The following is from I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, pages 92-93: In light of all the evidence for a beginning of the space-time universe, the Beginner must be outside the space-time universe. When God is suggested as the Beginner, atheists are quick to ask the age-old question, “Then who made God? If everything needs a cause, then God needs a cause too!“
As we have seen, the Law of Causality is the very foundation of science. Science is a search for causes, and that search is based on our consistent observation that everything that has a beginning has a cause. In fact, the question “Who made God?” points out how seriously we take the Law of Causality. It‘s taken for granted that virtually everything needs a cause.
So why then doesn‘t God need a cause? Because the atheist’s contention misunderstands the Law of Causality. The Law of Causality does not say that everything needs a cause. It says that everything that comes to be needs a cause. God did not come to be. No one made God. He is unmade. As an eternal being, God did not have a beginning, so he didn’t need a cause.
“But wait,” the atheist will protest, “if you can have an eternal God, then I can have an eternal universe! After all, if the universe is eternal, then it did not have a cause.“ Yes, it is logically possible that the universe is eternal and therefore didn’t have a cause. In fact, it is one of only two possibilities: either the universe, or something outside the universe, is eternal. (Since something undeniably exists today, then something must have always existed; we have only two choices: the universe, or something that caused the universe.)
The problem for the atheist is that while it is logically possible that the universe is eternal, it does not seem to be actually possible. For all the scientific and philosophical evidence (SURGE– Second Law, Universe is expanding, Radiation Afterglow, Great galaxy seeds, Einstein’s GR– radioactive decay, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument) tells us the universe cannot be eternal. So by ruling out one of the two options, we are left with the only other option–something outside the universe is eternal.
When you get right down to it, there are only two possibilities for anything that exists: either 1) it has always existed and is therefore uncaused, or 2) it had a beginning and was caused by something else (it can’t be self-caused, because it would have had to exist already in order to cause anything). According to overwhelming evidence, the universe had a beginning, so it must be caused by something else– by something outside itself. Notice that this conclusion is consistent with theistic religions, but it is not based on those religions– it is based on good reason and evidence.
So what is this First Cause like? One might think you need to rely on a Bible or some other so-called religious revelation to answer that question, but, again, we don’t need anyone‘s scripture to figure that out. Einstein was right when he said, “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.“ Religion can be informed and confirmed by science, as it is by the Cosmological Argument. Namely, we can discover some characteristics of the First Cause just from the evidence we‘ve discussed in this chapter. From that evidence alone, we know the First Cause must be:
* self-existent, timeless, nonspatial, and immaterial (since the First Cause created time, space, and matter, the First Cause must be outside of time, space, and matter). In other words, he is without limits, or infinite;
* unimaginably powerful, to create the entire universe out of nothing;
* supremely intelligent, to design the universe with such incredible precision (we=ll see more of this in the next chapter);
* personal, in order to choose to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space-material universe (an impersonal force has no ability to make choices).
These characteristics of the First Cause are exactly the characteristics theists ascribe to God. Again, these characteristics are not based on someone=s religion or subjective experience. They are drawn from the scientific evidence we have just reviewed, and they help us see a critically important section of the box top to this puzzle we call life.
(The book then goes on to build the case that this is the God of Christianity.)
The Big Bang does not prove anything about what happened before the singularity it suggests, the”beginning” of the observable universe. It doesn’t even prove the universe actually began THEN. It shows we can’t use Einstein’s theory of relativity to go back any further. GTR suggests a finite point IF quantum mechanics are ignored.
Therein lies the problem I previously highlighted – you are basing your conclusion on imperfect knowledge. It’s a solid theory, but it has limits and real scientists are acutely aware of them.
Apologetics seem to readily accept BB theory as conclusive, certain. Curiously, the equally solid theory of evolution comes under heavy fire.
Consider the warnings of your fellow believers here like Clay who insist science “does not produce certain knowledge about anything, just educated guesses that suffice for now.” I find interesting how much that undermines your “who made god” argument.
Some more thoughts.. not all well composed; feeling inundated with the deluge of posts the past few days.. Enjoyable, but demanding.
The excerpt is not an argument for god at all, at best an argument that shows the origin of the observable universe outside of time.
Unimaginably powerful? I’ll thank you not to limit my imagination.
Supremely intelligent? DEFINITELY a matter of opinion. Pure speculation and clearly not logical.
Philosophical evidence? I thought we were talking about science?
Finally, we come to perhaps the fatal flaw in this argument, the false dilemma :
“So by ruling out one of the two options, we are left with the only other optionCsomething outside the universe is eternal.”
You do not KNOW those are the only two options without a unified theory, and then there’s no guarantee of anything but more/better knowledge. The scientific theories and laws you cite are not absolutes, they are under constant assault from WITHIN. Not by every scientist, to be sure, but there are scientists who regularly ponder and tax the limits of our core scientific assumptions. Science doesn’t tell us about BEFORE the big bang (in fact, if time began with the Big bang, then there is NO “before” the big bang and its cause is logically impossible).
Your arguments using science to prove “First Cause” no more prove your god than they prove another, larger universe with laws we don’t understand. Science CANNOT do this for you. The LEAST required to do that would be a unified theory, and we don’t even KNOW if that will settle it. All science can do is continue searching for answers. Therefore, your conclusions about the nature of the “First Cause” are speculative at best.
Clearly, you have an abundance of faith (context: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence), much more than I as an atheist. I do not have that kind of faith, nor do I find it a redeeming quality.
I am reading some of this book, as well as Geisler’s earlier work from which this post was derived.
Christopher Crowell said on April 12th, 2008 at 10:27 pm:
~~~~The Big Bang does not prove anything about what happened before the singularity it suggests, the”beginning” of the observable universe.~~~~
This statement is meaningless because it assumes that time is independent of the universe itself, a contradiction of the basic concept of what the universe is.
~~~~It doesn’t even prove the universe actually began THEN. It shows we can’t use Einstein’s theory of relativity to go back any further. GTR suggests a finite point IF quantum mechanics are ignored.
Therein lies the problem I previously highlighted – you are basing your conclusion on imperfect knowledge. It’s a solid theory, but it has limits~~~~
Like the fact that it was not observed and is untestable (or would destroy the sample, not to mention the scientist doing the testing). How would one falsify the Big Bang hypothesis?
~~~~and real scientists are acutely aware of them.~~~~
Argument ad hominem.
~~~~Apologetics seem to readily accept BB theory as conclusive, certain. Curiously, the equally solid theory of evolution comes under heavy fire.~~~~
This apologists rejects the Big Bang and any other Old Universe theories.
~~~~“So by ruling out one of the two options, we are left with the only other option something outside the universe is eternal.”
