1818 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

The Bible and Christianity fit the science. Over 2,000 years before science discovered it. Here are a few quotes.

Biblical References to Creation “Ex Nihilo”

Numerous references could be given at this point. We will however limit the references to five passages which indicate that God created the universe from nothing.

Genesis 1:1

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

Psalm 33:6

“By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, And by the breath of His mouth all their host.”

John 1:3

“All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.”

Romans 4:17

“(as it is written, “A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE YOU”) in the presence of Him whom he believed, even God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being that which does not exist.”

Hebrews 11:3

“By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.”

So you see, the Bible strongly indicates that the Eternally Conscious, Living, God brought the universe into existence from no material, but established everything by God’s command. Now, let us examine the final premise to the Kalaam Cosmological Argument.

Now for the third point.

[shadowhawk]

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Since the first two premises hold, the final premise is a given. The universe had a cause. There are two primary reasons to hold that the universe has a cause.

First Cause

What we have learned is that before the singularity (the point where everything in the universe could fit inside a sewer’s pin), nothing physical in the universe (energy, laws of physics, or matter) existed. Something had to cause the universe’s existence because we are here now experiencing the universe. Thomas Aquinas wrote, “Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or one only. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be not first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God” (Aquinas, I.2.3., 1990, 66-67). In other words, if one had three dominoes, the person (first cause) would push down the first domino which would push down the second domino (intermediate causes) which would finally push down the last domino (ultimate cause). Or another way to look at it would be like the classic game Mouse Trap. The player initiates a series of events which eventually leads to the ultimate cause (catching the mouse with a plastic net). The player and initial domino pusher were the first causes. Likewise, God is the necessary first cause to the universe. Infinity of cause and effect os inpossible. Watch Hilbert’s hotel.



Design

There is no doubt that the universe has greatly been designed. Spitner gives seven lines of evidence concerning the design of the universe. “(1) The first instance is given by Roger Penrose, who shows the exceedingly high improbability of a low-entropy condition (which is compatible with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and essential for our anthropic universe) arising out of the big bang…The odds of our anthropic universe arising amidst the total phase-space volume of possible universes for a creation event is so exceedingly, exceedingly, exceedingly remote that it’s notation in regular exponential form is one part in: 10(1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000) (my note: there are 123 zeroes in case you lost count)…

(2) The second instance concerns the interrelationship among the gravitational constant (G), weak force constang (gw), and the cosmological constant (?) with respect to the rate of acceleration (and possible collapse) of the universe as a whole…

(3) A third instance of improbable anthropic conditions concerns the strong force constant (especially in its relationship to the electromagnetic constant). This constant cannot vary more or less than 2 percent from its current value (gs=15) without rendering impossible the formation of either hydrogen or any other element heavier than hydrogen…

(4) A fourth instance of the improbability of anthropic conditions in our universe concerns the relationship between the gravitational and weak force constants on the one hand, and the neutron-proton mass and electron mass on the other…

(5) A fifth instance of the improbability of anthropic conditions concerns the gravitational constant in its relation to the electromagnetic constant and the ratio of electron to proton mass…

(6) A sixth instance of the improbability of anthropic conditions concerns the weak force constant and its relationship to the carbon atom…

(7) A seventh instance can be adduced from the resonances of atomic nuclei” (Spitzner 2010, 57-64). These are only seven among over 180 constants of design that have been found in the universe. There seems to be a going trend. That trend indicates that we are here for a cause. The Causer is God.

big bang

Conclusion

The cosmological argument is among one of the strongest arguments for the existence of God. The other contender would be the teleological argument (evidence from design). These arguments were strong enough to persuade longtime atheist Antony Flew of God’s existence. Flew accepted the existence of God a few years before his death. It is not known if he ever came to be a Christian, however. Among the cosmological arguments, the Kalaam Cosmological Argument stands strong. The Kalaam Cosmological Argument is logically sound, biblically sound, and scientifically sound. Also, the Kalaam Cosmological Argument is short enough to remember, sweet enough to get people thinking, and stout enough to hold through the toughest critic’s objections.

Here it is again:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

[shadowhawk]

http://www.youtube.c...OJ0ED1mV7s#t=24

Edited by shadowhawk, 18 October 2013 - 10:54 PM.

