Jump to content


Photo

Proof Of An Intelligent Uncaused Cause - God


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
278 replies to this topic

#121 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 20 November 2012 - 08:28 PM

Jonas, a miracle is by definition something that doesn't usually happen and I don't think anyone here ever claimed to be a miracle-worker at the snapp of your demanding fingers, least of all me, so you can keep your six words and enjoy them for as much time as you have left on this earth. As far as I am concernced they are not even worth the tiny space that they occupy on your bulletin board, and I am going to tell you exactly why.

The reason is quite simple if you invest a little sober thought about what the scriptures you quote are saying within the context of the rest of the Bible.

Sure, God wants all people to be saved. Who wouldn't?? You probably want all people to be free and to enjoy the freedom that you enjoy, but does that mean that you would simply open the gates of every prison cell around the entire world and let every rapist, murderer, thief, arsonist, swindler, child-molester and so on .. to go free as they are? Neither does God! And being saved involves more than just believing he exists:

"You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder." James 2:19

God DOES want everyone to be saved, but not unconditionally, and not with the kind of "belief" that even demons possess.

The problem of the demons was not that they didn't believe, it was that they disobeyed.

All of those criminals simply have to believe in Jesus as the Son of God and confess their sins. Then they get to go to heaven. Even Hitler could have gone to heaven if he simply did those two things. So belief is a definite requirement. You don't believe...you don't get to heaven.

Miracles weren't performed by Jesus as magical bulletin board tricks to get people to believe. Quite often they were doen to relieve suffering and to give hope, but sometimes, rather than being given to produce faith, they were presented as a testimony against those who refused to believe:

"Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent. "Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down to the depths. If the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day. But I tell you that it will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you."

That warning was about those who saw miracles but rejected Christ. How does that relate to my request for a small miracle? No miracle has been shown to me so that warning does not apply to me...yet.
I assumed that you actually read your Bible so you would know that Jesus, himself, stated that the reason He performed miracles was to prove He was one with the Father. The miracles actually were to be evidence of God's existence and Jesus' divinity.

Miracles can just as easily produce rebellion as they can produce faith because unless someone submits to God's way then merely believing something in a worldly manner will not benefit them. A rapist, murderer, sodomist, child-molester, burgler, or even a petty shoplifter is never going to be free from the things that enslave him unless he ceases to exist and becomes a new creation. Death and resurrection are the conditions. Apart from these there will be neither freedom nor salvation.

How, exactly, did you cease to exist and become a new creation? What was the process that occurred? Did you initiate that process? How do I perform the same thing so I can get saved?

Someone conjuring up the six words you think are sufficient to give you faith might make you become a church-goer, try to live your life differently, make the way you think change and so on. But they will never, never be enough to save you.

Then belief in God is not required? I thought the Bible said that it was required.

You are as mistaken about faith and miracles as you are about the use of "omnipotence" to convert free-willed individuals. A policeman's gun can only be used to enforce law. As "powerful" as it may seem, it has no power to change anyone unless that person really wants to be changed. Also, a policeman's gun can also only be used under the confines of the law, and as powerful as God is, He by his own admission, submits to law, just as much as a policeman does (or at least should do).

So many questions....
I am not familiar with the passages in the Bible where God claims He submits to the law.

So you believe that God does not have the power to change anyone unless that person wants to be changed?

Did you think that the analogy of the policeman was about being forced to follow God? No it wasn't. It was about the fact that God has the ability to help people believe in Him but, apparently, is not interested in having them believe. The Bible says He wants people to believe but His actions speak louder than those words.

I didn't ask for the miracle so that God would force me to follow Him. He can make Himself known in way that my mind can accept. In doing that He would not be removing my free will. The demons had no choice in believing in Him but they rebelled anyway. They still had free will.

I cannot make myself believe in God any more than I can make myself believe in fairies or Santa Clause.

#122 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 20 November 2012 - 09:09 PM

I cannot make myself believe in God any more than I can make myself believe in fairies or Santa Clause.


That is an utterly dishonest statement but it is an all-too-frequently expressed attitude in atheists.