You do not KNOW those are the only two options without a unified theory, and then there’s no guarantee of anything but more/better knowledge.~~~~
Herein lies the logical dilemma for you. With this statement you imply that you do not really know anything about the origin of the universe, however, if you state you did know for certain, you would be required to prove it, which you can’t do.
You are correct in stating that Mr. Turek (and by logical extension I) know that those are the only two options. I know there is only one and affirm it without hesitation or reservation. I know Jehovah exists. I know He created the universe only a few thousand years ago. I know this in such away that it precludes any possibility for any other model. If you wish to make a similar claim about the origin of the universe from the standpoint of the Big Bang, then between us there consists only two logical possibilities as together we reject all other cosmogonies. If, however, you wish to argue that another possibility exists, then defend that one instead, but you will still only be left with two between us. When you can affirm a real proposition instead of all this “I am pretty sure but there’s no guarantee” stuff, I will be happy to discuss, in a rational manner, which of the two cosmogonies is correct and which false.
Ultimately this argument incorporates the law of the excluded middle (P or ~P) in that it argues a natural or not-natural origin of the universe.
If, after you are convinced that the Big Bang cosmogony is not factual and wish to subscribe to another which you previously thought to be wrong, then we can have another concerning my same proposition and your new one. I will leave that to you.
~~~~The scientific theories and laws you cite are not absolutes, they are under constant assault from WITHIN. Not by every scientist, to be sure, but there are scientists who regularly ponder and tax the limits of our core scientific assumptions. Science doesn’t tell us about BEFORE the big bang (in fact, if time began with the Big bang, then there is NO “before” the big bang and its cause is logically impossible).~~~~
Just because scientists continue to test a Law because they, for some reason do not accept it as a law, does not mean that it has been demoted to Theory (explains consistently a given hypothesis or set of hypotheses but still remains conjectural). Such things as the Law of Causality have been named such because the precise opposite premise is false. Even Quantum Mechanics, which you seem to go on about with less knowledge than you would like us to think you have, does not refute the Law of Causality. It merely questions the nature and likelihood of any given cause, not whether or not there was a cause at all for a given effect. You really need to understand that point or further conversation from a rational standpoint will be difficult for you.
~~~~Your arguments using science to prove “First Cause” no more prove your god than they prove another, larger universe with laws we don’t understand.~~~~
This statement begs a redefinition of the word “universe.” It also makes the logical fallacy called a red herring. Instead of addressing the argument made you bring up another topic/premise which neither you nor Mr. Turek believes.
Mr. Crowell if you are ever willing to defend a precise premise concerning what you believe to be true I will be happy to discuss it and compare it to what I believe to be true. Oh, and I don’t know Mr. Turek well enough to comment on his faith, but my faith is NOT blind. It is built on knowledge and sound reasoning principles. So, come, let us reason together…
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Ernie,
There has been a miscommunitcation:
———————————
~~~~It doesn’t even prove the universe actually began THEN. It shows we can’t use Einstein’s theory of relativity to go back any further. GTR suggests a finite point IF quantum mechanics are ignored.
Therein lies the problem I previously highlighted – you are basing your conclusion on imperfect knowledge. It’s a solid theory, but it has limits~~~~
Like the fact that it was not observed and is untestable (or would destroy the sample, not to mention the scientist doing the testing). How would one falsify the Big Bang hypothesis?
~~~~and real scientists are acutely aware of them.~~~~
Argument ad hominem.
—————————————–
We are in agreement about the first bit – BB is solid, but imperfect as is GTR.
With regard to “real scientists,” I was speaking to Frank. I contend he incorrectly uses BBT in his “who made god” and other arguments. He seems to accept BBT but reject evolution. Interesting.
Still reading the rest, just didn’t want to let this go without clarification.
Ernie wrote:
————————–
~~~~Your arguments using science to prove “First Cause” no more prove your god than they prove another, larger universe with laws we don’t understand.~~~~
This statement begs a redefinition of the word “universe.” It also makes the logical fallacy called a red herring. Instead of addressing the argument made you bring up another topic/premise which neither you nor Mr. Turek believes.”
—————————
It seems you see what you want to see, but there is no red herring there. Frank argues for God as the creator, I argued God is not necessarily the “creator”, the “cause” of the Big Bang. What you call a red herring was directly related to my challenge of Frank’s claim there necessarily is a creator and its the god of abraham, not ancillary. It served to show God is not necessarily the cause of the Big Bang.
Lay it out Ernie – how do you KNOW your god exists and created the universe a few thousand years ago? WHY do you believe in it? I do not pretend to have all the answers, but you do. You have it all figured out, so let’s hear it.
No, you want to shift the burden to me. Again, you claim you KNOW your god exists and created the universe a few thousand years ago. Bluntly, put up or shut up.
Christopher, you pose an interesting question in “how do you KNOW your god exists”. And for the sake of discussion, let me throw one out there. Here is my question to you. Do you have kids? A significant other? Family? Can you prove to me that they exist? I bet you can’t. Does the fact that you can’t prove to be they exist invalidate their existence? Can I call you crazy because you claim a relationship with someone you say exists but can’t prove to me?
Ok, Nora, I’m curious to see where you’re going with this. Why can I not prove the existence of my family, short of I’m not going to reveal personal details on an internet forum? You claim I can’t do it, now support your claim.
Christopher,
What do you do for a living? You put a lot of time into your posts. Thanks!
I agree with you that the BB alone doesn’t prove the God of Abraham is the cause. It simply points to a God consistent with the God of Abraham. We argue in the book that the BB, along with the design of the Universe (including the Anthropic Principle), and the Moral Law point to an eternal, immaterial, spaceless, personal, intelligent, powerful, moral Creator. That’s “natural revelation.” We then have to see if that Creator has revealed himself further which takes us to evaluating “special revelation” (the Bible, Qur’an, or other supposed holy writings). Only then can you come to the conclusion that the BB Cause is the God of Abraham. But all the details of that kind of reasoning requires books, not posts.
Blessings,
Frank Turek
Nora. Christopher can have his wife come up to you and introduce herself. Can you ask your God to do the same for me?
Ernie said “When you can affirm a real proposition instead of all this “I am pretty sure but there’s no guarantee” stuff, I will be happy to discuss, in a rational manner, which of the two cosmogonies is correct and which false.”
Sorry Ernie but “I am pretty sure but there’s no guarantee” is the best science has to offer. That’s the biggest difference between science and religion
Kendenny said on April 14th, 2008 at 9:20 am:
~~~~Sorry Ernie but “I am pretty sure but there’s no guarantee” is the best science has to offer. That’s the biggest difference between science and religion~~~~
Has science (from the Latin scientia which means “knowledge”) fallen so far?
