Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: andreisdaman 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?
-
This question has confounded the greatest minds of our time; surely you don't think you'll get an intelligent answer from getbiggers?
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!
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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!
-
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.
-
Really good post above...excellent...I gotta digest it before responding..give me a few days.. ;)
-
Really good post above...excellent...I gotta digest it before responding..give me a few days.. ;)
bump
-
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!
-
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?
-
bump again...haven't had time to read...sorry
-
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).
-
god lets bad things happen, because without bad, you can't have good.
-
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
-
We created GOD in our heads to scare others into conformity...not a bad idea at the time I will admit
-
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?
-
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.
-
Again! If there is no God the who governs human life and the general order of things on earth?
Vladamir Putin?
-
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? ???
-
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
-
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...
-
The other animals on earth do not look up to a God
How do you know this?
-
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....
-
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?
-
Have you ever owned a pet?
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?
have any of thse animals appeared to be praying?.....have any of them built a church?
-
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...
I quote a very big Russian thinker, not Dostoevsky
but in order to govern, one needs, after all, to have a precise
plan for certain, at least somewhat decent, length of time. Allow me to ask
you, then, how man can govern, if he is not only deprived of the opportunity
of making a plan for at least some ridiculously short period - well, say, a
thousand years - but cannot even vouch for his own tomorrow?
-
have any of thse animals appeared to be praying?.....have any of them built a church?
I pray when I'm driving my car, doing cardio, etc. I probably don't appear to be praying.
I've never physically built a church but am aware of God.
-
Why did andreisdaman go suddenly silent??? Plan didn't work?
-
Why did andreisdaman go suddenly silent??? Plan didn't work?
I am not silent.....I guess God must be ageless since he has been watching us for billions upon billions of years and guiding us all this time
-
I am not silent.....I guess God must be ageless since he has been watching us for billions upon billions of years and guiding us all this time
Dostoevskiy quote
-- Нам вот всё представляется вечность как идея, которую понять
нельзя, что-то огромное, огромное! Да почему же непременно огромное?
И вдруг, вместо всего этого, представьте себе, будет там одна
комнатка, эдак вроде деревенской бани, закоптелая, а по всем углам
пауки, и вот и вся вечность.
Translated from the Crime and Punishment
"We're always thinking of eternity as an idea that cannot be understood, something immense. But why must it be? What if, instead of all this, you suddenly find just a little room there, something like a village bath-house, grimy, and spiders in every corner, and that's all eternity is. Sometimes, you know, I can't help feeling that that's what it is."
-
Dostoevskiy quote
-- Нам вот всё представляется вечность как идея, которую понять
нельзя, что-то огромное, огромное! Да почему же непременно огромное?
И вдруг, вместо всего этого, представьте себе, будет там одна
комнатка, эдак вроде деревенской бани, закоптелая, а по всем углам
пауки, и вот и вся вечность.
Translated from the Crime and Punishment
"We're always thinking of eternity as an idea that cannot be understood, something immense. But why must it be? What if, instead of all this, you suddenly find just a little room there, something like a village bath-house, grimy, and spiders in every corner, and that's all eternity is. Sometimes, you know, I can't help feeling that that's what it is."
you only quote philosophy..where is your proof? where is God if he exists???
-
you only quote philosophy..where is your proof? where is God if he exists???
where is your proof God doesnt exist?
-
you only quote philosophy..where is your proof? where is God if he exists???
"One cannot prove anything here, but it is possible to be convinced.'
How? By what?'
By the experience of active love. Try to love your neighbors actively and tirelessly. The more you succeed in loving, the more you'll be convinced of the existence of God and the immortality of your soul. And if you reach complete selflessness in the love of your neighbor, then undoubtedly you will believe, and no doubt will even be able to enter your soul. This has been tested. It is certain...
