Posted February 06, 2014
![pimpmonkey2382.313](https://images.gog.com/a7f66e9f4674120a5fb93f4197f79305a472e20737487c03fcbeb097ff87baf9_forum_avatar.jpg)
pimpmonkey2382.313
You are obsolete. Delete!
Registered: Jan 2011
From United States
![Soyeong](https://images.gog.com/220d56e73d221834ac2914c33435f644db922e7a44475b9f636ecd34fd5850cd_forum_avatar.jpg)
Soyeong
Enter title here
Registered: Oct 2012
From United States
Posted February 06, 2014
![pimpmonkey2382.313](https://images.gog.com/a7f66e9f4674120a5fb93f4197f79305a472e20737487c03fcbeb097ff87baf9_forum_avatar.jpg)
pimpmonkey2382.313
You are obsolete. Delete!
Registered: Jan 2011
From United States
Posted February 06, 2014
Yes it's so far reaching to assume that a christian believes in god, and that if there was a beginning, that god started it. Yeah way off base there.
Don't use wiki often but this is sourced.
Craig maintains that the theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity.[30][page needed] Although he does not fully endorse intelligent design,[31] and is opposed to Young Earth creationism,[32] he thinks that intelligent design may be a viable alternative to evolution.[33]
and the source.
http://www.apologetics315.com/2009/11/william-lane-craig-vs-francisco-j-ayala.html
No, intelligent design is never a good alternative for evolution.
Craig's primary contribution to philosophy of religion is his revival of the Kalām cosmological argument. In The Kalām Cosmological Argument, he formulates the argument in the following manner:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.[9][10]
He defends the second premise by arguing that actual infinities and the formation of an actual infinite through continual addition are metaphysically impossible.
And above all when he's debating, his hands make him look like the crypt keeper.
Don't use wiki often but this is sourced.
Craig maintains that the theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity.[30][page needed] Although he does not fully endorse intelligent design,[31] and is opposed to Young Earth creationism,[32] he thinks that intelligent design may be a viable alternative to evolution.[33]
and the source.
http://www.apologetics315.com/2009/11/william-lane-craig-vs-francisco-j-ayala.html
No, intelligent design is never a good alternative for evolution.
Craig's primary contribution to philosophy of religion is his revival of the Kalām cosmological argument. In The Kalām Cosmological Argument, he formulates the argument in the following manner:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.[9][10]
He defends the second premise by arguing that actual infinities and the formation of an actual infinite through continual addition are metaphysically impossible.
And above all when he's debating, his hands make him look like the crypt keeper.
Post edited February 06, 2014 by pimpmonkey2382
![Soyeong](https://images.gog.com/220d56e73d221834ac2914c33435f644db922e7a44475b9f636ecd34fd5850cd_forum_avatar.jpg)
Soyeong
Enter title here
Registered: Oct 2012
From United States
Posted February 06, 2014
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2013/07/4a4d95e97c42f032aafa34de2ade68eb5f8fd0eb_t.jpg)
http://www.apologetics315.com/2009/11/william-lane-craig-vs-francisco-j-ayala.html
No, intelligent design is never a good alternative for evolution.
Craig's primary contribution to philosophy of religion is his revival of the Kalām cosmological argument. In The Kalām Cosmological Argument, he formulates the argument in the following manner:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.[9][10]
He defends the second premise by arguing that actual infinities and the formation of an actual infinite through continual addition are metaphysically impossible.
Defending his premise by giving arguments for it does not mean that he is assuming it is true.Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.[9][10]
He defends the second premise by arguing that actual infinities and the formation of an actual infinite through continual addition are metaphysically impossible.
![SweatyGremlins](https://images.gog.com/8c2add3b5ad9e6b5ffdb0fc61d5927dd80b78e896e7dddcf14b80987ba77cea7_forum_avatar.jpg)
SweatyGremlins
suddenlyhamsters
Registered: Apr 2011
From Australia
Posted February 06, 2014
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2013/03/acdd0b0c49f9a2b44b1647f4f6feab15cad4ddec_t.jpg)
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2012/12/3f4543757c1234f202d8f892f9fff981ff0a9cd1_t.jpg)
Again this is misleading. The multiverse just solves a mathematical quirk and is based on a simple observation, our universe (we assume) exists. If one universe exists are there any limits regarding other universes existing? (not as a rhetorical question) Our universe is evidence that a universe can exist.
