Author Topic: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?  (Read 11560 times)

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« on: July 08, 2010, 11:39:19 AM »
I don't think that there is a God per se...it has always fascinated me as to whats out there beyond our universe?..scientists say that the universe is infinite and just goes on and on...how can that be????..everything must logically have a beginning and an end....I wonder whats beyond the darkness of space??..I read that scientists don't even try to think about this because its just not answerable..they instead focus on whats IN the universe

second of all, how did all of this shit get here?..us, the planets, the galaxies, stars, suns.....what was there before the big bang??..and whatever was there , what was there before that????....just so mind -boggling

what do you guys think??..any body have a logical theory?


Hustle Man

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1351
  • What is the most common form of stupidity?
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2010, 12:23:54 PM »
This question has confounded the greatest minds of our time; surely you don't think you'll get an intelligent answer from getbiggers?


Quote
I don't think that there is a God per se

Maybe you should start thinking there is a God (creator/intelligent designer) maybe this will alleviate some of your frustrations. It's called faith!

W

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #2 on: July 08, 2010, 12:42:51 PM »
This question has confounded the greatest minds of our time; surely you don't think you'll get an intelligent answer from getbiggers?


Maybe you should start thinking there is a God (creator/intelligent designer) maybe this will alleviate some of your frustrations. It's called faith!



I would think that believing in God would be more frustrating for the thinking man....it's called faith not blind faith.....If I believed in God I would surely wonder why he lets so many bad things happen..and why he doesn't reveal himself..and where does he reside exactly..and why did he put us here.....I think I would be more frustrated


Hustle Man

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1351
  • What is the most common form of stupidity?
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2010, 08:58:07 PM »
I would think that believing in God would be more frustrating for the thinking man....it's called faith not blind faith.....If I believed in God I would surely wonder why he lets so many bad things happen..and why he doesn't reveal himself..and where does he reside exactly..and why did he put us here.....I think I would be more frustrated

You know sometimes I get frustrated too. I often wonder about the same things you wonder about but then I go back to the bible and it answers some of my questions and that brings me peace when I am going through the storm. Please understand that Christians want answers to the same questions you ask about and not every believer is mature enough to handle the truth so God does not reveal it to them. I will attempt to answer the 4 questions you asked from a biblical stand point.

Q1. Why he (God) lets so many bad things happen?
A1. The biblical answer is there are no “good” people. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that all of us are tainted by and infected with sin; Romans 3:10–12
10 As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

I think a better question would be “Why does God allow good things to happen to bad people, would you agree? BTW there is a verse for that as well Romans 5:8 declares, “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners (bad people), Christ died for us.” Despite the evil, wicked, sinful nature of the people of this world, God still loves us. He loved us enough to die to take the penalty for our sins.

Q2. Why he doesn't reveal himself?
A2. He has and does reveal himself to us. We know that God is real because he has revealed himself to us in three ways: in creation, in His Word, and in His Son, Jesus Christ.
A2.1 The most basic proof of God’s existence is simply what he has made. Romans 1:20 says: “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Psalm 19:1 says: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”
A2.2 God has also revealed himself to us through his Word, the Bible. Throughout Scripture, the existence of God is treated as a self-evident fact, Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. When a famous person in history writes his/her autobiography, they do not waste time trying to prove their own existence. Likewise, God does not spend much time proving his existence in his book. The life-changing nature of the Bible, its integrity, and the miracles which accompanied its writing should be enough to warrant a closer look.
A2.3 The third way in which God revealed himself is through his Son, Jesus Christ. John 1:1 says: “In the beginning was the Word: the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:14 says: The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth”.

We realize that there will always be skeptics who have their own ideas concerning God and will read the evidence accordingly. And there will be some whom no amount of proof will convince as Psalm 14:1 says: The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good. So it all comes down to faith as Hebrews 11:6 says: And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.


Q3. Where does he reside exactly?
A3. The only verse that I can come up with is 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 which says:
2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows.
3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows—
4 was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.

God resides in the third heaven which is paradise according to this verse.

