Field of Science

Lisle's ultimate proof of creation proves nothing about creation

In April last year I wrote unfavorably about some videos I had not seen. Or, rather, I wrote to discredit Dr. Jobe Martin, trying to show that he had no background to evaluate the evolutionary origins of various species and traits. Of course writing about something I haven't seen is objectionable, and people did note this in the comments and in emails. Consequently, last week I received a courteous email from Dr. Martin's daughter, Mirren, who asked for my address so that she could send me the videos, because, as she said, "I believe it sure would make your position more credible if you could say that you had viewed these and we are offering them to you for free." Indeed. I received the package today containing four DVD's a three books. I will watch the videos as soon as possible (though I note that I am trying to write my thesis), and then I will write about my experiences with that here.

But I won't let you leave empty-handed today. Among three books were The Ultimate Proof of Creation: Resolving the Origins Debate, by Dr. Jason Lisle. Here's my review of the heart of the book, chapter three:

The ultimate proof is given in the beginning of chapter three, and goes like this.
[W]e know that biblical creation must be true because if it were not, we could not know anything at all. [p. 46]
I kid you not! That is all it is. There are of course explanations of what this means, and analogous examples, but the whole argument is captured in this one sentence. Lisle is even explicit that it is just this one sentence.

The example is air. To even make the argument that air doesn't exist, air is needed. Belief in air is not necessary, but air is. Similarly, Lisle contends, a Christian worldview is necessary to make an argument at all against creation.

So why is that? What is it about the Christian worldview and biblical creation that is so imperative for even making an argument in the first place?

Well, according to Lisle, the laws of logic stem from God, so without God, there can be no rationality, and thus arguments cannot be made at all.

Why, then, does logic lie with God, and the Christian God only?

In short, because it says so in the Bible. Again, I kid you not!
Rational reasoning involves using the laws of logic. There, a rational worldview must be able to account for the existence of such laws.

(...)

The Christian can answer these questions. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God's.

(...)

Laws of logic are God's standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, His thoughts would necessarily be abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter, they apply everywhere, and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God's unchanging nature. And they are prerequisite for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.
The delusion here is so immense that I don't think that I can sort it out. But, the bottom line seems to be that because it says so in a book that God is unchanging, etc., then the laws of logic could not exist without him. And again, that goes for everyone (refer to the 'air' argument), even those who also claim to be able to make the exact same argument based on different scripture, as I am sure both some Jews and Muslims would.

Lisle continues:
Only in a biblical worldview can we know that contradictions cannot occur in reality; only the Christian has a basis for the law of non-contradiction, or laws of logic in general.
Lisle's thesis that logic (and uniformity of nature, and absolute morality) cannot be had without God, and without logic one cannot refute that logic, ergo the Christian God as described in the Bible, fails to persuade me, and most likely anybody else who isn't already leaning heavily towards being a believing Christian in the first place. Christians ought to be laughed out of the auditorium, as I am sure they would be if they had the nerve to present Lisle's ultimate proof of creation.

88 comments:

  1. Heh, his contention that the universe is epistemically useless without God reminds me of a recent SMBC comic:

    http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1889#comic

    ReplyDelete
  2. He doesen't remember Aether in space? Caloric Fluid and the Miasmas and Essences that were certain to be the root of disease?

    All these things must be 'real' by his logic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. His argumentation is surely weak.
    It is easy to prove Christianity wrong. It says that Torah is true, but Torah invalidates Christianity. Christianity also contradicts history and archealogy. Read more in www.netzarim.co.il

    I recommend you all to read an article in my blog (http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/08/proof-of-existence-of-intelligent-and.html). It contains a formal logical proof, based on scientific premises, that proves the existence of an Intelligent and Perfect Creator of this universe (i.e. the Prime Cause of this universe (the cause of Big Bang)); and it also proves that His instructions are found in Torah, and that His purpose of humankind is for us to practise those Instructions in Torah.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As it turns out, I have already thoroughly addressed Anders' proof.

    Anders, if you are still reading this, the most disturbing thing about what you are saying is that you seem to think that the Torah is the oldest religious writing on record. UMMMMMMmmmmmm...... No.

    ReplyDelete
  5. James, that was a really great read. "One fallacy per five words." Heh.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here is my observation of both sides without picking a side:
    -Both sides are flawed in their arguments.
    -Both sides beg the question quite frequently.
    -Both sides will try anything to "convince."

    I personally believe in the God of Christianity to be the one and only God. I believe this because I see his creation daily and it is self-evident. Whether or not some form of evolution even exists doesn't matter. It will never, in the end, prove that God does not exist or that the Bible is a lie. I think that science will only get closer to proving God in the end. I feel that everyone has the opportunity to see God through his work in their life and for many reasons people will look for ways around it to benefit their own worldly desires. When you're alone, and you talk to yourself and cry out in fear because you doubt...stop and listen. God WILL speak to your soul and guide you. Remember that He is beyond our understanding, that is why people doubt. Step outside of what you know and try to imagine if you were powerful enough to create all of this and then logically and philosophically work through it all. If you do it without leaning to one side you may find that things look differently.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I believe this because I see his creation daily and it is self-evident."

      Aka begging the question.

      Delete
    2. I see a wild and extraordinary cosmos, and many ways of worshiping, and many claiming that their god is the one and only god.
      I might accept a god if a christain say would prove that Vishnu or Zeus exists, but then, that would be contradictory to there being only one god.
      It's a wonderful world isn't it.

      Delete
  7. - Both sides are flawed in their arguments.

    Tell me how I am flawed in my arguments, please.

    -Both sides beg the question quite frequently.

    Where do I do that?

    -Both sides will try anything to "convince."

    No, i will only speak the truth as far as I know it. Integrity is a lot more important than convincing anyone.

    I believe this because I see his creation daily and it is self-evident.

    Then have you not picked a side? This is one of those two sides, isn't it?!

    Also, you don't seem to know a lot about either the Bible or science: "I think that science will only get closer to proving God in the end." Check out Jerry Coyne's post about whether Adam and Eve were real.

    And, you have a foregone conclusion: "It will never, in the end, prove that God does not exist or that the Bible is a lie."

    God WILL speak to your soul and guide you.

    How do you know such a thing? From personal experience? How do you know it wasn't something in your brain and not God that spoke and guided you?

    Serosly.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The delusion here is so immense that I don't think that I can sort it out.

    That's about it. There's no arguing these people out of their delusion. It's pointless even to try. I wish dealing with them were as simple a matter as laughing them out of the auditorium, but unfortunately, they're intent upon establishing a theocracy and nothing less will satisfy them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I couldn't help but notice that you made no attempt to logically refute Dr. Lisle's argument. Instead, you claimed that it didn't make sense to you, and assumed that most of your readers would agree. Interestingly, those that have the same starting-point (shall we say, "worldview?") as you would most likely agree, yes. But is this logical?
    The question still remains, Bjorn: can you explain the existence of laws of logic without appealing to the Biblical worldview?

    So far, you have not.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The question still remains, Bjorn: can you explain the existence of laws of logic without appealing to the Biblical worldview?

    Yes, that part is very easy. I could say that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the laws of logic. Or the flying teapot did. Or Xenu. Or Allah.

    But these are non-starters, because I don't think existence can be had without logic, and that existence includes Yahweh, FSM, etc.

    I cannot explain the laws of logic, no. Why is it that 1+1 is always 2, and why is it that both A and not-A can't be true? I don't know.

    But, crucially, saying that some god made it so adds absolutely nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Not to mention that there may very well be universes in which the laws of physics are completely different. Nothing in our current understanding precludes it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Can you explain the laws of logic without appealing to the Biblical worldview?"

    Um. So, first things first... can you explain the laws of logic with appealing to the Biblical worldview? "Because God fucking said so" makes a piss-poor logical framework. It's essentially useless, because even if we presuppose the existence of an omniscient omnipotent giving-us-all-the-answers deity, we still have to use our fallible human intellects to figure out what this magic sky daddy is actually telling us. Even from a strictly theistic viewpoint, we need to have some evaluative mechanism external to God, else we can get nowhere anyways. "Everything God says is perfect and right" buys you jack-shit if you have no rhyme nor reason for figuring out what God is saying.

    Okay, all of that bullshit out of the way, a related and actually-interesting question is, "What is the most parsimonious way you can justify the basic laws of logic?" It's a very interesting question, with arguably the first comprehensive (though quite flawed) attempt mounted by David Hume.

    Bjorn, I have to strongly disagree with your assertion that "existence can['t] be had without logic", because I think "logic" as applied to existence, as fundamental as it may seem, is more of an approximation of macroscopic phenomena -- albeit at an incredibly abstract level, but seeking to model observational reality nonetheless. And I think it is fair to say that "logic" in just about any sense of the word starts to perform poorly as you approach the quantum level of fundamental particles, and it most certainly performs poorly as you approach singularities, in particular the pre-symmetry-breaking singularity circa the Big Bang.

    (Which, by the way, is why logically based arguments for a cause ex nihilo may be hopelessly flawed: Our rules of logic aren't particularly useful or applicable in the picoseconds after the Big Bang, so a logical argument that there must have been an uncaused cause to start it all is likely based on false premises.)

    Why is it that 1+1 is always 2? Well, if you are a fan of Bertrand Russell, you only need to decipher 397 pages of inscrutable squiggles, and you will be rewarded with a rather exacting and specific answer! (And no Jeebus required!!!) Of course, Godel had to go and fuck it all up for the rest of us with his whole incompleteness theorem, but even still... it's a much more satisfying answer than anything in the Bible. Yeesh!

    Why is it that both A and not-A can't be true? Hell, that's just an arbitrary convention of first-order logic. There's a whole world of formal systems out there to challenge that notion, eh?

    Perhaps a more fundamental question is, why are the laws of physics what they are? Nobody really knows the answer to that one, and in fact, a cipher hints at, it could just be that the "reason" is the same as the "reason" why I was born in America, i.e. there are many different possibilities, but any given instantiation has to be bound to one of them.

