John Charlton Polkinghorne (born 1930): He is an English theoretical physicist, theologian, writer, and Anglican priest. He was professor of Mathematical physics at the University of Cambridge, and also served as the president of Queens' College, Cambridge. He is the author of 34 books, translated into 18 different languages; 26 concern the relationship between science and religion, and 5 of the books are on physics. He was knighted in 1997, and in 2002, he received the Templeton Prize, awarded for exceptional contributions to affirming life's spiritual dimension.
Here is a list of some of the books he has authored (titles in bold are books specifically on the existence of God):
-The Way the World is: The Christian Perspective of a Scientist (1984 - revised 1992).
-Science and Creation (2006).
-Science and Providence (2006).
-Reason and Reality: Relationship Between Science and Theology (1991).
-The Faith of a Physicist (1994)- Published in the UK asScience and Christian Belief.
-Scientists as Theologians (1996).
-Belief in God in an Age of Science (1998).
-Science and Theology (1998).
-Faith, Science and Understanding (2000).
-The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis (2001).
-Science and the Trinity: The Christian Encounter With Reality (2004).
-Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science and Religion(2005)
-Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship(2007).
-From Physicist to Priest, an Autobiography (2007).
-Theology in the Context of Science (2008).
Teleological Argument: Or argument from design, attributes the existence of order and direction in nature to a kind ofpurpose, thereby essentially proving the existence of God.
Marcus Minucius Felix (born late 2-3 c.): An early Christian writer, who wrote Letter to Octavius, which argues for the existence of God based on the analogy of an ordered house.
Augustine of Hippo (born 354): Presented a classic teleological perspective in his work, City of God.
Thomas Bayes (born 1701): Presbyterian minister who wrote "Divine Benevolence, or an Attempt to Prove That the Principal End of the Divine Providence and Government is the Happiness of His Creatures." He is better known for Bayes' theorem, which is modern terms would be called a teleological argument.
John Charlton Polkinghorne (born 1930): He is an English theoretical physicist, theologian, writer, and Anglican priest. He was professor of Mathematical physics at the University of Cambridge, and also served as the president of Queens' College, Cambridge. He is the author of 34 books, translated into 18 different languages; 26 concern the relationship between science and religion, and 5 of the books are on physics. He was knighted in 1997, and in 2002, he received the Templeton Prize, awarded for exceptional contributions to affirming life's spiritual dimension.
Here is a list of some of the books he has authored (titles in bold are books specifically on the existence of God):
-The Way the World is: The Christian Perspective of a Scientist (1984 - revised 1992).
-Science and Creation (2006).
-Science and Providence (2006).
-Reason and Reality: Relationship Between Science and Theology (1991).
-The Faith of a Physicist (1994)- Published in the UK asScience and Christian Belief.
-Scientists as Theologians (1996).
-Belief in God in an Age of Science (1998).
-Science and Theology (1998).
-Faith, Science and Understanding (2000).
-The Work of Love: Creation as Kenosis (2001).
-Science and the Trinity: The Christian Encounter With Reality (2004).
-Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science and Religion(2005)
-Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship(2007).
-From Physicist to Priest, an Autobiography (2007).
-Theology in the Context of Science (2008).
Teleological Argument: Or argument from design, attributes the existence of order and direction in nature to a kind ofpurpose, thereby essentially proving the existence of God.
Marcus Minucius Felix (born late 2-3 c.): An early Christian writer, who wrote Letter to Octavius, which argues for the existence of God based on the analogy of an ordered house.
Augustine of Hippo (born 354): Presented a classic teleological perspective in his work, City of God.
Thomas Bayes (born 1701): Presbyterian minister who wrote "Divine Benevolence, or an Attempt to Prove That the Principal End of the Divine Providence and Government is the Happiness of His Creatures." He is better known for Bayes' theorem, which is modern terms would be called a teleological argument.
Ontological Argument: Arguments for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world (example, from reason alone). In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.
History of Ontological Arguments:
(1078) St. Anselm: Medieval philosopher who came up with the first Ontological Argument, Proslogion.
(1637) Rene Descartes: He was a key thinker of the Scientific Revolution. He is also honored for having the Cartesian coordinate system used in plane geometry and algebra named after him. He did important work on invariants and geometry. He composed a number of Ontological Arguments, includingMeditation V: On the Essence of Material Objects and More on God's Existence.
(1709) Leibniz: New Essays Concerning Human Understanding, contains Leibniz's attempt to complete the Cartesian argument by showing that the Cartesian conception of God is not inconsistent.
(1941) Hartshorne: Man's Vision of God, is the defense of modal ontological arguments, allegedly derived from Proslogion 3.
(1960) Malcom: "Anselm's Ontological Argument," is the defense of modal ontological arguments by a famous ordinary language philosopher.
(1970) Lewis: "Anselm and Actuality," is a key critique of ontological arguments.
(1974) Plantinga, The Nature of Necessity. Plantinga's "victorious" modal ontological argument.
(1995) Godel, Collected Works Volume III. Godel's ontological argument.
(2004) Sobel, Logic and Theism. Detailed critique of ontological arguments.
Fine-Tuned Universe: Is the theory that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of the several fundamental constants were only slightly different the universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it's presently understood.
Alvin Plantinga: A Christian Philosopher, who wrote "The Dawkins Confusion; Naturalism ad absurdum," in Christianity Today in 2007.
William Lane Craig: Theologian and philosopher who cites this fine-tuning of the universe as an evidence of the existence of God in his "The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle."
Ontological Argument: Arguments for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world (example, from reason alone). In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.
History of Ontological Arguments:
(1078) St. Anselm: Medieval philosopher who came up with the first Ontological Argument, Proslogion.
(1637) Rene Descartes: He was a key thinker of the Scientific Revolution. He is also honored for having the Cartesian coordinate system used in plane geometry and algebra named after him. He did important work on invariants and geometry. He composed a number of Ontological Arguments, includingMeditation V: On the Essence of Material Objects and More on God's Existence.
(1709) Leibniz: New Essays Concerning Human Understanding, contains Leibniz's attempt to complete the Cartesian argument by showing that the Cartesian conception of God is not inconsistent.
(1941) Hartshorne: Man's Vision of God, is the defense of modal ontological arguments, allegedly derived from Proslogion 3.
(1960) Malcom: "Anselm's Ontological Argument," is the defense of modal ontological arguments by a famous ordinary language philosopher.
(1970) Lewis: "Anselm and Actuality," is a key critique of ontological arguments.
(1974) Plantinga, The Nature of Necessity. Plantinga's "victorious" modal ontological argument.
(1995) Godel, Collected Works Volume III. Godel's ontological argument.
(2004) Sobel, Logic and Theism. Detailed critique of ontological arguments.
Fine-Tuned Universe: Is the theory that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of the several fundamental constants were only slightly different the universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it's presently understood.
Alvin Plantinga: A Christian Philosopher, who wrote "The Dawkins Confusion; Naturalism ad absurdum," in Christianity Today in 2007.
William Lane Craig: Theologian and philosopher who cites this fine-tuning of the universe as an evidence of the existence of God in his "The Teleological Argument and the Anthropic Principle."
Transcendental Argument: Is the argument that attempts to prove the existence of God by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose a theistic worldview, and that God is the source of logic and morals.
Chad V. Meister, Mark Mittelberg, Josh McDowell, and John F. Montgomery: Reasons for Faith: Making a Case for the Christian Faith (2007).
William James: Gave a lecture entitled, "The Will to Believe," which was first published in, The New World, Volume 5 (1896), which defends, in certain cases, the adoption of a belief without prior evidence of its truth. In particular, James in concerned about defending the right to religious faith despite a lack of sufficient evidence of religious truth.
After reading all of this, one might ask me, "But why are all real scientists evolutionists?"
-All real scientists are not evolutionists. There are thousands of bona fide scientists today who have become creationists, all of whom have their postgraduate degrees, who are pursuing careers in science and who have records and credentials quite comparable to those of any other segment in the scientific professions. Although most scientists may still be evolutionists - especially those who control the scientific societies and journals - the creationist minority is respectable and growing.
