• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

The Logic of C.S. Lewis

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by Received, Aug 21, 2002.

  1. Received

    Received True love waits in haunted attics

    +733
    Christian
    Married
    Lewis, this was an argument that was fallicious to begin with.  Under theism, every single thing that happens has a will that started it somewhere.  The rain - God.  The falling tree - man.  The universe beginning - God.  Pollution of the universe - man.  This is getting rather difficult, and I apologize, but we are getting into religion without even really knowing it.  Does a tornado happen by God?  My answer would be yes, either that or allowed by God (the book of Job speaks on Satan using power).  If God created the universe, who is in control of the weather?  Natural causes?  Yes, but with someone behind the controls.  This whole argument will open up a super-huge hole of apologetics here if we're not careful, which is fine by me.  I still hold to my words.

    If something happens without intention, it is an accident. If you do not have a will you cannot have intentions. Thus, if you do not have a will, every event that takes place is an accident.

    If you throw a rock at an abandoned house and are aiming for the roof but you smash the window, this is an accident - an unintended action on behalf of you, because you have conscience.  If you do not have a will and this happens anyways (which is precisely what naturalism states with the origins) then you can state that there was no intention, as indeed (unless you are pantheist) matter has no conscience.  If this matter does not have a conscience, then it does not have choice, which in turn means it has no will to choose.  Thus, if you do not have a will, every event that takes place (this is going against logic, just as naturalism agrees) is an accident.  If you do not intend something to happen, it is an accident.  Naturalism rules out the entire consciousness, which in turn means you cannot intend good or ill.  Period.  Everything is therefore unintended (or not meant to be) and an accident.  Me and C.S. Lewis may indeed be making the mistake of extending human will to inatimate objects, but the naturalists were the ones who started the whole deal.  Without a will you cannot have an act.  Do you believe that chance is a force? 

    blessings,

    John
     
  2. Morat

    Morat Untitled One

    +2
    Atheist
      Right. Can't support it. Figures. So then, you admit you were stating a religious belief and not a fact, or a logical conclusion,  when you claimed the solar system "could not have arisen by accident".

       Apologetics is the best place for you to argue your theology.

      

     
     
  3. Lanakila

    Lanakila Not responsible for the changes here.

    +208
    Atheist
    Private
    US-Others
     

    Morat I asked you this quite a few days ago, and am wondering if you just missed it, or are you ignoring my question on purpose, LOL.
     
  4. Morat

    Morat Untitled One

    +2
    Atheist
      I missed it. Offhand, I'm going to point the the infancy and speculative nature of pre-Big Bang cosmology. Without a unifying theory between quantum mechanics and relativity, nothing can be determined besides speculation.

       However, certain speculations (like those discussing in at the laymen level in The Five Ages of the Universe) make small predictions that have been successfully tested (the energetic flatness of the universe). It's roughly analogous to the concept of virtual particle production, which itself is a consequence of Heisenburg uncertainty. That is, "nothing" won't stay that way, because at a quantum level you cannot have such a thing for long.

       The one discussed in the book I mentioned is the Higgs version, I believe.

       However, it is immaterial. "Something can't come from nothing" is, even if true, a limitation of this universe. And, as whatever caused the Big Bang wasn't part of this universe (because it wasn't here yet), assuming that such a limitation holds true without evidence or reason to support is not good logic.

     
     
  5. Received

    Received True love waits in haunted attics

    +733
    Christian
    Married
    Can't support what?  Excuse me for using Modus Ponens.  How is my statement religious?  Once again, I have not enforced a deity (except on rebuttal because of an atheist bringing one up first) to begin with, and I don't really see why in this place.  The solar system could not have happened by accident.  This is what I stated one post before yours.  Help me out here if you haven't read it.  Pointing fingers is no good way of keeping a debate on it's feet.