Q4. Why did he put us here?
A4. The short answer to this question; God created us for His pleasure and so that we, as his creation, would have the pleasure of knowing Him.
Revelation 4:11 says: “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they were created and have their being.” Colossians 1:16 reiterates the point: “All things were created by him and for him.”

Being created for God’s pleasure does not mean humanity was made to entertain God or provide him with amusement. God is a creative being, and it gives him pleasure to create. God is a personal being, and it gives him pleasure to have other beings he can have a genuine relationship with.

There are many more scriptures to answer your questions but I hope what I have provided for you will suffice for now. I like that you are sincere in stating what you understand and don't understand, you are not a scoffer like many I have seen on here but you earnestly seek to gain understanding whether biblical or not.

HM

W

ToxicAvenger

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26516
  • I thawt I taw a twat!
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2010, 10:15:31 PM »
I don't think that there is a God per se...it has always fascinated me as to whats out there beyond our universe?..scientists say that the universe is infinite and just goes on and on...how can that be????..everything must logically have a beginning and an end....I wonder whats beyond the darkness of space??..I read that scientists don't even try to think about this because its just not answerable..they instead focus on whats IN the universe

second of all, how did all of this shit get here?..us, the planets, the galaxies, stars, suns.....what was there before the big bang??..and whatever was there , what was there before that????....just so mind -boggling

what do you guys think??..any body have a logical theory?


things to google
M-theory
Brane theory
Antropic principle
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html   <read
carpe` vaginum!

Butterbean

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19326
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2010, 06:28:17 AM »
I don't think that there is a God per se...it has always fascinated me as to whats out there beyond our universe?..scientists say that the universe is infinite and just goes on and on...how can that be????..everything must logically have a beginning and an end....I wonder whats beyond the darkness of space??..I read that scientists don't even try to think about this because its just not answerable..they instead focus on whats IN the universe

second of all, how did all of this shit get here?..us, the planets, the galaxies, stars, suns.....what was there before the big bang??..and whatever was there , what was there before that????....just so mind -boggling

what do you guys think??..any body have a logical theory?



You may want to read:  "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel.  

Very interesting and addresses the universe.

Something called "The Kalam Argument" is included:

1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2 The universe bgain to exist.
3 Therefore the universe has a cause.


Also one guy (William Craig) demonstrates that "the idea of an actual infinity is just conceptual; it exists only in our minds." 

He gives and example w/marbles I will type out if you are interested, but in general the universe cannot be infinite when it had a beginning point.





And HM, thanks for your post!  
R

Agnostic007

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 14890
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2010, 07:30:23 AM »
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Because it is so difficult to conceive of the singularity as the source of the universe, many theists consider the Big Bang a vindication of the classical doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Assuming the initial conditions of the big bang singularity to be unfit for causing the universe to exist, many philosophers have tried to argue that the Big Bang without God is tantamount to the absurd notion that something can come from nothing. Perhaps the most vehement proponent of this view is Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. Craig in his kalam cosmological argument attempts to make a positive case for the existence of the theistic God based on a reformulation of the traditional cosmological argument. Craig's kalam cosmological argument is stated as follows:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence.
Craig defends the first and second premises of his argument on the basis of a priori and a posteriori considerations. Craig defends premise one on two grounds. Craig holds the causal principle to be both an inductive empirical generalization and an 'expression of the operation of a mental apriori category of causality which the mind brings to experience.'[9] Craig defends his second premise with another pair of a posteriori and a priori arguments. He defends the universe having a beginning on the empirical grounds of the Big Bang, and on the philosophical notion that an actual infinity of causes is logically impossible. For the purposes of the this paper, I will assume that both Big Bang cosmology and premises 1 and 2 of the kalam argument are true.

