Any Skeptics out there?

[Starfleet]

Hello Smugg

Smugg: "I don't buy it. A rainstorm may someday cease to drop rain (and no longer be a rainstorm) but there's no compelling reason to think it was brought into existence by anything but an interaction of heat and wind."

Smugg, you said it yourself. The rainstorm "was brought into existence by anything but an interaction of heat and wind." Therefore, the rainstorm was caused into existence.

Smugg: "Ah, but is it necessary heat and wind?"

If not, then something else. Even rainstorms are caused into existence by something else. The rainstorm was either uncaused, self-caused, or caused by another.
1. Not uncaused. The raincloud with which the rainstorm comes from has not always existed. It begin to exist at some point.
2. Not self-caused. The only way that the raincloud with which the rainstorm comes from caused itself into existence would be to exist prior to itself. But that is absurd!
3. Therefore, the raincloud with which the rainstorm comes from was caused by something else.

And since Geisler was referring to his own existence being caused by another, it follows that you, Smugg, was caused by another. Smugg, was either uncaused, self-caused, or caused by another. I think we know what the most rational and logical answer is.

Smugg: "I think I understand what this means, but I'm not sure why he chooses to continually qualify all these causes with the word 'current.' If my understanding of biology serves me, I was only 'caused' once. I don't cease to be just because the event which brought me into the world has itself ceased.

Unless I really do understand why he does it. The distinction seems to be (ahem) necessary for his argument (but unnecessary for the real world). He is on a slippery slope here and even though the argument is poorly thought out, he seems to realize that at some point he might end up arguing for a dead or missing 'first cause.' Therefore, it isn't enough to make God necessary, but to make Him continually necessary."

In regard the word 'current', I will give a unexplained argument from Geisler to show you what Geisler means. It goes like this.

1. An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed.
2. If an infinite number of moments had to elapse before today, then today would never come.
3. But today has come.
4. Therefore, an infinite number of moments have not elapsed before today. (i.e. the universe had a beginning)
5. But whatever has a beginning is caused by something else.
6. Hence, there must be a cause of the universe.

Therefore, the fourth part of the argument is still valid.

In any good argument we must introduce any topic that will eventually be explained (i.e. necessary being). We cannot leave things out to the very end. The topic to be argued must be introduced and then eventually explained. But...

I can see the confusion though myself Smugg. You were presented with an argument without an explanation to back up each part of the argument.

We are contingent beings (we began to exist and do not have to exist.) There cannot be an infinite regress of contingent causes, or contingent beings would not exist today. Therefore, there must be a beginning to contingent beings. Thus, it is necessary for the first contingent existence to be caused by a Necessary being (which has always existed, and cannot not exist.) This is not a fully explained argument, but I hope it helps you understand better.

My personal favorite argument is the Kalam Cosmological Argument (A Cause at the Beginning). When I have time I will start another thread using that argument.

Anyway, gotta go. God bless you Smugg

Starfleet
Home of the Maple Leafs

[smugg]

Originally posted by Starfleet
Hello Smugg

Smugg, you said it yourself. The rainstorm "was brought into existence by anything but an interaction of heat and wind." Therefore, the rainstorm was caused into existence.

I don't doubt it, I was just pointing out that the cause is not intelligent.

I was also (though not very clearly) trying to make a comparison between a person and an event, since our intelligence is a result of complex chemical and electric interactions and prone to wearing out while those chemicals and electricity never go away. Though the patterns which allows us to say clever things like "cogito ergo sum" may change and our intelligence end, the elements which make us up (like the heat and wind) aren't gone just because we die.

If not, then something else. Even rainstorms are caused into existence by something else. The rainstorm was either uncaused, self-caused, or caused by another.
1. Not uncaused. The raincloud with which the rainstorm comes from has not always existed. It begin to exist at some point.
2. Not self-caused. The only way that the raincloud with which the rainstorm comes from caused itself into existence would be to exist prior to itself. But that is absurd!
3. Therefore, the raincloud with which the rainstorm comes from was caused by something else.

And since Geisler was referring to his own existence being caused by another, it follows that you, Smugg, was caused by another. Smugg, was either uncaused, self-caused, or caused by another. I think we know what the most rational and logical answer is.

