Originally posted by Templares
On your previous post, your EXPLICITLY asking what caused that large star in the Heavens, the sun. I gave you the correct answer; the gravitational collapse of a gas cloud. In the creation of the sun, the gas cloud comes first before the sun. This is the proper sequence of events and is NOT a proper example of the idiomatic expression "putting a cart before a horse". Basically your trying to ungainly shift your question from the cause of the sun after i answered it and hopefully not appear get OWNED-again. Next time dont ask grade school level questions like star formation. The previous questions you pose deals with the sun which is why i limited my answers to that.Anyway, let's just cut to the chase. The gas cloud could be traced back to the Big Bang. What you really want to ask me, for the nth time - i lost count, is what caused the Big Bang (or the quantum fluctuations that caused it)? And everytime, the answer stays the same: it is UNCAUSED. It goes like this. By definition, a cause comes BEFORE an event like the Big Bang and is therefore subject to time. Time however is part of spacetime which began to exists only after the Big Bang, which means there is NO TIME BEFORE the Big Bang. This in turn means that your so called "law of cause and effect" BREAKSDOWN/DOES NOT APPLY to the Big Bang . The Big Bang does not need a CAUSE for it to exist. So unless you could prove that time exists before the Big Bang, you would have just to accept the fact that the Big Bang is exempt from the chain of causality. There is actually empical evidence for the Big Bang hence it more likely to be the thing/event that is exempt from the chain of causality, unlike your unknown, supernatural god.
This reminds of an anecdote about St.Augustine. Somebody asked him, "What was God doing before he created the world?" Augustine answered, "Time itself being part of God's creation, there was simply NO BEFORE!"
See above for any cause and effect-related counters.
And this *cut and paste* answer of mine from a previous post shows that accidents or random chance brought forth "definite, workable, calculable laws that govern advanced organisms, and sustains their very existence".
"The force laws (gravity, electromagnetic, electroweak, and strong) as exist in the Standard Model are represented as spontaneously broken symmetries, that is, symmetries that are broken randomly and without cause or design. In a more apt example, consider what happens when a ferromagnet cools below a certain critical temperature called the Curie point. The iron undergoes a change of phase and a magnetic field suddenly appears that points in a specific, though RANDOM, direction, breaking the original symmetry in which no direction was singled out ahead of time, none predictable by any known theory.
The forces of nature are akin to the magnetic field of a ferromagnet. The "direction" they point to after symmetry breaking was not determined ahead of time. The nature of the forces themselves was not pre-specified. They just happened to freeze out the way they did.
Now theists may argue that I am simply assuming the absence of divine causation and not proving it. I am not claiming to prove that such causation does not exist. Rather I am simply demonstrating that, based on current scientific knowledge, NONE IS NECESSARY."
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/stenger_intel.html
See above and have i mentioned youve made improper use of the idiomatic expression "putting a cart before a horse"?
See above and have i mentioned that the Big Bang is exempt from the chain of causality due to the fact that there is no time before time?
Paley's watchmaker analogy could be sum up in two words: Bad Analogy.
For one, it leaves the question who designed god? The baseless assumption that god is UNDESIGNED is a circular argument. It must first be shown that god - your christian god - exists BEFORE ANYTHING can be attributed to him or his "handiwork." In other words, we cannot assume that this god is NOT a product of design and then turn around and use that assumption to prove god's existence. Might as well say that the universe is UNDESIGNED and forget about baseless supernatural designers.
Second,i'll quote you a ruling from the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Ya know the court ruling that showed that Intelligent design is bullsh!t and should not be taught in school. It mainly talks about biological life but some of the arguments could be used to our debate about the design of the Universe.
"For human artifacts, we know the designer's identity, human, and the mechanism of design, as we have experience based upon empirical evidence that humans can make such things, as well as many other attributes including the designer's abilities, needs, and desires. With ID, proponents assert that they refuse to propose hypotheses on the designer's identity, do not propose a mechanism, and the designer, he/she/it/they, has never been seen. In that vein, defense expert Professor Minnich agreed that in the case of human artifacts and objects, we know the identity and capacities of the human designer, but we do not know any of those attributes for the designer of biological life. In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies." — Ruling, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, page 81
In the case of human artifacts and objects like watches, we know through credible and empirical means the identity and capacities of the human designer of the watch but we do not know through credible and empirical means, any of those attributes for the designer of the universe.