4. From Premise 3 to God
The third premise of the kalam cosmological argument states that the universe has a cause of its existence. Craig believes that if he has shown this premise to be true, he has proven the existence of the theistic God. However, it is rather obvious that this is not the case. Even if we accept the causal rule, the truthfulness of the Big Bang theory, the impossibility of an actual infinite, Craig's definition of causation, and his insistence that this sort of causation applies to the universe as a whole, we do not arrive at the conclusion that God is the cause of the universe. Rather, we arrive at the conclusion that the initial Big Bang singularity is the cause of the universe.

Craig anticipates this objection, responding to it by denying the reality of the singularity and attempting to deduce, on a priori grounds, the existence of a personal, supernatural creator of the universe. Craig believes that once he can eliminate all naturalistic models of creation within general relativity theory, he has proven that the cause of the universe must be supernatural. He believes that this supernatural cause must be beginningless, timeless, changeless, immaterial, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent. Utilizing the principle of determination, he believes this cause to be a personal being, and attempts to deduce the omnibenevolence of the creator on the basis of the reality of objective moral values.[10]

Craig objects to the reality of the singularity on ontological grounds. Craig believes that the initial cosmological singularity is not an actual existent, but merely a mathematical idealization whose ontological counterpart is nothing. As Craig writes,

The initial cosmological singularity is not an existent. That is to say, the singularity has no positive ontological status: as one traces the cosmic expansion back in time, the singularity represents the point at which the universe ceases to exist. It is not part of the universe, but represents the point at which the time reversed contracting universe vanishes into non-being...Just as there is no first fraction, so there is no first state of the universe. The initial singularity is thus the ontological equivalent of nothing. The break down of the laws of physics and the attendant unpredictability is perspicuous in light of the fact that nothingness possesses no physics...

Simply put, an object that has no spatial dimensions and no temporal duration hardly seems to qualify as a physical object at all, but is rather a mathematical conceptualization.[11]

Several things can be said in response to Craig's objection. First, just because an object possesses no time and no space, it does not follow that it is merely a mathematical conceptualization. Most philosophers would argue that abstract objects such as numbers, sets, and propositions are actually existent, despite the fact that they have no spatial or temporal dimensions. Even more puzzling is the fact that Craig's own conception of God entails that God is a being of no dimensions or duration, but Craig never refers to his God as a conceptual formalism. Why is it possible for a being of no dimensions or duration to obtain ontological existence, yet an object possessing these properties is merely a mathematical idealization?

Secondly, within Big Bang Cosmology, the initial singularity is depicted as the ontological consequence of the thermodynamic expansion of the universe. If Craig upholds a realist interpretation of the dynamic properties of the universe, his retreat into a formalist understanding of the singularity at the moment of creation is a bit suspicious. If Craig wishes to deny the ontological existence of the singularity and still remain within relativity theory, he must also deny the thermodynamic contraction of the universe which leads to the singularity. Craig cannot rely on a realist under-standing of Big Bang Cosmology in order vitiate the first and second premises of his argument if he switches over to a conceptualist understanding of relativity when referring to the initial singularity. He should accept the ontological consequences of the Big Bang cosmological theory if he finds it the most substantiated physical cosmology available.

Craig gives an additional a priori argument in order to avoid a real singularity which could potentially be the 'cause' of the universe. Craig believes that a necessary and sufficient set of mechanical conditions existing from eternity couldn't possibly be the cause of the universe, since if that were the case, the universe would have always existed. As Craig writes,

...In fact, I think it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create the effect in time.[12]

This argument, aside from attempting to eliminate the reality of the singularity, also tries to deduce the personal attribute of the first cause. However, if one looks closely, several problems emerge. First, Craig is right that a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions could not produce a temporal effect from eternity. However, Craig fails to notice that the singularity is not a mechanically operating set of conditions, but rather, a lawless and indeterministic point which can potentially emit any configuration of particles at any time with equal likelihood.

Craig may wish to evade this dilemma by arguing that any timeless state of affairs, be it mechanical or indeterministic, cannot produce a temporal effect which is not eternal. However, this objection is self-defeating. As Wes Morrison notes,

On the current proposal, however, the eternal cause of the universe (God) is supposed to be timeless. Qua cause of the world, at any rate, temporal categories do not apply to it. If, therefore, it has temporal effects, Craig's argument gives us no reason to suppose that they would extend throughout an infinite past.

