|
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
 Posted - 05/18/2003 : 17:46:00
|
|
Hey guys, there is an interesting website called The Skeptical Christian that argues for the Christian viewpoint. The article on the Cosmological argument is quite good, and I need a little help refuting it. I know we've got some smart people on this board, so hopefully some of you can give me a hand with this.
|
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
Edited by - walt fristoe on 05/18/2003 17:46:45
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
 Posted - 05/19/2003 : 02:34:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The Skeptical Christian
Contradiction in terms?
I'm not going to try to shoot holes in this guy's arguments about science for two reasons. The first reason is that he probably knows more about it than I do. After all, I'm just a poor workingman that barely got out of High School. The second reason is that nobody really knows the answers to these questions, least of all the author of this paper. And, that's the problem.
All this fruitcake is saying is “if the laws of physics require that bumblebees can't fly, then God must be holding them up.” Which is exactly the same thing as saying since he doesn't understand the science; he'll settle for the superstition.
Then, he goes on to prove how inept he is at making a logical argument.
This objection fails to recognize that God has existed eternally and thus requires no cause.
This is an amazing argument. All the premises here are completely unsound. It's laughable! Plus, the only way to truly recognize this conclusion is through blind faith.
Most atheists are willing to grant that if God does exist, then He has existed forever, since this seems to be one of the traditional characteristics of God
Isn't that a bit of a stretch? I guess we need to change the definition of the word atheist.Come on! If God doesn't exist, why grant anything? But, that's only the beginning of this very bizarre paragraph. This guy invents a definition for God, and that He/She/It is necessary. This is supposed to mean that atheists can't argue against divine existence because the author tells us that atheists already admit the universe is necessary, and so is God. Therefore, God exists!
Are you as confused as I am?
The rest of the arguments for the existence of God all arise from a wellspring of assumptions. Some of which aren't even Christian. “For instance, it is possible that there exists more than one God.” Apparently, this guy isn't Christian, or doesn't read his Bible.
In short, this is no different than any other God vs. science polemic. They begin by attacking the science, (with often unsound arguments). Next, they give lip service to a whole lot of ambiguous arguments for the supernatural. Finally, they proclaim theology winner by default.
The Home shopping Network is more profound!
|
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
 |
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2003 : 10:28:15 [Permalink]
|
Yes Tim, I am somewhat confused, which is why I asked for help. Your post has been helpful, and I appreciate it. Thanks!  |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2003 : 20:17:58 [Permalink]
|
Walt, objection F is the only one which is a truly reasonable criticism of the Cosmological Argument (and so the author wastes tons of space on what are, essentially, straw men). And the author's response to objection F is woefully lacking. Mainly, point 3, that the "First Cause" must be capable of making decisions. To quote:quote:
This is the most important point with regards to the identification of the First Cause entity. If you have an entity that makes decisions, you basically have God. A naturalistic cause does not have the ability to make decisions. Therefore, if this point is proven, it seems inevitable that we will be forced to admit that God is the only logical possibility for the First Cause in question.
Such a justification is possible.
Justifications are not proofs. Just because 'God' can be justified as a possible First Cause doesn't mean God was the First Cause.quote:
The First Cause in question requires an entity with the ability to make decisions, because an eternally existing cause without such an ability is not capable of creating something unique.
Every radioactive decay creates unique particles - unique in space, time, and momentum. Radioactive substances do not make decisions.quote:
This is because, since it has existed forever, the naturally occurring cause would have already created the universe. An automated, inanimate cause cannot will something into existence, because such a cause only responds to conditions. Since it would have existed forever, such conditions would have been met an eternity ago and our universe would have already existed forever.
These "becauses" are obviously ludicrous considering the fact of radioactive decay of atoms.quote:
Either that or the conditions would have never been met, and our universe would not exist.
Which is obviously untrue.quote:
On the other hand, God has the ability to make decisions, and thus can "will" something into existence even in the absence of any automated condition to do so. An inanimate, eternally existing cause cannot create something unique, while an entity that is able to make decisions can.
Have I argued sufficiently that this conclusion is not supported by the argument presented, given my demonstrable contradictions to the premises offered?quote:
Due to these three reasons, we are forced to conclude that God is the only reasonable solution to the question of why the universe exists, if in fact the three premises of the Cosmological Argument are valid.
But only two of the reasons are valid, and the third, as demonstrated, is completely and utterly invalid, yet absolutely necessary to justify God as the only possible First Cause.
The response to objection F is fatally faulty.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2003 : 15:15:04 [Permalink]
|
| I think that the ability of this "God" to make decisions is illusory, at best. Since there was no time prior to the big bang, this being would have been completely unable to do anything, including the making of a decision to create the universe. There was no time "before" the big bang; in order to make a decision, there must be a "before the decision" and an "after the decision", but without time, ther could be no "before" and "after". So there could have been no decision-making entity "before" the big bang (and that's aside from the fact that there was no "before" the big bang, since it was the source of time, as well as space, matter and energy). |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26031 Posts |
Posted - 05/26/2003 : 00:28:37 [Permalink]
|
No, no, no, and no, Walt. We puny human beings have no ability to probe what may or may not have happened "before" the Big Bang. Saying that 'there was no "before"' is an untestable hypothesis, no more scientific a statement than "God exists," as are the other statements you've made. If asked, "what happened before the B.B.?" the proper skeptical response is not "nothing," but instead, "we cannot know."
Just because we are prohibited from knowing a thing doesn't mean that thing didn't or doesn't exist - it just has no meaning or value in the realm of science. And that's one of the key things to look at when looking at the "skeptical Christian." Most of the arguments made aren't particularly scientific, they're more based upon the logical or philosophical flaws of the objections to the Cosmological Argument. In other words, the author isn't claiming that God is proven scientifically, but only logically. The author's response to objection F is only assailable because he's making statements that are scientifically incorrect, so that his argument is based upon at least one invalid premise, making his logical argument collapse in a heap.
There isn't any evidence that what you've said is true. Of course, there also isn't any evidence that your statements are not true. When it comes to scientific matters, we can ignore the possibility of God, because He is an unnecessary premise, and the lack of evidence either for or against your statements doesn't matter. But when it comes to logic and philosophy, things change. I'm sure you've heard the warning not to show up to a gunfight with just a knife, right? In a similar vein, you shouldn't go to a philosophy or logic discussion armed with the idea that if something is scientifically unanswerable, it truly doesn't exist.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
