The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

[Elioenai26]

Apologia​

The Christian - (from the Ancient Greek: Χριστιανός Christianos) is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as recorded in the Canonical gospels and the letters of the New Testament. "Christian" derives from the Koine Greek word Christ, a translation of the Biblical Hebrew term Messiah. (Wikipedia)

The charge - (kategoria κατηγορί&#945 brought against the Christian is that Christianity is not actually what it claims to be. The claim is that God has of His own will decided to self-disclose Himself to humans in at least three primary ways.

1. Through what has been created. (Rom 1:20, Gen. 1:1, Job 12:7, Ps. 19:1, Jeremiah 51:15)

2. Through the Judeo-Christian scriptures that comprise the Old and New Testaments. (2 Tim. 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21, Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 4:4, 1 Kings 8:56, Luke 24:44)

3. Primarily through Jesus of Nazareth who is called the Christ, God manifested in the flesh. (John 11:25, John 14:6, John 1:1, Rev. 1:18, Col 2:9, Heb. 1:8)

The defense - (apolgia) is that there are several good reasons why Christianity is true; and if Christianity is true, then it necessarily follows that all competing positions and worldviews are false as is demonstrated below:

I. If Christianity is true then:

1. atheism is false - atheists lack a belief in God or gods.
2. pantheism is false - pantheism maintains that God is all.
3. panentheism is false - posits that the divine exists (be it a monotheistic God, polytheistic gods, or an eternal cosmic animating force), interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it. (Wikipedia)
4. polytheism is false - belief of multiple deities also usually assembled into a pantheon of gods and goddesses, along with their own mythologies and rituals. (Wikipedia)
5. agnosticism/ignosticism/noncognitivism/acognosticism is false - the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable. (Wikipedia)
6. deism is false - a religious philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of a creator. According to deists, God never intervenes in human affairs or suspends the natural laws of the universe. (Wikipedia)
7. Islam is false - Islam maintains that Jesus of Nazareth was never crucified and that He was not God manifested in the flesh.
8. Judaism is false - orthodox Judaism maintains that Jesus of Nazareth was not the promised Messiah foretold by the prophets, and was therefore just an ordinary man.

There are of course other philosophies, worldviews, and religions but they all can be grouped within one of the major categories listed above.

* It is worth nothing that there are some who consider the question of whether God exists as irrelevant and/or unimportant. This is referred to as apatheism; also known as pragmatic atheism or (critically) as practical atheism, is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity. Apatheism describes the manner of acting towards a belief or lack of a belief in a deity; so applies to both theism and atheism. An apatheist is also someone who is not interested in accepting or denying any claims that gods exist or do not exist. In other words, an apatheist is someone who considers the question of the existence of gods as neither meaningful nor relevant to his or her life. (Wikipedia)

*Of course those who adhere to this view will be uninterested in this apologia, which is fine.*

Truth, it has been said, is "primarily being in accord with fact or reality, fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal". (Wikipedia)

Four questions regarding truth are:

1. What is truth?
2. Can truth be known?
3. Can truths about God be known?
4. So what? Who cares about truth?



Truth is not relative but absolute. All truth claims are absolute, narrow, and exclusive. All truths exclude their opposites, even religious truths. Seven points to remember about truth are given below:

• Truth is discovered, not invented. i.e. gravity was discovered, not invented by Newton. It exists independent of anyone's knowledge of it.
• Truth is transcultural i.e. if something is true it is true for all people at all places and at all times i.e. 2+2=4 is true in America today, as it was in Pakistan 200 years ago.
• Truth is unchanging i.e. even though our beliefs about the truth may change, truth itself does not i.e. when men believed the earth was flat. Truthfully it was round. When we discovered it was round our belief about this truth changed, not the truth itself.
• Beliefs cannot change a fact i.e. some may have sincerely believed the earth was flat. This did not make it actually flat.
• Truth is not affected by the attitude of one professing it i.e. an arrogant person does not make the truth he speaks false, nor does a humble person make the error he speaks true.
• All truths are absolute i.e. something is either true or false, it cannot be a little true or a little false.
• Contrary beliefs are possible, contrary truths are not. (Geisler and Turek, I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Crossway, 2004)

Objections to the existence of truth.

