradictories.

And I have justification for my premises. I have philosophical arguments for the beginning of the universe with a healthy dose of scientific support for those arguments. Your skepticism and doubt in no way serve as defeaters for the clear, concise, scientifically verifiable data that I have for my views.

Aside from all of that Dave, you can know the truth yourself, aside from arguments. You can have a personal and intimate relationship with the Creator of the universe if that is what you desire with all of your heart. The self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit can lead you and guide you into all truth. That's what He does. :)

What scientific data is that?
 
Upvote 0

HitchSlap

PROUDLY PRIMATE
Aug 6, 2012
14,723
5,468
✟288,596.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Have you caught onto the fact that this kid is regurgitating Billy Lyin' Craig, almost verbatim?

Agreed



Same here



Then why do you use the Kalam? The first premise isn't known to be true or valid.



What scientific data is that?
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Have you caught onto the fact that this kid is regurgitating Billy Lyin' Craig, almost verbatim?

Absolutely, which is great because I know William Lane Craig's arguments (especially the Kalam) well, and can identify the fallacies easily.
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Then why do you use the Kalam? The first premise isn't known to be true

I know it's true. Dr. Craig gives several reasons for thinking so as well.

Personally, my belief in the causal principle is a properly basic belief, it is a belief that was formed in me under certain circumstances and thus does not depend on other beliefs for its being a belief of mine. It is part of the foundation of my noetic structure of beliefs.


or valid.

Premises are neither valid nor invalid. Those terms refer to an argument's form.

Premises are either true or false and either more plausible than their contradictories or not.

What scientific data is that?

The data found here

www.reasonablefaith.org
 
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
I know it's true. Dr. Craig gives several reasons for thinking so as well.

How do you know it's true?

Personally, my belief in the causal principle is a properly basic belief, it is a belief that was formed in me under certain circumstances and thus does not depend on other beliefs for its being a belief of mine. It is part of the foundation of my noetic structure of beliefs.

That still doesn't mean it's true, much less justified.

The key problem with the first premise is that we've never witnessed anything begin to exist, ever.

Anything that's "new" or "begins to exist" in a colloquial sense within our universe isn't a new creation, it's a rearrangement of already existing matter that's been around since the beginning of the universe. We've never truly seen anything that begins to exist. We don't know how that happens, or could happen.

The logical error is he's equivocating beginning to exist in the ultimate sense with beginning to exist in the sense of rearranging previously existing matter.

We don't know how matter begins to exist, and therefore we can't justify that it has a cause. We don't know where matter came from.


Where specifically on that site? Linking me to the homepage doesn't address my question.
 
Upvote 0

ToddNotTodd

Iconoclast
Feb 17, 2004
7,787
3,884
✟274,996.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Personally, my belief in the causal principle is a properly basic belief, it is a belief that was formed in me under certain circumstances and thus does not depend on other beliefs for its being a belief of mine. It is part of the foundation of my noetic structure of beliefs.

You realize that reformed epistemology is only useful to make yourself feel better about the things you believe without actual sufficient reason., right? It's a security blanket for people who already believe, it's not a method to convince anyone of anything. No one should put any weight at all to any arguments of yours that reduce to reformed epistemology.

And if you're not here to try and convince anyone of anything, then why are you here in the Apologetic section?
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
And you support those 4 claims how exactly?

My belief that something cannot come from nothing, is a properly basic belief. Therefore to ask how I support is to evince a cognitive malfunction you're having.

My belief that the universe came from God as an effect in which He was the efficient cause is also a properly basic belief and therefore the aforementioned applies here as well.

The belief that the nihilo in ex nihilo refers to what Aristotle distinguished as material cause was arrived at after having read works written which were relevant to the subject in question.

The belief that there was nothing material out of which God created was arrived at after having reviewed the scientific data for the absolute beginning of space-time and all matter and energy.
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
You realize that reformed epistemology is only useful to make yourself feel better about the things you believe without actual sufficient reason., right?

No. I have no good reasons to think that is its only use.

It's a security blanket for people who already believe,

I respect you see it that way.


It's not a method to convince anyone of anything.

I agree.


No one should put any weight at all to any arguments of yours that reduce to reformed epistemology.

Since my arguments don't "reduce to reformed epistemology" I can happily agree for the sake of being charitable.



And if you're not here to try and convince anyone of anything, then why are you here in the Apologetic section?

