Posted on 11/22/2004 8:03:30 AM PST by Heartlander
There are two answers to the problem of its existence: the juvenile "Who cares? Maybe it was just kind of always there" and "Some force or entity capable of bringing it into being brought it into being."
Acknowledging God's existence is the only rational response to the universe.
save
At the end of the book of Job God basically says behold my creation and believe in me so God uses the cosmological argument.
I've always had a problem with the 'Big Bang' theory, in that, in order for the Universe to be created that way, SOMETHING VERY BIG had to exist to begin with.
The theory has never explained how a large body 'appeared in the heavens' and exploded to create the universe.
What created that body?
Question: have archiologiest or anthropologists found any cultures without a form of theistic worship?
The Intelligent Design argument is predicated upon a large body of evidence related to both issues of biological irreducible design and mathematical information theory. This last argument is an amazing one, an stems from modern understandings -- in mathematics -- of how information is collected, codified, processed, stored, and applied. Only intelligence can create information; "natural" processes can convey it and even store and apply it, but the creation of information is an inversion of entropy, hence it requires something other than random chance to generate information. In my opinion, this is one of the strongest objective arguments for the existence of a deity. As a christian I don't stop there -- nor do I actually start there, since I begin with a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. However, if I'm limited to just that which can be observed in nature, I believe it is possible to demonstrate intelligent design in the universe.
I seriously don't understand how anyone could look at the universe, the makeup of the body, even the structure of a flower and believe it all just "happened". These things just are too complex to have formed out of nothing.
Flame away.
I agree with you.
Amoral narcisism has been the main root of atheism from the beginning of civilization; thats why most nations executed them.
I suppose this concept of a Prime Mover is close to a Deist idea of God, who indirectly intervenes in His creation, by setting things into motion and relying on physics to produce the universe of today.
Somehow, the Uncertainty Principle in quantum physics reflects a key Divine Principle: on the grander scale, God's plan is more discernable to us, while on the discreet Planck Scale, uncertainty prevents us from knowing the root (motive) of His design. I'm also attracted to the notion that the universe itself is the expanding conscience of God, a Divine Organism, producing the outcome of life in His image on Earth, and certainly on billions of worlds throughout the universe. Science shows us the role we play in this Body Cosmic.
However...
A philosopher would instantly recognize the futility of using pure science to "prove" a philosophic value. But he seems blind about its own category:
Philosophers recognize many arguments for the existence of God…
If you can know it by philosophy (argument/reason), it ain't God. Just the same as saying: If you can measure it and quantify it (science) it ain't God either. Spirit transcends the limitations of both sense knowledge and reason/logic. In reality, and by definition.
Reason can take us part-way (even building upon science), but at some point, other means, spiritual in nature, must be used for further knowledge of spirit.
thanks again for your post...
AMEN - Romans 1:20
You've got it half right.
One can deduce God's existence through reason.
One does not need faith to know that He exists.
However, one cannot deduce anything about God or His revealed Word through reason. That's a matter of faith.
I would like to see your syllogism. If it is properly done and you are right then God's existence is proven with a very high degree of certainty and all honest philosophers will be deists at least.
However, one cannot deduce anything about God or His revealed Word through reason. That's a matter of faith.
I agree but would add "direct personal experience" to "faith."
Thanks for your reply.
Anyway, again I do not disagree with you – when you state, “Reason can take us part-way (even building upon science), but at some point, other means, spiritual in nature, must be used for further knowledge of spirit.” I have unfortunately been on both sides of this debate and actually needed logic and reason which brought me back to justification and sanctification. I believe God said let there be light both in the Old Testament and the New Testament, once for outside and once for inside (law and gospel) – I believe God has intervened obviously more than once. I have faith like a child in the wonderment of all and this does not cease but I also believe in critical thinking with maturity.
I am a Christian, a husband, a father, a conservative, and a Lutheran. But as a father I believe it is important for me to instill both wonderment and logic into my son - That is to say, Truth outside naturalism and truth within nature – not an either/or situation.
Thank you for your response.
Ah, but the philosopher should consciously become the object of the question. IOW the philosophers’ own; reason, morality, emotions, logic, etc… How would an honest philosopher respond to this axiom?
Human conscience does not ultimately come from mindlessness.
It's not that religion exists outside science. It is that reality, Truth, is bigger than the box of science. And bigger than the box of philosopy/reason/logic.
What can be "known" by pure science alone are only those aspects of reality that have size, quantity, specific location and can be detected by the senses (or their extensions).
This scientific knowledge is very firm, it's the firmest knowledge we have, and is designed to be so. However, it excludes a great deal of reality that we know to exist.
The error is not when science says: "I know it exists scientifically," but when science says: "I cannot know it using science, therefore it does not exist." This is scientism and fails logically due to performance error: It's not supported by it's own logic.
Philosophy/reason/logic can be used for knowledge that transcends science - not contradicts but includes reality that does not have the limited requirements of scientific knowledge. Values (as in better than, worse than) are in this category. Science cannot "prove" that life is better than death or any other value of this type.
Logic/reason's limits (in this area of discussion) are reached when we look at the unconditional, absolute values. Logic has to start with axioms, "self-evident" assumptions. By definition these are not proved - else they would become conditional and the chain is merely moved back a link.
Religion deals with knowing these absolutes. For example: goodness, truth and beauty. These transcend logic/reason. Note again, they don't contradict logic, they include more of reality than logic can "see."
Faith, wonder, awe, love of God… none of these exist outside of science (the senses), they INCLUDE them. When we see the world anew, we are still seeing, but transcending our senses.
The errors of the past, and unfortunately the present, are when we deduce upward from science to philosophy or religion, or infer downwards from theology or philosophy. If you want to know how much a rock weighs, we use science. If we want to know the value of scientifically knowing how much a rock weighs, we can use philosophy; if we wish to know who we really are and our relationship to the universe, neither of these is going to take us where we wish to go.
I think we're agreeing on this basic point. Thank you for your reply...
Thanks again.
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.