By the way, God is credible to me.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Not so fast Tempy, you gave me an answer, not necessarily the correct one. You see, you believe by faith(because you did not conduct the empirical tests and other research to arrive at your conclusion that the sun is the product of a gravitational collapse of a gas cloud) that you have the right answer concerning the sun's origin.Also, I use plenty of metahpors because that is just the way that I convey my thoughts at times if I deem it apropos.
I have faith (as in trust) in astronomers and and their logic-based scientific explanations like the sun being product of a gas cloud's gravitaional collapse because they have a proven track record of being correct, reliable and accurate. Priests who didnt see first hand the creation of the sun and the Bible are far worse in explaining things. This is why modern creationsist and those who believe in them, who by the way did not conduct empirical investigations first hand, are twisting themselves using scientific explanations to prove god's existence unlike in the past, where the Bible and threats of damnation were enough to convince people.
Yeah and your metaphors are horribly out of place.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveNothing is uncaused--not even you, your thoughts, your reflexes, your emotions, or your current mind-set. Just because the space-time continuum did not exist prior to the purported big bang, that does not preclude or negate the fact that the big bang required a stimulus for it to occur. Now, let us get down to brass tacks (oops, I used another expression, please don't hold it against me this time). This is what I have been trying to impress upon your mind Templares: it makes perfect sense that in order for the big bang to occcur in the absence of space, matter, and time, the Cause of such a cataclysmic, phenomenal event must of necessity transcend, and not be subject to the laws of cause and effect. An all-powerful Creator is the only possible solution to this paradox for a number of good reasons. First, He is powerful enough to produce the big bang. Second, He is the only reputed to occupy a dimension outside of this current one we find ourselves in. Third, He is the only One wise enough to figure out how to create something from nothing. Who or what else could produce a blast of the magnitude required to introduce space-time and matter from nothing? No other explanation computes or makes sense. Nowhere in this universe do we see an example of an uncaused effect, so why should we even consider a theory that asserts that an effect (i.e. the big bang) did not have a cause? I have said in times past that only material things are subject to cause and effect in this universe, but a Spirit such as God is not bound by the constraints of this material world; hence, He is qualified to be the First Cause, and Orginator of this material reality. No one and nothing else possesses all of the requisite attributes to produce a big bang from nullity.
There was a before we just weren't a part of it--but God was.
Everything in this space-time continuum is the result of a cause, including invisible, natural laws and forces. Disagree? The burden of proof is on you.
God (Who is a Spirit) is not bound by natural laws (remember: it is presupposed that He created them; hence, He would have had to precede them).
Not true. I have provided the Creator's identity, the mechanism whereby He created, and, incidentally, how do you know that He has never been seen? You mean you have never seen Him right?
In previous posts (perhaps in other threads) I have presented both the identity of God, and the mechanism by which God created, and I derived all of this from the Bible. God created this universe from spoken words. This is the mechanism. I have chapter and verse to support my statements but I will refrain from posting them at the moment. God spoke and things appeared. This is what the Scriptures reveal. Now, I know this might sound too simplistic for you, but it is the truth (according to the Bible) nonetheless.
As far as the identity and capacity of the Designer, the Bible is replete with descriptions and details of Who God is. Jesus said that God (His Father) is a Spirit. If anybody has the corner on Who or What God is, it has to be His Son. In other places God's understanding (i.e. mind, intellect) is described as infinite (that sure beats any intelligence quotient I have ever seen). As far as power (i.e. ability, capacity, skill, energy) that too is off the charts according to the Bible. God is so powerful that there really is no other way to express it except to call Him omnipotent (which means "possessing all power" or "all-powerful"😉. The Bible states that God is "all-mighty" because He is the Source and Mainspring of all power and energy (all of it flows from Him). There are many other passages of Scripture that reveal Who God is, but I would be here forever listing all of His character traits, so I will stop here for now.
Tsk. Tsk. Big words, "A Blast of Magnitude!!!", designed to awe and shock but nothing of substance. You are still not getting it.
The necessity of having a First Cause to "cause the universe" does not constitute as PROOF for the existence of the one claiming to be the First Cause. You still have to provide outside and reliable proof for its existence.
Let me illustrate:
The Argument of Chelsea Clinton for Santa Claus' existence.
A: Chelsea Clinton NEEDS a sperm donor in order to be caused
B: Santa Claus is a sperm donor
C: Santa Claus is the sperm donor of Chelsea Clinton
Therefore, Santa Claus EXISTS
The problem here is B because by claiming that Santa is a sperm donor, it assumes that Santa Claus already EXISTS. But thats what we are trying to prove with The Argument of Chelsea Clinton for Santa Claus' existence. We are getting ahead of our conclusion. The inclusion of B shows that The Argument of Chelsea Clinton for Santa Claus' existence is an example of a circular argument, invalidating the conclusion. Take away B however and the argument falls flat. Prove first by reliable means outside of the framed argument that Santa Claus exists before using him as proof. Heck if Santa clause was proven to exist outside of the framed argument, we wont even be NEEDING the Argument of chelsea Clinton to prove Santa Claus' existence on the FIRST PLACE.
