Quite Reasonable that : God Does Exist

[magnifier661]

[video=youtube;COJ0ED1mV7s]

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/transcript-kalam-cosmological-argument

Does God exist?

Or is the material universe all that is, or ever was, or ever will be?

One approach to answering this question is the Cosmological Argument.

It goes like this…
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Is the first premise true? Let's consider…

Believing that something can pop into existence without a cause is more of a stretch than believing in magic. At least with magic you've got a hat and a magician.

And if something can come into being from nothing, then why don't we see this happening all the time?

No… Everyday experience and scientific evidence confirm our first premise—If something begins to exist, it must have a cause.

But what about our second premise? Did the universe begin or has it always existed? Atheists have typically said that the universe has been here forever-"The universe is just there, and that's all."

First, let's consider the second law of thermodynamics. It tells us the universe is slowly running out of usable energy… and that's the point.

If the universe had been here forever, it would have run out of usable energy by now. The second law points us to a universe that has a definite beginning.

This is further confirmed by a series of remarkable scientific discoveries…

In 1915, Albert Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity. This allowed us, for the first time, to talk meaningfully about the past history of the universe.

Next, Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaître, each working with Einstein's equations, predicted that the universe is expanding.

Then, in 1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies. This empirical evidence confirmed not only that the universe is expanding, but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past. It was a monumental discovery—almost beyond comprehension.

However, not everyone is fond of a finite universe… So, it wasn't long before alternative models popped into existence. But, one by one, these models failed to stand the test of time.

More recently, three leading cosmologists—Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that "any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning."

This even applies to the multiverse, if there is such a thing.

This means that scientists "can no longer hide behind a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Any adequate model must have a beginning, just like the standard model.

It's quite plausible, then that both premises of the argument are true. This means that the conclusion is also true—the universe has a cause.

And since the universe can't cause itself, its cause must be beyond the space-time universe. It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful. Much like… God.

The Cosmological Argument shows that, in fact, it is quite reasonable to believe that God does exist.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/transcript-kalam-cosmological-argument#ixzz2bxS5RvWy

That about sums it up.

 

[crowTrobot]

if you'd objectively research this stuff somewhere else besides apologist websites you'd find WLC commonly misrepresents information/takes things out of context and nobody outside apologist circles takes him or any of his arguments seriously. you are being duped by propaganda here.

the truth is STILL nobody knows, or can possibly know if the universe is infinite or not. nothing has been proven.

 

[magnifier661]

I love some of the responses by known atheists on this argument. They said "What if I had this spirit and was able to travel back in time and created the universe? Would I be considered God?"

That is an easy answer. If you had the ability to create this universe, then you would know how the Universe came into existence. All you would need is to explain and use perfect math to answer all the questions of this universe. Since you do not know, you cannot be this being.

 

[magnifier661]

if you'd objectively research this stuff somewhere else besides apologist websites you'd find WLC commonly misrepresents information/takes things out of context and nobody outside apologist circles takes him or any of his arguments seriously. you are being duped by propaganda here.

the truth is STILL nobody knows, or can possibly know if the universe is infinite or not. nothing has been proven.

Excuse me? Its pretty easy crow. If the universe is expanding and eternal; then we would have already been of nothingness. Why is that so hard to understand?

And you can ploy multiverses or any other theory and all still are bound by the laws of expansion. So all things would already be nothingness if eternal. It's really quite simple.

I think it's funny that you point out that this is from an apologist, yet all quotes are from those respected in the scientific community.

 

[Sedatedfork]

I love some of the responses by known atheists on this argument. They said "What if I had this spirit and was able to travel back in time and created the universe? Would I be considered God?"

That is an easy answer. If you had the ability to create this universe, then you would know how the Universe came into existence. All you would need is to explain and use perfect math to answer all the questions of this universe. Since you do not know, you cannot be this being.

What if I built a time machine and went back in time and created the universe? Present me would not know this, but future me would. But if I built the universe, how am I here now? Who created me to build the universe? What if someone else created the time machine, would they have really created the universe? What if when I created the universe I changed physics so that time travel isn't possible? Inception!

 

[magnifier661]

What if I built a time machine and went back in time and created the universe? Present me would not know this, but future me would. But if I built the universe, how am I here now? Who created me to build the universe? What if someone else created the time machine, would they have really created the universe? What if when I created the universe I changed physics so that time travel isn't possible? Inception!

You've been watching too many sic-fi movies. If you were to travel back in time and created the universe, there would be another universe and time. You still wouldn't have created this universe. But if we use your theory and it does sticks; it still proves that the universe had a finite beginning and a conscious being created it.

 

[magnifier661]

AND lets be frank here. Has there been any empirical evidence of something coming to existence without purpose creating this thing?

