Board index ‹ Faith and Knowledge

[Asker]

But neither of these is evidence of what you claim. I have been through this. Multiple times now. Kalam’s cosmological argument simply determines a sort of prime mover who set everything in motion. But there are a couple problems with this in the first place. For starters, you are reducing based on what’s in this universe certain rules about the universe itself. For example, if you went by the fact that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then you would conclude by your logic that the universe cannot do that either. But that is false. The universe itself, the fabric of space time, can and does expand faster than the speed of light. So there is no actual evidence to conclude that we don’t live in a pattern of infinite causality without a prime mover. There could be an infinite chain of universes ending and starting forever. Just because this isn’t logical WITHIN this universe does not prohibit the possibility that it is true of the universe itself. Or maybe this isn’t true, this is also possible since we have no idea. It could be really almost anything. You even yourself mentioned that a prime mover (I’m not gonna say god because you’re argument really doesn’t argue for a god, just for something that set everything we know in motion) is just as plausible as any other explanation. You are correct about that for the most part. That’s because none of them have evidence. So no one claims to know or “believe” which is true except for religious people. you don’t have evidence, you have the fact that it is just as minute a possibility as every other hypothesis of what came before the universe. This is not evidence for your claim at all, it is wishful thinkng.

I have refuted the ontological argument in another thread I think, in fact I think it was you that claimed it was true. But whatever, I’ll do it again. This argument relies on the idea that we know everything there is to know about our universe. Let me explain:

Thousands of years ago, humanity thought the Earth was flat due to the fact that when you looked down, it looked flat. That was the extent of their knowledge. So by their logic that was based on their assumptions through observation, the Earth is flat. So since the Earth being flat makes logical sense, you would say that it must be true. The only way your argument holds any water as evidence of any form is if we know whether there is a god or not, through scientific inquiry. Because then, all of our knowledge through which we base our logic, will be complete and irrefutably correct. If at that point we know a god exists, then yes he must make logical sense as well. Or if at that point we know he doesn’t exist, then yes he must be logically contradictory and nonsensical. This is true with the Earth being round as well. The Earth being round didn’t make logical sense until it was proven through science. That doesn’t make it any less true. Another example: right now, we can’t logically disprove the multiverse conclusively. It is logically conceivable even if some parts of the hypothesis are unclear. So since it isn’t completely logically nonsensical, are you saying that it definitely exists? No! We can’t know whether it is true/logically backed up conclusively, until we know it is true or not through science.

None of this is evidence of either a god or the Christian god. So you still have a long way to go in order to disprove my assertion that you are hypocritical. Your standard for evidence in day to day life is not consistent with your lack thereof for a god.

[jimwalton]

Oh, I know there's still a long way to go. But I'm only proven to be hypocritical if the way I am acting is deliberately in contradiction with the way I am believing. I have already evidenced quite convincingly that is not the case, but I do want to keep this good discussion going.

> Your standard for evidence in day to day life is not consistent with your lack thereof for a god.

Not a bit. I have shown you the consistency of my day to day life with my position on cosmology, and now also with ontology. Your disagreements with the positions don't make me a hypocrite. My belief and actions are concordant, and my beliefs and my day to day life are consistent with each other. Your assessment that my positions are strong enough to warrant your assent doesn't make ME a hypocrite.

> Kalam’s cosmological argument simply determines a sort of prime mover who set everything in motion.

I agreed with this, and stated that's where the argument takes us. It's merely Point #1 of 12.

> For starters, you are reducing based on what’s in this universe certain rules about the universe itself.

That's the science and the evidence that I'm going by. I am following Georges Lemaître's math and current scientific understanding as the evidence that both logic and evidence take us to a prime mover.

> This argument relies on the idea that we know everything there is to know about our universe.

Actually it doesn't. It's a logical sequence that isn't served well by your analogy. The appearance of the shape of the earth doesn't make it necessarily so or illogically not. Such material phenomena can conform to any number of given shapes or laws. My logic in the ontological argument is based on necessity: If God is God, then he must be God. If God is not God, then God is logically impossible. It's a completely different thought process than that of the configuration of our perceptions of a material phenomenon such as the shape of the earth. For all the ancients knew, they may have been perceiving the flat top of an hour-glass-shaped earth, or a plane of a receding parabola-shaped earth. But the earth doesn't necessarily have to be, by definition, any particular shape. Observation, experimentation, and math gives us the true shape. But the question of God is different from that. If God does not exist, then it is impossible that he exists regardless of human perception or opinion (different than your earth analogy). But if there really is a God, then He must necessarily exist and also must necessarily be God.

But it still doesn't prove the existence of God, let alone the Christian God (which we are still far from in the chain of our discussion. What the argument does show, as I said in point #5, there’s actually evidence and good sense to say that God might exist and could actually be a reasonable explanation for what we observe (another piece of evidence behind my faith). And if God's existence is not contradictory to logic and to the evidence before us (which it is not), then perhaps God is logically necessary (I put the "perhaps" in out of deference for your disagreement with the argument), and the evidence of God in this argument is what comes before my admission that I believe.

But since you claim you've already responded to this and refuted it, we can move to the next piece of the puzzle (#3 of 12): a teleological argument.

1. We as humans don’t know of anything that shows evidence of being purposefully designed that wasn't indeed purposefully designed. Whenever we know of something that exhibits purpose (a reason for why it exists or why something happened the way it did), and whenever we know whether or not it was the product of intelligent design (somebody thought it up and made it happen), it was indeed the designed product of an intelligent being. Whether a watch, a washer, or a window, if we can infer that there was a purpose behind it, it's safe to say that an intelligent being designed it for that purpose, or at least for a purpose.

2. There are many parts of the universe, the earth, and life as we know it that exhibit purpose—not just parts of the universe exhibit purpose, though, but even the universe itself. Every scientist asks "Why?" We assume purpose in what we observe around us. "Why do the planets spin?" "Why is the earth pitched at an angle?" We are always looking for the reasons and the purpose, assuming they are there and, not surprisingly, we find purpose in many parts of the universe and life.

3. Therefore, it's logical to assume that the universe could be the product of purposeful design.

4. Everything else we know that exhibits those characteristics was indeed designed; why should the universe be treated any differently?

Purpose doesn’t logically sprout all by itself. We invest things with purpose, give them purpose, and design them with purpose. When archaeologists dig something up, they can see that it was made, and they ask, "Hm, what was this for? What purpose did it have?" The universe has similar characteristics that are means to ends—cause and effect for a purpose. It's logical, then, based on everything else we know, to assume a designer when we see a design. That's the rationale behind the teleological argument.

As with the others, this argument is based in evidence—what we observe scientifically and experimentally—as the basis of my faith.