Neither fairies not Santa Claus answer prayer. But the only true and living God does.

Let me give one example: About 2 1/2 yrs ago I became aware of an event that I could have some input concerning the proceedings. Coming across this especially beautiful peice of music called "The Flower Song" from the opera 'Lakme' by Leo Delibe I decided to request of the Lord that this music be played. I did not tell anyone what it was I was thinking and praying. But a few hours after I made that request the teacher in the classroom next to my office came to me and said, "I don't know why, but the Lord laid upon my heart to give you this. I don't even know what it is..." and she handed me a piece of paper with this written upon it:

Posted Image

I was stunned, although I should not have been because I had seen this kind of thing before on many occasions. She was equally surprised when I told her what it was all about. Actually, a similar thing happened just this last weekend but I won't take the time to bring that out. These things are not meant as a boast but as a help for my brethren in the faith and perhaps to someone who is much more open to the truth than our resident atheist on EFF.

What a thrill it is to get such an answer from the invisible but Almighty God who made us and loves us.

"If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." John 15:7
  • Tirian likes this

#123 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:35 PM

Really? http://www.ehow.com/...s-emotions.html Damage to the brain has changed emotional responses and even the basic personality of persons who have had that unfortunate occurance. Before you claim that emotions are not part of the brain, maybe you should research it further than looking at a babbling guy on a youtube video.


Now you're a believer in solipsism?


Lol... So when someone feels sad its because they've taken some damage to the brain, yet when they then feel happy its been repaired.... That is what you're concluding...

How in the world did you get Solipsism?... Solipsism is where I believe that only my mind exists and thats it... The guy is talking about how we experience life as experience and whilst we may have similar experience of something we only experience something as experience itself. In that experience is not a material thing, yet we also build concepts about the world which are also not material for example.. please go to the store and buy me a jar of kilos... Or how about a jar of metres... Or how about a kilo of number 3... Such tconcepts are spoken more of in the video below



This video talks about relations of matter and energy and how our mind creates relations with reality which are true, however are not a part of reality itself

#124 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 20 November 2012 - 11:39 PM

I cannot make myself believe in God any more than I can make myself believe in fairies or Santa Clause.



Refuted!




#125 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 21 November 2012 - 02:21 AM

All of those criminals simply have to believe in Jesus as the Son of God and confess their sins. Then they get to go to heaven. Even Hitler could have gone to heaven if he simply did those two things. So belief is a definite requirement. You don't believe...you don't get to heaven.


The requirements for salvation might seem that simple, but it requires devoted study, not just skimming over a verse here and there and drawing sloppy conclusions based, not on the desire to submit to God, but to find loop-holes through which one hopes to excape the requirement of believing.

Here is the salvation formula you seem to be refering to:

"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved."

Seems pretty straightforward doesn't it, except for one small detail that many people just read past. Notice that it doesn't simply say "believe". Notice also that it doesn't say "believe in your head". It says believe "in your heart".

And what is the difference? The difference is what saves. The difference is what regenerates. The difference is what produces fruit. And someone who does not produce fruit is just kidding themselves. Believing something in your head doesn't necessarily make any significant changes in who you are. If God wanted us to approach him through "head" faith then he would have simply made the requirement on all mankind that they believe that the sun will rise tomorrow.

But he didn't. He made the requirement practically impossible.

And why?

Why did God, who wants all men to be saved, put such a huge stumbling block in our way?

Think about it!

"When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed , saying , Who then can be saved ? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

Let's say you have two sons. Both are having problems with disobedience, but not necessarily for the same reasons. On the surface they behave similarly, but secretly in their hearts one still loves you, whereas the other despises you. So you decide to give both your boys an impossible task not because you want to frustrate them, but to determine which one loves you and to develop a certain fruit in him.

What happens? The one that hates you will not turn to you for help but will stubbornly try to do things his own way, whereas the one that loves you will ask you to help him.

The requirement to believe in Jesus death and resurrection is "Solomons wisdom" where threatening to cut the baby in half he exposed which women was motivated by love and which was motivated by hate. So too does the word of God. It is sharper than a double-edged sword, penetrating even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

If anyone claims to believe in God then they will also produce fruit in keeping with having his spirit reborn:

"In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again. " "How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.'"