Some may challenge: "There is no such thing as truth!" However, when saying this, they are making a truth claim, namely, that there is no such thing as truth, and when they do this, their position is immediately recognized as being self-defeating. So truth really exists and those who deny this, do so by making self-defeating truth claims that there is no truth. Also, if there really is no truth, then why try to learn anything? Why do professors teach and students listen, if what they say is not true?

Can truth be known?

We have established truth exists, but can it be known? Some agnostics and skeptics maintain that truth cannot be known. They say that truth cannot be known, but then claim that their view is true. Therefore, they claim that at least one thing can be truthfully known and that is that truth cannot be known. Once again this is self-defeating.
Every worldview in existence has exclusive doctrines and beliefs that prohibit them all from being true. Mutually exclusive beliefs cannot be true, therefore there is no reason to pretend that they can be.
Pluralists argue that "we ought not to question someone's religious beliefs", but this is itself a belief for pluralists. This view is just as "intolerant" or exclusive as a Muslim's or Christian's view because the pluralist thinks that all non-pluralist views are wrong. They want everyone to see things their way.
It is interesting to note that Christians have a religious belief which says that they ought to question others' religious beliefs. In light of this, pluralists, according to their own standard, should accept this Christian belief as well. But of course they do not, for they claim this belief is intolerant. In doing this they are actually being intolerant and end up tolerating only those who agree with them.

Blaise Pascal once said: "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive."
Socrates taught us that any teaching -religious or otherwise- is worth trusting only if it points to the truth. An apologists job is to therefore show how good reason and evidence supports or contradicts a particular belief. Why? Because truth is truth no matter what country you are from and truth is truth no matter what you may believe about it. Just as the same gravity keeps all people grounded, so all people are going to get hurt if they walk out into the street and get hit by a fast moving automobile.

This apologia is continued in the following post.

 

[Elioenai26]

The Law of Noncontradiction

The Law of Noncontradiction is a self-evident first principle of thought that says contradictory claims cannot both be true at the same time and in the same sense. When investigating any question of fact, including the question of God, the same Law of Noncontradiction applies. Either theists are right when they maintain that God exists, or they are wrong. There is no in between. Either Jesus died and rose from the dead as the Bible claims, or He did not as the Qur'an claims. Both cannot be true. (Wikipedia)

Hume's skepticism

The skeptic David Hume was an empiricist and believed all meaningful ideas were either true by definition or must be based on sense experience. He asserted that propositions can only be meaningful if they met one or both of the following conditions:

1. it must be an abstract reasoning such as a mathematical equation or a defintion i.e. 2+2=4 or, all triangles have three sides.
2. it must be verified empirically through one or more of the five senses.

He concludes his Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding by saying this: "If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, "Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number?" No. "Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence?" No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."

This position is also known as the "principle of empirical verifiability" and was championed by philosopher A.J.Ayer. It later became known also as Logical Positivism. However, to anyone who understands what a self-defeating position is will quickly realize it here. Why? Because the principle of empirical verifiability is neither true by definition nor is it empirically verifiable and therefore according to it's own defintion, it cannot be meaningful! Certainly claims that are empirically verifiable or true by definition are meaningful. However, such claims do not comprise all meaningful statements as Hume and Ayer contend. Therefore if anything is to be consigned to the flames, Hume's work must be the first to burn!

Kant's agnosticism

Kant's views are even more incredible than Hume's. Kant maintained that it was not possible to know the world as it really is. According to Kant, the structure of your senses and your mind forms all sense data, so that you never really know the thing in itself. You only are able to know the thing to you after your mind and senses form it. Therefore according to Kant we are locked in complete agnosticism about the real world. However, like Hume, Kant violates the Law on Noncontradiction. He contradicts his own premise by saying that no one can know the real world while he claims to know something about it, namely that the real world is unknowable! In effect, he says that the truth about the real world is that there are no truths about the real world. He even goes a step beyond Hume and committs the "nothing but" fallacy which implies that he has "more than" knowledge. Kant says he knows the data that gets to his brain is nothing but phenomena, but in order to know this, he would have to be able to see more than just the phenomena. In order to differentiate between the two (the phenomena and noumena), you have to be able to perceive where one ends and the other begins. If there is no way to determine between the two, and you can't see how they might differ, then it makes much more sense to assume that they are the same! In other words that the idea in your mind accurately represents the thing in the noumena or the real world.