To see this, suppose that a timeless state of affairs, S, is causally sufficient for the existence of a physical universe, P, having a temporal duration of thirty billion years. Suppose further that the beginning of P coincides with the beginning of time, so that P 'comes into being' in the weak sense. Craig's argument is supposed to show us that this is impossible. If S is really eternal, then P cannot have a beginning. Why not? Because no matter when P begins, S would have already produced it.[13]

In other words, if God wills the universe to exist in a timeless state of eternity, then the existence of the universe could not have a beginning, but would have always existed, since the intention of God to create the universe would have existed from eternity. Additionally, if God creates the universe outside of time, then there is no time at which the universe does not exist and thus, the universe always existed. It seems that regardless of whether a mechanical set of conditions or God caused the universe outside of time, the universe 'always existed', since there is no time at which it did not exist.

It should be pointed out that here Craig commits the fallacy of hasty generalization in his assumption that if one can eliminate the singularity as an ontological existent, God is the only alternative explanation of the universe's coming into existence. If Craig is right in dismissing all existing natural explanations of the universe coming into existence, it does not follow that the universe has a supernatural cause, since the correct naturalistic model may not be formulated yet. Even if we grant Craig the notion that the universe has supernatural origins, the Big Bang could be the result of multiple deities or abstract supernatural forces lacking the attributes of the theistic God. Craig might respond that it is simpler, on the grounds of Occam's Razor, to postulate the existence of one personal creator, as opposed to many. However, one could easily respond that no God is simpler than one God. The existence of the God of theism presupposes that there are two realities, the physical world of the universe and the supernatural realm of its creator. The creation of the universe via naturalistic means only requires the physical universe, and is thus a much simpler hypothesis.

These criticisms aside, even if we accept the notion that some sort of powerful deity is the cause of the Big Bang, it is still possible that this creator has a malevolent or indifferent character. Craig attempts to show the omnibenevolence of the creator on the basis of objective moral values. Craig believes that God is good because we can apprehend the truth of certain moral statements that would, if he did not exist, be mere conventions of society. As Craig writes,

...could anything be more obvious than that objective [read "absolute"] moral values exist? There is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the external world...The fact is that we do apprehend objective values, and we all know it. Actions like rape, torture, child abuse, and brutality are not just socially unacceptable behavior - they are moral abominations...People who fail to see this are just morally handicapped, and there is no reason to allow their impaired vision to call into question what we see clearly.[14]

Craig believes that a foundation for ethical truths can only be found in God, acting as standard and source of such moral truths. As Craig writes

On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God. God's own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. God's moral nature is what Plato called the "Good." He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth.[15]

However, if one looks closely, there are several problems with Craig's reasoning. The most obvious point of note should be that there is no logical inconsistency in the notion that God could have a malevolent or indifferent character, despite the existence of objective moral values. Additionally, in order for Craig to vitiate his claim that objective moral values are dependent on God, he must first single-handedly refute every major secular theory of ethics available. Moreover, if 'God's own holy and perfect good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured', then this standard is purely arbitrary. Finally, if God is his own standard of goodness, then Craig's appeal to God in order to demonstrate his goodness is viciously circular. It seems that whether or not God exists has no bearing on whether objective moral values exist and vice-versa.

5. Conclusion
It appears that in light of the above criticisms, the kalam cosmological argument fails as an argument because its conclusion that God exists does not follow from its premises. Whether or not the universe has a cause of its existence has little relevance to Craig's attempted vindication of theism. Even if one can successfully show that there are conceptual problems with Big Bang or other forms of natural cosmology, the God of theism does not automatically win by default. Craig in his kalam argument tries to address this problem using a priori considerations, but he fails to deduce the attributes of theism in his analysis of the first cause of the universe. This is not to say that Craig is completely wrong in holding to the truth of each individual premise of the kalam argument. However, he cannot say on rational grounds that they constitute a powerful proof for the existence of the theistic of God.


andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #7 on: July 12, 2010, 11:31:14 AM »
Really good post above...excellent...I gotta digest it before responding..give me a few days.. ;)

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #8 on: September 03, 2010, 03:56:30 PM »
Really good post above...excellent...I gotta digest it before responding..give me a few days.. ;)

bump

PROBOUND

  • Getbig II
  • **
  • Posts: 37
  • What's Good To Ya, Might Not Be Good For Ya!
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #9 on: September 03, 2010, 10:44:59 PM »
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Because it is so difficult to conceive of the singularity as the source of the universe, many theists consider the Big Bang a vindication of the classical doctrine of creation ex nihilo. Assuming the initial conditions of the big bang singularity to be unfit for causing the universe to exist, many philosophers have tried to argue that the Big Bang without God is tantamount to the absurd notion that something can come from nothing. Perhaps the most vehement proponent of this view is Christian philosopher William Lane Craig. Craig in his kalam cosmological argument attempts to make a positive case for the existence of the theistic God based on a reformulation of the traditional cosmological argument. Craig's kalam cosmological argument is stated as follows:

Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The Universe began to exist.
Therefore, the Universe has a cause of its existence.
Craig defends the first and second premises of his argument on the basis of a priori and a posteriori considerations. Craig defends premise one on two grounds. Craig holds the causal principle to be both an inductive empirical generalization and an 'expression of the operation of a mental apriori category of causality which the mind brings to experience.'[9] Craig defends his second premise with another pair of a posteriori and a priori arguments. He defends the universe having a beginning on the empirical grounds of the Big Bang, and on the philosophical notion that an actual infinity of causes is logically impossible. For the purposes of the this paper, I will assume that both Big Bang cosmology and premises 1 and 2 of the kalam argument are true.

4. From Premise 3 to God
The third premise of the kalam cosmological argument states that the universe has a cause of its existence. Craig believes that if he has shown this premise to be true, he has proven the existence of the theistic God. However, it is rather obvious that this is not the case. Even if we accept the causal rule, the truthfulness of the Big Bang theory, the impossibility of an actual infinite, Craig's definition of causation, and his insistence that this sort of causation applies to the universe as a whole, we do not arrive at the conclusion that God is the cause of the universe. Rather, we arrive at the conclusion that the initial Big Bang singularity is the cause of the universe.

Craig anticipates this objection, responding to it by denying the reality of the singularity and attempting to deduce, on a priori grounds, the existence of a personal, supernatural creator of the universe. Craig believes that once he can eliminate all naturalistic models of creation within general relativity theory, he has proven that the cause of the universe must be supernatural. He believes that this supernatural cause must be beginningless, timeless, changeless, immaterial, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent. Utilizing the principle of determination, he believes this cause to be a personal being, and attempts to deduce the omnibenevolence of the creator on the basis of the reality of objective moral values.[10]

Craig objects to the reality of the singularity on ontological grounds. Craig believes that the initial cosmological singularity is not an actual existent, but merely a mathematical idealization whose ontological counterpart is nothing. As Craig writes,

The initial cosmological singularity is not an existent. That is to say, the singularity has no positive ontological status: as one traces the cosmic expansion back in time, the singularity represents the point at which the universe ceases to exist. It is not part of the universe, but represents the point at which the time reversed contracting universe vanishes into non-being...Just as there is no first fraction, so there is no first state of the universe. The initial singularity is thus the ontological equivalent of nothing. The break down of the laws of physics and the attendant unpredictability is perspicuous in light of the fact that nothingness possesses no physics...

Simply put, an object that has no spatial dimensions and no temporal duration hardly seems to qualify as a physical object at all, but is rather a mathematical conceptualization.[11]

Several things can be said in response to Craig's objection. First, just because an object possesses no time and no space, it does not follow that it is merely a mathematical conceptualization. Most philosophers would argue that abstract objects such as numbers, sets, and propositions are actually existent, despite the fact that they have no spatial or temporal dimensions. Even more puzzling is the fact that Craig's own conception of God entails that God is a being of no dimensions or duration, but Craig never refers to his God as a conceptual formalism. Why is it possible for a being of no dimensions or duration to obtain ontological existence, yet an object possessing these properties is merely a mathematical idealization?