There are creationist Ph. D.'s in every branch of pure and applied science today, such as geology, physics, engineering, and medicine. It is obvious now that a man or a woman can be well trained and experienced in any discipline of science and can understand the factual data of that science within the framework of the Creation Model. In fact, acceptance of creation is known to be growing most rapidly today among people with scientific and technological training. This is all the more significant in light of the fact that practically all of these scientists were indoctrinated in evolutionism throughout their training. To become or remain creationists, they have had to study and think themselves through the evidences and arguments for both models, all on their own initiative, and usually against the opposition and ridicule of the majority of their scientific and educational colleagues. Most of them were themselves evolutionists throughout their college years and beyond, becoming creationists only as a result of later personal critical study and reevaluation.
Transcendental Argument: Is the argument that attempts to prove the existence of God by arguing that logic, morals, and science ultimately presuppose a theistic worldview, and that God is the source of logic and morals.
Chad V. Meister, Mark Mittelberg, Josh McDowell, and John F. Montgomery: Reasons for Faith: Making a Case for the Christian Faith (2007).
William James: Gave a lecture entitled, "The Will to Believe," which was first published in, The New World, Volume 5 (1896), which defends, in certain cases, the adoption of a belief without prior evidence of its truth. In particular, James in concerned about defending the right to religious faith despite a lack of sufficient evidence of religious truth.
After reading all of this, one might ask me, "But why are all real scientists evolutionists?"
-All real scientists are not evolutionists. There are thousands of bona fide scientists today who have become creationists, all of whom have their postgraduate degrees, who are pursuing careers in science and who have records and credentials quite comparable to those of any other segment in the scientific professions. Although most scientists may still be evolutionists - especially those who control the scientific societies and journals - the creationist minority is respectable and growing.
There are creationist Ph. D.'s in every branch of pure and applied science today, such as geology, physics, engineering, and medicine. It is obvious now that a man or a woman can be well trained and experienced in any discipline of science and can understand the factual data of that science within the framework of the Creation Model. In fact, acceptance of creation is known to be growing most rapidly today among people with scientific and technological training. This is all the more significant in light of the fact that practically all of these scientists were indoctrinated in evolutionism throughout their training. To become or remain creationists, they have had to study and think themselves through the evidences and arguments for both models, all on their own initiative, and usually against the opposition and ridicule of the majority of their scientific and educational colleagues. Most of them were themselves evolutionists throughout their college years and beyond, becoming creationists only as a result of later personal critical study and reevaluation.
After saying this, somebody might then question, "Then why don't creationists publish in the standard scientific journals?"
Well, creationist do publish in the standard scientific journals, in their own respective scientific disciplines, and their publications' records compare well with any other comparable group. For example, the scientists who have served on the staff of the Institute for Creation Research have published at least 150 research papers and 10 books in their own scientific fields in standard scientific journals or through secular book publishers addition to hundreds of creationist articles and at least 50 books on creationism and related subjects. Whenever these articles or books have creationist implications, however, they must be "masked" in order to get them published in secular outlets. So far, at least, all frankly creationist articles or books are simply rejected out of hand by such publishers. For example, when the high school biology textbook produced by the scientists of the Creation Research Society was ready for publication in 1969, the 15 leading high school textbook publishers were contacted about possibly publishing the book. It was a comprehensive and well organized book, written by a fully-qualified team of Ph.D. biologists and other scientists, and should have been financially profitable for any publisher. Nevertheless, not one of these publishers would even so much as look at the manuscript. They claimed their other books would be boycotted if they were to publish a creationist textbook, so it was necessary for the Society to have it published by a Christian book company. The same book has gone through two editions, and has been widely used in private schools.
But there are still reputable websites, journals, books, etc. that still publish and present Christian ideas. The Science and Christian Belief is a journal published twice yearly exploring the interactions between science and faith (with particular reference to Christianity). It is peer-reviewed, featuring world-class scientists and theologians speaking from the authority of their own disciplines.
Each of the following books offers a fairly balanced presentation of at least some aspect of the creationary paradigm, or model, of origins. All are written, at least in part, by Ph.D. scientists:
Henry M. Morris: Scientific Creationism (1985)
Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker: What is Creation Science? (1987)
A. E. Wilder-Smith: Man's Origin, Man's Destiny (1968); andScientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory(1987)
John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris: The Genesis Flood(1964)
Ariel A. Roth: Origins - Linking Science and Scripture (1998)
John Woodmorappe: Studies in Flood Geology (1993), Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study (1996), and The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (1999)
After saying this, somebody might then question, "Then why don't creationists publish in the standard scientific journals?"
Well, creationist do publish in the standard scientific journals, in their own respective scientific disciplines, and their publications' records compare well with any other comparable group. For example, the scientists who have served on the staff of the Institute for Creation Research have published at least 150 research papers and 10 books in their own scientific fields in standard scientific journals or through secular book publishers addition to hundreds of creationist articles and at least 50 books on creationism and related subjects. Whenever these articles or books have creationist implications, however, they must be "masked" in order to get them published in secular outlets. So far, at least, all frankly creationist articles or books are simply rejected out of hand by such publishers. For example, when the high school biology textbook produced by the scientists of the Creation Research Society was ready for publication in 1969, the 15 leading high school textbook publishers were contacted about possibly publishing the book. It was a comprehensive and well organized book, written by a fully-qualified team of Ph.D. biologists and other scientists, and should have been financially profitable for any publisher. Nevertheless, not one of these publishers would even so much as look at the manuscript. They claimed their other books would be boycotted if they were to publish a creationist textbook, so it was necessary for the Society to have it published by a Christian book company. The same book has gone through two editions, and has been widely used in private schools.
But there are still reputable websites, journals, books, etc. that still publish and present Christian ideas. The Science and Christian Belief is a journal published twice yearly exploring the interactions between science and faith (with particular reference to Christianity). It is peer-reviewed, featuring world-class scientists and theologians speaking from the authority of their own disciplines.
Each of the following books offers a fairly balanced presentation of at least some aspect of the creationary paradigm, or model, of origins. All are written, at least in part, by Ph.D. scientists:
Henry M. Morris: Scientific Creationism (1985)
Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker: What is Creation Science? (1987)
A. E. Wilder-Smith: Man's Origin, Man's Destiny (1968); andScientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory(1987)
John C. Whitcomb and Henry Morris: The Genesis Flood(1964)
Ariel A. Roth: Origins - Linking Science and Scripture (1998)
John Woodmorappe: Studies in Flood Geology (1993), Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study (1996), and The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (1999)
"1) The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2) The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4) The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6) An existing god therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannon be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a god which did not exist.
7) Ergo, God does not exist."
One problem right off the start with this is, again, something cannot come from nothing. There has never been something created by nothing. Everything has a cause. I am going to copy a version of an ontological argument, as presented by American philosopher Alvin Plantinga. It's formulated in terms of possible worlds semantics. By saying "a possible world," one doesn't mean a planet or even a universe, but rather a complete description of reality, or a way reality might be. To say that God exists in some possible world is just to say that there is a possible description of reality which includes the statement "God exists" as part of that description.
In this argument, Plantinga conceives of God as a being which is "maximally excellent" in every possible world. Plantinga takes maximal excellence to include such properties as omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection. A being which has maximal excellence in every possible world would have what Plantinga calls "maximal greatness." So Plantinga argues:
"1) The creation of the world is the most marvelous achievement imaginable.
2) The merit of an achievement is the product of (a) its intrinsic quality, and (b) the ability of its creator.
3) The greater the disability (or handicap) of the creator, the more impressive the achievement.
4) The most formidable handicap for a creator would be non-existence.
5) Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator we can conceive a greater being - namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6) An existing god therefore would not be a being greater than which a greater cannon be conceived because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a god which did not exist.
7) Ergo, God does not exist."
One problem right off the start with this is, again, something cannot come from nothing. There has never been something created by nothing. Everything has a cause. I am going to copy a version of an ontological argument, as presented by American philosopher Alvin Plantinga. It's formulated in terms of possible worlds semantics. By saying "a possible world," one doesn't mean a planet or even a universe, but rather a complete description of reality, or a way reality might be. To say that God exists in some possible world is just to say that there is a possible description of reality which includes the statement "God exists" as part of that description.
In this argument, Plantinga conceives of God as a being which is "maximally excellent" in every possible world. Plantinga takes maximal excellence to include such properties as omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection. A being which has maximal excellence in every possible world would have what Plantinga calls "maximal greatness." So Plantinga argues:
1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3) If a maximally great being exists is some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6) Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
I think we can all agree that premises 2-5 are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God's existence is even possible, then He must exist. The principal issue to be settled with respect to Plantinga's ontological argument is what warrant exists for thinking the key premise "It's possible that a maximally great being exists" to be true.