Ayer’s Acognosticism or Noncognitivism / Ignosticism

As has already been noted, the principle of empirical verifiability as set forth by Ayer is self-defeating. For it is neither purely definitional nor strictly factual. Hence, on its own grounds it would fall into the third category of non-sense statements. Ayer recognized this problem and engaged in recovery operations by way of a third category for which he claimed no truth value but only a useful function. Verifiability, he contended, is analytic and definitional but not arbitrary or true. It is meta-cognitive, that is, beyond verification as true or false but simply useful as a guide to meaning. This is a classic but ill-fated move for two reasons. First, it no longer eliminates the possibility of making metaphysical statements. Rather, it admits that one cannot legislate meaning but must look at meaning of alleged metaphysical statements. But if it is possible that some meaningful statements can be made about reality, then we are not left with complete agnosticism and acognosticism. Second, can cognitively restrictive meta-cognitive statements be made without self-stultification? It seems not, for to restrict the area of what is meaningful is to limit the area of what could be true, since only the meaningful can be true. Hence, the attempt to limit meaning to the definitional or to the verifiable is to make a truth claim that must itself be subject to some test. If it cannot be tested, then it becomes an unfalsifiable view, a ―"blik" of its own. (Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 1976 Baker Books)

Reply to Wittgensteinian Mysticism / Noncognitivism / Ignosticism

Ludwig Wittgenstein engages in a self-stultifying acognosticism. He attempts to define the limits of language in such a way as to show that it is impossible to speak cognitively about God. God is literally inexpressible. And that whereof one cannot speak, he should not attempt to speak thereof. But Wittgenstein can be no more successful in drawing the lines of linguistic limitation than Kant was in delimiting the realm of phenomena or appearance; for how can one know that God is inexpressible without thereby revealing something expressible about God? The very attempt to deny all expressions about God is an expression about God. One cannot draw the limits of language and thought unless he has transcended those very limits he would draw. It is self-defeating to express the contention that the inexpressible cannot be expressed. In like manner even to think the thought that the unthinkable cannot be thought is self-destructive. Language (thought) and reality cannot be mutually exclusive, for every attempt to completely separate them implies some interaction or commerce between them. One cannot use the scaffold of language and thought about the limits of reality only to say the scaffold cannot be so used. If the ladder was used to get on top of the house, one cannot thereupon deny the ability of the ladder to get one there.
(Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 1976 Baker Books)

 

[Elioenai26]

How truth is known

To recap:

1. Truth exists and is absolute and undeniable.
The question remains: By what means and process do we discover truths about the world? It begins by utilizing the first principles of logic which are self-evident. These principles are not proved by other principles but are inherent in the nature of reality and are therefore self-evident. Examples are:

1. The Law of Noncontraditction
2. The Law of the Excluded Middle

In an argument comprised of premises (usually three or more), logic tells us whether or not the argument is false, but it cannot tells us by itself which premises are true. i.e:

1. All men are four eight legged octopi
2. Jeremy is a man
3. Jeremy is therefore an eight legged octopus

The argument is logically sound because the conclusion follows from the premises. However it is false because we know that premise 1. does not correspond to reality as we know it! We know by observation of men in general that they are not cephalopod molluscs!

We need information and evidence to determine whether the premises in an argument are true. We get information from observing the world around us and then drawing general conclusions from them (enter science, philosophy, epistemology, etc. etc.)

Induction

The method of drawing conclusions from observations is called induction (this is commonly equated with the scientific method.) Induction is the process of discovering whether individual premises in an argument are true. Deduction is the process of lining up premises in an argument and arriving at a valid conclusion. For example, dropping a quarter from your hand repeatedly will show you that it falls to the ground. You observe by this that there must be some law or general principle that causes this to happen. This law is called gravity. Gravity was discovered by Newton, not invented.