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2012/12/3f4543757c1234f202d8f892f9fff981ff0a9cd1_t.jpg)
As to the issue of "logical necessity." It is actually because of logical necessity that theories such as the mutliverse are being proposed. Again, it solves a mathematical quirk relating to the laws that govern our universe.
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2012/12/3f4543757c1234f202d8f892f9fff981ff0a9cd1_t.jpg)
As I understand it, cosmologists are not pushing multiverse theory as fact, it is just one potential solution. However, that one idea seems to be misrepresented by theologians quite often, at times to imply hipocracy.
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2012/12/3f4543757c1234f202d8f892f9fff981ff0a9cd1_t.jpg)
The article explains the problems better than I can, but one problem he has is if our universe is but one member of an infinite collection of randomly varying universes, then it’s overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than that which we in fact observe.
On one level, of course faith would seem rational thousands of years ago, this was the period where faith explained existence. In modern times science fills that need so faith seems unrational. My point however wasn't on the use of the word or even if faith is rational or not. Simply, it honestly doesn't matter. Religious people are quite capable of accepting scientific findings regardless of the implications since God exists outside of our experience. The recent revival of apologetics is ultimately unnecessary, they don't need to explain their faith.
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2012/12/3f4543757c1234f202d8f892f9fff981ff0a9cd1_t.jpg)
I think we've missed each other's points somewhere as I'm not sure how this connects to what I said exactly. I can't see how gravity's nature is philosophical either, it behaves as it does regardless. As for the future, science does various predictions, like weather patterns and so on but I assume this wasn't what you were getting at.
That's like asking if matter exists, are there any limits to the forms that matter can take? Of course it's possible for matter to take the form of a shark riding a unicorn, but contrary to memes, that doesn't invalidate anyone's argument.
I can kind of see how it might seem that way but the two are very different fundamentally. There is no previous model for unicorn riding sharks, so therefore there is no necessity to consider them. On the other hand we do have a model for the existence of a universe so it's not illogical to consider other universes. Again mutliverse theory is not 'concrete' but it makes sense under certain conditions and we do have a model (our universe) to suggest its possibility.
The article explains the problems better than I can, but one problem he has is if our universe is but one member of an infinite collection of randomly varying universes, then it’s overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than that which we in fact observe.
That's a good example of one of the logic games I have seen since I started paying attention to these debates. The answer is really simple, the universe we exist in is the only one that can support us because otherwise we wouldn't exist. It's really that simple.
To give you an opposite example. There is more chance of you being born a fish than a human. But you were born a human so it doesn't matter. The fact that you could have been born a fish doesn't collapse your reality. Even if the chance of a universe being created with our laws is absolutely miniscule, with absence of time even a 0.0000000001% chance of something happening will occur.
Logical necessity does not mean possible solution.
It's due to logical necessity that theories like the multiverse are being considered. This is really indisputable but I think the process is what people are getting confused by. There needs to be an explanation for the particular laws that govern our universe, if they were changed even by a miniscule amount the universe would not exist. The answer could be God but there is no previous model to suggest so. Every previous mechanism we understand point to natural causation. Hence the various theories, there is a logical necessity to fill in the gap.
Science and faith have never been in conflict with each other.
I guess this is nitpicking but it's worth pointing out the lengths that people went to to dismiss the concept of a universe that does not revolve around Earth. Not to mention recent Creationists who claim the Earth is six thousand years old and that people lived alongside dinosaurs. I would say faith rather than religion does not conflict with science.
Trust is rational because it relies on using reason to interpret evidence. Science tells us much about things that are observable, measurable, and repeatable, but it tells us nothing about whether or not we should trust God. Faith always needs an explanation, otherwise there would be no reason why anyone had faith, so apologetics in this area are there to combat this recent illogical misconception of it.