    There's no fundamental law that makes my street address what it is; that's just where I live. Could be the same for the laws of physics. Or, there could be more to it. Nobody knows. Maybe science will figure it out one day; maybe it won't. But one thing is for damn sure: religion won't figure it out at all, because any fundamental knowledge derived solely from a book, without any observational corroboration, invites an infinite regress problem.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think "logic" as applied to existence, as fundamental as it may seem, is more of an approximation of macroscopic phenomena

    No, I agree. Indeed, as you say, logic breaks down at certain scales and events, and clearly there is existence.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'll merely add that the Buddhists also confronted the problem of infinite regression, and arrived at a conclusion very different from that of Western philosophers and theologians. Their view is that as any phenomenon must have a cause, a creator would also require one, therefore a creator can't exist. In their system, an Unmoved Mover is logically inconsistent. As James points out, cause and effect, which we seek to systematize as "logic", break down at the quantum level and as you approach a singularity, so their answer is no more valid, but it does demonstrate that God's existence isn't a logical necessity, provable by anyone who cares to analyze it without an "atheistic bias". Christians love to bandy about "Existence exists, therefore God", as though it were self-evident. It isn't, and it certainly doesn't follow that "Existence exists, therefore Jesus".

    James, you're correct in that in the end, all they really have is "Because God fucking said so." All the rest is window dressing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Somewhat coincidentally, I've been reading the old collection of Stephen Hawkins essays Black Holes and Baby Universes, where he's arguing against the idea of a literal singularity. In any case, it doesn't make a big difference to this argument, because even though Hawking is arguing that there are no singularities where physical laws break down, our intuitive notions of logic and such still aren't very useful at that scale.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Um. So, first things first... can you explain the laws of logic with appealing to the Biblical worldview?
    ah...the ole sidestepping "tu Quoque" fallacy. "I can't explain it but neither can you!" Actually, within my worldview, I can. I believe that the bible is the end all, be all, instructional, historical document. Genesis says that God created Adam in His image and that we are created in Adam's image. We are given an infintesimally small glimpse into the mind of the Lord. Our mind is created after this mold with logic and reason and senses, etc. God promises that He will uphold these universal laws and characteristics. The fact that you refuse this explanation is irrelevant. The point is that my worldview accounts for these laws. Does yours? How can billions of chemical accidents and mutations result in intangible, universal laws that will be consistent and true for everything that will ever exist in that universe? You have no basis for logic and therefore have no basis for reason. Without reason there is no knowledge and, consequently, no science.

    I think "logic" as applied to existence, as fundamental as it may seem, is more of an approximation of ma....
    This means nothing. A and NOT A will never both be true. Any resonable person would agree with this. Otherwise, on what basis do you make scientific deductions? If there are formal systems that will disprove this simple logic what good is science? You might base an experiment on a set of laws but I could find an inconsistency in the fundamental law making your experiment irrelavent. See, in your worldview, the world has happened by accident with no order or design, so, there couldn't possibly be a uniform and consistent natural world. The laws could change tomorrow. There would be no consistent controls in which to test scientific hypotheses in an ever-changing, evolving universe.

    Perhaps a more fundamental question is, why are the laws of physics what they are? Nobody really knows the answer to that one, and in fact, a cipher hints at, it could just be that the "reason" is the same as the "reason" why I was born in America, i.e. there are many different possibilities, but any given instantiation has to be bound to one of them.
    You've inadvertently (I assume) disproven your entire argument. You don't know because you're worldview doesn't account for it and never will, making it false. You have to assume biblical principles (logic, morality, uniformity in nature, etc) to even argue your worldview. These laws exist because God made them that way and tells us this in the bible; a historical, inerrant document. You were born in America because of a series of choices that many people made over many, many years. These laws of physics could not have been chosen by man or evolved naturally (they are not part of the physical universe). Universal laws have to be set by someone with the authority over the universe.

    religion won't figure it out at all, because any fundamental knowledge derived solely from a book, without any observational corroboration, invites an infinite regress problem.
    No observational corroboration? Look around you! The universe is an infinitely amazing and complex place! There is so much order in the universe that I don't believe that you think it's an accident, in your heart of hearts. A simple cell is infinitely more complex than anything we've ever dreamed of creating. Every part of the universe depends on another part. The closer we look at the smaller and more microscopic, the more complex it gets!

    I base my worldview and belief in the Christian God of the bible. He has given us all an innate sense and this amazing universe around us to prove that He exists. His Word has never been disproven and is the single most descriptive and accurate historical document anywhere. At least I have a book to refer to....what do you have?

    Tommy

    ReplyDelete
  17. His Word has never been disproven and is the single most descriptive and accurate historical document anywhere. At least I have a book to refer to....what do you have?

    Tommy (okay, not really speaking to Tommy here, because my bets are that absolutely nothing anyone anywhere can say will make people who argue the way he does see things from a non-biblical perspective, ever*), the Bible is not inerrant at all. It contradicts itself on several occasions (e.g. the two genealogies of Jesus) and contradicts science all over the place. We, who do not believe the Bible has anything to say about how the natural world came to be, have nature to look at, and the evidence we have gathered from that source so emphatically does too contradict the Bible on how we got here, and what is out there.

    * I mean, just take a look at Tommy's second to last paragraph:

    No observational corroboration? Look around you! The universe is an infinitely amazing and complex place! There is so much order in the universe that I don't believe that you think it's an accident, in your heart of hearts. A simple cell is infinitely more complex than anything we've ever dreamed of creating. Every part of the universe depends on another part. The closer we look at the smaller and more microscopic, the more complex it gets!

    In other words, the Universe is very, very complex and amazing, so therefore the Bible is inerrant. It's so beside the point that it's neither here nor there, really. Making headway with people who argue like this (indeed, who even think this is an argument) is just impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I believe that the bible is the end all, be all, instructional, historical document.

    Tommy, you could have just stopped right there. Everything afterward was irrelevant.

    His Word has never been disproven and is the single most descriptive and accurate historical document anywhere.

    This is incorrect. There are any number of sources available that would demonstrate this for you, if you were at all interested - which you aren't.

    my bets are that absolutely nothing anyone anywhere can say will make people who argue the way he does see things from a non-biblical perspective, ever*)

    Bjørn, you're absolutely right. Their belief is all that matters, to the extent that they are perfectly willing to see everyone else suffer eternally (millions even anticipate it, eagerly). The only thing that matters to them is that they get the ontological security blanket for the few brief decades they're here. It is the most selfish belief system ever devised, masquerading as the least selfish.

    ReplyDelete
  19. ah...the ole sidestepping "tu Quoque" fallacy. "I can't explain it but neither can you!"

    No, it's not a "tu quoque" fallacy in this case, for two reasons:

    First, because you originally challenged us to explain it without appealing to a Biblical worldview, there was a clear implication that you thought you could. And I wanted to hear you try, because I thought it would be quite entertaining.

    Second, I went on to discuss in detail the difficulties of explaining the laws of logic, whether they really require explanation, etcetera. It would only be "tu quoque" if I refused to address the original issue. I was not trying to distract from the original issue -- in fact, eight paragraphs of a nine paragraph post were directed towards the original issue, without any attempt at redirection -- but rather, since your initial statement implied that these difficulties were unique to my worldview, I felt it was important to dispel that implication.

    However, I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time typing this, because you also wrote:

    I believe that the bible is the end all, be all, instructional, historical document.

    Sui generis. Without justification.

    Well that's just retarded. As cipher observed, you could have just stopped right there. And I will too. Have a nice (ignorant) life.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Heh! Argumentum ad retardum!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Claiming God explains the laws of logic presumes the conclusion - that logic can be used to explain its own origin (even if we call that origin "God".) I think we're missing some fundamental point to think that's even a well-framed question, let alone it having an answer.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This is minor Bjorn, you said: "even those who also claim to be able to make the exact same argument based on different scripture, as I am sure both some Jews and Muslims would."

    Actually they would make the same argument all on the same scripture. This part of theology in all three faiths is derived from the same record. Genesis. The philosophical pre-supposition in all three is that an ordered mind, made ordered logic.

    You seem to have a different presupposition in that existence is a result of laws that make up logic, and thus, if God did exist he would be a result of that logic. In your view logic is eternal and self-existent and before (at least the concept of) God. In the other God is eternal and self-existent and before logic. Can this specific issue be decided? Both are pre-suppositions, one based on revealed theology, the other on an assumption that god is fantasy and the idea that logic is just there (meaning there is no history, or change to trace a beginning within it).

    To decide I think one would have to evaluate the supernatural aspect of the Bible and the philosophical proofs for God and decide and their rebuttals and decide after looking at that.

    PS I find the egotism of your whole blog distasteful, it uses ridicule too much, with matters of the intellect, you should not have to resort to an emotional reaction and you should understand the limits of information, so that you can have humility with your conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't care in the least if you find my blog distasteful. Lucky for you you can go elsewhere. Please do.

      Delete
    2. Seriously? You post a comment to a three and a half year-old blog, tell the blog owner you don't care for his tone, then invite him to email you? You're in need of psychiatric help.

      Hey, Bjorn.

      Delete
  23. By the way it is up to you to print this (meaning it is not necessary), but the Matthew, Luke geneology that you mentioned as a contradiction could have one of three answers:
    1) Really is a contradiction
    2) Explained by the brother marries, dead brothers wife, which is described in Jewish law.
    3) Luke's is actually Mary's, while Matthew's is Joseph's. Luke did not call it out, because of the view of women in society. This idea comes from Matthew being concerned for the legal right of Jesus to be the Messiah (comes through the father). Luke is going for nature.

    My point here is two-fold. The pre-supposition decides which you choose above, even though the second two are perfectly rational, especially for someone who believes both Luke and Matthew had access to the same temple records, no one with your world view will choose them. At this point, if I was you, I would think Ockham's Razor. You know Ockham was Christian clergy. That aside Ockham's razor would create havoc when applying it to the nature of light. Wave and particle at the same time, to explain something the physicist is adding too complicated of an explanation, just like the historian to resolve two texts.

    If you haven't figured this out yet, I think on these sort of issues, people typically contend on a level that is after what the real issues are. I am still working on figuring out what the real level is, what can really be known, meaning what are base facts, that are before presupposition and can the really important questions of meaning, purpose, truth and human intimacy be decided with that much information or do choices have to be made. If you would be up for chatting more one on one over email, maybe you convert me to atheism, let me know in a follow up post or if you can see my aol email feel free to email me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the offer, but I am not interested in conversing by email.

      Delete
  24. Amazing, dead men do bleed. lol

    ReplyDelete
  25. You are misrepresenting the author. ha was not his "proof". He wrote an entire book and you are selecting one sentence, pretending it's his whole argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Prove me wrong. What was his argument? Don't say "the whole book" - if it can't be condensed then it means nothing.

