(These quotes refer to the Dr.’s Postings)
“If an entity cannot account for its own being (i.e., it is not sufficient to have caused itself), then it is said to be “contingent” because it is dependent upon something outside of itself to explain its existence. The Universe is a contingent entity, since it is inadequate to cause, or explain, its own existence. Sproul has noted: “Logic requires that if something exists contingently, it must have a cause. That is merely to say, if it is an effect it must have an antecedent cause” (1994, p. 172). Thus, since the Universe is a contingent effect, the obvious question becomes, “What caused the Universe?”.”
This assumes that a necessary whole cannot be made of contingent parts. It also assumes that a Necessary Being must have all of the attributes of God.
“1. Everything that exists is either matter or mind.
2. Something exists now, so something eternal must exist.
3. Therefore, either matter or mind is eternal.
A. Either matter or mind is eternal.
B. Matter is not eternal, per the evidence cited above.
C. Thus, it is mind that is eternal.
In the past, atheists suggested that the mind is nothing more than a function of the brain, which is matter; thus the mind and the brain are the same, and matter is all that exists.”
Atheism is not materialism. Although some atheists are materialists, atheists are not committed to this view. For example, atheism is compatible with various forms of mind-body dualism. Also, using the argument “in the past, atheist…” is not a strong argument.
“Effects without adequate causes are unknown. Further, causes never occur subsequent to the effect. It is meaningless to speak of a cause following an effect, or an effect preceding a cause.
The most comfortable position for the person who does not believe in God is the idea that the Universe is eternal, because it avoids the problem of a beginning or ending, and thus the need for any “first cause” such as God. In fact, it was to avoid just such a problem that evolutionists Thomas Gold, Hermann Bondi, and Fred Hoyle developed the Steady State Theory. Information had come to light that indicated the Universe was expanding.”
The Kalam (Time) Argument:
Muslim philosophers argued: If the universe had a beginning at all, the beginning cannot rest on nothingness but God. If the universe had, instead, an infinite past and is without beginning and uncreated, then it is impossible to have arrived at the present moment, in the same way as it is impossible to jump out of a bottomless pit.
The key here is the concept of infinity. Surely, if we have to go back infinitely without arriving at
a beginning, there could be a great problem with having arrived at the present moment. Without a definite starting point in time, this is simply impossible.
“There are but three possible answers to this question: (1) the Universe is eternal; it has always existed and will always exist; (2) the Universe is not eternal; rather, it created itself out of nothing; (3) the Universe is not eternal, and did not create itself out of nothing; rather, it was created by something (or Someone) anterior, and superior, to itself. These three options merit serious consideration.”
I will try to answer these statements at the same time. First of all, the universe could arise spontaneously, that is, “out of nothing.” Several cosmologists have embraced this view and it is not to be dismissed as impossible. To say that everything does have a cause is a lack of modern science and physics (come on, I’m Californian. Compared to the rest of the world, I have a 4th rate education). It must be noted, that the universe is “all there is.” It is not a thing. A God would certainly be a part of “all there is,” and if the universe requires an explanation, then God requires a God. Who made god? The major premise of this argument, “everything had a cause,” is contradicted by the conclusion that “God did not have a cause.” If it is possible to think of a god as uncaused, then it is possible to think the same of the universe. There is one important difficulty that I want to mention briefly with the Kalam and Cause argument. If there is no time prior to the beginning of the universe, then the main argument for saying that the universe must have a cause is considerably weakened.
“Can a person reasonably be expected to believe that these exacting requirements for life as we know it have been met “just by accident”?”
Probability estimates are meaningful only given certain assumptions. The probability estimates to which he refers seem to be based on the classical theory of probability: the ratio of the possibilities favorable to life to all possibilities. However, this theory can only be applied if we have good reason to suppose that the possibilities are equally likely. But we have no reason to make this assumption in this case. On the other hand, the frequency theory of probability cannot apply either. On this theory, probability is the frequency in which a type of event occurs within a class of events. However, let us grant one could make the probability estimates consider above. There are several hypotheses cosmologists have constructed to explain life that have nothing to with supernatural beings. For example, cosmologists have developed a model in terms of so called “wave existence.” They have conjectured that our world–our galaxy and the other galaxies–may be one among many alternative worlds or universes existing at the same time. On this view the universe as a whole is composed of a vast number of such worlds or universes, the overwhelming majority of these are lifeless since the various demands that are required for life, as we understand it, are not met in them. However, given enough universes it is very likely that in some of the complex conditions that are necessary for life would be found. We happen to be in such a universe.
