Posted on 02/13/2005 3:07:53 PM PST by conservative_crusader
As in all vanities of this style, I would suggest any people who get overly angry and upset over religious vs. secular debate immediately stop reading.
First, before going any farther, I need to make known my position:
1.) I am persuaded that the universe was created by some higher power.
2.) I am a Christian in practice.
3.) My intention in this vanity, is to discuss the possibility of god(s) existing.
4.) If you have any other question as to what my motive is, please feel free to post, or send me a private message.
Let us begin the actual discussion with an argument as to whether god(s) exist. Here is the given:
1.) The Universe either A.)came into being at some point in time, B.)has always existed just as it is, or C.)does not exist at all. (If there are any other possibilities here, please tell me what you've come up with).
2.) Time is Linear.(as in, can be plotted on a line approaching infinity in both directions).
3.) For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
4.) Matter/Energy, cannot be created or destroyed.
5.) Occasionally all elements decay into some stable element(like lead,) which is incapable of sustaining life.
6.) All other laws of physics apply.
So, from #1, let us assume scenario B. The Universe has always existed in much the same way forever as it is today. Let us apply given #5 and #4 to this scenario. So, by #5, all the matter in the universe is presently lead, as it has had an infinite amount of time in which to decay into lead, and by #4, no new matter can be introduced into the universe so everything is lead. However; we know that the entire universe is not lead, so scenario B cannot be true.
Now, let us consider scenario C. If scenario C is true, then this is merely an attempt by your imagination to convince you that the unverse is real, which it isn't, and so this entire thread is pointless. If it is pointless, there is no point in discussing this further. So let us not accept scenario C for the moment.
Now, assume scenario A. The universe came into being at some point. If the universe came into being at some point, there must have been some cause in order to trigger what is often called the"The Big Bang." So, since no matter could have exsisted before the universe was created, there must be some other cause by which the universe was created. My contention, is that force is God, or a god.
Now that I've finished my proof, let me go over some of the responses I've gotten to similair posts.
Generic Response #1: Evolution contradicts that god(s) exist.
My answer #1: Evolution does not contradict that there is a god. Evolution only explains a means by which god *may* have created life on Earth.
Generic Response #2: Abiogenesis
My answer #2: All of the articles on Abiogenesis that I have read, never really contradict that a god did not have a hand in creation. If you can find one, I would welcome a response.
Generic Response #3: Your first given is flawed. There are more possibilities explaining the universe than those.
My answer #3: There are no other possibilities that I am aware of. If you can think of any other possibilities please post them.
Generic Response #4: Time is not linear, the second given is false.
My answer #4: Just because time is not linear in actuality, does not mean that it cannot be plotted as a line on a graph. Time can be represented as a line, that is all that is important for this argument.
Generic Response #5: The third given is flawed. Recent research indicates that there does not neccesarily have to be a cause when the universe began.
My answer #5: Source please.
Generic Response #6: Recent science indicates two things. A.) The universe is expanding and B.) As the universe expands, matter is introduced into the system.
My response #6: If the universe has been expanding forever, then matter has been being introduced into the universe for an infinite amount of time. Therefore, the entire universe is filled with matter. However; the entire universe is not filled with matter, which indicates that something in these recent discoveries is false.
Generic Response #7: The fifth given is false. Not everything decays into lead.
My response #7: read your physics book.
Generic Response #8: The last given is false. You cannot assume that just because the laws of physics behave in one way in this region of the universe, that they would behave in the same way in other parts of the universe.
My Response #8: If evidence actually surfaces supporting this I will grant you this point, but you must post a source. Also, not all of the laws of physics have to behave in the same way everywhere, only the ones that are given in the my list of given laws have to behave appropriately for my argument to stand.
Generic Response #9: You can't prove anything.
My answer #9: Yes you can, and your argument is semantic.
Generic Response #10: You can assume everything, and I assume there is no god.
My answer #10: Then I assume that opposite poles of magnets will not attract each other. That doesn't make it so.
As you know, as a lay leader in our church, the subject that I chose to study this year, so as to be able to teach it later in the year, is creationism vs. evolution.
One of the things Ive discovered is that, especially recently, the mainstream media and their cohorts in academia have been pushing false representations and skewed comparisons regarding theories of intelligent design. Were led to believe that ID is simply a covert form of Christian fundamentalism. As a result, intelligent design and creationism are often considered one and the same -- when, in actuality, creationism assumes intelligent design, but the relationship isnt commutative. :)
The New York Times (of all media outlets) last week published an essay by Dr. Michael Behe, professor of biological sciences at nearby Lehigh University. Behe is a respected theorist in intelligent design. His essay covered many aspects of current thinking on ID, but his main point was that it is not necessarily a religious-based theory, even though Christians, and followers of many other religions, embrace the concept.
Pure intelligent design theorists do not even necessarily invoke the concept of a Creator, so the mainstream medias attempts to claim that there is a religious motivation behind the theory of intelligent design are bogus and simply attempts to open the door for cries of separation of church and state when IDs proponents seek to teach the theory of intelligent design in our schools.
