New member, looking for discussion

[VociMike]

There are theories about infinite loops of universes (bang-crunch models), each with a different set of constants, and multi-verses. However these are purely speculative and we have absolutely no material evidence for them (in fact, with the bang-crunch ideas, we have evidence against them. Current cosmology shows an accelerating expansion of the universe, with no hint of future contraction). If you are a verificationist/naturalist who insists on evidence, to postulate these alternate explanations seems to be contradicting your own ethos.

Yes, this is a good point. The advances of cosmology seem determined to eliminate the “escape valves,” first, of a static universe (the Big Bang got rid of that) and now of an infinite bang-crunch cycle (as you say, current evidence is that the universe will expand “forever”). All this continues to paint those who want to explain the existence and characteristics of this particular universe into a smaller and smaller corner.

 

[JRKH]

Yes, this is a good point. The advances of cosmology seem determined to eliminate the “escape valves,” first, of a static universe (the Big Bang got rid of that) and now of an infinite bang-crunch cycle (as you say, current evidence is that the universe will expand “forever”). All this continues to paint those who want to explain the existence and characteristics of this particular universe into a smaller and smaller corner.

Also, to go from the infinately big to the infinately small - - -
I once asked someone on this board if science had any idea Why the various chemicals and acids came together and began functioning as a “Living organism”. Can science explain Why the initial groups of these single and independant organisms began coming together or why they began taking on specialized roles and completely giving up their individualities until the groups of individual cells became cells of a new multi-celled organism.
Science can explain much about the hows of things, but very little of the ultimate Why’s of things because the why of existance will ultimately lead back to, “I dunno”.
Without getting into determining the origin of the entire universe, science cannot tell us what the underlying force is for the initial beginning of what we call “life” on the planet. They understand that it is here, and that there are various actions and reactions changes and causalities, but they cannot explain the first causality for life.

Peace
James

 

[VociMike]

Also, to go from the infinately big to the infinately small - - -
I once asked someone on this board if science had any idea Why the various chemicals and acids came together and began functioning as a “Living organism”. Can science explain Why the initial groups of these single and independant organisms began coming together or why they began taking on specialized roles and completely giving up their individualities until the groups of individual cells became cells of a new multi-celled organism.
Science can explain much about the hows of things, but very little of the ultimate Why’s of things because the why of existance will ultimately lead back to, “I dunno”.
Without getting into determining the origin of the entire universe, science cannot tell us what the underlying force is for the initial beginning of what we call “life” on the planet. They understand that it is here, and that there are various actions and reactions changes and causalities, but they cannot explain the first causality for life.

Right. No matter how much our science advances, all it can do is go back to the First Explanation, that explanation from which all others follow, and for which, by definition, there is no explanation. The First Explanation, whatever it is, is simply a given. And to say that the First Explanation is not God is every bit as much a statement of faith as to say that it is God, since by definition it is not a scientifically provable statement.

 

[JRKH]

Hi,

I created an account here to get some viewpoints on god and the beliefs of others.

Some background about me: from ages 5 – 17 I went to christian(Roman catholic) schools, then to a secular university. I am in my mid 20’s. I believed in god, jesus, the bible, etc… until I was about 15 because authority figures (parents, teachers) told me that it was true. Around that time I looked more closely and critically at the religion and dismissed it as silly for many reasons. The reasons mainly centred around proof, evidence, feasibility, reality, etc…

I would describe myself as a 99% atheist; i.e. agnostic but leaning heavily towards atheism.

I am looking for clear, rational, arguments for the existence of a god, or the christian god, or to show that something in the bible is true. I have an open mind, and if you show something to be true, or almost certainly true, I must believe it.

I have recently read Aquinas’ 5 proofs, but counter-arguments have dismissed them.

I am coming here in good faith, hoping to be convinced or persuaded, looking at both sides of the argument.

I hope this is in the right section.

Thanks for your time.

This thread has been most interesting but I decided I needed to go back to the OP to get some clarification.
You have asked for clear, rational arguments for the existance of God.
We have given you many arguments and ideas to ponder.
You have shot various holes in things and offered other explanations etc.
So we go back and forth and back and forth…

So I think we need to clarify what you define as “God”. What is the definition of the “Supreme Being” that you wish us to provide evidence or clear argument for? I ask this in all charity.