 

[Sedatedfork]

AND lets be frank here. Has there been any empirical evidence of something coming to existence without purpose creating this thing?

The origin of the universe is not something you can solve, and I think you know this. But, maybe you can write a book about it and people will be interested in reading it.

Edit: By the way, not saying your opinion isn't reasonable or valid. I just think the whole thing is a conundrum -- and therefore I just don't think about it that much. I do often wonder, what happens when we die and why are we here. But I have my own inner peace with the universe and don't seriously contemplate such things.

 

[magnifier661]

The origin of the universe is not something you can solve, and I think you know this. But, maybe you can write a book about it and people will be interested in reading it.

Interesting... SO Then you thinking this way would warrant that an atheist, or anyone that doesn't believe in a Conscious Being that created this universe is an act of faith?

I mean lets be honest here. You openly admitted that you don't have the answers right? So we can all agree that believing or not believing in a God is an act of faith?

 

[Sedatedfork]

Interesting... SO Then you thinking this way would warrant that an atheist, or anyone that doesn't believe in a Conscious Being that created this universe is an act of faith?

I mean lets be honest here. You openly admitted that you don't have the answers right? So we can all agree that believing or not believing in a God is an act of faith?

Yep. See my edit which I think crossed during your post. I don't know what I consider myself (probably agnostic), so I am not an adversary of you on this. At times I believe in a creator, but I do not believe that this being cares much whether we believe in the creator or not or whether we believe in a specific definition of the creator. I live a moral life, in my view, and believe that any creator would certainly approve of my life and the way I carry myself. Other times, I just don't know or have a strong belief one way or the other.

 

[magnifier661]

Yep. See my edit which I think crossed during your post. I don't know what I consider myself (probably agnostic), so I am not an adversary of you on this. At times I believe in a creator, but I do not believe that this being cares much whether we believe in the creator or not or whether we believe in a specific definition of the creator. I live a moral life, in my view, and believe that any creator would certainly approve of my life and the way I carry myself. Other times, I just don't know or have a strong belief one way or the other.

I can 100% respect all of your views. It's a solid way of thinking. I am only advocating that there is a creator. To whom the creator is can be debated I guess.

 

[crowTrobot]

Its pretty easy crow. If the universe is expanding and eternal; then we would have already been of nothingness. Why is that so hard to understand?

And you can ploy multiverses or any other theory and all still are bound by the laws of expansion. So all things would already be nothingness if eternal. It's really quite simple.

this is just a simplistic intuitive argument that doesn't take into account counterintuitive factors like the effects of quantum mechanics at small scales, the nature of time in the context of whatever the big bang was (which we don't know) and whether temporal finiteness is even a meaningful concept.

also there may be an explanation for an infinite god-free universe that we haven't discovered and might not even be able to comprehend if we did.

I think it's funny that you point out that this is from an apologist, yet all quotes are from those respected in the scientific community.

again if you'd research this stuff elsewhere you'd find that's not the case. even Vilenkin (one of the authors of the paper WLC is relying on) admits nothing has been proven and there still are possible workarounds to the apparent necessity of an absolute beginning.

 

[magnifier661]

this is just a simplistic intuitive argument that doesn't take into account counterintuitive factors like the effects of quantum mechanics at small scales,

Sorry I don't buy that. Something at small scale can be magnified grander and still equate at the same principles. You can try and bring in the minuscule to overlook the grand scheme of things, but the gran scheme is still present.

the nature of time in the context of whatever the big bang was (which we don't know) and whether temporal finiteness is even a meaningful concept.

So you are in disagreement that the big bang was the start and cause of this universe?

also there may be an explanation for an infinite god-free universe that we haven't discovered and might not even be able to comprehend if we did.

Like what? If you don't have something empirical, then you are just as much driven by faith as the theist. Lets compare apples to apples shall we?

again if you'd research this stuff elsewhere you'd find that's not the case. even Vilenkin (one of the authors of the paper WLC is relying on) admits nothing has been proven and there still are possible workarounds to the apparent necessity of an absolute beginning.

Vilenkin is giving an answer with what has been observed. What could be is faith. So you acting on faith or not CrowTbot?

 

[Eastoff]

So we can all agree that believing or not believing in a God is an act of faith?

So you also think it's an act of faith to not believe in the Greek Gods nor the Hindu Gods nor the flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

[magnifier661]

So you also think it's an act of faith to not believe in the Greek Gods nor the Hindu Gods nor the flying Spaghetti Monster?

It is absolutely an act of faith. But one could argue that those mythologies have died through the test of time (excluding the Spaghetti Monster of course). But one things that has been here since the beginning is "There is a creator that created this universe". Theism can evolve just as science can, since both genesis have foundations of faith.

 

[Eastoff]

Sorry I don't buy that. Something at small scale can be magnified grander and still equate at the same principles. You can try and bring in the minuscule to overlook the grand scheme of things, but the gran scheme is still present.