“…Although many have difficulty understanding the tremendous order and complexity of functions of the human body (the eye, for example), there is no obvious designer” (1986, p. 191, emp. added). The only people who “have difficulty understanding the tremendous order and complexity” found in the Universe are those who have “refused to have God in their knowledge””
This argument merely assumes what it wishes to prove. Any attempt to “explain” anything requires a higher context within which it can be understood. To ask for the explanation of the “complex universe” is simply to demand a “higher universe.”
“…IS THERE ULTIMATE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY?
A crucial question that must be addressed is this: “Is there any ultimate consequence to immorality?” Atheists are fond of saying that one should not be unethical because of social sanctions, i.e., society’s disapproval, legal punishment, etc. The implication is, unethical conduct is only “bad” because you might get caught!…”
Atheism is not committed to ethical relativism or subjectivism. Ethical absolutism is compatible with atheism, and more recently other philosophers have argued for ethical realism in purely secular terms. Atheism is not committed to the view that life is meaningless, absurd, or valueless.
“Since the effect never can precede, or be greater than the cause, it stands to reason that the Cause of life must be a living Intelligence that Itself is both moral and loving.”
No good evidence is given for this claim and, in any case, an unintelligent universe is compatible with other hypotheses beside theism, for example, polytheism.
“1. Human moral responsibility is based upon the fact that God is our Creator (Psalm 100:3), and that we have been made in His spiritual image (Genesis 1:26). Just as a potter has a right over the clay he is fashioning, so our Maker has the right to obligate us morally and spiritually to right living (see Romans 9:21).
2. Since morality is grounded in the unchanging nature of God (Malachi 3:6; 1 Peter 1:15), it is absolute—not cultural, not relative, not situational.
3. God’s will for human behavior is not a matter of subjective speculation that every man figures out for himself; rather, Jehovah has spoken (Hebrews 1:1), and His Mind is made known in objective, biblical revelation (1 Corinthians 2:11ff.; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
4. Though the Lord possesses an unchanging nature, His revelatory process was progressive and adapted to man as he developed spiritually in those times of antiquity. Accordingly, in ages of the past Jehovah tolerated, and even regulated, certain acts that are not permissible in the Christian era. This, of course, does not mean that God vacillates in His morality; it simply means that He dealt with man as he was in that infantile state (Matthew 19:8; Acts 14:16; 17:30-31). Today, the New Testament stands as the Lord’s final and ultimate standard of morality.
5. Though the New Testament is the “law of Christ” (Romans 8:2; Galatians 6:2), it is not a “legal” system in that each aspect of human conduct is prescribed with a “thou shalt” or “thou shalt not.” Yes, there are both positive and negative commands in the New Testament, but they do not spell out every specific activity. The inspired document contains many rich principles that challenge us to develop a greater sense of spiritual maturity and to soar to heights that are God-honoring.
6. One must recognize also that New Testament ethics does not deal merely with actions, but addresses motives as well. For instance, what if one accidentally runs down with his automobile (and thereby kills) a careless pedestrian? He is not held accountable before God, for his act was unintentional. On the other hand, one can be guilty (in disposition) of both adultery and murder (cf. Matthew 5:28; 1 John 3:15).
7. It is imperative that men recognize that ethical activity (i.e., right relations with one’s fellows) is not the totality of a person’s obligation before God. The centurion Cornelius certainly learned this truth (Acts 10). There are spiritual responsibilities that the Lord has prescribed as a test of true faith, and yet men frequently ignore such divine obligations.
8. Finally, even though the Almighty has called His human creation to a high moral level, we must recognize that He is aware that we are but frail, dusty flesh (Psalms 78:39; 103:14). And so His marvelous grace has been revealed in the unspeakably wonderful gift of His Son. Those who in loving faith submit to Him (Hebrews 5:8-9) can know the pardon of their moral blunders (Acts 22:16), and are challenged to live righteous and godly lives in this present world (Titus 2:11-14).”
