The circular argument of God and miracles

[miknik5]

One of the key problems in accepting the existence of things that had no beginning is that we live in a perceived reality that in order for things to exist they had to have a point in time where they emerged and another point in time where they were absent. So our reasoning sensibilities recoil from any claims of eternal existence and our mind's find such a propose reality extremely hard to fathom.

Who said anything about an eternal existence. I do not believe that we eternally existed. I believe that there was a fist time starting point for all things created. Let us remember also that God didn't in one moment (one day) create all things. But each created thing was organized and brought forth and each thing brought forth had a starting point and from that starting point and original design the thing created brought forth its likeness. Which is even mentioned in the creation account

Every living think was created according to its likeness bearing fruit according to that likeness

All except man that is

Which by the way WAS the underlying problem from the beginning.
We couldn't and didn't bear fruit ever and always according to the likeness we were originally created in


And that is the Image of God

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The starting point of all things.
Because man can only back into what already exists in order to draw conclusions to explain his world around him

But he can only go back so far based on this method

He can't go back to the starting point before either the egg or the chicken came into being in the world

Not to mention that the world came into being even before the man

Well we've traced the history of both back to around the start of the universe as we know it. A few gaps, some uncertainties, but the broad trends are clear and evident in the historical record. All these discoveries came as a shock to society when they were discovered, even to the scientific establishment, but eventually the evidence proved overwhelming and they were convinced; not by rhetoric but by multiple independent lines of evidence. They realised the world was demonstrably not as they had thought.

 

[miknik5]

Well we've traced the history of both back to around the start of the universe as we know it. A few gaps, some uncertainties, but the broad trends are clear and evident in the historical record. All these discoveries came as a shock to society when they were discovered, even to the scientific establishment, but eventually the evidence proved overwhelming and they were convinced; not by rhetoric but by multiple independent lines of evidence. They realised the world was demonstrably not as they had thought.

Can you now tell me what we found? You said a lot about the "discoveries" we found but you didn't clearly state what those discoveries were

 

[Radrook]

Who said anything about an eternal existence. I do not believe that we eternally existed. I believe that there was a fist time starting point for all things created. Let us remember also that God didn't in one moment (one day) create all things. But each created thing was organized and brought forth and each thing brought forth had a starting point and from that starting point and original design the thing created brought forth its likeness. Which is even mentioned in the creation account

Every living think was created according to its likeness bearing fruit according to that likeness

All except man that is

Which by the way WAS the underlying problem from the beginning.
We couldn't and didn't bear fruit ever and always according to the likeness we were originally created in


And that is the Image of God

I didn't say you believe those things about eternal existence my friend.

In any case, I agree with your insight, the likeness we bear now is a warped one due to the fall from grace.
So in that sense mankind did not proceed to fill the earth with the original intended kind.
Very good point!

BTW
I agree about God taking more than a few literal twenty-four hour days to create the universe. However, there are Christians who are referred to as Young Earthtians who do.

 

[miknik5]

I didn't say you believe those things about eternal existence my friend.

In any case, I agree with your insight, the likeness we bear now is a warped one due to the fall from grace.
So in that sense mankind did not proceed to fill the earth with the original intended kind.
Very good point!

BTW
I agree about God taking more than a few literal twenty-four hour days to create the universe. However, there are Christians who are referred to as Young Earthtians who do.

God knew from the beginning mankinds fall. He was not taken off guard by Adam/mankind/our fall He both knew the fall and knew the victory in His Son who Alone is the visible image of God made manifest to all men

 

[Radrook]

God knew from the beginning mankinds fall. He was not taken off guard by Adam/mankind/our fall He both knew the fall and knew the victory in His Son who Alone is the visible image of God made manifest to all men

I don't recall saying that he was unaware of the possibilities involved in providing reasoning creatures with freedom of choice.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Can you now tell me what we found? You said a lot about the "discoveries" we found but you didn't clearly state what those discoveries were

There are too many to easily list, but they include the evolution of life by natural selection, with evidence of common ancestry for all life; ancient Earth and its origins; a vast universe with arrangements of hundreds of billions of galaxies, each composed of hundreds of billions of stars, most of which are likely to have planets, that has all expanded from an incredibly hot dense state; and at scales above and below our everyday experience, the universe is strange and counter-intuitive, there are no absolutes of space and time, seemingly solid matter is mostly empty space, and its smallest constituents are neither here nor there; and so-on.