Obviously, if God has plans to create new heavens and a new earth then he cannot give it over to people who are basically the same (except for the fact that they believe something). That wouldn't make sense and it would only result in the same mess as we have now. God doesn't exclude anyone because of malice, but because of necessity.

I am not familiar with the passages in the Bible where God claims He submits to the law.


Well, to start with, Hebrews 6:18 teaches us that it is impossible for God to lie, but it is also obvious that describing God as "righteous in everything he does" would be totally meaningless without some kind of law being in effect.

It is also noteworthy that Jesus teaches us to pray "They will be done, on earth as it is in heaven". If God's omnipotence has no boundaries and what is happening on earth is not his will then what is stopping him from using his omnipotence to bring about his will?

If there are legal issues concerning who has been given dominion over the earth (Gen 1:26, Luke 4:6) then it is possible that sheer power is not going to achieve as much as one might suppose given a righteous God.
  • gilbo12345 and Calypsis4 like this

#126 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 21 November 2012 - 08:36 AM

Uppsala: Thank you for giving the gospel like that. I hope we see it given more often on EFF in the days to come.

God bless you and best wishes.

#127 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 21 November 2012 - 10:14 AM

That is an utterly dishonest statement but it is an all-too-frequently expressed attitude in atheists.

Neither fairies not Santa Claus answer prayer. But the only true and living God does.

He has never answered a prayer for me in any way that I could recognize that it was an answer to my prayer. Unless you want to include complete silence as an answer. Many Christians interpret that as "wait" or "no". Convenient.
Yes, I was a Christian once.
Nice of you to call me a liar without any evidence that I was being dishonest or saying something I knew to be in error. Did God give you this insight? If so, then he was in error or misleading you.

BTW, agnostic is not the same as atheist.

Let me give one example: About 2 1/2 yrs ago I became aware of an event that I could have some input concerning the proceedings. Coming across this especially beautiful peice of music called "The Flower Song" from the opera 'Lakme' by Leo Delibe I decided to request of the Lord that this music be played. I did not tell anyone what it was I was thinking and praying. But a few hours after I made that request the teacher in the classroom next to my office came to me and said, "I don't know why, but the Lord laid upon my heart to give you this. I don't even know what it is..." and she handed me a piece of paper with this written upon it:

Posted Image

I was stunned, although I should not have been because I had seen this kind of thing before on many occasions. She was equally surprised when I told her what it was all about. Actually, a similar thing happened just this last weekend but I won't take the time to bring that out. These things are not meant as a boast but as a help for my brethren in the faith and perhaps to someone who is much more open to the truth than our resident atheist on EFF.

What a thrill it is to get such an answer from the invisible but Almighty God who made us and loves us.

I find this story to be less than believable. I won't say it is dishonest because you seem to actually believe that a prayer was answered for you. Your experience and belief is not my experience and belief. I don't know you or how credulous you are. So, for me that was just a story, nothing more. Maybe you could pray and get those six words. Then it would be an experience for me.

"If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." John 15:7

No it won't. If God exists, nothing gets done that is outside His will. Your Bible tells you that. So, if I don't believe, that is His will.

#128 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 21 November 2012 - 10:26 AM

Refuted!


{an attached video was included. See post #124}

Mr. Craig did not refute the possibility of Santa Clause. Santa Clause is magical and can hide from searchers that go to the North Pole. He makes them think no one is there. He also hides from radar but sometimes is detected as shown by the reports on local news stations each Christmas Eve. Parents think that they buy all the gifts but that's the magic of Santa making them think that way. Santa must try to avoid providing too much evidence that he exists because then people would not need faith to believe.

Mr. Craig did not address the possibility of fairies in the video.

#129 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 21 November 2012 - 12:08 PM

He has never answered a prayer for me in any way that I could recognize that it was an answer to my prayer. Unless you want to include complete silence as an answer. Many Christians interpret that as "wait" or "no". Convenient.
Yes, I was a Christian once.
Nice of you to call me a liar without any evidence that I was being dishonest or saying something I knew to be in error. Did God give you this insight? If so, then he was in error or misleading you.

