RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> God



Message

theo_book -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 8:15:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames



Because to assume that the ever changing and expanding univers always was is the most illogical approach of all.


Thanks
RC


Well, since that is my stance I suppose that means you think I have taken an illogical stance on the matter. I hope you'll allow me a polite rebuttal.

You've declared it illogical to think that the universe either created itself or always was, yet you think it is perfectly logical that a supernatural being, whose creation you turn a blind eye to, created the universe from nothing and has always been.

By your logic, something that doesn't need to be explained because it is supernatural created this universe from nothing other than Its whim, and this gives you no cause for doubt.

I don't ask that you embrace my stance on this matter. I only ask that you not call my stance illogical, when your stance bears a striking resemblance to mine, except for the fact that you excuse God of His requirement to be finite, and I excuse the universe from its requirement to be finite. If logic must be abandoned for my stance, then it must be abandoned equally for yours.

I assert that there can be no defensible objection to an eternal and uncreated entity by anyone also arguing that "god" is just such an entity. If your position is that supposing an entity to be infinite is illogical, then please remove the mote in your eye that yields a double standard when applying this logic. Then you will be able to apply the same logic to the notion of God being eternal.

To me the apparent age and origin of the universe bears no significance to the matter of God's existence. Surely God could have created the universe to appear any way He meant for it to appear to fulfill His plan, whether that be infinite, finite, created, uncreated, big or small.

Attempting to use the science of the Universe in favor of an argument for the logic of belief amounts to little more than post hoc rationalization.

It would be better to admit openly that the data is inconclusive, and add the stipulation that no finding regarding the "appearance" of the universe will ever challenge your faith in God.


I do not know if your point is well made, but it certainly is well stated. I think the most basic difference between those who have faith and those who do not have faith, is the fact of faith, not the fact of proof either way.

One assumptin or three assumptions, alternative solutions.

One assumption.
I can assume God.
I can assume not God.

If God, then listen to him as he expresses himself in his revelation to us.

If not God then assume three assumptions
Assume Energy always existed.
Assume Matter always existed.
Assume energy acted on Matter and caused all that is.

If not God, look to nature for comfort for your souls.

God help us!



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 9:03:49 AM)

quote:

Look again if you will, at my statement. "You cannot logically imply Jesus Christ and him crucified, from anything as faulted as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, for one example." Are you saying Jesus Christ is a necessary implication of the Kalam Cosmological argument?
Look again, t_b, at my statement. I said that the KCA may be used to "plant the first seeds of insight" into the existence of transcendent God. Further apologetic methods are almost always required to develop Christ as the "necessary implication" of the nature of God.

quote:

New here so I don't mean to be contradictory but the universe is, by all available evidence, infinite, eternal, and uncreated, and most respected scientists take this view regardless of their theistic views.
You may not mean to be contradictory, but you are contradicting the vast majority of cosmologists who do indeed interpret the evidence to mean the universe had a beginning and is expanding - thus it cannot be infinitely eternal by definition.

quote:

No scientist would make the mental leap to assume that the beginning of the universe's current appearance, or current apparent expansion behavior, was also the very beginning of time. There's simply no way to know if it was or if it was not.
No godless, secular scientist wants to make that "mental leap" because then they would be left with the very uncomfortable conclusion that the universe must have had a cause greater than itself and that logically leads to God. So it becomes a matter of personal religion to illogically maintain one's naturalist position in the face of a caused beginning of natural reality.

quote:

I believe they speak about it as if that's what they think though. They should be more careful in their word choice.
No, they should be more careful in having an open mind about reality instead of assuming naturalism and uniformitarianism as their twin gods!

quote:

You've declared it illogical to think that the universe either created itself or always was, yet you think it is perfectly logical that a supernatural being, whose creation you turn a blind eye to, created the universe from nothing and has always been.

By your logic, something that doesn't need to be explained because it is supernatural created this universe from nothing other than Its whim, and this gives you no cause for doubt.
If you think it's logical that an event with a beginning "either created itself or always was", then please provide an example of such an occurence. When you are unable, then you will see that it is logical to think the universe was caused by an uncaused First Cause! BTW, what do you suspect (if you support big bang cosmology) caused the big bang other than its whim?



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 9:12:32 AM)

quote:

If not God then assume three assumptions
Assume Energy always existed.
Assume Matter always existed.
Assume energy acted on Matter and caused all that is.
I like the general gist of your last post, t_b, but I believe you need a better understanding of physics. Matter and energy are controvertible so they actually represent the same aspect of reality. Space is the second aspect which is obviously 3-dimensional. Thirdly, time must be factored in since matter/energy in space is undetectable except through its effects in time. So, reality is a tri-universe of matter, space, and time - all of which were created by God according to Genesis 1:1. You are indeed correct that it's a helpless state when someone must rely on nature only to comfort their soul!



hellohellohi -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 9:30:53 AM)

JHud:

quote:

Actually, a cause doesn't have to be a chronological antecedent to be a cause.


Hm, PLEASE, explain.

Do you mean that the universe might have a teleological cause, like the Omega beign a cause of the universe?

I grant that, but then let's admit that we are talking paradox or poetry and not logic.

Are you talking SIMULTANEITY? Please do not, because there is no such thing as a difference between simultaneous dependent events. Is there such a thing as making a distinction between co-dependence and contingence of one upon the other if they are simultaneous? Then from what is that contingence derived? What would be the criterion for their hierarchy?



theo_book -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 9:36:35 AM)

quote:

Look again if you will, at my statement. "You cannot logically imply Jesus Christ and him crucified, from anything as faulted as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, for one example." Are you saying Jesus Christ is a necessary implication of the Kalam Cosmological argument?

Look again, t_b, at my statement. I said that the KCA may be used to "plant the first seeds of insight" into the existence of transcendent God. Further apologetic methods are almost always required to develop Christ as the "necessary implication" of the nature of God.