Before post modernism contaminated human thought, science was about discovering things and knowing the truth of a thing. For instance, I know that if I jump off of a building gravity pulls me to the Earth. I know that if I continually add force to an object that object will continue to accelerate. I know that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, only turned into another form.
The camp that says that nothing can be known for certain is the group who has lost their way by wandering too far from the original purpose of science. They went too far, too fast, trying to discover everything all at once and now they “know” nothing at all.
This is evident in the continual misuse of the terms hypothesis, theory, and law.
For the pure scientists, knowing something as fact is the ultimate goal.
Kendenny, if you do not know something as fact, you have no logical basis from which to argue against anything. Either you must make a knowledge claim and defend that proposition or you must allow for all possibilities including Intelligent Design, Creation and Jehovah God, in which case arguing against these from a position of certainty is irrational and for some, purposefully misleading.
My heart truly aches for those of you who claim to know nothing for sure. I cannot imagine what your perspective of the world must be like.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Christopher Crowell said on April 13th, 2008 at 10:46 pm:
~~~~Lay it out Ernie – how do you KNOW your god exists and created the universe a few thousand years ago? WHY do you believe in it? I do not pretend to have all the answers, but you do. You have it all figured out, so let’s hear it.~~~~
Proposition: I know that God does exist.
Let me point out first that this is a proposition concerning a knowledge claim that I am affirming. I am not saying that I am reasonably confident that God exists, nor am I saying that I believe it to be a strong possibility that God exists, or any other such weaker claim. I am claiming with the absolute statement that God does exist and that I know this to be true.
I have a very definite obligation to the above proposition to set out an argument that is valid whose premises are true, which constitutes a sound argument, which in turn constitutes proof of that proposition.
I submit this proposition for your approval so that we may communicate from common ground. If this proposition is not strong enough for you, please submit some proposition that accurately and precisely represents my position that you think I should defend and I will consider it.
Also please note that I am not attacking your, or anyone else, personally. To do so undermines the purpose I have set forth to meet and is unchristian. But I will boldly and without reservation defend my position and so may state claims against your negative posts that are bold and without reservation. I just do not want you to take those statements as personal attacks.
To move things forward a bit I will also submit my first argument in support of my proposition.
Major premise: If there is even one characteristic, attribute, or property of even one human being which could have come into existence only by the creative power of God, then that one human being constitutes proof that God does exist.
Minor premise: There is at least one characteristic, attribute, or property of at least one human being which could have come into existence only by the creative power of God.
Conclusion: Therefore, that one human being constitutes proof (when the evidence is recognized and reasoned about properly) that God does exist.
In regard to this argument it must be noted that:
1) The argument is valid.
2) This means that if the two premises are true then the conclusion MUST be true.
3) The first premise is quite obviously true.
4) So the only point which can be at issue is the question: is the second premise true?
I will await your comments on the above points. I would also like to submit some questions for you to answer before I begin to answer the question in point number 4 immediately above.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Nice littel proof there Ernie. However, even if your second premise is true that doesn’t mean that the God that exists is your God. It could just as easily be Allah, or Vishnu, or Zeus.
Secondly how do we verify the second premise?
Kendenny said April 14th, 2008 at 11:28 am:
~~~~Nice littel[sic] proof there Ernie.~~~~
I’m glad you like it. Do you accept it as valid?
~~~~However, even if your second premise is true that doesn’t mean that the God that exists is your God. It could just as easily be Allah, or Vishnu, or Zeus.
Secondly how do we verify the second premise?~~~~
We will get to that. Logical discussions require a step by step progression to be understood. I’ll not jump the gun here. If you are patient, I will answer these points in time.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Kendenny, I’m glad to see that you want to play – in all seriousness I wouldn’t expect Christopher to reveal identifying information over the Internet for obvious reasons. However my example would work just as well for anyone I meet face to face.
Also, apologies for the time delay. I live in Australia.
If Christopher did introduce me to some woman he claims to be his wife, why should I believe him? It could be his sister or some random stranger for all I know. That’s not proof.
Christopher could say that he’d been married to her for years and he knows for a fact that this woman is his wife. Well that’s very nice, but he could be delusional, claiming to have a relationship with someone he can’t prove to me exists.
Christopher could say that thousands of people of his acquantance would stand up in court and attest that this woman is his wife. Well Billions of people across the Globe today claim to know God exists and claim a relationship with Him. Millions across the centuries have done more than stand up in a court of law – they died asserting that belief.
To bring this back home, I would humble suggest that it is easy to assert non-belief and demand proof.
As I have demonstrated, I can easily disavow the existence of a flesh and blood person [if in fact Christopher is married and his wife actually exists and I see no evidence of that
] .
Yet if anyone who was introduced to a woman and was told this is Christopher’s wife, heard anecodates about Christopher and his wife and met other people who told their own stories about Christopher’s wife, then said they didn’t believe she existed would be deemed odd, crazy and/or an obstreperous contrarian.
But the fact remains, the only way I can accept the existence of Christopher’s wife is in one of two ways (or both).
The first is I take it on faith that she exists based on his say so and leave it at that. The second is if I go out of my way (taking a leap of faith) to get to know her for myself.
Only then would Christopher’s wife be real to me.
In both cases the burden of proving the existence or otherwise Christopher’s wife lies with me.
I have to determine for myself and the ‘evidence’ that allows me to feel comfortable that the decision is the right one. In the case of determining the existence of Christopher’s wife the ‘proof’ is rather amorphous.
Christopher’s wife exists to him because of the relationship they have. She exists to their kids’ school teacher because she’s involved in the P&C, she exists to the local grocer because she’s there every week doing the shopping.
Does the ‘proof’ mentioned in the above examples stand up to scientific scrutiny? Of course not because the existence of Christopher’s wife can’t be impartially verified or independently replicated in this part of the world, for example.
People who say that science disproves God are delusional.
Conversely science itself cannot prove God exists but there are proofs that satisfy the individual either in the grandeur in the construction of the universe or as humble as someone else’s act of unanticipated kindness.
They’re real, vary from eprson to person, but cannot be imperically measured – just like relationships.
This is just an imperfect argument from an imperfect person and it’s the first time I’ve articulated it and I hope you take it in the spirit in which it was given.
Nora,
I appreciate the spirit of your argument. Nonetheless, you went a long way to get nowhere with your reasoning. 8^)
I think I see where you want to go, but it doesn’t work very well IMO. I can empirically prove the existence of my wife even if billions say she doesn’t exist. As Kendenny said, she can introduce herself. AND present legal identification, as well as a marriage license.
You are incorrect about the burden of proof, and the proofs that satisfy individuals vary so much and are so subjective (as you allude) as to require some sort of standard. Empirically, that standard is called science.
To be clear, I am not delusional by your definition. I do not claim science to disprove god.
