And that would be the only conclusion you could lead to. How do you get from Universe had a beginning to God?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I explained that premise earlier in this thread, IIRC. The universe has all the characteristics of an effect, ie it has a beginning and it is changing.
See post number 375 in the thread "Can morality exist without God? Continued.And that would be the only conclusion you could lead to. How do you get from Universe had a beginning to God?
See post number 375 in the thread "Can morality exist without God? Continued.
It is really quite simple, it is the law of causality combined with the BB theory. Also, His Word taught things such as the BB 3500 years before science confirmed it.
But we do. Almost all the evidence points to the universe being an effect, ie it has a beginning and it changes. Therefore it requires a cause. According to the law of causality, the cause cannot be part of the effect, it has to be "outside" or transcendent to it. So it is with God, He is transcendent to it, He is not part of nature, He is "above" it or supernatural. And we know He is probably personal because purposes exist in the universe such as eyes to see, ears to hear, etc. We know that only personal beings can create purposes for things.
But we do. Almost all the evidence points to the universe being an effect, ie it has a beginning and it changes. Therefore it requires a cause. According to the law of causality, the cause cannot be part of the effect, it has to be "outside" or transcendent to it. So it is with God, He is transcendent to it, He is not part of nature, He is "above" it or supernatural. And we know He is probably personal because purposes exist in the universe such as eyes to see, ears to hear, etc. We know that only personal beings can create purposes for things.
No, the founders of modern science knew that the universe operated according to orderly laws and those laws require a law giver. They knew that if there was no orderly and Law giving God then science would be impossible. They also knew about the subject-object problem. Without a correlation between subject and object then we could not know whether there was an objective reality and without an objective reality science would also be impossible. So without God, you just have to hope that random chance produced that correlation but that is for all practical matters impossible. Because at the origin of the universe there were only objects if there was no God. But since there was a God (a subject) then at the act of creation of objects that correlation was established.
In a godless model of the universe, there are four potential explanations for the Big Bang, which I will refer to as the t=0 event so that those who believe in a 6000 year old universe will be more inclined to participate.
I. The t=0 event occurred for no reason and with no cause.
II. The t=0 event was the result of the interaction of what physicists refer to as membranes. These membranes (or the things from which they ultimately resulted) came into existence for no reason and with no cause.
III. The t=0 event was the result of the interaction of what physicists refer to as membranes. These membranes (or the things from which they ultimately resulted) have existed eternally. Eternal existence is a nonsensical notion in this universe but it is possible to describe a universe wherein this is plausible.
IV. The t=0 event was the result of the interaction of what physicists refer to as membranes. These membranes resulted from previously existing things, which resulted from previously existing things, and etcetera ad infinitum.
I'll admit that none of these seem to be very satisfying, and what's more, there's no actual evidence to favor one over another. To compound problems further, we see that even if you grant any of them that the atheist chooses (say, choice I.), we are still left with this troublesome conclusion:
1. The universe has properties.
2. Properties are either intelligently assigned or randomly assigned.*
3. The properties of the universe were not intelligently assigned.
4. The properties of the universe are random.
All the theist must do now is remark that it is unreasonable to believe that the universe as it is came to be by chance, and therefore its properties must be intelligently assigned.
Have I dug my own grave?
To be fair, the theist has only won once he shows that the same logical scrutiny can be applied to his worldview and that it will be shown to be more reasonable and/or more likely to be true.
Observe:
1. Properties are either intelligently assigned or randomly assigned.*
2. God has properties.
3. God was not assigned these properties by someone else.
4a. Assume God did not assign his own properties to himself.
5a. No one assigned God his properties, so they are not intelligently assigned.
6a. God's properties are random.
4b. Assume God did assign his own properties to himself.
5b. We can reasonably agree that God assigned himself his own properties according to his own preferences.
6bA. Assume God assigned himself his own preferences.
7bA. Before God assigned himself his own preferences, he did not have any preferences.
8bA. God assigned himself his own preferences randomly.
9bA. God assigned himself his own properties according to random preferences.
10bA. God's properties are random.
6bB. Assume God did not assign himself his own preferences.
7bB. God's preferences are not intelligently assigned.
8bB. God's preferences are random.
9bB. Go to 9bA.
Therefore, God's properties are random. If God created the universe, he created its properties. God's random properties are responsible for the creation of the universe's properties. Therefore, the properties of the universe are random.