Most of what we know in life we know by induction; and most conclusions based on induction cannot be considered absolutely certain but only highly probable. For example: we cannot be absolutely sure that gravity makes all objects drop for the simple fact that we have not observed "all objects" being dropped. Nor can we be 100% sure that all men are mortal for the simple fact that we cannot observe "all men die".
Can inductive conclusions be trusted if they are not 100% certain? Of course! This depends primarily on their degree of certainty. Since none of us possess infinite knowledge, most of our inductive conlusions have the potential of being wrong. But this need not be troublesome for the simple fact that we oftentimes have plenty enough information and available evidence to make reasonably certain conclusions on those questions we have about life. For example, since no one has been observed to never have died, we are sure beyond a reasonable doubt that all men are mortal. We cannot be 100% sure, but we can be 99% sure or sure beyond a reasonable doubt.

How are truths about God known?

We have established earlier through the refutation of several agnostic positions, that truth about God, if He exists, can be known. But how do we get this information? By using induction to investigate God the same way we use it to investivate other things we cannot physically see with our two eyes. We observe effects. For example, we cannot directly observe the law of gravity with our eyes, but we can observe it's effects. Nor can we physically observe the human mind, but we can observe it's effects. In fact, this apologia is evidence of this. As you read this, you assume that an intelligent mind is behind the words written in this work. Every article you have ever read you know to have been the work of an author. You have never observed the wind, or the rain, or a tornado blow across a computer and cause meaningful sentences and paragraphs to be formed through the keys on the keyboard. Nor would you infer that somehow over a very long period of time that random natural forces caused these thoughts to be somehow "typed" into the computer. You would rightly infer that a human mind was behind this work! Reasoning, induction, and deduction work together to give you an accurate explanation of this apologia. It is represented below:

1. All apologetic literature has at least one human author (premise based on investigation and induction)
2. Apologia is a piece of apologetic literature. (observation)
3. Therefore, Apologia has at least one author. (conclusion)

We see from the above that an argument need not be empirically verifiable to be true beyond a reasonable doubt! In fact we use induction hundreds of times everyday in our lives as we live and make decisions and judgments about things that we know are very important to us.

So what?

Many Americans (I live in America), are apathetic, cynical, or ignorant about truth when it comes to the various philosophies and religious worldviews. But I dare say they are not apatheitc or cynical about how their banks handle their money! Nor are they apathetic about how their doctors treat their ailments. We care about finances and health because they matter to us! We place a high value on these things and demand that those who handle our money and health be truthful and honest.
To say that truth in religion does not matter is to overlook temporal religious implications. For example, in Saudi Arabia, some schoolchildren are taught that Jews are inferior and that non-Muslims (infidels which I wager many who read this shall fall into this category) should be killed. Now thankfully most Muslims do not hold these views. But this jihadic doctrine comes straight from the Qur'an. Is it really true that there is a god who wants all of his people to fight and kill all infidels? Does this religious "truth" matter? Before you take up arms, it is necessary to remember that in many European countries and in America, schoolchildre are taught in school that humans really are not that qualitatively different than a monkey!! They are taught that monkeys and humans alike are the result of blind naturalistic forces and that humans have no objective or intrinsic value or worth over any other creature that roams the earth or swims through the seas. Does this atheisitc "truth" matter. Does it matter to tell a child this when they are growing up instead of telling them that they are extremely valuble and precious because they were made in the image of God? The implications are too far reaching to be comprehended. Mother Teresa taught Hindus in India the Christian principles of caring for the poor and suffering in a country where the suffering were considered to be "reaping what they sowed" in a past life! Does this religious idea matter? Ask the millions whose lives she touched. Does the religious teaching of karma matter? Ask the millions still suffering.

 

[Elioenai26]

To recap, let us review what we have established thus far.

1. Truth about reality is knowable.
2. The opposite of true is false.

Now we look at the evidence for the theistic God.

Cosmological Argument

This particular argument shall rely heavily on scientific observation which should appeal to the scientific minded.
The argument is listed below:

1. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist at some point in the distant past.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

The argument is valid because the conclusion follows from the premises. The question is, are the premises true? What is the evidence?

Premise 1

The Law of causality, which is the fundamental principle of science establishes premise one as true. Without the Law of Causality, science would be rendered impossible. Science is a search for causes. If we know anything about reality, it is that things don't happen without a cause.
Francis Bacon, the father of modern science says: "True knowledge is knowledge by causes."(The New Organon 1620; reprint, Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill, 1960), 121

Skeptic David Hume admits: " I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that something could arise without a cause." (in J.Y.T. Greig, ed., The Letters of David Hume, 2 vols. New York: Garland, 1983), 1:187.