Secondly, within Big Bang Cosmology, the initial singularity is depicted as the ontological consequence of the thermodynamic expansion of the universe. If Craig upholds a realist interpretation of the dynamic properties of the universe, his retreat into a formalist understanding of the singularity at the moment of creation is a bit suspicious. If Craig wishes to deny the ontological existence of the singularity and still remain within relativity theory, he must also deny the thermodynamic contraction of the universe which leads to the singularity. Craig cannot rely on a realist under-standing of Big Bang Cosmology in order vitiate the first and second premises of his argument if he switches over to a conceptualist understanding of relativity when referring to the initial singularity. He should accept the ontological consequences of the Big Bang cosmological theory if he finds it the most substantiated physical cosmology available.

Craig gives an additional a priori argument in order to avoid a real singularity which could potentially be the 'cause' of the universe. Craig believes that a necessary and sufficient set of mechanical conditions existing from eternity couldn't possibly be the cause of the universe, since if that were the case, the universe would have always existed. As Craig writes,

...In fact, I think it can be plausibly argued that the cause of the universe must be a personal creator. For how else could a temporal effect arise from an eternal cause? If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to create the effect in time.[12]

This argument, aside from attempting to eliminate the reality of the singularity, also tries to deduce the personal attribute of the first cause. However, if one looks closely, several problems emerge. First, Craig is right that a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions could not produce a temporal effect from eternity. However, Craig fails to notice that the singularity is not a mechanically operating set of conditions, but rather, a lawless and indeterministic point which can potentially emit any configuration of particles at any time with equal likelihood.

Craig may wish to evade this dilemma by arguing that any timeless state of affairs, be it mechanical or indeterministic, cannot produce a temporal effect which is not eternal. However, this objection is self-defeating. As Wes Morrison notes,

On the current proposal, however, the eternal cause of the universe (God) is supposed to be timeless. Qua cause of the world, at any rate, temporal categories do not apply to it. If, therefore, it has temporal effects, Craig's argument gives us no reason to suppose that they would extend throughout an infinite past.

To see this, suppose that a timeless state of affairs, S, is causally sufficient for the existence of a physical universe, P, having a temporal duration of thirty billion years. Suppose further that the beginning of P coincides with the beginning of time, so that P 'comes into being' in the weak sense. Craig's argument is supposed to show us that this is impossible. If S is really eternal, then P cannot have a beginning. Why not? Because no matter when P begins, S would have already produced it.[13]

In other words, if God wills the universe to exist in a timeless state of eternity, then the existence of the universe could not have a beginning, but would have always existed, since the intention of God to create the universe would have existed from eternity. Additionally, if God creates the universe outside of time, then there is no time at which the universe does not exist and thus, the universe always existed. It seems that regardless of whether a mechanical set of conditions or God caused the universe outside of time, the universe 'always existed', since there is no time at which it did not exist.

It should be pointed out that here Craig commits the fallacy of hasty generalization in his assumption that if one can eliminate the singularity as an ontological existent, God is the only alternative explanation of the universe's coming into existence. If Craig is right in dismissing all existing natural explanations of the universe coming into existence, it does not follow that the universe has a supernatural cause, since the correct naturalistic model may not be formulated yet. Even if we grant Craig the notion that the universe has supernatural origins, the Big Bang could be the result of multiple deities or abstract supernatural forces lacking the attributes of the theistic God. Craig might respond that it is simpler, on the grounds of Occam's Razor, to postulate the existence of one personal creator, as opposed to many. However, one could easily respond that no God is simpler than one God. The existence of the God of theism presupposes that there are two realities, the physical world of the universe and the supernatural realm of its creator. The creation of the universe via naturalistic means only requires the physical universe, and is thus a much simpler hypothesis.