The idea of a maximally great being is intuitively a coherent idea, and so it seems plausible that such a being could exist. In order for the ontological argument to fail, the concept of a maximally great being must be incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor. But the concept of a maximally great being doesn't seem even remotely incoherent. This provides some prima faciewarrant for thinking that it is possible that a maximally great being exists.
There is a book titled, "The God Delusion," written by Richard Dawkins, who devotes 6 pages brimming with ridicule and invective, to the ontological argument, without raising any serious objection to this argument. Dawkins then cites the parody of the argument that I underlined and put in bold-print above. This argument that was commented against my conclusion was written by a man named Douglas Gasking, with the point of his argument is designed to show that God does not exist because a God "who created everything while not existing" is greater than one who exists and created everything.
Ironically, this parody, far from undermining the ontological argument, actually reinforces it. For a being who creates everything while not existing is a logical incoherence and is therefore impossible: there is no possible world which includes a non-existent being which creates the world. If an atheist is to maintain - as he must - that God's existence is impossible, the concept of God would have to be similarly incoherent. But to all appearances it is not. That supports the plausibility of premise (1) of Plantinga's argument.
As you see, Dawkins doesn't even understand the logic of the ontological argument, which moves from the logical possibility of God's existence to its actuality. A parody of the argument that moves from a logical impossibility to actuality is not parallel to the argument.
1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3) If a maximally great being exists is some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists.
6) Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
I think we can all agree that premises 2-5 are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God's existence is even possible, then He must exist. The principal issue to be settled with respect to Plantinga's ontological argument is what warrant exists for thinking the key premise "It's possible that a maximally great being exists" to be true.
The idea of a maximally great being is intuitively a coherent idea, and so it seems plausible that such a being could exist. In order for the ontological argument to fail, the concept of a maximally great being must be incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor. But the concept of a maximally great being doesn't seem even remotely incoherent. This provides some prima faciewarrant for thinking that it is possible that a maximally great being exists.
There is a book titled, "The God Delusion," written by Richard Dawkins, who devotes 6 pages brimming with ridicule and invective, to the ontological argument, without raising any serious objection to this argument. Dawkins then cites the parody of the argument that I underlined and put in bold-print above. This argument that was commented against my conclusion was written by a man named Douglas Gasking, with the point of his argument is designed to show that God does not exist because a God "who created everything while not existing" is greater than one who exists and created everything.
Ironically, this parody, far from undermining the ontological argument, actually reinforces it. For a being who creates everything while not existing is a logical incoherence and is therefore impossible: there is no possible world which includes a non-existent being which creates the world. If an atheist is to maintain - as he must - that God's existence is impossible, the concept of God would have to be similarly incoherent. But to all appearances it is not. That supports the plausibility of premise (1) of Plantinga's argument.
As you see, Dawkins doesn't even understand the logic of the ontological argument, which moves from the logical possibility of God's existence to its actuality. A parody of the argument that moves from a logical impossibility to actuality is not parallel to the argument.
Somebody might ask, "If God exists, then who created God? Where did God come from?
This is a common argument from atheists and skeptics, who say that if all things need a cause, then God must also need a cause. The conclusion is that if God needed a cause, then God is not God. And if God is not God, then of course there is no God. Everyone knows that something does not come from nothing. So, if God is a "something," then He must have a cause, right?
This question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, "What does blue smell like?" Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated - He simply exists.
How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.
There is a lot more information that I want to share, but I have already taken up SOOOO much room in this thread, that I am going to hold off and stop now; but if I need to at a later time, I will add that information. I know this is probably an over-whelming amount of information presented here, but all that I ask is that you take your time, read all of it, and let it sink in. Please ask more questions about anything, whether it's about Christianity, God, the Bible, or possibly explaining something that I have already said, but maybe come out in a vague way. Thank you for your time reading this.
Somebody might ask, "If God exists, then who created God? Where did God come from?
This is a common argument from atheists and skeptics, who say that if all things need a cause, then God must also need a cause. The conclusion is that if God needed a cause, then God is not God. And if God is not God, then of course there is no God. Everyone knows that something does not come from nothing. So, if God is a "something," then He must have a cause, right?
This question is tricky because it sneaks in the false assumption that God came from somewhere and then asks where that might be. The answer is that the question does not even make sense. It is like asking, "What does blue smell like?" Blue is not in the category of things that have a smell, so the question itself is flawed. In the same way, God is not in the category of things that are created or caused. God is uncaused and uncreated - He simply exists.
How do we know this? We know that from nothing, nothing comes. So, if there were ever a time when there was absolutely nothing in existence, then nothing would have ever come into existence. But things do exist. Therefore, since there could never have been absolutely nothing, something had to have always been in existence. That ever-existing thing is what we call God. God is the uncaused Being that caused everything else to come into existence. God is the uncreated Creator who created the universe and everything in it.
There is a lot more information that I want to share, but I have already taken up SOOOO much room in this thread, that I am going to hold off and stop now; but if I need to at a later time, I will add that information. I know this is probably an over-whelming amount of information presented here, but all that I ask is that you take your time, read all of it, and let it sink in. Please ask more questions about anything, whether it's about Christianity, God, the Bible, or possibly explaining something that I have already said, but maybe come out in a vague way. Thank you for your time reading this.
Nothing has no attributes. Therefore nothing is not constrained. Therefore nothing can change. There is only one nothing. When nothing changes it becomes something. There is no reason to think something cannot come from nothing. Either there was never nothing or nothing is the 1st cause.
Either the universe always existed or God is nothing.
Nothing has no attributes. Therefore nothing is not constrained. Therefore nothing can change. There is only one nothing. When nothing changes it becomes something. There is no reason to think something cannot come from nothing. Either there was never nothing or nothing is the 1st cause.
Either the universe always existed or God is nothing.
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?
Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testiment and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim to now be under grace. If that true then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove dispalys of the Ten Commandments form public places like courthouses or schools?
minion0812, I appreciate the kind words. It means a lot to hear stuff
like that, especially when I am not answering questions or backing my belief in
Christianity to receive positive comments; so it's definitely encouraging to me
and hopefully you (as well as everybody else) have learned some stuff. I was
raised a Christian, and have thankfully kept my beliefs strong, even when I
have been the most weak, whether it's peer pressure, school, work, etc. I have
had my downfalls, but I have always gotten back up and striven to excel in
the way God would have me to. In regards to being able to answer these questions,
I would have to definitely credit my high schooling, having gone to a Classical
Christian school, in which I was taught Latin, Rhetoric, Logic, etc. It has
helped me to understand different worldviews and religions, while strengthening
my understanding and belief of Jesus and the Gospel. It also helps to have a
dad who is a pastor, and so my background of knowledge and meanings of
different words and phrases (particularly in the Bible) is most
helpful. If something does not make sense, or is unclear, please do not
hesitate to ask.
RJSmith, thanks for commenting bro. Those are some really good questions
you have, and hopefully I can answer them to the best of my ability and can
shed light on the topics.
"(1) Nothing had no attributes.
(2) Therefore nothing is not constrained.
(3) Therefore nothing can change.
(4) There is only one nothing.
(5) When nothing changes is becomes something.
(6) There is no reason to think something cannot come from nothing.
(7) Either there was never nothing or nothing is the 1st cause.
(8) Either the universe always existed or God is nothing."
I have shown logical and factual evidence for why God exists, and for
the creation of the world by God, but instead of going back through all of the
pages of the thread, I am going to try and answer this in a different way,
digging deeper into this topic than I have previously done. Hope this helps.
minion0812, I appreciate the kind words. It means a lot to hear stuff
like that, especially when I am not answering questions or backing my belief in
Christianity to receive positive comments; so it's definitely encouraging to me
and hopefully you (as well as everybody else) have learned some stuff. I was
raised a Christian, and have thankfully kept my beliefs strong, even when I
have been the most weak, whether it's peer pressure, school, work, etc. I have
had my downfalls, but I have always gotten back up and striven to excel in
the way God would have me to. In regards to being able to answer these questions,
I would have to definitely credit my high schooling, having gone to a Classical
Christian school, in which I was taught Latin, Rhetoric, Logic, etc. It has
helped me to understand different worldviews and religions, while strengthening
my understanding and belief of Jesus and the Gospel. It also helps to have a
dad who is a pastor, and so my background of knowledge and meanings of
different words and phrases (particularly in the Bible) is most
helpful. If something does not make sense, or is unclear, please do not
hesitate to ask.