The assertion of God as the answer does not solve the problem of the universe's properties being random. Furthermore, it is the assertion of something as fact which is both unfalsifiable and unnecessary. Therefore, there is no reason to conclude that God more likely exists than doesn't, and it is irrational to suggest that theism is more reasonable than atheism.
If you want to say that we cannot logically dissect God, or that we cannot even discuss matters of the divine, then you refuse to subject your own worldview to the same level of logical scrutiny to which you subject the atheist worldview. This is taken as a withdraw from debate, or in other words, an admission of defeat.
*(There can be a mixture of intelligent assigning and random assigning.
For example, with sleight of hand I might give myself a better chance of drawing the ace of spades from 1 chance in 52 to, say, one chance in 10. In this case, it can be said that the card I draw is random to some degree and intelligently assigned to some degree.
For the purposes of this thread, I will ignore this possibility because either there is no God, in which case there is no intelligent agent to stack the odds of a certain thing to occur, or else there is a God, in which case said God does not need to rely on chance as he is omnipotent. I assume we can agree to ignore the possibility of a God that has limited power; God is either unlimited in power or else maximally powerful, that is, he can perform any action which is not logically absurd.)
Footnote: I will refute the Kalam Cosmological Argument here so it cannot be said that I'm ignoring it.
The argument asserts that there must have been a cause for the t=0 event. The problem is lies in the definition of causality:
A system is a region of space.
A state is the arrangement of matter, energy, and otherwise existing things within a system.
Causality acts on a system to take it from one state to another over a duration of time.
"Prior" to the t=0 event, space and time "did" not exist. Phrased more precisely, in a state of reality wherein the t=0 event has not occurred, space and time do not exist. Therefore, causality does not exist. Therefore, the t=0 event cannot have been brought about via causality.
Earlier, I entertained the possibility of membranes causing the universe to exist. This does not solve the problem of causality but rather pushes it back one step; the membranes cause the t=0 event in a temporal, physical sense, making the t=0 event the result of causality, but it follows here that the membranes (or the thing from which the membranes ultimately arose) must have come about without cause.
Now, it may well be true that God used some other means besides causality to create the universe, or he might have simply violated logic and caused the t=0 event to occur. In either case, we cannot reach these conclusions logically starting from premises that make sense. Hence, the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails.
Worst of All, Those membranes also have properties, which imply Parameters and Rules of interaction between themselves, that only moves the problem of Unltimate Cause a bit forward behind but it doesn't solve it.
Chance is a contradiction to Cause. Chance is an statement of ignorance of Cause.
His properties were not assigned, not by him not by nothing since he never came into existence since he has existed Per Se.
His properties are recognizable only by those who began to exist.
Time began to exist as an integral part of the Universe, the same time was created.
Thus we sustain that The Original Cause of Existence of this Universe is Outside this Universe, including its time. That is Transcendence.
Causality is not time dependant but Event Dependant, Transcendent Events escape Created Time.
Seems Your membranes resemble Transcendent Properties of God.
Causality is not Time dependent but Event dependent. And Events can be Transcendent or Temporal.
Worst of All, Those membranes also have properties, which imply Parameters and Rules of interaction between themselves, that only moves the problem of Unltimate Cause a bit forward behind but it doesn't solve it.
Chance is a contradiction to Cause. Chance is an statement of ignorance of Cause.
You have to die to live. John 12:25
Properties are only assignable when something come into existence, but when something already exists it need no assignation but recognition, The Properties of the Divine nature of God were not assigned since he never began to exist, We who began to exist are only able to recognize the properties that He, who has always existed, has.
Yes we can recognize them
Because He is Uncreated Creator. Ultimate cause of All existence.
His properties were not assigned, not by him not by nothing since he never came into existence since he has existed Per Se.
His properties are recognizable only by those who began to exist.
No one assigned to God his properties since no one Created him.
God properties are only recognizable not accountable for qualification. but he is the Supreme Intelligence.
He never came into existence, and no property can surpass his Almightiness.
No, I don't Agree, He never assigned himself his properties since he never Created himself.
No.
there is not Before to God.
No he Didn't there was never a process of creation of God.
God Properties are Recognizable by Intelligent Created Beings, as a way to compare Mortal Beings Limitations to Eternal God Almightiness'.