      Delete
  26. You should ask for "membership" on the Bible Thumping Wingnut facebook page. See how you fair with the argument in real life. I dare you to try.

    ReplyDelete
  27. If Christian theism is true, then Scripture sufficiently accounts for the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, and objective moral values and duties. That isn't saying that Christian theism is definitely true, it's saying that IF Christian theism is true (i.e. if Scripture is the word of God) it genuinely accounts for the universal laws of logic, the uniformity of nature and objective moral values and duties. (This means that everyone has to agree with the aforesaid premise, since even if Scripture isn't the word of God [which would make Christian theism false] it still sufficiently accounts for the universal laws of logic, the uniformity of nature and objective moral values and duties.) (Moreover, the scientific method is grounded in classical logic. So if you reject philosophical arguments for the existence of God (which are all grounded in classical logic) then you are rejecting classical logic, and therefore rejecting the foundation on which the scientific method is firmly built upon. His point is that Christian theism (from Scripture) accounts for the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, and objective moral values and duties; and specifically that no other worldview in existence has the ability to sufficiently account for those principles of reality, especially naturalism! If naturalism were true, then those principles of reality (for which all naturalists rely upon in order to be genuine scientists) would be impossible. Even if you make the argument that Jews, Christians and Muslims make the same philosophical arguments to prove theism, it means that theism is definitely true (now, it also means that either Islamic Theism, Christian Theism or Jewish Theism is true, or some other theistic god exists) because none of those philosophical arguments can be logically refuted. The foundation for any theistic argument (whether it be Jewish, Christian or Muslim) is irrefutable, not because Judaism, Christianity or Islam are necessarily true, but because theism is definitely true! A lot of atheists cling to the fact that monotheists all make the same arguments, while they don't have any ability to logically refute any neutral theistic argument; because there simply are no refutations of theism that are grounded in classical logic, or any sufficient arguments for atheism or naturalism that are grounded in classical logic, and if you deny classical logic, then you destroy the foundation of empirical science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "the universal laws of logic, the uniformity of nature and objective moral values and duties."

      Where in the Bible does it say anything the laws of logic? I think nowhere. It is just something that theists make up, because God created everything, they infer he created logic too.

      What does "the uniformity of nature" even mean? Doesn't seem like life is very uniform at all. More like extremely diverse.

      In the Bible there are some moral codes, indeed. Many of them are FUBAR. It is full of stories where both God and men do very, very questionable things, and basing objective morals on that goes against what most people today consider to be good.

      "Moreover, the scientific method is grounded in classical logic. So if you reject philosophical arguments for the existence of God (which are all grounded in classical logic) then you are rejecting classical logic, and therefore rejecting the foundation on which the scientific method is firmly built upon."

      No, you're not. Logic does not necessarily come from God. You said that *IF* Christian theism is true, then it accounts for logic - you didn't say that if there is logic then it came from God. Logic fail, ironically.

      Delete
    2. (This is Joshua23)

      Your counter-arguments aren't even count-arguments, you're not actually responding to my actual theistic arguments. Your last count-argument is completely off from what my actual point was. My point was that philosophical arguments for theism are grounded in classical logic, and the scientific method is also grounded in classical logic. There are clearly very valid philosophical arguments for theism or deism (i.e. a Divine Being has to exist, atheism and naturalism are logically impossible), and many naturalistic scientists completely deny these arguments, yet in so doing they are denying classical logic, and are thereby denying the foundation of their own area of expertise! My point wasn't that logical thinking comes from God (even though I believe it does), rather my point was that philosophical arguments for God's existence are grounded in logic, and the scientific method is grounded in logic, therefore if a valid philosophical argument for theism (or deism) is denied, then classical logic is denied, which undercuts the scientific method.

      Delete
    3. you're not actually responding to my actual theistic arguments.

      I'm not rejecting logic. I am rejecting your particular theistic logical arguments.

      Delete
    4. Yes, but your not rejecting them on logical grounds. You're holding on to logic when it's convenient for you (i.e. so that you can do science) but you're rejecting it when it proves theism, which is self-defeating and it undercuts the foundation of science. In order to avoid this you can't merely reject logical theistic arguments without any logical refutations (which is basically all you have done this entire time), but you must rather offer a logical knock-down argument in response to logical theistic arguments. That's basically what I'm asking you to do here, until you do that, you are rejecting the very logic on which your science is an indispensable foundation. (I.e. you're only accepting logic to the extent that it doesn't dismantle your own worldview.)

      Delete
    5. Your arguments do not describe a logical way of thinking. In order for your arguments to hold true, you have to deduce that God exists. You haven't been able to show a set of conclusive evidence driven steps that allow one to deduce God exists. Following your logic, one could replace God with "spaghetti monster" and fully deduce that a spaghetti monster exists.. literally, all one has to do is replace the two words.

      Delete
  28. Here's my argument for the existence of the Christian God.

    If the universe is infinite, then it is necessarily eternal, incorruptible and immutable. (Any infinite being or object is necessarily eternal, incorruptible and immutable.) If the universe is empirically infinite, then this abrogates the necessity of a Divine Being; moreover, if the universe is empirically finite, non-eternal, corruptible and mutable, then it is definitely caused to exist by something ad extra (i.e. something outside of itself, if the universe is finite it couldn't have generated it's own existence). If any one of those things are empirically true, then all of them are definitely true (i.e. if the universe is observably mutable then it's definitely finite, non-eternal, corruptible and mutable). We clearly observe that the universe is gradually expanding, therefore the universe is empirically mutable and finite, because to expand is to change, and only finite objects can expand. (If the universe was infinite, then it would be impossible for the universe to expand any further, because to expand would contradict what it means to be infinite; the gradual expansion of the universe proves that there is always a measure of unfilled space that the universe doesn't currently fill, and this unfilled space is the omnipresence of God.) So from the expansion of the universe we know that the universe is a finite and mutable object. The universal law of entropy easily proves the non-eternality and corruptibility of the universe, because the law of entropy is simply stating that the universe is corruptible, and any corruptible object can't be eternal, but must have begun to exist a finite time ago. Therefore from the expansion of the universe and the law of entropy the universe is empirically finite, non-eternal, corruptible and mutable; therefore the existence of the universe must have been caused to exist by something ad extra. Now again the universe is a contingent object (it can't generate it's own existence because it's empirically finite) and there can't be an infinite regress of contingent objects generating each others existence, otherwise nothing would exist at all. Now, the existence of the universe must have been caused by an infinite, eternal, incorruptible, immutable, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient Being, which is the same as a Divine Being (because Divinity is independence from contingent or finite objects). Therefore a Diving Being definitely exists; polytheism is impossible because a Divine Being is necessarily infinite, and you can't have more than one infinite being or object, therefore theism is definitely true and polytheism is definitely false. Now, a Divine Being (who possess infinitude, eternality, incorruptibility, immutability, omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience) definitely exists. This Divine Being must also be infinite in holiness, because the holiness of God is the surpassing worth of His excellence infinitely above all else in existence, and since He is the only Divine Being (the only infinite Being) and all things else in existence are finite, then His infinite excellence above finite things must necessarily be infinite, therefore the Divine Being who definitely exists is infinitely holy. So we have an infinite, eternal, incorruptible, immutable, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, infinitely holy God who definitely exists, namely the Christian God (because the God who definitely exists is only found in the Old and New Testaments). To deny this would be to deny classical logic, and to deny that would be to deny the foundation of empirical science itself. So you can deny classical logic in philosophy and not deny classical logic in empirical science, but they are the same exact thing, which makes it a self-contradiction, and therefore makes atheism inherently irrational and impossible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My life is less holy for having read your immutable nonsense.

      Delete
    2. I have an idea, I think this is a good and beneficial idea. I will give you a theistic argument using philosophical logic, and you can refute the argument using philosophical logic. I believe that this is fair and objective. Plus this way you won't have to slash away at straw men; I'm giving you the opportunity to take my argument as I present it and give a solid knock-down argument against it; I'm basically letting you dismantle my argument (provided that you don't slash at straw men and actually respond to my argument as I actually present it).

      Delete
    3. First, I'm going to define my terms. I primarily have one term to define. The main term is 'contingent.' This term could be rendered as 'dependent upon'; throughout this argument I will use the term 'contingent objects;' for an object to be contingent means that it can't generate its own existence. If an object is genuinely contingent, then its own existence must be caused to exist via something ad extra (that is, something outside of itself, since it clearly can't generate its own existence). (So far, we would both agree; if an object is genuinely contingent, then it cannot generate its own existence, but must be caused to exist via something ad extra.) Now we must understand how an object would be universally classified as a contingent object (universally meaning among people who think logically or rationally.) An object's contingency is grounded in its finitude, if an object is empirically finite, it is undeniably contingent (and therefore must be caused to exist via something ad extra). (So far, we would agree, because clearly finite objects are contingent objects, and therefore cannot generate their own existence.) Now we must understand how an object is universally classified (among logical and rational thinkers) as a finite object. The finitude of an object is grounded in its empirical non-eternality, corruptibility and mutability. All of these attributes are inextricably linked, which means that if one of them is empirically true of an object, then all of them are definitely true of that object; likewise, if one of them is empirically false of an object, then all of them are definitely false of that object. (E.g. if an object was empirically mutable, then it's definitely non-eternal, corruptible, finite and contingent; and all of these are perfectly interchangeable.) Now that we know what contingent objects are (and how they are classified as such; and I hope we would both agree thus far), let us suppose that every object in existence is a contingent object. We have already undeniably maintained that contingent objects cannot generate their own existence; but contingent object could theoretically generate the existence of each other. However, this process of contingent objects generating each other could not extend into the past, otherwise nothing that we see now would exist. The reason for this is self-evident, namely, because contingent objects all had a point where they previously didn't exist, and they cannot generate their own existence, therefore it is completely impossible for every object to be contingent. Since it is self-evident that certain things exist, then it is impossible for everything in existence to be contingent. (Again, I hope we would agree thus far.) Now, the only supposed termination of this infinite regress (apart from the existence of a Divine Being) is to say that the universe is not a contingent object, but exists of its own necessity, and is the uncaused cause of everything else in existence. If this were true (if the universe were not contingent) then it would necessarily be infinite, eternal, incorruptible and immutable. (Again, I would hope that we would both agree thus far.) Let's see what the second law of thermodynamics has to say about the supposed non-contingency of the universe. The second law states that the universe is finite, non-eternal, corruptible and mutable; the second law of thermodynamics proves that the universe is undeniably contingent. The law states that all things in existence wear down over time, making it infinitely impossible for the the universe to be immutable (because to wear down is to be mutable), incorruptible (because to wear down is to be corruptible), eternal (because to wear down is to be non-eternal; it's impossible for the universe to have been wearing down from all eternity), or infinite (because to wear down is to be finite).