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M.: To my knowledge you've never been so courteous as to produce an example for your claim (name-calling), and your reference to discontinuity is precisely in reverse. What's actually happened is I've provided logical arguments and you've responded in ways that would indicate that you didn't understand even the simplest elements of what I posted. But, knowing that you must be correct and that my arguments contradict yours--making me, by necessity, wrong--you work backwards by asserting generalized statements about logical discontinuity. It's an interesting defense mechanism, but it gets boring quickly.

I've given you a logical argument, and you, somehow, claim you've reconciled all its points; you say it as though the mere act of saying it makes it true. Again, it's very interesting, but I wish you'd be more inventive. What nonsense. Read the posts below.

In closing I'll say this: What logical argument can you proffer to someone who doesn't recognize the value of logic.

In another topic (subject) “christians and longevity?” you presented a disjointed, illogical set of statements which you are still stuck on. Read them yourself.

Your so called logical argument:

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry613639

I answered your nonsense three times, the third in most detail.
.
http://www.longecity...ty/#entry613762

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry613986

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry614321

It was nonsense then and it is now. This is your self proclaimed “logic.” So, answer your own question. “In closing I'll say this: What logical argument can you proffer to someone who doesn't recognize the value of logic?” Oh, off topic and I forgot you don’t answer questions.

These references ignore the provision in premise three, as I've pointed out so many times. They also completely ignore the element of the deductive validity. Additionally, they're filled with non sequiturs, all of which I've pointed out, and all of which you subsequently forgot (apparently). Your debate tactic is an argumentum ad nauseam; you continuously assert unsubstantiated claims in the hope that the act itself will somehow give credence to what you're saying.

I've addressed every point you've made, and your only rebuttal has been your repeated dismissal of all my points. They're all there, and very clearly at that.

If you plug in what you just posted into my last statement, it produces a contradiction. Although you may not have realized it, you addressed this in the form of a concession. Yes, God can choose to do whatever he likes, but that doesn't relate to my argument at all. The point is that limited benevolence is a prerequisite to God having the freedom of choice that you've described.

It is self-evident that no omnibenevolent god, if also omnipotent, would stipulate a given act--at the price of hell for failure--when reason supporting the act is anything less than indubitable.

And...

...I'm still waiting for that example of name-calling.

[shadowhawk]

I can't continue this off topic discussion. I have said it all many times and if anyone is interested they can read my response. I stand behind it.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry618365

How many times are you going to try to rescue this nonsense.

[N.T.M.]

I can't continue this off topic discussion. I have said it all many times and if anyone is interested they can read my response. I stand behind it.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry618365

How many times are you going to try to rescue this nonsense.

You're just continuing with your argument by assertion. I've said many times now that you falsified premise 3 through a non sequitur. In fact, I discussed this so extensively that I even quoted a dictionary. Anyway, an implication of premise 3 still standing is that it places a logical restriction on God's benevolence, and this clearly contradicts the classical Christian view.

The argument is deductively valid--i.e., you're not going to be able to wiggle your way out of it. You lost the debate, but you're still refusing to concede the point.

[shadowhawk]

I can't continue this off topic discussion. I have said it all many times and if anyone is interested they can read my response. I stand behind it.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry618365

How many times are you going to try to rescue this nonsense.

You're just continuing with your argument by assertion. I've said many times now that you falsified premise 3 through a non sequitur. In fact, I discussed this so extensively that I even quoted a dictionary. Anyway, an implication of premise 3 still standing is that it places a logical restriction on God's benevolence, and this clearly contradicts the classical Christian view.

The argument is deductively valid--i.e., you're not going to be able to wiggle your way out of it. You lost the debate, but you're still refusing to concede the point.

http://www.longecity...y/#entry618365

Weird

Edited by shadowhawk, 19 October 2013 - 05:09 PM.

[N.T.M.]

I can't continue this off topic discussion. I have said it all many times and if anyone is interested they can read my response. I stand behind it.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry618365

How many times are you going to try to rescue this nonsense.