This is why I feel they are wasting their time, since trust and reason break down under the conditions you propose. If we had the time this would end up a huge paragraph, the Bible is full of inconsistencies that should rightly break trust. Not to mention the fact that you cannot observe, test, or reproduce any of the claims the Bible makes. For example, just a simple commandment like "Thou shalt not kill." This seems very finite and clear, so finite that by rights any Judeo-Christian should be vegetarian. Yet within the same Bible God encourages various acts of murder, when he isn't committing them himself. Not to mention weird guidelines that instruct to stone people for any passing reason:
[i]Numbers 15:32-36
New International Version (NIV)
The Sabbath-Breaker Put to Death
32 While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36 So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses.[/i]
[i]Deuteronomy 21:18-21
King James Version (KJV)
18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.[/i]
![TrollumThinks](https://images.gog.com/861505e4c658df6ef132d5f75b59b2069232c2497950fa772913fd5d7a130206_forum_avatar.jpg)
TrollumThinks
I got Wisdum
Registered: Jul 2011
From Australia
Posted February 06, 2014
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2013/07/4a4d95e97c42f032aafa34de2ade68eb5f8fd0eb_t.jpg)
I'm a Christian, I believe in God, I believe God created the universe.
Doesn't mean that any given argument I make is based on that assumption.
I could argue that many things proven in science are true by using the scientific data available. Would you say that because I'm a Christian that I'm only assuming that to be true because God exists?
E=mc^2 -> because "science" (details available elsewhere on the net) and also because God made the science that way.
First conclusion is based on science, 2nd one is based on faith.
So to say that Craig's conclusions are all based on faith is an unproven assumption on your part. (At work now but still no time to watch the video).
If you disagree with the logical conclusion he gave then show it to be false with logic, not assumptions.
![pimpmonkey2382.313](https://images.gog.com/a7f66e9f4674120a5fb93f4197f79305a472e20737487c03fcbeb097ff87baf9_forum_avatar.jpg)
pimpmonkey2382.313
You are obsolete. Delete!
Registered: Jan 2011
From United States
Posted February 07, 2014
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2013/07/4a4d95e97c42f032aafa34de2ade68eb5f8fd0eb_t.jpg)
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2011/07/9f4700195d829ee5832a99a78df8c547c80cff3f_t.jpg)
I'm a Christian, I believe in God, I believe God created the universe.
Doesn't mean that any given argument I make is based on that assumption.
I could argue that many things proven in science are true by using the scientific data available. Would you say that because I'm a Christian that I'm only assuming that to be true because God exists?
E=mc^2 -> because "science" (details available elsewhere on the net) and also because God made the science that way.
First conclusion is based on science, 2nd one is based on faith.
So to say that Craig's conclusions are all based on faith is an unproven assumption on your part. (At work now but still no time to watch the video).
If you disagree with the logical conclusion he gave then show it to be false with logic, not assumptions.
![iippo](https://images.gog.com/d807da11235be1a0d355a961aa7a0ce19f35199c9c1bbb51c86e318608c0fe55_forum_avatar.jpg)
iippo
Slave of economy
Registered: Dec 2008
From Finland
Posted February 07, 2014
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2013/02/20b04d45104fd6762843783bf4dd3a79bec7612f_t.jpg)
![avatar](/www/default/-img/newuser_big.png)
unless you DO believe in god who makes sandwiches appear and disappear from existence, doesnt it then mean that eating a sandwich is likely to be fundamentally same as big bang? just change in form rather than existence?
![SweatyGremlins](https://images.gog.com/8c2add3b5ad9e6b5ffdb0fc61d5927dd80b78e896e7dddcf14b80987ba77cea7_forum_avatar.jpg)
SweatyGremlins
suddenlyhamsters
Registered: Apr 2011
From Australia
Posted February 07, 2014
![avatar](/www/default/-img/newuser_big.png)
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2013/02/20b04d45104fd6762843783bf4dd3a79bec7612f_t.jpg)
unless you DO believe in god who makes sandwiches appear and disappear from existence, doesnt it then mean that eating a sandwich is likely to be fundamentally same as big bang? just change in form rather than existence?