RJSmith, thanks for commenting bro. Those are some really good questions
you have, and hopefully I can answer them to the best of my ability and can
shed light on the topics.
"(1) Nothing had no attributes.
(2) Therefore nothing is not constrained.
(3) Therefore nothing can change.
(4) There is only one nothing.
(5) When nothing changes is becomes something.
(6) There is no reason to think something cannot come from nothing.
(7) Either there was never nothing or nothing is the 1st cause.
(8) Either the universe always existed or God is nothing."
I have shown logical and factual evidence for why God exists, and for
the creation of the world by God, but instead of going back through all of the
pages of the thread, I am going to try and answer this in a different way,
digging deeper into this topic than I have previously done. Hope this helps.
Can we prove God to exist by human reason alone, and without faith? Consider the following argument, which I will post first in short form. After that, I will explain it in detail and then cover 2 standard objections to it. After this first short argument, I will pose a few questions some may have and answer those, followed by a few other arguments that cover the same topic (some of these arguments I have explained a little by definition, but I don't think I have detailed them to answer this topic).
1) Either the universe has always existed, or God has.
2) But, as shown by the second law of thermodynamics, the universe
hasn't always existed.
3) Therefore, God exists.
1) Either the universe has always existed, or God has:
The point here is that something has always existed because
self-creation is impossible. Something can never come from nothing. A vacuum
cannot spontaneously create matter by itself. Why? This is because the law of
cause and effect is based on the fact that what a thing DOES is based on what
it IS. Causation involves the expression over a period of time of the law of
non-contradiction in entities. Hence, a basketball when dropped on the floorofnecessitymust act differently from a
bowling ball dropped on the same floor, all other things being equal.
Hence, if something doesn't exist (i.e. a vacuum exists), it can't do or
be anything on its own, except remain empty because it has no identity or
essence. This is why the "steady state" theory of the universe's
origin devised by the astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle was absurd: It said that
hydrogen atoms were popping out of nothing. How can a nothing do anything?
Since self-creation is impossible, then something had to always exist. So now -
was it the material universe? Or was it some other unseen, unsensed Entity
outside the material world?
Can we prove God to exist by human reason alone, and without faith? Consider the following argument, which I will post first in short form. After that, I will explain it in detail and then cover 2 standard objections to it. After this first short argument, I will pose a few questions some may have and answer those, followed by a few other arguments that cover the same topic (some of these arguments I have explained a little by definition, but I don't think I have detailed them to answer this topic).
1) Either the universe has always existed, or God has.
2) But, as shown by the second law of thermodynamics, the universe
hasn't always existed.
3) Therefore, God exists.
1) Either the universe has always existed, or God has:
The point here is that something has always existed because
self-creation is impossible. Something can never come from nothing. A vacuum
cannot spontaneously create matter by itself. Why? This is because the law of
cause and effect is based on the fact that what a thing DOES is based on what
it IS. Causation involves the expression over a period of time of the law of
non-contradiction in entities. Hence, a basketball when dropped on the floorofnecessitymust act differently from a
bowling ball dropped on the same floor, all other things being equal.
Hence, if something doesn't exist (i.e. a vacuum exists), it can't do or
be anything on its own, except remain empty because it has no identity or
essence. This is why the "steady state" theory of the universe's
origin devised by the astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle was absurd: It said that
hydrogen atoms were popping out of nothing. How can a nothing do anything?
Since self-creation is impossible, then something had to always exist. So now -
was it the material universe? Or was it some other unseen, unsensed Entity
outside the material world?
2) As shown by the second law of thermodynamics, the universe hasn't always existed:
The second law of thermodynamics maintains that the total amount of useful energy in a closed system must always decline. "Useful energy" is energy that does work while flowing from a place of higher concentration to that of a lower concentration. "A closed system" is a place where no new energy is flowing in or out of it.
The universe, physically, is a closed system because no new matter or energy is being added to it. The first law of thermodynamics confirms this, since it says no matter or energy is being created or destroyed. Hence, eventually all the stars would have burned out if the universe had always existed. A state of "heat death" would have long ago existed, in which the levels of energy throughout each part of the universe would be uniform. A state of maximum entropy (i.e. useless, non-working energy) would have been reached. But since the stars have not burned out, the universe had a beginning.
In this regard, the universe is like a car with a full tank of gas, but which has a stuck gas cap. If the car had always been constantly driven (i.e. had always existed), it would have long ago run out of fuel. But the fact that it still has gas (i.e. useful energy) left in it proves the car hasn't been constantly driven from the infinite past. The stuck gas cap makes the car in this example a "closed system" because no more energy can be added to make the car move. "Heat death" occurs when the car runs out of gas, as it inevitably must, since no more can be added to it. Likewise, the universe then is like a wind-up toy or watch that has been slowly unwinding down: At some point, "something"musthave wound it up.
2) As shown by the second law of thermodynamics, the universe hasn't always existed:
The second law of thermodynamics maintains that the total amount of useful energy in a closed system must always decline. "Useful energy" is energy that does work while flowing from a place of higher concentration to that of a lower concentration. "A closed system" is a place where no new energy is flowing in or out of it.
The universe, physically, is a closed system because no new matter or energy is being added to it. The first law of thermodynamics confirms this, since it says no matter or energy is being created or destroyed. Hence, eventually all the stars would have burned out if the universe had always existed. A state of "heat death" would have long ago existed, in which the levels of energy throughout each part of the universe would be uniform. A state of maximum entropy (i.e. useless, non-working energy) would have been reached. But since the stars have not burned out, the universe had a beginning.
In this regard, the universe is like a car with a full tank of gas, but which has a stuck gas cap. If the car had always been constantly driven (i.e. had always existed), it would have long ago run out of fuel. But the fact that it still has gas (i.e. useful energy) left in it proves the car hasn't been constantly driven from the infinite past. The stuck gas cap makes the car in this example a "closed system" because no more energy can be added to make the car move. "Heat death" occurs when the car runs out of gas, as it inevitably must, since no more can be added to it. Likewise, the universe then is like a wind-up toy or watch that has been slowly unwinding down: At some point, "something"musthave wound it up.
1) "Who created God then?" The point of the first premise was
to show something had to have always existed. At that point, we didn't know
what it was - or who it was. But if the universe hasn't always existed, then
something else -- God -- has.
2) "The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to every part of
the universe, or else won't apply to it in the future." This statement is
pure prejudice, because there is no scientific evidence anywhere that the
second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply. And this law won;t change in the
future because the fundamental essence (nature) of the things that make up the
physical universe aren't changing, so nature's laws wouldn't change in the
future. That is, unless God intervenes through miracles (i.e.
"violates" nature's laws). So a skeptic can't turn around and say
there are places (or times) in the universe where nature's laws do not apply
which no human has ever investigated or been to. And to know whether the second
law of thermodynamics is inapplicable somewhere in the universe, the doubter
would ironically have to be "God," i.e., know everything about everywhere
else. So to escape this argument for God's existence, the skeptic then has to
place his faith in an unknown, unseen, unsensed exception to the second law of
thermodynamics. It's better then to place faith in the unseen Almighty God of
the Bible instead. Plainly, nature cannot always explain nature: Something - or
Someone - to which the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable (i.e. in
the spirit world) created the material universe.
-For this next explanation, I am going to refer to what atheists hold as
their belief (or at least part of it).
As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is fashioned with
philosophical problems. One of the biggest is its lack of ability to account
for our own existence. Okay, so we exist. I think we can all agree on that
haha. And though some might think this, evolution isn't the issue here.
Instead, we need to go way back and ask, where did the universe come from? As
I've stated many times, whatever has come into existence was caused to come
into existence by something else. The universe came into existence. So, what
caused it to come into existence?
1) "Who created God then?" The point of the first premise was
to show something had to have always existed. At that point, we didn't know
what it was - or who it was. But if the universe hasn't always existed, then
something else -- God -- has.