These are classic examples of theist free will defense (FWD), to try and prove moral evil is not to be blamed on God but is the result of human’s misuse of their free will. However, there are several flaws. The FWD assumes that the exercise of free will is worth the price of millions of deaths and untold suffering. This is a doubtful assumption. The FWD takes for granted contra causal freedom (CCF), in other words that human decisions are not caused by any events in our brains or nervous systems. However, there is no scientific reason to suppose that CCF is true. Although God is not directly responsible for evil on the FWD defense, He is indirectly responsible. Presumably He has foreknowledge and knows that His creatures will misuse their CCF. In this case, God is reckless and if He does not have foreknowledge, He knows at least that this misuse is possible and yet took no safeguards to prevent it. In this case, God is negligent. Moreover, it makes no sense to suppose that a rational God would create human beings in His own image and yet expect them to believe in Him without strong evidence, that is, to be irrational.
“Our Universe operates in accordance with exact scientific laws. The precision of the Universe, and the exactness of these laws, allow scientists to launch rockets to the Moon, with the full knowledge that, upon their arrival, they can land within a few feet of their intended target. Such precision and exactness also allow astronomers to predict solar/lunar eclipses years in advance, or to determine when Halley’s Comet can be seen once again from the Earth. Science writer Lincoln Barnett once observed:
This functional harmony of nature Berkeley, Descartes, and Spinoza attributed to God.”
A natural law is a description, not a prescription. The universe is not “governed” by anything. Natural laws are merely human conceptions of the way things normally react, not behavioral mandates, as with societal laws. If the design argument is valid, the mind of a god would be equally “governed” by some principle of order, requiring a higher lawgiver.
Word to the wise – can you please trim in down YB? I don’t like the author referring to this “source,” when I can’t even see it with my own eyes.
Anyways, I find it tough trying to answer all these questions, since I am (in many ways) a theist myself. At any point, I am not atheist. But you know me, never back down from fight.
(Quotes from Forum Posters)
Horten said, “there isn’t more than one God and I can assure you. The idea of it is too conjured up by man wanting to expalin is multiple surroundings. If there is a God, he is of words we cannot explain, and numbers we cannot count. To say you can is arrogant because if God is supreme (even that too light a word) then what can a lowly man compare him to what he already knows?”
The argument squashes itself, because God can be conceived to have infinite mass, which is disproved empirically. And it is comparing apples and oranges to assume that existence in conception can somehow be related to existence in actuality. Even if the comparison holds, why is existence in actuality “supreme” (whatever that means) than existence in conception? Perhaps it is the other way around. Another flaw in this reasoning is to treat existence as an attribute. Existence is a given. A good way to expose this reasoning is to replace “God” with some other words. You could prove the existence of a perfect “void,” which would mean nothing exists.
Mr Ghoul said, “Religion is dumb…”
No, I believe my religion is pretty “smart.” Other religions such as Buddhism or Taoism are very complex.
I was being light hearted :lol:
I belive worshipping a higher being to give reason to one’s life is “dumb”
Living and life just is, at least that’s my take on it.
Does there have to be a purpsoe for our exsitance?
ummm I really dont mean to suggested anyone is “dumb” as in not smart or intelligent…. I guess I just dont understand the point behind it.
Maybe im dumb?..uh no :lol:
“Maybe im dumb?..…uh no”
No, I wouldn’t say so at all. You play Axis and Allies. Only smart people play Axis and Allies. :wink:
@Mr:
I was being light hearted :lol:
I belive worshipping a higher being to give reason to one’s life is “dumb”
Living and life just is, at least that’s my take on it.
Does there have to be a purpsoe for or exsitance?
ummm I really dont mean to suggested anyone is “dumb” as in not smart or intelligent…. I guess I just dont understand the point behind it.
Maybe im dumb?..uh no :lol:
i actually do not worship a higher being to give reason to my life. I’m sure there are a lot of religious people who do. I wonder if i was even more active in worship if the reason to my life would become more clear, or a greater purpose might stand out.
no, i worship because i know i should. Because i’m told to in a way that the bible and my parents don’t tell me to.
