Cosmological argument for God

[foodcritic]

Wrong, I loved it because there were no right answers.

My point is that science can never be used to prove the existence of God because one cannot prove "science," which is to say that science is merely a way of explaining human perceptions of the Universe. It does not "prove" the Truth of those perceptions.

Seems to me better for an apologist to start with "God exists and (for example in the case of Christians) has revealed himself to mankind through the Scriptures of the Old and New . . . blah, blah, blah" and then begin to explain the Universe from that "place to stand."

If a Christian is consistent with what I think is part of the Christian system of beliefs, i.e. "In the beginning was the Word," "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," etc., then Christian apologetics should have nothing to do with proving the existence of God. It is simply a matter of getting out the "word."

For those who enjoy proving the existence of God as a form of mental masturbation, have fun. It's a good exercise to keep the cobwebs out--much like working a crossword puzzle. However, unlike a crossword, you'll never solve it.

I agree with you that "proving" God's existence is...well....impossible. However that is not what was originally posted. Presenting a reasonable argument or answer to questions is what is taking place. As far as you masturbating about .....TMI

 

[foodcritic]

The cosmological argument rests on premises that one is not forced to accept.

That is your opinion I suppose...

For instance, suppose Time is nothing more than a human invention used to measure something only human's perceive. If that is the case (and it certainly could be), then Beginning and End don't really mean anything where Truth is concerned (if you even accept the premise that Truth exists). /QUOTE]

Are you telling us the truth with that statment.
That is, to say that the universe had a beginning may not really mean anything at all outside the human mind, and the whole argument therefore falls prey to those who say that the whole concept of God is simply a construct of the human imagination. Like Archimedes, every argument needs a pou sto or "place to stand"--a first principle, unproven and unproveable. It is from there you stand and argue. "Time exists" seems to me like pretty shaky ground from which to prove the existence of God.

Even if you "prove" God's existence, then what? Does it logically follow that he loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life? Or maybe he has eight arms and pisses hot butter.

I have already addressed the issue of time begining and most of science agree that time did in fact have a starting point.

If we could prove God's existence then we could apply the law of Non-Contradiction to see what in fact is closer to the truth.

 

[foodcritic]

Wrong, I loved it because there were no right answers.

My point is that science can never be used to prove the existence of God because one cannot prove "science," which is to say that science is merely a way of explaining human perceptions of the Universe. It does not "prove" the Truth of those perceptions.

.

Science is/are a tool(s) used to prove not perceptions but REALITY. 1+1=2 that is not a perception. Each person, obviously, has a different perception of things or events.

 

[Jam4eva]

1+1=2 that is not a perception.QUOTE]

No, but it may be nothing more than the symbolic representation of a perception, namely that when I perceive one thing and another thing, I perceive what I call two things. We can be reasonably certain that that is true for all human beings since we all have similar organs of perception and can communicate our experiences with one another (I am of course assuming a lot of things like the existence of other minds, etc.). It says absolutely nothing about the TRUTH of 1+1=2 (e.g. whether it is true in all possible worlds for instance).

To say that scientists agree that time has a beginning is exactly my point. Scientists are the ultimate puzzlers, creating rules for the things which we collectively perceive. But to perceive something and then write the rules about it says nothing about TRUTH. For me to say, "this thing which we collectively experience as the linear progression of events, I will call Time, and because I have observed that all things which seem to be linear, including lines, appear to have a beginning and an end, then Time itself has a beginning and an end" really doesn't prove that Time exists outside of my perception of it.

I guess my point is that nothing we perceive is provable because we cannot escape our perceptions to prove it. Sure we can prove things based upon rules which we impose, but that doesn't get you to TRUTH.

 

[foodcritic]

1+1=2 that is not a perception.QUOTE]

No, but it may be nothing more than the symbolic representation of a perception, namely that when I perceive one thing and another thing, I perceive what I call two things. We can be reasonably certain that that is true for all human beings since we all have similar organs of perception and can communicate our experiences with one another (I am of course assuming a lot of things like the existence of other minds, etc.). It says absolutely nothing about the TRUTH of 1+1=2 (e.g. whether it is true in all possible worlds for instance).

To say that scientists agree that time has a beginning is exactly my point. Scientists are the ultimate puzzlers, creating rules for the things which we collectively perceive. But to perceive something and then write the rules about it says nothing about TRUTH. For me to say, "this thing which we collectively experience as the linear progression of events, I will call Time, and because I have observed that all things which seem to be linear, including lines, appear to have a beginning and an end, then Time itself has a beginning and an end" really doesn't prove that Time exists outside of my perception of it.

I guess my point is that nothing we perceive is provable because we cannot escape our perceptions to prove it. Sure we can prove things based upon rules which we impose, but that doesn't get you to TRUTH.