    On behalf of your last sentence, I (and other theistic philosophers) are only chewing what the scientific world is spoon-feeding us.  They say the big bang without a will, and we attempt to rebut it.  You don't need evidence for this.  You need logic.  Even if this big bang only somehow (and you aren't backing this up with evidence either) was for this universe, then those other universes still have a beginning, and because you have not been there nor do you know if your theory holds, you cannot hold assumption (or faith) to these claims.  I am talking about this universe, this sphere of being. 

    blessings,

    John
     
  6. Morat

    Morat Untitled One

    +2
    Atheist
      You have failed to support the claim "The Solar System cannot have arisen by accident".

       You have been asked to support it numerous times, and you refuse. You keep saying it, and won't support it.

       I can only conclude that you are either incapable of supporting it, in which case your entire chain of logic is built on wishful thinking, or that the statement is religious in nature. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt by going with the second.

       Nope. Nice try, though. "This universe" refers entirely to our collective chunk of space-time. What happened before (or even after) is not, by definition, unnatural or supernatural. It merely means it took place outside of our universe.

      I don't need to support it. I can support the Big Bang. I make no claims as to what started it. Thus I have no positive assertations to back up regarding it. You claim it was willed into being, and that is a positive claim. You back it. Shifting the burden is such true desperation.

        This universe constitutes the space-time region created by the Big Bang and everything in it. Nothing more, nothing less. You seem to make it some metaphysical thing.

     
     
  7. Lanakila

    Lanakila Not responsible for the changes here.

    +208
    Atheist
    Private
    US-Others
     

    Morat

    Once again, please allow me to further clarify the "width" and "depth" of this issue because your comments still lack significant substance necessary to gain appreciation of its gravity. Please consider this intuitively obvious series of facts:

    1. SOMETHING (corporal/contigngent--finite) cannot come from NOTHING (i.e. the absence of everything).

    2. If there were nothing in the beginning, there would still be nothing now.

    3. It follows, therefore, that SOMETHING must be eternal since quite obviously SOMETHING is here now.

    4. Ergo: Really there are only 2 viable options for what this SOMETHING is: infinite matter (atoms) or an ontologically infinite/eternal being.

    Now, I challenge you to study the intrinsic nature of both options, not from William Lane Craig--although a very good source--but Aristotle of Greek antiquity, as he proved so many years ago--like it or not--movement (of any sort) requires a cause (UNMOVED MOVER). This eternal entity must have Aseity--self existence.

    Aseity must come from a "Being" that is immaterial (Spiritual) personality, and intelligence.

     

    Posted also on the thread in general apologetics on this same topic.
     
  8. Joe V.

    Joe V. Rabbit Worshipper

    240
    +1
    While it may contradict what we logically believe to be true, so far the evidence clearly suggests that SOMETHING (i.e., the universe) did indeed come from NOTHING. We have no evidence for anything else.

    These are assumptions you can not back up with any empirical evidence. Like it or not, the universe appears to be self-caused. Until there is evidence otherwise, there is no reason to believe otherwise.

    - Joe
     
  9. Received

    Received True love waits in haunted attics

    +733
    Christian
    Married
    Morat, I posted what you wanted in 61. Why could the universe not have happened by accident? Read the rest of 61 and all the posts I've had in the past. In regards to those, I'd like you to pick and post those of which are in answer to your question that you do not agree with that we may debate over them. When you have a will you do not have an accident. There's the root.

    And for all atheists here:

    When you have nothing it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to have something UNLESS you have help. Go back and back and back, for this universe and supposed others out there, and you will have nothing. Period. This rule goes for these as well as any others. This is logic. It doesn't matter if you say "well we don't know who did it yet". If you think for some odd reason that martians came and put our universe in place, and hold yourself justified that they were natural, then WHERE did THEY come from? Stupid example I know, but you folks are running out of options if you hold fast your form of nihilism, and this is precisely what you have if you do.

    blessings,

    John
     
  10. Received

    Received True love waits in haunted attics

    +733
    Christian
    Married
    I really don't get it. The universe being self caused. Nothing took itself up and made something. And this doesn't happen at all today, never has and never will. You see chance as a force, not a mathematical pattern. You acccept the chance but deny the quarter that gave you the chance. Where is the logic in this? No empirical evidence? You don't have empirical evidence for naturalism either. Empirical evidence will get you not far when you are dealing with a supposed theory that has to do with the origins of not only man but the cosmos. Empirical evidence will get you NOWHERE when you are dealing with any manmade and imperfect process of dating.
     