Sure, but it's not some deep mystery: I was caused by the biological processes of my parents.

In regard the word 'current', I will give a unexplained argument from Geisler to show you what Geisler means. It goes like this.

1. An infinite number of moments cannot be traversed.
2. If an infinite number of moments had to elapse before today, then today would never come.
3. But today has come.
4. Therefore, an infinite number of moments have not elapsed before today. (i.e. the universe had a beginning)
5. But whatever has a beginning is caused by something else.
6. Hence, there must be a cause of the universe.

Therefore, the fourth part of the argument is still valid.

I still don't get it. I'll accept a cause to the universe, just no reason to think it's current. If my parents (the cause of my existence -- see above) were to die I would still be 'caused' by them, but the event remains in the past. Neither the universe nor I are products of a current cause.

Likewise if I someday create life it isn't necessary for my parents to be engaging in the act of procreation themselves. Their work is done at their age and life carries on without them 'causing' new beings or events.

If the argument is merely that the universe has a beginning... sure. But there's no necessary being implied by that. The big bang model poses a beginning around fifteen billion years ago but does not find reason to assign qualities to the big bang like infinite, all-knowing, or all-powerful.

In any good argument we must introduce any topic that will eventually be explained (i.e. necessary being). We cannot leave things out to the very end. The topic to be argued must be introduced and then eventually explained. But...

I can see the confusion though myself Smugg. You were presented with an argument without an explanation to back up each part of the argument.

We are contingent beings (we began to exist and do not have to exist.) There cannot be an infinite regress of contingent causes, or contingent beings would not exist today. Therefore, there must be a beginning to contingent beings. Thus, it is necessary for the first contingent existence to be caused by a Necessary being (which has always existed, and cannot not exist.) This is not a fully explained argument, but I hope it helps you understand better.

Why a being? That seems to be the unnecessary part. Look at the argument again -- specifically point 8. It says, "Therefore, God exists." This is circular logic: "God exists because I assume His existence is necessary."

My personal favorite argument is the Kalam Cosmological Argument (A Cause at the Beginning). When I have time I will start another thread using that argument.

Anyway, gotta go. God bless you Smugg

Starfleet
Home of the Maple Leafs

[Starfleet]

Hello Smugg

How are you?

Smugg: "Why a being? That seems to be the unnecessary part."

Being in the philosophical sense means that which exists. Or, being = existence, and non-being = non-existence.

Smugg: "If the argument is merely that the universe has a beginning... sure. But there's no necessary being implied by that. The big bang model poses a beginning around fifteen billion years ago but does not find reason to assign qualities to the big bang like infinite, all-knowing, or all-powerful."

I understand what you are saying Smugg. But think of this: There can not be an infinite number of contingent causes or this universe could not exist. So then, we can argue that prior to the existence of the universe, there was either non-being (non-existence) or being (existence). Now, non-being is nothing; it does not exist. Nothing (non-existence) has no power to cause something into existence. Therefore, being (that which exists) existed prior to the existence of this contingent universe.

Now, this being that existed prior to the existence of this contingent universe is either contingent or necessary. If it was contingent then it needed to be caused by another. And that 'another' was caused by 'another', and that 'another' was caused by 'another'. But I have already established that there can not be an infinite regress of contingent causes, or contingent beings could not exist today. Therefore, the cause of the universe must be uncaused. And because it is an uncaused cause, it must be the first cause that caused the universe into existence. Therefore, the cause of the universe is an uncaused first cause. That fits like a puzzle to the definition of a Necessary Being (that which has always existed, and cannot not exist). If a Necessary being cannot not exist, then that Necessary being exists today or 'currently'.

Now, lets go one step further. If the universe is contingent and contains space, time, and matter, then that uncaused first cause (Necessary being) existed prior to space, time, and matter. Thus, it is not limited to space, time, and matter. This Necessary being then must be all-powerful to cause this contingent universe into existence from nothing. But what is nothing?...

Imagine (close your eyes as you practice each step)...
1. Imagine a chair floating in empty space... (take time to imagine this)
2. Now, remove that chair from that empty space... (take time to image this)
3. Now, imagine that chair floating in empty space again... (take time to imagine this)
4. Now, remove that empty space and imagine just the chair without that empty space....