Premise 2

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.
Before speaking of the conclusion of the Cosmological argument, let us take a look at some of the views of scientists today on the beginning of the universe.

 

[Elioenai26]

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.

 

[Elioenai26]

Premise 3

The universe has a cause. The conclusion follows from the premises and the premises have been shown to be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow confesses: "Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." (Wikipedia Robert Jastrow)

In an interview Jastrow states: "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact." (Wikipedia Robert Jastrow)

Although Arthur Eddington a contemporary of Einstein found the idea repgunant, he had to admit: "The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look on it as frankly supernatural."(Arthur Eddington, The Expanding Universe, New York: Macmillan, 1933, 178)

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.

Why do many scientists ignore these irrefutable facts?

Let us look again at some insight by an agnostic astronomer:

"Theologians generally are delighted with the proof that the universe had a beginning, but astronomers are curiously upset. It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence." (Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 1978, p. 16.)

We see here that a scientist is saying that scientists have beliefs just like everyone else! And when their beliefs are threatened, they react sometimes as we have seen in Einstein's case, dishonestly.

Again he states:

"There is a kind of religion in science . . . every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause. . . . This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual when faced with trauma,the mind reacts by ignoring the implications—in science this is known as "refusing to speculate"—or trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the Big Bang, as if the Universe were a firecracker."(Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 113-114)

And:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."(Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, 116)

In light of the above, we have determined the following:

Since something undeniably exists today, then something must have always existed.

Either:

1. The universe has always existed.

Or:

2. Something that caused the universe to exist has always existed.

The problem for the naturalists is that the scientific and philosophic evidence tells us that the universe cannot be eternal.


One need not even open any religious text to come to this conclusion. This is purely within the realm of scientific and philosophic observation and reasoning.


Once again we may state that there are only two possibilities for anything that exists:

1. it has always existed and is therefore uncaused
2. it had a begninning and was caused by something else ( and it cannot be self-caused, because it would have had to exist already in order to create something. Many may argue that the theistic God is self-caused and therefore is disqualified. However, theism maintains that God is "uncaused" meaning there never was a point in which He did not exist.)


From this conclusion, we must ask: What would this First Cause be like that caused the universe to come into existence?


Again we need not appeal to any religious text. We can discover what some of this First Cause's characteristics would be by looking at the evidence.


1. Self-existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial (since the First Cause is responsible for creating time, space, and matter, this Cause must be outside of them. This Cause must be without limits i.e infinite.
2. Unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing.
3. Supremely intelligent to design the universe with such precision.
4. Personal in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space material universe. (an impersonal force has no capacity to make choices)

These are the exact attributes of the theistic God.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..

Isaiah 45:12 It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.

Psalm 102:25 In the beginning You laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands..

Nehemiah 9:6 You alone are the LORD. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You give life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship You.

Job 37:18 can you join Him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?

Isaiah 45:18 For this is what the LORD says--He who created the heavens, He is God; He who fashioned and made the earth, He founded it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited--He says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other.

Isaiah 48:13 My own hand laid the foundations of the earth, and My right hand spread out the heavens; when I summon them, they all stand up together

Jeremiah 27:5 With my great power and outstretched arm I made the earth and its people and the animals that are on it, and I give it to anyone I please.

John 1:1-5 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Acknowledgments

Credit goes to Dr. Norman L. Geisler for his brilliant work as an apologist and philosopher from whom I have learned much more than I could ever have hoped for. I would also like to acknowledge Mr. Frank Turek, who along with Dr. Geisler, have composed a concise and easy to understand 12 point outline for the defense of the Christian Faith. I have borrowed from some of it's points and give all credit to them.

Also to those who work on Wikipedia articles who make it easy for research to be done in a timely manner.

 

[Davian]

All that just for the 'first cause' argument?

...
The problem for the naturalists is that the scientific and philosophic evidence tells us that the universe cannot be eternal.

Please provide a citation for this claim of scientific evidence.