2) "The second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to every part of
the universe, or else won't apply to it in the future." This statement is
pure prejudice, because there is no scientific evidence anywhere that the
second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply. And this law won;t change in the
future because the fundamental essence (nature) of the things that make up the
physical universe aren't changing, so nature's laws wouldn't change in the
future. That is, unless God intervenes through miracles (i.e.
"violates" nature's laws). So a skeptic can't turn around and say
there are places (or times) in the universe where nature's laws do not apply
which no human has ever investigated or been to. And to know whether the second
law of thermodynamics is inapplicable somewhere in the universe, the doubter
would ironically have to be "God," i.e., know everything about everywhere
else. So to escape this argument for God's existence, the skeptic then has to
place his faith in an unknown, unseen, unsensed exception to the second law of
thermodynamics. It's better then to place faith in the unseen Almighty God of
the Bible instead. Plainly, nature cannot always explain nature: Something - or
Someone - to which the second law of thermodynamics is inapplicable (i.e. in
the spirit world) created the material universe.
-For this next explanation, I am going to refer to what atheists hold as
their belief (or at least part of it).
As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is fashioned with
philosophical problems. One of the biggest is its lack of ability to account
for our own existence. Okay, so we exist. I think we can all agree on that
haha. And though some might think this, evolution isn't the issue here.
Instead, we need to go way back and ask, where did the universe come from? As
I've stated many times, whatever has come into existence was caused to come
into existence by something else. The universe came into existence. So, what
caused it to come into existence?
When answering this question, there are only 2 possibilities to account for the cause of the universe: an impersonal cause and a personal cause. This is an inversed pair that exhausts all other possibilities. It is either one, or the other. There is no third option. First we will look at the atheist option to explain the universe, an impersonal cause.
If an atheist (or anybody for that matter, I am just referencing here) were to say that the universe brought itself into existence, then that would be illogical since something that does not exist has no nature and with no nature, there are no attributes, and with no attributes, actions can't be performed such as bringing itself into existence. So, that doesn't work.
If an atheist were to say that the universe has always existed, that doesn't work either because that would mean that the universe is infinitely old. If the universe is infinitely old then why hasn't it run out of useable energy by now as the second law of thermodynamics would state. Also, in order to get to the present in an infinitely old universe, an infinite amount of time would have to be crossed. But, it is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time to get to now. These problems would also mean that there could not be an infinite amount of past cycles of the universe where it expands and contracts forever. So, those explanations can;t work.
If an atheist says that matter and/or energy have somehow eternally existed before the universe, just in different forms, then the same issue of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now would negate that idea. But, this explanation would pose yet another problem. If the necessary conditions for the cause of the universe have always existed within the pre-existent matter and energy, then the effect of the universe being formed is a necessary result of that matter and energy, and the universe would have been formed an infinitely long time ago. But this can;t work since it would mean the universe would have already run out of useable energy by now (entropy problem again), not to mention the perpetual problem of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now. So, that explanation doesn't work either.
When answering this question, there are only 2 possibilities to account for the cause of the universe: an impersonal cause and a personal cause. This is an inversed pair that exhausts all other possibilities. It is either one, or the other. There is no third option. First we will look at the atheist option to explain the universe, an impersonal cause.
If an atheist (or anybody for that matter, I am just referencing here) were to say that the universe brought itself into existence, then that would be illogical since something that does not exist has no nature and with no nature, there are no attributes, and with no attributes, actions can't be performed such as bringing itself into existence. So, that doesn't work.
If an atheist were to say that the universe has always existed, that doesn't work either because that would mean that the universe is infinitely old. If the universe is infinitely old then why hasn't it run out of useable energy by now as the second law of thermodynamics would state. Also, in order to get to the present in an infinitely old universe, an infinite amount of time would have to be crossed. But, it is impossible to cross an infinite amount of time to get to now. These problems would also mean that there could not be an infinite amount of past cycles of the universe where it expands and contracts forever. So, those explanations can;t work.
If an atheist says that matter and/or energy have somehow eternally existed before the universe, just in different forms, then the same issue of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now would negate that idea. But, this explanation would pose yet another problem. If the necessary conditions for the cause of the universe have always existed within the pre-existent matter and energy, then the effect of the universe being formed is a necessary result of that matter and energy, and the universe would have been formed an infinitely long time ago. But this can;t work since it would mean the universe would have already run out of useable energy by now (entropy problem again), not to mention the perpetual problem of crossing an infinite amount of time to get to now. So, that explanation doesn't work either.
Okay, so the universe, which is comprised of matter and energy, cannot
be infinitely old, in its present form or any other form. So, how did it, and
ultimately we get here? Since we cannot use an "impersonal cause",
let's look at a "personal cause." If there is a personal influence,
which means a personal being that acted upon the universe, then we have an
explanation for the cause of the universe.
A rock doesn't suddenly change from being a rock into say an axe head
unless acted upon by something else. For matter and energy to change and form
something new, they must be acted upon from the outside. So we must ask what
acted upon matter and energy and caused the universe to exist.
Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the
universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not
spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best
explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision. In
other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best
explanation of the existence of the universe; God.
Again, this leads to the question of what brought God into existence?
The answer is simple. Nothing brought him into existence. He has always
existed. He is the uncaused cause. Think about it. You cannot have an infinite
regression of causes. It's like having an infinite line of dominos falling one
after another. If you go back infinitely in time to try and find the first
domino that started it all, you'd never find it because you'd have to cross an
infinite amount of time to get to it which is impossible to do. This would also
mean that there you can't have an infinite regression of causes. Furthermore,
this would mean there would never be a first cause. If there is no first cause,
then there can'e be a second, or a third, and so on and you wouldn't have any
of them falling at all. But since they are falling, there had to be a first
cause, that itself was uncaused that started the whole thing moving at a
specific time in the past. So too with the universe. It was caused to exist at
a specific point in time. The uncaused cause is God, who decided to create the
universe and who, as the Bible says in Psalm 90:2, "Is from everlasting to
everlasting."
-When I was younger, and even still admittedly every once in a while, it
was hard for me to fathom God having always existed; or the idea that when we
die, we will liveeternallyeither in heaven or hell. I think we all have thought that at some point
(some more than others), whether you are a Christian or not, partly because all
we know has a point A (beginning) and a point B (end). All of us have been born
(Point A), and we will all die (point B). So it's hard for us to grasp ahold of
the concept of "forever," "infinite," and "eternal."
But it is a very important topic; and for some, might and will impact their
life here on earth, in regards to their eternal destination. That is why I am
trying to thoroughly discuss this, and not just bullet point what I want to say...
because every letter of every word of every sentence is just as important as
the next.
Okay, so the universe, which is comprised of matter and energy, cannot
be infinitely old, in its present form or any other form. So, how did it, and
ultimately we get here? Since we cannot use an "impersonal cause",
let's look at a "personal cause." If there is a personal influence,
which means a personal being that acted upon the universe, then we have an
explanation for the cause of the universe.
A rock doesn't suddenly change from being a rock into say an axe head
unless acted upon by something else. For matter and energy to change and form
something new, they must be acted upon from the outside. So we must ask what
acted upon matter and energy and caused the universe to exist.
Whatever caused the universe, existed before the universe. Since the
universe had a beginning in time, and since matter and energy do not
spontaneously change and arrange themselves into something new, then the best
explanation for the cause of the universe is an action that was a decision. In
other words, a decision to act at a specific time in the past is the best
explanation of the existence of the universe; God.
Again, this leads to the question of what brought God into existence?
The answer is simple. Nothing brought him into existence. He has always
existed. He is the uncaused cause. Think about it. You cannot have an infinite
regression of causes. It's like having an infinite line of dominos falling one
after another. If you go back infinitely in time to try and find the first
domino that started it all, you'd never find it because you'd have to cross an
infinite amount of time to get to it which is impossible to do. This would also
mean that there you can't have an infinite regression of causes. Furthermore,
this would mean there would never be a first cause. If there is no first cause,
then there can'e be a second, or a third, and so on and you wouldn't have any
of them falling at all. But since they are falling, there had to be a first
cause, that itself was uncaused that started the whole thing moving at a
specific time in the past. So too with the universe. It was caused to exist at
a specific point in time. The uncaused cause is God, who decided to create the
universe and who, as the Bible says in Psalm 90:2, "Is from everlasting to
everlasting."