While it is true "apologetic methods" are often applied, it does not necessarily follow they are "required." Unles you understnad the apostles sermons and letters to be "apologetic methods." Personally I don't. I consider them to predate the developement of later men's efforts to say pretty much the same thing.

quote:

New here so I don't mean to be contradictory but the universe is, by all available evidence, infinite, eternal, and uncreated, and most respected scientists take this view regardless of their theistic views.

You may not mean to be contradictory, but you are contradicting the vast majority of cosmologists who do indeed interpret the evidence to mean the universe had a beginning and is expanding - thus it cannot be infinitely eternal by definition.


quote:

No scientist would make the mental leap to assume that the beginning of the universe's current appearance, or current apparent expansion behavior, was also the very beginning of time. There's simply no way to know if it was or if it was not.

No godless, secular scientist wants to make that "mental leap" because then they would be left with the very uncomfortable conclusion that the universe must have had a cause greater than itself and that logically leads to God. So it becomes a matter of personal religion to illogically maintain one's naturalist position in the face of a caused beginning of natural reality.


quote:

I believe they speak about it as if that's what they think though. They should be more careful in their word choice.

No, they should be more careful in having an open mind about reality instead of assuming naturalism and uniformitarianism as their twin gods!


quote:

You've declared it illogical to think that the universe either created itself or always was, yet you think it is perfectly logical that a supernatural being, whose creation you turn a blind eye to, created the universe from nothing and has always been.

By your logic, something that doesn't need to be explained because it is supernatural created this universe from nothing other than Its whim, and this gives you no cause for doubt.


quote:

If you think it's logical that an event with a beginning "either created itself or always was", then please provide an example of such an occurence. When you are unable, then you will see that it is logical to think the universe was caused by an uncaused First Cause! BTW, what do you suspect (if you support big bang cosmology) caused the big bang other than its whim?


It might be an aid to understanding if you would identify the quotes by author. I authored only the first quote in the post.



theo_book -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 10:18:35 AM)

quote:

(theo) If not God then assume three assumptions
Assume Energy always existed.
Assume Matter always existed.
Assume energy acted on Matter and caused all that is.

(drmark) I like the general gist of your last post, t_b, but I believe you need a better understanding of physics. Matter and energy are controvertible so they actually represent the same aspect of reality.

Space is the second aspect which is obviously 3-dimensional. Thirdly, time must be factored in since matter/energy in space is undetectable except through its effects in time. So, reality is a tri-universe of matter, space, and time - all of which were created by God according to Genesis 1:1. You are indeed correct that it's a helpless state when someone must rely on nature only to comfort their soul!


(theo) Thank you. I did not post all my understanding of physics, to keep it short. The true status of energy acting upon the true status of matter is not when they are "controverting." It is when they are stable. But that seemed a bit wordy to me so I did not say it. Upon coming together in effectual happenstance, they become unstable. Things happen. (How's that for simplicity?)

My next observation is not for contradictory purposes, but for your input.

You say "space is ...obviously three dimensional." That remind me of the fault of the Kalam Cosmoligical Argument I reference in an earlier post.

James R. Beebe (I will assume he has degree credentials) Dept. of Philosophy; University at Buffalo, published a paper titled "The Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God."

In the course of his article, he states (quote) As I am using the term, "nothing" cannot be used to refer to a vast emptiness or an enormous vacuum. "Nothing" means absolutely, positively nothing at all. As Peter Van Inwagen (1993, p.72) writes,
(quote) To say that there is nothing is to say that there isn't anything, not even a vast emptiness, If there were a vast emptiness, there would be no material objects -- no atoms or elementary particles or anything made of them-- but there would nevertheless be something: the vast emptiness.(endquote PVI)

Note that even an enormous vacuum would have discoverable properties. It would exist in a particular location and would exist for a particular amount of time. Anything that can have spatial and temporal properties is not nothing. (endquoteJRB)

My observation relates to the meaning applied to the terminology. (surprise)

Would that depend upon whether "vast emptiness" is determined to be
"vast" with relation to itself, or "vast" with relation to anything "other?"

If it is "vast" within itself, it may well have no dimension whatsoever, as "vast" with no dimension except "self," has neither reason for, nor use for dimension.

If it is determined to be "vast" with relation to "other," it is not within
the parameter "not anything" for there is "something" with which "vast
nothingness" has relationship.

my conclusion:
Therefore, the only "temporal property" it would have is that of duration. I consider this to be a simple argument favoring time as always being. I see no reference to spacial necessity whatsoever; because there is no dimension understood in being "vast" with relation to nothing.

If "location" means temporal property of "place," but "vast" has no relation with "otherness" there is no dimension of "place."

Therefore this "enormous vacuum would have discoverable physical properties" becomes a fallacy because it assumes a "discoverer" not in evidence. There cannot be a discoverer having no dimension in which to "be."

Comment?

Theophilus (Theo) Book



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 11:13:55 AM)

quote:

While it is true "apologetic methods" are often applied, it does not necessarily follow they are "required." Unles you understnad the apostles sermons and letters to be "apologetic methods." Personally I don't.
That's your perogative. The very text itself indicates that Paul, Peter, John, and Luke were all defending the truth of Christianity. Sounds like apologetics to me!

quote:

Comment?
Not really. You and Beebe seem to enjoy promulgating esoteric philosophical discussion. I just stick with the facts. [;)]



wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 11:27:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
You may not mean to be contradictory, but you are contradicting the vast majority of cosmologists who do indeed interpret the evidence to mean the universe had a beginning and is expanding - thus it cannot be infinitely eternal by definition.


I suppose we are all products of the information we elect to acquire in life. I'll concede happily that it is possible that I have availed myself of erroneous information.

I would like to respectfully request clarification before I continue my reply to this particular point. Do you take big bang cosmology to mean that the big bang was the beginning of time?


quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
No godless, secular scientist wants to make that "mental leap" because then they would be left with the very uncomfortable conclusion that the universe must have had a cause greater than itself and that logically leads to God. So it becomes a matter of personal religion to illogically maintain one's naturalist position in the face of a caused beginning of natural reality.