You're just continuing with your argument by assertion. I've said many times now that you falsified premise 3 through a non sequitur. In fact, I discussed this so extensively that I even quoted a dictionary. Anyway, an implication of premise 3 still standing is that it places a logical restriction on God's benevolence, and this clearly contradicts the classical Christian view.

The argument is deductively valid--i.e., you're not going to be able to wiggle your way out of it. You lost the debate, but you're still refusing to concede the point.

http://www.longecity...y/#entry618365

Weird

None of those links has any bearing on the validity of my argument, as I've explained many times by now. Again, you're just continuing with your argument by assertion

[shadowhawk]

I can't continue this off topic discussion. I have said it all many times and if anyone is interested they can read my response. I stand behind it.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry618365

How many times are you going to try to rescue this nonsense.

You're just continuing with your argument by assertion. I've said many times now that you falsified premise 3 through a non sequitur. In fact, I discussed this so extensively that I even quoted a dictionary. Anyway, an implication of premise 3 still standing is that it places a logical restriction on God's benevolence, and this clearly contradicts the classical Christian view.

The argument is deductively valid--i.e., you're not going to be able to wiggle your way out of it. You lost the debate, but you're still refusing to concede the point.

http://www.longecity...y/#entry618365

Weird

None of those links has any bearing on the validity of my argument, as I've explained many times by now. Again, you're just continuing with your argument by assertion

http://www.longecity..._60#entry619006

[shadowhawk]

The Cosmological Argument from Contingency

The cosmological argument comes in a variety of forms. We examined the Kalaam above. Here’s a simple version of the famous version from contingency offered as a further proof for God:

• 
  Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
• 
  If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
• 
  The universe exists.
• 
  Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
• 
  Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

[N.T.M.]

The Cosmological Argument from Contingency

The cosmological argument comes in a variety of forms. We examined the Kalaam above. Here’s a simple version of the famous version from contingency offered as a further proof for God:

• 
  Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
  
• 
  If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
  
• 
  The universe exists.
  
• 
  Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
  
• 
  Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

No reasoning was cited for the second premise.

[sthira]

• 
  Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
• 
  If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
• 
  The universe exists.
• 
  Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
• 
  Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Then what created God? You're caught in an infinite regress. You need another God to create the God that created the universe, and u another God for that one, then another and more Gods to infinity. Others have told you this already. Aristotle's unmoved mover requires religious faith because it's not reasonable. It's irrational because by logic, a changeless being could not act to create anything since to do so would require a change in its state of being.

A changeless being existing before the creation of the universe, would necessarily alter its own metaphysical position from that of merely existing to that of existing as the creator of the universe. Not only that, but, it's existential position would likewise alter, since it would change from existing without a universe to existing outside of one. And that requires faith; it's not rational.

Why not argue that God exists but we don't know how, where, why, when, or who?

[DukeNukem]

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Then what caused a god? It seems way more likely to have a universe arise from "nothing" than a full-blown omnipotent god, who then decides to create a universe, and have meaningless entities worship it to feed its ego. And why create a universe, when a single planet solar system would serve this same petty purpose? (Which is, btw, what the Bible assumes a god created, because humans at that time didn't have telescopes, and so their myths were as primitive as one might expect.)

• 
• 
• 0

• Quote
• MultiQuote

[shadowhawk]

DukeNukem: Then what caused a god? It seems way more likely to have a universe arise from "nothing" than a full-blown omnipotent god, who then decides to create a universe, and have meaningless entities worship it to feed its ego. And why create a universe, when a single planet solar system would serve this same petty purpose? (Which is, btw, what the Bible assumes a god created, because humans at that time didn't have telescopes, and so their myths were as primitive as one might expect.)

The Kalaam (CAUSE AND EFFECT) and the contingency (REASON) cosmological arguments start off clearly showing in their first premise what they are based upon.

It appears to be your faith that the universe came from nothing. (A real nothing?) Where in the Bible did you find God created a single solar system? Did you make that up out of nothing? I know, off topic. To bad you weren’t creator, you would have done it right.