These criticisms aside, even if we accept the notion that some sort of powerful deity is the cause of the Big Bang, it is still possible that this creator has a malevolent or indifferent character. Craig attempts to show the omnibenevolence of the creator on the basis of objective moral values. Craig believes that God is good because we can apprehend the truth of certain moral statements that would, if he did not exist, be mere conventions of society. As Craig writes,

...could anything be more obvious than that objective [read "absolute"] moral values exist? There is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the external world...The fact is that we do apprehend objective values, and we all know it. Actions like rape, torture, child abuse, and brutality are not just socially unacceptable behavior - they are moral abominations...People who fail to see this are just morally handicapped, and there is no reason to allow their impaired vision to call into question what we see clearly.[14]

Craig believes that a foundation for ethical truths can only be found in God, acting as standard and source of such moral truths. As Craig writes

On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God. God's own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. God's moral nature is what Plato called the "Good." He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth.[15]

However, if one looks closely, there are several problems with Craig's reasoning. The most obvious point of note should be that there is no logical inconsistency in the notion that God could have a malevolent or indifferent character, despite the existence of objective moral values. Additionally, in order for Craig to vitiate his claim that objective moral values are dependent on God, he must first single-handedly refute every major secular theory of ethics available. Moreover, if 'God's own holy and perfect good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured', then this standard is purely arbitrary. Finally, if God is his own standard of goodness, then Craig's appeal to God in order to demonstrate his goodness is viciously circular. It seems that whether or not God exists has no bearing on whether objective moral values exist and vice-versa.

5. Conclusion
It appears that in light of the above criticisms, the kalam cosmological argument fails as an argument because its conclusion that God exists does not follow from its premises. Whether or not the universe has a cause of its existence has little relevance to Craig's attempted vindication of theism. Even if one can successfully show that there are conceptual problems with Big Bang or other forms of natural cosmology, the God of theism does not automatically win by default. Craig in his kalam argument tries to address this problem using a priori considerations, but he fails to deduce the attributes of theism in his analysis of the first cause of the universe. This is not to say that Craig is completely wrong in holding to the truth of each individual premise of the kalam argument. However, he cannot say on rational grounds that they constitute a powerful proof for the existence of the theistic of God.


Yowsa!  :o What a load of busy reading! My brain is hurting!

Here is what the Bible indicates about philosophy. Basically philosophy employs predominantly unsubstantiated means rather than ascertainment in a search for truth. If you try to rely on human philosophies, in essence one has to acknowledge those said philosophies originated from imperfect humans, whom are riddled with limitations. Humans are imperfect to say the least. Furthermore, according to the Holy Scriptures these philosophies are influenced by demonic spirits (1 John 5:19); (Rev. 12:9); (Eph. 2:2).

Advice from Col. 2:8 warns us to "Look out" for such imperfect philosophers, and rightly so. They are not perfect. How can an imperfect human understand the perfect mind of God? Much less, what God has created/began/etc. We do well to validate the Bible as God's word, rather than validate the philosophy of an imperfect human. Jesus teachings contained in the Bible will gives us true wisdom and knowledge that will satisfies our curiosities regarding the purpose of life and what mankind's future will be like.

Finally, God made a statement at 1 Cor. 1:19-25 which should be taken to heart. Especially the intellectual men of this day and time. Those men basically philosophy themselves out of eternal life. Don't be mislead by imperfect philosophies/philosophers!
Bright Future Ahead!

FREAKgeek

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5722
  • Fan of the Golden Era
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2010, 06:45:55 PM »

Maybe you should start thinking there is a God (creator/intelligent designer) maybe this will alleviate some of your frustrations. It's called faith!


What if people get alleviated by faith in other gods, i.e. not the christian god of your belief. what would you say to that?