I guess that could be the reason scientists avoid this "mental leap", but do you agree that they don't make the mental leap or do you not? First you stated that they all interpret the evidence to mean the universe had a beginning. Then you stated that no secular scientist wants to make the mental leap that the big bang was the beginning of time because that would "leave them with the uncomfortable conclusion that the universe must have had a cause..."


quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
No, they should be more careful in having an open mind about reality instead of assuming naturalism and uniformitarianism as their twin gods!


Couldn't you allow my opinion to stand in this case? Do you have to be so insistent upon denying there is any validity to my point that scientists should speak more carefully about this issue, just to assert the unrelated claim that they have closed minds?



quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark
If you think it's logical that an event with a beginning "either created itself or always was", then please provide an example of such an occurence. When you are unable, then you will see that it is logical to think the universe was caused by an uncaused First Cause! BTW, what do you suspect (if you support big bang cosmology) caused the big bang other than its whim?


But sir I don't see that when I am unable. All that I see when I am unable is that there are things about the universe that we do not yet understand. The only "logical" conclusion this brings me to is that absence of understanding does not justify assumption of a magical explanation.



hellohellohi -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 11:30:00 AM)

quote:

Therefore this "enormous vacuum would have discoverable physical properties" becomes a fallacy because it assumes a "discoverer" not in evidence. There cannot be a discoverer having no dimension in which to "be."

Comment?


Agreed. What kind of properties could it have? There are only two types of property, qualitative and quantifiable. We can rule out qualitative, becuase such would assume an observer, which is not part of the premises of an enourmous vaccum, especially if one assumes that consciousness depends on the physical world (or perhaps remembrance of it), which it instantiates, for its makeup. The mind cannot instantiate "nothingness" (though such is the goal of Buddhism, as I understand it) it can only conjure metaphorical or representational images, auch as vast relative emptiness.

Now, might the void have quantifiable properties? The first number that might jump to mind is zero. However, is zero or ANY number for that matter a property? Let's think of why we number things in the first place, and then we may see what a quantifiable property is.

It is possible to number things -- to group them as "two" for instance -- only by virtue of their having something in common. Even if nothing particular can be found to categorize in common two objects, then the least we can say is that both are objects. That is, we can call them two only if we imply a descriptor to the pronoun, them: objects. Now, however, observe that any descriptor for a pronoun will itself be qualitative. That means that all quantifiabilty is dependent upon having common qualitative properies. What is the qualitative property that joins together two things which have nothing in common but that they are objects? Objectness can be circularly described as that they are both "things" -- which is appropriate to this discussion in that this sets them apart from "nothing." Is nothingness an object? On the contary; it is no object. It is what remains when all identifiable, all qualitative has removed.

So far so good. What then, about notions of time and space? Can nothingness to have such things? Space is the fact of separation of objects (as opposed to their absolute coincidence). Time is the fact of the separation of events, which are themselves comprised, hypothetically, of infinitesimally discrete changes in objects. Can we then reckon time or space in teh void? by which will such reckoning occur?

Furthermore, observe that the void can be mathematically understood as the empty set. The empty set is a subset of any set. The process of identifying objects can be understood as either arbitrarily or via criteria external to the context choosing subsets of unity (everything -- of which there is only one, as was astutely obsereved on a recent popular children's record). Thus, what would stop us from saying that we want to compare the temporality of the empty set and another subset of the whole. The problem that I observe here is that the empty set is also a subset of any subset, preventing it from ever being parsed or reckoned as distinct by making further disctinctions -- by further effort to create a subset which would be distinct or would exclude the empty set. If no distinction can be made between a set, namely the empty one, and another, then one cannot begin to ask "What kind of distinction is there between them," such as temporal or spatial. Distinction, furthermore, is only made between objects which are otherwise similar. However, since the empty set is empty, it contains no objects or properties of objects and no commonality can be drawn between it and another set so that we could number them or grant them qualitative (mere) distinction.

All this incidentally illustrates that such trivial things can be denied only by those who are intent on promoting obscurity, presumably for some motive contrary to that of truthfulness -- that is, to influence other people or extert control or to maintain self-deception. This is implied whenever people shamelessly misuse language, I believe.



wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 11:35:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: theo_book

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1

quote:

ORIGINAL: rcjames



Because to assume that the ever changing and expanding univers always was is the most illogical approach of all.


Thanks
RC


Well, since that is my stance I suppose that means you think I have taken an illogical stance on the matter. I hope you'll allow me a polite rebuttal.

You've declared it illogical to think that the universe either created itself or always was, yet you think it is perfectly logical that a supernatural being, whose creation you turn a blind eye to, created the universe from nothing and has always been.

By your logic, something that doesn't need to be explained because it is supernatural created this universe from nothing other than Its whim, and this gives you no cause for doubt.

I don't ask that you embrace my stance on this matter. I only ask that you not call my stance illogical, when your stance bears a striking resemblance to mine, except for the fact that you excuse God of His requirement to be finite, and I excuse the universe from its requirement to be finite. If logic must be abandoned for my stance, then it must be abandoned equally for yours.

I assert that there can be no defensible objection to an eternal and uncreated entity by anyone also arguing that "god" is just such an entity. If your position is that supposing an entity to be infinite is illogical, then please remove the mote in your eye that yields a double standard when applying this logic. Then you will be able to apply the same logic to the notion of God being eternal.

To me the apparent age and origin of the universe bears no significance to the matter of God's existence. Surely God could have created the universe to appear any way He meant for it to appear to fulfill His plan, whether that be infinite, finite, created, uncreated, big or small.

Attempting to use the science of the Universe in favor of an argument for the logic of belief amounts to little more than post hoc rationalization.

It would be better to admit openly that the data is inconclusive, and add the stipulation that no finding regarding the "appearance" of the universe will ever challenge your faith in God.


I do not know if your point is well made, but it certainly is well stated. I think the most basic difference between those who have faith and those who do not have faith, is the fact of faith, not the fact of proof either way.




