Posted on 06/18/2008 1:51:50 PM PDT by Yomin Postelnik
As many readers know, I recently wrote a column titled “Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound,” which explored the logical and philosophical case for the Divine. As I painstakingly pointed out in the column, all of the arguments hold true whether one believes in evolution or not.
Nonetheless, many chose to attack the column from a scientific standpoint, not by bringing specific examples, but because of the lack thereof. While they entirely missed the meaning of the column, I would still like to address their issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Enjoy the latest column, I hope.
Thanks dear.
If God caused the Big Bang, and everything that happened after that is a result of it’s design then evolution and divine creation are not mutually exclusive.
That’s what I think, too. Who are we to dictate how God was to have created us, that he had to do it with a flash of light and a puff of smoke, or he doesn’t exist? Just let the evidence speak for itself without putting God on trial.
Who created the creator?
The creator is eternal. He did not need to be created. You are a finite being and have difficulty conceptualizing an infinite being. Your question is....irrelevant.
If man evolved and was not specially created in the image of God, then he is not differint in kind but only in degree from, say a gorilla.If so, then:
1)why did Jesus have to die?
2)Does man have reason and free will?
3)Does man have a conscience?
4)If he does not have the above things, then why respect natual rights?
The worldview, if it is logically consistent, of the secular humanist evolutionist is incompatible with the worldview of the skeptic of evolution.
Ditto!
Why did the creator not have to be created? You used the analogy that 10,000 skyscrapers couldn't have been created by themselves; they would obviously have been created by man, who himself was created by the creator. Why do the steps stop there? Many cultures had gods that were borne or created from other gods.
And what proof do you have that this creator, if he exists, is eternal?
Also, just about every culture in the history of world has an idea for a creator or creators. Which one is correct?
Think about that for a moment. At one point the universe didn't exist . . . then it did . . . it this happened because of the natural laws that didn't even exist until after the universe was there. Am I right?
Now we Monotheists of course say that G-d is the author of His own existence, but we don't claim He "created Himself." We say He is eternal. "Science" today has discarded the notion of an eternal universe, yet it still insists that the universe is the author of its own existence, ie, it created itself. This seems much more problematic than a mere claim of eternal existence.
Now it is possible that "science" postulates the existence of some sort of situation prior to the big bang that brought the universe into existence. The trouble there is that the existence of something before the big bang would mean that the universe wasn't created at that event, since this situation could be included within the definition of "the universe." Is "the universe" then eternal after all? Or maybe science posits that the "laws of physics" (which it insists are absolute and unalterable [otherwise you'd never know when your cat might breathe fire]) pre-existed, and caused the big bang. They might insist that these "laws of nature" or the situation that called forth the universe is not itself part of the (non-eternal) universe, but that would mean these "laws" or "conditions" are in effect an eternal "logos" that preceded the universe, called forth its existence, and (I assume) will continue to exist after this universe is long gone, perhaps creating other realities.
The trouble is, this only works if you want to arbitrarily declare the universe and the "natural conditions" that brought it about to be separate entities. One could just as easily declare these natural laws part of the universe as we know them, and therefore the universe is indeed eternal.
Of course science cannot study anything other than the natural conditions before it (and this includes retrojecting present physical natural laws into the distant past and distant future to come up with theories as to how the universe began and will end), which means that the origin of the universe (including the natural laws or the situation that brought it about) is outside the purview of science altogether.
INTREP
Does being "created in the image of God" mean God has to have two arms and legs, ten toes and fingers, hair, fingernails, fingerprints, etc...?
Theology is supposed to be about our spiritual relationship with God - our physical bodies are little more than shells for our souls to inhabit while on this Earth.
I believe evolution made us homo sapiens.
Our souls are what make us men, and that is what is in His image.
What you happen to believe is absurd isn't proof of anything.
All world views except for true biblical reformed Christianity end in arbitrariness or irrationality.
Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians would disagree with you.
Why should it matter? I could say, for instance, that I believe that our universe is a child's sandbox and all that we can see is his work during a pleasant afternoon of play with his toys. I could further assert that we haven't heard from him lately because his parents have called him in for supper before tucking him for the night. Will he come back tomorrow and begin again, wiping out his old design to try something different, or will he continue to observe and study his creation? It's not for us to know, so who can say?
Regards,
GtG
PS Regardless of our opinion in the matter, the creator exists just as he should and we can only surmise his nature.
There's no shortage of people here who it matters a great deal to and are ready to step up and tell you the exact nature of the creator. See #14.
Two quick points however, your examples (Catholics and E.O.C.) are ammunition for my world view, not pot shots to it. Secondly, what I believe isn't absurd, but rather follows the rules of logic. It's simple, God created the heavens and the earth. That's not an absurd or irrational statement. Rather, it is a claim.
If so, you failed to explain how, since you said that "all world views except for true biblical reformed Christianity end in arbitrariness or irrationality." I take it you don't consider those churches "reformed", therefore they are arbitrary and irrational.
Secondly, what I believe isn't absurd...
That's not what I said. I said that what you qualify as being absurd does not prove anything.