  11. alexgb00

    alexgb00 Senior Member

    649
    +24
    Pentecostal
    Single
    Morat, this is unprovable with forensic evidence, just like the big bang theory. There is plenty of things we can interpret as evidence for both, but to be honest, both are speculation.

    But besides God's Word, i see that the solar system (not to mention the rest of the universe) was specifically engineered. I know this the same way i know that the Great Pyramid was created by intelligence, not chance and probability.

    Have you ever heard a scientist say that he believes in chemistry, physics, anthropology, algebra, calculus, or any other science? I haven't. Why do people say they "believe" in evolution? Because it is a belief, which still hasn't been proven in the 150 years after Darwin's book.

    Your calling Creation a religious belief, while you insist that darwinism is scientific, isn't at all reasonable.

    Don't you see?? The only evidence for other universes is in people's imaginations. There isn't even a single gram of evidence to support another universe. Why even argue this? Universe just implies, ike you said, our universe.

    Morat, Nobody ever proved the big bang. Let me make a court analogy: One man was murdered, but there is no murder weapon, no fingerprints, just no evidence at all. But justice demands that someone take the blame. Therefore, the last person to have seen him alive is convicted.

    It's the same with the BB -- no evidence, just some facts interpreted as supporting it, and the need for an explanation for the universe that can attempt to exclude God's involvement.

    Does everyone see how much he takes this theory by faith? Oh, yes, it must be science because it bypasses God. :rolleyes:

    It seems that the only option for an explanation (besides Creation) is the human mind. The human mind must have created the world.
     
  12. Morat

    Morat Untitled One

    +2
    Atheist
    Recieved: No, you didn't. Nothing in there explained why the Solar System was not (much less could not be) a purely natural occurance. An "Accident" in your parlance.

      You asserted that it requires God, but that's not anything other than personal opinion, and a personal opinion in violation of the opinion of experts. You're going to need more than "personal beliefs" to make a case.

    Alex:

      *snort*. If forensic evidence was limited to what you know, perhaps. Luckily, scientists are a tad bit more clever than you.

       Further, I didn't make an assertations. Recieved claimed it could not have occured by accident. That's a rather big claim, and he refuses to back it. I didn't speculate. Recieved claimed.

      I believe my dog is in the other room, too. Did I just state the unreasonable?

       Don't play bait-and-switch games with the meaning of "belief" and "faith" with me, Alex. I'm not that stupid. If you want to denigrate your own faith by lowering it to the level of "I believe there's a table in the other room" go right ahead. But it's not "belief" in the sense that everyone else means when they say "I believe in God".

       Unless you truly do believe words have but one, single, meaning.

       Just to finish off: To be scientific, something must meet certain standards. Specifically, it must adhere to the scientific method. Evolution does, Creation does not. End of story.

       Nope. Try, oh...the energy flatness of the universe. The CMB, the Hubble flow, and a dozen other things that imply our universe had a beginning. What was "before" is something of a misnomer, as time is a product of this universe, but the notion is there.

       I suppose in your world the Hubble flow doesn't exist? Oh, and the CMB wasn't correctly predicted. Yep, didn't happen in your universe.

       There's plenty of evidence for the Big Bang. You may not know it, you may not understand it, and you may fervently wish it wasn't there, but that doesn't make it nonexistant. Science does not operate by the limits of your knowledge and abilities. Thankfully.