Hard to image that. That is what nothing is.

Also a necessary being that caused the universe into existence from nothing can be all-knowing in regard to that universe. Therefore,

It is also plausible that the Necessary being (the uncaused first cause) is everywhere present since it is not limited by space. By definition, that which is all-powerful and all-knowing at every point in the universe is considered omni-present (liked to a mind rather then a floating mist).

The best explanation for this Uncaused, first cause (Necessary Being) would be God.

God bless you Smugg

Starfleet
Home of the Maple Leafs

[jhamrick]

Starfleet wrote: "There can not be an infinite number of contingent causes or this universe could not exist. So then, we can argue that prior to the existence of the universe, there was either non-being (non-existence) or being (existence). Now, non-being is nothing; it does not exist. Nothing (non-existence) has no power to cause something into existence. Therefore, being (that which exists) existed prior to the existence of this contingent universe. "

This is pretty profound!
Well said Starfleet!

[Starfleet]

Hello jhamrick

Thank you. I have studied Norman Geilser and William Lane Craig's books and articles. I also, for the last nine years, have asked God for wisdom and understanding. I am no intellect by any stretch of the imagintion. I have to read and reread philosophical material before I can even grasp it never mind put down into words.

God has gifted me in evangelism and I need to know some apologetics to answer questions that people have.
I just started last month as a youth pastor because God as also gifted me in the field of youth. I asked what the youth wanted to learn in the different topics I listed. One young lady wanted to know "who created God". I thought that was cute.

Thanks and God bless you jhamrick.

Starfleet
Home of the Maple Leafs

[Wax Poetic]

Well well, hello again Starfleet, is this your new hangout? I see you are up to your old ID (Intelligent Design) arguments again, boy you know how I love them! Let me start by using the logic of the ID argument against itself; The ID arguments posits that anything complex must have been made by a creator, hence the Universe was made by someone (God) . Well then who created God? The logic isn't constant, unless you admit that God had a creator. ID arguers often say that asking what was before God doesn't make sense, yet neither does asking what was before the Universe. Again, lack of consistent Universally applied logic. Well you saw that one coming I suppose, everyone knows that basic logical flaw in the ID argument. Good to see you again as always, fire away!

[universe]

[I would be most interested in hearing how the Christian God does not logically exist. ]


Lack of evidence and not following natural laws.

Universe

[Cephas]

Originally quoted by Universe

Lack of evidence and not following natural laws.

How does this logically disprove God?

[Guzzlegob]

Starfleet transmitting message:

I am interested to know who are the non-Christians on 5solas.

Please introduce your self. My shields are down and my weapons are not powered up as you can see. I am just looking for new life forms in 5solas space. I need to know if the races in this sector are friendly or hostile (hopfully not hostile, or I will have to blast them with my phaser banks and the love of Jesus. )


Starfleet
Home of the Maple Leafs

Greetings Earthling.
I am friendly most of the time Just joined today. Found this place looking for something totally different.
As for the rest of my race, hmm, i like sollitude, questioning things, anallizing, reflecting upon things. Especially the rationality of society. I'll elaborate on that some other time. Maybe.
The Catholics tried to brainwash in the early years me but it never worked. Confusius and Tao thought me anger managment. Eventually.
These days if I talk to God I am praying. But if I tell anyone God talks to me they tell me I'm schizophrenic.
I don't believe in labelling. I'm an anarchistic evolutionary creationist. Or creational anarchistic evolutionary. I'm not really looking to answers as far as creation is concerned. One more thing. I found this quote:

"Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing," says God.
"But you have given us proof," says man, "Therefore you do not exist. QED."
"Oh, my," says God, and disappears in a puff of logic."


May the force be with ya
Amen

[Ruben]

Hey I am friendly and I feel like you. But i keep looking for the real truth. I dont know if at the end i real find it, but just i know something not fit in the right place. I have my own believes and ideas and i respect othors ideas, but i know for sure to i have my own and just my own trutht like everyone else. You know WHO KNOWS? you FRIEND R U been.