BTW, agnostic is not the same as atheist.


I find this story to be less than believable. I won't say it is dishonest because you seem to actually believe that a prayer was answered for you. Your experience and belief is not my experience and belief. I don't know you or how credulous you are. So, for me that was just a story, nothing more. Maybe you could pray and get those six words. Then it would be an experience for me.


No it won't. If God exists, nothing gets done that is outside His will. Your Bible tells you that. So, if I don't believe, that is His will.


1. If you profess that you were a Christian and God never answered a prayer for you then it indicates that you actually had your trust in something/someone else other than the Lord. I have seen a couple thousand answers to prayer in the last 44 yrs and I am by no means alone in such matters. 2. I told you the truth about the answer to prayer. There is no reason for me to change anything I said. If I did I would be the liar. 3. DID YOU OR DID YOU NOT make the attempt to contact someone familiar with 'spiritmover' on UKChatterbox in London or (B) with Chickenhawx or the-dork-lord on imdb to see if what i had told you was the truth? Yes/no. If 'no' then I will stand up right here before my computer and dust myself off, per your challenge for me to do so.

#130 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 21 November 2012 - 12:13 PM

Mr. Craig did not refute the possibility of Santa Clause. Santa Clause is magical and can hide from searchers that go to the North Pole. He makes them think no one is there. He also hides from radar but sometimes is detected as shown by the reports on local news stations each Christmas Eve. Parents think that they buy all the gifts but that's the magic of Santa making them think that way. Santa must try to avoid providing too much evidence that he exists because then people would not need faith to believe.

Mr. Craig did not address the possibility of fairies in the video.

Gilbo I am afraid we have another one on our hands. Another skeptic who thinks the world happened all by itself, the laws of science be hanged...and they are obsessed with arguing with us about something they don't believe in. Well, I don't believe in a flat earth nor in little green men from Mars either, but how many times do you suppose I have tuned in to flat earth society or space alien websites to argue with them about it? Answer: never.
  • gilbo12345 and goldliger like this

#131 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 21 November 2012 - 12:38 PM

Uppsala: Thank you for giving the gospel like that. I hope we see it given more often on EFF in the days to come.

God bless you and best wishes.



Thank you Cal! And thanks for your testimony about "Lakme". Just like you, I don't usually bother going into too much detail about personal miracles just to hear some atheist brush it away with a single sweep of his hand, but the fact of the matter is that I became a Christian on the very basis of the miraculous, and I too have "Lakme" experiences that just cannot be explained away by mere chance.

The sad and frustrating thing is that bringing them into a discussion such as this doesn't seem to achieve much since, obviously, although both you and I who just happen to be debating here and have had these kinds of experiences, are delusional because we don't have the ability to produce six words on some guys bulletin board.

It kind of reminds me of Matthew 12:39:

"A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."
  • goldliger likes this

#132 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 21 November 2012 - 01:01 PM

Thank you Cal! And thanks for your testimony about "Lakme". Just like you, I don't usually bother going into too much detail about personal miracles just to hear some atheist brush it away with a single sweep of his hand, but the fact of the matter is that I became a Christian on the very basis of the miraculous, and I too have "Lakme" experiences that just cannot be explained away by mere chance.

The sad and frustrating thing is that bringing them into a discussion such as this doesn't seem to achieve much since, obviously, although both you and I who just happen to be debating here and have had these kinds of experiences, are delusional because we don't have the ability to produce six words on some guys bulletin board.

It kind of reminds me of Matthew 12:39:

"A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah."

Exactly. You couldn't have produced a more appropriate verse for this. The truth is however, that about five years ago I was enabled by the Holy Spirit to answer a very similar challenge from another atheist. In that case there was someone who was viewing the debate who made her life right with God and her marriage was restored. Unlike the stubborn atheist who made that challenge, she was honestly curious and asked me, "How can you know it's real?" Well, we showed her how. But I don't always do this because I think the atheist will be willing and/or tender hearted towards the Lord who can and does answer prayer. John 15:7 is true whether our resident skeptic believes in it or not. I have seen it many times and I thank you for your personal confirmation of that great spiritual truth. God bless you, friend.