Thank you kindly



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 12:49:31 PM)

quote:

I suppose we are all products of the information we elect to acquire in life.
No wayward1, we are all products of the divine grace God chooses to bless us with. What we do with that grace is our free choice.

quote:

I'll concede happily that it is possible that I have availed myself of erroneous information.
Why be happy in concession of availing yourself of erroneous information. Don't you want to be correct? Is there a significant minority of cosmologists who do not believe the evidence supports the universe to have beginning in time? This is not my area of expertise so I've only read what others say about current concepts in cosmology. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

quote:

Do you take big bang cosmology to mean that the big bang was the beginning of time?
I do not "take big bang cosmology" at all, wayward1! I accept the historical account of origins as written in Genesis 1:1 - 2:4. However, as I stated above, it's my understanding that the majority position in current thinking of cosmology is that the BB marked the beginning of time in the universe. If there is an alternate viewpoint of BB theory, please share it with us.

quote:

I guess that could be the reason scientists avoid this "mental leap", but do you agree that they don't make the mental leap or do you not?
Actually wayward1, you used the phrase "mental leap" in your very first post. I do not consider it to be a "mental leap" at all to accept that a universe with a beginning must be an event that was caused. It's a logical conclusion from the logical concept of causality. Naturalists who arbitrarily reject supernatural explanations must avoid logical conclusions from causality (thus avoiding the "mental leap"), if they believe the universe had a beginning.

quote:

Couldn't you allow my opinion to stand in this case? Do you have to be so insistent upon denying there is any validity to my point that scientists should speak more carefully about this issue, just to assert the unrelated claim that they have closed minds?
Sure, I'll concede your initial point is valid. Are you willing to concede that the primary reason that naturalists do not speak carefully about origins is because their worldview interferes with their objectivity? That's my point and it's most definitely related to my claim for their closed minds!

quote:

But sir I don't see that when I am unable. All that I see when I am unable is that there are things about the universe that we do not yet understand.
Of course there are things about the universe we do not yet understand, but that does not negate causality! Every effect with a beginning has been caused by something adequate to cause it - what's not to see?



theo_book -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 1:12:22 PM)

quote:

(drmark)(Post #103) Space is the second aspect which is obviously 3-dimensional. Thirdly, time must be factored in since matter/energy in space is undetectable except through its effects in time.

(theo)(Post 106)You say "space is ...obviously three dimensional." That remind me of the fault of the Kalam Cosmoligical Argument I reference in an earlier post.

James R. Beebe (I will assume he has degree credentials) Dept. of Philosophy; University at Buffalo, published a paper titled "The Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God."

In the course of his article, he states (quote) As I am using the term, "nothing" cannot be used to refer to a vast emptiness or an enormous vacuum. "Nothing" means absolutely, positively nothing at all. As Peter Van Inwagen (1993, p.72) writes, (quote) To say that there is nothing is to say that there isn't anything, not even a vast emptiness, If there were a vast emptiness, there would be no material objects -- no atoms or elementary particles or anything made of them-- but there would nevertheless be something: the vast emptiness.(endquote PVI)

Note that even an enormous vacuum would have discoverable properties. It would exist in a particular location and would exist for a particular amount of time. Anything that can have spatial and temporal properties is not nothing. (endquoteJRB)

My observation relates to the meaning applied to the terminology. (surprise)

Would that depend upon whether "vast emptiness" is determined to be
"vast" with relation to itself, or "vast" with relation to anything "other?"

If it is "vast" within itself, it may well have no dimension whatsoever, as "vast" with no dimension except "self," has neither reason for, nor use for dimension.

If it is determined to be "vast" with relation to "other," it is not within
the parameter "not anything" for there is "something" with which "vast
nothingness" has relationship.

my conclusion:
Therefore, the only "temporal property" it would have is that of duration. I consider this to be a simple argument favoring time as always being. I see no reference to spacial necessity whatsoever; because there is no dimension understood in being "vast" with relation to nothing.

If "location" means temporal property of "place," but "vast" has no relation with "otherness" there is no dimension of "place."

Therefore this "enormous vacuum would have discoverable physical properties" becomes a fallacy because it assumes a "discoverer" not in evidence. There cannot be a discoverer having no dimension in which to "be."

Comment?



(drmark)(Post # 107) Not really. You and Beebe seem to enjoy promulgating esoteric philosophical discussion. I just stick with the facts. [;)]


Another dodge. It was YOU who introduced "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" in post # 73.
quote:

(drmark) Surely you're familiar with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I personally have never seen an effective logical rebuttal!


(theo) Oh, of course, you only "stick with the FACTS," not philosophy. Right!



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 1:28:49 PM)

quote:

Another dodge. It was YOU who introduced "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" in post # 73.
And do you have a fact to present which contradicts causality or just more philosophical banter? I'm not playing dodgeball, t_b. Sorry to disappoint you!



wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 2:03:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayword1

I suppose we are all products of the information we elect to acquire in life.


No wayward1, we are all products of the divine grace God chooses to bless us with. What we do with that grace is our free choice.


I humbly disagree but again, I am happy to concede that I should have said that our opinions are a product of said information, not ourselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Why be happy in concession of availing yourself of erroneous information.


I didn't concede that. I conceded the possibility of it. This is merely intellectual honesty. I have openly admitted that it is possible for you to change my position on this matter if you provide me with adequate information.

quote:

Don't you want to be correct? Is there a significant minority of cosmologists who do not believe the evidence supports the universe to have beginning in time? This is not my area of expertise so I've only read what others say about current concepts in cosmology. Please correct me if I'm wrong.


Ok.

There is no good reason to believe that "space and matter began." The Big Bang is no more a "beginning" than any arbitrarily selected point on any line is a "beginning." It is the point where the universe became as it is now, not the point where the universe began. No scientist thinks ANYTHING different from what I have stated. The Big Bang model says absolutely nothing about the beginning of time.


quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

I do not "take big bang cosmology" at all, wayward1! I accept the historical account of origins as written in Genesis 1:1 - 2:4. However, as I stated above, it's my understanding that the majority position in current thinking of cosmology is that the BB marked the beginning of time in the universe. If there is an alternate viewpoint of BB theory, please share it with us.