Active love is a harsh and fearful thing compared with love in dreams. Love in dreams thirsts for immediate action, quickly performed, and with everyone watching. Indeed, it will go as far as the giving even of one's life, provided it does not take long but is soon over, as on stage, and everyone is looking on and praising. Whereas active love is labor and perseverance, and for some people, perhaps, a whole science...in that very moment when you see with horror that despite all your efforts, you not only have not come nearer your goal but seem to have gotten farther from it, at that very moment...you will suddenly reach your goal and will clearly behold over you the wonder-working power of the Lord, who all the while has been loving you, and all the while has been mysteriously guiding you."
— Fyodor Dostoyevsky (The Brothers Karamazov)
-
where is your proof God doesnt exist?
I don't have to prove the unseen..you do..since you are the one proposing he is real
-
"One cannot prove anything here, but it is possible to be convinced.'
How? By what?'
By the experience of active love. Try to love your neighbors actively and tirelessly. The more you succeed in loving, the more you'll be convinced of the existence of God and the immortality of your soul. And if you reach complete selflessness in the love of your neighbor, then undoubtedly you will believe, and no doubt will even be able to enter your soul. This has been tested. It is certain...
Active love is a harsh and fearful thing compared with love in dreams. Love in dreams thirsts for immediate action, quickly performed, and with everyone watching. Indeed, it will go as far as the giving even of one's life, provided it does not take long but is soon over, as on stage, and everyone is looking on and praising. Whereas active love is labor and perseverance, and for some people, perhaps, a whole science...in that very moment when you see with horror that despite all your efforts, you not only have not come nearer your goal but seem to have gotten farther from it, at that very moment...you will suddenly reach your goal and will clearly behold over you the wonder-working power of the Lord, who all the while has been loving you, and all the while has been mysteriously guiding you."
— Fyodor Dostoyevsky (The Brothers Karamazov)
again...very nice philosophy..thanks for posting it..it is beautiful....but it is not proof that God exists...sorry
-
again...very nice philosophy..thanks for posting it..it is beautiful....but it is not proof that God exists...sorry
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=370228.0
One day you'll be dead. There is not proof as of yet but it's a fact!!!! I'm hoping this conception is not beyond of your grasp of understanding...chill!
-
I don't have to prove the unseen..you do..since you are the one proposing he is real
LOL a common fallacy...you see, you assert that God doesnt exist but cant prove it...I assert God does exist but cant prove it. So where does that leave us?
it leaves us not knowing, or in other words RIGHT BACK WHERE WE WERE BEFORE YOU STARTED THIS THREAD...
abscence of proof for my argument doesnt prove your argument brother man, thats science...you know that thing you like to use to try and justify your argument?
you need to follow it in all cases not just when it suits your point of view
-
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=370228.0
One day you'll be dead. There is not proof as of yet but it's a fact!!!! I'm hoping this conception is not beyond of your grasp of understanding...chill!
you are stating the obvious...everything dies.....still not proof of God..keep trying
-
LOL a common fallacy...you see, you assert that God doesnt exist but cant prove it...I assert God does exist but cant prove it. So where does that leave us?
it leaves us not knowing, or in other words RIGHT BACK WHERE WE WERE BEFORE YOU STARTED THIS THREAD...
abscence of proof for my argument doesnt prove your argument brother man, thats science...you know that thing you like to use to try and justify your argument?
you need to follow it in all cases not just when it suits your point of view
Dude...scientifically you cannot make up a hypothesis and then say you have no proof to prove it.....I am not trying to prove anything....because I say there is no such thing....you are the one making the hypothesis therefore YOU must prove your hypothesis is real...the burden of proof is on you.....
-
you are stating the obvious...everything dies.....still not proof of God..keep trying
What proof do you want? God's balls or beard to touch?
-
What proof do you want? God's balls or beard to touch?
you are really sure that God has a beard and Balls aren't you????
-
you are really sure that God has a beard and Balls aren't you????
Yes Jesus Christ had balls and beard. That's God!
-
Yes Jesus Christ had balls and beard. That's God!
