Posted on 04/28/2005 6:33:39 PM PDT by conservative_crusader
First, before going any farther, I need to make known my position:
1.) I am persuaded that the universe was created by some higher power.
2.) I am a Christian in practice.
3.) My intention in this post is to discuss the possibility of god(s) existing.
4.) If you have any other question as to what my motive is, please feel free to post.
Let us begin the actual discussion with an argument as to whether god(s) exist. Here is the given:
1.) The Universe either A.)came into being at some point in time, B.)has always existed just as it is, or C.)does not exist at all. (If there are any other possibilities here, please tell me what you've come up with).
2.) Time is Linear.(as in, can be plotted on a line approaching infinity in both directions).
3.) For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
4.) Matter/Energy, cannot be created or destroyed.
5.)The Universe is Expanding.
6.)All other laws of physics apply.
From scenario B in the first given, we know that the universe has always existed. If the universe has always existed, and has always been expanding then at some point the universe must reach a singularity in the “beginning” and/or each star is an infinite distance from every other star. Assuming that this is still actually true, then there must still be a trigger for the universe. We know a couple things about this trigger. 1.) It must be capable of splitting an incredibly dense mass, which could form the universe, as we know it. 2.) It must be outside the laws of physics in order to exist before the singularity began to expand. Personally, no matter what is said, by those two things sound a lot like God.
Next is scenario C from the first given- which- if true, then the universe is just an illusion, and this post is just an attempt by your own conscience to convince you that the universe is real. If you believe this, I can’t see any way to prove to you that the universe actually exists, except to say that if you assume the given, that there is a universe, then my proof makes more sense.
Finally is scenario A. The universe came into existence at some point. If this is so, then the universe must have a trigger. We know the same things about this trigger from scenario B, inthat it must be outside of the laws of physics, and that if creation occurred at the singularity, then it must be capable of splitting an incredibly dense mass- which would be what the universe is now made up of.
But wait. What about scenario C? Doesn’t that mean that there isn’t a God? My personal answer would be no, that God is completely independent of whether or not the universe is real or not.
Now, there are other reasons to suspect that there is a god. One of these reasons is the fine tuning of the universe.
First, is the rate of expansion of the universe. According to http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html which will be my source for most of this part of the proof, if the universe were expanding at any larger rate, that no galaxies would form. If the universe were to expand at a slower rate, the universe would have collapsed even before stars formed. Next is the polarity of water molecules. if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice
I’ll not bore you with the rest of the convincing evidence that the universe has been fine-tuned so that it can support life.
The final part of the evidence for God that I find particularly convincing, is the existence of irreducibly complex information found in all life forms. There is a long list of information in any animals body that is called DNA. If I understand the author of the Case For A Creator- Lee Strobel- correctly, DNA contains more information than all of the books ever written.
Assuming that evolution can account for all of this information, is like finding the completed works of William Shakespeare in a forest (Bound with leather from Europe, Written in ink from India, a silk bookmark from china, and with pages made from trees in the American Northwest) and assuming that over millions of years that molecular atoms just happened to come in contact with each other in order to create a copy of Shakespeare’s literature.
No, it is much more logical to assume that someone has lost their own copy of Shakespeare’s work here in the woods, and are probably looking for it.
Most atheists I’ve met would counter the fine tuning argument, with an argument I call “pure chance.” However, the odds are stacked against you. Imagine a roulette table. There are a lot more numbers on this table than what is on the usual one. You can only bet on one number, and you can’t bet on odd, even, or colors, the odds of the roulette wheel landing on your number are 1/10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. It’s starting to look like atheism takes a lot more faith than Creationism.
Most atheists that have actually taken the time to argue with the indirect proof that I posted first have tried the following arguments:
Generic Response #1: Evolution contradicts that god(s) exist.
My answer #1: Evolution does not contradict that there is a god. Evolution only explains a means by which god *may* have created life on Earth.
Generic Response #2: Abiogenesis
My answer #2: All of the articles on Abiogenesis that I have read, never really contradict that a god did not have a hand in creation. If you can find one, I would welcome a response.
