Logic and creation

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

This really should go into the Origins forum, but I don't have access to it.

[Bravus]

So creationists are now cool with the Big Bang, a 14 billion year age for the universe and the implied (at the very least) cosmological evolution?

[Dr. Shane]

I don't think he was endorsing the Big Bang so much as showing its logical conclusion. That said, I don't know who this guy is or what his belief system is.

[Tom Wetmore]

Dr. William Lane Craig

Here is the continuation of the above -

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1198

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I don't think he was endorsing the Big Bang so much as showing its logical conclusion. That said, I don't know who this guy is or what his belief system is.

Ooops. Sorry. I didn't realize the title of the video didn't appear, or the name of the person.

Thanks, Tom, for putting up the link.

[cardw]

But theists have the same problem with nothing when we ask where did God come from? Did God come from nothing?

The answer is generally God has always been, but that would mean that God was alone for an eternity.

Having a god does not solve the problem of where did everything come from.

The Buddhist who is an atheist states that the universe has always been expanding and contracting.

It matters not whether we say that god has always been or that the universe has always been.

The argument presented in the video is hypocritical in that having a god trumps all questioning and logic.

[Twilight]

But theists have the same problem with nothing when we ask where did God come from? Did God come from nothing?

The answer is generally God has always been, but that would mean that God was alone for an eternity.

Having a god does not solve the problem of where did everything come from.

The Buddhist who is an atheist states that the universe has always been expanding and contracting.

It matters not whether we say that god has always been or that the universe has always been.

The argument presented in the video is hypocritical in that having a god trumps all questioning and logic.

God is eternal in nature there is no such problem.

For an athiest to argue that matter is eternal, they have to provide proof of that outside of the current known laws of physics...

...Which does not supply the idea that matter is eternal.

[Bravus]

Just as well no atheists try to argue that matter is eternal then, I guess.

[Twilight]

Just as well no atheists try to argue that matter is eternal then, I guess.

So what do they argue was eternal then Bravus?

[Bravus]

Nothing.

Actually, let me try to be clearer. 'Atheists' is not the relevant term here, since the believer who starts off this thread also believes the universe started in a Big Bang about 14 (he incorrectly says 15) billion years ago.

Those *people* who accept the Big Bang theory believe that space and time in this universe began about 14 billion years ago at the Big Bang.

Believers believe God has always existed, atheists believe God has never existed.

The argument in the video is an argument against a position that doesn't exist: that atheists believe matter has existed eternally.

It is also an argument unacceptable to most believers - you yourself, Twilight, have argued extensively against the Big Bang (one of the planks on which that speaker's argument rests) in this very forum.

Are the arguments to be principled and internally consistent, or opportunistic?

[Twilight]

Nothing.

Actually, let me try to be clearer. 'Atheists' is not the relevant term here, since the believer who starts off this thread also believes the universe started in a Big Bang about 14 (he incorrectly says 15) billion years ago.

Those *people* who accept the Big Bang theory believe that space and time in this universe began about 14 billion years ago at the Big Bang.

Believers believe God has always existed, atheists believe God has never existed.

The argument in the video is an argument against a position that doesn't exist: that atheists believe matter has existed eternally.

It is also an argument unacceptable to most believers - you yourself, Twilight, have argued extensively against the Big Bang (one of the planks on which that speaker's argument rests) in this very forum.

Are the arguments to be principled and internally consistent, or opportunistic?

So where do Athiests say that matter came from then Bravus?

And where does what caused the matter come from?

Are you saying that Athiests do not argue for an eternal source for all of the Universe?

[Bravus]

We've been through all this before.

[Twilight]

We've been through all this before.

Yes we have.

Atheism demands an eternal source for the universe, just as Creationism does.

There is no denying that.

So when people argue that we cannot say "God did it", they have to explain how they can then say "Because nature somehow did it".

[Dr. Shane]

We do not know where God came from because He has not revealed it to us.

Darwinism is itself logical. That is why it sucks so many smart people into it. However the fossil record is not compatible with Darwinism. Darwinism proposes the gradual evolution of life on this planet. The fossil record seems to show bursts of life. That is, it shows that lots of life forms came into existence over short periods of geological time. That is easy to explain with the creation/flood model but presents a challenge for Darwinism.

[Twilight]

We do not know where God came from because He has not revealed it to us.

Darwinism is itself logical. That is why it sucks so many smart people into it. However the fossil record is not compatible with Darwinism. Darwinism proposes the gradual evolution of life on this planet. The fossil record seems to show bursts of life. That is, it shows that lots of life forms came into existence over short periods of geological time. That is easy to explain with the creation/flood model but presents a challenge for Darwinism.

Have you ever considered this Shane?

The Fossil Record only ever records life dying.

Never life coming into being.

You would not go to a graveyard to understand how a baby is conceived. :-)

Just a thought.

[doug yowell]

We do not know where God came from because He has not revealed it to us.

Actually,Shane, According to what God has revealed to us in the Bible,He didn't come from anywhere!

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Shane

We do not know where God came from because He has not revealed it to us.

Actually,Shane, According to what God has revealed to us in the Bible,He didn't come from anywhere!

Exactly.

He is eternal.

He is beyond the universe He has created.