Jesus Christ was NOT the son of God..you have to prove that as well...sorry
-
Jesus Christ was NOT the son of God..you have to prove that as well...sorry
redirect! because I don't think I will tell better
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=370228.0 keep trying mere mortal
-
Dude...scientifically you cannot make up a hypothesis and then say you have no proof to prove it.....I am not trying to prove anything....because I say there is no such thing....you are the one making the hypothesis therefore YOU must prove your hypothesis is real...the burden of proof is on you.....
LMAO ok lets try this again...
you see you are indeed making an hypothesis...b/c you are saying that God doesnt exist that is your hypothesis. The opposing hypothesis is mine with me saying that God does exist.
so with these 2 hypotheses(or however you spell it) we have the null and the alternative. Simply not having proof of one of them doesnt prove the other...
so yes you are indeed making an hypothesis otherwise you would state the default point of view "YOU DONT KNOW"...not that God doesnt exist.
so please give us your proof...again ABSCENCE OF PROOF FOR MY ARGUMENT DOESNT PROVE YOURS!!!!
hope this helps
-
LMAO ok lets try this again...
you see you are indeed making an hypothesis...b/c you are saying that God doesnt exist that is your hypothesis. The opposing hypothesis is mine with me saying that God does exist.
so with these 2 hypotheses(or however you spell it) we have the null and the alternative. Simply not having proof of one of them doesnt prove the other...
so yes you are indeed making an hypothesis otherwise you would state the default point of view "YOU DONT KNOW"...not that God doesnt exist.
so please give us your proof...again ABSCENCE OF PROOF FOR MY ARGUMENT DOESNT PROVE YOURS!!!!
hope this helps
I disagree with you..I am not posing a scientific question....it is philosophical....I am not saying that God created the universe and us..you seem to be saying that.....I don't have to prove anything.....I am not posing a scientific question..I am not saying that this or that created the universe and heres why......you offer no proof whatsoever to back up your assertion that there is a God that created the universe.....and that this God is a sentient being....please stop arguing with me about semantics and list your proof that God exists in the very next post you make
-
I disagree with you..I am not posing a scientific question....it is philosophical....I am not saying that God created the universe and us..you seem to be saying that.....I don't have to prove anything.....I am not posing a scientific question..I am not saying that this or that created the universe and heres why......you offer no proof whatsoever to back up your assertion that there is a God that created the universe.....and that this God is a sentient being....please stop arguing with me about semantics and list your proof that God exists in the very next post you make
you are asserting that God didnt create the universe, so therefor you do have to prove your point...
again in SCIENCE not proving one hypothesis doesnt proof the alternative hypothesis...
SORRY andre thats SCIENCE!!!
if you want to change your stance to saying you dont know if God exists that fine then you dont have anything to prove but your making an assertion same as me broham.
-
I disagree with you..I am not posing a scientific question....it is philosophical....I am not saying that God created the universe and us..you seem to be saying that.....I don't have to prove anything.....I am not posing a scientific question..I am not saying that this or that created the universe and heres why......you offer no proof whatsoever to back up your assertion that there is a God that created the universe.....and that this God is a sentient being....please stop arguing with me about semantics and list your proof that God exists in the very next post you make
translation - I can understand only what I can see
There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see.
Leonardo da Vinci
You're the 3'rd!!!
-
andreisdaman is not dead as of yet as that is not obvious nor there is a proof of it! But that clown will be dead soon! Fact!!!
-
this again?
-
^^^
every other month
-
you are asserting that God didnt create the universe, so therefor you do have to prove your point...
again in SCIENCE not proving one hypothesis doesnt proof the alternative hypothesis...
SORRY andre thats SCIENCE!!!
if you want to change your stance to saying you dont know if God exists that fine then you dont have anything to prove but your making an assertion same as me broham.
AGAIN..waiting for proof
-
andreisdaman is not dead as of yet as that is not obvious nor there is a proof of it! But that clown will be dead soon! Fact!!!
Calm down..you are getting really emotional over this..I thought you were Russian?....Aren't Russians supposed to be atheists????
-
AGAIN..waiting for proof
again, so am I...
why should i have to prove my ascertion when you dont have to prove yours?