For instance, in the Star Wars Movies they refer to “The Force” that permeates everything and that everything draws from “The Force”. This “force” is the mental/spiritual root for the the powers of good (the light side) and evil (the dark side). So then, would you consider that such a force might exist in our universe? And if so would you consider that this “force” in our universe could be called God instead of “The force”?
Or is the idea of God that you wish explained is the “Big Old Man” image of God that we have all seen in art. A seperate and distinct individual.

I ask this so that we might be able to clarify some of our terminology and understand better what the other is trying to explain or understand.

Peace
James

 

[wasmit]

Hi wasmit,

From what I can gather, you seem to subscribe to a kind of logical positivistism or verificationism. Let me ask, do you consider something to be true if and only if it can be shown to be analytically true (i.e. mathematical theorems, tautologies etc.) or empirically verifiable?

I consider something to be true if it is confirmed to such a degree that it would be peverse to withhold assent.

Things can also have degrees of certainty, ranging from false, probably false, likely to be false, unknown, likely to be true… etc.

e.g. evidence suggests that the perpetual bang/crunch model is not true. It is probably false.

One argument for a creator that I find to be quite good is the fine tuning argument. However, I’m not sure you fully grasp the significance of how astronomically small the probability of a life permitting universe actually is. For instance you say:

One billion to one is WAY too big a probability. Physicist Roger Penrose (no slouch in the intellectual department) calculated the probability of a life permitting universe to form as 1 divided by 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123! That number is so small as to be beyond all rational considerations of coming about by chance. Emile Borel, a French mathematician considered a probability much smaller than the one I just mentioned, 10 to the power of -50, can be taken to be the equivalent of a practical impossibility.

Now you also mention that we are somewhat ignorant about the possible values of such constants, I agree, we are.

Your last two paragraphs contradict each other. We don’t know the possible values, and the probability of each, therefore no calculation can be made.

That’s entirely to be expected however, the closest we have gotten to the big bang in time, which was the start of all natural processes, gives us no evidence that these constants are in some way determined by natural processes. How could they be, as the big bang is the start of all material things! If at the start of all material things the values of all of these constants are set, then how could there be a naturalistic explanation for them? In the absence of any naturalistic explanation for the values of the constants, the sensible thing to do is to assume that within reasonable bounds the values are equi-probable.

This:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
explains some other lines of thought for how these constants may have been decided. Specifically, that the universe is one of many, generated from some natural process.

It is not sensible to assume random bounds for these constants, nor to assume equi-probability for each, without a reason to assume one range over another.

So what are we left with? Well on the one hand, if we assume naturalism we have no explanation for the constants, and the knowledge that it is practically impossible for a life permitting universe to come about by chance, yet we do indeed have a life permitting universe.

A natural process (that we don’t know of) could explain the constants.
We dont know if it is ‘practically impossible’ for these constants to fall the way they did for two reasons - we don’t know their ranges, and we don’t know how many universes there are.

There are theories about infinite loops of universes (bang-crunch models), each with a different set of constants, and multi-verses. However these are purely speculative and we have absolutely no material evidence for them If you are a verificationist/naturalist who insists on evidence, to postulate these alternate explanations seems to be contradicting your own ethos.

I’m not claiming that these are the case, merely that they are possible, which refutes the fine-tuning argument.

Furthermore, the fine-tuning argument is a version of the “God-of-the-Gaps” reasoning where a God is deemed necessary whenever a phenomenon has not been fully explained.

