The concept of a first cause is really beyond your comprehension, isn't it? Oh yeah, universes and all the laws of nature emerging from nothing. Happens every day. ROTF... It really boils down to one question, which is most probable, which is the most reasonable and simple explanation. Causation from something, eternal universe or the universe from nothing... We see nothing eternal within the universe itself, no eternal parts. We don't see something coming from absolutely nothing. We see no pockets of nothingness that we can find, no place fully devoid of any possible energy or matter. Empty space is far from empty. We see causation everywhere we look, even in the so called random events, which do have a cause even if we don't know it and can't establish a pattern. Random if it were a force, would be a cause. So again, which makes the most sense from what we know of our universe. 1. It is eternal without cause. 2. It was caused by an external force. 3. It was caused by nothing. People will make up their own minds, and the impact of that decision then influences their subsequent gathering of fact to support that conclusion, that's how this deal really works no matter how much people are in denial of it. http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329
This was worth quoting again. The projector/screen analogy is apropos. It's even more helpful to think of You as the One who projects the images of the universe for you to see. Both of these 'you's' are not really You, but a way of looking at Yourself as something other than what you are. That there appear to be many individuals in this movie does not alter this basic analogy. It is one personality looking at itself in many different ways, none of which are true. The movie is over. The end is known. Each individual is reviewing his part in it. Did the movie ever really exist? Not according to reality. But for the viewers it is real as they seem to watch it from within, as part of the action. The action is distracting. It pulls you in and induces you to respond. As you respond, the trap is set, and you are caught up in the drama. It takes a deliberate decision to be able to extricate oneself from this movie in the theatre of the mind. Jesus
I probably don't understand the rigid definition of science very well. Though my own opinion is that a hypothesis can only be disproved without uncertainty(HH might disagree because of the his uncertainty principle), my experience (probably with junk science) is that most scientific papers try to validate a hypothesis (i.e. to prove something is true) using supporting data/evidence. Anyway I don't build my belief system using science and I am not interested in learning the rigid definition of science here. Let me continue with my "junk science" approach. I appreciate those who have posted or will post their opinions/evidence related to the original question.
lol... um, yes okay. Do we need a better definition of faith than this? Passive faith involves saying 'I know there's no proof for what I believe, but I believe it anyway'. I have no problem with this - we all choose to believe certain things. However, this kind of militant faith requires the following attitude: 'Not only do I have faith in something for which there is no proof, for which I can find no evidence and which will never ever be provable, I am saying that all science for which we do have proof, and that tends to disprove my beliefs, is wrong!' What a convenient approach. Wouldn't it be great if real life worked this way! Causation has been definitively refuted. It simply does not hold up under many conditions. And yet we are to take the word of an internet troll that 'we just can't establish a pattern'. The militant faithful (and remember, the ZTroll is one of them - he has converted back and forth between at least 3 of the world's major religions; converted officially, not just theoretically) can cherry pick the truth and twist it when it suits them and cite it when it suits them. The idea that life evolved and the scientific proofs which exist to support the theory of evolution are the targets of the ID'ers. Their argument? 'We don't believe it'. Their proof? 'We don't believe it'. Their alternative? To quote the Disgusting Troll, when he was asked about the origin of life on earth "Magistrates were materialized out of pure potentiality" "God programmed the universe in his mind first, then he manifested the universe from within himself, then he appointed magistrates to govern it and maintain it" And just to show you what kind of mind we are dealing with, kjkent asked Z the following question. Q: How old is the earth, Troll? A: 1,972,949,101 years. Oh, I see. And you know this.... how? Before you assume that these quotes above are made up... http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=934054&highlight=Magistrates#post934054 With friends like this, the ID camp doesn't need enemies.
Back to the original question. If the Bible is inerrant, it cannot contain ONE error period. Likewise, if there is just ONE black swan, one cannot say, as David Hume pointed out, that all swans are white. Does the Bible contain error? Absolutely. Scientific inaccuracies. Inconsistencies among the Four Gospels. Basic counting errors. Fantastic stories of unicorns and a worldwide flood that could not have happened. I could list pages upon pages of errors that evangelicals don't want you to know about (as a former evangelical who graduated summa cum laude from an evangelical university--with a minor in Bible--I know that for a fact). But then that would be a bit much. I'l provide a link or two, if one is interested further.