#133 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 230 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 21 November 2012 - 09:16 PM

The simple difference between mindless causation and intelligent causation is not so simple. You state that the difference is about the act of will that God uses. You have an act of will also, do you not? Yet you would not say that your choices are immune to the law of causation. Why not? You are simply saying that because God is intelligent that He is not subject to the law of cause and effect. You are simply saying it but not logically supporting it so it becomes a arbitrary statement. Until you show, logically, why His intelligence gives him a pass and mine does not give me a pass, the "logical proof" that God exists is not valid.



Jonas, I'm afraid you're not understanding the argument. It's not that the logic hasn't been demonstrated. Rather, it's that the logic isn't connecting for you.

It seems you agree that there is a problem with infinite regress in the mindless scenario. However, you're still stuck on the question of why an eternal, intelligent being would escape this issue. And yet, you've not adequately answered this simple question:

Why do you feel that an eternal, intelligent, all-powerful being would be bound by an (impossible) infinite causal chain, despite the explanations given?

//You are simply saying that because God is intelligent that He is not subject to the law of cause and effect.//

This is demonstrably false! Multiple analogies have been given along with detailed explanation that address why an intelligent (etc.) being is not bound by the problem of an infinite causal chain.

You're merely stating that the logical connection hasn't been made. But from what I've seen, you're not demonstrating why you feel this to be the case. And therefore, you're not actually making an argument. Your claim that a logical connection has not been (repeatedly) presented is therefore merely an arbitrary assertion.

Therefore, please answer the question above.

Btw, this quote that Gilbo dug up echoes *exactly* what I've been saying:

"For example, a man sitting changelessly from eternity could freely will to stand up; thus, a temporal effect arises from an eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By "choose" one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist."

...What this says is that an eternal being does not need to bring about a given event via an endless causal chain, where "x" occurs as a direct result of past events and changes. Rather, God can cause "x" without the requirement of a past causal chain. In other words, nothing in particular had to happen in the past, in order for "x" to occur, when God by His power causes an event to occur. This is yet another explanation as to why an eternal, intelligent, and all powerful being escapes an impossible infinite regress.

If you wish to yet again claim that the logical connection has not been sufficiently made, you need to do much, much better than simply making an ad hoc assertion. Rather, you need to support your objection with logic.

I look forward to your reply, and most importantly, a direct answer to my question. Meanwhile, I hope you have an excellent Thanksgiving if you're celebrating!

#134 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 23 November 2012 - 04:16 AM

When we argue that God is the uncaused cause per the Cosmological Argument, atheists ask why the universe or some other mindless, natural existence could not be the uncaused cause. So I wrote an argument to address this objection:

1. Because something cannot come from absolutely nothing, something must have always existed for eternity.

2. The eternal something, because it is eternal, was uncaused.

3. The eternal something, must have the ability to cause events (since events happen).

4. The eternal something is an uncaused cause.

5. The eternal something came before the events that it caused. This indicates a past, present, and future relative to events. Since events occur now, there is a past. And this means that events happen in a linear progression (overall).

6. The eternal something, was either mindless or intelligent. There are no other options.

7. A mindless eternal something would mean an impossible, infinite regress of events...

A. A mindless eternal cause could never stop causing events, or no future event could occur. For example, our universe is a future event relative to the past. Our universe could not occur if a mindless eternal cause had stopped causing events for an eternity past. So a mindless eternal something would have to continue causing events, for any event to occur. But this would mean that INFINITE past events must have occurred, which is impossible, since endless past events could never be traversed to get to a present/future event (such as our universe).

B. But what if a mindless eternal cause spawned a universe with its own causal chain? Well, because of A, this event could never happen, because endless past events would have to be traversed before getting to the spawned universe (or any given event), which is impossible.