-When I was younger, and even still admittedly every once in a while, it
was hard for me to fathom God having always existed; or the idea that when we
die, we will liveeternallyeither in heaven or hell. I think we all have thought that at some point
(some more than others), whether you are a Christian or not, partly because all
we know has a point A (beginning) and a point B (end). All of us have been born
(Point A), and we will all die (point B). So it's hard for us to grasp ahold of
the concept of "forever," "infinite," and "eternal."
But it is a very important topic; and for some, might and will impact their
life here on earth, in regards to their eternal destination. That is why I am
trying to thoroughly discuss this, and not just bullet point what I want to say...
because every letter of every word of every sentence is just as important as
the next.
With that being said, we see that the thought of nothing coming from
nothing is illogical; but even with what has been said already, is the
existence of God,logical?
The whole issue of morality is based on the source and reality of truth.
What is truth? If truth is subjective then morality is subjective. If truth is
objective then there are moral absolutes. Subjective truth, truth is subject to
the possessor is illogical. Objective truth, the objective correspondence of
what is real, corresponding to reality. What is the source for this reality,
for this truth?
We know we exist, and we are aware of our existence. Because we can see
children being born and ourselves getting older, it is logical to conclude that
there is a beginning, "A Cause," to our existence. We can also
observe the same in the animal world. Animals are born and they die; they too
must have a starting point of existence. The necessity for a cause leads to a
"First Principle," the need for cause:
The principle of causality: Only being can cause being. Nothing does not exist, and only what
exists can cause existence, since the concept of "Cause" implies an
existing thing that has the power to effect another. From absolutely nothing
comes absolutely nothing.
Every thing that comes to be must have a cause. If you take a candle and
light it, it will burn for a limited amount of time until its potential energy
is burned. The heat that the candle emits is similar to the heat that the sun
emits. The fact that the candle's energy source is finite demonstrates the need
for cause. There was a cause for the candle and there will be an end to the
candle. The heat emitted from the Sun is contingent (dependent) on the finite
(limited) energy contained in the Sun.
This demonstrates that the Sun is also finite, there was, a cause, for
the Sun to exist. This same principle is out throughout the whole universe. Sir
Francis Bacon, the father of modern science said, "True knowledge is
knowledge by causes." If the universe is finite and had a beginning, then
it would need to have a cause (just like everything else we have talked about
already here), if causality is a valid principle of course.
A flaw in the causality principle would be equivalent to having a fatal
crack in the foundation of science. David Hume, a skeptic himself, admitted
that it is absurd to deny the principle of cause; or, in his words, "I
never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a
cause."
With that being said, we see that the thought of nothing coming from
nothing is illogical; but even with what has been said already, is the
existence of God,logical?
The whole issue of morality is based on the source and reality of truth.
What is truth? If truth is subjective then morality is subjective. If truth is
objective then there are moral absolutes. Subjective truth, truth is subject to
the possessor is illogical. Objective truth, the objective correspondence of
what is real, corresponding to reality. What is the source for this reality,
for this truth?
We know we exist, and we are aware of our existence. Because we can see
children being born and ourselves getting older, it is logical to conclude that
there is a beginning, "A Cause," to our existence. We can also
observe the same in the animal world. Animals are born and they die; they too
must have a starting point of existence. The necessity for a cause leads to a
"First Principle," the need for cause:
The principle of causality: Only being can cause being. Nothing does not exist, and only what
exists can cause existence, since the concept of "Cause" implies an
existing thing that has the power to effect another. From absolutely nothing
comes absolutely nothing.
Every thing that comes to be must have a cause. If you take a candle and
light it, it will burn for a limited amount of time until its potential energy
is burned. The heat that the candle emits is similar to the heat that the sun
emits. The fact that the candle's energy source is finite demonstrates the need
for cause. There was a cause for the candle and there will be an end to the
candle. The heat emitted from the Sun is contingent (dependent) on the finite
(limited) energy contained in the Sun.
This demonstrates that the Sun is also finite, there was, a cause, for
the Sun to exist. This same principle is out throughout the whole universe. Sir
Francis Bacon, the father of modern science said, "True knowledge is
knowledge by causes." If the universe is finite and had a beginning, then
it would need to have a cause (just like everything else we have talked about
already here), if causality is a valid principle of course.
A flaw in the causality principle would be equivalent to having a fatal
crack in the foundation of science. David Hume, a skeptic himself, admitted
that it is absurd to deny the principle of cause; or, in his words, "I
never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a
cause."
The Cosmological Argument: in the cosmological discussion, the first
question that needs to be answered is, "Did the universe have a
beginning?" What are the options? (I have discussed this briefly, but now
will dig deeper into this concept).
-If the universe had a beginning, then it needs a first cause.
-Did the universe self-cause itself? In order to self-cause itself it
would have to not exist (to cause existence) and exist (in order to be caused)
at the same time. Therefore, this option is ruled out because it violates the
"Law of non-contradiction."
-Did the universe always exist? Naturalists believe the universe either;
A. Came from nothing by nothing, or
B. Always existed.
Option A. is impossible; it is not possible for nothing to produce
something. So the option left is to accept that the universe always existed,
Option B.
Laws that affect the Universe (Thermodynamics again):
1. The First Law (Law of Energy Conservation) states that energy can
neither be created nor destroyed.
2. The Second Law (Law of Energy Decay) states that in a closed system,
the amount of useable energy in the universe is decreasing. Entropy is the
level of disorder in a system.
The Cosmological Argument: in the cosmological discussion, the first
question that needs to be answered is, "Did the universe have a
beginning?" What are the options? (I have discussed this briefly, but now
will dig deeper into this concept).
-If the universe had a beginning, then it needs a first cause.
-Did the universe self-cause itself? In order to self-cause itself it
would have to not exist (to cause existence) and exist (in order to be caused)
at the same time. Therefore, this option is ruled out because it violates the
"Law of non-contradiction."
-Did the universe always exist? Naturalists believe the universe either;
A. Came from nothing by nothing, or
B. Always existed.
Option A. is impossible; it is not possible for nothing to produce
something. So the option left is to accept that the universe always existed,
Option B.
Laws that affect the Universe (Thermodynamics again):
1. The First Law (Law of Energy Conservation) states that energy can
neither be created nor destroyed.
2. The Second Law (Law of Energy Decay) states that in a closed system,
the amount of useable energy in the universe is decreasing. Entropy is the
level of disorder in a system.
A highly ordered system is in a low state of entropy. A disordered system is in a higher state of entropy. Cosmologists treat the universe as a gigantic heat engine with no external source of energy input. What this means is that the total amount of useable energy in the universe is fixed and is decreasing as time passes. This means that at some point the universe was at a highly ordered state. According to the 2nd Law, the universe is expected to run out of useable energy. Roy Peacock, an expert in thermodynamics, wrote "A Brief History of Eternity" to show how discoveries in the universe along with the laws of thermodynamics show that the universe is finite.
If the universe had a beginning then it must have a cause. One explanation for this is the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory does not only involve the start of matter but also space and time. But matter, space and time are interdependent. John Polkinghorne, a theoretical physicist and theologian, writes:
"If expansion dominated then matter would fly apart too rapidly for condensation into galaxies and stars to take place... (The possibility of our existence) requires a balance between the effects of expansion and contraction which at a very early epoch in the universe's history has to differ from equality by not more than 1 in 10^60. The numerate (mathematical) will marvel at such a degree of accuracy. For the non-numerate, I will borrow an illustration from Paul Davies of what that accuracy means. He points out that it is the same as aiming at a target an inch wide on the other side of the observable universe, twenty thousand million light years away, and hitting the mark."
Mortimer J. Adler, who is the author of "How to think about God" wrote, "If the existence of the cosmos as a whole needs to be explained, and if it cannot be explained by natural causes, then we must look to the existence and action of a supernatural cause for its explanation." Since it is impossible for nothing to produce something, something must have always existed as the "First Cause" of the universe. Furthermore, this First Cause must be eternal (outside of time, since time is part of the finite universe) and powerful enough to account for the origin and existence of the universe. This Cause must be knowledgeable, powerful, and eternal; God.
A highly ordered system is in a low state of entropy. A disordered system is in a higher state of entropy. Cosmologists treat the universe as a gigantic heat engine with no external source of energy input. What this means is that the total amount of useable energy in the universe is fixed and is decreasing as time passes. This means that at some point the universe was at a highly ordered state. According to the 2nd Law, the universe is expected to run out of useable energy. Roy Peacock, an expert in thermodynamics, wrote "A Brief History of Eternity" to show how discoveries in the universe along with the laws of thermodynamics show that the universe is finite.