 

[miknik5]

I don't recall saying that he was unaware of the possibilities involved in providing reasoning creatures with freedom of choice.

And I don't recall ever saying that man HAD the ability to EVER bring forth their kind after their OWN likeness

If they could have than Eve (who came forth from Adam) would have been in the exact likeness of her husband.

And Cain and Abel would have been in the exact likeness of their father.

But Adam, the first man, (with no other human influences or interferences to contend with) couldn't even ensure his own sons would be in his likeness, let alone in the likeness of Their HEAVENLY FATHER

And I also don't recall agreeing with you about anything pertaining to God calling a day a day or something more or less than 24 hours and/or the creation account being anything other than what He has said by His word

I know what God signified as a day

That also is written for us in His Word

 

[miknik5]

There are too many to easily list, but they include the evolution of life by natural selection, with evidence of common ancestry for all life; ancient Earth and its origins; a vast universe with arrangements of hundreds of billions of galaxies, each composed of hundreds of billions of stars, most of which are likely to have planets, that has all expanded from an incredibly hot dense state; and at scales above and below our everyday experience, the universe is strange and counter-intuitive, there are no absolutes of space and time, seemingly solid matter is mostly empty space, and its smallest constituents are neither here nor there; and so-on.

Frumious. These are still discovered things based on man backing into, examining the already present tangible evidence given him

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Frumious. These are still discovered things based on man backing into, examining the already present tangible evidence given him

Yes, examining the evidence is the best way to gain knowledge about the world. The abductive reasoning of scientific investigation has allowed us to, as you put it, "to back to the starting point before either the egg or the chicken came into being in the world", and far earlier than that - to before even the world (Earth) came into being.

 

[Near]

These are two quite different meanings of 'begin to exist'; in our experience, we only see the restructuring of matter & energy into different forms; it's only the forms that we perceive as beginning to exist, nothing is created ex-nihilo (it seems to be against the rules within the universe). The universe as we know it began at the big bang, we don't know if anything preceded that - if something preceded it the premise is on shaky ground, and if it really came from or was created from nothing, 'begins to exist' is equivocal between the premises. Not to mention the fallacy of composition, in suggesting that the universe itself must follow the rules that apply to its contents.

That's just one approach to the philosophical flaws in the argument when made that way - which may be why Craig wraps it in a lot of sciency-sounding bafflegab.

You just said, the universe as we know it began at the big bang.
The big bang, is what? It's the universe at it's early stages. That's like saying, the universe began to exist, at the early stages of the universe. okay.
Something to think about is, why does the universe exist, rather than not?

So, looking at the argument again:
"Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause."
It doesn't look like you have a problem with Premise 2.
It looks like you disagree with Premise 1.
The universe, is part of the "whatever" mentioned.
As for the phrase, "begins to exist", I don't think you're right in the way you are defining it.
It is not generally understood that beginning to exist exclusively relates to matter and energy taking different forms.
However, let's grant that. We could say that matter and energy were simply in a different form in the non-existence of the universe. The form they were in, was non-existence. They then came a different form form, existence, due to a cause.

This is an acceptable way of thinking of changing forms, non-existence to existence. Since human consciousness perceiving what it is like to be alive, somehow comes into existence having previously not existed. I think I can speak for most people when I say, human experience of what it's like to be alive, is not a form of matter or energy, even though it may be caused by matter and energy.

Referring to the phrase began to exist, when speaking of the universe, it is no different from saying a rational mind began to exist.

Anyways, it seems like you don't think premise 1 is true. It seems like you'd like to maintain premise 1 by creating a very narrow definition especially for beginning to exist when it comes to the universe; but I see no reason to think doing so is correct.

So, do you think things can come into existence uncaused?

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, examining the evidence is the best way to gain knowledge about the world.

Examining evidence won't really get you anywhere unless you make conclusions based on the evidence. Your conclusions will then either be supported by new evidence or the new evidence will show your conclusions were wrong, this is really the only way to gain accurate knowledge. You could examine piles and piles of evidence, but if you don't make any conclusions you won't get anywhere.