Sorry Nora, as tantalizing as dangerous ideas and forbidden fruit are, I am indeed married and unavailable.. (said with tongue firmly in cheek and a friendly if not modest spirit)
Frank,
I am an IT manager. Not a true passion, but it comes fairly easy to me and provides a decent living. I haven’t spent as much time as I would like, given family, work and civic requirements. Apologies in advance to all if I drop off for long periods. I haven’t scratched this itch in a long time and I am thoroughly enjoying it, but the aforementioned obligations beckon and take priority.
I agree in regard to books and posts.
I have difficulty with “holy writs.” What makes them holy and not others? Do you believe the bible is the inerrant word of god? literal? inspired but not literal? Some other description? Does the book cover this? To be fair, “it’s in the book” is an understandable answer. I assure I won’t later bemoan it. The more I hear the phrase, the more likely I am to read the book completely.
Ernie,
Yes, I agree your logic is valid and the conclusion is necessarily true IF both premises are true. I mostly concede your major premise for sake of argument. The minor premise is far more intriguing.
I think I know where this will end, but please continue.
Sorry Nora, as tantalizing as dangerous ideas and forbidden fruit are, I am indeed married and unavailable.. (said with tongue firmly in cheek and a friendly if not modest spirit) I’m glad you say so Christopher because my husband Nick would be jealous too ;-P
Christopher,
Like you I cannot always be here. Thanks for taking the time when you have it! While I obviously don’t always agree with your posts, you definitely challenge and help us clarify our arguments.
Blessings to you,
Frank
Christopher Crowell said April 14th, 2008 at 11:30 pm:
~~~~Yes, I agree your logic is valid and the conclusion is necessarily true IF both premises are true. I mostly concede your major premise for sake of argument. The minor premise is far more intriguing.~~~~
I am glad you concede the argument to be valid.
However, I cannot accept that you concede the first premise “for the sake of argument”. I am not here for the sake of argument. The premise is precisely stated, therefore it is either true or false. If you say true just to continue the argument then you are leaving yourself a loophole through which to climb at a later time. If you need time to consider the first premise more, please, there is no time limit on this discussion. But I need you to affirm the first premise as true without reservation or show why you have reservations or why the premise is untrue.
I would also like to ask you a few simple questions if I may and hope that you will agree to answer them. They do not directly deal with my first affirmative argument, but do work with the proposition in general.
Let me further this discussion more by defining the proposition so that folks like Kendenny don’t get too impatient.
I – Ernie Laurence, Jr.
know – this is an absolute statement. This means that the proposition makes an absolute claim, not merely a strong feeling, or reasonably confident claim, or any weaker such claim.
God – that is Jehovah, the Judeo-Christian God, the God of the 66 books of the Bible. By this term I am not referring to some other god such as Allah, Zues, or Lathander.
exists – is real, is a fact, has actual being; that is to say not imaginary, not fake, and not just a construct of the human mind or heart
I hope that this clarifies exactly what my proposition is and leaves no doubt what I mean by it.
~~~~I think I know where this will end, but please continue.~~~~
I hope that you will be pleasantly surprised.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Ernie,
Ok, I’ll take a bit more time, perhaps think out loud later in this thread about your major premise.
I love tangents, but often get lost in them. One of us can drag the other back, eh? Ask anything you wish, I will answer as I wish. My skin is very thick so feel free to be direct without risk of offending. I promise no online equivalents of shouting matches.
I’m not sure this really matters to the argument, but I noticed two things of interest in your definition of your god.
1 – You say you are not referring to Allah. As I understand, Allah is your Jehovah God, the God of Abraham. Allah means God. The difference is Islam contends it was Ishmael who was to be sacrificed by Abraham. There seems to be little question that God in Judaism and Christianity is Allah in Islam. All three worship the God of Abraham, albeit with through varying understandings. Why did you include Allah? What, if any, relationship has Allah to God in your opinion?
2 – Why pick a fictional deity to include in your definition? I know why I hope you did it, but I’ll let you tell me first, please.
Christopher Crowell said April 15th, 2008 at 11:22 pm:
~~~~I love tangents, but often get lost in them. One of us can drag the other back, eh? Ask anything you wish, I will answer as I wish. My skin is very thick so feel free to be direct without risk of offending. I promise no online equivalents of shouting matches.
~~~~
I appreciate your patience and your willingness to participate fully in this discussion. The following are some initial questions for you.
0. T or F : I (that is Christopher Crowell) know that God does not exist.
1. T or F : Value did not exist before the first human being.
2. T or F : In torturing and/or murdering more than 6 million Jewish men, women, and children the Nazis were guilty of real, objective, moral wrong.
3. In torturing and/or murdering 6 million Jews, the Nazis were guilty of violating (please indicate all that apply):
a. the law of germany
b. the law of England
c. the law of the United States
d. the law of God
e. some other law
f. no law at all
4. T or F : a human woman was on earth before any human baby.
5. T or F : a human baby was on earth before any human woman.
6. T or F : at least one human being now living on the Earth was formerly a non-human being and that non-human being was transformed into a human being.
7. T or F: at least one human being who lived in the past but is now dead was formerly a non-human being and that non-human being was transformed into a human being.
8. T or F : at least one human being now living was begotten by a male non-human being and born of a female non-human being.
9. T or F : at least one human being who lived in the past but is now dead was begotten by a male non-human being and born of a female non-human being.
10. Each one of us has a real, objective moral obligation to become an atheist so that if we do not do so, we are guilty of real, objective moral wrong.
11. T or F : Real, objective evil exists.
12. T or F : From the concept of God and the actual existence of subjective evil one can actually deduce the non-existence of God.
13. T or F: From the empirical observation of this world one can know truths about the class of things that are transcendent of the universe. (For instance one can observe things in this universe and know that other universes exist, or a higher form of the universe exists).
~~~~1 – You say you are not referring to Allah. As I understand, Allah is your Jehovah God, the God of Abraham….~~~~
That is the claim made by Islam but it is not a valid claim. If you examine the properties of Jehovah and the properties of Allah you will see that they are two distinct beings. The God of the Koran resembles very little the God of the Bible and I have read both books. So I reject the notion that the name of Allah (which is a title like “God”) is Jehovah.
~~~~2 – Why pick a fictional deity to include in your definition? I know why I hope you did it, but I’ll let you tell me first, please.~~~~
I assume you are referring to Lathander. Partly I picked it out of a silly curiosity to see if anyone recognized the name for only those who recognized it without looking it up would play the game which I love to play and have for nearly 20 years. Partly to show that I believe that Allah fits into the same category as Zeus (mythological and unreal) and fictitious literary constructs (such as from Forgotten Realms).