Applying the Argument of First Cause for God's Existence.
D: the universe needs a cause
E: God is exempt from the chain of causality (the first cause)
F: God caused the universe
Therefore, God exists
The problem here is E because by claiming that God is exempt from the chain of causality, it assumes that God already EXISTS. But thats what we are trying to prove with the Argument of First Cause for God's Existence. We are getting ahead of our conclusion. The inclusion of E shows that the Argument of First Cause for God's Existence is an example of a circular argument, invalidating the conclusion. Take away E however and the argument falls flat. Prove first by reliable means outside of the framed argument that God exists before using him as proof. Heck if God was proven to exist outside of the framed argument, we wont even be NEEDING the Argument of First Cause for God's Existence on the FIRST PLACE.
Its pretty sad you know. In the middle ages, when Thomas of Aquinas framed his Argument for First Cause and people were still superstitous and ignorant, he could still use then unexplainable natural phenomena like lightning, rainbows etc. as proof of God's existence outside of and to corroborate the Argument for First Cause. Unfortunately, science came in, and provided more correct and accurate explanations and did away with all the supernatural explanations that required god.
Wait, what's this i hear, the Holy scriptures or the Bible are reliable proof of god's existence?!
The Argument from the Bible for God's Existence.
G: The Bible is reliable because its divinely inspired
H: The Bible said God exists
Therefore, God exists
The problem here is G because by claiming that the Bible is divinely inspired, it assumes that God already EXISTS. But thats what we are trying to prove with the Argument from the Bible for God's Existence.. We are getting ahead of our conclusion. The inclusion of G shows that The Argument from the Bible for God's Existence is an example of a circular argument, invalidating the conclusion. Take away A however and the argument falls flat. Prove first by reliable means outside of the framed argument that God exists before using him as proof. Heck if God was proven to exist outside of the framed argument, we wont even be NEEDING the The Argument from the Bible for God's Existence on the FIRST PLACE.
Needless to say, circular arguments (Argument of First Cause for God's Existence) supported by circular arguments (Argument from the Bible for God's Existence) are worthless arguments.
To declare this First Cause to be your Christian god is pure speculation backed up by zero reliable evidence especially when something like the Big Bang which is can be reliably proven to exist/occur(ie. cosmic microwave background etc.) could be assigned as the First Cause instead. Heck, the Big Bang could even claim exception to the law of cause and effect using only naturalistic means (there is no time before spacetime). The alternative of assigning a supernatural god as the First Cause is a huge leap of logic and is an unecessary complication. The supernatural explanation that god created rainbows is stupid and unnecesasary given current knowledge. In time as scientific research in the field of cosmology improves, the supernatural explanation that god created the universe would also become stupid and unnecessary.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
This planet is extraordinary proof.
This planet is extraordinary proof of what? ...of the solar system? ... of the universe? ...of the ultra-verse? This planet is extraordinary proof of a lot of things, but not of a god. You have to define what a god is before you can find any kind of proof, and the definition must be testable.
Originally posted by Storm
How can you justifiably say that something is proof of God rather than proof of something else entirely?
Hi Storm. Well, to answer your question, my standpoint with regard to this issue is the Scriptures. For this reason, I have a perspective that is different from those who do not subscribe to belief in God. However, the Bible states,
for since the creation of the world His [i.e. God's] invisible attributes are clearly seen being understood by the things that are made , even His eternal power and Godhead [i.e. deity, divinity], so that they [i.e. we] are without excuse [Romans 1:20].
For example, the Bible states that God is all-powerful. What are some material proofs of this? Well we could start with the immense size and nuclear energy (i.e. fusion/power) of the sun:
or the iridescent splendor of the earth (it is like a living jewel):
We can conclude that God is a God of order from how organized many things are:
But when I read in the Bible that God is love and then I ponder the exquisite beauty of a rose:
or the magnificence of a sunset:
or the perfection of a newborn baby:
the cuteness of a kitten:
the elegance of a swan:
or the grace of horses:
I don't see how any of the above examples could have come from a big bang or evolved. This planet is fraught with too many coincidences in favor of supporting life. Case in point, the ozone layer. No other planet has this remarkable uv shield (another favorable coincidence?). I see beauty, design, order, and purpose when I look around this world. Anyone who carefully examines nature, and observes it thoughtfully should be able to infer that God not only has impeccable, aesthetic flair, but that He appreciates variety, and is unquestionably the greatest Artist of all time. The most outstanding distinction between God and human artists is that God gives life (literally) to what He creates. The beautiful things, the unique things, the odd, and the complicated creations of God are like windows that allow each us to peer into God's character and personality. We can get an idea of what God is like by the things that He has made. I don't believe that this universe came about by an uncaused explosion that happened without purpose. I do not believe that life evolved. Neither of those explanations makes sense to me.