Which of course makes logical sense.

But our minds cannot grasp the concept of "eternal", so we tend to throw it out as a possibility.

[SivartM]

Actually,Shane, According to what God has revealed to us in the Bible,He didn't come from anywhere!

Hm, I don't think the Bible actually says that in those words, does it? It says God is everlasting, but does it anywhere rule out that God could have been caused? I'm just wondering.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

But theists have the same problem with nothing when we ask where did God come from? Did God come from nothing?

The answer is generally God has always been, but that would mean that God was alone for an eternity.

Having a god does not solve the problem of where did everything come from.

The Buddhist who is an atheist states that the universe has always been expanding and contracting.

It matters not whether we say that god has always been or that the universe has always been.

The argument presented in the video is hypocritical in that having a god trumps all questioning and logic.

God is eternal in nature there is no such problem.

For an athiest to argue that matter is eternal, they have to provide proof of that outside of the current known laws of physics...

...Which does not supply the idea that matter is eternal.

Atheists don't have some united front. I think it would be more accurate to say that scientists aren't claiming that matter is eternal because there is the same lack of proof for that as there is for a god.

Your statement that "having an eternal god solves the problem" ignores the problem. Your logic only starts after you have an eternal god. There is no logical explanation for the origin of god. You have simply set the problem back one more semantic label.

A scientist's logic only starts after we have a universe. The rest is in the category of we don't know.

You're like Bud Abbott in "Who's on First." Every time anyone says "I don't know" we end up on the third base of there must be a god.

If you haven't seen "Who's on first" here is a presentation by Abbott and Costello...

[Bravus]

We've strayed pretty far afield from the original topic of the thread.

Darwin and the fossil record relates to biological evolution on this earth, whereas the original claims were about cosmology and the origin of the universe.

There are several issues still up in the air, though:

1. The argument takes as one of its premises the Big Bang origin of the universe, yet most here reject that. If you reject one of the fundamental premises, you have to reject the argument.

2. The argument boils down to 'since there was an origin, there must be a cause', and then simply elides to the point that God must be that cause, without adducing evidence to support that point. If we say 'by definition that which caused the universe would be a god' I guess that's fair enough, but it doesn't in itself provide evidence for the personal Christian God.

3. The argument is directed against the non-existent 'atheist' position that the universe has always existed. It attacks a fortress that's not even built, let alone defended.

4. A proper understanding of the Big Bang theory shows that it does *not* posit an eternal source. Rather, it suggests that nothing at all existed prior to the Big Bang - or more precisely, that 'prior' doesn't even make sense since time also did not exist. Arguments from personal incredulity/incomprehension are not arguments at all.

I apologise in advance if I seem to be trying to tell people what to do or to direct the discussion. I just personally find it frustrating when an argument goes in circles and wanders off topic and never really focuses in on the key questions of the thread.

By all means do whatever you want!

[Dr. Shane]

By all means do whatever you want!

I am more than willing to throw Dr. William Lane Craig under the bus.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

God is eternal in nature there is no such problem.

For an athiest to argue that matter is eternal, they have to provide proof of that outside of the current known laws of physics...

...Which does not supply the idea that matter is eternal.

Your statement that "having an eternal god solves the problem" ignores the problem. Your logic only starts after you have an eternal god. There is no logical explanation for the origin of god. You have simply set the problem back one more semantic label.

Not at all.

God is eternal.

Because you start from the premise that that is impossible, seeking to insist that God must be created, you have created your own problem.

An eternal being does not need a beginning, that is the whole point of Him being eternal...

The problem is that you cannot accept this concept possibly?

[Twilight]

We've strayed pretty far afield from the original topic of the thread.

1. The argument takes as one of its premises the Big Bang origin of the universe, yet most here reject that. If you reject one of the fundamental premises, you have to reject the argument.

That is not quite correct.

My argument for instance is that you do not "know" the Big Bang happened.

That current theories have glaringly obvious flaws in it.

One such being that when the Hubble Telescope was pointed back to the point in space where the scientists fully expected to see the formation of the Universe, they only found...

...fully formed Galaxies.

Because of your apparent predisposition to take hold of "naturalism" as the driving force used in the universe, you accept all naturalistic explanations and then try to tie God to it, it seems...

Pointing to naturalisticly motivated scientific theory as fact, is what most here disagree with...

Did God create using a "Big Bang"?

There is no evidence that He did.

In fact, when considering the formation of this planet, everything is spoken into existance as a fully functioning system, never is an account given of God setting basic systems up that then by themselves form life or life supporting systems.

The whole universe is one big life support system.

As this is the only actual account we have of God creating, it would be safer to hedge ones bets that that was how He did it.

Rather than back the "naturalism is the only option" horse, that many seem so keen on riding...

Which rides on the assumption that there is no God.

Mark :-)

[Bravus]

Which set of assumptions completely invalidates Dr Craig's argument.

[Bravus]

I'm not trying to be difficult. The thread is about logic and creation, and the appropriate response to evaluating a logical argument is to (a) test each of the premises for truth and ( test the logical structure of the argument.

So far we seem to be stuck at the first premise.

If I have time later this morning I'll try to lay out the argument in the video clearly and simply in textual form to make it easier to work with in this thread.