I have. I find it rather surprising that I am the first to share this with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Actually wayward1, you used the phrase "mental leap" in your very first post. I do not consider it to be a "mental leap" at all to accept that a universe with a beginning must be an event that was caused. It's a logical conclusion from the logical concept of causality. Naturalists who arbitrarily reject supernatural explanations must avoid logical conclusions from causality (thus avoiding the "mental leap"), if they believe the universe had a beginning.


I'm sorry to be so insistent but you do not deserve the benefits of your "logical conclusion from causality" if you refuse to apply the same logic to God.

Please read the bold carefully, if you'll do me the honor. The problem with an infinite regress is that it is non-intuitive. But it is absolutely and unavoidably logical.

If it is true that every effect has a cause, then an infinite regress is inescapable. Any "first cause" would itself be an effect without a cause and thereby violate the axiom that "every effect has cause." This is why you can't get away with applying the "logic of causality" so absolutely. Clearly you do not apply it absolutely because you do not apply it to God. So you admit up front that it is possible for causality to be violated. If the axiom is true, no such first cause can exist. And if that is true then an infinite regress must obtain.

But if the axiom is not true, then we have just logically freed up any effect to be uncaused. If we reject (as the argument requires) the empirical generalization that every effect must have a cause, then there is no way of telling how many and sundry past causes (inconveniently unobserved) are themselves uncaused. In so doing we have eviscerated the entire argument of an "uncaused cause"... but from a different direction.

If we cannot count on effects having causes, then there is no possibility of assembling a genealogical relationship between any current existence and any single past entity. The history of the cosmos might be riddled with the spontaneous generation of multiple causal chains each with its own unique "uncaused cause" at its point of inception. Among the places it cannot logically lead to is a single cause for the universe... and if we can't "logically" get there, extrapolating such an entity into something vaguely resembling "God" becomes a complete non sequitur.

In conclusion, the argument from an "uncaused cause" boils down to a single ad hoc assertion that might cut the gordian knot and restore intuitive tranquility. But it can only do so at the cost of any possibility of logically concluding what it intended to conclude. The very definition of a logical fallacy.

It is in short, not much different than saying, "It was just magic."

Or perhaps your argument from an "uncaused cause" is intended to end at a single entity responsible for causing all that otherwise exists. You, drmark, have proposed that this entity is not only "uncaused" but "eternal and uncreated."

The purpose of that proposition is to decouple that entity from the "infinite regress" that already causes such conceptual difficulty. But does it really uncouple it?

Any eternal and uncreated entity is itself a form of infinite regress. There is simply no difference in eternal implication between the phrases "an eternal and uncreated god" and "an eternal and uncreated universe." Once the possibility of one is conceded, the possibility of the other immediately obtains. (Note... I speak here of possibility without making any claim to actuality. That is a discussion for another day.)

It is natural to understand an eternal universe as an "infinite regress" since we already understand that "the universe" is simply a category and not an actual entity. The universe is "everything that exists or has ever existed." Rather than being a "thing" itself, it is a label that we assign to the collection of "all things."

So... an "eternal and uncreated" universe does not require any individual "thing" to itself be eternal, uncreated or uncaused. In fact, it does not require a causal relationship at all, though such relationships exist. All it requires is that something always exist. It need not be the same thing from one moment to the next. Just that there always is something, and never is nothing.

An "eternal and uncreated" god is essentially the identical circumstance. It would (like the components of the universe) be that something that always existed. That entity itself is infinite in regress. The fact that it is only one thing generates more problems than it solves for anyone who intends to accept it without defying logic.

For just one example, the problems begin with the very definition of existence. It is common for proponents of your argument to assert that such an entity would be "outside space and time," since after all (they argue) space and time are merely components of the universe. But they can do so only by ignoring that space and time are also fundamental to the very concept of "existence." If something is outside of space and time, then how can it be considered to "exist" at all? The proposal of a circumstance where the universe does not exist (and where space and time do not exist) pretty much renders the concept of "existence" exactly meaningless.

How would we understand an entity (any entity) to "exist" if there was no time or space? More importantly, how could we label such an entity "eternal" if there is no such thing as "eternity?"

We are again left with the bottom line that it is "just magic."

For most of human history, all questions of divinity and the divine were quite comfortably answered with just such an assertion. It is fascinating to note that even today, and even behind the veneer of arguments that pretend to be based on reason and evidence, the bottom line has not changed since Neandertal first raised his eyes to the stars and felt the stirrings of what he thought was his soul.

It's just magic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Sure, I'll concede your initial point is valid. Are you willing to concede that the primary reason that naturalists do not speak carefully about origins is because their worldview interferes with their objectivity? That's my point and it's most definitely related to my claim for their closed minds!


That is very possibly the case.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Of course there are things about the universe we do not yet understand, but that does not negate causality! Every effect with a beginning has been caused by something adequate to cause it - what's not to see?


No, but I have negated causality, in this context. Sorry if it's offensive to you. I did not mean it as such. Please note that I say all this with full confidence that it is still completely logical to believe in God.

I mean only for people of faith to cease and desist usage of cosmological science where it does not support their position. I feel they inadvertently weaken their position in doing so. Continuing on this path could discredit the logical ability of the faithful. As I stated previously, I would work from the assumption that God could have created the universe to appear ANY way He wanted to, so any appearance that "seems" to contradict scripture will undoubtedly play out to have had a purpose to God and will therefore never constitute grounds for challenging one's faith.



Jhud -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 2:08:18 PM)

quote:

Hm, PLEASE, explain.

Do you mean that the universe might have a teleological cause, like the Omega beign a cause of the universe?

I grant that, but then let's admit that we are talking paradox or poetry and not logic.

Are you talking SIMULTANEITY? Please do not, because there is no such thing as a difference between simultaneous dependent events. Is there such a thing as making a distinction between co-dependence and contingence of one upon the other if they are simultaneous? Then from what is that contingence derived? What would be the criterion for their hierarchy?


It's not all that difficult to understand - if I for example found a steel ball sitting on a pillow, and that steel ball caused an indentation in the pillow while it sat there, then the steel ball would be the cause of the indentation - even if it had been there for all eternity.



hellohellohi -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 2:37:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Hm, PLEASE, explain.