Last month the Wall Street Journal published a piece defending Dr. Richard Sternberg (who holds two PhDs in evolutionary biology), who had the misfortune of publishing a pro-intelligent-design paper in the Proceedings of the Biological Society (Washington, DC), after which a vicious smear campaign ensued. Sternberg was labeled a heretic by the scientific elites (and that was one of the kinder labels he endured).
Those elites (just as the elites in much of the rest of academia) appear to refuse to debate intelligent design on its merits, but instead seem to regularly resort to slander, personal attack, and character assassination against anyone (no matter how otherwise respected) who espouses a theory that diverges in any way from evolution without a Creator.
Those who dismiss intelligent design have generally based their dismissal on the fact that the theory is bogus because it has never enjoyed any kind of peer review in a scientific journal. And, now that is has appeared in a scientific journal (the Proceedings of the Biological Society), they are claiming that Sternbergs essay wasnt worthy to be included there to begin with.
Damned if we do, and damned if we dont.
Since the leftist call for separation of church and state is reaching fever pitch, the public awareness of evolution vs. intelligent design (and/or creationism) is surely (and thankfully) going to increase. A large majority of Americans believe in either direct creation by God, or a divinely-directed evolutionary process. And that segment of society that mistrusts the mainstream media is growing daily as well. Lets hope that the closed-minded, agenda-driven, hostile reporting on intelligent design (as if it were somehow a threat to the mind of modern man) serves to pique the interest and strengthen the resolve of humanitys search to seek out the truth about our (and our universes) origins.
In the Times article, Dr. Behe, concluded (beautifully), Whatever scientists adopt for themselves dont bind the public, which polls show, overwhelmingly and sensibly, thinks that life was designed. And so do many scientists who see roles for both the messiness of evolution and the elegance of design.
An excellent book (including six riveting essays) by Behe (and others) on the subject:
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters
(one of the most beautiful images in all of scripture)
Very interesting, especially what happened to the article published in Proceedings of the Biological Society. These days either you agree with the elite or you are "branded."
When you have time, maybe you want to respond to #2 and #5 in the second part of this post. I was going to but would like to read your answers to this instead. {g}
Happy day after Valentine Day.
Great point!
You bring to mind an idea presented by C.S. Lewis wherein he posited that our perceived reality is less substantial from that of the Angels. Angels and the Glorified Christ can pass through us like we are a vapor, unbeknowenst to us -- thinking of Jesus breaking bread with those on the road to Emmaus, and Jesus appearing in the closed upper room.
From a practical point of view, we are affected by the supernatural, and it does influence our reality. That was the gist of my comment. Maybe I could re-word it.
Thank you. From a practical point of view, we are affected by the supernatural, and it does influence our reality. That was the gist of my comment. Maybe I could re-word it. Yes... the physical is certainly affected by the spiritual. However, in the order of things, one must place the supernatural OVER the physical. One realm CAN exist in the abscence of the other (Spiritual without physical), whereas the opposite CANNOT exist (Physical without Spiritual) We know this because God spoke the physical into existence FROM the spiritual realm (God is Spirit) and without God, the physical realm would simply be lifeless matter floating in space in chaotic fasion (lots of scripture references on this). Anyway, I'm not quite sure how you could re-word it. From our perspective it's correct. I guess my original point about something being flawed was not really your sentence, but rather the perspective from which we all communicate. Maybe if you just specify "our reality" that would fix it. Please forgive my nit-picking ;) |
I don't take it as nit-picking. You make some great points.
However, in the order of things, one must place the supernatural OVER the physical. One realm CAN exist in the abscence of the other (Spiritual without physical), whereas the opposite CANNOT exist (Physical without Spiritual) We know this because God spoke the physical into existence FROM the spiritual realm (God is Spirit)...
Now, how to formulate your excellent incites into a pithy comment.
Thank you.
yeah... you're right... But let me do some lateral movement here in this discussion. Not everything decays into lead. No CC... YOUR right. I interpreted your point #5 as saying that things break down into their basic elements. (LIKE lead) While it could have been worded better, with a little more applicable example, this IS what #5 says) Lead IS an element... just like carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, sulphur, etc. etc. Your point still stands. |
I've run into this argument a couple of times before. Here is my response:
In Christianity, God is known to speak things into existence. I'm not sure about other religions that mention a supreme being speaking things into existence. If God were to speak something into existence, would there be any evidence of an actual cause? I don't think there would be any real evidence of a cause. However; that does not mean that there wasn't one. We know that on the quantum level that particles can appear spontaneously (Or so I've been told, I haven't seen any real evidence of this). So, perhaps, your argument does not really contradict my own. That's one possibility that refutes the "quantum physics refutes God" argument.
It is my understanding that virtual particles require are only obeserved as other particles decay. No matter, no virtual. Is that your understanding?
Observed was a bad choice of words since the particles do not exist long enough to observe them but I think you got the drift.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.