Posted on 06/11/2013 3:34:14 PM PDT by NYer
|
A good place to start is with an argument by Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century philosopher and theologian. The argument starts with the not-very-startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement, and whatever caused that must be caused by something else, and so on. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. There must be an unmoved mover to begin all the motion in the universe, a first domino to start the whole chain moving, since mere matter never moves itself.
A modern objection to this argument is that some movements in quantum mechanics — radioactive decay, for example — have no discernible cause. But hang on a second. Just because scientists don't see a cause doesn't mean there isn't one. It just means science hasn't found it yet. Maybe someday they will. But then there will have to be a new cause to explain that one. And so on and so on. But science will never find the first cause. That's no knock on science. It simply means that a first cause lies outside the realm of science.
Another way to explain this argument is that everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing can come from nothing. So if there's no first cause, there can't be second causes — or anything at all. In other words, if there's no creator, there can't be a universe.
But what if the universe were infinitely old, you might ask. Well, all scientists today agree that the universe is not infinitely old — that it had a beginning, in the big bang. If the universe had a beginning, then it didn't have to exist. And things which don't have to exist must have a cause.
There's confirmation of this argument from big-bang cosmology. We now know that all matter, that is, the whole universe, came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago, and it's been expanding and cooling ever since. No scientist doubts that anymore, even though before it was scientifically proved, atheists called it "creationism in disguise". Now, add to this premise a very logical second premise, the principle of causality, that nothing begins without an adequate cause, and you get the conclusion that since there was a big bang, there must be a "big banger".
 It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God. |
But is this "big banger" God? Why couldn't it be just another universe? Because Einstein's general theory of relativity says that all time is relative to matter, and since all matter began 13.7 billion years ago, so did all time. So there's no time before the big bang. And even if there is time before the big bang, even if there is a multiverse, that is, many universes with many big bangs, as string theory says is mathematically possible, that too must have a beginning.
An absolute beginning is what most people mean by 'God'. Yet some atheists find the existence of an infinite number of other universes more rational than the existence of a creator. Never mind that there is no empirical evidence at all that any of these unknown universes exists, let alone a thousand or a gazillion.
How far will scientists go to avoid having to conclude that God created the universe? Here's what Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind said: "Real scientists resist the temptation to explain creation by divine intervention. We resist to the death all explanations of the world based on anything but the laws of physics." Yet the father of modern physics, Sir Isaac Newton, believed fervently in God. Was he not a real scientist? Can you believe in God and be a scientist, and not be a fraud? According to Susskind, apparently not. So who exactly are the closed-minded ones in this debate?
The conclusion that God exists doesn't require faith. Atheism requires faith. It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God.
I'm Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, for Prager University.
A variation on Pascal's wager.
With God you at least have hope.
Atheism leaves you with nothing...
Your logic is sound, however the argument that there is no evidence God exists is not correct. There is plenty of eye witness testimony. It is proper for you to say the evidence is not sufficient for you. Different people have different needs for evidence. That is why we have juries.
Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. It simple means a study of the nature of the universe on the fundamental level.
It is possible for existence to be finite and eternal. It exists for as long as time does and time exists so long as there is existence. We can’t even ask what was here before anything was here. What evidence is there that the universe had a beginning? Who says that the big bang was THE beginning?
According to your argument, then god had to have a cause. If everything that exists has a cause or a beginning then if a God exists then it had to have a beginning. But the article points out that that would lead to an infinite regression which is the logical problem with the first cause argument. So if a god can exist with no beginning then so can existence.
I believe that existence is an axiom. It is an irreducible primary. It is an absolute and needs no cause. No one knows where it came from and I mean no one. Many people accept an explanation on faith. To me faith is not a good foundation for knowledge. I don’t need faith to know that existence exists. It is self evident. So that is my starting point of knowledge and I go from there and just because we don’t have answers to every question does not mean we get to fill in with speculation and call it knowledge. Scientists speculate for the purpose of coming up with an explanation then they go on to look for evidence. They ask: Does this speculation (hypothesis) correspond to reality. Once again reality, existence, is the means of validation. For a rational person, it is the only means of validation. Existence itself needs none.