Another argument I am quite fond of is Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism. Alvin Plantinga is a very eminent philosopher (specialising in epistemology) at Notre Dame. What this argument shows is a deep incompatibility with the theory of evolution and naturalism and our reliable belief producing faculties. He isn’t trying to show evolution is incorrect, rather his argument shows that if one beliefs both naturalism and evolution are true, then he has a defeater for all of his/her beliefs, including naturalism! This post is far too long already, so I won’t go into it further, only point you to an audio presentation of the argument hisdefense.org/OnlineLectures/tabid/136/Default.aspx. An essay is freely available on the internet somewhere, but I can’t seem to find it. Just a word of caution with this argument, a lot of naturalists seem to dismiss it out of hand because they don’t fully understand it (it’s somewhat convoluted), but I urge you to deeply think about it. From what I have seen, it is a well respected argument in philosophy circles that spans many topics including epistemology, cognition, evolutionary psychology etc.

Sorry for the long post

I will look for the written essay, thanks for the tip.

 

[JRKH]

Right. No matter how much our science advances, all it can do is go back to the First Explanation, that explanation from which all others follow, and for which, by definition, there is no explanation. The First Explanation, whatever it is, is simply a given. And to say that the First Explanation is not God is every bit as much a statement of faith as to say that it is God, since by definition it is not a scientifically provable statement.

Very nicely put. I like that - First explanation. - - Yup I like that.

 

[wasmit]

wasmit, what did you think about my post 2 pages back?

Just a brief comment. I’ve come to agreement with Fr. Robert Barron and his explanations for different forms of knowledge. Taken from his Youtube comments:

sorry if i miss some posts, there is only one of me and 15-20 respondents. I intend to reply to all posts that warrant one.

I agree with the first quote,

I disagree with the materialist quote, as ther are things that we can satisfy ourselves that exist, but cannot be measured.

I’m in the same position as you in relation to those two points.

 

[wasmit]

I was foolish for challenging you to show something in the Bible as being untrue. I do realize that there are challenges to some passages that may never be resolved.

For what it is worth -

"And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn Vashni, and Abiah.

firstborn. 5:1 Le 27:26 Ge 14:20 Here there is an ellipsis of the name of the firstborn, which the margin correctly supplies as Joel. The word {Vashni} when otherwise pointed means second, so that the verse more properly reads And the sons of Samuel; the firstborn (Joel) and the second Abiah.
It appears that the Joel is here lost out of the text; and that {vashni}, which signifies and the second, and which refers to Abiah, is made into a proper name. The Syriac and Arabic read as in Samuel. The marginal references contain the variation in the names given to the same persons, in different parts of sacred history, as far as it can be ascertained; and nearly the whole, that is at present known concerning them, may be learned by carefully consulting them."

I don’t know what you are talking about with leviticus 27.26 and genesis 14.20, and also don’t know what you mean by the margin. can you please explain that quote more thoroughly?

Although I do know that disproving a non-existant “thing” is not feasible, I don’t believe the inability to prove an existant “thing” makes it non-existant. (refer back to my example of love)

I agree.

 

[AndyT_81]

Hi wasmit,

I consider something to be true if it is confirmed to such a degree that it would be peverse to withhold assent.

Things can also have degrees of certainty, ranging from false, probably false, likely to be false, unknown, likely to be true… etc.

e.g. evidence suggests that the perpetual bang/crunch model is not true. It is probably false.

That didn’t really answer my question. How do you come to know that things are true, likely true, likely false etc.? Is it through empirical evidence and tautologies only?

Your last two paragraphs contradict each other. We don’t know the possible values, and the probability of each, therefore no calculation can be made.

I disagree (and so do eminent physicists and cosmologists, see Roger Penrose, Fred Hoyle and others). What we can do is compare the probabilities of different “hypotheses”, i.e. naturalism and theism, or in other words use conditional probabilites (Bayesian analysis). Given a “one-shot” universe i.e. no multiverse or variations of that idea, the big bang is the beginning of all physical laws, constants and material. Therefore, in such an instance the only explanation available for the constants is random chance given naturalism. If you disagree, I ask you to posit another plausible explanation. Given a one-shot universe, there can be no naturalistic explanation for the initial state of the universe at creation, because before that there is no “nature” or material reality. Leaving aside the strange possibility of something coming from nothing uncaused, the only plausible explanation (given we have nothing possible materially of causing the constants to be what they are) is random chance. In such a scenario, the probability of a life permitting universe is ridiculously low, beyond what is considered to be practically possible.