If the universe had a beginning then it must have a cause. One explanation for this is the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang Theory does not only involve the start of matter but also space and time. But matter, space and time are interdependent. John Polkinghorne, a theoretical physicist and theologian, writes:
"If expansion dominated then matter would fly apart too rapidly for condensation into galaxies and stars to take place... (The possibility of our existence) requires a balance between the effects of expansion and contraction which at a very early epoch in the universe's history has to differ from equality by not more than 1 in 10^60. The numerate (mathematical) will marvel at such a degree of accuracy. For the non-numerate, I will borrow an illustration from Paul Davies of what that accuracy means. He points out that it is the same as aiming at a target an inch wide on the other side of the observable universe, twenty thousand million light years away, and hitting the mark."
Mortimer J. Adler, who is the author of "How to think about God" wrote, "If the existence of the cosmos as a whole needs to be explained, and if it cannot be explained by natural causes, then we must look to the existence and action of a supernatural cause for its explanation." Since it is impossible for nothing to produce something, something must have always existed as the "First Cause" of the universe. Furthermore, this First Cause must be eternal (outside of time, since time is part of the finite universe) and powerful enough to account for the origin and existence of the universe. This Cause must be knowledgeable, powerful, and eternal; God.
The Design Argument (Teleological): The beginning of the universe requires a
"First Cause," because the universe has a starting point and is
finite, the cause must be greater than the effect. In the same light, we know the existence of life also has a starting point. Matter is the
building block of life; without matter, we cannot have life in this physical
world, as we know it. Therefore, the next question to be addressed is,
"What is the origin to life?" Is the same "First Cause" that caused the universe into existence
the same "First Cause" of life as well? There are 2 competing origin
of life models; the macroevolutionary model and the design model.
The macroevolutionary modelstates that life was
self-generated from nonliving (inorganic) matter. Once the gap from non-life to
life was bridged, the first living cell began to evolve by random changes
(mutations) in its genetic information system, creating new characteristics
that were not in the original organism.
The design modelstates that non-life never produces life and that the first life forms
were the direct result of super-intelligence.
The Design Argument (Teleological): The beginning of the universe requires a
"First Cause," because the universe has a starting point and is
finite, the cause must be greater than the effect. In the same light, we know the existence of life also has a starting point. Matter is the
building block of life; without matter, we cannot have life in this physical
world, as we know it. Therefore, the next question to be addressed is,
"What is the origin to life?" Is the same "First Cause" that caused the universe into existence
the same "First Cause" of life as well? There are 2 competing origin
of life models; the macroevolutionary model and the design model.
The macroevolutionary modelstates that life was
self-generated from nonliving (inorganic) matter. Once the gap from non-life to
life was bridged, the first living cell began to evolve by random changes
(mutations) in its genetic information system, creating new characteristics
that were not in the original organism.
The design modelstates that non-life never produces life and that the first life forms
were the direct result of super-intelligence.
When Darwin wrote his theories of evolution in the mid-1800's, the cell was a mystery. It wasn't until about 100 years later, after WWII, that new sub-cellular structures were discovered. To understand the complexity of a cell, Michael Denton, illustrates if a cell magnified a 1000 million times until its 20 kilometers in diameter what we would see. He writes,
"What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell, we would see millions of openings, like the portholes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings, we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we could see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, and raw materials would shuttle along all the manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which... a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man."
How could the first cell come into existence? Was it time, chance and matter? On the other hand, was it the result of an intelligent designer, a "First Cause" of life?
Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not have possibly been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
According to Darwin's criteria, his whole model of life falls apart. The cell is the smallest unit of matter considered alive... less than a 1/1000th of an inch in diameter!!!
When Darwin wrote his theories of evolution in the mid-1800's, the cell was a mystery. It wasn't until about 100 years later, after WWII, that new sub-cellular structures were discovered. To understand the complexity of a cell, Michael Denton, illustrates if a cell magnified a 1000 million times until its 20 kilometers in diameter what we would see. He writes,
"What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell, we would see millions of openings, like the portholes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings, we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organized corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units. The nucleus itself would be a vast spherical chamber more than a kilometer in diameter, resembling a geodesic dome inside of which we could see, all neatly stacked together in ordered arrays, and raw materials would shuttle along all the manifold conduits in a highly ordered fashion to and from various assembly plants in the outer regions of the cell... Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which... a functional protein or gene - is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man."
How could the first cell come into existence? Was it time, chance and matter? On the other hand, was it the result of an intelligent designer, a "First Cause" of life?
Darwin wrote, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not have possibly been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."
According to Darwin's criteria, his whole model of life falls apart. The cell is the smallest unit of matter considered alive... less than a 1/1000th of an inch in diameter!!!
This is now where some of my Physical Education knowledge from college
helps out a little bit haha. In the center of the cell is the nucleolus
composed of deoxyribo-nucleic acid (or simply DNA), protein and ribonucleic
acid (RNA). DNA combined with proteins is organized into structural units
called chromosomes, which usually occur in identical pairs. The DNA molecule
form the infrastructure in each chromosome and is a single, very long, highly
coiled molecule subdivided into functional units called genes (I believe I
quoted from Louie Giglio's talk on that DVD a while back, which went into
detail regarding this as well). A gene occupies a certain place on the
chromosome and contains the coded instructions that determine the inheritance
of a particular characteristic or group passed from one generation to the next.
The Chromosomes contain the information needed to build an identical working
cell. Cells serve 2 functions to provide a framework to support life and to
make copies of themselves. They do this by having a communication system
between the nucleolus and the rest of the cell. Inside the nucleolus is located
all the information need to function, replicate and repair the cell. Only now
is this incredibly complex system of cell communication becoming known, and it
shows even more how incredibly smart, unique, and creative God is when He made
us.
In the same way a software program uses binary code, combining 0 and 1
to communicate programs throughout a computer system, the cells use the
combination of four nitrogen-containing bases to communicate inside the cell
(Adenine [A], Thymine [T], Cytosine [C], and Guanine [G]). Molecular biologists
classify it as equivalent to a written language but not by analogy.
The statistical structure of any printed language ranges through letter
and frequencies, diagrams, trigrams word frequencies, etc., spelling rules,
grammar and so forth and therefore can be represented by a Markov process given
the states of the system... It is important to understand that we are not
reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein
and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment
is mathematically identical.
The cell has a language of its own, fully equipped with rules that
govern how it communicates. This cellular communication system has been shown
to have a one-to-one correspondence with out own communication systems. The
genetic code is composed for 4 letters (Nucleotides), which are arranged into
64 words of three letters each. These words are organized in sequence to
produce sentences (Genes). Several related sentences are strung together and
perform as paragraphs (Operons). Tens of thousands of paragraphs comprise
chapters (Chromosomes), and a full set of chapters contain all the necessary
information for a readable book (Organism).
This is now where some of my Physical Education knowledge from college
helps out a little bit haha. In the center of the cell is the nucleolus
composed of deoxyribo-nucleic acid (or simply DNA), protein and ribonucleic
acid (RNA). DNA combined with proteins is organized into structural units
called chromosomes, which usually occur in identical pairs. The DNA molecule
form the infrastructure in each chromosome and is a single, very long, highly
coiled molecule subdivided into functional units called genes (I believe I
quoted from Louie Giglio's talk on that DVD a while back, which went into
detail regarding this as well). A gene occupies a certain place on the
chromosome and contains the coded instructions that determine the inheritance
of a particular characteristic or group passed from one generation to the next.
The Chromosomes contain the information needed to build an identical working
cell. Cells serve 2 functions to provide a framework to support life and to
make copies of themselves. They do this by having a communication system
between the nucleolus and the rest of the cell. Inside the nucleolus is located
all the information need to function, replicate and repair the cell. Only now
is this incredibly complex system of cell communication becoming known, and it
shows even more how incredibly smart, unique, and creative God is when He made
us.
In the same way a software program uses binary code, combining 0 and 1
to communicate programs throughout a computer system, the cells use the
combination of four nitrogen-containing bases to communicate inside the cell
(Adenine [A], Thymine [T], Cytosine [C], and Guanine [G]). Molecular biologists
classify it as equivalent to a written language but not by analogy.