      When did I mention God? That's your theological problem. Neither the Big Bang, nor evolution, nor any of science say anything about God. You're the one who keeps bringing him up. Science doesn't care one whit about God, or your theology, or anything religious.

       Your religion, on the other hand, seems to get it's knickers in a twist over simple science. Project much?

      Let me once more be grateful that science and reality are not limited by your understanding, knowledge, and abilities. We'd still be staring at meat, thinking how odd it was that rotten meat made flies.

     
     
  13. alexgb00

    alexgb00 Senior Member

    649
    +24
    Pentecostal
    Single
    I'm sure that almost every single scientist is much smarter than me. But you'd be wrong to think that every scientist is a darwinist, believing in the BB.

    OK. So do i. It can't fit in my mind how such beauty and complexity just on our earth, not to mention the whole universe, could have come from nothing. I can't believe that a nuclear submarine even could ever be created from nothing, with no intelligent factors to guide its development. It has to be made by very high intelligence and with state-of-the-art equipment.

    Do you think believing is unreasonable? I don't. Otherwise, i wouldn't believe in God, if it was unreasonable. Belief is what we don't know, but trust in. Like you driving across a bridge -- you don't know that it won't collapse, but you put your trust in it.

    First of all, i don't think you're stupid, Morat. I think you're an intelligent man, who uses his mind for some of the wrong things.

    Secondly, i wouldn't say there is a table in the kitchen (unless someone stole it since i've been in there a few minutes ago :) ). I would simply say, "there is a table in the other room."

    But how is saying "i believe the president will do the right thing" different from saying "i believe in the big bang," different from "i believe that God is eternal" ?

    These standards -- who sets them? Why don't you prove the above statement? How is evolution above Creation? That's a very un-convincing statement.

    Morat, you say that these imply there was a beginning. I agree! But your conclusion is wrong. It wasn't the big bang.

    I haven't heard of "energy flatness." What is this?

    I'm not denying the cosmic microwave background and the flow. I'm saying that these are interpreted to support the BB. Just as a blown tire might appear to be the cause of an accident, while it is actually only a result of one.

    By the way, many verses in the Scriptures say that God "stretched out the heavens," which i think supports the Hubble flow.

    -- Psalm 104:2
    -- Isaiah 40:22
    -- Isaiah 42:5
    -- Isaiah 44:24
    -- Isaiah 45:12
    -- Isaiah 51:13
    -- Jeremiah 10:12
    -- Jeremiah 51:15
    -- Zechariah 12:1

    :) It would be very neat to have my own world. But i said i don't deny them. In the court analogy, fingerprints on the dead man's doorknob don't mean that whoever left them was the killer. I'm saying the CMB and flow exist, but don't prove the big bang.

    Morat, don't outright imply that i'm an idiot. That doesn't help your argument at all (makes you sound desperate).

    Not you. When people began to think that science and God are opposites, they developed these theories to take away God's role in the Creation. I think that the BB is made for that purpose, and fools some people well.

    Where? What are you talking about? Show the people where the Bible gets contradicted by "simple science" (evolution and BB don't count -- we're talking science, i.e. knowledge).

    Morat, this has nothing to do with my understanding and knowledge, abilities. I don't know why you focus on this. I don't mind people insulting me, but it really makes you sound so desperate for support.

    God bless you, Morat!

    Alex †
     
  14. Morat

    Morat Untitled One

    +2
    Atheist
      No. I'm saying they're far better educated than you, especially in their field.

      Sure, some don't. But it's amazing how 99.9% of actual biologists use and support evolution, and 99.9% of cosmologists do the same with the Big Bang.

      Oddly, with but a few exceptions (I can name them, can you?) all the ones who don't accept the Big Bang and evolution are members of a fundamentalist religion whose religious beliefs oppose it.

     

      You do realize that the argument from ignorance is a fallacy, right? Well, in this case, it's closer to the argument from personal incredulity.

