Linus

  • *
  • 1 Posts
    • View Profile
I want to start by saying that this is the Christian organization that I have the most respect for of all. Dr.Craig is undoubtedly a genius and I have learned so many things from him and I just love watching all his debates and the defenders series. I'm 30 years old and have been an atheist my whole life, without even getting close to believing in god, or even any non-material object, in my entire life. Seeing the materials here have actually shaken me and I no longer believe that it is unreasonable to believe in god, rather it seems to me that, based on evidence, a strong case for Christianity can be made (and has been made by Dr.Craig).

I have ordered the Kalam cosmological argument book along with other books and I've also begun to read the bible again since it now has a whole new level of interest to me. My question is this.

In several of the arguments for God's existence, god is identified as the "cause" or "explanation" of the universe. In Leibniz's argument as well as the Kalam cosmological argument. I feel the arguments are actually good, they seem more plausible to be true than false to me, but I still have one problem with the truth that people get out of them, and that is the title of this question.

Once Dr.Craig has identified that the universe has a cause, or that the explanation of the universe is god, he then jumps to the conclusion that this cause has to be Timeless, spaceless, immaterial etc. I do not see why. Couldn't we simply say that the big bang is the cause of the universe, and we call the big bang god, and that is all there is? In Leibniz's argument, god is the explanation of the universe, but couldn't this "god" we identified simply be the material cause of the universe? I'm guessing that I'm missing something here and I would appreciate any explanation.

As counter argument to the cause of the universe being e.g. immaterial, take myself. I can make a chair, and be the cause of the chair, but still, I"m not immaterial. I can write a computer program, which then gets instantiated in a computer, consisting of 1s and 0s, that doesn't imply that I come from a world outside of 1s and 0s. People can make atomic bombs, that explode and is the cause of incredibly powerful events, that doesn't show that the person that made them is some how immaterial.

I can't see the reason to jump from "god exists" to identifying any of the attributes of god. Couldn't what we call "God" in the arguments, simply be the big bang, or any other explanation of the universe that we have yet to discover?

Concise final statement of the question:. Why would this "God" or "Cause", that we argued for in e.g. the Kalam Cosmological argument have to be outside the universe and be timeless, spaceless, immaterial etc?

1

Tom Paine

  • **
  • 836 Posts
    • View Profile
I want to start by saying that this is the Christian organization that I have the most respect for of all. Dr.Craig is undoubtedly a genius and I have learned so many things from him and I just love watching all his debates and the defenders series. I'm 30 years old and have been an atheist my whole life, without even getting close to believing in god, or even any non-material object, in my entire life. Seeing the materials here have actually shaken me and I no longer believe that it is unreasonable to believe in god, rather it seems to me that, based on evidence, a strong case for Christianity can be made (and has been made by Dr.Craig).

I have ordered the Kalam cosmological argument book along with other books and I've also begun to read the bible again since it now has a whole new level of interest to me. My question is this.

In several of the arguments for God's existence, god is identified as the "cause" or "explanation" of the universe. In Leibniz's argument as well as the Kalam cosmological argument. I feel the arguments are actually good, they seem more plausible to be true than false to me, but I still have one problem with the truth that people get out of them, and that is the title of this question.

Once Dr.Craig has identified that the universe has a cause, or that the explanation of the universe is god, he then jumps to the conclusion that this cause has to be Timeless, spaceless, immaterial etc. I do not see why. Couldn't we simply say that the big bang is the cause of the universe, and we call the big bang god, and that is all there is? In Leibniz's argument, god is the explanation of the universe, but couldn't this "god" we identified simply be the material cause of the universe? I'm guessing that I'm missing something here and I would appreciate any explanation.

As counter argument to the cause of the universe being e.g. immaterial, take myself. I can make a chair, and be the cause of the chair, but still, I"m not immaterial. I can write a computer program, which then gets instantiated in a computer, consisting of 1s and 0s, that doesn't imply that I come from a world outside of 1s and 0s. People can make atomic bombs, that explode and is the cause of incredibly powerful events, that doesn't show that the person that made them is some how immaterial.

I can't see the reason to jump from "god exists" to identifying any of the attributes of god. Couldn't what we call "God" in the arguments, simply be the big bang, or any other explanation of the universe that we have yet to discover?

Concise final statement of the question:. Why would this "God" or "Cause", that we argued for in e.g. the Kalam Cosmological argument have to be outside the universe and be timeless, spaceless, immaterial etc?