      Delete
    4. Therefore the universe is empirically contingent (again, I hope we would both agree thus far), and it therefore cannot generate its own existence, but must be caused to exist via something ad extra. Now we must understand what the necessary attributes of the cause of the universe would be. First, I would submit that the cause of the universe is necessarily a living Being, and could not possibly be non-living matter. I believe this because of the law of biogenesis, which states that life (i.e. organisms which are beings) cannot come from non-life, but can only come from life (which means that the original cause of the universe must be a living Being; because you are either a living Being or non-living matter, since it is impossible for life to come from non-life, [because of the law of biogenesis; and Louis Pasteur said to my delight: "La génération spontanée est une chimère" (Spontaneous generation is a dream), and I would go further to say that spontaneous generation is a childish hallucination.] therefore the cause of the universe is a living Being. Now, we must understand the necessary attributes of this living Being (who definitely exists); since He is not a contingent being, He must be infinite, eternal, incorruptible and immutable. Therefore the necessary cause of the empirically contingent universe is an infinite, eternal, incorruptible, immutable, living Being; this is what is meant by divinity (in other words, this is what is meant by the phrase, God) therefore God definitely exists; there is no rational, logical or scientific way around theism.

      Delete
    5. Final thought, polytheism is impossible because to be divine you must be infinite, and you can't have more than one infinite being or object existing at the same time, polytheism and atheism are both impossible, and theism is infinitely definite.

      Delete
    6. to be divine you must be infinite

      How do you know this?

      Delete
    7. An infinite Being is a Divine Being. I already explained why that is true.

      Delete
    8. My argument is that an infinite, eternal, incorruptible, immutable, living Being definitely exists, which is what is meant by God. Divinity means the state of being God. Those attributes achieve divine-status.

      Delete
    9. So far, we would agree, because clearly finite objects are contingent objects, and therefore cannot generate their own existence.

      I do not agree. There are finite objects that do not need to an external cause. They can be spontaneously generated. The universe is in fact thought to be one such object (by physicists). Elementary particles can also spontaneously appear in a vacuum.
      (And so I feel I don't need to read on after that sentence, since it is a premise for the rest.)

      Delete
    10. since it is impossible for life to come from non-life

      The law of biogenesis is wrong. Life can most certainly come from non-life. Start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg

      Delete
    11. I'm unsubscribing from this thread. Every couple of years, a lunatic stumbles upon it and is convinced s/he has the ultimate, definitive argument. I don't need to read any more of their psychotic ravings.

      Nor do I need to retake Theology 101 each and every time I encounter one of these characters online, yet each and every time I encounter one of them, that is precisely what s/he expects me to do.

      I'm walking away. Bjørn, I recommend you do the same. Remember the conversation we had a few years ago about the utter futility of arguing with or debating these people?

      Delete
    12. polytheism is impossible because a Divine Being is necessarily infinite, and you can't have more than one infinite being or object, therefore theism is definitely true and polytheism is definitely false.

      Haha! You're making this shit up as you go along. I can do it too:

      You can at most have one infinite being or object at any one time, so if there exists an infinite being or object, then there is no room for any additional finite beings or objects. Since we know that there are finite beings and objects, there therefore exists no infinite object or being.

      \o/

      Delete
    13. This will be my last response to what you responded with (as Cipher got really upset; keep in mind I'm not trying to force you to embrace theism, I was trying to have a genuine discussion with logical arguments on both sides, I'm sorry that Cipher was so upset, but he didn't actually respond with any logical arguments, which is all that I was looking for, not illogical, emotionally-charged responses). Anyway, you seem to have responded with two counter-arguments. First, you claimed that finite objects cannot co-exist with an infinite being or object. Second, you claimed that the law of biogenesis is wrong. I will respond to these and I suppose that will be it for me (you're welcome to continue to dismantle my arguments, I was actually interested in doing that, but if you are finished then I will be to, after this).

      First, certainly an infinite Being can coexist with an enormous amount of finite objects! The Divine Being who definitely exists is omnipresent (since it is manifest that He has a certain amount of presence, and since He is infinite, He must have an infinite degree of presence, which means He must be omnipresent), and invisible (i.e. incorporeal, spiritual and not physical), therefore any amount of finite objects can coincide and co-exist with an infinite Being; it is certainly at least plausible and possible for finite, corporeal objects to co-exist with an infinite, incorporeal Being.

      Second, you deny the reality of the law of biogenesis; yet this law hasn't been proven wrong in the present or the past; moreover, it has only been proven right in the present and the past (hence why it's called a 'law'). The notion that life can come from non-life is simply an unprovable (and impossible) speculation, it's not grounded in empirical science, it has absolutely nothing to do with empirical science. Just because physicists 'think' that the universe popped into existence out of nothing doesn't mean that it's actually a scientifically grounded claim; (it's just a childish hallucination that happens to be claimed by scientists who also don't want God to exist) when in fact it's actually a completely unprovable scientific claim, and rightly so because it contradicts the law of biogenesis. Again, if you're interested we can continue this discussion, but you certainly don't have to. Keep in mind that you've offered no genuine scientifically, logically or rationally valid refutation of any part of my argument. Because spontaneous generation is a dream; you said so yourself: "They (finite objects, the universe) can be spontaneously generated. The universe is in fact thought to be one such object (by physicists)." The key-word there is 'thought' because physicists think that the universe popped into existence out of nothing, but this isn't grounded in anything remotely scientific; it just proceeds from their own unscientific imaginations.

      Delete
    14. The Divine Being who definitely exists is omnipresent, and invisible, therefore any amount of finite objects can coincide and co-exist with an infinite Being

      Where does this come from? You are just stating it. I can state this with equal validity:

      The first infinite being is omnipresent and invisible, there any amount of infinite object/beings can coincide and co-exist with the first infinite being.

      2: You clearly know nothing about the current research on abiogenesis. You speak in these absolutes as if what you say is necessarily correct. Abiogenesis is not unprovable. It is unproven, but that is not the same.

      Just because physicists 'think' that the universe popped into existence out of nothing doesn't mean that it's actually a scientifically grounded claim

      No, not just because they think it, but because the theory shows it is possible.

      it's just a childish hallucination that happens to be claimed by scientists who also don't want God to exist

      You are the one with childish hallucinations, sir.

      Keep in mind that you've offered no genuine scientifically, logically or rationally valid refutation of any part of my argument.

      Yes I have!

      1. Elementary particles can spontaneously appear in a vacuum. (That's science and it refutes your claim that finite objects must have an external cause.)
      2. There are finite objects that do not need to an external cause. (That refutes one of your premises and dismantles the rest of the argumentation.)
      3. You can at most have one infinite being or object at any one time... (This argument goes to show that I can argue the opposite of what you do with equal validity.)

      P.S. This is my blog. You don't need to tell me what I can or have to do here, or how I should respond.

      Delete
    15. Thank you for actually giving some form of counter-argument! (Again I'm trying to have a logically grounded back and forth discussion.)

      "Abiogenesis is not unprovable. It is unproven, but that is not the same."

      So you admit that abiogenesis is unproven, which means that the law of biogenesis is the only tenable alternative. Since the law of biogenesis is fully tenable (and abiogenesis is completely unproven, only thought to be true by scienceless speculation) then it seems to me that the existence of a Divine Being is fully tenable.

      1. "Elementary particles can spontaneously appear in a vacuum." True enough, but those particles aren't popping into existence out of nothing, but rather out of empty space, which is something. Since those particles are popping into existence out of something (namely, empty space) then it doesn't even remotely refute the premise that finite objects must have an external cause.

      2. Since your first refutation was false and untenable (because elementary particles pop into existence out of something (namely, empty space); if empty particles popped into existence out of nothing then abiogenesis would be true, and God wouldn't exist, but empty space is something, not nothing) then your second counter argument is equally untenable, and my argument remains tenable.

      3. I think this means that you would agree that you can only have one infinite being or object at one time; but I have maintained infinitude, eternality, incorruptibility and immutability are attributes that are all inextricably linked. It seems to me that this premise is irrefutable, which necessarily means that there is only one infinite being in existence from eternity, which I have argued is God.

      Delete
    16. 1. Elementary particles can spontaneously appear in a vacuum. (That's science and it refutes your claim that finite objects must have an external cause.)

      This is science, true enough, but the particles don’t pop in and out of existence out of nothing, but rather out of something, which is empty space. Since empty space is clearly something (and not nothing, which doesn’t exist) then this supposed refutation just proves my own premise, because finite objects (namely, elementary particles) need an external cause (namely, empty space, rather than nothing).

      2. There are finite objects that do not need to an external cause. (That refutes one of your premises and dismantles the rest of the argumentation.)

      Your second premise is contingent upon the tenability of your first premise. Your first premise is scientifically valid, but it only coincides with upholding the premise that finite objects need an external cause (namely, empty space, which is something). Therefore your second premise is untenable, and the premise that finite objects need an external cause stands.

      3. You can at most have one infinite being or object at any one time... (This argument goes to show that I can argue the opposite of what you do with equal validity.)

      On this we would agree, but I have maintained that infinitude, eternality, incorruptibility and immutability are inextricably linked; which means that there must be one infinite, incorruptible and immutable Being (because of the fully tenable law of biogenesis) existing from eternity.

      Alright man, I have a baseball game to get to. I'm genuinely enjoying this by the way.

      Delete
    17. So you admit that abiogenesis is unproven, which means that the law of biogenesis is the only tenable alternative. Since the law of biogenesis is fully tenable (and abiogenesis is completely unproven, only thought to be true by scienceless speculation) then it seems to me that the existence of a Divine Being is fully tenable.

      It is not "scienceless speculation". It is science based on what we know of biochemistry and thermodynamics. It is yet unproven, for sure, but that does not mean that it isn't possible. Your is a God-of-the-gaps kind of argument.

      What seems to you is on your own account. Again, see this video which explains how far we are in understanding abiogenesis. There is not much point in making philosophical arguments that rule out what science deems possible. The same went for the spherical Earth, the heliocentric system, evolution by mutation and selection, etc.

