God debate comment

[MarcoPolo]

I’m listening to the debate "Is God (and Religion) a Man-Made Invention? (MP3 here) between Dinesh D’Souza and Daniel Dennet from 2007. Dennett is the atheist. I think his argument collapsed at this point:*Let’s talk about the Big Bang. For Dinesh this is proof of God’s existence. Remarkable how a creator comes into this picture. I don’t see that space and time in our universe started, what, 14 billion years ago? Yeah. That’s right. But not that God created space and time [but] that the universe by having the Big Bang created space and time. You’ll say, “Well, the universe can’t create itself.” Well, God can’t create himself either. I don’t know where you get the other principle that there has to be a creator. (starting at 1:00:13 mark)*Regarding the bolded part: Dennett spent his entire monologue discrediting the logic and reason of the Christian, and then openly states that he uses the same reasoning when he simply substitutes what Christians call God with “the universe.”

Side note: Dinesh never said the Big Bang theory was “proof” of God’s existence. Throughout the debate Dinesh talks about reasons for believing things we cannot directly observe, for which the Big Bang theory is also indicative of a Creator.

Comments welcome!

 

[mchale]

Just a thought but the first point of attack is that he misrepresents the Catholic/Christian position of God. We don’t believe that God created himself; we believe that God is eternal and uncreated. Thus his comparison isn’t fair.

If we want to assume that the Universe did create itself, it is a fair question to ask how that is possible, unfortunately it is one that Science may never be able to answer.

–
Bill

 

[MegaTherion]

Dennett spent his entire monologue discrediting the logic and reason of the Christian, and then openly states that he uses the same reasoning when he simply substitutes what Christians call God with “the universe.”

Well, the difference is that we know the universe exists. We don’t know if anything beyond the universe exists; there’s no evidence that any such “beyond” exists.

So when we look back to the moment of the Big Bang, both the atheist and Christian come up against a question mark.

The Christian postulates a creator who is conveniently eternal (and thus requries no explanation for his existence). Many atheists would suggest that the universe might be eternal (i.e. whatever existed before the Big Bang might have always existed).

But the real answer is that nobody knows. Those making a definite claim about origins (a god did it!) need to justify that claim with evidence.

Claims made without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Well, the difference is that we know the universe exists. We don’t know if anything beyond the universe exists; there’s no evidence that any such “beyond” exists.

So when we look back to the moment of the Big Bang, both the atheist and Christian come up against a question mark.

The Christian postulates a creator who is conveniently eternal (and thus requries no explanation for his existence). Many atheists would suggest that the universe might be eternal (i.e. whatever existed before the Big Bang might have always existed).

But the real answer is that nobody knows. Those making a definite claim about origins (a god did it!) need to justify that claim with evidence.

Claims made without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

To an extent I would agree with you. And I would say that without divine revelation human knowledge would be quite reduced. My point here is not to prop up the scientific basis for Christianity, but to demonstrate the “imitation” of faith put forth by atheists, such as Dennett. But I would say that it is only logical that an extra-temporal source was First Cause.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Just a thought but the first point of attack is that he misrepresents the Catholic/Christian position of God. We don’t believe that God created himself; we believe that God is eternal and uncreated. Thus his comparison isn’t fair.

That is a subtle but fair clarification!

 

[mchale]

Well, the difference is that we know the universe exists. We don’t know if anything beyond the universe exists; there’s no evidence that any such “beyond” exists.

So when we look back to the moment of the Big Bang, both the atheist and Christian come up against a question mark.

The Christian postulates a creator who is conveniently eternal (and thus requries no explanation for his existence). Many atheists would suggest that the universe might be eternal (i.e. whatever existed before the Big Bang might have always existed).

But the real answer is that nobody knows. Those making a definite claim about origins (a god did it!) need to justify that claim with evidence.

Claims made without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

Umm, any atheists (or theists) who makes any claim about what happened before the Big Bang clearly do not understand modern Cosmology. The Big Bang was the beginning of time itself, and thus, the notion of “before the Big Bang” is nonsensical.

I will admit that there is no scientific proof of the Christian position on this matter but then again, the Church doesn’t try to offer a scientific answer to the question.

–
Bill

 

[06convert]

Well besides this not having much credibility.

Religion is man made. It was made by Christ, the man that was born without sin, who didn’t make any mistakes.

 

[jimmy]

Well, the difference is that we know the universe exists. We don’t know if anything beyond the universe exists; there’s no evidence that any such “beyond” exists.

So when we look back to the moment of the Big Bang, both the atheist and Christian come up against a question mark.

The Christian postulates a creator who is conveniently eternal (and thus requries no explanation for his existence). Many atheists would suggest that the universe might be eternal (i.e. whatever existed before the Big Bang might have always existed).

But the real answer is that nobody knows. Those making a definite claim about origins (a god did it!) need to justify that claim with evidence.

Claims made without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

The matter of God being ‘eternal’ is not a matter of convenience. The Christian faith says that the only way God could possibly exist is if He were the absolute. A god that is not eternal is not a god at all but only an element of the universe. Christianity rejects any concept of God that makes God dependant on the world or the universe. If he is dependant on the world, or contingent, he is not God then.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Religion is man made. It was made by Christ, the man that was born without sin, who didn’t make any mistakes.