I hope that I have given you what you hoped for.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Ernie,
Give me some time on the true/false questions, too, please. I do have just one for you, though:
T or F: I (Ernie Laurence, Jr.) still beat my wife.
With regard to Jehovah and Allah, and I know I digress, but do you agree they at least THINK they’re worshiping the same deity, the god of Abraham? Could it be they simply have a different UNDERSTANDING of “God?”
Regardless of the properties assigned to the god of abraham, I must insist Muslims and Christians worship the same god of abraham. Muslims and Christians do not share the same understanding, for sure.
Tangential question – are there other gods/deities/entities or is Jehovah God the ONLY “god?” I infer you are asserting the latter, asking directly to be sure.
Yes, Lathander and “silly curiosity” as you put it. I enjoy silly and/or obscure references and hoped you used it out of familiarity and not because of a Chick tract or the like.
Christopher Crowell said April 16th, 2008 at 6:07 pm:
~~~~Give me some time on the true/false questions, too, please. I do have just one for you, though:
T or F: I (Ernie Laurence, Jr.) still beat my wife.~~~
False. I cannot still be doing what I never started to do.
~~~~With regard to Jehovah and Allah, and I know I digress, but do you agree they at least THINK they’re worshiping the same deity, the god of Abraham? Could it be they simply have a different UNDERSTANDING of “God?”~~~~
Muslims claim to worship the same God as the israelites of the Bible did and Christians do. So I would say yes, that at least some Muslims think they’re worshipping the same deity. I would even say that some who claim to be Christians ignorantly would say the same, but then those either don’t know Jehovah or don’t know the Koran.
~~~~Regardless of the properties assigned to the god of abraham, I must insist Muslims and Christians worship the same god of abraham. Muslims and Christians do not share the same understanding, for sure.~~~~
Insist all you like. But when Allah and Jehovah have two different sets of properties, by definition they cannot be the same person.
~~~~Tangential question – are there other gods/deities/entities or is Jehovah God the ONLY “god?” I infer you are asserting the latter, asking directly to be sure.~~~~
Jehovah is the only true and living deity. All others are the limited inventions of the minds of men.
~~~~Yes, Lathander and “silly curiosity” as you put it. I enjoy silly and/or obscure references and hoped you used it out of familiarity and not because of a Chick tract or the like.
~~~~
What is a “Chick tract”?
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Just one thing to say about one point you made Ernie.
You said “Insist all you like. But when Allah and Jehovah have two different sets of properties, by definition they cannot be the same person.”
By that same logic Catholics and Mormons do not worship the same God. And Jehova’s Witnesses don’t worship the same God as Methodists. And of course Jews worship a different God than all Christians.
Now back to the questions you posed in an earlier post.
0. T or F : I (that is Christopher Crowell) know that God does not exist.
Well in this case it’s I Kendenny but I’d say T with reservations. I don’t know for certain but I’m reasonably sure that no God exists.
1. T or F : Value did not exist before the first human being.
Hard to say but I’ll go with F because when we say “Value” we’re usually talking about human values. Other species have values as well. (Being alive is more valuable than being dead, Having enough food is more valuable than being hungry. etc.) So if “value” means “human value” then F otherwise T.
2. T or F : In torturing and/or murdering more than 6 million Jewish men, women, and children the Nazis were guilty of real, objective, moral wrong.
T
3. In torturing and/or murdering 6 million Jews, the Nazis were guilty of violating (please indicate all that apply):
a. the law of germany
Probably
b. the law of England
Yes, but English law wasn’t applicable in Germany.
c. the law of the United States
Yes but with the same reservation as the England one.
d. the law of God
Of course since I don’t think God exists for me the answer is NO but I think most people who do believe in God would say “Yes”.
e. some other law
Yes
f. no law at all
No.
4. T or F : a human woman was on earth before any human baby.
F. Every human woman that’s ever lived entered the world as a human baby.
5. T or F : a human baby was on earth before any human woman.
T
6. T or F : at least one human being now living on the Earth was formerly a non-human being and that non-human being was transformed into a human being.
F
7. T or F: at least one human being who lived in the past but is now dead was formerly a non-human being and that non-human being was transformed into a human being.
F
8. T or F : at least one human being now living was begotten by a male non-human being and born of a female non-human being.
F
9. T or F : at least one human being who lived in the past but is now dead was begotten by a male non-human being and born of a female non-human being.
T. Since somewhere between humans and pre-humans there was someone who could be called the “first human” but any selection of a candidate for such a title would necessarily be very arbitrary.
10. Each one of us has a real, objective moral obligation to become an atheist so that if we do not do so, we are guilty of real, objective moral wrong.
F. Don’t be silly.
11. T or F : Real, objective evil exists.
T
12. T or F : From the concept of God and the actual existence of subjective evil one can actually deduce the non-existence of God.
F
13. T or F: From the empirical observation of this world one can know truths about the class of things that are transcendent of the universe. (For instance one can observe things in this universe and know that other universes exist, or a higher form of the universe exists).
F
Kendenny said on April 17th, 2008 at 9:34 am:
~~~~By that same logic Catholics and Mormons do not worship the same God. And Jehova’s Witnesses don’t worship the same God as Methodists.~~~~
Agreed.
~~~~And of course Jews worship a different God than all Christians.~~~~
How so? The God of the OT is the same God of the NT. His properties (nature) did not change from one covenant to the other. It might be said that those who call themselves Jews today worship a different God, but then those who call themselves Jews today aren’t Jews according to scripture anyway. Judaism was destroyed in 70 AD. All that we have today is a shadow of a shadow.
As for your answers, I really appreciate them. They provided a lot of insight into your thinking and I will refer to them as the discussion proceeds. I will await Mr. Crowell’s answers before continuing. Rest assured, I will definitely be referring back to your answers!
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Wow.
“Judaism was destroyed in 70 AD. All that we have today is a shadow of a shadow.”
I assume you’re talking about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Are you really saying that the there could no longer be an Jews after the temple was destroyed? I don’t know what to think of that.
As far as God’s nature changing from the OT to the NT. The OT God didn’t want us to eat pork or shellfish or to wear clothes made from a combination of fabrics. NT God no longer cares about such things. How is that not a change in His properties?
Kendenny said April 17th, 2008 at 2:14 pm:
~~~~Wow.
“Judaism was destroyed in 70 AD. All that we have today is a shadow of a shadow.”
I assume you’re talking about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. Are you really saying that the there could no longer be an Jews after the temple was destroyed? I don’t know what to think of that.~~~~
There cannot be any Jews according to the Bible.
1. They have no temple to make sacrifices in according to the Mosaical Law.
2. They MAKE no sacrifices according to the Mosaical Law.
3. Their official genealogies were destroyed with the temple in AD 70 so they cannot trace lineage back to Aaron and so have no priesthood because according to Mosaical Law (Leviticus) priests had to be descended from Aaron.