@cystic:
@Mr:
I was being light hearted :lol:
I belive worshipping a higher being to give reason to one’s life is “dumb”
Living and life just is, at least that’s my take on it.
Does there have to be a purpsoe for or exsitance?
ummm I really dont mean to suggested anyone is “dumb” as in not smart or intelligent…. I guess I just dont understand the point behind it.
Maybe im dumb?..uh no :lol:
i actually do not worship a higher being to give reason to my life. I’m sure there are a lot of religious people who do. I wonder if i was even more active in worship if the reason to my life would become more clear, or a greater purpose might stand out.
no, i worship because i know i should. Because i’m told to in a way that the bible and my parents don’t tell me to.
You “should” worship?
If you dont mind my asking, why should you worship God or anything at all?
Is God asking for your worship?
My life is my life. I live it for myself, not for anyone else. I won’t be told its all just a sham because some “higher being” says so.
@Mr:
@cystic:
@Mr:
I was being light hearted :lol:
I belive worshipping a higher being to give reason to one’s life is “dumb”
Living and life just is, at least that’s my take on it.
Does there have to be a purpsoe for or exsitance?
ummm I really dont mean to suggested anyone is “dumb” as in not smart or intelligent…. I guess I just dont understand the point behind it.
Maybe im dumb?..uh no :lol:
i actually do not worship a higher being to give reason to my life. I’m sure there are a lot of religious people who do. I wonder if i was even more active in worship if the reason to my life would become more clear, or a greater purpose might stand out.
no, i worship because i know i should. Because i’m told to in a way that the bible and my parents don’t tell me to.You “should” worship?
If you dont mind my asking, why should you worship God or anything at all?
Is God asking for your worship?
I don’t mind you asking. It is a little hard to explain to a non-believer tho’. Basically i believe that God created everything, has a plan for my life of some kind, cares about me, and i believe that Jesus died for me. I also believe that much of what i am and have is a result of what God has given and done for me. It sounds pretty simple, but we thank God for what he’s done, we praise God for what he is (powerful, good, etc.) - and that is worship.
I think God does ask for worship - at least at a basic level - i.e. prayer. That’s another thing i like about Christianity (particularly post-reformation Christianity) is the idea that God wants to communicate with us. I believe that when i pray, i am talking to my creator and guide, and that God responds.
Obviously it’s not very scientific, and an atheist could certainly think of many possibilities refuting that any of this actually happens, but the fact is that i feel/believe/know that it happens. Even if it isn’t happening, it does add something to my life - makes it more full than my life might be otherwise. I feel less alone, and that someone cares, and i also feel “directed” and yet i have not been diagnosed with anything yet.
Sorry if a little long-winded. hope you don’t think i’m nuts.
Ok, time for me to help out the good people here.
90 percent of Religions in the history of the world have been Polytheist. However, the conquerers of the world, the Muslims and Christians, just happen to be the ruling Religion at this time. There are still incredibly popular Polytheist religions (Hinduism) and in fact incredibly popular Religions where no god is featured (Buddism).
Why should I believe in a philosophy so alien to almost all past cultures? People believed the Earth was flat 600 years ago, should I take that as true now?
Your “Jesus” has nothing to back up his claims but far fetched stories and a legend about himself. In fact, the three major Monotheist Religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islaam) cannot even agree on who Jesus was. How are you to say one Religion is right and one is wrong here?
You could argue that we’re the most successful society on earth, its because we believe in God. Canada and Japan have a better quality of life than the United States. In fact, we’ve gotten to our Superpower status through Science, but also through Greed, Violence, and the lives of millions. God isn’t reponsible for this, if you want a true Religion look into yourself.
The Polytheistic Religions of the Ancient World were as successful as we were. The Egyptians built great Pyramids, which rival any structure we can put together today. The Greeks jumped in leaps and bounds in the fields of Science and Art, and Democracy. The Romans ruled the world, made an incredible amount of advancement in almost every field of science, engineering, and military force. In fact, the fall of the Roman Empire is often attributed to the disorder of Christianity.
Why should I believe in a “Heavan” and “Hell”. I don’t think this all mighty god really cares about what I did during my life. In fact, all three Monotheist Religions cannot agree on what Heavan and Hell is.