Everything we know of the physical world has a cause and effect. Everything needs a cause of its existence. Everything that exists has an explanation or reason for its existence. I have yet to develop the “contingency,” evidence but have gone through the Kalaam

So far I have pointed out that:

1. The vast majority desire God and desire is based on real things. God is real.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422

2. The Kalaam argument is based on cause and effect and only something uncaused is an adequate source.

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry617242

3. The Contingency Cosmological argument, a reason argument for Gods existence.

http://www.longecity..._30#entry619063

You are misreading the first premise of the Kalaam. “Begun,” is the word you are missing.

[shadowhawk]

I have presented an argument for Gods existence. Some would love to change the subject. Let’s talk about dogs or the weather or who made God. But that is not the subject and if you want to change the subject I have created a place where you can do that tell your hearts content.
http://www.longecity...es/#entry619219

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

5. Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Now this is a logically airtight argument. That is to say, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is unavoidable. It doesn’t matter if we don’t like the conclusion. It doesn’t matter if we have other objections to God’s existence. So long as we grant the three premises, we have to accept the conclusion. So the question is this: Which is more plausible—that those premises are true or that they are false?

1.1. Premise 1

Consider first premise 1. According to premise 1, there are two kinds of things: things which exist necessarily and things which are produced by some external cause.

Things that exist necessarily exist by a necessity of their own nature. It’s impossible for them not to exist. Many mathematicians think that numbers, sets, and other mathematical entities exist in this way. They’re not caused to exist by something else; they just exist necessarily.

By contrast, things that are caused to exist by something else don’t exist necessarily. They exist contingently. They exist because something else has produced them. Familiar physical objects like people, planets, and galaxies belong in this category.

So premise 1 asserts that everything that exists can be explained in one of these two ways. This claim, when you reflect on it, seems very plausibly true. Imagine that you’re hiking through the woods and come across a translucent ball lying on the forest floor. You’d naturally wonder how it came to be there. If one of your hiking partners said to you, “Don’t worry about it! There isn’t any explanation of its existence!”, you’d either think he was crazy or figure that he just wanted you to keep moving. No one would take seriously the suggestion that the ball existed there with literally no explanation.

Now suppose you increase the size of the ball in this story to the size of a car. That wouldn’t do anything to satisfy or remove the demand for an explanation. Suppose it were the size of a house. Same problem. Suppose it were the size of a continent or a planet. Same problem. Suppose it were the size of the entire universe. Same problem. Merely increasing the size of the ball does nothing to affect the need of an explanation. Since any object could be substituted for the ball in this story, that gives grounds for thinking premise 1 to be true.

It might be said that while premise 1 is true of everything in the universe, it is not true of the universe itself. Everything in the universe has an explanation, but the universe itself has no explanation. Sound familiar? We have had two examples of this in the last two posts.

Such a response commits what has been aptly called “the taxicab fallacy.” For as the nineteenth-century atheist philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer quipped, premise 1 can’t be dismissed like a taxi once you’ve arrived at your desired destination! You can’t say that everything has an explanation of its existence and then suddenly exempt the universe. It would be arbitrary to claim that the universe is the exception to the rule. (God is not an exception to premise 1: We will deal with this later when we dikscuss premise 4.) Our illustration of the ball in the woods shows that merely increasing the size of the object to be explained, even until it becomes the universe itself, does nothing to remove the need for some explanation of its existence.

One might try to justify making the universe an exception to premise 1. Some philosophers have claimed that it’s impossible for the universe to have an explanation of its existence. For the explanation of the universe would have to be some prior state of affairs in which the universe did not yet exist. But that would be nothingness, and nothingness can’t be the explanation of anything. (However we just saw two such lame attempts) So the universe must just exist inexplicably.

This line of reasoning is, however, obviously fallacious because it assumes that the universe is all there is, that if there were no universe there would be nothing. In other words, the objection assumes that atheism is true. The objector is thus begging the question in favor of atheism, arguing in a circle. The theist will agree that the explanation of the universe must be some (explanatorily) prior state of affairs in which the universe did not exist. But that state of affairs is God and his will, not nothingness.

So it seems that premise 1 is more plausibly true than false, which is all we need for a good argument.

Anyone want to challenge Premise 1

1.2. Premise 2

[N.T.M.]

Where in the Bible did you find God created a single solar system?