![Soyeong](https://images.gog.com/220d56e73d221834ac2914c33435f644db922e7a44475b9f636ecd34fd5850cd_forum_avatar.jpg)
Soyeong
Enter title here
Registered: Oct 2012
From United States
Posted February 07, 2014
He starts off by arguing the the universe has a cause. Then he argues for what attributes this cause has. If his arguments work, then he has proven the existence of a being that has many of the attributes that correspond to our idea of God.
![TrollumThinks](https://images.gog.com/861505e4c658df6ef132d5f75b59b2069232c2497950fa772913fd5d7a130206_forum_avatar.jpg)
TrollumThinks
I got Wisdum
Registered: Jul 2011
From Australia
Posted February 07, 2014
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2013/07/4a4d95e97c42f032aafa34de2ade68eb5f8fd0eb_t.jpg)
The argument given in the clip is that current science supports premise #2 "The universe began to exist"
"If it began to exist - it had a cause" - this is premise #3 (do you agree with this premise? I'm not clear).
You say he implies that it was because of God, and indeed that is his assertion. But in the clip, he doesn't give any arguments for it so I can't conclude that his arguments are logical or illogical.
I'd like to hear his subsequent arguments that go from 3 to God - will try to look them up myself but if anyone has a link handy? (it's probably further back in this thread but I've not the time to read through it all).
![pimpmonkey2382.313](https://images.gog.com/a7f66e9f4674120a5fb93f4197f79305a472e20737487c03fcbeb097ff87baf9_forum_avatar.jpg)
pimpmonkey2382.313
You are obsolete. Delete!
Registered: Jan 2011
From United States
Posted February 07, 2014
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2013/07/4a4d95e97c42f032aafa34de2ade68eb5f8fd0eb_t.jpg)
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2011/07/9f4700195d829ee5832a99a78df8c547c80cff3f_t.jpg)
The argument given in the clip is that current science supports premise #2 "The universe began to exist"
"If it began to exist - it had a cause" - this is premise #3 (do you agree with this premise? I'm not clear).
You say he implies that it was because of God, and indeed that is his assertion. But in the clip, he doesn't give any arguments for it so I can't conclude that his arguments are logical or illogical.
I'd like to hear his subsequent arguments that go from 3 to God - will try to look them up myself but if anyone has a link handy? (it's probably further back in this thread but I've not the time to read through it all).
![iippo](https://images.gog.com/d807da11235be1a0d355a961aa7a0ce19f35199c9c1bbb51c86e318608c0fe55_forum_avatar.jpg)
iippo
Slave of economy
Registered: Dec 2008
From Finland
Posted February 07, 2014
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2013/02/20b04d45104fd6762843783bf4dd3a79bec7612f_t.jpg)
unless you DO believe in god who makes sandwiches appear and disappear from existence, doesnt it then mean that eating a sandwich is likely to be fundamentally same as big bang? just change in form rather than existence?
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2013/03/acdd0b0c49f9a2b44b1647f4f6feab15cad4ddec_t.jpg)
Shame the msg log disappeared along the way. The sneaky "point" of it all might have been more apparent that way.
or maybe not.
---
anyways, the reality does not seem to be about creating something from nothing, or reducing something to nothingness - rather its about continual change of one existing thing to another.
Now if we would take a leap of faith and assume that "our" big bang is just one of many in long (infinite? whats infinity anyways?) cycle of universes being born and then somehow "ending" - perhaps collapsing upon itself and turning into a new big bang -> it all still leaves unanswered why it exists in the first place.
Naming that reason "god" is just fine in my opinion. however this god's Real Nature(tm) is ofcourse unknown to us.
While various religious books examine the nature of god from wildly varying angles - they are ofcourse only written by fellow humans. Thus there are lots of very interesting thought paths, viewpoints, ethical reasonings and so on - but they can and infact do contradict each other offering very little scientific 1+1=2 evidence to gods nature.