 

[Gadarene]

And you've come full circle back to the first cause argument, with a whole bunch of unnecessary text before it.

It's still bollocks, Elioenai. (And even then, your conclusion is fallacious - apart from being a circular argument with the bible quotes - you're trying to prove this god exists, and using those quotes assumes the conclusion if you're going to present them without justification. Also, even if the argument held true, it still doesn't justify belief in your god, just a god. There've plenty of posited deities that meet the criteria listed.)

 

[Davian]

...
I. If Christianity is true then:

1. atheism is false - atheists lack a belief in God or gods.

Another error here - atheism does not make a positive claim, so it cannot be 'false'.

That is a problem when you cut and paste others' works.

 

[Danyc]

Why on earth would you go through all of that trouble just to present a first cause argument yet again?

 

[Elioenai26]

All that just for the 'first cause' argument?



Please provide a citation for this claim of scientific evidence.

1. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist at some point in the distant past.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

It has been shown that the conclusion (3) is true because it follows logically from the premises and the premises are true. The premises are true because (2) is substantiated by the five lines of scientific observation and research which demand that the universe had a definite beginning as well as the corroborating citations of scientists (agnostics and atheists). Premise (1) is self-evident.

Now if the conclusion (3) is true, then the universe is not eternal. What ever has a cause cannot be eternal. This is self-evident. Not only is this self-evident, but maintaining that the universe is eternal committs the infinite regression fallacy. If there were an infinite number of days before today, then today would never have arrived. But we are here. An infinite number of days cannot be traversed.

It is also worth nothing that the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the Big Bang findings, but is not dependent on it. The fact that the universe is running out of usable energy is not up for debate.

Einstein's General Relativity is like the above. This theory, verified to five decimal places, requires a beginning to space, matter and time.

Thirdly, scientific evidence from geology shows us that the universe had a beginning. Why? Well look at how much radioactive uranium exists today. In high school we all learned that radioactive elements decay over time into other elements. Rad.Uranium decays into lead.

If all Uranium atoms were infinitely old, they would all be lead, but they're not!

 

[Elioenai26]

And you've come full circle back to the first cause argument, with a whole bunch of unnecessary text before it.

It's still bollocks, Elioenai. (And even then, your conclusion is fallacious - apart from being a circular argument with the bible quotes - you're trying to prove this god exists, and using those quotes assumes the conclusion if you're going to present them without justification. Also, even if the argument held true, it still doesn't justify belief in your god, just a god. There've plenty of posited deities that meet the criteria listed.)

1. How is the argument circular, when I never used one verse from the Bible to substantiate the argument? The verses come at the very end to show that the God of the Bible is one who can fit the criteria for the Uncaused Cause which was proven to be necessary for the existence of the universe by scientific observation and irrefutable philosophical argumentation.

2. I even mentioned several times throughout the apologia that there was no need to appeal to any religious text whatsover to establish what was being established. Its purely scientific and philosophical.

3. This apologia is far from over. My aim in theses 6 pages was to establish through scientific evidence and philosophical argumentation that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe had a beginning and therefore owes it's existence not to itself, but to a supernatural cause outside of itself. I have not made a case for anything beyond theism at this point. My intentions are to answer any questions about what I have presented so far, and then proceed from there.

 

[Davian]

No, I said citation. Not more of the same.

1. Everything that begins to exist, has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist at some point in the distant past.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause

It has been shown that the conclusion (3) is true because it follows logically from the premises and the premises are true. The premises are true because (2) is substantiated by the five lines of scientific observation and research which demand that the universe had a definite beginning as well as the corroborating citations of scientists (agnostics and atheists). Premise (1) is self-evident.

Premise 1 is not self-evident, hence your argument fails. This is not news.

Now if the conclusion (3) is true, then the universe is not eternal. What ever has a cause cannot be eternal. This is self-evident. Not only is this self-evident, but maintaining that the universe is eternal committs the infinite regression fallacy. If there were an infinite number of days before today, then today would never have arrived. But we are here. An infinite number of days cannot be traversed.

It is also worth nothing that the Second Law of Thermodynamics supports the Big Bang findings, but is not dependent on it. The fact that the universe is running out of usable energy is not up for debate.