Then you don't know Quantum Mechanics.

 

[Eastoff]

Theism can evolve just as science can, since both genesis have foundations of faith.

That's the problem. The book is a book. The original text does not get revisions!

 

[magnifier661]

Then you don't know Quantum Mechanics.

No, those that are minuscule haven't been fully observed, but the theory stands. If there is a finite answer; that answer can be magnified to enormous levels without fail.

 

[magnifier661]

That's the problem. The book is a book. The original text does not get revisions!

Which book you referring to?

 

[Eastoff]

No, those that are minuscule haven't been fully observed, but the theory stands. If there is a finite answer; that answer can be magnified to enormous levels without fail.

Look there are* quantum mechanical events that occur and have been observed which do not occur with big things. Electrons will behave like a wave.

 

[Eastoff]

Which book you referring to?

Your good book. the babble

 

[Nikolokolus]

Damn, I can't wait to get home to that bottle of Laphroaig in my cabinet

 

[magnifier661]

Your good book. the babble

ANd how does this apply to this thread?

 

[Eastoff]

Ok here's an absurd example of not changing. let's say somehow someone found proof that Jesus was a woman, and there was a miss communication along the way. Would religious scholars change the Bible, or would they deny Jesus was a woman?

 

[magnifier661]

Look there are* quantum mechanical events that occur and have been observed which do not occur with big things. Electrons will behave like a wave.

Wait a minute?!?! These electrons have only been recently observed. Making an assumptious claim like that is irresponsible!

 

[e_blazer]

Crow, I guess I'm a bit confused by your position. You've stated elsewhere that you can only accept as real that which can be proved, and yet you are willing to go to great lengths of conjecture about possible explanation of "infinite god-free universe" and "possible workarounds to the apparent necessity of an absolute beginning" to avoid having to acknowledge an external causative factor for the origin of our universe. To put it another way, suppose that there is actually a god that created this universe and, because he is outside of our universe his existence cannot be proven in any scientific way. Your philosophy would seem to require you deny the real answer to creation and go off in search of any other notion that the human mind can conjure up to potentially explain the origin of the universe absent a god, even if those notions cannot themselves be proven or tested. I constantly hear atheists refusing to believe in a "god of the gaps". I have an equally hard time with a "science of the gaps" approach.

 

[magnifier661]

Ok here's an absurd example of not changing. let's say somehow someone found proof that Jesus was a woman, and there was a miss communication along the way. Would religious scholars change the Bible, or would they deny Jesus was a woman?

Depends on how strong the evidence is.

 

[magnifier661]

Damn, I can't wait to get home to that bottle of Laphroaig in my cabinet

LOL!

 

[Further]

I started to check out the vid you posted but right off the bat it made claims about what atheists believe that is untrue.

It said "Whatever begins has a cause" This is only known to be true under our laws of nature which break down at the edges and we have no idea about outside of our universe. A quick thought on this, time is part of our universe but outside of here where there is no time, there may be nothing preceding or subsequent. If everything is in all moments then nothing has a cause. Basically, we just don't know.

Second point it made was "The Universe began to exist" Once again, time in our lens but may not have anything to do with the realm outside of here, so "began" doesn't play a role, but most importantly, we just don't know.

The last of the three points put the first two points together, If "whatever begins has a cause" and The universe began to exist" the "The Universe has a cause" But without 1 and 2, there is no 3 and I already disputed 1 and 2. Then the vid tried to bolster it's argument by mentioning the second law of thermodynamics, but as has been said, those are our laws of nature, as in while in this universe. And not always, during the first milliseconds of the universe those laws didn't even exist here yet. Basically, we just don't know.

At that point I stopped watching the vid.


Basically, the video and you are claiming atheists have all sorts of beliefs we just don't have. It's simple, we have a lot of data about our universe from a few milliseconds on till now, but we know nothing before that. There is not an assumption because there is not even enough data to make an informed hypothesis. Dig?

 

[magnifier661]

Crow, I guess I'm a bit confused by your position. You've stated elsewhere that you can only accept as real that which can be proved, and yet you are willing to go to great lengths of conjecture about possible explanation of "infinite god-free universe" and "possible workarounds to the apparent necessity of an absolute beginning" to avoid having to acknowledge an external causative factor for the origin of our universe. To put it another way, suppose that there is actually a god that created this universe and, because he is outside of our universe his existence cannot be proven in any scientific way. Your philosophy would seem to require you deny the real answer to creation and go off in search of any other notion that the human mind can conjure up to potentially explain the origin of the universe absent a god, even if those notions cannot themselves be proven or tested. I constantly hear atheists refusing to believe in a "god of the gaps". I have an equally hard time with a "science of the gaps" approach.

Well said... Repp'd