The statistical structure of any printed language ranges through letter
and frequencies, diagrams, trigrams word frequencies, etc., spelling rules,
grammar and so forth and therefore can be represented by a Markov process given
the states of the system... It is important to understand that we are not
reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein
and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment
is mathematically identical.
The cell has a language of its own, fully equipped with rules that
govern how it communicates. This cellular communication system has been shown
to have a one-to-one correspondence with out own communication systems. The
genetic code is composed for 4 letters (Nucleotides), which are arranged into
64 words of three letters each. These words are organized in sequence to
produce sentences (Genes). Several related sentences are strung together and
perform as paragraphs (Operons). Tens of thousands of paragraphs comprise
chapters (Chromosomes), and a full set of chapters contain all the necessary
information for a readable book (Organism).
The possibility of life coming into existence on its own requires 2
elements; time and probability. David Foster illustrates the problem with a
deck of 52 playing cards. Specificity is the measure of the improbability of a
pattern which actually occurs against a background of alternatives... Imagine
that there is a pack of 52 cards well shuffled and lying face-downwards on a
table. What are the chances of picking all the cards up in a correct suit,
sequence starting with the Ace of Spades and working downwards and then through
the other suits and finishing with the Two of Clubs?
Well, the chance of picking up the first card correctly is 1 in 52, the
second 1 in 51, the third card 1 in 50, the fourth card 1 in 49 and so forth.
So the chance of picking up the whole pack correctly is Factorial 52. After the math is done, the probability is around 1 in 10^68; and to put
that number into perspective, is approaching the number of all the atoms in the
universe (10^80). Robert Jastrow writes that atronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra
Wickramsinghe placed the probability that life would originate from non-life as
one 10^-40,000 and the probability of added complexity arising by mutations and
natural selection very near this figure.
To believe that life could have come from non-life would require an
INCREDIBLE amount of faith. The information content of the brain expressed in
bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among the neurons
- about a hundred trillion, 10^14, bits. If written out in English, say, that
information would fill some 20 million volumes, as many as in the world's
largest libraries. The equivalent of 20 million books is inside the heads of
everyone of us. The brain is a very big place in a small space.
When we examine the complexity of life and the improbability of life
developing from non-life, we must come to the conclusion that a
Super-Intelligent Designer is the source for life; God.
The possibility of life coming into existence on its own requires 2
elements; time and probability. David Foster illustrates the problem with a
deck of 52 playing cards. Specificity is the measure of the improbability of a
pattern which actually occurs against a background of alternatives... Imagine
that there is a pack of 52 cards well shuffled and lying face-downwards on a
table. What are the chances of picking all the cards up in a correct suit,
sequence starting with the Ace of Spades and working downwards and then through
the other suits and finishing with the Two of Clubs?
Well, the chance of picking up the first card correctly is 1 in 52, the
second 1 in 51, the third card 1 in 50, the fourth card 1 in 49 and so forth.
So the chance of picking up the whole pack correctly is Factorial 52. After the math is done, the probability is around 1 in 10^68; and to put
that number into perspective, is approaching the number of all the atoms in the
universe (10^80). Robert Jastrow writes that atronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra
Wickramsinghe placed the probability that life would originate from non-life as
one 10^-40,000 and the probability of added complexity arising by mutations and
natural selection very near this figure.
To believe that life could have come from non-life would require an
INCREDIBLE amount of faith. The information content of the brain expressed in
bits is probably comparable to the total number of connections among the neurons
- about a hundred trillion, 10^14, bits. If written out in English, say, that
information would fill some 20 million volumes, as many as in the world's
largest libraries. The equivalent of 20 million books is inside the heads of
everyone of us. The brain is a very big place in a small space.
When we examine the complexity of life and the improbability of life
developing from non-life, we must come to the conclusion that a
Super-Intelligent Designer is the source for life; God.
"Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testament and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim now to be under grace. If that's true, then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove displays of the 10 Commandments from public places like courthouses or schools?"
That is a really good question RJSmith, and it concerns a topic that has been debated for a while now. Specifically in regards to your question here, I believe there is a fairly simple explanation for it; but the answer can sometimes be hidden away and not able to be clearly seen if not shown... so I will not just answer this question with a quick response; but rather delve into this subject enough so that there can be no confusion as to why, or why not something is happening.
Very quickly, I just want to start off by touching on the fact that the New Testament writers acknowledged, as did Jesus, the authority and validity of the Old Testament Scriptures by quoting them.
What I am going to do now is set the "framework" (foundation) for this topic, followed by individually answering the three sentences of the original question. Because there is a pretty good amount of information here, I will end my response with a brief summary of the major points.
"Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testament and therefore they are no longer under it. They claim now to be under grace. If that's true, then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove displays of the 10 Commandments from public places like courthouses or schools?"
That is a really good question RJSmith, and it concerns a topic that has been debated for a while now. Specifically in regards to your question here, I believe there is a fairly simple explanation for it; but the answer can sometimes be hidden away and not able to be clearly seen if not shown... so I will not just answer this question with a quick response; but rather delve into this subject enough so that there can be no confusion as to why, or why not something is happening.
Very quickly, I just want to start off by touching on the fact that the New Testament writers acknowledged, as did Jesus, the authority and validity of the Old Testament Scriptures by quoting them.
What I am going to do now is set the "framework" (foundation) for this topic, followed by individually answering the three sentences of the original question. Because there is a pretty good amount of information here, I will end my response with a brief summary of the major points.
When Adam and Eve sinned, law had entered the
world. Before the transgression, there was only one command, “Don’t eat of the
fruit…” Now, by the mere fact that they would encounter both good and evil,
there was a conflict between the two.
Often right and wrong are clearly differentiated.
Other times the picture is cloudy because the good is tainted by sin and the
evil exhibits righteousness. A natural law had to become established in the
human heart to reveal an innate knowledge of what was right and wrong. This law
would be different from the Law that would come later. It became a moral law
that can be found in every society, though it differs from culture to culture. In
nearly every society murder is outlawed, stealing is punished, and lying is
penalized. There are always exceptions to the rule and cultures that do not fit
the pattern, yet there seem to be universal laws that societies try to obey.
People have a conscience within that convicts
them of wrong and motivates them towards that which is good. Confusion results
because that inner voice comes head to head with a sinful nature that desires
the bad and shuns the good. The knowledge of good and evil, that natural law
within us, constantly wages war with the sin that took root beside it. Sin can
obscure the voice of the conscience so that it cannot clearly be recognized, or
it can silence that voice altogether through repeated abuse and rationalization.
Good and evil, seen through the eyes of sin, no
longer maintain their distinctiveness, but rather become blurred and confused. The
mind can rationalize sin; what is wrong is taken for right and what is right is
regarded as wrong. This can be a conscience process or a deeply concealed one. To
arrive at the wrong option is not dependent upon the cognitive choice. It becomes
instinctive and natural.
When Adam and Eve sinned, law had entered the
world. Before the transgression, there was only one command, “Don’t eat of the
fruit…” Now, by the mere fact that they would encounter both good and evil,
there was a conflict between the two.
Often right and wrong are clearly differentiated.
Other times the picture is cloudy because the good is tainted by sin and the
evil exhibits righteousness. A natural law had to become established in the
human heart to reveal an innate knowledge of what was right and wrong. This law
would be different from the Law that would come later. It became a moral law
that can be found in every society, though it differs from culture to culture. In
nearly every society murder is outlawed, stealing is punished, and lying is
penalized. There are always exceptions to the rule and cultures that do not fit
the pattern, yet there seem to be universal laws that societies try to obey.
People have a conscience within that convicts
them of wrong and motivates them towards that which is good. Confusion results
because that inner voice comes head to head with a sinful nature that desires
the bad and shuns the good. The knowledge of good and evil, that natural law
within us, constantly wages war with the sin that took root beside it. Sin can
obscure the voice of the conscience so that it cannot clearly be recognized, or
it can silence that voice altogether through repeated abuse and rationalization.
Good and evil, seen through the eyes of sin, no
longer maintain their distinctiveness, but rather become blurred and confused. The
mind can rationalize sin; what is wrong is taken for right and what is right is
regarded as wrong. This can be a conscience process or a deeply concealed one. To
arrive at the wrong option is not dependent upon the cognitive choice. It becomes
instinctive and natural.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.