C. What if our universe were itself the eternal uncaused cause? ...This is not possible, because of A.

D. What if a mindless cause produced just one event, that being our universe, meaning no infinite past events? ...This is not possible because of A. A single event would mean that nothing happened for an eternity prior. If nothing happened for an eternity prior, then the single "future" event (our universe) could never come about. An eternity of no events would mean that the probability for events to begin occurring, is perfectly zero.

8. Per #7, a mindless uncaused cause must be rejected.

9. Intelligent events happen as an act of WILL, rather than probability, which means that a FIXED number of events is possible, as determined by the intelligent uncaused cause. This solves the problem of an infinite regress of events that would occur if the uncaused cause were mindless.

10. Therefore, an intelligent, uncaused cause of the universe (God) must be accepted.

-Bryan



Interesting thoughts, goldliger.

When we argue that God is the uncaused cause per the Cosmological Argument, atheists ask why the universe or some other mindless, natural existence could not be the uncaused cause. So I wrote an argument to address this objection:

1. Because something cannot come from absolutely nothing, something must have always existed for eternity.

2. The eternal something, because it is eternal, was uncaused.

3. The eternal something, must have the ability to cause events (since events happen).

4. The eternal something is an uncaused cause.

5. The eternal something came before the events that it caused. This indicates a past, present, and future relative to events. Since events occur now, there is a past. And this means that events happen in a linear progression (overall).

6. The eternal something, was either mindless or intelligent. There are no other options.

7. A mindless eternal something would mean an impossible, infinite regress of events...

A. A mindless eternal cause could never stop causing events, or no future event could occur. For example, our universe is a future event relative to the past. Our universe could not occur if a mindless eternal cause had stopped causing events for an eternity past. So a mindless eternal something would have to continue causing events, for any event to occur. But this would mean that INFINITE past events must have occurred, which is impossible, since endless past events could never be traversed to get to a present/future event (such as our universe).

B. But what if a mindless eternal cause spawned a universe with its own causal chain? Well, because of A, this event could never happen, because endless past events would have to be traversed before getting to the spawned universe (or any given event), which is impossible.

C. What if our universe were itself the eternal uncaused cause? ...This is not possible, because of A.

D. What if a mindless cause produced just one event, that being our universe, meaning no infinite past events? ...This is not possible because of A. A single event would mean that nothing happened for an eternity prior. If nothing happened for an eternity prior, then the single "future" event (our universe) could never come about. An eternity of no events would mean that the probability for events to begin occurring, is perfectly zero.

8. Per #7, a mindless uncaused cause must be rejected.

9. Intelligent events happen as an act of WILL, rather than probability, which means that a FIXED number of events is possible, as determined by the intelligent uncaused cause. This solves the problem of an infinite regress of events that would occur if the uncaused cause were mindless.

10. Therefore, an intelligent, uncaused cause of the universe (God) must be accepted.

-Bryan


There is one thing wrong with your proof. Something cannot be eternal because actual infinities are impossible. A better idea is that it is outside time.

So lets take God who existed outside time. He then starts the universe and time itself.

But now lets take a naturalistic force outside time. It starts the universe and time itself. Lets say it did this only once. I get past 7(a) because an eternity past is impossible and the force is outside time.

#135 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 November 2012 - 05:52 AM

There is one thing wrong with your proof. Something cannot be eternal because actual infinities are impossible. A better idea is that it is outside time.

So lets take God who existed outside time. He then starts the universe and time itself.

But now lets take a naturalistic force outside time. It starts the universe and time itself. Lets say it did this only once. I get past 7(a) because an eternity past is impossible and the force is outside time.


That is what the general concensus of what God is, (well that is what I think ;) )

Its also why Craig makes the claim that the cause needs to be personal as having to choose to create a temporal effect despite its timeless nature

#136 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 23 November 2012 - 08:26 AM

Jonas, I'm afraid you're not understanding the argument. It's not that the logic hasn't been demonstrated. Rather, it's that the logic isn't connecting for you.

It seems you agree that there is a problem with infinite regress in the mindless scenario. However, you're still stuck on the question of why an eternal, intelligent being would escape this issue. And yet, you've not adequately answered this simple question:

Why do you feel that an eternal, intelligent, all-powerful being would be bound by an (impossible) infinite causal chain, despite the explanations given?