Originally posted by Templares
I have faith (as in trust) in astronomers and and their logic-based scientific explanations like the sun being product of a gas cloud's gravitaional collapse because they have a proven track record of being correct, reliable and accurate. Priests who didnt see first hand the creation of the sun and the Bible are far worse in explaining things. This is why modern creationsist and those who believe in them, who by the way did not conduct empirical investigations first hand, are twisting themselves using scientific explanations to prove god's existence unlike in the past, where the Bible and threats of damnation were enough to convince people.
Yeah and your metaphors are horribly out of place.
Now we are getting somewhere. You have finally admitted to having blind faith in something/someone. What? It is not blind faith? Sure it is. Again, did you conduct the research that your faith is founded upon? Were you there looking over the shoulder of these astronomers as they supposedly formulated their logic-based, scientific explanations? No? Well, then without further ado pal--it is blind faith.
And stop picking on my poor wittle (I meant to write that) metaphors. (I hope you realize that I am just trying to add some levity and fun to this discussion).
Tsk. Tsk. Big words, "A Blast of Magnitude!!!", designed to awe and shock but nothing of substance. You are still not getting it.
Enlighten me.
The necessity of having a First Cause to "cause the universe" does not constitute as PROOF for the existence of the one claiming to be the First Cause. You still have to provide outside and reliable proof for its existence.
I never said that it did constitute proof did I? I believe I stated that this universe and earth with their advanced degree of complication and endless lists of favorable coincidences (as far as supporting life is concerned) was the evidence pointing to a very, very (say "very" Tempy, I'll wait...Okay, good job) intelligent, powerful (in terms of ability and energy) Person (we call Him God).
Let me illustrate:
The Argument of Chelsea Clinton for Santa Claus' existence.
A: Chelsea Clinton NEEDS a sperm donor in order to be caused
B: Santa Claus is a sperm donor
C: Santa Claus is the sperm donor of Chelsea Clinton
Therefore, Santa Claus EXISTS
Uh...Tem-py...this is a very poor illustration, but I understand your point. Would you like to know why your example is a bad one? You have not given any cogent evidence for Mr. Clause's existence as I have with regard to God.
The problem here is B because by claiming that Santa is a sperm donor, it assumes that Santa Claus already EXISTS. But thats what we are trying to prove with The Argument of Chelsea Clinton for Santa Claus' existence. We are getting ahead of our conclusion. The inclusion of B shows that The Argument of Chelsea Clinton for Santa Claus' existence is an example of a circular argument, invalidating the conclusion. Take away B however and the argument falls flat. Prove first by reliable means outside of the framed argument that Santa Claus exists before using him as proof. Heck if Santa clause was proven to exist outside of the framed argument, we wont even be NEEDING the Argument of chelsea Clinton to prove Santa Claus' existence on the FIRST PLACE.
Applying the Argument of First Cause for God's Existence.
D: the universe needs a cause
E: God is exempt from the chain of causality (the first cause)
F: God caused the universe
Therefore, God exists
The problem here is E because by claiming that God is exempt from the chain of causality, it assumes that God already EXISTS. But thats what we are trying to prove with the Argument of First Cause for God's Existence. We are getting ahead of our conclusion. The inclusion of E shows that the Argument of First Cause for God's Existence is an example of a circular argument, invalidating the conclusion. Take away E however and the argument falls flat. Prove first by reliable means outside of the framed argument that God exists before using him as proof. Heck if God was proven to exist outside of the framed argument, we wont even be NEEDING the Argument of First Cause for God's Existence on the FIRST PLACE.
I already addressed this (see above answer under Santa Clause).
Its pretty sad you know. In the middle ages, when Thomas of Aquinas framed his Argument for First Cause and people were still superstitous and ignorant, he could still use then unexplainable natural phenomena like lightning, rainbows etc. as proof of God's existence outside of and to corroborate the Argument for First Cause. Unfortunately, science came in, and provided more correct and accurate explanations and did away with all the supernatural explanations that required god.