Do you mean that the universe might have a teleological cause, like the Omega beign a cause of the universe?

I grant that, but then let's admit that we are talking paradox or poetry and not logic.

Are you talking SIMULTANEITY? Please do not, because there is no such thing as a difference between simultaneous dependent events. Is there such a thing as making a distinction between co-dependence and contingence of one upon the other if they are simultaneous? Then from what is that contingence derived? What would be the criterion for their hierarchy?


It's not all that difficult to understand - if I for example found a steel ball sitting on a pillow, and that steel ball caused an indentation in the pillow while it sat there, then the steel ball would be the cause of the indentation - even if it had been there for all eternity.


Hmm, but was the indentation there BEFORE the steel ball was placed there? No, of course not, because both came into being at the same time. However, this makes it impossible to answer the question of whether perhaps teh steel ball didn't come into being to fill the form implied by the indentation -- if both happened simultaneously. What caused what? If nothing preceded the other, then how can a cause be spoken of if not poetically? The ball caused the indentation because the ball is heavy and the indentation has form only except due to the ball? But I thought both were do to some other fantastic cause that placed both of them there together, without having one existing without the other. It is taking license with hypotheticals, if you ask me -- as is all of this discussion of the nature or properties of God prior to creation of properties.

But perhaps you have a point you would liek to further express related to teh steel ball matter. I don't get it. I don't get the use in stretching the meaning of cause to something other than something concerning events or phenomena that are separated in time. It just seems like an exercise in being overly creative with the use of words. And for what purpose? I must then ask that question.



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 2:49:22 PM)

quote:

I humbly disagree but again, I am happy to concede that I should have said that our opinions are a product of said information, not ourselves.
Glad you're so happy, but you're wrong again. My opinions are very definitely a product of my personal sentience. Abstract information has no direct effect on neurophysiologic function. However, opinions are often influenced by acquired information.

quote:

This is merely intellectual honesty.
I suppose that's your opinion. Mine is different.

quote:

There is no good reason to believe that "space and matter began."
Well, again that's your opinion, wayward1. Genesis 1 states differently! I believe the Eyewitness account. I'm sorry you don't.

quote:

It is the point where the universe became as it is now, not the point where the universe began.
Interesting philosophical nonsense, but I will stick with the correct meaning of words. The point in time where and when the universe became as it is now must be by definition the point in time where and when the universe began.

quote:

I have. I find it rather surprising that I am the first to share this with you.
I find it rather surprising that someone of your apparent linguistic ability thinks that you've shared anything of meaning through the above philosophical nonsense. Do you have a reference to BB cosmology by a legitimate scientist which negates the relationship of BB to the beginning of time?

quote:

I'm sorry to be so insistent but you do not deserve the benefits of your "logical conclusion from causality" if you refuse to apply the same logic to God.
Well, I'm not sorry to be so equally insistent because God is not subject to logical conclusions of causality. He is the source of such logic!

quote:

Please read the bold carefully, if you'll do me the honor. The problem with an infinite regress is that it is non-intuitive. But it is absolutely and unavoidably logical.
It requires little careful reading to see the underlying worldview of naturalism that is required to call infinite regression "unavoidably logical". Such is the faith of those who deny KCA!

quote:

No, but I have negated causality, in this context. Sorry if it's offensive to you. I did not mean it as such.
No wayward1, all you've done is make futile attempts to redine terms, rely on tautologies, and generally proffer philosophical nonsense. I'm hardly offended, rather more disappointed that folks with such intellectual prowess cannot see the forest for the trees. But this remains a constant reminder of the truth of 1 Cor 1:20-25.



theo_book -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 3:06:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

Another dodge. It was YOU who introduced "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" in post # 73.
And do you have a fact to present which contradicts causality or just more philosophical banter? I'm not playing dodgeball, t_b. Sorry to disappoint you!


I have already learned not to present to you "facts," drmark. It only makes you hostile. I have already reasoned with you that time always was, and you went balistic.

I have just presented you with an argument wherein the Kalam Cosmological Argument is faulted by insisting that "Anything that can have spacial and temporal properties is not nothing." By the time this statement is presented, it has already stated that to say there is nothing, there is already established a "vast emptiness something." Argument continued to attempt to define this "vast emptiness something" as having discoverable properties; i.e., existence in a particular location and for a particular amount of time.

I have shown that "vast" has no real referent meaning, without a response to "Vast with reference to what?" If it is "vast" with reference only to self, it may be infinitessimally finite, as it has no reason or use for space the size of what we consider "vast" to connote.

If vast with reference to "other" is is not "nothing," but in reality is one of two or more.

With "existence" therefore requiring only duration, it is an argument favouring the concept that time always was/is. And it is time during which this "vast emptyness" which requires no dimension of space, therefore is not vast by our known standards, becomes simply duration, which qualifies as a perfect haven for God to be. He is spirit, requiring no dimension for his being. But he certainly requires time, for duration in which "to be."

I still cannot comprehend the justification for your attitude in introduceing a concept like the Kalam Cosmological Argument as proof that the universe is a creation, (Post #73 in response to SamSpicks question in post # 71) then refuse to comment on the discussion of it because "you only stick with facts."

Of course, you state in your introductory post "I personally have never seen an effective logical rebuttal."

Perhaps we all know why at this point. Sorry to disappoint YOU.



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 3:09:24 PM)

quote:

I have already learned not to present to you "facts," drmark. It only makes you hostile.
Is that a fact?



wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 3:37:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

However, opinions are often influenced by acquired information.


That was all I meant to say. I sincerely apologize if I failed to make that clear. I meant that our opinions are effected by that which we learn.

quote:

I suppose that's your opinion. Mine is different.


Accepting that it is possible to be wrong at the outset of this conversation was not meant to deceive and it was not disingenuous. I meant it as an offering of honest openness to reversing my stance on this matter if I am provided with adequate information. That stands. I will change my mind just as soon as you convince me and I will sincerely listen to anything you have to say in that endeavor.

quote:

Well, again that's your opinion, wayward1. Genesis 1 states differently! I believe the Eyewitness account. I'm sorry you don't.