Did you mean Christianity was born of Christ perhaps? Because religion as a concept in time predates the Incarnation.

 

[MegaTherion]

But I would say that it is only logical that an extra-temporal source was First Cause.

But before there was time, how does it even make sense to speak of causality (which requires time)?

The origin of the universe is a mystery, but it doesn’t help to try to solve that mystery by proposing an even bigger mystery unjustified by evidence (“god”).

 

[MarcoPolo]

But before there was time, how does it even make sense to speak of causality (which requires time)?

The origin of the universe is a mystery, but it doesn’t help to try to solve that mystery by proposing an even bigger mystery unjustified by evidence (“god”).

I recognize that created things need cause, but I fail to see the necessity of time to exist for the First Cause to create something.

 

[mchale]

But before there was time, how does it even make sense to speak of causality (which requires time)?

The origin of the universe is a mystery, but it doesn’t help to try to solve that mystery by proposing an even bigger mystery unjustified by evidence (“god”).

I think more specifically here, you mean by scientific evidence. After all, there are plenty of people who claim to have experienced miracles, Near Death Experiences, Visions, etc. that seem to point to the existence of a God. None of them can be tested scientifically, but they can be regarded as anecdotal evidence.

–
Bill

 

[crowonsnow]

Dennett spent his entire monologue discrediting the logic and reason of the Christian, and then openly states that he uses the same reasoning when he simply substitutes what Christians call God with “the universe.”

Comments welcome!

In fairness, that isn’t an exchange, ultimately, about whether there is a god but whether there was a creation. Assuming there was some kind of creation, for which there is no evidence, it’s asking whether the universe created the god or the god created the universe. Clearly they are merely using different words to refer to the flawed question, ‘why is there something instead of nothing?’

 

[crowonsnow]

I think more specifically here, you mean by scientific evidence. After all, there are plenty of people who claim to have experienced miracles, Near Death Experiences, Visions, etc. that seem to point to the existence of a God. None of them can be tested scientifically, but they can be regarded as anecdotal evidence.

As far as how our courts work, I do not think personal testimony is considered to be evidence. So in effect there is no such thing as unscientific evidence.

 

[mchale]

As far as how our courts work, I do not think personal testimony is considered to be evidence. So in effect there is no such thing as unscientific evidence.

Of course personal testimony is considered evidence. It is not necessarily considered as reliable as other sorts of evidence, but more than one person has been sent to jail for a long time because one or more people have gotten up on the stand and said that they saw the person commit the crime.

–
Bill

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m listening to the debate "Is God (and Religion) a Man-Made Invention? (MP3 here) between Dinesh D’Souza and Daniel Dennet from 2007. Dennett is the atheist. I think his argument collapsed at this point:Let’s talk about the Big Bang. For Dinesh this is proof of God’s existence. Remarkable how a creator comes into this picture. I don’t see that space and time in our universe started, what, 14 billion years ago? Yeah. That’s right. But not that God created space and time [but] that the universe by having the Big Bang created space and time. You’ll say, “Well, the universe can’t create itself.” Well, God can’t create himself either. I don’t know where you get the other principle that there has to be a creator. (starting at 1:00:13 mark)Regarding the bolded part: Dennett spent his entire monologue discrediting the logic and reason of the Christian, and then openly states that he uses the same reasoning when he simply substitutes what Christians call God with “the universe.”

Side note: Dinesh never said the Big Bang theory was “proof” of God’s existence. Throughout the debate Dinesh talks about reasons for believing things we cannot directly observe, for which the Big Bang theory is also indicative of a Creator.

Comments welcome!

i think its important that we make the point in that part of the argument nothing physical can cause itself. thereby leaving only non-physical causes.

since the very beginning we have claimed that G-d is spirit, non-physical.

i hate to see people fold to that lame “G-d must be created to argument”

Thomistic proofs hold up quite well because atheism is irrational. no matter how they phrase it, they are claiming the impossible. that there was a cause with no effect.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, the difference is that we know the universe exists. We don’t know if anything beyond the universe exists; there’s no evidence that any such “beyond” exists.

So when we look back to the moment of the Big Bang, both the atheist and Christian come up against a question mark.

 

[Dameedna]

Side note: Dinesh never said the Big Bang theory was “proof” of God’s existence. Throughout the debate Dinesh talks about reasons for believing things we cannot directly observe, for which the Big Bang theory is also indicative of a Creator.

Comments welcome!

I’m not sure how you think this discredits him?

If it is possible for something to exist eternally(which you accept and call god) then it is possible for a physical realit to exist as well, eternally that we call the universe.

He isn’t negating his own argument, he is using yours.

 

[Cluny]

There was a time, and not that long ago, when the Big Bang theory was rejected PRECISELY because it smacked of creationism.

 

[Dameedna]

To an extent I would agree with you. And I would say that without divine revelation human knowledge would be quite reduced. My point here is not to prop up the scientific basis for Christianity, but to demonstrate the “imitation” of faith put forth by atheists, such as Dennett. But I would say that it is only logical that an extra-temporal source was First Cause.

It’s not an imitation. It is an attempt to get you to recognize how your own argument sounds.

You are so sure of your argument that you never seem to think about it.

Call it an athiest thinking exercise.