Now you can posit a multi-verse, but there is no material evidence for such a thing, and it seems that there could never be material evidence for such a thing. For a naturalist to suggest such a thing in order to defeat the fine-tuning argument seems to be going against the epistemology of naturalism itself. In addition to this, seriously putting forth a multi-verse theory is a violation of Ockham’s razor.

Now compare that with a theism “hypothesis”. We have revelation within history of a God who loves human beings, and therefore has a vested interest in having us around, who created the universe. The probability of a life permitting universe with such a “hypothesis” is 1. In light of this, which is the better explanation for what we know?

A natural process (that we don’t know of) could explain the constants.
We dont know if it is ‘practically impossible’ for these constants to fall the way they did for two reasons - we don’t know their ranges, and we don’t know how many universes there are.

You misunderstand what I meant (probably due to my poor explanations!). When I said practically impossible, I meant that the probabilities of a life permitting universe given random chance are so low as to be practically impossible. You dispute using random chance as a viable way of assessing the conditional probabilities, but see my above comments regarding how this is the only plausible explanation available to us given naturalism.

I’m not claiming that these are the case, merely that they are possible, which refutes the fine-tuning argument.

Not at all, we can speculate about any logically possible set of events to try and refute some idea. The problem is, without any evidence to support the speculations they don’t refute anything. For instance, I could refute the idea of gravity by claiming there are an infinite number of invisible beings that populate the universe and move things according to the inverse square law, but I have no evidence for this and the idea fails Ockham’s razor, so it doesn’t refute anything.

Furthermore, the fine-tuning argument is a version of the “God-of-the-Gaps” reasoning where a God is deemed necessary whenever a phenomenon has not been fully explained.

This isn’t a God-of-the-gaps argument in the sense of explaining some anomolous weather event. Rather, this is an argument which addresses a gap that will likely never be closed by the scientific method. If you wonder how I can say this, think, how can the physical scientific laws explain themselves?

 

[Mijoy2]

These discussions always seem to eventually take the same track. The discussions gravitate towards whether evidence (in a tangible, touch hear and see variety) of the existance of God is attainable.

My opinion:

For most of us, throughout time who have pursued this, have never eventually answered this in the affirmative. (with the possible exception of those who God may have revealed Himself to).

I don’t think this is the question of interest. The question of interest comes (in part) from the fact that this question cannot be answered. This alone is a profound mystery. In all of our vast progress towards a better understanding of the world around us, it appears to me, we are no closer to understanding, in full, the precise origins of our universe.

We may approach a better and better understanding of the origin of the world around us but no matter how far we progress the nagging question of “well what caused the first cause?” will never be answered.

Here is a suggestion. I am not preaching this or even strongly recommending it. There are far better theologians in these forums then I. Why not simply resign yourself to the fact that you will not get an answer to your satisfaction (where nobody else throughout time has been successful in this endouver yet). Begin to ponder the two (from a high level) possible considerations instead.

Either, there is/was no God and our total existence is a random event without any spiritual or everlasting meaning.

Or, there is a God and our life has spiritual meaning and will live on eternally.

From here there seems two directions one can travel (there are 3 actually but we have ruled out the first…continuing to look for conclusive evidence).

One, you can accept the former as the answer and live by the old adage, “what difference will it make in one hundred years anyway?” and carry out your life with presumption ashes to ashes. Or accept the later as a possiblity (note I said possibility not as fact) and begin to investigate what has been revealed for it’s clarity and worthyness of belief.

By that I mean such things as considering the beauty and mystery of love (as oppose to believing it is a empathatic feeling only due to evolutionary concepts of survival of the fittest).

Consider the “story” of the revelation as it pertains to history. The story of Salvation History is a story with a well defined theme from beginning to end. Ask yourself how could this have simply come about of it’s own accord.

Consider the words of the Saints. Read what the Saints have to say, what they experienced, how thier lives in Christ progressed from the purgative, to the luminative, to the unitive ways.

Consider the teachings and thier degree of Truths of the Church Christ started.

So many more things to consider.