      Alright man, I have a baseball game to get to. I'm genuinely enjoying this by the way.

      Why are you enjoying it? You are not going to convince anyone who isn't a diehard Christian in the first place. Your logic is based on claims and premises that most people will not agree with. Sophistry.

      Delete
    18. "It (abiogenesis) is yet unproven, for sure."

      If abiogenesis is completely unproven, then it isn't tenable. If it's unproven then it is completely unproven, which means it's untenable and implausible.

      If biogenesis is completely proven, (which it is; there hasn't been anything in the history of science that has refuted the law of biogenesis) then it is tenable. That isn't God-of-the-gaps, that's drawing theistic conclusions based upon the best available scientific evidence! You slander a theist for saying, "Well, the universe has a cause, therefore God did it!" But the necessary attributes of the first cause would be the same exact thing as God! Let's just assume that abiogenesis is totally false and biogenesis is totally true; this would imply that the first cause of the universe is an infinite, eternal, incorruptible, immutable, living Being. That's not God-of-the-gaps, that's using science to show that theism is tenable and at the very least is incredibly plausible.

      "There is not much point in making philosophical arguments that rule out what science deems possible."

      I don't think a shred of my arguments have ruled out what science deems possible. Now, it may rule out what scientists want to be true in order to avoid theism, namely, the unproven idea of abiogenesis, but that doesn't make it a tenable idea, and it certainly doesn't contradict what science deems possible, because science (insofar as we currently know) deems biogenesis as a universal law; so that just isn't even true. Plus, I talked about the second law of thermodynamics, which easily proves that the universe has a cause, for which I argue is God.

      "Why are you enjoying it?"

      I enjoy studying and writing about theology, philosophy and science.

      "You are not going to convince anyone who isn't a diehard Christian in the first place."

      You may be right on this one, but I still believe Christianity is true. I also think my arguments are still irrefutable, (at least as of right now; especially in defense of straight theism) which, even if it doesn't convince people that theism is true, it's still interesting and worth writing about.

      "Your logic is based on claims and premises that most people will not agree with."

      I think you haven't agreed with my premises not because they are logically or scientifically incoherent, but because you don't want to admit that they're true because you don't want theism to be true. You haven't actually scientifically refuted the law of biogenesis, or proven that abiogenesis is possible, or sufficiently showed that finite objects don't need an external cause (which they do, and you're example of elementary particles popping into existence out of empty space only proves that premise, because empty space is something), so I feel like there isn't any genuine reason why you shouldn't agree with the premises that I've given, because they are fully tenable both logically and scientifically. It seems to me that the essence of sophistry is denying tenable arguments, or twisting scientific evidence to try to dismantle tenable arguments, which is what you have done with pretending that abiogenesis is scientifically proven or tenable, and that elementary particles popping into existence out of empty space contradicts my aforesaid premise, when in fact it only coincides with that premise!

      Delete
    19. which is what you have done with pretending that abiogenesis is scientifically proven or tenable,

      I have not said it is proven. Go back and read again and stop putting words in my mouth.

      That it isn't yet proven (i.e., that there isn't a lot of evidence for it yet) does emphatically not rule out that abiogenesis can occur. That position is equivalent to saying prior to Copernicus that the Earth has not been proven not to be the center of the universe, so therefore it must be the center of the universe.

      Fathom this: scientists are working on understanding a natural origin of life. Chemists and biochemists are devoting their careers to this, and they have learned a lot (did you watch the video yet?). They are not sure how it can be done yet, but they have only worked on it for a short amount of time. Gerald Joyce. Tom Cech. Jack Szostak. Jim Cleaves. Lee Cronin. Dieter Schinzer.

      Delete
    20. Even so, it's still unproven. Sorry for that sentence that you mentioned, you were right, it was an unwarranted straw-man response on my part, I apologize, but it still doesn't dismantle my force of argument. There are two scenarios of possibility in my head, and we should see how they both work--

      1. Abiogenesis is not yet proven (but may someday be proven)--

      This is what you hold, (and what I hold to some extent; if abiogenesis is actually genuinely proven then I will accept it, but I don't believe that it will ever be genuinely proven, and it certainly hasn't been proven in any degree to date) and this causes theism to be vastly more plausible than atheism. If abiogenesis is yet unproven, then at the very least you have to admit that theism is more plausible than atheism.

      2. Abiogenesis is not yet proven, and will never be proven because it's impossible.

      This is what I currently think is the case (although if there was genuine proof for abiogenesis than I would embrace it); now let's just assume that this is true. If this is true, then not only is theism the most plausible alternative (as it would be if only the first scenario were true), but theism would be definite. I feel like you have to concede to that, if abiogenesis is definitely not true, then theism is definitely true; and if the law of biogenesis is definitely true, then theism is definitely true. The burden of proof is very much on the case of atheism, because it's logically and scientifically untenable; whereas theism is logically and scientifically tenable; and again is abiogenesis is false, then theism is definitely true.

      Delete
    21. If there someday arises proof for abiogenesis, then the universe could have just popped into existence out of nothing, therefore the attributes of the cause would be abrogated.

      If it turns out that the law of biogenesis is true, then the universe was caused to exist by an infinite, eternal, incorruptible, immutable, living Being.

      I feel like you have to agree with this.

      Delete
    22. "So you admit that abiogenesis is unproven, which means that the law of biogenesis is the only tenable alternative"

      This is called the God of the Gaps argument: we don't have the answer to X, therefor, God is the answer to X.

      I was hoping for something a little more interesting than a bunch of old logical fallacies (I was hoping for new ones), but this is too strenuous to continue. Once they God of the Gaps, I never go back.

      Delete
    23. I think you haven't agreed with my premises not because they are logically or scientifically incoherent, but because you don't want to admit that they're true because you don't want theism to be true.

      I'm no longer receiving updates, but I looked in here one last time out of curiosity. Your characterization of me as "emotionally-charged" is both pathetic and predictable. I'm not emotional at all; I'm simply contemptuous of you and your obscene, abominable theology. I am not interested in countering your arguments. I refuse to waste my time arguing with imbeciles and lunatics; years of repeated experience have convinced me of its pointlessness.

      Your statement above is a textbook example of projection. To the contrary, it is you who are terrified of having theism disproved, because you want so desperately for it to be true, so you cobble together these ridiculously convoluted arguments from medieval theology and talking points gleaned from your pastors and other authority figures. You're a stereotypical example of the conservative Christian personality. Naturally, there is no way in which this can be explained to you.

      You're operating at the developmental level of a child, coupled with pathologically low self-esteem and, if recent experimental data is a reliable indicator (and it appears to be), you're genetically programmed for authoritarianism, to see the world in terms of rigidly defined hierarchical structures of authority. Of course, there is no way in which any of this can be explained to you, either.

      Again, Bjørn, this is the reason I told you, four years ago, that there is absolutely no point in attempting to engage these people at any level. They cannot be reasoned with; they can only be managed. This is not, for the most part, the result of early childhood indoctrination. It is a congenital psychopathy.

      Delete
    24. 1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics

      The second law of thermodynamics proves that the universe is finite, non-eternal, corruptible, mutable and contingent. Moreover, there is an inextricable link between the attributes of infinitude, eternality, incorruptibility and immutability; if one of those attributes are empirically true of something, then all of them are definitely true of that something. How is this gleaned from medieval philosophy?

      2. The Necessity of Efficient Causes

      This premise coincides within every ounce of empirical science in our own day. Every finite object needs an efficient cause. (Elementary particles popping into existence in a vacuum coincides with this premise, because they are popping out of something rather than nothing.) Since the universe is empirically finite, then it needs an efficient cause; and again these causes couldn’t all be finite, otherwise there would be an infinite regress of contingency and nothing would exist. So we can maintain thus far that the universe needs an efficient first cause.

      3. Abiogenesis or the Law of Biogenesis

      First, abiogenesis (the universe (and the life it contains) coming from non-living matter) has been unproven as of late (although it may yet be proven). Second, let’s suppose that abiogenesis was possible and was indeed the first cause of the universe. We have already maintained that there needs to be an efficient first cause of the universe, without any other causes preceding it. If the premise that life can only come from life (again, how is the law of biogenesis gleaned from medieval philosophy?) is true, then the first Cause would have to be a living Being; however, if the premise that life can come from non-living matter was true, then theism would be false. Now let’s suppose that the universe was caused to exist by non-living matter. What would be the composition of this matter? Well, since it’s the efficient cause of the universe, then the non-living matter would have to be eternal. Since the non-living matter would have to be eternal, it would have to be infinite, eternal, incorruptible and immutable. Since all matter takes up space, and this particular matter is infinite, then it would have to take up an infinite amount of space. So if abiogenesis was the first cause of the universe, then physical non-living matter would have always filled the universe from the beginning of time. Since the universe couldn’t have popped into existence out of nothing (because empty space is something and therefore doesn’t contradict the need for finite objects to have an external cause) and non-living matter certainly couldn’t have brought the universe into existence, then the first Cause of the universe is a living Being. Moreover, He would have to be an infinite, eternal, incorruptible, immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, living Being.

      These premises are all grounded in empirical science that are still fully tenable in our own day. This isn’t a defense of Christian Theism, it’s just a defense of theism in general. Sorry for assuming that your assault upon my character without any logical or scientific counter-arguments isn’t an emotionally-charged rant. Theism in general is definitely true, it’s so obvious and irrefutable. There is nothing that you (or anyone) has said that even begins to sufficiently refute any of the premises for straight theism.

      However, if I knew that Christianity was false, then I would not believe it, nor would I want to believe it. Here’s what you can do, you can show me how the second law of thermodynamics, the necessity of efficient causes for finite objects and the law of biogenesis are gleanings from medieval philosophy.

      Moreover, you can show me how any one of those premises are not firm empirically-drenched principles of reality. Or you could explain how the physical non-living matter that would have filled the universe since the beginning of time is still the sufficient first cause of the universe.

      Delete
  29. Theism accounts for the evidence of reality, atheism doesn't account for the evidence of reality. You've already admitted that in your previously responses. Just saying that "Christian theism proves nothing" after previously admitting that (even if it isn't true it) sufficiently accounts for the evidence of reality, while you've equally admitted that atheism doesn't sufficiently account for the evidence of reality, and actually sufficiently contradicts the evidence of reality, you're just making self-refuting arguments that are filled with fundamental contradictions, you're own worldview contradicts the fundamental principles of science.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Joshua,

    1. Your comments are a lot of semantic hoop-jumping gleaned from medieval philosophy. Really, it's just a word salad, although I'm sure you get a lot of validation from your Christian friends and authority figures.

