Posted on 06/11/2013 3:34:14 PM PDT by NYer
|
A good place to start is with an argument by Thomas Aquinas, the great 13th century philosopher and theologian. The argument starts with the not-very-startling observation that things move. But nothing moves for no reason. Something must cause that movement, and whatever caused that must be caused by something else, and so on. But this causal chain cannot go backwards forever. It must have a beginning. There must be an unmoved mover to begin all the motion in the universe, a first domino to start the whole chain moving, since mere matter never moves itself.
A modern objection to this argument is that some movements in quantum mechanics — radioactive decay, for example — have no discernible cause. But hang on a second. Just because scientists don't see a cause doesn't mean there isn't one. It just means science hasn't found it yet. Maybe someday they will. But then there will have to be a new cause to explain that one. And so on and so on. But science will never find the first cause. That's no knock on science. It simply means that a first cause lies outside the realm of science.
Another way to explain this argument is that everything that begins must have a cause. Nothing can come from nothing. So if there's no first cause, there can't be second causes — or anything at all. In other words, if there's no creator, there can't be a universe.
But what if the universe were infinitely old, you might ask. Well, all scientists today agree that the universe is not infinitely old — that it had a beginning, in the big bang. If the universe had a beginning, then it didn't have to exist. And things which don't have to exist must have a cause.
There's confirmation of this argument from big-bang cosmology. We now know that all matter, that is, the whole universe, came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago, and it's been expanding and cooling ever since. No scientist doubts that anymore, even though before it was scientifically proved, atheists called it "creationism in disguise". Now, add to this premise a very logical second premise, the principle of causality, that nothing begins without an adequate cause, and you get the conclusion that since there was a big bang, there must be a "big banger".
 It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God. |
But is this "big banger" God? Why couldn't it be just another universe? Because Einstein's general theory of relativity says that all time is relative to matter, and since all matter began 13.7 billion years ago, so did all time. So there's no time before the big bang. And even if there is time before the big bang, even if there is a multiverse, that is, many universes with many big bangs, as string theory says is mathematically possible, that too must have a beginning.
An absolute beginning is what most people mean by 'God'. Yet some atheists find the existence of an infinite number of other universes more rational than the existence of a creator. Never mind that there is no empirical evidence at all that any of these unknown universes exists, let alone a thousand or a gazillion.
How far will scientists go to avoid having to conclude that God created the universe? Here's what Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind said: "Real scientists resist the temptation to explain creation by divine intervention. We resist to the death all explanations of the world based on anything but the laws of physics." Yet the father of modern physics, Sir Isaac Newton, believed fervently in God. Was he not a real scientist? Can you believe in God and be a scientist, and not be a fraud? According to Susskind, apparently not. So who exactly are the closed-minded ones in this debate?
The conclusion that God exists doesn't require faith. Atheism requires faith. It takes faith to believe in everything coming from nothing. It takes only reason to believe in everything coming from God.
I'm Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College, for Prager University.
“In other words, if there’s no creator, there can’t be a universe.”
I hear and read this assertion all the time and it is always stated as an axiom. I don’t think it is even a proper question to ask who created the universe because it denies that the universe is an absolute. Existence doesn’t need to be explained or justified, in my opinion. It just is. As far as we know it has always existed and always will. After all the big bang doesn’t say anything about the universe popping into existence from nothing. It simply says that at one time it was a very small package of energy or a singularity. If a god can “just be” why can’t existence. To say that God can “just be” and the universe has to have a creator or first cause is special pleading. If someone can prove that a god exists with evidence then fine but until then the only rational thing to do is to start with what we know, existence exists, and go on from that point and learn as much as we can about it with reason and logic and not fill the gaps in our knowledge with articles of faith.
The alternative to a creator is not random chance or accidents. It is natural law. Who created the natural laws? That is another improper question, in my opinion. The natural laws are absolutes and don’t need a cause. They just are. Again to be consistent, if a god can exist without a cause then so can natural laws or else it is another case of special pleading.
Evil exists. What makes you think that if God that would mean He likes it?
If there's no God, where do you get your concept of good and evil?
What makes me raise an eyebrow is the ridiculous theories that atheism leads to. Intellectual atheists are usually adherents to a very strange belief called ‘metaphysical naturalism’, and they begin to make bizarre claims such as we don’t have free will, we don’t plan anything, sentences don’t mean anything.
This is a form of scientism at its worst. If you can’t prove it with science, then it isn’t true. Of course, this means every element of human history is BS. I can’t scientifically prove that the Sassanid Empire existed, but I believe it to be the case from accounts and carvings and such.
My experience with atheism is that it serves as an excuse for personal views that do not conform with our natural apprehension of God-given morality. Essentially, its for people who read a religious text, disagree with aspects of it, and so choose not to believe. Can you imagine if we did that with earthly authorities. XD.
Given the astounding number of factors that had to have their outcomes fit in very narrow windows for life to exist and teh massviely minimal probability of all of those things occurring, it’s much more rational, applying Occam’s Razor, to presume that something “drove” the process than that it just happened by accident. Thus, it’s much more rational to believe in God than to believe in atheism.
Say, is the atheist deity Nogod?
Deductively, you’re correct. Neither view can be proven deductively.
However, using inductive reasoning, it is much more reasonable to believe in God than not.
I remember asking my science teachers when we were learning about the Big Bang, “What banged and where did it come from?” they hemmed and hawed A LOT. (This was my idea of fun.)
The universe is governed by the laws of metaphysics. Out of nothing, comes nothing. This has been around since Plato, and we have yet to discover anything that violates this rule. The universe cannot have always existed, because infinity is a theoretical construct that can never exist in our universe. It causes mathematical inconsistencies, as outlined in Hilbert’s Hotel.
To summarize the case -
1) The universe exists
2) Governed by natural law, everything that exists has a cause or a ‘beginning’
3) The universe has a beginning
You only have two explanations for its existence. One is that it appeared from nothing, which defies logic. The other is that a transcendent cause brought it into being.
The only transcendent cause that makes sense is an unembodied mind. God.
Sorry, can’t get past the non deductivity. I really do think about this stuff a lot.
Have you heard of the ontological argument?
Happiness occurs between the ears. I hope that everyone can be happy...mostly, though, I try to ensure that I am happy...as do we all. I find that my happiness quotient increases as I discard fallacious assumptions and then view the resulting world view hoping that I am approaching the truth of the matter.
I have.
What do you think of it? It kind of rules out agnosticism as a logical option, leaving only the two distinct sides of the argument.
What is evil?
I seek truth. My willingness to profess ignorance in an area that has so consumed human thought for much of our known history does not disturb me in the least. I will continue to seek truth. Every man is an island.
Well, I wish you all the best in your search for the truth. I hope it leads you to belief. :)
Logic begins with premises. Premises are not proof
I believe a lot of things...and can still recite the sucipiot from my latin mass altar boy days.
I think it is MUCH better to believe in God. Heck if he doesn’t exist than we had a great life because of God. If he does exist, I am sure glad I believe because those who don’t....look out.
Spent a little time in detention didn't you?
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.