Your skepticism is entirely warranted. There is no good reason to think the universe needs a cause for its existence. Yes, there is strong evidence that it had a temporal beginning, ie., a first moment of its existence. However, since that first moment is is likely cotemporaneous with the beginning of time itself, then it cannot be said to have ever not existed. As such, it did not come into being. In the case of the beginnings that inform the "causal" principle of P1 in the KCA, those are all the coming into being of new complex proper parts of the universe from preexisting substance. This can not be the case with the beginning of the universe. The beginning of the universe is obviously a totally unique beginning and trying to hold it to rules inferred from our experience jst doesn't make sense. So, The KCA is unsound and it's conclusion is unproven.

I think you may be on to something with the idea you expressed which I have also postulated, ie., that the physical universe in it initial condition or if we take a quantum view, it's ground state is the uncaused/first cause and/or ground of being. This hypothesis is much more parsimonious than the theistic hypothesis as it does not require multiplying entities by postulating an unknown and exceedingly mysterious, I'd say incohernet, dimensionless, immaterial person who is able to create material universes from absolutely nothing.

2

jayceeii

  • **
  • 326 Posts
    • View Profile
I want to start by saying that this is the Christian organization that I have the most respect for of all. Dr.Craig is undoubtedly a genius and I have learned so many things from him and I just love watching all his debates and the defenders series. I'm 30 years old and have been an atheist my whole life, without even getting close to believing in god, or even any non-material object, in my entire life. Seeing the materials here have actually shaken me and I no longer believe that it is unreasonable to believe in god, rather it seems to me that, based on evidence, a strong case for Christianity can be made (and has been made by Dr.Craig).

I have ordered the Kalam cosmological argument book along with other books and I've also begun to read the bible again since it now has a whole new level of interest to me. My question is this.

In several of the arguments for God's existence, god is identified as the "cause" or "explanation" of the universe. In Leibniz's argument as well as the Kalam cosmological argument. I feel the arguments are actually good, they seem more plausible to be true than false to me, but I still have one problem with the truth that people get out of them, and that is the title of this question.

Once Dr.Craig has identified that the universe has a cause, or that the explanation of the universe is god, he then jumps to the conclusion that this cause has to be Timeless, spaceless, immaterial etc. I do not see why. Couldn't we simply say that the big bang is the cause of the universe, and we call the big bang god, and that is all there is? In Leibniz's argument, god is the explanation of the universe, but couldn't this "god" we identified simply be the material cause of the universe? I'm guessing that I'm missing something here and I would appreciate any explanation.

As counter argument to the cause of the universe being e.g. immaterial, take myself. I can make a chair, and be the cause of the chair, but still, I"m not immaterial. I can write a computer program, which then gets instantiated in a computer, consisting of 1s and 0s, that doesn't imply that I come from a world outside of 1s and 0s. People can make atomic bombs, that explode and is the cause of incredibly powerful events, that doesn't show that the person that made them is some how immaterial.

I can't see the reason to jump from "god exists" to identifying any of the attributes of god. Couldn't what we call "God" in the arguments, simply be the big bang, or any other explanation of the universe that we have yet to discover?

Concise final statement of the question:. Why would this "God" or "Cause", that we argued for in e.g. the Kalam Cosmological argument have to be outside the universe and be timeless, spaceless, immaterial etc?
Reading Craig’s argument he seems to be banking on the idea this cause must be a person, i.e. someone with intelligence, intent, powers, etc. Such a person obviously cannot be material, but must be spiritual in nature, whatever that is. I am amazed your mind seems so intelligent, but you still appear to bank on the Bible. The Bible was never meant to be a full or even adequate disclosure of God’s nature or presence on the globe.

As careful argumentation can show, many of the world’s great atheists have been closet theists, establishing ideology so that human minds might have reference points. At the zoo, you know how they set out different kinds of food for the different kinds of animals. If you try to feed them all one kind of food there’ll be a rebellion. In general the Kalam and other theological arguments are not sound, otherwise they’d be persuading everyone.

I guess I’d be curious which elements of the Bible you are finding persuasive, when I have seen it is mostly hooey. You denied God, but are now accepting God, but were you thinking correctly about God either then or now? This world has sorely lacked an adequate God-concept, as well as any discourse intending to encourage a better one. The first god you see is yourself, as all begin with the self-image when thinking about others.

The next step is to notice the other is not exactly like yourself, then to try to find reasons from within yourself for these differences. Nothing like that can be found when God is encountered, which is the meaning from the Book of Job, where Job is rebuked by God. Another sad superstition in the world is that God is beside each man, so that he need only pray to be heard and answered. Such man are trapped inside themselves, not finding God.