This is why one cannot gain knowledge unless they make conclusions based on evidence. Making a conclusion based on evidence always requires a bit of faith or trust that you're correct in your conclusions because we all could be interpreting the evidence incorrectly without realizing it, but non the less conclusions must be made in order to gain accurate knowledge.

The abductive reasoning of scientific investigation has allowed us to, as you put it, "to back to the starting point before either the egg or the chicken came into being in the world", and far earlier than that - to before even the world (Earth) came into being.

Right, and science/scientists/people will continue to gain more knowledge as long as they continue making conclusions based on evidence, even when the conclusion is that they were wrong in their previous conclusions. Eventually the Truth about origins will be made known -or- it will never be found...ever, which seems unlikely considering the rate of advancement of knowledge in humans. It's possible the truth has already been made known, just a matter of acceptance. This is what Christians, myself included, believe is the case.

 

[Near]

Belief in the truth of premises isn't what makes an argument sound in Philosophy. The premises actually have to be true. And if you can't show that the premises are true, then the argument is undecided. Which means believing the argument to be true (or even likely true) is irrational.

And knowing anything about causality here on Earth doesn't relate to the beginning of the universe. Just because the members of a set have a particular property doesn't mean the set itself has that property. So whatever we know about causality has actually nothing to do with the subject at hand unless you can demonstrate that the universe itself necessarily falls under the same laws as the things within it.

The premises in an argument don't have to be true to be sound. They just have to be more probable than not.
As for soundness, it is the case the the premises have to be true, but I wasn't referring to soundness, was I?
I think believing in the premises as true is important, because in order for soundness to be recognized, one must think that the premises are true. You are correct in saying, "Belief in the truth of premises isn't what makes an argument sound in Philosophy."
However, Belief in the truth of the premises as true, creates the perception that the argument is sound if the argument is a valid one. There are certain things we believe are true, but we can't show them to be true. For example, that we're not all in the Matrix.
1. Socrates is a man
2. All men are mortal
3. Socrates is mortal

Now, it can't be shown with certainty that ALL men are mortal. We don't know that there doesn't exist a person who will live forever. I think we can all say we believe it's true that all men are mortal, but that doesn't mean it's true, just that we accept it as true. So, I think a person has to do more than come up with a few examples to show a pattern of something being the case, such as the fact that men we know of from the past have all died; we'd also have to know if everyone right now will die, and prove it.

The universe is the sum of it's parts. So, I think if I just point to one piece of it, let's say, all the matter and energy in our galaxy. That matter and energy somehow came into existence. I can point to 99.99999999999999% of the universe, and say, there is a reason for why all of this matter and energy exists. The same goes for the remaining 0.00000000000001% of it out there. That's the universe, so it does fall under the same laws as the things "in it", which it is.

So, I think the Kalam is a good argument; and a sound one as well.
I'm convinced that everything that begins to exist has a cause, since it's a properly basic belief, like how metaphysical solipsism is false, something which cannot be proven with evidence.
As for the universes beginning, it looks like scientific data shows that it's much more likely than not, that the universe had a beginning, and we can be confident in saying it's true that it indeed had a beginning. I think "devolved" said it right when it comes to "provisional truth" when referring to scientific data. We can't know anything with certainty other than that we have certain perceptions which may or may not reflect reality. We can only say what we believe is true.
Anyways, given the premises are truth, the conclusion follows. It's a valid, and sound argument.

 

[Near]

Isn't the fact that you're responding to his points as if he was human sufficient evidence? If he's an AI, he's passed the Turing test here.

I don't have 100% certainly that he isn't an AI, so I can only believe it's true that he's not an AI. My beliefs don't impact the reality of whether or not he's an AI, just like how my belief in God doesn't impact whether or not he exists.

 

[Near]

Do you want an in-depth discussion of the argument?

To be honest, not really. It's not that I feel like I couldn't but I just need to get off CF to get more quality time in actually living, accomplishing certain goals in the tight schedule I have, which will be an even tighter schedule once I start working 72 hours a week at a factory. Spending my time conversing with people with questions, points, and challenges is fine, but it can be time consuming, and I'd rather do something else at this point.
Personally, I like to address points that are raised, and see things to an end. So after the discussions here are done, I probably won't engage in too much exchanges of this sort for a little while.
Thanks for asking.