Random properties is not an accurate description of Unlimited Properties.
Nothing is Hotter than God
Nothing is Cooler than God
Nothing is Smaller than God
Nothing is Bigger than God
Nothing is Brighter than God
Nothing is more invisible Than God
Nothing if Mor Powerful Than God.
Etc..
God Properties are far beyond any created description. God Limits and boundaries are not in properties. Not even Moral properties but only in human comparative standards made by human needs of Dissertation.
You departed from a False Premise thus you arrive to a False Conclusion
I don't say that you cannot Describe God, I simply say that You have to assume that Since God Never began to Exist you can never imply Him to be randomly designed.
If God had to assign himself his attributes he would have to began to exist, there is your fallacy.
Almightiness is as much as Randomness as dies being loaded and having only one single number in all their 6 facets.
bingo.
Time began to exist as an integral part of the Universe, the same time was created.
Thus we sustain that The Original Cause of Existence of this Universe is Outside this Universe, including its time. That is Transcendence.
Causality is not time dependant but Event Dependant, Transcendent Events escape Created Time.
Seems Your membranes resemble Transcendent Properties of God.
Causality is not Time dependent but Event dependent. And Events can be Transcendent or Temporal.
Existence has to imply some attributes, otherwise it wouldn't make sense.
How does God solve the above issue?
No. Chance is an abstract concept that merely denotes possible unmaterialized variations of any given pattern. It very well may be just that, an illusion of our ability to compare from memory.
Then, why would you have problem with matter that always existed with certain properties that always existed? What's the difference?
Nah. Time is a necessary precondition for spatial relationship. It's a byproduct rather than a thing of itself. There's nothing you can point to and say "that's time". All you can point to is a moving hand of the clock that measures it's own movement. In a monolithic reality where nothing moves, there's no time.
If God thinks and creates, he would create and think in time. Time is a concept of change and not some "thing" out there that needs to be created.
Any change is time-dependent.
That's what time is. Calling it a "transcendance" is merely appealing to bigger mystery to solve the one we have.
Seems like your transcendent properties of God resemble features of these membranes
Again, you seem to be just making stuff up as explanation without actually explaining how it works, or can possibly work.
I proposed,
The t=0 event was the result of the interaction of what physicists refer to as membranes. These membranes (or the things from which they ultimately resulted) have existed eternally. Eternal existence is a nonsensical notion in this universe but it is possible to describe a universe wherein this is plausible.
You replied to the text block containing that quote with the following:
Worst of All, Those membranes also have properties, which imply Parameters and Rules of interaction between themselves, that only moves the problem of Unltimate Cause a bit forward behind but it doesn't solve it.
Of course, your God has properties as well. You go to great pains to say that God exists without having been assigned properties. Do you deny this possibility to membranes?
Transcendence implies abstract substances
Abstract objects like Ideas and Numbers are not senseless despite being immaterial. Spirit is immaterial but not senseless, The substance of God is Spirit.
Unmaterialized Variations are caused by ignored, blind or obviated variables which disenabled those variations to happen and lead to the final option which actually happen. Nothing is Pure Chance but rather there are process which are fairly manageable in a range of variations with the prevision of blind variable not to be enough to break the control.
The difference is that science is inventing a Alternative-Godlike-Causative substance which by nature is outside of it boundaries of knowledge since by principle we are making experiments in an already created Space and Time, but this membranes are rather deviating the Atheists to believe whatever thing with the only purpose to avoid the Fact that this Universe requires an Intelligent CREATOR.
Time is Creation and thus not Transcendent.
¿Do you think that Synapse happens in God's mind and thus neurochemicals need taime to migrate from neuron to neuron? ¿Does God need Brain Cells?
in our universe.
Right, Transcendence means that it Escapes to our Universe. Let us use the example of the Cartoon, a artificially intelligent Cartoon may believe that since inside the cartoon there is no Creator of Cartoon-Land, thus there is not any creator to believe in, and he denies the cartoonist based on the evidence inside the book of cartoons....
Right but since God Properties were described like 4000 years before to your membranes then First in Time is First in Right.
No, I am Saying that your conclusions are mistaken since your premises are mistaken. Here around you there are a large amount of people who believe and most of them have a personal relationship with God. To God you Know him by means of the ADORATION. PRAISE THE LORD and he will find you.