Careful. People may start to think that you support biblical inerrancy. The Bible, in addition to its endless contradictions, contains many points that reflect the understanding of the physical world at the time it was written. One of my favorites is its references to a flat Earth. The Bible often used the phrasing, "...to the ends of the world," which at the time reflected the pre-Columbian notion that the Earth was flat (before this was disproven, it had no alternate meaning).

Anyway, it's interesting stuff.

[johnross47]

• 
  Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
  
• 
  If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
  
• 
  The universe exists.
  
• 
  Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
  
• 
  Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Then what created God? You're caught in an infinite regress. You need another God to create the God that created the universe, and u another God for that one, then another and more Gods to infinity. Others have told you this already. Aristotle's unmoved mover requires religious faith because it's not reasonable. It's irrational because by logic, a changeless being could not act to create anything since to do so would require a change in its state of being.

A changeless being existing before the creation of the universe, would necessarily alter its own metaphysical position from that of merely existing to that of existing as the creator of the universe. Not only that, but, it's existential position would likewise alter, since it would change from existing without a universe to existing outside of one. And that requires faith; it's not rational.

Why not argue that God exists but we don't know how, where, why, when, or who?

There is another very serious flaw in this much abused argument; the claim at (2) that if the universe has a cause then that cause is god. This is an evidence-free assertion. No support is offered for it because no information exists that could allow such an assertion. The scientific position of open ignorance and enquiry is the only rational one to adopt. No doubt shadowhawk will post one of his tedious clips of some charlatan supposedly producing the required logical proof, but if it is just the usual William Craig nonsense, please don't waste the time. His arguments always require a leap from logic to unsupported assertion. He just hides it better, in a flurry of showmanship, like a fairground snake-oil salesman.

It would very interesting if Shadowhawk could actually deal with the logical problems here; not by quoting and pasting, but by demonstrating his grasp of logical structure and argument, in his own words.

[sthira]

The scientific position of open ignorance and enquiry is the only rational one to adopt.

This is honest: we don't know, yet remain open and curious. The idea of God is hope; but as we've deconstructed the idea over the centuries, God has become sentimentalism, as expressed here:

[b]1. The vast majority desire God and desire is based on real things. God is real.

[johnross47]

The scientific position of open ignorance and enquiry is the only rational one to adopt.

This is honest: we don't know, yet remain open and curious. The idea of God is hope; but as we've deconstructed the idea over the centuries, God has become sentimentalism, as expressed here:

[b]1. The vast majority desire God and desire is based on real things. God is real.

A fine quote. Desire is based on all sorts of things,some of which might count as 'real' in the sense used by some logicians, but not in the sense implied by the rest of the sentence. This is another piece of conjuring.

[shadowhawk]

[shadowhawk]

Where in the Bible did you find God created a single solar system?

Careful. People may start to think that you support biblical inerrancy. The Bible, in addition to its endless contradictions, contains many points that reflect the understanding of the physical world at the time it was written. One of my favorites is its references to a flat Earth. The Bible often used the phrasing, "...to the ends of the world," which at the time reflected the pre-Columbian notion that the Earth was flat (before this was disproven, it had no alternate meaning).

Anyway, it's interesting stuff.

answered here;
http://www.longecity...es/#entry619495

[shadowhawk]

• 
  Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
  
• 
  If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
  
• 
  The universe exists.
  
• 
  Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
  
• 
  Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

Then what created God? You're caught in an infinite regress. You need another God to create the God that created the universe, and u another God for that one, then another and more Gods to infinity. Others have told you this already. Aristotle's unmoved mover requires religious faith because it's not reasonable. It's irrational because by logic, a changeless being could not act to create anything since to do so would require a change in its state of being.

A changeless being existing before the creation of the universe, would necessarily alter its own metaphysical position from that of merely existing to that of existing as the creator of the universe. Not only that, but, it's existential position would likewise alter, since it would change from existing without a universe to existing outside of one. And that requires faith; it's not rational.

Why not argue that God exists but we don't know how, where, why, when, or who?

There is another very serious flaw in this much abused argument; the claim at (2) that if the universe has a cause then that cause is god. This is an evidence-free assertion. No support is offered for it because no information exists that could allow such an assertion. The scientific position of open ignorance and enquiry is the only rational one to adopt. No doubt shadowhawk will post one of his tedious clips of some charlatan supposedly producing the required logical proof, but if it is just the usual William Craig nonsense, please don't waste the time. His arguments always require a leap from logic to unsupported assertion. He just hides it better, in a flurry of showmanship, like a fairground snake-oil salesman.