Can't touch this......I have no idea what was said

 

[Jam4eva]

It's like this: I can point my eyes toward something, and with the help of light and rods and cones and the brain all that business I can perceive that object. There is some great degree of truth that science can tell me about how all of that comes about. What science can't tell me is whether that object, or my mind, or my perceptions really exist, ie TRUTH. The best science (and by science I mean reason) can do is to construct a system of rules and then work puzzles from inside that set of rules. And there's nothing wrong with that. But the human mind is not capable of discovering TRUTH. (By the same token, it could not also discover FALSE.) This should not be discouraging to the religious mind however. A Christian for instance should embrace this and say, "yes, you are absolutely right. The human mind IS incapable of discovering TRUTH (GOD), and that is exactly why God has chosen to reveal himself to us through the Scriptures." Then if someone wants proof of that I would simply state that this is my "pou sto" and I'm not moving from it. Every system of thought has one because you can't start from TRUTH, and you can't reason backward to it. Having someone disprove my starting point would be as equally difficult as my proving it.

 

[lewis7lewis]

You Think Your Right

If I may, I'd like to step into the sea before I go into space. I was watching a show on marine life last Sunday on MPT. They said that the number of normally plentiful herring was dwindling down drastically near Alaska and marine scientists couldn't figure out why. They did a study and found that it was due to the Eskimos killing off too many whales. How did that affect the herring? Well, the killer whales need to eat hundreds pounds of sea lion seals each day. The main food source of the sea lion seals is herring. So, since there were many more seals NOT being eaten by the whales, they were depleting the herring population by themselves.
My point here is: Only intelligent design could have caused this ecological situation. Evolution couldn't have foreseen this. It shows how every species of animal in the food chain is important in some way or another. When one goes down or near extinction, it can and does affect the others.
Only a blind fool (they'll be chiming in here soon) would doub't the existence of God and His perfect plan for humans & nature because the evidence IS there.
As far as the universe goes, it only has to be big enough for man not to be able to see or reach it limits. Mankind is dumb enough on his own to reason his way out of believing in God. The universe doesn't have to be infinite although it might be. There is way too much evidence for God's existence. Only those who choose not to see this argue against it. No matter though, they'll meet Him soon enough and change their minds.

Well if I may retort your belief it gose as follows.......... Just because millions of people believe in something dosnt make it so. And just because millions dont dosnt mean its not true. That gose for GOD, UFOs, and GOVERMENT.
MARK at lewis7lewis@yahoo.com

 

[lewis7lewis]

Just Replying

If i can summarize here it sounds like you reject the notion that time began. That the universe had a starting point? So you reject the first point of the argument.

So your response is, the universe had no begining.

The response is not philophical but rather scientific explanantion.
The article addressed this issue with the following explanantion:
First, earlier this century, Edwin Hubble discovered that light from distant galaxies is red-shifted, implying that the universe is expanding from an initial explosion which took place a finite time ago. Although a few scientists have challenged this interpretation of the red-shift, it has been supported by observation and successful prediction and has an explanatory power unmatched by other theories (Craig, Kalam, 160).

Second, the big bang theory predicted the discovery of three-degree blackbody radiation, a discovery which surprised other cosmological theories.

Third, astrophysicist Robert C. Newman writes "If there is any process which causes our universe to lose energy at a non zero rate, then an oscillating universe would have run out of energy (and so ceased to oscillate) long ago" (Newman, "The Evidence of Cosmology," 85). This means that it is all but improbable that the universe as we know it is one universe in an infinite series of expanding and contracting universes.

Fourth, there is no explanation for why a contracting universe would "bounce" and begin expanding again. Recent evidence confirms that galaxies are moving too quickly away from one another for gravity to pull them back into a compressed point.
Fifth, in April 1992, American scientists discovered ripples of matter at the edge of the universe. These ripples are evidence that the universe was given its structure very early in its history and further confirm that the universe had a definite beginning.

The Big Bang Theory isnt a theory it is a FACT thats been proven.
lewis7lewis@yahoo.com

 

[foodcritic]

The Big Bang Theory isnt a theory it is a FACT thats been proven.
lewis7lewis@yahoo.com

And??:shrug:

 

[Jam4eva]

The Big Bang Theory isnt a theory it is a FACT thats been proven.
lewis7lewis@yahoo.com

Nope. It's a theory--a theory about observable facts having a great deal of supporting evidence. It is not a fact, nor will it probably ever be. Facts must be tested in a lab. I can't see "something from nothing" ever being successfully tested in a lab.

 

[PsyOps]

The Big Bang Theory isnt a theory it is a FACT thats been proven.
lewis7lewis@yahoo.com

Proven? How? Who was there? Where did it happen? When did it happen? Show me your source for this fact.