Wait a sec. You're claiming to be rational?
Apologist is the word.
To quote you from 16 "What you happen to believe is absurd isn't proof of anything.
You're right, it isn't proof. I really didn't want to go the distance on this, but here ya go.
1. Without a triune God you have no ability to account for unity and diversity.
2. Without God you have no ability to account for a moral structure.
3. Without the triune God you have no explanation for universal, invariant abstract concepts such as the laws of logic.
4. Without God you have no logical epistemelogical basis.
Your world view, unless it centers around the true triune God won't be logical or rational.
If you are a logician at all, you will realize that I've got a problem with induction at this point. I've claimed all world views end in irrationality and arbitrariness. I do not know all world views and all world views are perhaps not yet know. Thus, my claim is fallacious.
Yet, I'll stand by my claim because of my biblical presuppositions. God knows all world views. All world views contrary to his truth are arbitrary and irrational.
So, at best I can ask you what you believe. You will tell me and I'll show you that what you believe isn't logical. Unless of course you believe biblical truth...which you don't.
If you want proof, lay out for me your world view and I'll show you where it gets arbitrary and irrational. If you want to disprove my claims then get to work on deconstructing my theology. If you can show my theology in error then you will win the argument. Lastly, when we move beyond intellectual argument, I'll be bailing on the thread. I don't fight over this stuff...at best I'll argue it.
I’m a simple country Christian. You’ll have to elaborate if you expect me to catch on.
But you're starting with the watch. Who said you get to start with the watch?
Get it into existence first.
The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven. Not how the Heavens go.
Light-Shines-In-The-Darkness-Ping.
Anyone who took high school science should know that that is not a tenet of the theory of evolution.
You don't seem to have any trouble conceptualizing an infinite being. Are you special?
Well and good, but why then insist that only natural phenomena exist or that they are absolutely uniform throughout all time?
The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven. Not how the Heavens go.
I doubt you have much of an idea of what the Torah tells us. And it doesn't say much (at least on the surface) about "going to heaven."
And I'm still waiting to hear what caused the big bang and the subsequent existence of a (non-eternal) universe.
The Torah gives numerous examples of what will please God and what will displease God. I seem to recall a Decalogue somewhere in there as well. And the quote was originally used by Galileo who accepted the “sequel” and believe me, the New Testament says plenty about how to go to Heaven (or more accurately it says the same thing many times). And the quote was “Bible” not “Torah”.
God caused the big bang and made the rules that made the formation of stars and planets inevitable, IMHO.
Science doesn't insist that only natural phenomena exist, but that it can only address natural phenomena. Uniformity is assumed because it has never been observed to be variable.
And I'm still waiting to hear what caused the big bang and the subsequent existence of a (non-eternal) universe.
It could be a long wait, and they may never figure it out but they're driven to try. It's what they do. You can pitch in and help do the research if you're in a hurry.
But plenty of scientists do.
Science only claims that its predictions measurements and experiments can only be performed utilizing natural phenomena. There is also no assumption that things are absolutely uniform. Some physicists have calculated that the speed of light might have been slightly faster in the distant past. Things are assumed to be nonuniform at or before the beginning of time where the rules of physics seem to break down.
But G-d could not have created a fully-functioning universe? He was compelled to create a tiny speck that then began to unfold in accordance with natural physical laws? Adam and Eve could not have begotten five children on their one day in the Garden of Eden because nowadays human gestation takes nine months? Methuselah could not have literally lived 969 years because no one does that now?
The Torah gives numerous examples of what will please God and what will displease God. I seem to recall a Decalogue somewhere in there as well. And the quote was originally used by Galileo who accepted the “sequel” and believe me, the New Testament says plenty about how to go to Heaven (or more accurately it says the same thing many times). And the quote was “Bible” not “Torah”.
First of all, the creation of the world is written in the Torah, not the "new testament" (or even the Na"KH). Second, the Torah's rewards (at least those promised on the surface) for obedience to G-d are quite "worldly" (long life, many children, etc.). This does not mean that the afterlife is denied or is not important. But in Judaism/Noachism the afterlife is a much more esoteric concept than it is in chr*stianity.
The Torah is not a stop-gap "pedagogue" preparing for the messiah. Nor is it a response to the sin of Adam. It is the reason the universe was created.
Wrap your head around that one.
As to G-d causing the big bang, you may believe that, but the atheists (including those here at FR) do not. Since they admit that the universe is not eternal--that at one point it suddenly came into existence--I'm trying to figure out how this unique event is described as a purely natural phenomenon.
So does that mean that science denies that G-d could have created the universe, or merely that if He did so it cannot comment? If that were the case I would have no problem.
Uniformity is assumed because it has never been observed to be variable.
And because "everyone knows" that "religious mythology" has no authority to pronounce on the matter whatsoever, right? Even if the "mythology" were dictated to Moses letter by letter and contains descriptions of current events encoded in highly complex sequences. And by the way, if you're going to assume uniformity based on current physical reality, on what grounds does one suggest such unheard-of things as universes suddenly exploding from nothingness into being?
And I'm still waiting to hear what caused the big bang and the subsequent existence of a (non-eternal) universe.