You are correct, however unfortunately, accounts are often looked at with skepticism when it relates to the supernatural, even though we’re more than ready to believe Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants on accounts alone.
You are absolutely right. It is proper to say that there is not sufficient evidence. I don’t think that any number of eyewitness accounts alone particularly in an ancient text is evidence of anything. I also agree with you that different people have different ideas about what constitutes evidence. If someone is an eyewitness then it is rational for them and them alone to believe but it is also rational for someone who hasn’t had that first hand experience not to believe.
“According to your argument, then god had to have a cause. If everything that exists has a cause or a beginning then if a God exists then it had to have a beginning”
Incorrect. Everything that exists under the laws of our universe has a cause. The law does not apply to things that transcend the universe, such as numbers and other mathematical constructs. These things we understand to be eternal, because they transcend the universe.
God is understood to transcend the universe.
Speculation implies that we pluck an answer out of thin air. On the contrary, we can analyze what we do know, similar to how historians piece together fragments to build an accurate picture of the past. I think the fine-tuning alone allows us to make the logical assumption of intelligent design. If you came across a fully functioning plane in a forest, you would not conclude that such a masterfully engineered object could have just come together by chance. You would apprehend that planning went into building it. Looking at how carefully balanced our existence in this universe is, I find God to be far more likely than no God.
Virtually all of us accept who our mother is with second hand witnesses. why does age affect witness testimony? Wouldn’t other factors like corroboration be of greater importance? For example, the OT required 3 witnesses for death penalty. Personally I would be more impressed with multiple witnesses from ancient time than a single present witness.
However, historians have methods to analyze ancient texts, weeding out poetic license and ‘legendary’ accounts. This is why most historians affirm the events surrounding Jesus Christ, even if they may come up blank on the explanation for the resurrection, and their trust has been proven well placed. I remember when many denied that Pontius Pilate had ever existed, but the Pilate Stone late confirmed his position as prefect of Judea.
Exact corroboration is not even required to build a reasonable hypothesis. In fact, if two accounts of an event are exactly the same, I would view it with more skepticism than if they had differences. No two people see things the same.
Logic are self-evident laws of thought. They have no premise.
Exactly a major reason why biblical accounts are so compelling.
Also, if you postulate that everything has a cause, then the chain of causality must extend infinitely into the past. But an infinite series cannot exist in actuality, so a first cause, or Uncaused Cause, must exist.
I think you defined revelation,not logic. Computer s use logic. In computer lingo Gigo but all logical. It is understood that a valid logical conclusion can be true or false.
Exactly. This is the problem atheists have. You eventually arrive at an uncaused cause, which must transcend our universe. The only two things fitting that description are mathematical objects, or an unembodied mind.
From our observations, we have no reason to believe that numbers or theorems have causality. The number seven cannot cause anything. This leaves us with only one explanation. God.
There can be very legitimate debate on the nature of God, how he interacts with his creation or if he does at all, but I think deductive reasoning leads to a higher power.
-— If there is a god, he sure likes torturing us with evil. -—
The only significant argument against the existence of God is The Problem of Evil. Yet evil is problematic for both sides, since actual, objective evils cannot be accounted for in a universe reduced to matter in motion.
By simply stating the problem, one is conceding the existence of evil and good, neither of which is explainable by random movement.
Yet the existence of evil can be rationally reconciled with the existence of a good God. Below is the best, short essay I have read on the subject.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm
Well said.
>> “In other words, if there’s no creator, there can’t be a universe.”
>> I hear and read this assertion all the time and it is always stated as an axiom.
Not an axiom, but a condition. Axioms are not subject to conditions.
If believing in God was purely rational all rational be would believe in God. Being smart would replace faith.
John 6:44 NIV
New International Version
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
They were green in my day.....
The grey stuff did not happen until later.....and they were not from Mars....
It’s all relative anyway as TV was all black and white. So yes, they were grey.
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.