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2010, 02:26:17 PM »
bump again...haven't had time to read...sorry

wavelength

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 10156
  • ~~~
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2010, 04:19:10 PM »
I don't think that there is a God per se...it has always fascinated me as to whats out there beyond our universe?..scientists say that the universe is infinite and just goes on and on...how can that be????..everything must logically have a beginning and an end....I wonder whats beyond the darkness of space??..I read that scientists don't even try to think about this because its just not answerable..they instead focus on whats IN the universe

second of all, how did all of this shit get here?..us, the planets, the galaxies, stars, suns.....what was there before the big bang??..and whatever was there , what was there before that????....just so mind -boggling

what do you guys think??..any body have a logical theory?

You are mixing up scientific questions with philosophic/theological questions, that's never a good start (see stupid fight between scientific positivists and creationists).

Cy Tolliver

  • Time Out
  • Getbig IV
  • *
  • Posts: 1464
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2010, 04:44:50 PM »
god lets bad things happen, because without bad, you can't have good.

TEAM LAURA LEE!

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #14 on: October 30, 2010, 09:58:49 PM »
god lets bad things happen, because without bad, you can't have good.



come on guys there is no GOD in our image.....no sentient being created us

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #15 on: March 14, 2011, 02:44:25 PM »
We created GOD in our heads to scare others into conformity...not a bad idea at the time I will admit

theonlyone

  • Guest
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #16 on: March 15, 2011, 05:12:07 AM »
We created GOD in our heads to scare others into conformity...not a bad idea at the time I will admit

 Again! If there is no God the who governs human life and the general order of things on earth?

OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #17 on: March 15, 2011, 01:14:18 PM »
We created GOD in our heads to scare others into conformity...not a bad idea at the time I will admit

Whether god is real or not it works well today also.

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #18 on: March 15, 2011, 06:13:58 PM »
Again! If there is no God the who governs human life and the general order of things on earth?

Vladamir Putin?

theonlyone

  • Guest
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #19 on: March 15, 2011, 11:32:00 PM »
Vladamir Putin?

 Put your jokes aside. Seriously. If there is no God then one may ask who does govern human life and the general order of things on earth?  ???

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Getbig!
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #20 on: March 16, 2011, 04:45:29 AM »
I don't think that there is a God per se...it has always fascinated me as to whats out there beyond our universe?..scientists say that the universe is infinite and just goes on and on...how can that be????..everything must logically have a beginning and an end....I wonder whats beyond the darkness of space??..I read that scientists don't even try to think about this because its just not answerable..they instead focus on whats IN the universe

second of all, how did all of this shit get here?..us, the planets, the galaxies, stars, suns.....what was there before the big bang??..and whatever was there , what was there before that????....just so mind -boggling

what do you guys think??..any body have a logical theory?



I can get IsoPure RTDs for as little as $0.50; and the BUCS won the Super Bowl.

YES, THERE IS A GOD!!!

 ;D

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #21 on: March 16, 2011, 09:17:56 AM »
Put your jokes aside. Seriously. If there is no God then one may ask who does govern human life and the general order of things on earth?  ???

No one governs human life on earth....it is up to we humans to do this for ourselves...it is the great gift that has been given to us...we are able to think for ourselves..we don't need a God to rule over us....The other animals on earth do not look up to a God and they are doing fine....we have to make the world into what we want it to be.,..it can be either paradise..or hell...its up to us...

Butterbean

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19326
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #22 on: March 16, 2011, 10:53:36 AM »
The other animals on earth do not look up to a God

How do you know this?
R

andreisdaman

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16720
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #23 on: March 16, 2011, 09:38:47 PM »
How do you know this?

its obvious through observation that all the other animals on earth only care about eating, shitting and fucking.....we are the only ones that ponder all kinds of shit such as "is there a God" that the other animals on earth could care less about....

Butterbean

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19326
Re: IS THERE A GOD? WHAT IS BEYOND OUR UNIVERSE?
« Reply #24 on: March 17, 2011, 07:45:09 AM »
its obvious through observation that all the other animals on earth only care about eating, shitting and fucking.....

Have you ever owned a pet?


its obvious through observation

we are the only ones that ponder all kinds of shit such as "is there a God" that the other animals on earth could care less about....

I don't think there is any way for us to know this by observation.  For instance can you know when even a person is "pondering" God?
R