    2. You don't understand the relevant science well enough (apparently, not at all) to use it to arrive at the conclusions at which you have.

    3. Even if the above two statements were incorrect, you've followed the predictable conservative Christian party line: "The universe must have been created, therefore Jesus!" Your argument involving "holiness" is just pitiful, and reflects your level of self-esteem and the ideas with which you've been indoctrinated more than it does any sort of divine revelation.

    You've done what conservative Christians always do; you began with a set of a priori conclusions and designed your arguments to support them. You stuck a dart in the wall, drew a target around it and declared, "Bull's eye!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cipher

      Your welcome to knock down my actual argument rather than just say that it's pitiful without any rational, logical or scientific responses. If God exists, then it follows that He is an infinite Being, and if He has any excellence, then He must necessarily have an infinite degree of excellence, the holiness of God is the surpassing worth of His excellence infinitely above all else in existence, therefore, if theism is true, then God would be infinitely holy. Calling that pitiful just exposes your own ignorance to rational thinking when it's inconvenient for your own worldview (I.e. when it proves that theism is true.) Again, you're welxome to knock down my arguments with rational responses. (Joshua23 again)

      Delete
  31. Problem: it sounds like you are making assertions that aren't backed up. E.g. If god exists then he must be infinite. No, that does not follow.

    Also, you have confused infinite with the idea of it including every imaginable option. Not so. If I roll two dice an infinite number of times, how often will they come up 13? Zero. Because the same rules apply to each instance equally.

    A god is not a necessary part of a universe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This doesn't make sense, and it doesn't coincide with any part of my force of argument. My argument was that the universe is empirically finite and contingent and therefore cannot pop into existence out of nothing (because of the law of biogenesis; unless it is someday disproven, in which case my whole argument falls on its head, but since biogenesis is universally considered a law, and abiogenesis is completely unproven, then my whole argument is fully tenable), and since everything in existence cannot be contingent (otherwise nothing that we see would exist, and since things clearly exist, then the first Cause of the universe can't be contingent either; first, the first Cause of the universe would have to be a living Being (because of the law of biogenesis), and since He isn't contingent, He would be the opposite of finite (namely, infinite), the opposite of non-eternal (namely, eternal) the opposite of corruptible (namely, incorruptible) the opposite of mutable (namely, immutable). He would also have to be omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient; since He is the first Cause of the universe, then He exists, He is powerful, and He has knowledge, since He is an infinite Being then His existence must be infinite (omnipresence), His power must be infinite (omnipotence) and His knowledge must be infinite (omniscience). These attributes are all ascribed to the God of the Hebrews and the Christians in the Old and New Testaments.

      Delete
    2. I fail to see how the "law of biogenesis" applies to the universe. The universe isn't a living entity. Did you really just confuse the two? Oy.

      Delete
    3. Jai Dayal, I'll respond to your self-refuting counter-arguments in order.

      First, with this ludicrous idea of the flying spaghetti monster. Listen, I have proved (and empirical science affirms, because of the second of thermodynamics) that the universe is finite and contingent, and there can't be an infinite regress of contingent objects generating the existence of each other into the past ad infinitum, otherwise nothing that we see now would exist. Since it is clearly manifest that certain things exist, then there must be a first Cause of the (empirically contingent) universe that is not contingent. Since this first Cause is not contingent, then it would be infinite, eternal, incorruptible, immutable; moreover, since the universe consists of life and non-life, of organisms and matter, then this first Cause would have to be a living Being, He would have to be the Cause of organisms and matter. So the first Cause would have to be an infinite, eternal, incorruptible, immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, living Being. (The law of biogenesis applies to the universe because the universe contains living entities, and even the non-living matter of the universe needs an external Cause, because since it's finite and contingent it cannot generate its own existence.) Now, you claim that you can just terminate the infinite regress of contingency with any phrase you like, such as, "flying spaghetti monster" or an "infinite regress of turtles," but both of these examples (along with any other example except for an infinite, eternal, incorruptible, immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient Being) are both logically and scientifically impossible. Flying spaghetti monsters are finite, non-eternal, corruptible, mutable and contingent. That is so ridiculously obvious that flying spaghetti monsters wouldn't be able to be the first Cause of the universe, because (even if they existed) they clearly are contingent objects, which therefore makes it scientifically and logically impossible, because in order to terminate the infinite regress you have to specifically be a 'non-contingent Being.' You can't have an infinite regress of turtles for two reasons. First, if there was an infinite regress of anything (in this case turtles) then nothing that we see would exist. Without terminating the infinite regress of contingency, then nothing would exist; but since it's obvious that things exist, then there must be a first Cause that isn't contingent, namely, an infinite, eternal, incorruptible, immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, living Being. Again every finite contingent object needs an efficient Cause, whether it be living organisms or non-living matter, since the universe contains both living organisms and non-living matter, then it needs an efficient Cause that is a living Being; since there is some measure of living organisms in the universe, and they are all finite and contingent, then they need a first Cause who is a living Being.

      Delete
  32. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Joshua23:
    >" My argument was that the universe is empirically finite and contingent and therefore cannot pop into existence out of nothing"
    Nobody knows if the universe is finite, the product of chance, or if it came from "nothing". As it appears to include time in its core components, it is possible that the concept of "before" does not apply.
    >"(because of the law of biogenesis)" "the first cause would have to be a living being"
    There is no such standing law.
    >"and since everything in existence cannot be contingent
    We don't know that. It's a false assumption.
    >"and since He isn't contingent"
    Nonsensical. You're employing circular reasoning. You employ a non-existent lawof biogenesis and then claim that your creator came into being without a living progenitor.
    >"He would be the opposite of finite (namely, infinite), the opposite of non-eternal (namely, eternal) the opposite of corruptible (namely, incorruptible) the opposite of mutable (namely, immutable)" "He would also have to be omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient; since He is the first Cause of the universe" etc.
    This is really just a wish list. None of these things are required for a cause of the universe (not that a cause is required either)
    >"These attributes are all ascribed to the God of the Hebrews and the Christians in the Old and New Testaments
    So? I can also ascribe them to the rubber ducky in my bath tub. That does not make it so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Nobody knows if the universe is finite.”

      The second law of thermodynamics proves that the universe is finite, non-eternal, corruptible, mutable and contingent. Objects wear down over time; to wear down over time is to be finite. To wear down over time is to be non-eternal (because it’s impossible for the universe to have been wearing down from eternity). To wear down over time is to be corruptible. To wear down over time is to be mutable. Therefore the universe is contingent. Empirical science proves that the universe is finite because the second law of thermodynamics proves that the universe is finite; those who are willing to embrace good empirical science (namely, the second law of thermodynamics) will agree that the universe is finite and contingent. Therefore the universe is empirically contingent; as such, it cannot generate its own existence, but must be caused to exist via something ad extra.

      “There is no such standing law (of biogenesis).”

      Contingent objects can’t pop into existence out of nothing because abiogenesis is completely unproven, and biogenesis is considered a law of nature by empirical science. Moreover, even if you make the unprovable assertion that the universe came from non-living matter (rather than, out of nothing; which is impossible because nothing doesn’t exist) the non-living matter would have to be eternal, and therefore infinite, incorruptible, and immutable, and since matter is corporeal and physical, then it’s just absolutely impossible for the universe to have come about that way; if abiogenesis were true, then the physical corporeal non-living matter would be omnipresent and fill the universe; since eternal, physical non-living matter isn’t currently filling the universe, (which is clearly manifest when you wave your hand in empty space) then it’s altogether impossible. In short, the law of biogenesis hasn’t even come anywhere close to being sufficiently refuted, therefore it is a standing law. Moreover, if the universe came from non-living matter, then that matter would have to be infinite, eternal, incorruptible and immutable; and since eternal physical matter isn’t currently filling the universe (since we are enabled to exist and walk around) then it’s clearly impossible for the universe to have popped into existence out of nothing or to have been brought about by abiogenesis.

      Delete
    2. “We don’t know that (not everything can be contingent). It’s a false assumption.”

      It is clearly manifest that the universe is empirically contingent (because of the second law of thermodynamics). As such, the universe couldn’t have generated its own existence or been caused by non-living physical matter (which if that was true would be currently filling the universe). If everything in existence was contingent, then nothing would exist, therefore it isn’t a false assumption, but rather is grounded in empirically-drenched principles of reality. Since things clearly exist, then not everything can be contingent. Now, to be non-contingent you must be non-finite, therefore you must be infinite and eternal. Since you can’t have more than one infinite and eternal being or object existing ever, then there is only one infinite being or object in existence. Now, life can only come from life, therefore the first Cause of the universe would have to be a living Being, because the only alternative is non-living matter; since the first Cause couldn’t be non-living matter (even if abiogenesis was possible, because if the universe came from non-living matter then eternal, physical non-living matter would be currently filling the universe) then the first Cause is definitely a living Being (because the universe contains living organisms and non-living matter). Again, the first Cause would have to be an infinite, eternal, incorruptible, immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient living Being.

      “So? I can also ascribe them to the rubber ducky in my bathtub. That does not make it so.”

      The necessary attributes of the first Cause of the universe is a perfect reflection of the God described in Scripture; each of those necessary attributes are all attributes that are ascribed to God in Scripture. You say, you could ascribe those attributes to the rubber ducky in your bathtub. Well wait a minute. The rubber ducky in your bathtub is finite, non-eternal, corruptible, mutable and contingent, so you couldn’t really ascribed the necessary attributes of the first Cause to a rubber ducky; and you’re right, just ascribing those attributes to a rubber ducky doesn’t make your rubber ducky an infinite, eternal, incorruptible, immutable, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, living Being. But (as was clearly shown) the aforementioned Being definitely exists, and He is described with these same exact attributes in the Old and New Testaments.