Generic Response #3: Your first given is flawed. There are more possibilities explaining the universe than those.
My answer #3: There are no other possibilities that I am aware of. If you can think of any other possibilities please post them.
Generic Response #4: Time is not linear, the second given is false.
My answer #4: Just because time is not linear in actuality, does not mean that it cannot be plotted as a line on a graph. Time can be represented as a line, that is all that is important for this argument.
Generic Response #5: The third given is flawed. Recent research indicates that there does not necessarily have to be a cause when the universe began.
My answer #5: Source please.
Generic Response #6: Recent science indicates two things. A.) The universe is expanding and B.) As the universe expands, matter is introduced into the system.
My response #6: If the universe has been expanding forever, then matter has been being introduced into the universe for an infinite amount of time. Therefore, the entire universe is filled with matter. However; the entire universe is not filled with matter, which indicates that something in these recent discoveries is false.
Generic Response #7: The Universe is not expanding, this is true only assuming the models of an expanding universe.
My Response #7: No, scientists have uncovered evidence that the universe is expanding.
Generic Response #8: The last given is false. You cannot assume that just because the laws of physics behave in one way in this region of the universe, that they would behave in the same way in other parts of the universe.
My Response #8: If evidence actually surfaces supporting this I will grant you this point, but you must post a source. Also, not all of the laws of physics have to behave in the same way everywhere, only the ones that are given in my list of given laws have to behave appropriately for my argument to stand.
Generic Response #9: You can't prove anything.
My answer #9: Yes you can, and your argument is semantic.
Generic Response #10: You can assume everything, and I assume there is no god.
My answer #10: Then I assume that opposite poles of magnets will not attract each other. That doesn't make it so.
Finally, I haven’t seen any responses to the information argument. Let me stress that the production of information is a property that irrevocably belongs to intelligence. Information doesn’t just pop into existence without the aid of an intelligent being.
I know this is a long read for a post, but I think this is incredibly valid evidence that supports the existence of a creator. I’ve reworked the indirect proof a little bit, so if you’ve seen it before you should look it over again, because I’ve changed it some. I didn’t rework the proof because it was wrong, but because I feel that the way I’ve reworked it, is a lot more understandable.
I'm looking for some good discussion this time.
Stop right there. There can be only one.
I agree, but this is only for the sake of discussing whether a god exists or not.
I have to run out- but this is from my profile.
Hey and I'm 18 too.
Proof of God
___Let's say you were out for a walk and you happened upon a cave. Upon venturing in that cave, you see pictures of human forms and what appears to be bison very primitively drawn. Would you infer that a higher intelligence, say a man drew those pictures?
Or would you just assume that some red and brown paint was blowing with the wind and just happened to make those pictures?
Now, think of the most beautiful artwork you've ever seen. The painter had to be talented to create such a thing.
Well, the universe is much more complicated than the Mona Lisa or the Sistine Chapel.
And The sheer complexity is beyond our human understanding. Everything comes from something. But at some point something came from nothing. The Golden ratio of phi and the mathamatical organisation of our world, the symmetry of a flowers petals, the spirals in a seashell, the magnitude of it all. Something created this.
There are ten trillion cells in your brain, as many stars as there are in the sky. What is a thought? How do you scientifically define a thought? You can define it a very small particle of a chemical that goes through the neuron synapse as jumps from neuron to the other. But can you hold a thought in your hand?
We as men, we know the formula to procreate. But can we create. Can you create a child from thin air? Can you create a single celled molecule from thin air.
I do not know whether God is omnipresent or not. I do not know whether God is dead or not, but God was here. He left his imprint, it's the entire world.
BUT-
As long as life lives- I believe that God lives.
Also will say- I am not a Christian or adhere to any organised religion.
Since you and I both agree on premise number one...I doubt there is much opportunity for discussion with me.
Regards...
I like answers in genesis website. Otherwise, I'm reviewing my stack of biology notes and want to know which biology homeschool curriculum is reliable in teaching facts.
If you really want the answers, fine. I'll give them to you as I understand them.
I'll rely on the Bible first, Science second and my age/wisdom third... Be warned, my major was Physics.
Ask away, one at a time, please. Your spam-like rants give me a headache.
This may take some time.
That's just an attention-getter.
"Stop right there. There can be only one."
You're thinking of Highlander.
Proof that God does not exist.
(1) Assume God exists
(2) By definition, God is omnipotent, omniscient, & morally perfect.
(3) Suffering exists
(4) If God is omnipotent, God can end suffering
(5) If God is omniscient, God knows about suffering
(6) If God is morally perfect, God will stop suffering.
(7) Since God is omniscient and omnipotent, God knows about suffering and can stop it.
(8) Since God knows about suffering, can stop suffering, and is morally perfect, there is no suffering.
(9) But there is suffering
(10) There is no God
[Hint: Your best hope is to attack (3) or (6)]
"(2) By definition, God is omnipotent, omniscient, & morally perfect."
Yes, but can you define perfect? After all, if you know exactly what perfect is, I would love to know.
"(3) Suffering exists"
Yes, the Bible even says that there is suffering. Most religions acknowledge suffering as a given part of life. Personally I believe that bad things happen because we need to become more useful to God.
"(4) If God is omnipotent, God can end suffering"
Of course, but what kind of people would we be if there were no perseverance? I can't imagine that there would be any reason to live if there wasn't a challenge to life to begin with.
"(5) If God is omniscient, God knows about suffering"
Of course, I would think that even if God wasn't omniscient that he would know about suffering.
"(6) If God is morally perfect, God will stop suffering."
No, your definition of "Morally Perfect" is wrong. You cannot define what Moral Perfection is because you yourself are not perfect.
"(7) Since God is omniscient and omnipotent, God knows about suffering and can stop it."
I would think that God might could even stop it if he weren't omnipotent. However, this really doesn't do a lot to your argument.
"(8) Since God knows about suffering, can stop suffering, and is morally perfect, there is no suffering."
Once again, your definition of moral perfection is bad. We can't accept your definition of absolute moral perfection because we do not know what moral perfection is. Certainly we have some slight idea, however, God created the universe, and is entitled to allow what he wants to, and entitled to define what is moral and what is not.
"(9) But there is suffering"
I agree.
"(10) There is no God"
That is quite a jump there. While I do believe that the Christian god is God, not all religions teach the doctrine that God is morally perfect, omnipotent, or omniscient. A creator can still exist entirely independently of whether or not your logic is true.
Mmmm, essentially an attack on (6) in two parts:
"Of course, but what kind of people would we be if there were no perseverance? I can't imagine that there would be any reason to live if there wasn't a challenge to life to begin with."
Attacks (6) by saying suffering is consistent (or entailed) by moral perfection. My respose is that God being all powerful could have created humans in such a fashion to have perseverance (or any other characteristic) built-in without the need to develop that trait by suffering. If you are saying that God could not create a person who can, without suffering, achieve whatever God wants us to achieve by suffering, then you are denying God's omnipotence. That is, there is no need for suffering because God could "factory install" whatever we are supposed to achieve by suffering.
"No, your definition of "Morally Perfect" is wrong. You cannot define what Moral Perfection is because you yourself are not perfect."
Attacks (6) by arsuing that moral perfection entails suffering. But see above, if God created the universe, then God built-in the possibility of suffering. Thus God would be the ultimate cause of suffering. If God is the ultimate cause of suffering, then suffering must exist to bring about a greater good. But since God is also omnipotent, then God could "factory install" whatever this good is and avoid the suffering. Thus moral perfection and omnipotence are inconsistent if the universe has suffering.
BTW, you also commit a logical fallacy. I'm not a computer, but I know what one is. Likewise, not being perfect does not entail that I do not know what perfection is.
I thought Ned Flanders burned that.
Untrue. You meant to say, "I believe there is only one."
So your defense of a divine creator is that the universe is too impossibly complicated and beautiful to be the product of chance? of evolution?
I can not disprove the existence of a divine creator, or "god," but you can hardly call the absence of a suitable explanation for the creation of the universe as proof of one.
yes.
It's just too complex. There is a higher force. The Universe could be that force itself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.