Einstein's General Relativity is like the above. This theory, verified to five decimal places, requires a beginning to space, matter and time.

Yes, but not necessarily the universe.

Thirdly, scientific evidence from geology shows us that the universe had a beginning. Why? Well look at how much radioactive uranium exists today. In high school we all learned that radioactive elements decay over time into other elements. Rad.Uranium decays into lead.

If all Uranium atoms were infinitely old, they would all be lead, but they're not!

LOL, you should stick to copy-pasting!

ETA - I see you got that from somewhere like this:

http://www.rickbeckman.org/atheism-theism-beginning/

Do you have any science to back up your claims?

 

[Elioenai26]

Why on earth would you go through all of that trouble just to present a first cause argument yet again?

I thoroughly enjoy researching and knowing why I believe what I believe and having support for it. This is the first time I have sat down in order to do an apologia and it has been a work in progress for some time. I hope someone may benefit from it as I have. I have learned much!

 

[Davian]

...
3. This apologia is far from over. My aim in theses 6 pages was to establish through scientific evidence and philosophical argumentation that it is true beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe had a beginning and therefore owes it's existence not to itself, but to a supernatural cause outside of itself.
...

Your aim is off, then.

 

[Elioenai26]

Another error here - atheism does not make a positive claim, so it cannot be 'false'.

That is a problem when you cut and paste others' works.

You say that atheism does not make a positive claim, I think you are mistaken for one main reason:

Atheists, per your definition, maintain that they lack a belief in gods or God. Correct?

Now if they maintain this position, then they are actually saying that they possess a belief in something else, namely that they believe that their lack of belief in gods or God is warranted. But if they maintain that their view is warranted, then what are they basing this on? They have to be basing it on the fact that they have surveyed the available evidence and have found it wanting. If so, then they are no longer atheists in the sense that you give in your definition. They are atheists in the sense that they make the positive assertion: "there is no God because there is no evidence for God."

If Christianity is true, then the atheist, if he desires to remain an atheist, does so inspite of the evidence, not because of the lack of evidence!

Now on the other hand if an atheist is an atheist because he does not want to believe then he is not concerened with evidence at all, nor does he ask for evidence, nor does he care! For such a one, it is not a matter of evidence, but a simple matter of will. They will not believe in God because they do not want to. Of course there are some out there that fit this category. But I am assuming that most people here, since they have said they are atheists because they haven't been given sufficient evidence, do not fit into this category.

 

[Elioenai26]

No, I said citation. Not more of the same.

I do not know if you did'nt read the apologia in it's entirety or what but I have included many citations in it.

Premise 1 is not self-evident, hence your argument fails. This is not news.

Davian, my friend, do you really seriously maintain that the Law of Causality is not self-evident?

Do you deny that this is the fundamental principle of science? Without the Law of Causality, without this self-evident principle, what do scientists base their observations and research on?

Francis Bacon and even someone you should know much about, David Hume, admit that to deny this Law as self-evident is to deny rationality!

The very process of rational thinking requires us to put together thoughts (causes) that result in conclusions (the effects). If you deny the Law of Causality as being self-evident, what caused you to come to that conclusion???

Yes, but not necessarily the universe.

LOL, you should stick to copy-pasting!

ETA - I see you got that from somewhere like this:

Before the Big Bang, Was There God? A Debate among Friends

Do you have any science to back up your claims?

Are you saying that the universe is something other than "all space, all time, and all matter"?????

I have copy and pasted nothing from rickbeckman. I do not even know who rickbeckman is.

 

[Stoneghost]

I hate to say this but I see absolutely no point in reading anything you wrote there in those first 6 posts. I started reading it but your logic is just so bad I really can't handle it. You present some evidence and draw some conclusion from it that just can't be made at that point in your argument. Your understanding of concepts like atheism and Christianity and pantheism and agnosticism, and anything else for that matter, are either grossly over simplistic or straw men. You plagiarize, which is bad enough in an of itself, but it also means your text goes back and forth between your writing style and various other styles from your plagiarized sources. Its clear all your "research" is done in a effort to justify any preexisting ideas you have and not in a objective manner. Moreover none of your arguments are new but you don't really talk about similar arguments.