There is absolutely nothing wrong with your choice to believe the eye witness account. If you could share with me the method you used to decide exactly which ancient eye witness account to believe then perhaps I will believe it too.

quote:

Interesting philosophical nonsense, but I will stick with the correct meaning of words.


Sir, I have refrained from insulting you by calling your opinions nonsense. I mean only to have mature intellectual interaction here. If you are unwilling to return the courtesies I provide then I will look elsewhere for what I seek. It is purely TRUE that there is no way to know if the point at which the universe began its current expansion is also the point at which the universe began, no way, and no reason.

quote:

The point in time where and when the universe became as it is now must be by definition the point in time where and when the universe began.


Why? Surely not simply because you have just said so.

quote:

I find it rather surprising that someone of your apparent linguistic ability thinks that you've shared anything of meaning through the above philosophical nonsense. Do you have a reference to BB cosmology by a legitimate scientist which negates the relationship of BB to the beginning of time?


If you sincerely find my linguistic ability to be above average then thank you for mentioning it. But please, if you have recognized that I take great care to be linguistically clear, do me the favor of not relegating my opinions to the realm of the nonsensical so flippantly. If you won't even consider the possibility of there being any merit to my thoughts then how can you be returning the favor of intellectual honesty I offered when we began? You must be open to the possibility of coming to agree with me, if I am able to provide you with sufficient believable justification for my beliefs, or else your beliefs are suspect by the nature of their inflexibility.

As to your question, "do I have a reference to BB cosmology by a legitimate scientist which negates the relationship of BB to the beginning of time?" I'll say the following. The "Big Bang Theory" itself is the theory of the instant exactly one Planck time after whatever started it (the universe) on its current rate of expansion. The theory explicitly cannot address what existed before the Big Bang, what caused the Big Bang, or whether our universe the only one.

This doesn't have to be backed up by one scientist or a thousand. It is a fact.

quote:

Well, I'm not sorry to be so equally insistent because God is not subject to logical conclusions of causality. He is the source of such logic!


You sound dangerously like a man who has not done me the honor of reading carefully through the part of my previous post that was in bold. I answered this there. If you're not interested in my answer, that is very much ok with me. You have no obligation to read my words. I consider it a generous gift of your patience and gentility when you do. When you do not, it is your right.

quote:

It requires little careful reading to see the underlying worldview of naturalism that is required to call infinite regression "unavoidably logical". Such is the faith of those who deny KCA!


But please understand that the Kalam argument (which depends on a minor premise that on its face does not appear to be true) cannot actually lead to any description of a universal cause that is "unnatural" or "intelligent." These are ad hoc sectarian additions that cannot be derived from the actual argument. You too seem very intelligent. Move beyond KCA with me into a more defensible stance that will only bring credit to your position on creation. I don't mean to uproot your faith.

The assertion that space and matter began is what drives your conclusion that the cause was unnatural, and obviously God.

I expect you to make the argument from design soon because the complexity of the university does appear to point to an intelligent cause, but the teleological argument (among its many other problems) applies to both the "creation" and the "creator"... so it also cannot establish a "god" possessing the characteristics you wish it to possess, not "logically" by any even mildly strict definition of "logical".

quote:

No wayward1, all you've done is make futile attempts to redine terms, rely on tautologies, and generally proffer philosophical nonsense. I'm hardly offended, rather more disappointed that folks with such intellectual prowess cannot see the forest for the trees. But this remains a constant reminder of the truth of 1 Cor 1:20-25.



I'm not disappointed in you at all. I'm enjoying the substantive portions of our conversation. If you could kindly remove the ad hominem portions I think we could really get somewhere.



theo_book -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 3:47:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

quote:

I have already learned not to present to you "facts," drmark. It only makes you hostile.
Is that a fact?


No, its the reason you've
quote:

personally never seen an effective logical rebuttal."



drmark -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 4:08:26 PM)

quote:

If you could share with me the method you used to decide exactly which ancient eye witness account to believe then perhaps I will believe it too.
There is only one Eyewitness account of origins worth believing. If you wish to discuss the Christian Bible's authority, inerrancy, and inspiration there is an entire forum called "The Bible" for that purpose. Many people much brighter than I will be delighted to accomodate your interest in Truth!

quote:

Sir, I have refrained from insulting you by calling your opinions nonsense.
I'm sorry you mistook my analysis of your post as an insult. I don't know you whatsoever so I can do very little to insult you personally on this electronic medium. I stand by my analysis of the written text.

quote:

It is purely TRUE that there is no way to know if the point at which the universe began its current expansion is also the point at which the universe began, no way, and no reason.
By the same "logic", it is also purely TRUE that there is no way to know if reality is real! Why are you wasting unreal time with me, wayward1?

quote:

If you sincerely find my linguistic ability to be above average then thank you for mentioning it.
Just trying to balance out the ad hom attacks as you see them.

quote:

or else your beliefs are suspect by the nature of their inflexibility.
I really don't put much stock in relativism! Your beliefs are suspect by the nature of their flexibility.

quote:

But please understand that the Kalam argument (which depends on a minor premise that on its face does not appear to be true) cannot actually lead to any description of a universal cause that is "unnatural" or "intelligent."
Perhaps this is something we can rationally discuss. What is the "minor premise" that appears untrue? Does "supernatural" only mean "unnatural"?

quote:

The assertion that space and matter began is what drives your conclusion that the cause was unnatural, and obviously God.
One last time - this is NOT an assertion, it is the consensus of cosmologists based on the existing physical evidence. Do you have any expert opinion to the contrary or just more philosophical posturing?

quote:

I'm not disappointed in you at all. I'm enjoying the substantive portions of our conversation. If you could kindly remove the ad hominem portions I think we could really get somewhere.
Then by all means, let's get to some substantive portions.



wayward1 -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/15/2008 4:28:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

There is only one Eyewitness account of origins worth believing. If you wish to discuss the Christian Bible's authority, inerrancy, and inspiration there is an entire forum called "The Bible" for that purpose. Many people much brighter than I will be delighted to accommodate your interest in Truth!