It would very interesting if Shadowhawk could actually deal with the logical problems here; not by quoting and pasting, but by demonstrating his grasp of logical structure and argument, in his own words.

We will get to the later stems of the argument in due time. Right now we are on P. one.

[shadowhawk]

Johnross47: Desire is based on all sorts of things,some of which might count as 'real' in the sense used by some logicians, but not in the sense implied by the rest of the sentence. This is another piece of conjuring.

Indeed desire is based on all kinds of real things. Scientists have acknowledged this and some proposed a God gene to explain belief in God. Evolution has to explain everything you know. What caused a God gene to evolve? I have heard many answers. Here I used it as an argument for God’s existence.

By the way, my arguments are not new and have been around for many years. On the classic arguments for God’s existence I highly recommend “THE REDISCOVERY OF WISDOM,” by Boston University professor David Conway. Greatly influenced by Conway is the great ex atheist Antony Flew whose book “There is a God,” I also recommend. I have spent many years in study, reading other peoples ideas. If you don’t like something because it is not original to me, I suggest you look elsewhere. You are not so original yourself in offering this logical fallacy. But, then this is off topic. Back to the subject.

[shadowhawk]

Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

The universe exists.

Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).

Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).

-------------------------------------------------------

Premise 2 If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

What, then, about premise 2? Is it more plausibly true than false? Although premise 2 might appear at first to be controversial, what’s really awkward for the atheist is that premise 2 is logically equivalent to the typical atheist response to the contingency argument. (Two statements are logically equivalent if it’s impossible for one to be true and the other one false. They stand or fall together.) So what does the atheist almost always say in response to the contingency argument? He typically asserts the following:

A. If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.

Since, on atheism, the universe is the ultimate reality, it just exists as a brute fact. But that is logically equivalent to saying this:

B. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then atheism is not true.

So you can’t affirm (A) and deny (B). But (B) is virtually synonymous with premise 2! (Just compare them.) So by saying that, given atheism, the universe has no explanation, the atheist is implicitly admitting premise 2: if the universe does have an explanation, then God exists.

Besides that, premise 2 is very plausible in its own right. For think of what the universe is: all of space-time reality, including all matter and energy. It follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a non-physical, immaterial being beyond space and time. Now there are only two sorts of things that could fit that description: either an abstract object like a number or else an unembodied mind. But abstract objects can’t cause anything. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number seven, for example, can’t cause any effects. So if there is a cause of the universe, it must be a transcendent, unembodied Mind, which is what Christians understand God to be.

Think it over.

Edited by shadowhawk, 24 October 2013 - 10:42 PM.

[sthira]

[color=#800000][b]Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

Then what is the explanation of God's existence?

[N.T.M.]

Scientists have acknowledged this and some proposed a God gene to explain belief in God. Evolution has to explain everything you know. What caused a God gene to evolve? I have heard many answers. Here I used it as an argument for God’s existence.

A good argument is one that contains premises that can be applied exclusively--i.e., the same premises can't be used against the argument's conclusion. Since there are two theories that account for the same thing, the "God impulse," that's obviously not the case here. I'm tempted to compare this to claiming that there's an inverse for a non-injective function... ...but I won't. It's a perfect parallel, though, now that I think about it. :D

[shadowhawk]

[color=#800000][b]Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

Then what is the explanation of God's existence?

See the last paragraph of previous post as to what God must be like. We will flesh it out as we go along.

[sthira]

[color=#800000][b]Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

Then what is the explanation of God's existence?

See the last paragraph of previous post as to what God must be like. We will flesh it out as we go along.

Great. And that reads:

...For think of what the universe is: all of space-time reality, including all matter and energy. It follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a non-physical, immaterial being beyond space and time. Now there are only two sorts of things that could fit that description: either an abstract object like a number or else an unembodied mind. But abstract objects can’t cause anything. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number seven, for example, can’t cause any effects. So if there is a cause of the universe, it must be a transcendent, unembodied Mind, which is what Christians understand God to be.