4. Their official genealogies were destroyed with the temple in AD 70 so they cannot trace lineage back to Abraham according to the Mosaical Law.
Therefore I conclude that those who call themselves Jews today are not. They may have a little or even a lot of Hebrew blood in them, but Judaism is a dead religion. Even if these other things were not true, according to the NT, the old was but a shadow and has no spiritual authority over men today, and it is the NT that holds spiritual authority now.
I see nothing in scripture that indicates any future existence of or a return of Biblical Judaism.
~~~~As far as God’s nature changing from the OT to the NT. The OT God didn’t want us to eat pork or shellfish or to wear clothes made from a combination of fabrics. NT God no longer cares about such things. How is that not a change in His properties?~~~~
That is not a change in His properties. It is a change in His laws. God’s properties include omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, infinite joy, infinite justice, infinite mercy, infinite grace, infinite goodness, and infinite love. None of these things has changed from OT to NT.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Ernie,
Here’s a Chick tract link. They were ubiquitous growing up in the South in the 70s and 80s. You may have seen them and just don’t recognize Jack Chick. I chose one you should “enjoy.”
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp
0. T or F : I (that is Christopher Crowell) know that God does not exist.
–
I agree with Kendenny, but would have said F had you not enumerated the properties of God. Given those properties, I can confidently say TRUE
1. T or F : Value did not exist before the first human being.
–
FALSE, unless you mean human value as mentioned, then TRUE (Kendenny, did you reverse what you meant?)
2. T or F : In torturing and/or murdering more than 6 million Jewish men, women, and children the Nazis were guilty of real, objective, moral wrong.
–
TRUE
3. In torturing and/or murdering 6 million Jews, the Nazis were guilty of violating (please indicate all that apply):
a. the law of germany
–
I don’t know, but would think TRUE
b. the law of England
–
TRUE
c. the law of the United States
–
TRUE
d. the law of God
–
TRUE (for believers in the law of God, neither for someone who does not accept the existence of God)
e. some other law
–
TRUE
f. no law at all
–
FALSE
4. T or F : a human woman was on earth before any human baby.
–
FALSE
5. T or F : a human baby was on earth before any human woman.
–
TRUE
6. T or F : at least one human being now living on the Earth was formerly a non-human being and that non-human being was transformed into a human being.
–
FALSE
7. T or F: at least one human being who lived in the past but is now dead was formerly a non-human being and that non-human being was transformed into a human being.
–
FALSE
8. T or F : at least one human being now living was begotten by a male non-human being and born of a female non-human being.
–
FALSE
9. T or F : at least one human being who lived in the past but is now dead was begotten by a male non-human being and born of a female non-human being.
–
TRUE
10. Each one of us has a real, objective moral obligation to become an atheist so that if we do not do so, we are guilty of real, objective moral wrong.
–
FALSE
11. T or F : Real, objective evil exists.
–
TRUE
12. T or F : From the concept of God and the actual existence of subjective evil one can actually deduce the non-existence of God.
–
TRUE, given the properties you ascribed to God, though.
13. T or F: From the empirical observation of this world one can know truths about the class of things that are transcendent of the universe. (For instance one can observe things in this universe and know that other universes exist, or a higher form of the universe exists).
–
FALSE (I object to the use of “transcendent” and “higher form” but would change to TRUE if changed to “know truths about a class of things currently unknown about the universe”
I have some questions for you, too, but they will have to wait at least until tomorrow.
Regarding the Chick tract…wow, that was pretty…wow.
As for question 1 where I spoke of value, I refer to value as a concept, of whether or not one thing is better than another, whether one thing is good and one thing is evil. In other words, before humans, was there murder, theft, adultery, cruelty, etc.
I would be interested in hearing how, according to the atheist system of things value existed before humans and without a God. I do look forward to your questions and will be happy to answer them when presented.
Have you decided that the first premise of my argument is true beyond just for the sake of argument?
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Yeah, Jack an interesting fellow, eh?
As for value, many mammals will fiercely protect their young. Could it be said they “value” their young? Males in some cases will try to destroy the offspring of other males, which seems to imply they value their offspring over the offspring of other males.
With regard to your major premise, we may be stuck. I’m having difficulty with “could have come into existence only by the creative power of God.” How do we avoid an argument from ignorance?
~~~~With regard to your major premise, we may be stuck. I’m having difficulty with “could have come into existence only by the creative power of God.” How do we avoid an argument from ignorance?~~~~
Well, the phrase forces the onus of proof to show that such a human property could only have come into existence by God and not leave room for some, as of yet, undiscovered natural process.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Not posting for a few days. Father in law was in a very serious car accident yesterday. Will return to post when he is more stable condition.
Ernie
Who made God?
Here is the answer.
1. His Existence is not coming into Being from non-existence
2. Human faculties of conception, perception and learning, and attributes of volition, intuition and apprehension cannot catch sight of His Person or fathom the extent of His Might and Glory
3. Reason and sagacity cannot visualise Him
4. His Attributes cannot be fixed, limited or defined
5. None can fully understand or explain His Being however hard he or she may try
6. His Worth cannot be described even by the greatest rhetoricians of all times
7. Intelligence, understanding and attainment cannot attain the depth of knowledge to study or scrutinise the Godhead
8. He is so absolutely Pure and above nature, that nothing can be added to or substacted from His Being
9. There is no difference between His Person and His Attributes, and His Attributes should not be differentiated or distinguished from
His Person
10. Whoever accepts His Attributes to be other than His Person then actually forsakes the idea of Unity of God and believes in duality ( He and His Attributes). Such a person in fact believes Him to exist in Parts. One who holds such a faith cannot form a true concept of God, he is ignorant and will always try to believe in some creation of his or her imagination as his or her god
11.There do not exist words in any language to specify or define His qualities, peculiarities, characteristics and singularities
12. He is with everything but not physically and bodily
13. No physical eye has and will ever see Him
14. He has not permitted human mind to grasp the Essence of His Being yet He has not prevented them from realising His Presence
We can not confine God to the gender and pronoun, thus
the words He or His etc, are all merely substitutes, they do not represent the gender of the One (God) who does not have a gender.
well wisher
OK Ernie. I’m in this thread now so I will make the argument that you refused to address unless I posted it in this thread.
1. If evolution is false there would have had to have been thousands of instances of living things appearing out of thin air as if by magic.
2. Living things don’t appear out of thin air as if by magic.
3. Therefore evolution is true.
Your argument is invalid. The conclusion does not flow from the premises.
Your first premise is false since the disjunction between evolution and magic you establish is not a strong disjunction. That is to say that there are other possibilities besides evolution and “living things appearing out of thin air as if by magic.”