Let me just express my opinion about life after death.
I dont care!
I’ll find out when I die.
What you don’t believe Jesus is lord?!?!?!? I’m kidding! Catholicism is polythesistc with all of the saints and god made of three different parts.
Polytheism is the least logical. There is some kind of something (not things) or nothing. Not more than one.
Saints are people the “god” has picked to become kinda like Demi-Gods, I think. Christianity is a monotheist Religion.
Nah, Catholicism is not polytheistic, Horten you silly rabbit. That is protestant propaganda. Holding up saints as the ideal of a good person is different than worshipping them as “gods.” An unusually ignorant statement.
About Christianism; it is clearly monotheistic. There is one god.
BTW You did’nt answer me YB.
Christians themselves can’t even agree.
:lol:
Christians themselves can’t even agree.
Neither can evolutionists. Strange thing is that evolution is based on “hard, undeniable evidence.”
Nothing strange, evolution is based on undeniable evidence, they are just looking how it happen.
.
well, they look at the “evidence”, sift through it, and ask “what might cause all of this to happen”? They then issue a series of “best guesses” - hypotheses, if you will, that is reiterated so often as to become considered fact. Certainly there is “evidence” - all over the place. The question is what is it evidence of? Certainly it might be applied to evolution, there is little question that it seems to fit. One might suggest the same of intelligent design however, as opposed to a random series of mutations. I’d say the evidence is just about as hard in either case.
Certainly there is “evidence” - all over the place. The question is what is it evidence of?
evidence of evolution, evidence the young earth creationist are stuck in time. If we look at bacteria; they breed faster than us and they change faster too, virus change very fast, they evolve. Also the dinosaur are a very great pain to those who believe the earth was created 10 000 years ago… (note that their explication is very funny).
If you believe evolution occur, but with the help of god, well that’s a little more coherent, but there is a logico-empirical problem in the reasonning, also a good exemple of the incapacities of the human mind to conceive that intelligence is not the only designer. And the “evey design need designer” argument can be refute by every design we understand… a mountain, a star, a snowflake… The earth itself.
If you believe evolution occur, but with the help of god, well that’s a little more coherent, but there is a logico-empirical problem in the reasonning, also a good exemple of the incapacities of the human mind to conceive that intelligence is not the only designer. And the “evey design need designer” argument can be refute by every design we understand… a mountain, a star, a snowflake… The earth itself.
I prefer the “every design MAY HAVE a designer”. For the mountain and snowflake, i believe it’s entirely possible (and likely) that the laws that governed their creation were set forth circa creation. The same might apply to the star, the galaxy, etc. for the sun is a very handy star - the appropriate amount of radiation eminates from it in order to support life without killing it. Very lucky we are to have that star, indeed. Mind you, if we didn’t have it, then luck would not be a factor.
Everything design we understand have no designer. Also for Mountain and snowflake, i really don’t understand the need of a designer, you are adding the concept just because it caution your believe, there is no reason to believe that.
About the “sun is at the right place” argument, if it where not at the right place, we would’nt be there to question how it was at the right place, i mean if you roll 10 time a dice with 6 face and you chosse that you will have a baby only if you get 10 time 6, then you roll. There is only 1/(6^10) chance you wil have a baby, if you don,t get 10 time 6, you won’t have a baby so he won’t question anything.
Also if you take all suns and all planet, the probability there is planet at the right place is high, also maybe there is a physical explanation why there is a planet at this place, and if not; there is a probabilictic explanation, so i don,t see anything special in it.
The Evolutionary Theory is incomplete for 3 reasons.
The fact that the Fossil Record is incomplete, due to the nature of the record your going to have a lot of holes in the record.
Time. Its barely been over 100 years since the theory of Evolution was concieved by Darwin.
Religious Conservatism. People cannot accept the truth.
My Veiw on Religeon is kinda like this. Think of Life as an Algebraic expression. Science would be like Numbers that weve figured out alrdy and Religeon is like the Variable. in short that is my veiw. and i do not Believe in God. i think it is possible for the SuperNAtural to Exist but i do not think it is involved with god Cus God isnt Real :)
