Posted on 04/17/2009 12:16:28 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
...(W)hy do we have to account for uniformity? The answer is this: in order to be rational. The mark of rationality is to have a good reason for what we believe. And remember, it is biblical to have a reason for what we believe (1 Peter 3:15). The two key forms of irrationality are inconsistency and arbitrariness (not having a reason). You can imagine that when an evolutionist asked why I believe in creation if I replied, “Oh, there’s no reason—it’s just true,” then he would rightly point out that this is arbitrary and irrational. And yet, evolutionists do not have a good reason (on their own professed worldview) for their belief in uniformity—or for laws of logic. They are, therefore, being irrational. Biblical creation is the only rational position because it alone provides a reason for those things we take for granted—like uniformity and laws of logic...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Ping!
There have been too many things that God has done to get me through the worst moments of my life to realistically convince me that SOMEONE is there looking out for me.
Kind of like when for no reason or another a solution pops into your head, or some sort of revelation. Now if there is nothing, nothing would come to anyone or any other inspiration.
In a world of such a large amount of possibilities, the unlikely ones will seem to happen quite often. And then, you will attempt to fit this phenomenon into your own pre-conceived notions of God.
Now they are even trying to disprove YOUR OWN experience!
Exactly. All arguments start from assumptions. For example, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." What is the reason for the truth of that assumption? Perception. There is not a "reason" in the sense of logic which led you necessarily to that conclusion. It is not a conclusion. It is the staring point on which all further reasoning and conclusions are based. Either you see the truth of the proposition or you don't.
We hold no truths to be self-evident except as discovered via Methodological Naturalism, that all (men) are ultimately evolved based on chance, that they are endowed by a mindless chemical process from a mindless universal algorithm with uncertain unalienable illusions, that among these are a delusion of life, and the pursuit of happenstance. That to secure these illusions, governments are instituted among the chemical processes (called men), deriving their just powers from the happenstance of the governed…
Here is a good one.
Why is there something rather than nothing?
Is it even possible for there to be nothing?
If there is something, then how much is there?
Fools.
Has anyone ever considered that the Universe could have been created by an outside intelligence but this creator of the universe doesn’t give a second though to some intelligent critters living on some remote isolated dust ball in the far corners of the Milky Way galaxy?
What happens to the young earth creationists if and that is a big if, we discover intelligent beings who have had records stretching back millions of years. would aliens simply be agents of Satan, sent to confuse us all? Or would we have to change our fundamental thinking about the nature of the universe?
It is good to ask questions!!! Or at least that is how I was taught.
This would raise the issue of where the moral law comes from, if not from a personal transcendant Creator. What you've defined is deism. I was a deist growing up, but have long since abandoned it. It answers a few lines of evidence but leaves many other questions unexplained (such as the origin of a moral order.)
What happens to the young earth creationists if and that is a big if, we discover intelligent beings who have had records stretching back millions of years. would aliens simply be agents of Satan, sent to confuse us all? Or would we have to change our fundamental thinking about the nature of the universe?
True aliens with such records would obviously falsify biblical creationism. As you infer, it is also possible (although unlikely?) that they could be imposters within a satanic conspiracy. Until such an event happens such speculation doesn't get us very far, though. (As Augustine recognized, long ago, when asked about the implications of any discovery of fauns and satyrs, if I recall correctly.)
So what reason would there be to explain the existence of Natural Law without a Lawgiver? Or to put it another way, isn’t it much more reasonable to explain that natural law is the result of a lawgiver than not?
It may not be possible to answer that question. For example, your question is posed in a way that implies some necessity of a chronological order from lawgiver to law. Yet, who can say that a human is capable of understanding the true nature of time?
Could it be that time stretches back into infinity, and that there always has been and always will be the Natural Law?
Good one.
That to secure these illusions, governments are instituted among the chemical processes (called men), deriving their just powers from the happenstance of the governed… survival of the fittest as they take control of the governed...
or something to that effect?
I am not sure I understand what you are attempting to do. Perhaps you are trying to make a joke. But if you are serious, you are starting from questions. But you cannot start from a question. You have to start from a statement that you assume to be true. But since your first question is based on an assumption, let's state what that assumption is. I think it would be this: The universe is based on substance or essence.
So now we can try to answer your questions. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" The answer is that the question is meaningless. You start from the assumption that the universe is based on something. That something does not have a causal agent. The question is simply nonsense.
Your second question is "Is it even possible for there to be nothing?" And the answer is: No, it is not possible because we start with the assumption that the universe is based on substance.
As for your question, "If there is something, then how much is there?" depends on your first assumption. Is your substance divine and infinite, or material and finite? If infinite, then it is not possible to measure it. If finite, then you will become an astrophysicists in an attempt to answer the question.
That is a very good attempt to mock the Naturalist point of view. But even a Naturalist starts from assumptions that he considers to be true. His assumption would probably be something like this: the physical universe exits and is governed by impersonal physical laws. And through observation man can discover those laws. I am not saying you have to agree with him.
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.