Two choices as I see it once the fact that an answer to your primary question cannot be answered in the manner you are chosing here. Possibly, it iwll be answered following an attempt at understand Christ, as opposed to an attempt at finding tangible court room evidence of Him.

I am a person who battles doubt and feel I must admit it. Otherwise I’d be lying. However the approach I have outlined above has provided me with much comfort and a reasonable degree of logical meaning.

I wish you ultimate success in your search.

 

[JRKH]

These discussions always seem to eventually take the same track. The discussions gravitate towards whether evidence (in a tangible, touch hear and see variety) of the existance of God is attainable.

(Very Large Snip for space)

I am a person who battles doubt and feel I must admit it. Otherwise I’d be lying. However the approach I have outlined above has provided me with much comfort and a reasonable degree of logical meaning.

I wish you ultimate success in your search.

Great Post.

I too am one who battles doubts even though I have accepted God/Christ/Catholicism and truly believe. Nice to hear fronm another who presents it so well.

Peace
James

 

[NonCatholic]

Hi,

I created an account here to get some viewpoints on god and the beliefs of others.

Some background about me: from ages 5 – 17 I went to christian(Roman catholic) schools, then to a secular university. I am in my mid 20’s. I believed in god, jesus, the bible, etc… until I was about 15 because authority figures (parents, teachers) told me that it was true. Around that time I looked more closely and critically at the religion and dismissed it as silly for many reasons. The reasons mainly centred around proof, evidence, feasibility, reality, etc…

I would describe myself as a 99% atheist; i.e. agnostic but leaning heavily towards atheism.

I am looking for clear, rational, arguments for the existence of a god, or the christian god, or to show that something in the bible is true. I have an open mind, and if you show something to be true, or almost certainly true, I must believe it.

I have recently read Aquinas’ 5 proofs, but counter-arguments have dismissed them.

I am coming here in good faith, hoping to be convinced or persuaded, looking at both sides of the argument.

I hope this is in the right section.

Thanks for your time.

This may be an exercise in futility, but may be not. “Unbelievers cannot accept legitimate proof because they are blind to it.” The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to Him, neither can he know them because they are spiritually discerned…1 Corinthians 2:14…only as the Holy Spirit does His regenerating work as He opens the mind, tears off the scales of blindness, gives life and plants the understanding of God’s revelation, only then do people believe that the Bible is the Word of God and trust it enough to live by God’s truth.

Here are couple of great resources.

gty.org/Resources/Sermons/90-322 Tilte: Why We Believe; While Others Reject"
You can read, watch, download or listen - click the appropriate link on the page.

Also, “Why We Believe The Bible Is True”
gty.org/Resources/Sermons/90-321

Lastly, "The Bible Is God’s Word "
gty.org/Resources/sermons/Code/90s

 

[NonCatholic]

Great Post.

I too am one who battles doubts even though I have accepted God/Christ/Catholicism and truly believe. Nice to hear fronm another who presents it so well.

Peace
James

Hello, I’m one of your neighbors in No. KY. …little off topic

 

[JRKH]

Hello, I’m one of your neighbors in No. KY. …little off topic

Howdy

James

 

[neophyte]

can you give information to support this?

McDowell talks about it at great length in his book.

 

[VociMike]

Very nicely put. I like that - First explanation. - - Yup I like that.

I came up with that term because a lot of people object to the term “first cause” by saying “well, why did there have to be a cause at all?” First Explanation seems to avoid that initial stumbling block.

 

[wasmit]

peterkreeft.com/topics/christ-divinity.htm

Some replies:

trilemma

1. Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord.
2. Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic.
3. Therefore, Jesus is Lord.

This is a valid argument inferring one member of a disjunction from the negation of the other members. But the argument is still unsound, because the first premiss is false: there are other unmentioned alternatives, for example, that Jesus as described in the gospels is a legendary figure, so that the trilemma is false as it stands.

we know nothing about Jesus that came directly from him. Everything written about him, including all quotations of his words, are second-hand or third-hand sources.

the same liar, lunatic, or lord argument could be just as well applied to the founders of every other religion, including those with teachings very different from Christianity. Yet to be a Christian, you must assume that all those other religions are false!

even most insane people have some elements of lucidity in their characters. There is not an absolute distinction between the insane and those of normal mentality. Mental illness has many different manifestations and degrees of severity.