Hi, Stu... Thanks for your response. So.. I believe I understand better from this post than from the last what you perceive as objectionable in my argument. Because Nothing-to-Universe involves only 1 inexplicable connection it is somehow less bizarre than Nothing-to-Supernatural-to-Universe which entails 2 inexplicable connections. I will assume that I have this right and proceed from that assumption. Please correct me if I'm wrong and I will adjust my response. My objection to your objection is that you, unlike me, are assuming that the Supernatural agent arose from Nothing. I am suggesting a simpler possible Supernatural-to-Universe progression, the Supernatural agent having always been. I have noted in some of your earlier posts that you object to this Supernatural agent on the grounds that it requires no logical justification being, as it is, defined in effect as that which requires no justification and that it thus provides an easy out for those who wish to rationalize God. But this is rejecting an argument on the basis of motive rather than addressing the argument itself. I'm presenting this Supernatural-Universe connection merely as a possibility and suggest that it can't be ruled out as a possibility no matter how remote that possibility may seem if only because ( IMO ) it's being considered in the context of a set of possibilities all of which are bizarre. Also, this is the only one of the 3 connections that's causative and therefore has at least that minimal element of natural logic in it. *** Then we have the Nothing-to-Universe progression. I find this option no more reasonable than any other. You ask why this connection should be regarded as bizarre. In fact, because it entails complete and utter causelessness I find this one the most bizarre. Where is the logic in a natural law Universe arising from an absence of natural law or anything that could give rise to natural law. This emergence from absolute nothingness defies all logic and experience. If any of the 3 options should be deemed impossible this ( IMO ) is the top candidate, but since we're obviously in the realm of the absurd we'll have to accept it as a possibility. *** Re the Eternal Universe - if you can accept the possibility of an Eternal Universe why not an Eternal Supernatural? You apparently can accept the Eternal element so it must be the Supernatural element that you object to. I suggest that an Eternal Universe is less reasonable than an Eternal Supernatural because the Universe is restricted to natural law while the Supernatural, by definition, is not and there are problems with an Eternal Natural Universe. For instance, time and cause-and-effect are essential elements of the natural world and in an Eternal Universe these would be problematic. A major logical problem with the Eternal Universe is that we are part of it and that we exist now. If the Universe is eternal then no "now" is possible because any now would have occurred infinitely earlier. Nevertheless we have to accept the Eternal Universe as an option if only because it's bizarre. I trust I have made myself perfectly obscure.
But then, the apologists are right there to counter in so far as is necessary to smooth things over for those that believe the bible is true. Also, there's the game of interpretation. In some instances it works. But in other instances you're left scratching your head at how anyone would buy it.
LOL yes, but less perfectly obscure than last time thanks "Anything possible cannot be ruled out..." puts Alice and the White Rabbit as Creators of the Universe alongside God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster with a whole Host of others. You'll have to explain to me how there is any element of minimal logic in that, to support the Supernatural as credible ,as you suggest it is, before I can pursue that line any further. The Always There Supernatural to Universe - explains nothing, but simply begs the question. The Universe is observable, knowable and provable. Why try and insert an unobservable, unknowable, indefinable concept of Supernatural in between Always There and Universe? If things can always be there, then why not the Universe Always there-. Why try and insert an extra unobservable, unknowable, indefinable concept of Supernatural? It's only accomplishment is the attempt to force a gap for Spaghetti Monsters, Zeus and something called God to find a place to sit. The Universe is the definition of ALL that exists right? Everything about it, however astonishing, extraordinary or unusual, conforms to the nature of the Universe. All that exists in the Universe is of the Nature of the Universe. Everything about it is Natural to it. There can be nothing Supernatural to the Universe because from its definition, there can be nothing that exists that is not naturally part of, or to do with it. As soon as you observe the Supernatural it is no longer supernatural. It becomes natural. It is observed as part of the Universe and like everything else is Natural to it, not Supernatural. So in a similar way, were it the case that - Nothing to Universe- was found to be, there would be no "bizarre" about it. That would explain the very Nature of things, Extraordinary and astounding yes, but not supernatural. Something "outside" the Universe? Supernatural to it? How? When the definition of the Universe is ALL that exists. As soon as something is observed to exist, however fantastic extraordinary or astounding it appears to be, it's Natural, always was, within the nature of the Universe by definition. Therefore there can in actuality be no Supernatural. Only concepts of it. And as concepts can describe anything of imagination whatsoever, they explain nothing. Although concepts themselves are natural, their ensuants are contrived, up until becoming things knowable and confirmable then to be part of the Universe. As the Universe itself is knowable and confirmable. Unlike yourself I do not find - Nothing to Universe - bizarre, in the way the word is being used in our discussion. That is to say, there is nothing conspicuously unconventional in terms of the Universe. Everything about it, however astonishing, extraordinary or unusual, conforms to the nature of it. I think it essentially important to appreciate that axiom when considering the Universe and indeed the World within it. So were it the case that -Nothing to Universe- was found to be, there would be no "bizarre". That would be a normal explanation of the nature of things. Extraordinary and astounding yes, but never Supernatural. You find "complete and utter causelessness" bizarre because you are not prepared to consider âNothing - a contingent of Natural? Why not? If I understand you correctly , in your argument, an abstract Supernatural is arbitrarily produced and positioned outside a substantiated Natural Universe, because you cannot have Natural as an uncaused cause. So you give supernatural an exceptional special pleading for contradicting itself , being an uncaused cause, and always there. But WHY does an actual Universe,... which is not an abstract imagination, but is containing information substantiated and confirmed, not requiring special pleading, not needing exceptions for contradiction, ...not have the grounds for uncaused cause, when there is actually information for such a thing as part of the Nature of the Universe? May I suggest you research virtual particles / particle pairs and quantum foam and perhaps consider those propositions. Not at all 'bizarre' in context , but would be wholly Natural events. Should any of these be further confirmed next year when the Cern Particle Accelerator Hadron Collider goes online, your incredulity at an uncaused Universe may diminish, may it not? My impression is, thinking of the Supernatural is just like thinking of the Universe as it is, only the word covers for those parts of it still found to be incredible.