This i think is just fine as well. Often the "trip" is more important the "destination". That is process of thinking about these subjects instead of actually ever discovering some concrete ultimate truth of whatever.
While we could ofcourse try to throw away the shadow of all religions and just become atheist-scientist-philosophers i firmly believe it is and will be nigh impossible. While mind and matter are bread and butter for everyone, the cockroach called spirituality tends to reach our minds at some point of our lives. Often in forms of questions, especially in hardest times.
Religions, just like life philosophies, are in the end something that can only be lived and experienced by oneself to understand them - their "essence" cannot be found very well by just spectating from sidelines. While god (whatever it is) might have objective nature - our interpretations of it are certainly very personal and subjective.
![Soyeong](https://images.gog.com/220d56e73d221834ac2914c33435f644db922e7a44475b9f636ecd34fd5850cd_forum_avatar.jpg)
Soyeong
Enter title here
Registered: Oct 2012
From United States
Posted February 07, 2014
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2013/03/acdd0b0c49f9a2b44b1647f4f6feab15cad4ddec_t.jpg)
That's a good example of one of the logic games I have seen since I started paying attention to these debates. The answer is really simple, the universe we exist in is the only one that can support us because otherwise we wouldn't exist. It's really that simple.
The multiverse does have explanatory power in this regard, but so does God, and neither have any scientific evidence. However, I think God is the superior explanation because the article has lethal objections to the multiverse. It's due to logical necessity that theories like the multiverse are being considered. This is really indisputable but I think the process is what people are getting confused by. There needs to be an explanation for the particular laws that govern our universe, if they were changed even by a miniscule amount the universe would not exist. The answer could be God but there is no previous model to suggest so. Every previous mechanism we understand point to natural causation. Hence the various theories, there is a logical necessity to fill in the gap.
While we are likewise not familiar with designers of universes, we certainly are familiar with minds and the products of intelligent design, so that the appeal to a designer as the best explanation of the fine-tuning is an appeal to a familiar explanatory entity. I guess this is nitpicking but it's worth pointing out the lengths that people went to to dismiss the concept of a universe that does not revolve around Earth. Not to mention recent Creationists who claim the Earth is six thousand years old and that people lived alongside dinosaurs. I would say faith rather than religion does not conflict with science.
The reason why heliocentrism was dismissed was because it meant that parallax should have been observable in stars and a telescope powerful enough to observe that didn't exist until after Galileo. With Creationists, the conflict is not between science and religion, but between science and a particular interpretation of the Bible. If evolution were proved with 100% certainty, it wouldn't show that God didn't exist, that we couldn't trust Him, or that Jesus didn't raise from the dead. The interpretation that the Earth was old existed long before modern science. This is why I feel they are wasting their time, since trust and reason break down under the conditions you propose. If we had the time this would end up a huge paragraph, the Bible is full of inconsistencies that should rightly break trust.
If someone rejects Christianity because they've incorrectly been told that it's illogical, then I see every reason to make an effort to show that isn't the case. Not to mention the fact that you cannot observe, test, or reproduce any of the claims the Bible makes. For example, just a simple commandment like "Thou shalt not kill." This seems very finite and clear, so finite that by rights any Judeo-Christian should be vegetarian. Yet within the same Bible God encourages various acts of murder, when he isn't committing them himself. Not to mention weird guidelines that instruct to stone people for any passing reason:
The context of how the Hebrew word is used means killing another human out of anger or in the predatory manner of an animal, not in a justified manner such as capital punishment, so it's usually translated as "You shall not murder." God is sovereign and just and can give or take life as He wills. Stoning people was not done for any passing reason, and capital punishment was use to show the seriousness of the crime, but usually people were fined instead. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Talmud/bavakama8.html
![Soyeong](https://images.gog.com/220d56e73d221834ac2914c33435f644db922e7a44475b9f636ecd34fd5850cd_forum_avatar.jpg)
Soyeong
Enter title here
Registered: Oct 2012
From United States
Posted February 07, 2014
![avatar](/upload/avatars/2011/07/9f4700195d829ee5832a99a78df8c547c80cff3f_t.jpg)