When the bible says “jesus said….” We can’t assume that it is true. We need to assess the accuracy of these claims, which is impossible.

it makes unwarranted extrapolations from the general idea of saying something known not to be literally true to the worst sort of malicious lying, and from believing something which is not true to raving lunacy.

Exactly what Jesus claimed is not known. The gospels are the closest thing we have to an account of his claims, and there is no explicit claim of divinity by Jesus in the gospels, let alone an unambiguous theological statement of what precisely it might mean for a man to claim to be God. (Obviously the Christian church came to think that Jesus was God, though even they had trouble determining what that meant, as witnessed by centuries of “heresies” concerning this issue).

The other flaw in the “trilemma” argument is that even if one concedes the first point for the sake of argument, and stipulates that Jesus did claim to be God, in incarnate form generally consistent with orthodox interpretation, the extremes of “lunatic” or “fiend” are not justified as the sole alternatives. In particular, it is still quite possible to consider Jesus a sound moral teacher even if one doesn’t accept the claim of divinity.

at least some people at the time apparently felt Jesus was “raving mad.” (john 10, 19)

Then there is the question of the nature of mental illness and delusion. There is an implication in the trilemma/LLL argument that someone with such a delusion would be a) incapable of sound rational thought on moral issues, and b) obviously raving mad, and thus incapable of influencing people. This is not the case. There are many kinds of delusional mental illness, with varying effects. Some of these occur sporadically rather than constantly–the term lunacy itself refers to a form of insanity intermixed with periods of clear thinking (the name comes from association with the cycle of the moon). The mania phase of bipolar disorder is an instance in which delusion is not necessarily constant.

So not only can we make a case that a relatively obvious nut might found a religion and still be remembered as wise, but a paranoiac or a sufferer of various other forms of delusion might be quite convincing on the subject of their delusion, while furthermore being quite capable of sound reasoning on e.g. moral issues. Once again, the story would have been passed on by people who believed what the leader said.

it is not the case that there are three and only three precisely-defined choices to be made here, but rather a vast continuum of possibilities.

The trilemma argument does not support any particular opinion one way or another concerning Jesus. If one already believes that Jesus was the Christ of the Christian faith and hence Lord, then naturally one is disinclined to believe that he was anything else, and may favor the idea that other options are untenable. This argument, however, provides no logical support for one who doesn’t already believe to choose the “Lord” option out of all the others.

Muhammad: liar, lunatic, or prophet of God?

 

[wasmit]

who killed goliath?

elhanan or david?

this is a contradiction in the bible. One of these sections must be wrong.

elhanan:

usccb.org/nab/bible/2samuel/2samuel21.htm
19
There was another battle with the Philistines in Gob, in which Elhanan, son of Jair from Bethlehem, killed Goliath of Gath, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s heddle-bar.

david:

usccb.org/nab/bible/1samuel/1samuel17.htm
49
David put his hand into the bag and took out a stone, hurled it with the sling, and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone embedded itself in his brow, and he fell prostrate on the ground.
50
(Thus David overcame the Philistine with sling and stone; he struck the Philistine mortally, and did it without a sword.)
51
Then David ran and stood over him; with the Philistine’s own sword (which he drew from its sheath) he dispatched him and cut off his head.When they saw that their hero was dead, the Philistines took to flight.

usccb.org/nab/bible/1samuel/1samuel21.htm
10
The priest replied: “The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom you killed in the Vale of the Terebinth, is here (wrapped in a mantle) behind an ephod. If you wish to take that, take it; there is no sword here except that one.” David said: “There is none to match it. Give it to me!”

 

[wasmit]

The first cause argument:

“every item must have a prior cause, except for the first cause, which is god”

is defeated by the argument that space-time did not exist at the big bang. there is no such thing as “before the big bang” because time did not exist, and therefore the words “before”, “prior” and “earlier” have no meaning.

 

[wasmit]

why is the bible true and the koran not?