Apologetics to me, is not just about convincing someone that what I believe is true. It is about much more than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Dave Ellis

Contributor
Dec 27, 2011
8,933
821
Toronto, Ontario
✟59,815.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
CA-Conservatives
My belief that something cannot come from nothing, is a properly basic belief. Therefore to ask how I support is to evince a cognitive malfunction you're having.

Again, labeling it properly basic doesn't make it so, and it doesn't make your belief correct.

My belief that the universe came from God as an effect in which He was the efficient cause is also a properly basic belief and therefore the aforementioned applies here as well.

See above

The belief that the nihilo in ex nihilo refers to what Aristotle distinguished as material cause was arrived at after having read works written which were relevant to the subject in question.

The belief that there was nothing material out of which God created was arrived at after having reviewed the scientific data for the absolute beginning of space-time and all matter and energy.

What scientific data is that?
 
Upvote 0

anonymous person

Well-Known Member
Jul 21, 2015
3,326
507
40
✟75,394.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Again, labeling it properly basic doesn't make it so, and it doesn't make your belief correct.

What is properly basic will depend upon a person's noetic structure of beliefs and which of those beliefs were formed immediately and noninferentially by their belief forming cognitive equipment. In saying that a belief is properly basic for me, I am not arguing that it is properly basic for you, or that it even should be.

What scientific data is that?

Einstein's discovery of General Relativity is well known to those in the scientific community. It was the beginning of a string of events that led to a greater understanding of our universe. Einstein's calculations revealed that there was actually a definite beginning to all time, all matter, and all space. Being irritated by this discovery he later introduced a cosmological constant into his equations to make them seem to point to the fact that the universe was static. This deception, which was discovered by another scientist, Alexander Friedmann, was what Einstein called: "the greatest blunder of my life".( From George Gamow, My World Line, 1970)

British cosmologist Arthur Eddington sympathized with Einstein. He stated: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the present order of nature is repugnant to me...I should like to find a loophole."( Quoted in Hugh Ross,The Creator and the Cosmos, Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1995, 57)

Dutch astronomer Willem de Sitter and astronomer Edwin Hubble subsequently confirmed through observation that the universe indeed was expanding and that therefore the General Relativity of Einstein was true.

Lets look at some of the corroborating evidence.

1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states among other things, that the universe is running out of usable energy. We experience it everyday when we drive our cars. We put fuel in the tank and as the engine runs, fuel is used. When the fuel runs out the engines shuts off. Unless fuel is put in the tank, the engine will not run. The universe is this way. One day it will run out of energy. Like a flashlight loses its power if left on overnight. Since the universe is using energy that it has, it must have had a beginning, if not, it would have been eternal, but if it had been eternal, it would have run out of usable energy. The second law is tied to the first which states that the total amount of energy in the universe is constant. In other words it has only a finite amount of energy.

The Law of Entropy is associated with this as well. This law states that over time, nature tends to bring things to disorder, not order. Cars rust, trees rot, clothes tear and wear out, human bodies age etc. etc.
If a wound up clock is running down, then someone must have wound it up. Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow likens the universe to such a wound up clock. (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, New York, Norton, 1978, 48)

Arthur Eddington understands all to well the implications of this and anyone who would attempt to refute the Second Law when he states:
"The law that entropy always increases, holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation." (Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World 1928, chapter 4)

2. The universe is expanding. The recent discoveries categorized in the "Big Bang" show us that the universe is expanding. Astronomer Edwin Hubble confirmed what astronomer Vesto Melvin Slipher had been researching in the early 1900's. That space itself is expanding is a scientifically proven fact confirmed by atheist British author Anthony Kenny. He wrote: " According to the Big Bang Theory, the whole matter of the universe began to exist at a particular time in the remote past. A proponent of such a theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the matter of the universe came from nothing and by nothing. (Anthony Kenny, The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas' Proofs of God's Existence, New York: Shocken, 1969, 66)

3. Radiation from the afterglow of the explosion of the Big Bang was detected in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson of Bell Labs in New Jersey. This is technically called cosmic background radiation.
Agnostic Astronomer Robert Jastrow states: "No explanation other than the big bang has been found for the fireball radiation. The clincher, which has convinced almost the last Doubting Thomas, is that the radiation discovered by Penzias and Wilson has exactly the pattern of wavelengths expected for the light and heat produced in a great explosion. Supporters of the steady state theory have tried desperately to find an alternative explanation, but they have failed."(Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 15-16)