The Spiritual Evidences are not Proof of Existence of God since they are dependent on the Thoughts and emotions of the one who Claims to God.
Now, Membranes mathematical simulations imply rules made by those who play with membranes... But since we are in an already created Universe any experiment inside this universe will be discredited for the fact that we live in an already existing space and time under a Magnetic field created by the Earth.
Whatever experiment we do here is already made in a Existing reality and thus very unlikely to reflect the moment of Creation out of nihilo.
It sounds like you're saying that the properties and existence of these membranes are unknown and untestable. I agree. Now please acknowledge that your God can be described in the same way.
There are not abstract substances. Only abstract concepts.
Abstract objects are "immaterial" because these point to material actions and objects. You can't point to anything else and explain what it's like.
You are trying too hard. Just because something happens, it doesn't physically "disenable" anything in reality.
Enabling or otherwise communicates some cause-effect relationship. You seem to imply that because something happens, it physically effects all of the other possibilities, and such is not the case.
In reality there's only one thing that happens. That's it. Everything else is imaginary construct that doesn't and didn't exist. Possibility is not something exists in reality except for a single state of such reality.
Hence, chance is merely a hindsight of "if this happened, then this would follow" type of description in the scope of all possible explanation of the kind. It's not what you think it is.
ANY of such explanations would be hypothetical, and thus extremely uncertain. That would include multiverses, brane hypothesis, QM Many-World, eternal universe, and God as a causal agent.
All of these sit in the same exact category of "unknown pending more evidence". Hence you are mistakenly thinking that scientists invent explanations as a reason not to believe in God, when God is among many possible explanations... and we generally try to explain causes by making minimal assumptions, before we run to the biggest assumption of them all.
That's your unjustified definition of time. But that's not how we generally define time. You can't create something that's necessary for sequence of events to proceed. Hence you can't create a prerequisite that's required for creation of something to begin with.
I don't know. You are postulating and claiming what God is like. Does God need a mind? If he does, then the only example of a mind we have is a brain-like mechanism that facilitates a logical process. What would be such a mechanism in God's reality?
Sure, and in Superman's universe things are different too, but there are very little reasons to believe that such universe is possible or logically coherent.
Because it's a case in the imaginary scenario of yours, then it must be the case for our reality? If there's no way to tell the difference between a God that exist and the God that doesn't... is there any difference?
So, you think that we should throw away 4000 years of scientific development, philosophy and through, and go with the first uninformed thing that people described? I'd think it would be very poor and irresponsible decision on our part.
You can't adore something you don't know,
hence you again define your experience in inconsistent terms. To know something one first actually experience it consistently. That's how we define knowledge. We don't define knowledge through "Adoring things that we know" and then praising everything.
Hence, you are stipulating relationships between imaginary concepts that you can't demonstrate to exist in reality, and hence you have to frame prerequisites like "You know God by praising God", which makes zero sense.
You can try to enter in contact with God Through ADORATION. and Yes, Billions of people have proven and tested how Good is The Lord.
That's an interesting claim. Care to substantiate that? Why haven't millions or billions of people proven and tested how Good Allah is? Or Vishnu?
eudaimonia,
Mark
Allah is presented as the same God of Christianism but denying Divinity of Christ, is then a misrepresentation of God
They could say that your God is a misrepresentation of Allah. Christianity just doesn't have the whole Truth, as reported by Muhammad with the direction of the archangel Gabriel. So, if they can get details wrong, why not Christians?
If it is so easy to get God wrong, even attributing sex offenses to God, why should I believe that Christians have things right? That they have actually proven anything at all through their worship? eudaimonia,
mohamad was a lier and a bloody impenitent, promiscuous pedophile.
If marrying young girls was normal and accepted in his culture, he wasn't necessarily a pedophile.
But tell me, is there mentioned in the Bible a minimum age for marriage? How old must a girl be to marry?
eudaimonia,
Mark
In exchange to membranes, You can try to enter in contact with God Through ADORATION. and Yes, Billions of people have proven and tested how Good is The Lord.
Can we say the same of the Membranes?
nobody seemed to answer next quote I wonder why?
It was said that Science had to walk apart of God and Religion to avoid scientists to believe whatever thing when making science, and now that science has arrived to the point where numbers and evidence screams the need of a CREATOR, now Scientist are willing to BELIEVE WHATEVER THING to avoid GOD. I call that as Dogmatic Atheism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?