 

[miknik5]

The premises in an argument don't have to be true to be sound. They just have to be more probable than not.
As for soundness, it is the case the the premises have to be true, but I wasn't referring to soundness, was I?
I think believing in the premises as true is important, because in order for soundness to be recognized, one must think that the premises are true. You are correct in saying, "Belief in the truth of premises isn't what makes an argument sound in Philosophy."
However, Belief in the truth of the premises as true, creates the perception that the argument is sound if the argument is a valid one. There are certain things we believe are true, but we can't show them to be true. For example, that we're not all in the Matrix.
1. Socrates is a man
2. All men are mortal
3. Socrates is mortal

Now, it can't be shown with certainty that ALL men are mortal. We don't know that there doesn't exist a person who will live forever. I think we can all say we believe it's true that all men are mortal, but that doesn't mean it's true, just that we accept it as true. So, I think a person has to do more than come up with a few examples to show a pattern of something being the case, such as the fact that men we know of from the past have all died; we'd also have to know if everyone right now will die, and prove it.

The universe is the sum of it's parts. So, I think if I just point to one piece of it, let's say, all the matter and energy in our galaxy. That matter and energy somehow came into existence. I can point to 99.99999999999999% of the universe, and say, there is a reason for why all of this matter and energy exists. The same goes for the remaining 0.00000000000001% of it out there. That's the universe, so it does fall under the same laws as the things "in it", which it is.

So, I think the Kalam is a good argument; and a sound one as well.
I'm convinced that everything that begins to exist has a cause, since it's a properly basic belief, like how metaphysical solipsism is false, something which cannot be proven with evidence.
As for the universes beginning, it looks like scientific data shows that it's much more likely than not, that the universe had a beginning, and we can be confident in saying it's true that it indeed had a beginning. I think "devolved" said it right when it comes to "provisional truth" when referring to scientific data. We can't know anything with certainty other than that we have certain perceptions which may or may not reflect reality. We can only say what we believe is true.
Anyways, given the premises are truth, the conclusion follows. It's a valid, and sound argument.

The universe is the universe
And man is man

Different "laws of ....decay(for lack of a better word) apply

You can not draw the same conclusion for the parts of the total
And with that said what studies wee left from a prior man are added to or taken away from by present man

Therefore there is not One Man who was there from the beginning.


Except the Spirit of God, that is

 

[Chriliman]

To be honest, not really. It's not that I feel like I couldn't but I just need to get off CF to get more quality time in actually living, accomplishing certain goals in the tight schedule I have, which will be an even tighter schedule once I start working 72 hours a week at a factory. Spending my time conversing with people with questions, points, and challenges is fine, but it can be time consuming, and I'd rather do something else at this point.
Personally, I like to address points that are raised, and see things to an end. So after the discussions here are done, I probably won't engage in too much exchanges of this sort for a little while.
Thanks for asking.

It's a good idea in general to not spend to much time on these philosophy forums

Thanks for the sound reasoning you've brought

God bless!

 

[miknik5]

It's a good idea in general to not spend to much time on these philosophy forums

Thanks for the sound reasoning you've brought

God bless!

Is it a good idea

Can you explain your reasoning?
I heard Near's reasoning.
Can you tell me what your reasoning is for even mentioning this?

Are you the moderator?
Do you think philosophy is not a good study?

Why is it not good to debate these things?

 

[Chriliman]

Is it a good idea

Can you explain your reasoning?
I heard Near's reasoning.
Can you tell me what your reasoning is for even mentioning this?

Are you the moderator?
Do you think philosophy is not a good study?

Why is it not good to debate these things?

Any discussion is good as long as your showing God's love to those you're discussing with, this is always my goal

However, at times I get burnt out when the opposite side doesn't understand or refuses to admit error, that's my cue to take a break and refresh myself through prayer and God's word.

 

[miknik5]

Any discussion is good as long as your showing God's love to those you're discussing with, this is always my goal

However, at times I get burnt out when the opposite side doesn't understand or refuses to admit error, that's my cue to take a break and refresh myself through prayer and God's word.

Thank you. I appreciate that response and I agree