Here is one example that shows your premise to be false:
An omniscient, omnipotent Mind (we shall call this Mind Divine/God/Theos) existing eternally created space, time, the earth, and all kinds of living things from absolutely nothing (creation ex-nihlo).
In this example there is no mention of thin air (because air, thick and thin, were also part of that which was created) and no mention of magic (which has nothing to do with God).
Your second premise is also false. Magicians the world over make things “appear” out of “thin air” “as if by magic” all the time.
Your attempts at emotional barbs and derogatory terms have only resulted in a badly constructed argument.
May I suggest a revision:
1. If there is evidence that living things arrived in the universe by supernatural means, then evolution is false.
2. There is no evidence that living things arrived in the universe by supernatural means.
3. Therefore evolution is true.
Just trying to be helpful.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Ernie/Kennedy,
I think the way Kennedy contructed his argument makes it invalid because it looks he is affirming the consequent?
Ernie’s version however appears to be a valid construction. But the problem I see with the inference is you’d be trying to establish a universal negative, which is logically impossible right?
Just some observations
Duane
Ernie: “1. If there is evidence that living things arrived in the universe by supernatural means, then evolution is false.”
Actually you have the order wrong. It should be
If evolution is false then living things would have had to appear by supernatural means.
Now please explain the difference between “by supernatural means” and “by magic”. I honestly cannot discern any difference.
Supernatural is a general term that incorporates any event that could not be caused by the physical laws of the universe (i.e. the beginning of the existence of that universe).
Magic, on the other hand, is in reality only slight of hand, illusion, and technically not supernatural. Simon the Sorcerer in Acts 8 used magic as did the “sorcerers” throughout the Bible. Magic has no power to do anything but amuse or in some cases, confuse and mislead those who are unaware of what is actually taking place.
Magic, therefore, is not supernatural in nature and does not fall under that category.
~~~~Actually you have the order wrong. It should be If evolution is false then living things would have had to appear by supernatural means.~~~~
As you wish.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
…… No imagination can fathom the reality of His attributes and no mind can grasp the mode of His entity. He is such a One that division or splitting into parts of His entity cannot even be imagine. The creation of universe caused Him no mental exertion.
He has been existing since the eternity when there was no space devide into galaxies and no universe ( and no time also);
He destine matter and energy to be dissolve into time. He so arranged and consolidated these factors – matter, time and space that the intensity of their diverse and opposing properties was reduced….., to have their existence relative to and dependent upon time, thus giving matter time, and therefore,space a continuum that one cannot exist without the other two.
Your sincere well wisher
[...] universe exploded into being out of nothing (see previous posts God and the Astronomers and Who Made God? ).? ? Therefore, the Cause of the universe would seem to have these attributes:? [...]
What do we mean by evolution?
“If abiogenesis (spontaneous creation without specific design) can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of error ad perplexity, since these two are opposed to abiogenesis.
Such a statement is highly absurd that order and rectitude should come about without a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and fate should suppose a Creator. He is unaware who says this, because anything produced without design will never be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design. God is far above what they say.”
“They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator – a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise.”
for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/mufaddal/3.htm
well wisher
Ernie…
I came in late, but have read all the comments on this post. It seems like you had more to say here, farther to go… particularly surrounding the answers to the 13 questions you posed. Maybe I got something out of context or missed your conclusion. You had me at the edge of my seat, anxious to see where you were going. I hope you find the time to finish up.
Bryan, thanks for the comments. I have a LOT more to say, but none of the atheists here seem to be interested in the discussion. They asked and they asked and they asked for someone to offer positive proof for God or at least an argument for the existence of God. I have a positive and a negative proof, but no participation. The one guy that was participating hasn’t been back in a long time (life tends to drag one away from forums like this).
Is there anything specific you would like me to expand on or just go ahead and present the argument from data collected from atheists in the past? As Timothy studied under Paul, I studied under a man named Dr. Thomas B. Warren and a lot of my understanding and arguments are the same as his.
Some good books to read are: Logic and the Bible, Have Atheists Proved There Is No God?, and the Warren-Flew debate (1976). I believe that to be the turning point for Dr. Flew from atheism to deism. He entered the debate a staunch atheists and left a doubtful agnostic.
Anyway, just let me know what you would like me to do.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Can we realize, if God does Exist through the medium of the five senses ?
A thoughtful discussion between an atheist and a believer .
Atheist : “The existence of various things of the Universe whether real or not could only be determined through the medium of the five senses. Eyes with which we see, ears by which we hear, nose by which we smell and hands and feet with which we touch and feel”. Continuing the chain of his (atheist) arguments to the extent of his self-made principles, he (atheist) said, “Now I have never known God through any of the above mentioned senses, and cannot therefore believe in Him.
Believer : “Because”, I (believer) replied, “things are ‘murakkab’ (compound, made of parts). Every murakkab possesses shape and colour that attracts the senses. Therefore, that which is felt or known by the senses, having shape and colour, cannot be God. Your argument for disbelief is foolish, because God cannot be like any of the things perceived by the senses, nor can He be said to bear any resemblance to anything which has to undergo an ordeal of change and decay. For, everything is under the one and the same law-the law of transformation and decline. God, our creator cannot be perceivable by the five senses you mention; for, He is not a thing-which is murakkab or created. ……………If He was visible to the eye, and perceivable to the senses, He would have resembled the things that are visible and perceivable to the senses on account of their being murakkab and created, and in that case He would no longer have remained a creator”.
for a more in-depth look, read this http://www.al-islam.org/short/halila/
well wisher
Ernie…
Thanks for the resources, I’ll add them to my amazon wish list. I’m just curious to see where you were going. The last I saw there were 2 different atheists, Christopher and Kendenny, who answered your questions. Maybe I missed something, but it looked like you had a progression of where you were going after that.
If I can see the same progression somewhere in those resources you mentioned, that’ll be fine, I don’t want to have to use your time unnecessarily. But if you’re willing to keep going based on what atheists have answered in the past, I’d be glad to read it and hopefully learn something.
I found the debate on video:
http://www.thebible1.net/video/warrenflewdebate/
Does anyone know of a free pdf version anywhere?
Just few days ago, I came across these 2 statements, the first one was made, by one of the scientist – Albert Einstein, and the second one was made, by one of the muslim religious leader, Imam Jafer Sadik (as).
I want you to ponder on these 2 statements, and enlighten me, of your understanding of the subject.
particularly, what did -Albert Einstein meant by “illimitable superior spirit” ?
“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.”
-Albert Einstein
“They became disbelievers, and because of a deficiency of their knowledge and puerility of intellect, began quibbling inimically with Truth, so much so that they denied creativeness and claimed that all this universe was meaningless and vain, without any ingenious design on the part of a Designer or Creator – a purposeless non-entity without balance or poise.”
-Imam Jafer Sadiq (as)
well wisher
Sounds like they both stole a line from the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:19-22.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Theist : “Your denial of God, then is because, I have NOT provide objective evidence concerning the existence of a divine creator is actually true. But my belief is as strong as your disbelief, both cannot be right; do you admit this?”
Atheist : “Most certainly” “Either you are mistaken or I am”.
Theist : “Very well”, If you are right, there is no danger for me in threatening you with God’s displeasure for your disbelief”.
Atheist : “No”, “You shall be in no danger.”
Theist : “If I am right”, “Do you not think that you will suffer the punishment for your disbelief, and I shall receive a reward, for being away from your opinions?”
Atheist : “Quite possibly”
Theist : “Will you tell me”, “which of us is the wiser, granting the possibility of both the situations?”
well wisher
Bryan,
I’m glad you found the videos. The short version is, I was going in the same direction that Warren was going with my questions except I was going to go a bit deeper into what it means to define what is a human and what is not. I would argue that for the hard headed person, the only way to accurately define what is human is at the genetic level (a creature within certain genetic parameters is human, a creature outside them is not). [A lot of people who believe in abortion won't like this because it includes any fertilized human egg (zygote) as human and makes abortion into murder (which it is).
Furthermore, it makes the distinction between human and non-human which Warren argues, very sharp and it handles cases like mentally retarded, old, and other humans that Flew denied were fully human.
Now here is where I would add new information to Warren’s side of the argument, something he did not have access to in 1976 and which is pretty much devastating to a materialist-only person…a scientist named Sir John Carew Eccles, a self-claimed evolutionist and 1963 Nobel Prize winner in Physiology or Medicine for his work on the synapse, spent his entire adult life studying the human brain and nervous system. Towards the end of his life he, through experimentation and observation discovered something fascinating about humans. He discovered the human soul. You see, while running his experiments, Dr. Eccles found that humans could think without the occurrence of any brain activity whatsoever. This led him to a dualist position on the mind and brain. He wrote books like The Self and It’s Brain (1977) and How the Self Controls Its Brain (1994).
My original argument was valid, which means that if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. The first premise is self-evident. Therefore only the second premise, the minor premise really needed to be proven to be true.
Minor premise: There is at least one characteristic, attribute, or property of at least one human being which could have come into existence only by the creative power of God.
The soul is one characteristic, attribute, or property of at least one human being which could have come into existence only by the creative power of God. There is no possible material explanation for the soul since the soul is immaterial. Therefore the only way it could exist is that God created it.
Thus the minor premise is true, the argument is sound, and the conclusion must be true. This is the positive affirmative case for God, not just the negative type (which is valid, but their argument is unsound) we’ve been hearing from the atheist who claim to know that evolution is true, but can’t produce any positive evidence or argument to show it.
There is a valid negative argument to be made for the existence of God, and Warren does make it, but the positive argument is so much more elegant and simpler for everyone to understand…and the fact that it does not rely on any other world view to make it (no strong disjunction, etc.).
As for which God (which I know the atheists are dying to ask), that too has its arguments, but I’ll let them ask first before moving in that direction.
I hope this has satisfied your curiosity as to where I was going. I hope you enjoy the debate, I certainly did. If I can provide any thing else, please ask.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Ernie: “The soul is one characteristic, attribute, or property of at least one human being which could have come into existence only by the creative power of God. There is no possible material explanation for the soul since the soul is immaterial. Therefore the only way it could exist is that God created it.”
While this is absolutely true. You have not succeeded in proving that the soul exists. You say “Dr. Eccles found that humans could think without the occurrence of any brain activity whatsoever. ”
I did a google search to find the details of Eccles experiments and your description is so far removed from the actual experiment as to be laughable. The actual experiment was this: They put electrodes to measure brain activity on the subject and the subject was instructed to move their right index finger at irregular intervals. They found that there was neural activity occurring just prior to the actual finger movement.
And from this they concluded that there was a mind at work which was somehow separate from the brain. PUH-LEASE!
Ah, a google search. That does then. The internet has spoken. I am undone…
For those who are serious about these discussions and not just here to vent at those who cause their consciences to twinge, I recommend actually reading the books I mentioned and anything else you can get your hands on concerning dualism. It’s pretty cools stuff. I use it a lot in education.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
Ernie you flatter yourself if you think you can cause my conscience to twinge.
I have read countless arguments in favor of dualism and they all boil down to “It just feels right” There has never been a shred of empirical evidence found to support dualism.
On June 3rd, 2008 at 3:35pm Kendenny said ‘you have not succeeded in proving the soul exists.’ I will prove him wrong.
Reason #1 the soul exists: Human consciousness. Evolution cannot explain this because consciousness isn’t in the brain. You can’t look at Kendenny’s brain and say “Look at the electrical patterns in the top part of this brain. They are about (Kendenny’s favourite hobby.)” Our consciousness is seperate from our body.
Reason #2 the soul exists: We realize that our consciousness and our body co-exist, but are not the same because consciousness is in the soul. Our conscious life and our physical life are not the same thing. For example, in our conscious life we love and experience emotions and we are aware of whats around us. We are creative and we can make music, whereas, if life was just physical, we wouldn’t have conciousness and we would have no knowledge of these things. For example, bananas would still be yellow, but we would have no knowledge of them being yellow.
Reason #3:NDE (near death experiences) People who have almost died report that they see they’re body on the bed, floor, etc, as they’re soul rises up ( one woman reported that when she almost died there was a tennis shoe on the roof and they later looked on the roof and they actually found the tennis shoe. How else would she have known that the shoe was there if her soul didn’t rise up.) Other people have reported being guided through heaven, they still have their conciousness, but also reported their physical body wasn’t present. This means that it was obviously their soul being guided.
Reason #4: Intelligent design: with all the proof of intelligent design (too many to list) we can assert that if we were created special, which we were, then we have a soul.
Connor
Let me change reason 4. I ment to say that if intelligent design is true than we are made special and if we were made special than we have a soul.
“You can’t look at Kendenny’s brain and say “Look at the electrical patterns in the top part of this brain. They are about (Kendenny’s favourite hobby.)””
That’s exactly what you CAN do. The same part of the brain will light up each time you do a particular activity. The same part will light up on a scan each time you do complex math. And if you remove that part of the brain, you won’t be able to do complex math any more. You have not proved the existance of a soul.
“We are creative and we can make music”
Yes, and we know which parts of the brain deal with creativity and music. Again, if you damage the music parts then you lose the ability to create or even appreciate music.
Consciousness comes from brains. We have no examples of consciousness coming from anything apart from brains.
“if intelligent design is true than we are made special ”
That’s a big if. There is no evidence for ID, let along proof.