      Delete
  34. joshua23:
    >"The second law of thermodynamics proves that the universe is finite, non-eternal, corruptible, mutable and contingent. Objects wear down over time; to wear down over time is to be finite. To wear down over time is to be non-eternal (because it’s impossible for the universe to have been wearing down from eternity)," etc.
    False. You are confusing (I don't know if it is deliberate) the cosmological formations of matter and energy as 'corruption' (you haven't really defined that). That is not "the universe", that is 'the stuff within the universe that we can detect at this time. There is no evidence of the universe itself 'corrupting' nor 'decaying'. In fact, even if the universe is forever going to expand, and all matter in it suffers an eventual heat death, the individual components of it may still be eternal (for whatever that means) or time may cease to have meaning as the 4th dimension expands. The simple answer is: we don't know. Anyone who says otherwise is fooling themselves.
    >"Contingent objects can’t pop into existence out of nothing because abiogenesis is completely unproven, and biogenesis is considered a law of nature by empirical science. Moreover, even if you make the unprovable assertion that the universe came from non-living matter (rather than, out of nothing; which is impossible because nothing doesn’t exist)," etc.
    Again, false. There is zero understanding of what occurred 'prior' to the big bang (if time even applies), we do not know. Biogenesis is not a law, even if you state that it is. And life didn't 'pop into existence', that's a gross oversimplification of abiogenesis to the point of being a fallacy. The evidence strongly points to abiogenesis as the origin of life on Earth. We've come a very long way into understanding how it may have happened, and the evidence is backing up our theories. Additionally, gods, such as the god of the Jews, do not fit the definition of 'life' from a biological standpoint, so to attempt to use one as an excuse to kickstart biogenesis is illogical. (I suppose Zeus, at least, did it the old fashioned way)
    >"It is clearly manifest that the universe is empirically contingent (because of the second law of thermodynamics)"
    No.
    >"As such, the universe couldn’t have generated its own existence or been caused by non-living physical matter"
    No.
    > "If everything in existence was contingent, then nothing would exist"
    False.

    You know, rather than just dealing with each sentence, I'm going to point out one simple fact: you are drawing false conclusions. You are basically saying "If A = B, then A = C", and that's just not how it works.
    >"The necessary attributes of the first Cause of the universe is a perfect reflection of the God described in Scripture"
    It most certainly is not. You would have to completely warp the scripture to be unrecognizable to reach that conclusion. The starts are not affixed to the firmament. There's no heaven above us or hell below. There's no burning bushes that speak to people. There's no cataclysmic flood wiping out all humanity but sparing all the plants. No, the scriptures of the Jews do not align with the reality of the greater universe in any way.

    And you have made no solid case for the universe needing a cause, or for a 'god' to not need one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “The second law of thermodynamics proves that the universe is finite, non-eternal, corruptible, mutable and contingent.”

      This premise you argue is false (even though this contradicts your own view).

      The second law of thermodynamics does apply to the universe as a whole, because the universe is an isolated system, and empirical science certainly affirms that. Moreover, saying ‘false’ to the first premise is ludicrous because even if the Big Bang theory were true, then you are unwittingly admitting to the finitude of the universe, and you’re also unwittingly admitting that the universe is a closed system, which means that the second law of thermodynamics applies perfectly to the entire universe; so even if the Big Bang theory were true, it means that the universe is finite, which therefore makes it an isolated system, which means that the second law of thermodynamics applies to the whole universe. Furthermore, energy is distinctly different from matter, and the universe consists of matter and space; the physical matter within the universe is always wearing down (which doesn’t apply to energy, because energy and matter are totally different), and since the universe chiefly consists of matter and space, and the second law of thermodynamics applies to the whole universe (because it’s an isolated system), then the universe is empirically finite. Every finite object needs an external cause. Empirical science affirms that every finite object needs an external cause, the universe is finite, and therefore the universe needs an external cause. Again, there can’t be an infinite regress of contingency otherwise nothing would exist. Therefore there must be a first Cause without any other causes preceding it.

      “If everything in existence was contingent, then nothing would exist.”

      This premise you argue is false, which I think is ludicrous.

      Every finite object needs an external cause, which means that finite objects cannot generate their own existence. Something couldn’t come from nothing because nothing doesn’t exist. If everything was finite (i.e. contingent) then nothing would exist, therefore there must be something (whether it be a living Being or non-living matter) that is infinite, eternal, incorruptible and immutable. I feel like to deny this is just so irrational and ludicrous; if you’re going to deny this empirically-drenched principle of reality then it just means you’re being willfully ignorant of genuine science.

      You argue that the law of biogenesis isn’t true.

      The law of biogenesis is true, that’s why scientists call it a ‘law.’ Here, I don’t even know how to respond to this because you assert that it’s not a law; here, give me real evidence that biogenesis isn’t a law. I can’t think of any other way to respond; you can’t just say a law isn’t a law because you don’t want it to be a law, you have to back it up with evidence.

      Since biogenesis is a law (despite your confusing ignorance of it being one) and the universe contains both non-living matter and living organisms, then the first Cause would have to be a living Being. I feel like this assertion is only logical, and you’re correct in saying that God isn’t living in the same way that biological organisms are living, because biological organisms are strictly physical living organisms, and God is a spiritual, immaterial living Being, but since He is living and omnipotent, then He is necessarily capable of imparting life to physical organisms.

      Delete
    2. "The necessary attributes of the first Cause of the universe is a perfect reflection of the God described in Scripture."

      For which you argue is not the case.

      Well, I wasn’t necessarily (at least here) defending those different things in the Scriptures, but rather the nature of God as revealed in the Scriptures; so I’ll do that first. Certainly I’ve given a sufficient argument for the finite universe needing an efficient Cause; which is an infinite, eternal, incorruptible, immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, living Being. So I will just show you how all of these necessary attributes are clearly ascribed to God in Scripture.

      1. The infinitude of God--

      “Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You.”

      2. The eternality of God--

      “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.”

      3. The incorruptibility of God--

      Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

      4. The immutability of God--

      “For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed.”

      5. The omnipresence of God--

      “Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain You.”

      “Do I not fill the heavens and the earth?” declares the LORD.

      6. The omnipotence of God--

      For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

      7. The omniscience of God--

      Great is our Lord and abundant in strength; His understanding is infinite.

      With whom did He consult and who gave Him understanding? And who taught Him in the path of justice and taught Him knowledge and informed Him of the way of understanding?

      Delete
    3. There's no heaven above us or hell below.

      In Scripture, there are basically three different ways in which the term heaven is used. The first heaven just means the earth’s atmosphere. The second heaven is basically outer space. The third heaven is the place where God dwells. Certainly if God exists then He dwells somewhere, and basically the third heaven is just the place where God dwells. Hell isn’t ever referred to as a place below the earth in Scripture; hell is the eternal wrath of God, and is the punishment for those who live in perpetual rebellion and enmity against Him.

      There's no burning bushes that speak to people.

      The burning bush was a special manifestation of God so that He could obviously communicate with Moses; the bush was burning but not being destroyed and it showed Moses that it was a special divine intervention and he should therefore respond accordingly; I mean you don’t have to embrace the burning bush, but it’s completely plausible and rational provided that the Christian God does exist.

      There's no cataclysmic flood wiping out all humanity but sparing all the plants.

      There’s no cataclysmic flood, but there is absolutely zero recorded history until after the time Scripture records when the global flood took place. There’s also myriads of fossils all over the earth. Think about this, if the earth was billions of years old, and there were no catastrophic events that took place, then there would never be any fossils ever. The animals would have died and then decayed and turned back into dust. In order for a fossil to form, it has to be engulfed in mud, and then the mud has to harden and the flesh will decay; you need mud in order for fossils to form. Now, there are billions of fossils all over the earth; all of those fossils need a lot of mud to be engulfed into in order for them to become fossils. The only way for fossils to form all over the earth is if water at one point covered the earth; if water violently bursted out of the ground and violently poured out of the sky, then myriads of fossils would be formed all over the earth.

      Delete
  35. It's like you're speaking another language.
    No, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prove any of the things you're claiming it does. But feel free to show the data, don't just make a claim. Let's see the peer reviewed science!

    And you're also just making gargantuan claims that have no logical basis in fact. "Everything needs an external cause!" Sez who? And you're still employing the circular reasoning I called you out on before. "Everything needs a creator except the creator!" Irrational and a logical fallacy.

    And I'm sorry, but quoting vague bits of the bible and stretching their meaning vastly until they sorta mean what you want them to mean to fit present day data is in no way proof of anything other than your creative license.

    You have a gift for grandiloquence, I'll grant you that, but your grasp of science is lacking. You really do seem to be attempting to make up for it with a philosophy class, but that's just not going to cut it. Provide the math. Provide the data. Provide the observations.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Oh dear, I just read your great-flood = mud and therefore fossils hypothesis. I'm sorry I glanced over that one before.

    No, a global cataclysm isn't necessary for fossils to form. A simple river bed will suffice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First, my primary force of argument has been a defense of straight theism; I wasn't really trying to defend Christian theism until you stated certain things in the Scriptures that you didn't like. I grant you that in order for the Old and New Testaments to be the word of God, they must be fully accurate in their theology, history and science. I also grant you that mainstream science is pitted against the straightforward teaching of Scripture (in particular the doctrine of recent creation and the hydraulic cataclysm), so in my wrestling with this issue over the past several months, I've been looking for two things--

      1. A genuine reason why mainstream science is pitted against Scripture.
      2. Plausible and scientific explanations for the scientific accuracy of Scripture.
      (Without sufficient answers to these things I would basically reject Scripture altogether.)

      I'm still wrestling with certain things, but here's an important (and for me substantial) answer to the first issue. Lawrence Krauss says, "Force your thoughts to conform to the evidence of reality," and "let's let the universe tell us how it works." In making these claims, he's trying to assert that mainstream science somehow has the ability to objectively interpret objective evidence, in which case it should be embraced without question, and we should therefore force our thoughts to conform to it. The issue with this (really deceptive phraseology) is that there is no such thing as an objective interpretation of objective evidence (at least with the issue of origins) because all objective evidence is subjectively interpreted, and mainstream science interprets objective evidence through the subjective filter of uniformitarianism. Uniformitarianism is basically an outright rejection of the authority of Scripture, therefore it makes complete sense for mainstream science to be so deeply pitted against Scripture, because all of the objective evidence is interpreted through the subjective filter of uniformitarianism; so you would actually expect to get radically different interpretations of objective evidence because of this. So honestly for me that substantially answers the question as to why mainstream science is so pitted against the Scriptures.

      "A simple river bed will suffice."