//You are simply saying that because God is intelligent that He is not subject to the law of cause and effect.//

This is demonstrably false! Multiple analogies have been given along with detailed explanation that address why an intelligent (etc.) being is not bound by the problem of an infinite causal chain.

You're merely stating that the logical connection hasn't been made. But from what I've seen, you're not demonstrating why you feel this to be the case. And therefore, you're not actually making an argument. Your claim that a logical connection has not been (repeatedly) presented is therefore merely an arbitrary assertion.

Therefore, please answer the question above.

Btw, this quote that Gilbo dug up echoes *exactly* what I've been saying:

"For example, a man sitting changelessly from eternity could freely will to stand up; thus, a temporal effect arises from an eternally existing agent. Similarly, a finite time ago a Creator endowed with free will could have freely brought the world into being at that moment. In this way, the Creator could exist changelessly and eternally but choose to create the world in time. By "choose" one need not mean that the Creator changes his mind about the decision to create, but that he freely and eternally intends to create a world with a beginning. By exercising his causal power, he therefore brings it about that a world with a beginning comes to exist."

...What this says is that an eternal being does not need to bring about a given event via an endless causal chain, where "x" occurs as a direct result of past events and changes. Rather, God can cause "x" without the requirement of a past causal chain. In other words, nothing in particular had to happen in the past, in order for "x" to occur, when God by His power causes an event to occur. This is yet another explanation as to why an eternal, intelligent, and all powerful being escapes an impossible infinite regress.

If you wish to yet again claim that the logical connection has not been sufficiently made, you need to do much, much better than simply making an ad hoc assertion. Rather, you need to support your objection with logic.

I look forward to your reply, and most importantly, a direct answer to my question. Meanwhile, I hope you have an excellent Thanksgiving if you're celebrating!

I feel that an eternal, intelligent, all-powerful being would be bound by an (impossible) infinite causal chain, despite the explanations given, because the explanations given put those limitations on both intelligence and eternal objects that are not ingelligent.

In explanation:
1. You are an intelligent being, yet you would agree that you are bound by an (impossible) infinite causal chain.
2. I have already been told by gilbo and Mr. Craig's explanation that an eternal mindless object is bound by an (impossible) infinite causal chain.
3. No one has explained why the having an intelligent being be also eternal suddenly makes that being no longer bound by an (impossible) infinite causal chain. Everyone trying to "explain" it has merely stated that it is so. This seems very close to special pleading for the eternal intelligent being.

#137 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 64
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:10 AM

Well, Jonas, shall I do what you challenged me? Did you check out UKChatterbox to ask about 'spiritmover' the psychic that got converted to Christ and her former gift? Did you search imdb for Chickenhawx (now Fiendishly Cunning Chix) or the-dork-lord to verify what I said above?

I have been patiently awaiting an answer.

#138 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 23 November 2012 - 10:18 AM

That is what the general concensus of what God is, (well that is what I think Posted Image )

Its also why Craig makes the claim that the cause needs to be personal as having to choose to create a temporal effect despite its timeless nature


Yes, my hypothesis of what God is, is exactly what Craig is thinking.

However, can't we suppose the existence of a force outside the universe, and outside space and time, that is timeless and created the universe? How can you refute that?

#139 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,671 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 November 2012 - 07:47 PM

Yes, my hypothesis of what God is, is exactly what Craig is thinking. However, can't we suppose the existence of a force outside the universe, and outside space and time, that is timeless and created the universe? How can you refute that?


You can't refute that with science since science is limited in what it can do, thus philosophy is required and as you can see from Craigs arguments the logic of philosophy supports God by logical deduction.

#140 dan4reason

dan4reason

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:32 PM

You can't refute that with science since science is limited in what it can do, thus philosophy is required and as you can see from Craigs arguments the logic of philosophy supports God by logical deduction.


I am not using science. All I am saying is that maybe a non-intelligence outside space-time caused the universe to exist. This is not a scientific statement, it is philosophical.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users