       What you can or can't believe, what you can or can't understand, has no bearing on reality.

       Oh, and Paley's watch has been a bad idea for 200 years. Why try Paley's submarine?

      You want to belittle your faith like that? Is your belief in God nothing more than general expectation? Are you honestly telling me your belief in god is as mundane and everyday and weak as a statement of what you expect someone will do tommorow?

      What a pitiful faith you must have. Are you sure you're Christian?

      Scientists. It's called "the scientific method" for a reason. You don't have to play by science's rules, you know. You can go make up your own. Just don't call it science, because it won't be.

      I never said evolution was above Creation. I say, quite simply, that evolution is scientific and Creationism is not, because evolution adheres to the scientific method and Creation does not.

       It's not a complex sentence, and how you misunderstood it is beyond me.

     And you base this on what? Oh yes, a 2000 year old book as dictated by shepards. Pardon me if I don't toss out several decades of data on that, okay?

       The net energy of the universe appears to be 0.

       *snicker*. "Interpreted to support the BB"? Do you realize how asinine a statement that is? How stupid? The Big Bang predicted the cosmic microwave background. As in, cosmologists sat down and realized "If the Big Bang occured, there would be a steady energy glow at this temperature from all regions of the sky.". THEN they looked for it. And then they found it.

       "Interpreted" my left foot. Interpreted, at the very least, is what happens after the fact.

       To use your analogy, engineers stated "If the steering on this model goes, sheer will cause the left front tire to blow along this line". And then they made the steering break, and saw the tire blew as predicted.

      "Interpreted" *snort*

       Really? You mean how he stretched them out like a tent to cover the flat ground? It's amazing how that works. You see, anyone not desperatly trying to make the Bible fit modern cosmology would view that as a canopy over flat ground (The flat earthers certainly do, and it fits Hebrew cosmology from that period).

       However, if you accept the Hubble Flow, then you've got no way to avoid a Big Bang. Reverse the Hubble Flow, and the entire universe slams into a tiny point some 14.5 billion years ago.

      God has never been part of science. What part of "methodological naturalism" did you fail to understand?

       I realize it'd make you happier if science really was trying to hide God, but scientists go where the data points.

       Do you realize how foolish you sound? "The Big Bang was made for that purpose"? The phrase 'Big Bang' was coined by a Jesuit astronomer who was heavily involved in the initial research.

       I'm sure the Jesuits have a great deal of vested interest in leading people away from God, right?

      Because your arguments are varients of "I can't believe this, hence it's not true" and a mish-mash of incorrect facts and concepts. I don't blame you for railing against science, because if science was what you thought it was, it'd be pretty bad.

      But it's not, and that doesn't seem to be a notion you wish to accept.

     
     
  15. Received

    Received True love waits in haunted attics

    +733
    Christian
    Married
    Morat, please don't use social statistics to try and prove a point of truth. You have rejected the logic of 92% of America and 1.6 billion Christians worldwide - my rebuttal to your statistics. Social statistics don't seem to exist at christianforums for the simple reason that the one it is aimed at takes it as intimidation, and intimidation is rebutted with an even higher attempt that was first thrown down, and thus the downward spiral of pride continues for infinity futility.

    And here is my answer, from #15:

    Really, now, if this argument were as fallicious as you think it is, would not every atheist in town be pouncing on it?  Nay, I rather see a ten percent response rate in accordance to views of this thread.  These are not my "personal beliefs".  This is according to the objective test of truth within us all, surnamed logic.

    blessings,

    John
     
  16. chickenman

    chickenman evil unamerican

    +6
    "will" is the concept that has no logical basis, unless you can demonstrate that it does
     
  17. LiveFreeOrDie

    LiveFreeOrDie Science Officer

    983
    +1
    Please don't flatter yourself. I'm pretty sure the low response rate is not due to the stunning logic of your argument, but rather the silly triviality of it.