      Wait a minute, I feel like, river beds are definitely not powerful enough to form billions of fossils all over the earth. You admit that fossils need mud and therefore water in order to form, but there are billions of fossils all throughout the earth, so you can't have a simple river bed, that's far to weak to form any fossils, let alone billions of fossils all over the earth. Moreover, there is literally no recorded history until after the global flood (supposedly) took place; and if you study world population growth, it's basically impossible for the world to be millions of years old, our current population only fits in with humans beginning from scratch around 4,500 years ago, which fits in perfectly with the Genesis account (of eight people surviving the flood and rebuilding humanity); honestly for me that is convincing evidence.

      The Scriptures that I brought to your attention aren't vague, they are incredibly perspicuous explanations of the nature of God; they are deduced exegetically, objectively, and clearly. I'm not stretching their meaning in any degree, when Scripture says, "the understanding of God is infinite" it means exactly that, it means that God is omniscient.

      Delete
    2. If the second law of thermodynamics applies to the whole universe, then certainly the universe is finite, non-eternal, corruptible, mutable and contingent; again 'if' this law applies to the whole universe, then those assertions are definitely true. If the universe is an isolated system, then the second law of thermodynamics applies to the whole universe. The universe is an isolated system; even under the Big Bang model of the universe, it is an isolated system! Here listen, rational-wiki utterly despises Christianity and they say the same thing, "The universe is an isolated system since it is a term to describe the entire space-time continuum, including all of the energy stored in it. In reality, the universe is regarded as the only true isolated system, as perfect isolation on a smaller scale is impossible." The universe is an isolated system, therefore the second law of thermodynamics applies to the whole universe, therefore the universe is empirically finite.

      Finite objects need an external cause. Then you say, "Sez who?"

      Honestly, empirical science definitely affirms that finite objects need an efficient cause, and I suppose you can respond with a simple "Sez who?" retort, but I could just as easily answer, "Empirical Science," and you're not allowed to say "Sez who?" and then try and accuse me of logical fallacies, logical arguments don't work that way.

      "Everything needs a creator except the creator!," which you called me out as circular reasoning. That wasn't my argument, you my friend are guilty of the straw-man fallacy; you twisted my actual argument and then responded to the twisted argument. My argument is that every finite, contingent object needs an external cause. The universe is finite and contingent, therefore the universe needs an external cause. Now, if everything in existence was finite, then nothing would exist, therefore not everything in existence is finite; this means that the universe needs a first Cause who is preceded by no other causes (otherwise nothing would exist; if you don't terminate the infinite regress, then nothing exists, since things exist, then something infinite, eternal, incorruptible and immutable must have terminated the infinite regress). This first Cause would have to be either a living Being, non-living matter or nothing. Well, out of nothing nothing comes; nothing is what rocks think about, the universe couldn't have come from nothing because nothing doesn't exist. It couldn't be non-living matter because if that were true then physical matter would have filled the universe from the beginning of time. Therefore it must be an infinite, eternal, incorruptible, immutable, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, living Being.

      Delete
    3. Against Neo-Darwinian Evolution--
      I feel like I’ve been accused of not knowing anything about science or evolution, listen, I’m not a scientist, and when I get to college I want to get a B.S. in Philosophy and M.S. in Divinity, and I only plan on reading a ton of science books on my own, but I’ll just give my scientific attack against evolution here, just for the fun of it. First, the validity of Neo-Darwinian evolution is not a question of the validity of the Big Bang model, or the age of the earth or universe. Those two things are completely independent from whether or not Neo-Darwinian Evolution is scientifically valid. From what I’ve studied, the universe could may well be ten trillion years old, and Neo-Darwinism would still be unproven, unprovable and impossible. First, let’s define Neo-Darwinism. Evolution is the theory that species can increase in complexity over time with no previously existing internal genetic code, this is called macroevolution by natural selection, and is the essence of real evolutionary theory. There is also another part of Neo-Darwinism called microevolution; this is when a species can use its own previously existing internal genetic code to adapt to any given environment. This is called microevolution by natural selection; in this, the species spontaneously uses the best available internal genetic code to adapt to a given environment, and if or when a species is thrusted into a different environment, it will gradually adapt to that environment by using the best available internal genetic code.

      Delete
  37. There are basically two places where microevolution and macroevolution (by natural selection) can be observed; first, in the fossil record, second, in the present day. In the fossil record there isn’t a shred of empirical evidence for macroevolution by natural selection, there is only empirical evidence for microevolution for natural selection. In other words, they have clearly observed that species have adapted (using their previously existing internal genetic code) to different environments, but they have never become completely different types of organisms in so doing; the natural selection has always been downward in its effects (i.e. microevolution) never upward in its effects (i.e. macroevolution), if this is universally true (i.e. if microevolution is definitely true and macroevolution is definitely false), there is an unbreakable barrier between certain types of animals. In the present day they have only observed the same thing as in the fossil record, microevolution by natural selection; they have never observed in the fossil record or in the past a species increasing its genetic complexity with no previously existing internal genetics allowing it to do so; they have never observed a single trace of real evolution.
    Anything else is just speculation, they say, “Well, given enough microevolution, then macroevolution is bound to occur.” Actually, given enough microevolution, you’re only bound to get more microevolution, because microevolution uses the previously existing internal genetic code to adapt to different environments, while macroevolution magically generates previously non-existing genetic data ex nihilo in order to change into different species (which is unobserved, unobservable and impossible). They breed ten trillion fruit flies and what did they get? More of the same exact fruit flies! They did the same thing with bacteria and what did they get? More of the same exact bacteria! There hasn’t been a shred of empirical evidence for real evolution ever. We shouldn’t be surprised by this (here it comes) because macroevolution by natural selection is diametrically opposed to the second law of thermodynamics. That law says, “Everything wears down over time,” and macroevolution says, “Animals increase in complexity over time,” at face value, those two assertions are antithetical to each other. But you say, “Well, the earth is an open system, so the sun can give energy to the animals so that they can increase in genetic complexity from no previously existing internal genetic code.” This assertion is admitting that if the earth is a closed system, then the second law of thermodynamics would sufficiently contradict and refute the notion of macroevolution (which is what real evolution actually is); moreover, even if we agree that the earth is an open system, and can therefore receive energy from the outside (in this case the sun), you are literally asserting that the energy from the sun will cause species to increase in genetic complexity (with no previously existing internal genetic code) despite the fact that this assertion (upon which the entirety of Neo-Darwinian evolution depends upon) is completely and utterly unproven. Moreover, it’s unproven because it’s impossible. It’s impossible for the heat from the sun to increase the genetic complexity of living organism; that is so unscientific, unproven, unprovable and ridiculous. The sun provides heat, the sun doesn’t increase the genetic complexity of organisms. Here, prove how raw solar energy from the sun can be magically converted to increase the complexity of living organisms (without any previously existing internal genetic code).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Interna genetic code" !?!?

      Assuming you mean "genetic variation", you are very uninformed. Mutations (many different kinds) constantly generates new genetic variation.

      No, heat from the sun does not magically convert into increased biological complexity. No scientists say this, so where the heck did you get this idea from? What happens is that the sun provides energy that allows entropy to decrease locally on Earth (because Earth is not a closed system, this is not in contradiction of the second law of thermodynamics). Living organisms use this energy to develop and populations evolve.

      You haven't gone to college, and you don't know much science. It's not that I don't know why you are arguing these points, but I am curious why you think you have resolved that evolution is impossible when you really don't know anything much about the science. You are one of the most overconfident people I have ever met; everything you say you claim is "definitely true" and the claims you dislike and know little about are all "unscientific, unproven, unprovable and ridiculous". If only closed minds came with closed mouths.

      Delete
  38. First, the premises that would necessitate the truth of straight theism haven't even come close to being dismantled.

    Second, I'm not arguing specifically for recent special creation. The validity of macro-evolution by natural selection is completely independent from the validity of modern cosmology, or the doctrine of recent creation. The validity of macro-evolution is a self-contained enigma.

    Third, I openly admitted that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't necessarily contradict macro-evolution by natural selection, so you're just straw-manning what I actually said.

    Listen, macro-evolution is completely unobserved in the fossil record, and unobserved in the present day. You say, "Many different kinds of mutations constantly generate new genetic variations." You're certainly right about that, but that's not macro-evolution, not even close, that's micro-evolution by natural selection, and that's not the same thing as real Darwinian Evolution. Furthermore, all they have observed in the fossil record and in the present day is micro-evolution by natural selection (which isn't the same thing as evolution), and (from what they have observed) the micro-evolution has all been secluded and confined with animal families. That's not real evolution, and micro-evolution by natural selection only confirms what Scripture says about animals, plants and humans. Enough micro-evolution by natural selection will only lead to more of the exact same kind of micro-evolution by natural selection, and they have never observed anything to the contrary.

    There are many secular scientists who don't believe in the standard model of macro-evolution by natural selection, because it's unobserved and unobservable. Also, I don't have a closed mind, I'm trying to look at the evidence (I already wrote that if I don't find genuine answers to recent creation I'm going to reject the Scriptures), and I have many evolution books and secular science books sitting on my bookshelf (although unfortunately I haven't gotten the time to start reading them yet, I'll grant you that, although I've still been looking into it a lot), which proves that I'm not being close minded in my arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  39. In THE HOLY SCIENCE, Swami Sri Yuktweswar delineates the seven levels of creation, where the entire physical cosmos observable by the five senses, is only a small part. Above our physical universe is the vacuum ordinary, beyond that is the great vacuum; then comes "the door" or the realm that is a sort of junction between the lower spheres of creation and the higher. Beyond that is the sphere of the Sons of God (liberated souls) where the idea of the separate existence of the self originates. Then there is the sphere of AUM. Then beyond that, the realm of Absolute Spirit.

    This highest realm is called "The nameless" because it is beyond all human concepts and forms of expression. But our souls are part of that realm, so we can know, through spiritual evolution. Our final destiny is to become one with That, without losing our individuality.

    In this lowest realm, micro evolution is true, but also man's body is a special creation, being given the chakra system in the Astral Body that enables man, through meditation and spiritual evolution to expand his consciousness beyond the body into Omnipresence.

    The 6,000 year old model of genesis creation is taking a process and a reality that is way, way beyond the human intellect, and trying to simplify it down into model where a child is creating things out of clay. It just doesn't work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for sharing that mumbo-jumbo. Do you have any evidence for "the door" or souls, or is this completely pulled out of your... hat?

      Delete

Markup Key:
- <b>bold</b> = bold
- <i>italic</i> = italic
- <a href="http://www.fieldofscience.com/">FoS</a> = FoS