It could be a long wait, and they may never figure it out but they're driven to try. It's what they do. You can pitch in and help do the research if you're in a hurry.
So science doesn't insist that only nature exists, but it insists that only nature could have created the universe and therefore disqualifies G-d from consideration? Just how does this refusal to look beyond nature for an explanation of the existence of the universe (or of nature itself) qualify as "not claiming that only nature exists?"
And it is going to be a long wait, isn't it? Oh well. Scientists may not know what caused the big bang, but at least they "know" that G-d didn't cause it! [/sarcasm] Though I note that your fellow celebrant of science allmendream says that G-d did cause it. Does that means he's not a scientist?
Naw, I won't waste both our time. Let's just say that my worldview has nothing to do with anything "triune",
You haven't said things that normally make me want to argue (namely that the earth is 6,000 years old or that all people that don't think like you roast in hell).
But I will say that it's more logical that morality is decided by men, and then, reflects on their religious belief, rather than a supernatural being giving us arbitrary laws that he decided by fiat, and then revealed to man in bronze age texts written by people who didn't even know that the Earth was round.
We as a society (even the most religious in America) don't stone people to death anymore because they don't keep the Sabbath holy. That's because we've adjusted our morality to no longer find that acceptable, even though those living in the days of Exodus would find it quite appropriate.
If Science is going to address early cosmology at all it can only do so by positing natural and predictable means, and the big bang model has been useful for making observations and explaining predictions.
Do you really believe in highly complex sequences in the Torah that describe current events?
Plenty of people say lots of things, but nobody can speak for “Science” when they say something of that ilk. What Science has to say on the subject is this....
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Scientific means cannot measure predict or experiment on God.
But even this one planet would need trillions of simultaneous coincidences for life to come together. Also, for living organisms to mutate and reproduce in an orderly manner, stemming from chaos, there needs to be a designer. The complexity involved is actually exponentially greater than what it would take for a watch to come together by itself and the similarity becomes greater considering that according to evolutionists living forms came into being from what were non-living components.
Divine working would need to go farther than that for the orderly and systematic development of life. One can definitely believe in both. For many reasons, I accept the Biblical account and not evo., but one can believe in a very involved Creator and in evolution.
We dealt with that in the last thread (questions on the first column).
The Creator transcends physicality, not just according to the Bible, but according to all religions the Creator is the Creator of physicality (and as the greatest theologians point out, the Creator of spirituality, as physicality can’t be formed from the spiritual and therefore the Creator must transcend both.
Think about it. It’s logically/philosophically sound, because the root cause of all these happenings needs to transcend physicality, as even from a scientific standpoint, physicality isn’t eternal (in and of itself) and needs to have had a definite beginning.
If we look at the complexity of physicality, we realize that the physical is finite and therefore must have a beginning. That leads to the root cause of physicality to be higher than physicality, the Creator to be intricately involved in its details, but to be higher than it and eternal.
That’s just a short overview and would be happy to discuss/debate. Thanks, Yomin
Hi,
See the last post as well. But
a) the common physical traits, structure and coopertative nature of the universe show one Divine being.
b)see the last few paragraphs of the first column - section “The Bible” (mostly the philosophical argument).
Very well stated!
It actually is, at its root, and that’s obvious (before so-called “primal matter”). Gases, etc. The fact that some may incorrectly side step it (in which case they really have no answer for the formation of matter) is avoidance of the clear problem and poses a greater problem of “infinite matter” (timewise), which no scientist contends to be the case.
Let me put it just a little more clearly for you. Evolution theory does not attempt to say how life began. I'm not even a proponent of evolution theory but a fact is a fact and no one has ever put forth evolution theory as an explanation for the origin of life. "Primal matter" and "infinite matter," if those terms even exist apart from your fevered imagination, would be a part of physics an entirely separate study.
did you know that mathematically it can be shown that man was created about the time frame of the Bible? I heard a fascinating scientist who ran the numbers, and if they were taken from the millions of years that evolutionists believe, then population would be an incredible and impossible number.
No, I’ve never heard that. What does it have to do with anything I have posted?
TigerEye,
I think you need a course in evolution. Life from non-life is the only plausible answer and Darwin readily admitted it (and saw the problem with it).
I don’t think anyone has compiled a complete list of all the conditions necessary for life. Most likely there are also hidden factors that increase or decrease that possibility. The earth is not so chaotic, though, that evolution couldn’t proceed fairly uninterrupted. Maybe that’s one of the supremely unlikely things in itself; who knows. So far there is only one example to compare too. If explanations present themselves through observational evidence, however, I tend to believe them. I won’t imagine that God left misleading clues to throw us off the track of his existence, no more than he left unmistakable proof of his sole design on every rock (apart from it being there in the first place). There’s only one thing to be sure of: we’ll never have all the answers. God is beyond the realm of science, being infinite.
That is an outright lie. That is not what evolution theory says and Darwin never said that. Your credibility is shot.
TigersEye,
Take an elementary course. Read a book. Give it up. Do a simple google search and then come back and apologize (including for the zingers on the other thread).
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.