You create these apologist essays in an attempt to be academic, but then ignore all academic conventions. And you're not getting any better! You are not listening to the feedback that is being given. People make logical mistakes in their arguments all the time, but yours are accidental or even careless or they intentional and systematic. I can see no point in listening to your arguments when you will not take the time to respect the conventions of rational discourse.

 

[Davian]

You say that atheism does not make a positive claim, I think you are mistaken for one main reason:

Atheists, per your definition, maintain that they lack a belief in gods or God. Correct?

No. Atheists lack a belief in deities. That's it. One more time:

Atheists lack a belief in deities.

Now if they maintain this position, then they are actually saying that they possess a belief in something else, namely that they believe that their lack of belief in gods or God is warranted.

There may be individuals that say that their lack belief in deities is warranted. You would then need a qualifier in labeling them; agnostic, ignostic, gnostic, etc.

But if they maintain that their view is warranted, then what are they basing this on? They have to be basing it on the fact that they have surveyed the available evidence and have found it wanting. If so, then they are no longer atheists in the sense that you give in your definition. They are atheists in the sense that they make the positive assertion: "there is no God because there is no evidence for God."

Hence the need for a qualifier. For example, until I was forty, you could have desrcibed me as an apathetic agnostic athiest. I didn't know, and did not care.

Really, did you not even read what you cut and pasted into your own posts at the start of this thread?

If Christianity is true, then the atheist, if he desires to remain an atheist, does so inspite of the evidence, not because of the lack of evidence!

In no way would this make atheism "false", or even "wrong". If Christianity were true (which begs the question - which particular flavour?), then only those that say 'there are no deities' would be wrong.

Now on the other hand if an atheist is an atheist because he does not want to believe then he is not concerened with evidence at all, nor does he ask for evidence, nor does he care! For such a one, it is not a matter of evidence, but a simple matter of will. They will not believe in God because they do not want to. Of course there are some out there that fit this category. But I am assuming that most people here, since they have said they are atheists because they haven't been given sufficient evidence, do not fit into this category.

That does not describe me.

 

[Elioenai26]

I hate to say this but I see absolutely no point in reading anything you wrote there in those first 6 posts. I started reading it but your logic is just so bad I really can't handle it. You present some evidence and draw some conclusion from it that just can't be made at that point in your argument. Your understanding of concepts like atheism and Christianity and pantheism and agnosticism, and anything else for that matter, are either grossly over simplistic or straw men. You plagiarize, which is bad enough in an of itself, but it also means your text goes back and forth between your writing style and various other styles from your plagiarized sources. Its clear all your "research" is done in a effort to justify any preexisting ideas you have and not in a objective manner. Moreover none of your arguments are new but you don't really talk about similar arguments.

You create these apologist essays in an attempt to be academic, but then ignore all academic conventions. And you're not getting any better! You are not listening to the feedback that is being given. People make logical mistakes in their arguments all the time, but yours are accidental or even careless or they intentional and systematic. I can see no point in listening to your arguments when you will not take the time to respect the conventions of rational discourse.

Thank you for expressing your opinion. It is much appreciated.

However, I find you opinions at best, unsubstantiated.

If my logic is so bad, then what logic is good? Show what portion of my logic is bad, how it is bad, and correct me if I am wrong.

What conclusions have I made that have not been substantiated by the supplied evidence?

If you haven't read the apologia in its entirety, you have no right to critique it and dismiss it entirely.

If something is simple, why make it complicated?

Name one straw man anywhere in what I wrote.

How have I not approached this subject in an objective manner?

Everything that needs a reference or citation or acknowledgment has been properly treated.

This apologia was created for the sole purpose of providing evidence for the theistic God and will eventually lead to the presentation of evidence for Christianity specifically.

Name one error in what I wrote that was careless, systematic, intentional, or accidental?

What conventions of rational discourse have I failed to respect?

Your reply sir, is similar to others that I have seen given in response to a theistic defense. You speak a lot about how I have failed to do this and that, while never substantiating the claims, nor have you actually addressed specifically anything in the six pages of information. So far you have managed to contradict yourself several times and have accused me of being insincere and dishonest.

Now if you want to support these assertions then please do so. But if you can't, then I would ask you to address the apologia specifically.