4. Variations in the temperature of the cosmic background radiation which enable matter to come together by gravitational attraction into galaxies was discovered by COBE, a satellite that in 1992 startled the scientific world by showing that the explosion and expansion of the universe was precisely tweaked to cause just enough matter to congregate to allow galaxy formation, but not enough to cause the universe to collapse back on itself. Any slight variation one way or the other, and none of us would be here to tell about it. In fact, the ripples are so exact (down to one part in one hundred thousand) that astronomer George Smoot called them the "machining marks from the creation of the universe" and the "finger-prints of the maker."(Heeren,Show Me God, 168)

Stephen Hawking says of this discovery that it is: "the most important discovery of the century, if not all time."(See Fred Heeren, Show Me God, 163-168; and Ross, Creator and the Cosmos, 19)

George Smoot again states with regards to these findings: "If you're religious, it's like looking at God."(See Fred Heeren,Show Me God, 163-168; and Ross, Creator and the Cosmos, 19)

Astrophysicist Michael Turner claims: "The significance of this cannot be overstated. They have found the Holy Grail of Cosmology."(See Fred Heeren, Show Me God, 163-168; and Ross, Creator and the Cosmos, 19)

The infrared pictures taken by COBE point to the existence of matter from the very early universe that would ultimately form into the galaxies as they exist today. Smoot called this matter "seeds". Pictures of these Galaxy Seeds can be found at COBE's website: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/

These "seeds" are the largest structures ever detected, with the biggest extending across 1/3 of the known universe. That is approximately 10,000,000,000 light years across!

5. Einstein's General Relativity has been verified to an accuracy of five decimal places. General Relativity demands an absolute beginning for time, space, and matter and shows that the three are co-relative.

Let us take a look at some of the views of scientists today on the beginning of the universe.

From atheistic physicist Stephen Hawking:

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Yet it is now taken for granted." (The Beginning of Time Lecture, Stephen Hawking British Theoretical Physicist and Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, a lifetime member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and in 2009 was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian award in the United States. Hawking was the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge between 1979 and 2009. Subsequently, he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology.)


From agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow:

"Recent developments in astronomy have implications that may go beyond their contribution to science itself. In a nutshell, astronomers, studying the Universe through their telescopes, have been forced to the conclusion that the world began suddenly, in a moment of creation, as the product of unknown forces." ( Excerpt from Truth Journal by Professor Robert Jastrow-Ph.D. (1948), from Columbia University; Chief of the Theoretical Division of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (1958-61) and Founder/Director of NASA 's Goddard Institute; Professor of Geophysics at Columbia University; Professor of Space Studies-Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College)


"Scientists generally agree that "the Big Bang" birthed the universe about 15 billion years ago."( Tom Parisi, Northern Illinois University)


"As a result of the Big Bang (the tremendous explosion which marked the beginning of our Universe), the universe is expanding and most of the galaxies within it are moving away from each other." (CalTech)


"The Big Bang model of the universe's birth is the most widely accepted model that has ever been conceived for the scientific origin of everything." (Stuart Robbins, Case Western Reserve University)


"Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however, no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning." (Chris LaRocco and Blair Rothstein, University of Michigan)


"The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the Universe began with a "Big Bang" ~15 billion (15,000,000,000 or 15E9) years ago." "The Big Bang theory is the most widely accepted theory of the creation of the Universe." (Dr. van der Pluijm, University of Michigan)


"Most scientists agree that the universe began some 12 to 20 billion years ago in what has come to be known as the Big Bang (a term coined by the English astrophysicist Fred Hoyle in 1950." (University of Illinois)


"The universe cannot be infinitely large or infinitely old (it evolves in time)." (Nilakshi Veerabathina, Georgia State University)


"The universe had a beginning. There was once nothing and now there is something." (Janna Levin, Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University)


"Today scientists generally believe the universe was created in a violent explosion called the Big Bang." (Susan Terebey, Department of Physics and Astronomy, California State University Los Angeles)


"Evidence suggests that our universe began as an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity." (Stephen T. Abedon, Ohio State University)


"A large body of astrophysical observations now clearly points to a beginning for our universe about 15 billion years ago in a cataclysmic outpouring of elementary particles. There is, in fact, no evidence that any of the particles of matter with which we are now familiar existed before this great event." (Louis J. Clavelli, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, University of Alabama)


From the above, we see that there is ample evidence to maintain that premise 2 of the cosmological argument is true.
 
Upvote 0