    OK Spock. Let's have a look at your claimed "logic".

    That's a tautology. I could just as easily say "Everything that is eternal has no beginning and no end."

    Another tautology. The universe has a beginning, thus it has a beginning.

    Tuesday has a beginning. What is the cause of Tuesday?

    Unsupported assertion.

    Sorry. Quantum mechanics disagrees. Under QM, some things don't have a cause -- they just happen.

    Nobody knows whether or not there was "nothing" before the Big Bang. It is just as likely there was something, we just don't know what.

    You're presupposing that before the Big Bang there was nothing. You're also presupposing that there aren't natural processes that can create "something" from "nothing" just because we haven't discovered them yet. (Actually, the theorized Zero Point Energy is a rather interesting example of how something can come from nothing).

    Than you're inventing your own definition for the word "natural".

    Seems like you've just contradicted yourself with that example. Matches are material things, striking a match is a natural act, and fire itself is a natural phenomenon. Clearly no supernatural is required. Or are you saying that matches are magic?
     
  18. Received

    Received True love waits in haunted attics

    +733
    Christian
    Married
    And the conclusion of the matter is anything but science. Rather, a sort of twisted form of pantheism.

    Read all my posts before you run off judging. 'Everything that has a cause must have a will', as well as other points, are all summed up in former posts. Look at them; I am tired of reposting them. I still am quite amazed at how illogical (and yet faithful) many naturalists can be. There once was nothing. Matter is not eternal, or else you are religious. You certainly cannot prove that it is, nor can you prove that the universe started with the big bang. You can only assume, with a sort of faith-based inductive reasoning. And yet you claim we are the ones with the blind faith? Is it truly blind? Or is it blind on behalf of those who put their life-effort into something they still have no solid evidence of proof for it happening, but merely educated guesses? At least us theists claim we have daily communion with the one you are believing you are sucessfully dissecting.

    For those who claim matter is eternal (faith-based), what caused the first event that originally set the evolutionary process in motion? I'm sure chance will be among the first responses. It literally came out of nowhere. Remember, Fortune was a goddess in the Greek pantheon.

    blessings,

    John
     
  19. Morat

    Morat Untitled One

    +2
    Atheist
      'Social Statistics'? Nice try, bucko. Argumentum ad popularum is a fallacy the way you're using it. (By the way, it's roughly 40% of Americans (the other 40% are theistic evolutionists) and less than a 0.6 billion Christians, as Catholics have no problem with evolution. Naughty boy). However, I was discussing authority.

       Specifically, noting that every expert in the field except those with a specific religious bias disagree with you is quote on topic. Trying to dismiss it as 'social statistics' is desperation.

      As for your argument, here goes: It's meaningless gibberish. Further, you make several unsupport assumptions. I disagree with them. I'll list them, so you can support them, m'kay?

    1) You assume that the natural world is restricted to this universe. That is, anything outside of this universe is not-natural.

    2) You assume that 'something from nothing' requires supernatural intervention.

      Then you devolve into gibberish. Let me know when you're ready to support those two statements.

     
     
  20. Received

    Received True love waits in haunted attics

    +733
    Christian
    Married
    Morat, grow up.

    I'm all for theistic evolution.  I am not for atheism.  The Christian God doesn't rightly care how much you sway His words on account of creation, so long as you think you know what you are talking about.  The results still stand.  You still have a theory and not a law.

    1) what are you talking about? 

    2) something from nothing does require supernatural intervention.

    When you have something, you go back and back and you will have nothing, it matters not how far back you think it was, unless you hold (faith-based) that matter is eternal.  So when you have absolutely nothing, beyond the energy, beyond everything, how does something come into being?  Scientists refuse to talk on this subject, but honest philosophy reveals: it doesn't happen.  Not naturally.  So what might be left?

    The statements are supported.  The gibberish is yours.

    blessings,

    John
     
Loading...