I don't know why you place science and God in discrete, compartments. Science is one of God's greatest proponents and preachers. Science has done more to testify of God's existence (and I don't believe that this was an accident or coincidence) than atheists realize. The more they (the illuminati and intelligentsia) study this world the more they discover just how planned, precise, predictable, measurable, calculable, and designed this universe is.
Wait, what's this i hear, the Holy scriptures or the Bible are reliable proof of god's existence?!
The Argument from the Bible for God's Existence.
G: The Bible is reliable because its divinely inspired
H: The Bible said God exists
Therefore, God exists
No, the Bible is reliable because it is historically, prophetically, and scientifically sound--not to mention given by inspiration of God. Again, I accept this by faith just like you except the untested research of your heroes the astronomers and astrophysicists (did I spell that right?).
The problem here is G because by claiming that the Bible is divinely inspired, it assumes that God already EXISTS. But thats what we are trying to prove with the Argument from the Bible for God's Existence.. We are getting ahead of our conclusion. The inclusion of G shows that The Argument from the Bible for God's Existence is an example of a circular argument, invalidating the conclusion. Take away A however and the argument falls flat. Prove first by reliable means outside of the framed argument that God exists before using him as proof. Heck if God was proven to exist outside of the framed argument, we wont even be NEEDING the The Argument from the Bible for God's Existence on the FIRST PLACE.
I already addressed this (see above answer under Santa Clause).
Needless to say, circular arguments (Argument of First Cause for God's Existence) supported by circular arguments (Argument from the Bible for God's Existence) are worthless arguments.
(Didn't I already answer this?) You have it all wrong. The evidence (the natural world) corroborates what the Scriptures proclaim. This is not a circular argument. You seek evidence and it is right in front of all five of your senses. It is the proof that you request. This world shouts that God exists from the top of the highest mountain and yet you can't hear it. We live in a universe that functions better than any machine that has ever been invented. Stop and think about it: when was the last time the earth has had a tune up? It has never had its spark plugs changed, oil changed, filter replaced, tires changed, timing belts installed, a new transmission, and yet it just keeps on rotating and supporting life. Sounds to me like it must have a Designer Who knows what He is doing. That is a better track track record than any manufacturer. The earth has no warranty and yet it just keeps on doing what it was created to do: sustain life.
To declare this First Cause to be your Christian god is pure speculation backed up by zero reliable evidence especially when something like the Big Bang which is can be reliably proven to exist/occur(ie. cosmic microwave background etc.) could be assigned as the First Cause instead. Heck, the Big Bang could even claim exception to the law of cause and effect using only naturalistic means (there is no time before spacetime). The alternative of assigning a supernatural god as the First Cause is a huge leap of logic and is an unecessary complication. The supernatural explanation that god created rainbows is stupid and unnecesasary given current knowledge. In time as scientific research in the field of cosmology improves, the supernatural explanation that god created the universe would also become stupid and unnecessary.
No, it's not speculation--it's faith based on the Word of God, and corroborated by a material world that has one too many coincidences in favor of design. Uh...I don't recall stating that I doubted that a big bang explosion has occurred, did I? That is not the issue here. The crux is whether or not this material world is evidence for God's existence.
You are recycling information from the last post. I already explained that the big bang must (imperative necessity) have had a stimulus. How is the,
"alternative of assigning a supernatural god as the First Cause is a huge leap of logic and is an unecessary complication."?
If anything it is more plausible than any other explanation that you could propose because of the sheer magnitude of intellect, wisdom, and power (especially over matter) that is required to produce such an awesome system geared solely to support life on one planet (that we know of).
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
[Well we could start with the immense size and nuclear energy (i.e. fusion/power) of the sun:or the iridescent splendor of the earth (it is like a living jewel):
We can conclude that God is a God of order from how organized many things are:
But when I read in the Bible that God is love and then I ponder the exquisite beauty of a rose:
or the magnificence of a sunset:
or the perfection of a newborn baby:
the cuteness of a kitten:
the elegance of a swan:
or the grace of horses:
I also believe that all the things in those pictures are far too *all the adjectives that you used* to be one big fat accident. Another interesting fact along with the ozone layer and our perfect distance from the sun, is the fact that both the sun and moon appear to be the same size from Earth and that they fit perfectly over each-other during an eclipse. And if that's a meaningless, purposeless coincidence (along with the big bang and evolution of course) then it sure as hell is an eyebrow-raising one.
Say the god of the Bible wasn't behind it all, fine, but something was.