Think it over.

And I think that's fascinating. Some sort of immaterial, non-energetic "mind" created the universe. The universe is God's immaterial "thought." It's cool, very, but it has problems. One is what, then, created that transcendant, unembodied mind? And perhaps you'll also agree (and this is not "criticism" but rather this follows by logic) that such a mind is also by definition not rational. Not much about this conversation is rational. God is not rational; we cannot understand God if God is accepted by faith. God requires Kierkegaard's leap of faith. Which is totally cool by me, but also something that by definition we do not "know," and we know we do not know, and therefore, we are, by definition, agnostic.

[shadowhawk]

Scientists have acknowledged this and some proposed a God gene to explain belief in God. Evolution has to explain everything you know. What caused a God gene to evolve? I have heard many answers. Here I used it as an argument for God’s existence.

A good argument is one that contains premises that can be applied exclusively--i.e., the same premises can't be used against the argument's conclusion. Since there are two theories that account for the same thing, the "God impulse," that's obviously not the case here. I'm tempted to compare this to claiming that there's an inverse for a non-injective function... ...but I won't. It's a perfect parallel, though, now that I think about it. :D

Actually this is not part of my argument. I was just reporting on what others have said but I do not agree with it myself. It has no premises because it is just a comment. I have presented three arguments so far. Perhaps this is a good place to again comment on what makes a good argument. I gave it to you before. This obviously is not in that format.

“let’s get clear what makes for a “good” argument. An argument is a series of statements (called premises) leading to a conclusion. A sound argument must meet two conditions: (1) it is logically valid (i.e., its conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic), and (2) its premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. But to be a good argument, it’s not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true. A logically valid argument that has, wholly unbeknownst to us, true premises isn’t a good argument for the conclusion. The premises have to have some degree of justification or warrant for us in order for a sound argument to be a good one. But how much warrant? The premises surely don’t need to be known to be true with certainty (we know almost nothing to be true with certainty!). Perhaps we should say that for an argument to be a good one the premises need to be probably true in light of the evidence. I think that’s fair, though sometimes probabilities are difficult to quantify. Another way of putting this is that a good argument is a sound argument in which the premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their opposites. You should compare the premise and its negation and believe whichever one is more plausibly true in light of the evidence. A good argument will be a sound argument whose premises are more plausible than their negations.”

[N.T.M.]

Scientists have acknowledged this and some proposed a God gene to explain belief in God. Evolution has to explain everything you know. What caused a God gene to evolve? I have heard many answers. Here I used it as an argument for God’s existence.

A good argument is one that contains premises that can be applied exclusively--i.e., the same premises can't be used against the argument's conclusion. Since there are two theories that account for the same thing, the "God impulse," that's obviously not the case here. I'm tempted to compare this to claiming that there's an inverse for a non-injective function... ...but I won't. It's a perfect parallel, though, now that I think about it. :D

Actually this is not part of my argument. I was just reporting on what others have said but I do not agree with it myself. It has no premises because it is just a comment. I have presented three arguments so far. Perhaps this is a good place to again comment on what makes a good argument. I gave it to you before. This obviously is not in that format.

“let’s get clear what makes for a “good” argument. An argument is a series of statements (called premises) leading to a conclusion. A sound argument must meet two conditions: (1) it is logically valid (i.e., its conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic), and (2) its premises are true. If an argument is sound, then the truth of the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. But to be a good argument, it’s not enough that an argument be sound. We also need to have some reason to think that the premises are true. A logically valid argument that has, wholly unbeknownst to us, true premises isn’t a good argument for the conclusion. The premises have to have some degree of justification or warrant for us in order for a sound argument to be a good one. But how much warrant? The premises surely don’t need to be known to be true with certainty (we know almost nothing to be true with certainty!). Perhaps we should say that for an argument to be a good one the premises need to be probably true in light of the evidence. I think that’s fair, though sometimes probabilities are difficult to quantify. Another way of putting this is that a good argument is a sound argument in which the premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their opposites. You should compare the premise and its negation and believe whichever one is more plausibly true in light of the evidence. A good argument will be a sound argument whose premises are more plausible than their negations.”

All right, then. I guess there's no conflict.