Perhaps when we are through I'll make just such a request from them then.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

I'm sorry you mistook my analysis of your post as an insult. I don't know you whatsoever so I can do very little to insult you personally on this electronic medium. I stand by my analysis of the written text.


No mistake, only aggressive and insulting language, interpreted accurately, by me. Stand by that if you insist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

By the same "logic", it is also purely TRUE that there is no way to know if reality is real! Why are you wasting unreal time with me, wayward1?


What argument hinges on the establishment of reality as true though? Reality is accepted as true by all because we all live it. We are talking about an event that is thought to have occurred 15 billion years ago. Its attributes cannot be compared to modern observable reality when deciding what we can logically deduce about each.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Just trying to balance out the ad hom attacks as you see them.


I see.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

I really don't put much stock in relativism! Your beliefs are suspect by the nature of their flexibility.


So let me be sure I follow you. To you, a belief must be absolute and unwavering to be considered valid?

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

Perhaps this is something we can rationally discuss. What is the "minor premise" that appears untrue? Does "supernatural" only mean "unnatural"?


The main premise of the argument is that existence requires cause. There is no proof of this being "absolutely always true." The premise itself defeats that which it was designed to establish. One need only apply the argument's main premise to God to arrive at the conclusion that the argument is mute. Even if you are of a mind to excuse God of Its requirement to conform to the "logical premise of causality" then it can, at best, establish God as being outside of time, but it cannot establish Him/It as being the God of Abraham by ANY stretch of the imagination.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drmark

One last time - this is NOT an assertion, it is the consensus of cosmologists based on the existing physical evidence. Do you have any expert opinion to the contrary or just more philosophical posturing?


Sorry, you replied before I got my edit in so I'll just copy it here. As to your question, "do I have a reference to BB cosmology by a legitimate scientist which negates the relationship of BB to the beginning of time?" I'll say the following. The "Big Bang Theory" itself is the theory of the instant exactly one Planck time after whatever started it (the universe) on its current rate of expansion. The theory explicitly cannot address what existed before the Big Bang, what caused the Big Bang, or whether our universe is the only one. If a scientist does say or even imply that the BB theory says ANYTHING about these three things then that Scientist is mistaken.

This is exactly the moment I believe scientists speak inaccurately about. They speak about this moment as if it is the "beginning of time" when they should say it is the "beginning of time as we know it" or the "beginning of the observable expansion of the universe". They do not know or even think that the Big Bang was also the beginning of ALL TIME.

This doesn't have to be backed up by one scientist or a thousand. It is a fact.

quote:

Then by all means, let's get to some substantive portions.


I think we are.



SamSpick -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/16/2008 4:38:19 AM)

This still going on huh...

quote:

but then let's admit that we are talking paradox or poetry and not logic.

I agree with your declaration of paradox. We effectively have two apparent truisms:

1) The universe had a beginning or more specifically there was a first moment of time.
2) The events of the first moment, by definition, cannot have a *prior* cause.

So it seems that we have an uncaused event (the one taking place in the first moment) which of course flies in the face of common sense. What we must understand is that we all use a logic which is based on time, space and causality. (Try to think in terms not involving the flow of time or the occupation of space and the utilisation of objects) Therefore such a logic cannot have any useful application at all when considering the origins of the first moment of time. Therefore we are unable to declare a purely *logical* or *rational* belief in a creator of time.



theo_book -> RE: Is Belief in God Logical? (7/16/2008 7:55:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SamSpick

This still going on huh...

quote:

but then let's admit that we are talking paradox or poetry and not logic.

I agree with your declaration of paradox. We effectively have two apparent truisms:

1) The universe had a beginning or more specifically there was a first moment of time.
2) The events of the first moment, by definition, cannot have a *prior* cause.

So it seems that we have an uncaused event (the one taking place in the first moment) which of course flies in the face of common sense. What we must understand is that we all use a logic which is based on time, space and causality. (Try to think in terms not involving the flow of time or the occupation of space and the utilisation of objects) Therefore such a logic cannot have any useful application at all when considering the origins of the first moment of time. Therefore we are unable to declare a purely *logical* or *rational* belief in a creator of time.


Greetings SamSpick. I have watched the deteriorization of the "logical" question since its inauguration, but I have a perspective I would like your opinion on.

We spend a lot of debate on "first cause" resulting in "first event." Is it possible we are missing something important due to our fixation with our own conclusions? For example, why do we assume "cause and event" as being "first?" And we conclude it based on what? Our own inability to see beyond those two possibilities?

Suppose; Time always existed. It requires no dimension in which to house time, for time has no dimension; only direction. And, as time at point alpha ceases when it becomes point beta, there is no need for provision for directional expansion. IOW, when time expands forward, there is no need to provide for a forward motion, because "before-time" has ceased to exist, requiring no provision for directional expansion whatsoever. All we need be concerned with is cataloging events that occurred DURING that previous DURATION of time.

Suppose; Space has NOT always existed. There was no need for space if there was no material reality. Material requires space in which to express its being dimensionally.

Suppose; According to scripture God is. God being spirit, requires no space in which "to be." Spirit is non-dimensional. But "being" REQUIRES time for the duration of the function of being.

This eliminates all philosophical need to establish any criteria for a "space-time-continuum" as it did not exist. The fact of its being today has no bearing on its existence in perpetuity back to some preBB starting point, or beyond.

Taken in conjunction with the scriptural account that all things that now are, were before. "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. 11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after." [Ecclessiastes 1:9-11] "There is nothing new under the sun" is not just a proverb, it may well have a place in reality.

Suppose time is not unidirectional at all, but cyclical, as in a circle. What has been will always be. If in fact God directs events in time, through space of his design, and fulfills his will for one set of generations, why not another? Finish with one planetary life-form situation at a time, move on to the next "space-time-circumstance" with a new set of saints and sinners.

It certainly would answer a lot of speculative conjectures; would uphold the scriptural account, and provide a modicum of sense to debating believer/nonbeliever cycles.

And it eliminates the need to prove which came first, the causing event, or the caused event.

Comment?



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI