What do you guys think about Reasons to Believe?

[rlj51]

Dr. Hugh Ross is coming to the Seattle are this month and I was thinking of going to hear him. I am saddened that his organization and one's like AIG are both in the business of evangelism, and apologetics, but frequently disagree and even resort to insults and name calling when they interact.

www.reasons.org

[Warcraft3]

rlj51:
"Dr. Hugh Ross is coming to the Seattle are this month and I was thinking of going to hear him. I am saddened that his organization and one's like AIG are both in the business of evangelism, and apologetics, but frequently disagree and even resort to insults and name calling when they interact."

I think that reasons to believe is probably the best creationist site out there. From my experience when reasons to believe interacts with a representitives from a young earth view (including the much referred to AIG), its the young earth side that resorts to insults and name calling not RTB. I have been reading and listening to these two websites (and many more) for the past several years, and have found this to be the case. This is one of the many reasons I really respect Hugh Ross and his organization----they dont resort to personal attacks and accusations when dealing with the issues.



Russ

[wienerdog]

I have to agree (no surprise to Socrates!). In my experience, young earth creationists resort to name-calling much more than old earthers. Maybe it's because I'm an old earther, and don't notice the sins of my own camp as much as sins committed against it. But RTB has interviewed some young earth spokesman, and they were very respectful about it. Their goal in doing this is to build inroads between young earth ministries and old earth ministries.

[Socratism]

In my opinion Reasons to Believe is not a very good creationist website because some of their positions are either theologically or scientifically flawed (or both).

They basically accept both cosmological and biological theories of evolution and then try to reconcile scripture with the false current mainline theories of origins.

Hugh Ross does not seem to be very well qualified in either the scientific or the theological fields, although he did manage to obtain a PhD in astronomy some time in the past. But that field has changed greatly over the past number of years and he has not been very active in it. Most people do not realize that having a PhD but not being active in the field you obtained it in means that after a few years of inaction you will not be qualified in it any more. Science marches on.

A similar situation exists with Eugenie Scott of the so-called National Center for Science Education who obtained a PhD at one point but now spends her time fighting against creationism instead of doing serious scientific work.

[Socrates]

I have documented Ross's gross misrepresentations of exegetes of the early church age in this thread » Theology Wing » Biblical Exegesis » For Wienerdog (and Staedele): what did the early writers say about Genesis?

And it's rich for Wienerdog and Staedele to whinge about the supposedly greater level of insults from AiG (as if this proves anything). How's this for nastiness: Ross comparing YECs to the Judaizine heretics, which Paul accursed (Creation and Time, p. 162):


Much as circumcision divided the first-century church, I see the creation date issue dividing the church of this century. As circumcision distorted the gospel and hampered evangelism, so, too, does young-earth creationism.

So how come it's OK for Ross to resort to such smears, not to mention calling YECs "bogus scientists", but his disciples squeal like stuck pigs at the slightest retort by YECs?

[tgamble]

Today @ 03:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58524#post58524)
Socratism:
They basically accept both cosmological and biological theories of evolution and then try to reconcile scripture with the false current mainline theories of origins.

Actually the current theories aren't false and Ross doesn't accept evolution.


Hugh Ross does not seem to be very well qualified in either the scientific or the theological fields, although he did manage to obtain a PhD in astronomy some time in the past. But that field has changed greatly over the past number of years and he has not been very active in it. Most people do not realize that having a PhD but not being active in the field you obtained it in means that after a few years of inaction you will not be qualified in it any more. Science marches on.


My Irony meter just blew up. Anyone got a spare?

Naturally this statement (which I agree with) doesn't apply to the so called scientists at AIG!

[Warcraft3]

Socratism: By the way you never commented on my answer to your question of what caused me to reject YEC. Ok now to your post.......

"In my opinion Reasons to Believe is not a very good creationist website because some of their positions are either theologically or scientifically flawed (or both)."

Well of course I disagree with you here. I have read the rebuttals to Dr Ross's work and Ive read his responces and then the rebuttals to his responces......etc. On and on the debate goes, and Ive really tried to hear both sides and consider what they have to say. I believe his positions are superiour both theologically and scientifically to YEC.

"They basically accept both cosmological and biological theories of evolution and then try to reconcile scripture with the false current mainline theories of origins."

I disagree. And for the record they do not accept biological evolution.

"Hugh Ross does not seem to be very well qualified in either the scientific or the theological fields, although he did manage to obtain a PhD in astronomy some time in the past. But that field has changed greatly over the past number of years and he has not been very active in it. Most people do not realize that having a PhD but not being active in the field you obtained it in means that after a few years of inaction you will not be qualified in it any more. Science marches on."

I think that the word "manage" is a bit negative in tone here. Indeed every field changes greatly as time goes on, but that does not nullify someones PhD. Not being active in the field? That can very easily be turned around on YECs as well. I would recommend not using that argument. Now as far as inaction removing your qualification.....I have a degree in electrical engineering, which is an extremely big field, and I have been "inactive" in certain topics for a while. I have not done vector calculus, quantum physics, or a host of other topics related to my field in quite some time. Does that mean I can no longer do these things? No. In fact, when I was an undergrad I was in a group of about 5 people who frequently tutored people in topics I wasnt currently taking. We were the ones that people came to when they couldnt get a homework problem, even if it wasnt something we had done before. I frequently re-read my text books and try to keep up on what is happening currently. So I strongly disagree with the "you wont be qualified anymore" argument.

"A similar situation exists with Eugenie Scott of the so-called National Center for Science Education who obtained a PhD at one point but now spends her time fighting against creationism instead of doing serious scientific work."

Actually I have alot of respect for Eugenie Scott. I disagree with her stance, but I understand her perspective.

Socratism, please be sure you arent getting all of your information about opposing viewpoints form AIG. I have read many of your posts and I think you make some really good points sometimes (in fact I think Socrates and Holding do as well ), so just be sure that you read all sides and try to see where they are coming from.


Russ

[Warcraft3]

Socrates:

"I have documented Ross's gross misrepresentations of exegetes of the early church age in this thread » Theology Wing » Biblical Exegesis » For Wienerdog (and Staedele): what did the early writers say about Genesis?"

I disagree with the comment about Ross's exegesis (spelling?) of course.

Good question Socrates. From the research Ive done on the church fathers this is what Ive found. Most of them are actually silent on this issue, but when they do comment on it most would agree with the YEC position. But there are a minority of them who seem to question the exact nature of the "days". In fact there is enough uncertanity about it that an orthodox priest told me that my OEC beliefs would not be an issue if I wanted to convert to orthodoxy.

"And it's rich for Wienerdog and Staedele to whinge about the supposedly greater level of insults from AiG (as if this proves anything). How's this for nastiness: Ross comparing YECs to the Judaizine heretics, which Paul accursed (Creation and Time, p. 162):

“ Much as circumcision divided the first-century church, I see the creation date issue dividing the church of this century. As circumcision distorted the gospel and hampered evangelism, so, too, does young-earth creationism. ” "

First of all let me say that I dont think Ross should have made that statement in the book. I disagree with him on the "distorted the gospel and hampered evangelism" statement, but I agree with him that the church is divided on this issue. But since I dont believe this issue (the age of the earth) affects the doctrine of salvation, I dont lose sleep over the diasagreement.



"So how come it's OK for Ross to resort to such smears, not to mention calling YECs "bogus scientists", but his disciples squeal like stuck pigs at the slightest retort by YECs?""

Where did he call them "bogus scientists"? As to the smearing statement, all anyone has to do is a little test to see who is worse at this. Go to AIGs' website and do a search on 'Hugh Ross" and read the articles. Then do the same thing on reasons to believe website with any YEC scientist and compare the language used. Now go to AIG and listen to their 2 hour webcast specifically about Ross. Then go to RTBs website and listen to Ross's 3 webcasts responding to them. And compare. And lastly go to RTBs' website and listen to the 3 interviews Ross had with young earth creationists (John Mark Reynolds, Danny faulkner, and Duane Gish) and tell me what you think. Im sure if people do this they will see that RTB usually shows alot of respect and restraint when dealing with opposing views.


Russ

[Saxonella]

Oh...I don't know...I think one can easily argue that Dr. Scott is indeed doing "serious scientific work".

:brow:

(You walked right into that one, eh?)




Today @ 03:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58524#post58524)
Socratism:

A similar situation exists with Eugenie Scott of the so-called National Center for Science Education who obtained a PhD at one point but now spends her time fighting against creationism instead of doing serious scientific work.

[tgamble]

Today @ 03:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58524#post58524)
Socratism:

A similar situation exists with Eugenie Scott of the so-called National Center for Science Education who obtained a PhD at one point but now spends her time fighting against creationism instead of doing serious scientific work.

What she's fighting for is good science education which creationists are trying to replace with religious dogma. Cases such as those in Kansas, Ohio, Alabama and others are examples of why the NCSE needs to exist.

Aside from that, you don't know what else Scott has been doing. Do you konw for sure that she hasn't been reading the literature or taking more coures in her area?

[rlj51]

hehe you guys are starting to sound just like RTB and AIG when they interact....(well minus the name calling anyway)...:teeth:

[Warcraft3]

rlj51:

"hehe you guys are starting to sound just like RTB and AIG when they interact....(well minus the name calling anyway)... "

Read my post and try the test I suggested, then tell me how you would compare RTB and AIG in how they interact with opposing viewpoints. Believe me there really is a difference.
:em7:

Russ

[rlj51]

Yeah I agree with you steadele; I was just pointing out how heated and personal these issues become. I think its really ironic how much AIG and (to a lesser extent) RTB both say that the others views are heretical and damage the message of christianity. They both have the same goal: to prove that creationism and intelligent design are true, and our world didn't just pop up out of nowhere uncaused. I think they should join together more, and overlook the details they disagree on (such as how old the earth is, something which we will probably never know for sure). They are setting an example that encourages strong disagreement amonst other Christians such as you and I who stumble across their websites and don't know who to believe. I think they have a lot more in common than they realize. I have heard Calvinism vs. Arminism debates that were much more civil. I think William Lane Craig said it well (in his debate with Frank Zindler) when he said Genesis leaves itself open to interpretation and one can still be a Christian regardless of how old one thinks the earth is.:cheers:

[Warcraft3]

rlj51:
"Yeah I agree with you steadele; I was just pointing out how heated and personal these issues become. I think its really ironic how much AIG and (to a lesser extent) RTB both say that the others views are heretical and damage the message of christianity. They both have the same goal: to prove that creationism and intelligent design are true, and our world didn't just pop up out of nowhere uncaused. I think they should join together more, and overlook the details they disagree on (such as how old the earth is, something which we will probably never know for sure). They are setting an example that encourages strong disagreement amonst other Christians such as you and I who stumble across their websites and don't know who to believe. I think they have a lot more in common than they realize. I have heard Calvinism vs. Arminism debates that were much more civil. I think William Lane Craig said it well (in his debate with Frank Zindler) when he said Genesis leaves itself open to interpretation and one can still be a Christian regardless of how old one thinks the earth is."

I couldnt agree more.


Russ

[tgamble]

Yesterday @ 08:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59329#post59329)
rlj51:

Yeah I agree with you steadele; I was just pointing out how heated and personal these issues become. I think its really ironic how much AIG and (to a lesser extent) RTB both say that the others views are heretical and damage the message of christianity. They both have the same goal: to prove that creationism and intelligent design are true, and our world didn't just pop up out of nowhere uncaused.

That type of strawman doesn't do you much good either. Nobody claims the world just popped out of nowhere uncaused.


I think they should join together more, and overlook the details they disagree on (such as how old the earth is, something which we will probably never know for sure).

AIG regards the age of the earth as highly important. They view an old earth as contradicting death before sin etc. We may not "know for sure" in the absolute sense but all evidence points to an old earth.


I think William Lane Craig said it well (in his debate with Frank Zindler) when he said Genesis leaves itself open to interpretation and one can still be a Christian regardless of how old one thinks the earth is."


Can you give a reference for that? It's not online at infidels.org
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/index.shtml
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/craig.shtml

[wienerdog]

Nobody claims the world just popped out of nowhere uncaused.
Actually, that's the primary argument atheist philosophers give to Big Bang cosmology. Read some philosophy of science/religion journals.

[tgamble]

Today @ 02:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59763#post59763)
wienerdog:

Actually, that's the primary argument atheist philosophers give to Big Bang cosmology. Read some philosophy of science/religion journals.

Show me any source that claims the earth just popped out of nowhere!

[rlj51]

Today @ 02:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59730#post59730)
tgamble:



That type of strawman doesn't do you much good either. Nobody claims the world just popped out of nowhere uncaused.

Yeah some do. I will get some quotes for you. However the point was they advocate a non-theistic universe.


AIG regards the age of the earth as highly important. They view an old earth as contradicting death before sin etc. We may not "know for sure" in the absolute sense but all evidence points to an old earth.

I realize that. But they shouldn't blow the issue up to the point where they cause apologetic ministries to fight each other. I think RTB advocates an old earth, but they say people haven't been around that long. So I don't think that really flies in the face of the doctrine of sin. As far as the age of earth, no one was around so I don't see how we will ever know. The dating methods we use are controversial, and many times don't agree with each other.

Can you give a reference for that? It's not online at infidels.org
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/frank_zindler/index.shtml
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/craig.shtml

I don't think that debate is trancribed. However I have it on video, so I know he said it. You can order the tape from Campus Crusade for Christ.

[Pate]

Today @ 02:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59770#post59770)
tgamble:

Show me any source that claims the earth just popped out of nowhere!

Not the earth but the whole universe.

[Socrates]

Socratism rightly pointed out:


A similar situation exists with Eugenie Scott of the so-called National Center for Science Education who obtained a PhD at one point but now spends her time fighting against creationism instead of doing serious scientific work.

I can't believe that Steadele actually responded:Actually I have alot of respect for Eugenie Scott. I disagree with her stance, but I understand her perspective.You really think so? She runs the pretentiously named "National Center for Science Education" that never promotes real science such as physics and chemistry, and devotes itself to attacking creation. Scott, an atheist, has even won humanist awards for her work her.

She has also said that a clergyman with a dog collar is worth two biologists when it comes to convincing a school board that evolution is OK. What useful idiots these clergy are, in allowing an atheist to use them to undermine any challenge to a materialistic view of origins. And now Steadele reveals that he actually respects this devious manipulator?

[wienerdog]

In Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, Quentin Smith argues that the universe began to exist without a cause. The second to last Philosophia Christi (a journal) had an article by someone who argued this point as well, and his final footnote thanked several prominent atheist spokesman (I think Jeffrey Jay Lowder was one of them) for proof reading the article. These are just off the top of my head, I don't have these references in front of me. The idea is that, if one accepts Big Bang cosmology, one is forced to acknowledge that the universe began to exist. Atheists do not believe that anything beyond the universe exists, so they claim that the universe basically popped into existence, uncaused, out of nothing.

[tgamble]

Is there no end to Socrates nastiness and insults?!


Today @ 07:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=59994#post59994)
Socrates:

Socratism rightly pointed out:

I can't believe that Steadele actually responded:Actually I have alot of respect for Eugenie Scott. I disagree with her stance, but I understand her perspective.You really think so? She runs the pretentiously named "National Center for Science Education" that never promotes real science such as physics and chemistry, and devotes itself to attacking creation.

Not true of course. IT devotes itself to keeping the quality of science education high and keeping evolution in the classroom where it belongs.


Scott, an atheist, has even won humanist awards for her work

So what?


She has also said that a clergyman with a dog collar is worth two biologists when it comes to convincing a school board that evolution is OK.

What, no source for this?


What useful idiots these clergy are,

More insults!


in allowing an atheist to use them to undermine any challenge to a materialistic view of origins.

No, just any challenge to get religion taught as science.


And now Steadele reveals that he actually respects this devious manipulator?

Yet another nasty and unjustified insult!

[tgamble]

I think RTB advocates an old earth, but they say people haven't been around that long.

So they accept it when it shows that the earth is old but reject it when it shows humans have been around a lot longer than 6000 years.

crazy!


The dating methods we use are controversial, and many times don't agree with each other.

Actually, that's not true. Different methods agree with each other and that' one of the indicators of the accuracy of the methods.

[WinAce]

Atheists do not believe that anything beyond the universe exists

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/broad_brush.jpg

Some atheists do, some don't, some are undecided.

[Warcraft3]

Socrates:

"I can't believe that Steadele actually responded:

{Actually I have alot of respect for Eugenie Scott. I disagree with her stance, but I understand her perspective.}

"You really think so? She runs the pretentiously named "National Center for Science Education" that never promotes real science such as physics and chemistry, and devotes itself to attacking creation. Scott, an atheist, has even won humanist awards for her work her."

Here is why I made that statement. I respect her because everytime I have heard her debate creationists she has been resonable and did not resort to personal insults. So yes, for that I respect her. As to me understanding her position, I may not agree with her position (indeed I do not) but I certainly understand it.

"She has also said that a clergyman with a dog collar is worth two biologists when it comes to convincing a school board that evolution is OK. What useful idiots these clergy are, in allowing an atheist to use them to undermine any challenge to a materialistic view of origins. And now Steadele reveals that he actually respects this devious manipulator?"

I did not know she was the one who made that statement, although I have heard that statement several times. If you are correct about her making that statement, then it would greatly affect my opinion of her. I do not tolerate such things.


With that said let me say this,

I have read your first post on the debate and I think it was very good. I respect you for your strong beliefs and also for your "uncompromising" attitude. I do not like it when you and certain other members go on a personal attack spree with each other. I find it unnecssary. I realize this is an emotional issue, but such responces are not needed. I do think your interpretation of Genesis is a valid one, although I do not take that stance myself. I am not against you Socrates, but I am not also against evolutionists. I am not against anyone in fact. Please dont base your opinion of me solely on the fact that I am an OEC, because I dont base my opinion of you solely on the fact you are a YEC.

Good luck in the debate

Russ

[Warcraft3]

tgamble:

“ I think RTB advocates an old earth, but they say people haven't been around that long. ”

"So they accept it when it shows that the earth is old but reject it when it shows humans have been around a lot longer than 6000 years.

crazy!"

Im not sure who you were responding to, but that is not RTBs stance. They think humans have been around ALOT longer than 6000 years. I think everyone really needs to spend some time listening to Dr Ross to find out what he actually believes.

“ The dating methods we use are controversial, and many times don't agree with each other. ”

"Actually, that's not true. Different methods agree with each other and that' one of the indicators of the accuracy of the methods."

I have to agree with tgamble on the reliability of the dating methods.




Russ

[wienerdog]

I think RTB's position is that homo sapiens sapiens date to within approx. 50,000 years. They reject evolution, so they don't consider homonids to be human ancestors, and thus don't consider them to be human beings.

WinAce: Kudos on the Bob Vila thingie. :rofl: I should have been clearer. My understanding (feel free to correct me) is that atheists deny that anything exists independent of matter, energy, space, and time (that's what I meant by "the universe"). Since matter, energy, space, and time began to exist at the Big Bang, many atheist philosophers and scientists claim that it just popped into existence, from nothing, by nothing, uncaused.

[rlj51]

Today @ 06:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60443#post60443)
steadele:

tgamble:

“ I think RTB advocates an old earth, but they say people haven't been around that long. ”

"So they accept it when it shows that the earth is old but reject it when it shows humans have been around a lot longer than 6000 years.

crazy!"

Im not sure who you were responding to, but that is not RTBs stance. They think humans have been around ALOT longer than 6000 years. I think everyone really needs to spend some time listening to Dr Ross to find out what he actually believes.

“ The dating methods we use are controversial, and many times don't agree with each other. ”

"Actually, that's not true. Different methods agree with each other and that' one of the indicators of the accuracy of the methods."

I have to agree with tgamble on the reliability of the dating methods.




Russ

When I said they don't think humans have been around that long, I meant compared to how old the earth is. I have heard Dr. Ross speak in person, and he said genetic reasearch shows that humans have been around for about 25,000 years.

As for the dating methods, I have heard people dispute the different dating methods. I have even heard Dr. Ross say that they can give different numbers depending on the context and circumstances. But hey, if they are accurate, then I concede. I am certainly no expert on scientific dating methods. :wink:

However, I still think that the age of the earth will forever be controversial and difficult to determine.

[Warcraft3]

rlj51:

"When I said they don't think humans have been around that long, I meant compared to how old the earth is."

Oh ok. Well yeah that is certainly true.

"I have heard Dr. Ross speak in person, and he said genetic reasearch shows that humans have been around for about 25,000 years."

If my memory serves I believe he was willing to put the creation of Adam even further, but Id have to check to make sure.

"As for the dating methods, I have heard people dispute the different dating methods. I have even heard Dr. Ross say that they can give different numbers depending on the context and circumstances. But hey, if they are accurate, then I concede. I am certainly no expert on scientific dating methods."

What Dr. Ross was referring to is that if you dont use them within their respective limits, then yes you can get errors. But those errors exist because the test wasnt properly done. Each different technique has a window of time where it is accurate, which is related to the magnitude of the half life of the element.
I dont hear many people making statements like "I concede" on this forum, so that came as a shock to me. If only everyone could be that open minded.

"However, I still think that the age of the earth will forever be controversial and difficult to determine."

I dont think the controversy will ever go away, but I dont see the age it being that difficult to determine. At least in my opinion.


Russ

:rockon:

[rlj51]

So steadele, it appears you believe in an old earth. I am guessing you are in disagreement with much of what YEC's say? Do you literally believe in the Genesis story? How important do you think it is to Christoan Theology? I am not asking because I disagree, but because I am still trying to figure out what to believe.:read:

[Warcraft3]

rlj51:

"So steadele, it appears you believe in an old earth. I am guessing you are in disagreement with much of what YEC's say?"

Yes, I do indeed believe in an old earth and I disagree with alot of what the YEC's say.

"Do you literally believe in the Genesis story?"

Indeed I do literally believe in the Genesis account. My view is referred to as a "day age" interpretation. It is one of three views which is permissible within a scriptural framework.


"How important do you think it is to Christoan Theology?"

Good question. Well I think that issues such as evolution or how old the earth is are not essential doctrines. I think it is important to know which view you take and why, and to then incorporate it into your overall theological stance. But I wouldnt make it a big issue, because there are much more important things to think about.

"I am not asking because I disagree, but because I am still trying to figure out what to believe."

I would recommend the book, "The Genesis Debate". It has a good overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the three views on Genesis. You will read a defense of each position (24-hour day view, day age view, and the framework hypothesis), followed by rebuttals from the other views, and finally a responce from the proposed view. Its a really good book, I think you would really enjoy it.

Even if you were asking because you disagreed with me my answer would be the same. You can always count on me defending my position, while at the same time respecting my opponents view and not personally attacking anyone. I see alot of people here getting emotional and hostile about these issues and I really think its unnecessary.


Anway....I hope I answered your questions and I hope you continue your search for truth.

:em7:

Russ

[Socrates]

Steadele:I would recommend the book, The Genesis Debate. It has a good overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the three views on Genesis. You will read a defense of each position (24-hour day view, day age view, and the framework hypothesis), followed by rebuttals from the other views, and finally a responce from the proposed view. Its a really good book, I think you would really enjoy itI generally concur, except that the YEC view was not represented by leading proponents. However they did an excellent job of refuting Ross's mendacious claims about the Church Fathers. For a more detailed review, see www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n1_Gen_Debate.pdf

[Woman]

steadele:

As to the smearing statement, all anyone has to do is a little test to see who is worse at this. Go to AIGs' website and do a search on 'Hugh Ross" and read the articles. Then do the same thing on reasons to believe website with any YEC scientist and compare the language used. Now go to AIG and listen to their 2 hour webcast specifically about Ross. Then go to RTBs website and listen to Ross's 3 webcasts responding to them. And compare. And lastly go to RTBs' website and listen to the 3 interviews Ross had with young earth creationists (John Mark Reynolds, Danny faulkner, and Duane Gish) and tell me what you think. Im sure if people do this they will see that RTB usually shows alot of respect and restraint when dealing with opposing views.

That’s how I like to approach things. One thing worth noting for the YEC’s. If earth age is not an issue for salvation then wouldn’t a slightly more tolerant view be the best course in most instances. My cousin struggled and finally left his faith which pained him a great deal. Years later, Hugh Ross was his “salvation” if not literally then at least figuatively. He keeps insisting that I just haven’t read him enough! :teeth:

weinerdog:

Actually, that's the primary argument atheist philosophers give to Big Bang cosmology. Read some philosophy of science/religion journals.

There were many scientists who fought against the Big Bang theory early on because they thought it left the door open to God. I’m not saying this is a majority opinion, but there are certainly respected leaders in the field for whom God and the Big Bang are not mutually exclusive. While I’m no scientist, that is my view too. This is just the first example that a Google search yielded:


Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, `So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." -U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 23, 1991.

[Warcraft3]

Woman:

"That’s how I like to approach things. One thing worth noting for the YEC’s. If earth age is not an issue for salvation then wouldn’t a slightly more tolerant view be the best course in most instances."

I agree. There are issues where one must take a stand and fight for one particular view uncompromisingly, but I think the age of the earth is not one of them.

"My cousin struggled and finally left his faith which pained him a great deal. Years later, Hugh Ross was his “salvation” if not literally then at least figuatively."

Interesting that your cousin had that happen to him, since I went through a similar experience. While I dont agree with everything Ross says I agree with alot of his views and think he generally has a good attitude about things.

"He keeps insisting that I just haven’t read him enough! "

Your cousin is indeed wise to make that statement and i have to agree 100% :teeth:
So read on woman...read on :read:

Anyway I was wondering why you change your picture (or maybe its called avatar) so often. Everytime I turn around it is something different. Quite entertaining to be sure!

I really enjoy reading your posts, since you really dont engage in personal attacks or some of the other unpleasantness I have seen here. I find your views on things to be interesting and every now and then you make me stop and think. So keep the posts (and the ever changing picture) coming.


Russ

:thumb:

[wienerdog]

There were many scientists who fought against the Big Bang theory early on because they thought it left the door open to God.
I don't think they believed it left the door open to God, but that it essentially proved the existence of God. The Big Bang maintains that matter, energy, space and time began to exist. This is creation. Like I wrote earlier, the response to this made by atheist philosophers has largely been to deny the principle of causality. This, of course, could be applied to any concept of creation.


I’m not saying this is a majority opinion, but there are certainly respected leaders in the field for whom God and the Big Bang are not mutually exclusive.
Sure. I would say the question is whether atheism and the Big Bang are mutually exclusive. They seem to be.

[Socrates]

Woman:One thing worth noting for the YEC’s. If earth age is not an issue for salvation then wouldn’t a slightly more tolerant view be the best course in most instances. Mainly because it's not TRUE. And because it has harmful effects on the authority of Scripture and in particular its teaching of no death of humans and other nephesh chayyah before sin. I explain in more detail at » Gym » Boxing Ring » Young Earth Creationism (Socrates versus JohnRansom).

Steadele was gracious enough to complement me on that, so it's a shame his views on YECs still seem colored by some more unreliable ones he encountered in his youth. And those are ones that reliable YEC organisations such as AiG have repudiated, and Woman has recommended those articles.

And Ross needs to be exposed for his many false statements, e.g. those I've documented about the Church Fathers » Theology Wing » Biblical Exegesis » For Wienerdog (and Staedele): what did the early writers say about Genesis?

If you want testimonies, AiG has plenty of examples of people whose faith has been undermined by long-age and theistic evolutionary compromises and restored by an uncompromising view of Biblical authority from Genesis 1 on. See www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/joel_galvin_testimony.asp and www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/sonia_testimony.asp

[tgamble]

Today @ 02:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66959#post66959)
Socrates:

If you want testimonies, AiG has plenty of examples of people whose faith has been undermined by long-age and theistic evolutionary compromises and restored by an uncompromising view of Biblical authority from Genesis 1 on. See www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/joel_galvin_testimony.asp and www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/sonia_testimony.asp

Sickening that. Two people deceived and lied to by AIG propaganda.

What actually shattes people's faith is being told that their whole faith rests on the myth of a young earth, Genesis being true and a global flood and other such nonsense. Once they find out they've been lied to they start doubting their whole faith.

http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/quotes.html

And of course, there's also Glenn Morton (and others mentioned on his site) who had their fatih shaken once they realized that everything ICR taught them was a lie.

Because YEC domga is contrary to evidence, reason and common sense, it's bound to cause a loss of faith to anyone who examines it closely and realized that the so called basis for their faith is a lie.

The second testimony mentioned drug use. Perhaps this contributed to the fact that they actually bought into AIG propaganda....

The dangers of drug use demonstrated once more!

[Dee Dee Warren]

And yes Gamble, you are just so concerned about people's faith aren't you?? Pllluuhhhheeeaassseeee!!!!

[Tycho]

Yesterday @ 01:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=66614#post66614)
wienerdog:
Sure. I would say the question is whether atheism and the Big Bang are mutually exclusive. They seem to be.
Nice God-of-the-Gaps argument.

[tgamble]

Today @ 11:19 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67292#post67292)
Dee Dee Warren:

And yes Gamble, you are just so concerned about people's faith aren't you?? Pllluuhhhheeeaassseeee!!!!

Getting insulting again I see.

I'm just pointing out the facts.

[rlj51]

Well its hard to know who interprets scientific fact correctly, but I am convinced RTB is a genuine and sincere Christian organization. I just received their April newsletter and it is mostly composed of evidences for the resurrection. They quote mainline Christian apologists, such as William Lane Craig etc.

I have less exposure to AIG, but I believe they also have sincere motives of evangelizing.

It seems like Christians love to band together into little groups and proclaim that some piece of doctrine, or some view of things is ESSENTIAL to Christian faith, and everyone else is just leading people astray.

If I were an unbeliever and was researching Christianity, I think this attitude would do more harm than good.

[Socratism]

What actually shattes people's faith is being told that their whole faith rests on the myth of a young earth, Genesis being true and a global flood and other such nonsense.

On the contrary what would cause a person to doubt their Christian faith would be to find out that scripture was not true.

Belief in the reality of the creation story in Genesis is to be found in most books of scripture, both Old and New.

If Adam did not fall then why would the second Adam need to die?

Is belief that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh something consistent with modern science? Do the dead rise?

Why can people be so selective in rejecting Genesis yet accept "myths" equally outside of normal experience?

[tgamble]

Today @ 08:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68010#post68010)
Socratism:

On the contrary what would cause a person to doubt their Christian faith would be to find out that scripture was not true.


I guess the historical evidence isn't good enough. Not to mention that "personal relationship that changed my life" bit.


Belief in the reality of the creation story in Genesis is to be found in most books of scripture, both Old and New.

So? They also believed deamons caused decase and physical disabilities. They were ignorant people living in a prescientific age. They were wrong.


If Adam did not fall then why would the second Adam need to die?

Maybe to redeem mankind for all the attrocities that have occured throughout history. Why does it matter? Ask him when you see him.


Is belief that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh something consistent with modern science? Do the dead rise?

No. But science also can't prove that it's impossible with supernatural help.


Why can people be so selective in rejecting Genesis yet accept "myths" equally outside of normal experience?

Maybe because of something called faith.....

Or perhaps the alleged historical evidence Christians are always talking about. Isn't that good enough for you?

[wienerdog]

Today @ 01:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67413#post67413)
Tycho:


Nice God-of-the-Gaps argument.
How so? If matter, energy, space, and time began to exist, then something which exists independently of matter, energy, space, and time brought them into existence. How is applying the principle of causality a god of the gaps argument? To turn it around, if you're claiming an unknown naturalistic process caused this, why isn't this a naturalism of the gaps argument?

[Tycho]

Today @ 02:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68096#post68096)
wienerdog:
How so?
Your argument boils down to this: you don't know how the universe came into being, therefore you're going to assert God despite having no evidence to support this assertion.


If matter, energy, space, and time began to exist, then something which exists independently of matter, energy, space, and time brought them into existence.
I'm rather curious as to how something independent of matter, energy, space, and time is going to do anything at all. Perhaps you can show me an example or something?


How is applying the principle of causality a god of the gaps argument? To turn it around, if you're claiming an unknown naturalistic process caused this, why isn't this a naturalism of the gaps argument?
So, here's your argument:

P1: Everything has to have a cause.
IC: Therefore the universe had a cause.
P2: Wait, not everything has a cause, because God doesn't have a cause.
P3: Only something without a cause could cause the universe.
C: Only God could have caused the universe.

At no point do you make an effort to justify any of the premises! It's simply a less general form of the following:

P1: I don't know how this occured.
C1: Therefore god/Allah/Zeus did it!

If you're going to abandon methodological naturalism, you've strayed into religion and left science far behind. A supernatural cause cannot be tested and as such you can't know if it's true or false. This is why the supernatural is not used. While naturalism is indeed an assumption, the alternative is to give up and just make up any crazy story.

[Warcraft3]

Tchyo:

While I am sure that wienerdog is more than capable of responding to your post, I had to jump in here.

"So, here is your argument:

P1: Everything has to have a cause.
IC: Therefore the universe had a cause.
P2: Wait, not everything has a cause, because God doesn't have a cause.
P3: Only something without a cause could cause the universe.
C: Only God could have caused the universe."

I would rephrase the argument like so:

1. The universe ( matter, energy, space and time) had a
beginning.
2. Since the universe had a beginning then its reasonable to
assume that the cause is something that exists outside the
realm of matter,energy,space and time.


So far so good we really havent gotten away from "science" as of yet but at step 3 we are forced to leap into the unknown.......

3. The cause of the universe is....
3a. An entity who "created" the universe at will
3b. Since the answer is beyond the realm of matter, energy,
space and time then we can not know.
3c. The answer is one of the several theories put forth by
theoretical physicsts' and/or cosmologists.

"At no point do you make an effort to justify any of the premises!"

Right but origins is entering into the unknown here so ANY explanation is going to have unjustified premises. So our premises are just as valid as the others.

"It's simply a less general form of the following:

P1: I don't know how this occured.
C1: Therefore god/Allah/Zeus did it!"


And the answer that some unknown process did it is better? Come on lets be fair here man.


"A supernatural cause cannot be tested and as such you can't know if it's true or false. This is why the supernatural is not used. While naturalism is indeed an assumption, the alternative is to give up and just make up any crazy story."

And the current "natural" (although they really arent natural since they really are outside of the bounds of the known universe) theories CAN BE TESTED?
:rofl:
The answer to "can they be tested" is NO!!!!!

Please dont accuse Christians of stepping outside the "boundries" of science to answer a question which, by its very NATURE, DEMANDS that any explaination do so.

You may not like our answer for the ultimate "cause" and thats fine, but you havent disproved it in any way. I could just as easily say that since you dont want to see God as the ultimate cause that you just " give up and just make up any crazy story."

This area is more philosophy than it is science so you were not justified in what you said to wienerdog.:read:


Russ

:juggle:

[wienerdog]

Today @ 10:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68122#post68122)
Tycho:


Your argument boils down to this: you don't know how the universe came into being, therefore you're going to assert God despite having no evidence to support this assertion.
My argument boils down to the claim that the universe began to exist, and so something which exists independently of it brought it into existence. This is simply the principle of causality.


I'm rather curious as to how something independent of matter, energy, space, and time is going to do anything at all.
Why wouldn't it? There's nothing logically incoherent about it.


Perhaps you can show me an example or something?
No. Nor can I show you an example of something springing into existence uncaused out of nothing. The difference is that this latter idea contradicts the principle of causality.


So, here's your argument:

P1: Everything has to have a cause.
No. Why would everything have to have a cause? I'm not aware of any statement of the cosmological argument throughout history that made such a claim. I would assert though, that everything that begins to exist would require a cause. My grounds for this is simply the principle of causality.


IC: Therefore the universe had a cause.
My grounds for thinking the universe has a cause are the scientific evidence that it began to exist (Big Bang cosmology) as well as the philosophical arguments that it did so.

My argument is better stated as follows:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence.


At no point do you make an effort to justify any of the premises!
My premises are that the principle of causality and Big Bang cosmology are valid. If you're going to reject the principle of causality, the burden of proof rests on you. If you do so, however, you're rejecting the entire scientific endeavor, since it must presuppose the principle of causality. As for Big Bang cosmology, we could certainly discuss it if you like.


It's simply a less general form of the following:

P1: I don't know how this occured.
C1: Therefore god/Allah/Zeus did it!
I'm arguing from what is known, not from what is unknown. Therefore, your critique fails.


If you're going to abandon methodological naturalism, you've strayed into religion and left science far behind. A supernatural cause cannot be tested and as such you can't know if it's true or false. This is why the supernatural is not used. While naturalism is indeed an assumption, the alternative is to give up and just make up any crazy story.
Well, first, I would argue that Plenty of things about the universe can't be tested. Plenty of things about the universe are only known by observing their effects. This doesn't put them outside the domain of science. Second, I'm not necessarily arguing that the conclusion is a scientific one. And I would suggest you tell a few philosophers that any claim outside of methodological naturalism constitutes a religious claim.

[Tycho]

Sorry about fragmenting this so much. I'll try to pare it down a bit, but if I snip out something necessary to your argument, please point it out.


Yesterday @ 04:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68188#post68188)
wienerdog:
My argument boils down to the claim that the universe began to exist, and so something which exists independently of it brought it into existence. This is simply the principle of causality.
Except that it's not at all clear as to how something independant of space, time, matter, or energy can cause anything to come into being! Abstract concepts are not capable of actions in and of themselves. This is much like the reason that mind-body dualism was abandoned: because there's no mechanism by which an immaterial thing can influence the material. Your principle of causality sounds like nothing more than a neolgism.

But let's say that there is a cause to the universe. There's absolutely no reason to believe that this cause is leprechauns or ghosts or super-scientists working in a lab in a parallel universe. Why assume anything at all about the cause?


No. Nor can I show you an example of something springing into existence uncaused out of nothing. The difference is that this latter idea contradicts the principle of causality.

No. Why would everything have to have a cause? My grounds for thinking the universe has a cause are the scientific evidence that it began to exist (Big Bang cosmology) as well as the philosophical arguments that it did so.
To assert that everything has a cause except for one thing is special pleading. If you actually have some kind of evidence that there's a god that's eternal, please present it. As it is, you're simply assuming that the universe had a cause and then assuming that god did not. Why one and not the other?

A cause implies that it happened "before" the universe began. But if time did indeed begin with the beginning of the universe, then there would be no "before" for a cause to take place! While it's extremely speculative to say that time began with the Big Bang, there's just no data to suggest a "before."


I'm arguing from what is known, not from what is unknown. Therefore, your critique fails.
Your argument posits a deity just because of something unknown. It's an argument from ignorance, specifically, a god-of-the-gaps argument.


Well, first, I would argue that Plenty of things about the universe can't be tested. Plenty of things about the universe are only known by observing their effects. This doesn't put them outside the domain of science. Second, I'm not necessarily arguing that the conclusion is a scientific one.
We agree on this point. However, even if a scientists posits some explanation to explain observations, that explanation must yield predictions that can be confirmed or disconfirmed. If the explanation does not, it's supernatural and is thus untestable. If an explanation can't be tested, there's simply no reason to think that it's valid. That's why untestable explanations aren't used in science: not because of some arbitrary bias, but because supernatural explanations are useless.


And I would suggest you tell a few philosophers that any claim outside of methodological naturalism constitutes a religious claim.
Sorry about that, I was indeed too general on this point.

[Tycho]

Yesterday @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=68135#post68135)
steadele:
While I am sure that wienerdog is more than capable of responding to your post, I had to jump in here.
Thanks for the response. I'll try to clarify.


Right but origins is entering into the unknown here so ANY explanation is going to have unjustified premises. So our premises are just as valid as the others.
Just because the origins of the universe are unknown does not mean that any premise is just as valid or justified as any other. If one stated that "the universe is just an atom inside a giant universe," then it would still be invalid. To state it another way, when atomic theory was unknown, there would still have been no justification to start the argument by saying that the chemistry we observe is just due to fairies that create substances according to their will.


P1: I don't know how this occured.
C1: Therefore god/Allah/Zeus did it!"

And the answer that some unknown process did it is better? Come on lets be fair here man.
The two are exactly the same--there's no reason to consider either until more specifics are tacked on. An explanation actually has to be able to be tested.


And the current "natural" (although they really arent natural since they really are outside of the bounds of the known universe) theories CAN BE TESTED?
I'm not sure just what specific theories you're talking about, but unless it makes predictions which can be tested, the theory is not a scientific one.


Please dont accuse Christians of stepping outside the "boundries" of science to answer a question which, by its very NATURE, DEMANDS that any explaination do so.

You may not like our answer for the ultimate "cause" and thats fine, but you havent disproved it in any way. I could just as easily say that since you dont want to see God as the ultimate cause that you just " give up and just make up any crazy story."
Methodological naturalism is simply the position that if there is an explanation to something, that explanation can either be testable (natural) or untestable (supernatural). If it's supernatural, then no work is possible beyond pulling a story out of thin air. If it's natural, then we can test it to see if it's accurate or not. Since the untestable explanations simply aren't useful (and one can never have any reason to think them true), only the natural explanations can be considered.

If you're answer is not disprovable, then it's useless. You can't disprove last-Thursdayism, but there's no need to.

[wienerdog]

Thanks for your response, Tycho.


Today @ 12:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=69247#post69247)
Tycho:

Except that it's not at all clear as to how something independant of space, time, matter, or energy can cause anything to come into being! Abstract concepts are not capable of actions in and of themselves.
I'm not arguing that God is an abstract concept.


This is much like the reason that mind-body dualism was abandoned: because there's no mechanism by which an immaterial thing can influence the material. Your principle of causality sounds like nothing more than a neolgism.
That's a good objection. My response is that the mind-body dualism problem (which is a live issue in philosophy, btw) is different than you have stated it, and has never, as far as I know, been applied to God by philosophers. I'll have to do some research to find out why they make this distinction.


But let's say that there is a cause to the universe. There's absolutely no reason to believe that this cause is leprechauns or ghosts or super-scientists working in a lab in a parallel universe. Why assume anything at all about the cause?
I don't think I'm assuming, I'm just applying the principle of causality: a cause exists independently of its effects. Since the effects in this case are matter, energy, and the dimensions of space and time, the cause exists independently of these elements. This leads us to affirm the existence of something very similar to the God of traditional theism. The difference between this conclusion and your suggestions (leprechauns or ghosts or super-scientists working in a lab in a parallel universe) is that I'm applying Ockham's razor and keeping it as simple as possible.


To assert that everything has a cause except for one thing is special pleading. If you actually have some kind of evidence that there's a god that's eternal, please present it. As it is, you're simply assuming that the universe had a cause and then assuming that god did not. Why one and not the other?
Well, again, I'm not asserting that everything has a cause except for one thing. I'm asserting that everything that begins to exist has a cause. This may lead to the conclusion that there must be an entity that did not begin to exist, but I'm not assuming or asserting that. The reason I'm asserting that the universe began to exist is the scientific evidence for the Big Bang, and the philosophical arguments.


A cause implies that it happened "before" the universe began. But if time did indeed begin with the beginning of the universe, then there would be no "before" for a cause to take place! While it's extremely speculative to say that time began with the Big Bang, there's just no data to suggest a "before."
This is an excellent point, and is the best objection that can be raised, in my view. I would argue that a cause implies "before" when that cause exists in time. You're assuming that cause and effect is an inherently temporal phenomenon. I'm not. Just because temporal beings only experience cause and effect temporally doesn't prove that it is inherently temporal of itself. As temporal beings, we can't help but experience cause and effect temporally. This only proves that we are temporal, not that cause and effect is.


Your argument posits a deity just because of something unknown. It's an argument from ignorance, specifically, a god-of-the-gaps argument.
Well, again, I'm just applying the principle of causality. If matter, energy, space, and time began to exist, then something which exists independently of matter, energy, space, and time brought them into existence. Where is the gap? Where am I basing this on something unknown?


We agree on this point. However, even if a scientists posits some explanation to explain observations, that explanation must yield predictions that can be confirmed or disconfirmed. If the explanation does not, it's supernatural and is thus untestable. If an explanation can't be tested, there's simply no reason to think that it's valid. That's why untestable explanations aren't used in science: not because of some arbitrary bias, but because supernatural explanations are useless.
Hmmm. When we observe things not directly in our control (like distant stars), we can't strictly test it. We can make predictions that if something comes into contact with it, a certain result will follow, but unless that actually happens, we're just stuck. That doesn't necessarily mean that our claims aren't genuine scientific hypotheses.

Also, all past events would be difficult to "test," since we could only observe the effects, and the event itself is unique. We could duplicate it, but that's not the same thing. (Of course, this doesn't take into account starlight travel time, by which we directly observe past events)

Cosmological arguments have often stated that there must be something eternal, because if there was once nothing, there would still be nothing; since "out of nothing, nothing comes." So you could say that there is something that exists eternally, and the "prediction" this would make is that something exists now. Otherwise, nothing could ever exist. That gets us back into asking whether its the universe that's eternal or something else, but that's another question.

I'm just throwing those out. Maybe they're poor examples. At any rate, I'm not necessarily claiming that the conclusion is a scientific one, but a logical one.

[QED]

Well, again, I'm just applying the principle of causality. If matter, energy, space, and time began to exist, then something which exists independently of matter, energy, space, and time brought them into existence. Where is the gap? Where am I basing this on something unknown?

Wienerdog, I hope you don't mind if I jump in. Your argument seems to be that because we perceive the necessity of a cause, then God (or something very like Him), must exist so that the need for a cause is satisfied. You are basing this on the fact that the cause is unknown.

Most scientists nowadays agree that there was a "cause" of some sort behind the universe. All acknowledge that it is beyond our current ability to make a testable theory of this cause, and most agree that it will always remain so. I think they are correct.

With a certain bravado, some scientists believe they may hope to make a testable theory that sheds more light on the cause of the universe. Others are content to speculate.

Speculation is not science. Scientists are free to speculate - and you are too. Your speculation is fine, too, but speculation will not turn the "need for a cause" into "evidence for God." Speculation based on scientific ideas, is still speculation and does not disprove a creator God.

Speculation from a religious standpoint is perfectly fine. The only problem is this:

Some people want proof instead of faith. They will not find it. If they invoke arguments like Kalaam, they are fooling themselves in order to gain a false surety. If surety of faith is not good enough for them, then the false surety of an argument based on poor logic will also likely fail them in the end.

Its the same reason we have DrDino and AnswersinGenesis. There will always be a demand for pseudoscience in the place of faith.

[wienerdog]

Today @ 12:53 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70190#post70190)
QED:



Wienerdog, I hope you don't mind if I jump in.
Not at all. I love discussing this kind of stuff. :smile:


Your argument seems to be that because we perceive the necessity of a cause, then God (or something very like Him), must exist so that the need for a cause is satisfied.
Sure, but I would call "the need for a cause" the application of the principle of causality. If the alternative is to assert that the universe just popped into existence, uncaused, out of nothing, then I don't see how we can reasonably deny this. I don't see anything implausible about saying that since the universe began to exist, something which exists independently of it caused it.


You are basing this on the fact that the cause is unknown.
As far as I can tell, I'm basing this on the fact that the effect is known, the effect being that the universe began to exist.


Most scientists nowadays agree that there was a "cause" of some sort behind the universe. All acknowledge that it is beyond our current ability to make a testable theory of this cause, and most agree that it will always remain so. I think they are correct.

With a certain bravado, some scientists believe they may hope to make a testable theory that sheds more light on the cause of the universe. Others are content to speculate.
Again, I don't see how simply applying the principle of causality is speculation. Are you saying my application is speculation, or that my conclusions are speculation?


Speculation is not science. Scientists are free to speculate - and you are too. Your speculation is fine, too, but speculation will not turn the "need for a cause" into "evidence for God." Speculation based on scientific ideas, is still speculation and does not disprove a creator God.
I guess I don't understand this: are you saying that applying the principle of causality to the beginning of the universe is speculation? The problem is that saying the universe was caused forces us to affirm certain things about the cause. That's all I'm doing.


Speculation from a religious standpoint is perfectly fine. The only problem is this:

Some people want proof instead of faith. They will not find it. If they invoke arguments like Kalaam, they are fooling themselves in order to gain a false surety. If surety of faith is not good enough for them, then the false surety of an argument based on poor logic will also likely fail them in the end.
I don't think that's the traditional concept of faith: Faith is trust, not belief in something that can't be proven. I also don't see how the logic here is poor.


Its the same reason we have DrDino and AnswersinGenesis. There will always be a demand for pseudoscience in the place of faith.
Well, I agree a lot of these groups aren't really trying to convince anybody, there just trying to give people who already believe a sense of security about their beliefs. But I don't agree that cosmological arguments are the same sort of thing as young earth creationism (meaning no disrespect to young earthers). Many of the best minds throughout history have accepted various forms of the cosmological argument.

[WinAce]

Regardless of the type of cosmological argument used, you'll get an infinite regress unless you invoke special pleading to exempt the "First Cause" from the very reason you postulated it in the first place.

Of course, since time didn't exist "prior" to the Big Bang, speaking of what "caused" the universe might be an incoherent question in the first place... much like asking what part of a ruler is left of 0 inches.

[Woman]

There are some excellent posts in this thread. Thanks for providing the rest of us with such great food for thought.

After I mull it over a while I might be able to contribute.

[Duvenoy]

Today @ 02:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70296#post70296)
Woman:

There are some excellent posts in this thread. Thanks for providing the rest of us with such great food for thought.

After I mull it over a while I might be able to contribute.

I too, have enjoyed it. I wonder: are there another set of laws of physics out there (yeah, I know; too much SF)? I rather doubt we'll ever know for sure the forces behind the orgins of the universe. But that won't stop us from trying to find them.

Now, I must go. I have a date and reservations at the Restaurant At the End of the Universe. :rubia: :cool:

doov

[QED]

Today @ 01:44 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=70218#post70218)
wienerdog:


Not at all. I love discussing this kind of stuff. :smile:

Me too. :)



Sure, but I would call "the need for a cause" the application of the principle of causality. If the alternative is to assert that the universe just popped into existence, uncaused, out of nothing, then I don't see how we can reasonably deny this. I don't see anything implausible about saying that since the universe began to exist, something which exists independently of it caused it.

The "need for a cause" is, itself, only an appeal to the principle of causality. As I pointed out, the need for a cause proves nothing else - except for the need for a cause. It doesn't prove anything about the characteristics of "the cause" except that this thing has, in some way, the ability to cause a universe.

Yet you seem to want to give it broader application - as evidence of God. A cause is needed, and a God could fit the bill, therefore we have evidence for a God. But this is faulty logic (unless I have misunderstood your position rather badly). Without the speculation that God might be the cause, the need for a cause is not evidence for God. With such speculation, there is no scientific basis for the argument.



As far as I can tell, I'm basing this on the fact that the effect is known, the effect being that the universe began to exist.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that you can legitimately base on this fact is the idea that something that can cause the beginning of a universe must have done so in the case of ours. If you move beyond that, then I am afraid you are engaging in (perfectly legitimate) speculation - not giving evidence of God.


Again, I don't see how simply applying the principle of causality is speculation. Are you saying my application is speculation, or that my conclusions are speculation?

See above...


I guess I don't understand this: are you saying that applying the principle of causality to the beginning of the universe is speculation? The problem is that saying the universe was caused forces us to affirm certain things about the cause. That's all I'm doing.

What things - other than whatever it is must be capable of causing a universe?



I don't think that's the traditional concept of faith: Faith is trust, not belief in something that can't be proven. I also don't see how the logic here is poor.

I think 2 Corinthians 5:7 makes clear which kind of faith is expected of the believer. Trust in the Christian religion must depend on belief in things that cannot be proven - for the simple reason that humans have no means at their disposal of proving facts about the supernatural.


Well, I agree a lot of these groups aren't really trying to convince anybody, there just trying to give people who already believe a sense of security about their beliefs. But I don't agree that cosmological arguments are the same sort of thing as young earth creationism (meaning no disrespect to young earthers). Many of the best minds throughout history have accepted various forms of the cosmological argument.

Many have entertained, and even had positive opinions of cosmological arguments. In the end, the logic behind those arguments fails. I have yet to see a case where it did not. But again, such arguments are only necessary to those who cannot walk by faith.

[QED]

P.S. - the principle of causality is a good assumption in our universe, but since the events we are discussing did not happen in our universe, it is somewhat speculative to apply that assumption to them. Nevertheless, most people are comfortable with the idea that the universe does need a cause, because the principle of causality does have many qualities of an "absolute", and it is our expectation that it would apply even to such an unusal event as the beginning of the universe.

[wienerdog]

04-09-2003 @ 07:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=60000#post60000)
wienerdog:

In Theism, Atheism, and Big Bang Cosmology, Quentin Smith argues that the universe began to exist without a cause. The second to last Philosophia Christi (a journal) had an article by someone who argued this point as well, and his final footnote thanked several prominent atheist spokesman (I think Jeffrey Jay Lowder was one of them) for proof reading the article.
The latter claim was mis-referenced. The actual article is Wes Morriston, "Causes and Beginnings in the Kalam Argument: Reply to Craig" in Faith and Philosophy 19/2 (April, 2002): 233-44. In his last footnote, he thanks Jeff Lowder, Jeff Yim, and Michael Tooley for their advice on the article, as well as the editor for Faith and Philosophy.

I'll address the other stuff as soon as my wife lets me.


:whip:

[wienerdog]

Now, I must go. I have a date and reservations at the Restaurant At the End of the Universe.
Don't get the steak tartare.

[wienerdog]

Yet you seem to want to give it broader application - as evidence of God. A cause is needed, and a God could fit the bill, therefore we have evidence for a God. But this is faulty logic (unless I have misunderstood your position rather badly). Without the speculation that God might be the cause, the need for a cause is not evidence for God. With such speculation, there is no scientific basis for the argument.
Absolutely right. I haven't addressed how such a cause "matches" the theistic concept of God. Obviously, the Big Bang can't prove the existence of an omnibenevolent God or whatever, but it does prove the existence of an entity that looks suspiciously like the God of Judaism/Christianity/Islam.

Since matter, energy, and the dimensions of space and time began to exist, their cause must exist independently of matter, energy, space and time.

Since it created the universe, it is incredibly powerful.

Since it exists independently of matter and energy, it is immaterial.

Since it exists independently of space, it is transcendent and omnipresent.

Here's a big one: since it exists independently of time, it is a-temporal. This leads us to affirm that while the cause is a-temporal, the effect (the universe) is temporal. This means that the cause could not have been a mechanistic one. If an a-temporal mechanistic cause produced an effect, the effect would also be a-temporal, since the necessary conditions for its production are present a-temporally. But the effect is not a-temporal. Therefore, the cause must not have been mechanistic. It must have been a non-mechanistic cause, that is a personal agent, which chose to cause a temporal effect.


P.S. - the principle of causality is a good assumption in our universe, but since the events we are discussing did not happen in our universe, it is somewhat speculative to apply that assumption to them. Nevertheless, most people are comfortable with the idea that the universe does need a cause, because the principle of causality does have many qualities of an "absolute", and it is our expectation that it would apply even to such an unusal event as the beginning of the universe.
Well, again, I would just argue that the fact that we experience causality temporally proves that we are temporal, not that causality is. If we're going to limit causality to our experience, then I think we would have to shoulder the burden of proof. It's kind of like the same reason we think our bedroom still exists even when no one is in it: it exists independently of ourselves, and we shouldn't assume that our categories of experience determine the nature of its existence as well.

[QED]

Today @ 08:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=72306#post72306)
wienerdog:


Absolutely right. I haven't addressed how such a cause "matches" the theistic concept of God. Obviously, the Big Bang can't prove the existence of an omnibenevolent God or whatever, but it does prove the existence of an entity that looks suspiciously like the God of Judaism/Christianity/Islam.

It doesn't prove the existence of any entity. That is the point. It proves the existence of a cause of some kind, which is entirely beyond our ability to know. We can guess at some of the properties of this cause, but all we can know with any certainty is that it can cause a universe, assuming causality is not temporally limited (which we will discuss again at the end).


Since matter, energy, and the dimensions of space and time began to exist, their cause must exist independently of matter, energy, space and time.

This is correct. We must be careful, though, to avoid the fallacy of composition. The cause of the matter, energy, and the dimensions of space and time began to exist in our universe, therefore, their cause exists independently of the matter, energy, etc... in our universe. We cannot say that there exists no other matter, energy, etc., nor can we say that if there should be such that the cause of our universe would be independent of such.


Since it created the universe, it is incredibly powerful.

Or extremely efficient (at universe beginning), or both. Or neither. It may be very good at creating new universes, but completely ineffective at influencing their development after creation. To say one way or the other is speculation.


Since it exists independently of matter and energy, it is immaterial.

This is where we might be indulging the fallacy of composition. It may be immaterial or not, depending in part on whether material existence is unique to our universe.


Since it exists independently of space, it is transcendent and omnipresent.

Or merely absent from space. You see how we can gear our speculation to what we are hoping to give "evidence" for?


Here's a big one: since it exists independently of time, it is a-temporal. This leads us to affirm that while the cause is a-temporal, the effect (the universe) is temporal. This means that the cause could not have been a mechanistic one. If an a-temporal mechanistic cause produced an effect, the effect would also be a-temporal, since the necessary conditions for its production are present a-temporally. But the effect is not a-temporal. Therefore, the cause must not have been mechanistic.

This line of reasoning seems to completely ignore the fact that part of the "effect" that this cause brought about was time. The necessary conditions for the temporal effect (the universe) may well be present a-temporally, since whatever cause produced the effect also produced time.


It must have been a non-mechanistic cause, that is a personal agent, which chose to cause a temporal effect.

This seems to be a huge jump, from non-mechanisitic cause (which is not clear in the first place) - to "personal agent". It assumes 1) that a personal agent is or can be non-mechanistic, and 2) that a personal agent is the only sort of cause that is non-mechanistic. Neither of these assumptions has scientific support.


Going back to whether the principle of causality can properly be assumed to apply outside the universe:

Well, again, I would just argue that the fact that we experience causality temporally proves that we are temporal, not that causality is. If we're going to limit causality to our experience, then I think we would have to shoulder the burden of proof. It's kind of like the same reason we think our bedroom still exists even when no one is in it: it exists independently of ourselves, and we shouldn't assume that our categories of experience determine the nature of its existence as well.

The ordinary formulation of the principle of causality is impossible to apply to the beginning of the universe, because that formulation is that effects must have causes that precede them, and time began with the universe. Ordinary causality would require time to exist independently of the universe, such that the cause could precede the effect.. You have a new formulation that there may be a more general causality - that anything which begins must have a cause regardless of whether the cause is temporally prior. This idea is fine, but it is speculation.

Just as with everything else before Planck Time, its pure speculation either way. If you assert causality applies, then you carry a burden of proof. If you assert that it does not apply, then you carry the burden for that. Or, if you prefer, you may speculate. I believe most serious cosmologists speculate that causality of some sort does apply. This whole part of the discussion is nitpicky - but in context I thought it worth mentioning.

[wienerdog]

“ Obviously, the Big Bang can't prove the existence of an omnibenevolent God or whatever, but it does prove the existence of an entity that looks suspiciously like the God of Judaism/Christianity/Islam.”
It doesn't prove the existence of any entity. That is the point. It proves the existence of a cause of some kind, which is entirely beyond our ability to know. We can guess at some of the properties of this cause, but all we can know with any certainty is that it can cause a universe, assuming causality is not temporally limited (which we will discuss again at the end).
"Entity" does not necessarily mean a conscious being; it just means something that exists. As you say, the Big Bang proves the existence of a cause, and in order for that cause to have an effect, it must exist. Thus, the Big Bang proves the existence of an entity which can cause matter, energy, space, and time to exist.


“ Since matter, energy, and the dimensions of space and time began to exist, their cause must exist independently of matter, energy, space and time.”
This is correct. We must be careful, though, to avoid the fallacy of composition. The cause of the matter, energy, and the dimensions of space and time began to exist in our universe, therefore, their cause exists independently of the matter, energy, etc... in our universe. We cannot say that there exists no other matter, energy, etc., nor can we say that if there should be such that the cause of our universe would be independent of such.
This seems to be the suggestion that there was a "time before time" and a "space outside of space." I don't think these are coherent concepts.

Essentially, you seem to be arguing the "many worlds" hypothesis, that there are other universes that our universe is just one more member of. The problem with this is that it violates Ockham's razor, that we should not multiply causes beyond necessity. I'm positing the existence of a single entity which caused the universe, while you are positing the existence of a plurality of other universes. Your proposal is thus ad hoc, while the theistic view (that an entity that exists independently of its effects, caused the universe to exist) is not.


“ Since it created the universe, it is incredibly powerful.”
Or extremely efficient (at universe beginning), or both. Or neither. It may be very good at creating new universes, but completely ineffective at influencing their development after creation. To say one way or the other is speculation.
In the above statement, I didn't say anything beyond that this entity is extremely powerful. It may be extremely efficient as well, but it couldn't be efficient instead of being powerful, since it had sufficient power to bring matter, energy, space and time into existence.


“ Since it exists independently of matter and energy, it is immaterial. ”
This is where we might be indulging the fallacy of composition. It may be immaterial or not, depending in part on whether material existence is unique to our universe.
Here I would just tie the existence of matter and energy to space. Matter and energy require space to exist. So, perhaps by itself this doesn't prove an immaterial being (I have to think about it more though). But I assert that it does so when it's tied to the fact that space began to exist as well, and so the entity that created it had to exist independently of space and (hence) of matter and energy.


“ Since it exists independently of space, it is transcendent and omnipresent. ”
Or merely absent from space. You see how we can gear our speculation to what we are hoping to give "evidence" for?
No I don't. What is the difference between an entity being absent from space and being spatially transcendent and omnipresent? To exist and be absent from space is to exist and not be bound by space; to exist and not be bound by space is to transcend it, and to be omnipresent within it.


“ Here's a big one: since it exists independently of time, it is a-temporal. This leads us to affirm that while the cause is a-temporal, the effect (the universe) is temporal. This means that the cause could not have been a mechanistic one. If an a-temporal mechanistic cause produced an effect, the effect would also be a-temporal, since the necessary conditions for its production are present a-temporally. But the effect is not a-temporal. Therefore, the cause must not have been mechanistic. ”
This line of reasoning seems to completely ignore the fact that part of the "effect" that this cause brought about was time. The necessary conditions for the temporal effect (the universe) may well be present a-temporally, since whatever cause produced the effect also produced time.
This line of reasoning is entirely based on the fact that time is part of the effect that this cause brought about. The point is that if the cause of the universe was mechanistic and a-temporal, then the necessary conditions to bring about any effect existed a-temporally. Thus, the effect would have to exist a-temporally as well. Since the effect DOES NOT exist a-temporally, either the cause is not a-temporal, or it's not mechanistic. Since part of the effect is time itself, the cause cannot be temporal (since a cause exists independently of its effects). The only thing left is that the cause is not mechanistic.


“ It must have been a non-mechanistic cause, that is a personal agent, which chose to cause a temporal effect. ”
This seems to be a huge jump, from non-mechanisitic cause (which is not clear in the first place) - to "personal agent". It assumes 1) that a personal agent is or can be non-mechanistic, and 2) that a personal agent is the only sort of cause that is non-mechanistic. Neither of these assumptions has scientific support.
I don't see what a non-mechanistic cause could be other than a free agent. To not act mechanistically is to be able to choose to act or not to act. Only a free agent, i.e. a personal agent, has the capacity to choose.


Going back to whether the principle of causality can properly be assumed to apply outside the universe:
The ordinary formulation of the principle of causality is impossible to apply to the beginning of the universe, because that formulation is that effects must have causes that precede them, and time began with the universe. Ordinary causality would require time to exist independently of the universe, such that the cause could precede the effect.. You have a new formulation that there may be a more general causality - that anything which begins must have a cause regardless of whether the cause is temporally prior. This idea is fine, but it is speculation.
Well, I disagree that the ordinary formulation of the principle of causality is impossible to apply to the beginning of time itself. W. L. Craig addresses this in an article responding to another philosopher (available at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/morriston.html):

"What is the relevant difference between something's coming into existence within time and something's coming into existence at the beginning to time? If the universe could not come into existence uncaused at t, where t is preceded by earlier moments of time, why think that if we were to annihilate all moments earlier than t, then the universe could come into existence uncaused at t ? How could the existence of moments earlier than an uncaused event be of any possible relevance to the occurrence of that event?...

"Perhaps Morriston's difficulty is that he thinks of the causal principle as akin to a law of nature, like Boyle's Law or the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which hold only within our universe. But the causal principle is not a physical principle, but a metaphysical principle. Being does not arise from non–being; something cannot come from nothing. These are putative metaphysical claims, unrestricted in their application. Such claims are not contingent upon the properties, causal powers, and dispositions of the natural kinds of substances which happen to exist."


Just as with everything else before Planck Time, its pure speculation either way. If you assert causality applies, then you carry a burden of proof. If you assert that it does not apply, then you carry the burden for that. Or, if you prefer, you may speculate. I believe most serious cosmologists speculate that causality of some sort does apply. This whole part of the discussion is nitpicky - but in context I thought it worth mentioning.
I disagree. I'm claiming that causality occurs. You're saying that causality occurs, but it may only operate within certain limits. It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that there are limits to causality (like that it is incoherent to speak of a-temporal causality). You are making the additional assertion, so the burden of proof is on you.

Good stuff!

[QED]

Yesterday @ 08:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74813#post74813)
wienerdog:


"Entity" does not necessarily mean a conscious being; it just means something that exists. As you say, the Big Bang proves the existence of a cause, and in order for that cause to have an effect, it must exist. Thus, the Big Bang proves the existence of an entity which can cause matter, energy, space, and time to exist.

Technically correct, but I will still lobby for the use of another term (such as "cause") in place of the term "entity". Lightning has a cause. The cause of lightning is not thought of as an entity, even though under the definition of "anything that exists" - it is. Entity carries more common meanings that refer to functional units. A screwdriver might be an entity, and a robot which turns the screwdriver on an assembly line might be an entity (the cause of the turning). However, the cause of the fastening of two sheets of metal together: a screw, a screwdriver, the robot turning the screwdriver, and the factory that sends two sheets of metal down an assembly line together are multiple units, not a single "entity"- except under the obscure meaning of "something which exists".



This seems to be the suggestion that there was a "time before time" and a "space outside of space." I don't think these are coherent concepts.

No, it is merely a refutation of the "must" - of "must be independent of time and space" - where "time and space" are not confined to the time and space created at the Big Bang. Admittedly, these are fanciful concepts. They are not incoherent though - any more than anything that isn't bound by the time and space of our universe is incoherent. I am thinking of things that are like "time and space", but exist and operate independently of this time and space. In much the same way, a worm might think of "other apples", despite the fact that he will not and cannot ever emerge from his own apple.


Essentially, you seem to be arguing the "many worlds" hypothesis, that there are other universes that our universe is just one more member of.

I am not arguing any hypothesis. I am arguing that the status of any hypothesis (about the origin of the universe) is "speculation", not "proof". I do insist we leave room for "many worlds" and other such speculations since we are engaged in speculation (from the viewpoint of science) about the origin of the universe anyway.


The problem with this is that it violates Ockham's razor, that we should not multiply causes beyond necessity. I'm positing the existence of a single entity which caused the universe, while you are positing the existence of a plurality of other universes. Your proposal is thus ad hoc, while the theistic view (that an entity that exists independently of its effects, caused the universe to exist) is not.

Once again, I am not arguing any hypothesis. You do seem to ask me to here, and I will respond. Since all of this is pure speculation, do not expect me to defend any proposal against any possible objection, but I will point out the flaws in perspective that I see used to prop up one speculation.

I'm not certain that Occam's razor can be applied successfully to either of these two hypotheses (or others as yet un-raised).

What is the more parsimonious explanation? Both the many-worlds and the theistic hypothesis postulate a (sort of) single cause of the universe. One postulates that single cause was responsible for a single universe. The other postulates that the single cause was responsible for a multiplicity of universes. If a universe-creating cause exists, then is it more ad hoc to speculate that it causes only one universe, or that it causes as many as it's parameters determine?

There is no clear advantage where it concerns Occam's razor, and it isn't certain that the Razor even applies to two otherwise equally in-substantial hypotheses.


In the above statement, I didn't say anything beyond that this entity is extremely powerful. It may be extremely efficient as well, but it couldn't be efficient instead of being powerful, since it had sufficient power to bring matter, energy, space and time into existence.

I suppose I should clarify. If we have a machine capable of moving a very large boulder, we know that it is either very powerful, or very efficient.

We have no way of knowing how much "power" is needed to create a universe. We could speculate that the power required might be proportional to the amount of energy in the universe - something we have a chance of measuring. If we should embrace this view, then, based on certain calculations, we might be looking for a cause that had a net power of zero, since certain calculations give the net energy of the universe as zero. On the other hand, other assumptions about how much power was required might lead us to look for causes with moderate or "great" power.


Here I would just tie the existence of matter and energy to space. Matter and energy require space to exist. So, perhaps by itself this doesn't prove an immaterial being (I have to think about it more though). But I assert that it does so when it's tied to the fact that space began to exist as well, and so the entity that created it had to exist independently of space and (hence) of matter and energy.

I'll concede the point on "immaterial", if you will agree with me that the term "immaterial" doesn't tell us anything more than that this cause isn't material in the same sense that anything within the universe is. This much is given by the nature of the problem we are speculating over.

Whether it is "immaterial" in any other sense is purely speculation.



No I don't. What is the difference between an entity being absent from space and being spatially transcendent and omnipresent?

I'd say the difference is night and day.


To exist and be absent from space is to exist and not be bound by space; to exist and not be bound by space is to transcend it, and to be omnipresent within it.

To exist and be absent from this room - to not be bound by the walls of this room - does not make me "transcendent of", or "omnipresent within" it.

A cause that is independent of space-time may be "omnipresent within space-time", or it may be "absent" from space-time. Those are two equally valid ways of being independent from space-time.



This line of reasoning is entirely based on the fact that time is part of the effect that this cause brought about. The point is that if the cause of the universe was mechanistic and a-temporal, then the necessary conditions to bring about any effect existed a-temporally. Thus, the effect would have to exist a-temporally as well. Since the effect DOES NOT exist a-temporally, either the cause is not a-temporal, or it's not mechanistic. Since part of the effect is time itself, the cause cannot be temporal (since a cause exists independently of its effects). The only thing left is that the cause is not mechanistic.

Here again, I will concede the point that the cause is non-mechanistic, if you will agree that we are limiting the notion of "mechanistic" to the sense of operating within the space-time of this universe, according to its laws.

In that sense, we can say that the cause is non-mechanistic, but we cannot say much about whether, given the ability to perceive outside this space-time, we would consider its behavior mechanistic or not.


I don't see what a non-mechanistic cause could be other than a free agent. To not act mechanistically is to be able to choose to act or not to act. Only a free agent, i.e. a personal agent, has the capacity to choose.

Perhaps that's because you are thinking in terms of agents within our universe. Without knowing the nature of reality without our universe (or if there is such a reality), we cannot rule out deterministic events outside the universe as being causative agents.

On the other hand, I don't know if you consider a single event of radioactive decay to be "mechanistic", but such a thing defies understanding in terms of deterministic causality. Yet it occurs, and no one feels it necessary to believe supernatural agents decide when a decay event will occur.


Well, I disagree that the ordinary formulation of the principle of causality is impossible to apply to the beginning of time itself. W. L. Craig addresses this in an article responding to another philosopher (available at http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/morriston.html):

Ah, W.L. Craig: A classic example of one who will not likely be blessed on the basis of being among "those who have not seen, yet believe."

Craig's dance avoids a very central point. Causality, in the only way it is ever understood, is a temporal condition. He asks us to imagine that it could exist a-temporally by asking whether it matters whether "a few moments occur prior" to an event. The answer is clearly "YES!!!" - where it concerns our sole understanding of causality. Without a moment prior to the event, we cannot say the event was caused in the same way we mean that anything else was caused. Causality is the condition where effect follows cause.

Craig borrows our common sense notion that any event must have a cause and uses it to obscure the fact that our real notion of cause does not relate to an atemporal event.

Of course it matters whether there is a moment before the presumed effect. If there were no moment prior, there would be no effect. There would be no moment for the cause to create the effect. If there were no moment before the tree began to burn, the tree would not begin to burn - the lightning could not have struck it.

The Principle of Causality cannot be decisively applied to the creation of the universe, because the Principle of Causality speaks to the necessity of an ordinary temporal cause.

To extend the Principle of Causality to include extra-ordinary non-temporal "causes" is a very attractive thing - it is very understandable that we wish to speculate in this way. However, for Craig to advance the idea that this is a necessary extension of ordinary concepts is misguided. It is not an extension of ordinary concepts at all, but a re-invention of those concepts to accomodate the desire to extend them to events they could not ordinarily apply to!


I disagree. I'm claiming that causality occurs. You're saying that causality occurs, but it may only operate within certain limits. It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that there are limits to causality (like that it is incoherent to speak of a-temporal causality). You are making the additional assertion, so the burden of proof is on you.

I agree with you 100% that causality is a good and necessary assumption in all cases where it can apply. If you are asking for "proof" that the notion is incoherent to speak of a-temporal causality, I can only appeal to definition. To postulate an a-temporal causality is essentially the same as postulating time and space outside the universe (as I have done before, in defense of the hypothesis of a materialistic cause). It is technically unsupportable, untestable, and virtually meaningless - but it communicates an idea: something very like a "cause" (or in the case of some types of speculation - something very like a "material" or "mechanistic" ......... "cause"), yet not fitting the terms as we normally use them, and not subject to principles or laws that depend on the normal usage of those terms.

If you are asking for proof that there is no such "causality", I do not even believe that it is the case. My "common sense" tells me that there is a "causality" of some sort behind the universe, all questions of theism aside. But, if you are demanding that we accept there must be such a "causality"... something like normal causality, but without the need for effects to follow causes - then you do have a burden of proof.

Many of us are quite willing to accept the proposition that such an a-temporal causality might exist, and to use it as a working hypothesis. That's why this entire thing is a nit-pick. But: there is no obligation that we do so. It is quite possible that this speculation about an a=temporal cause is wrong, and we are chasing a wild goose in looking for a "cause" of the universe.


Good stuff!

Indeed, very good stuff. I haven't enjoyed myself so much in a long while. It's odd that the section of "nit-pick" has grown so much. I don't object to that --- sometimes the thought that goes into "nitpicking" a question can shed a lot of light on the bigger questions that are related.

[wienerdog]

Dude! I'm sorry! I'll get to this as soon as I can. I'm not ignoring you, I promise. In fact, maybe we should move it to the tennis court, since it seems to be just between you and me at this point.

[QED]

weinerdog ---

Please take your time. I know that you probably have a life apart from the internet (what's it like?)... And if you want to move to the tennis court, that's also fine by me. I look forward to your next reply. :smile:

[Korihor]

04-07-2003 @ 01:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=58194#post58194)
rlj51:

Dr. Hugh Ross is coming to the Seattle are this month and I was thinking of going to hear him. I am saddened that his organization and one's like AIG are both in the business of evangelism, and apologetics, but frequently disagree and even resort to insults and name calling when they interact.


I actually saw Hugh Ross in Calgary about 10 years ago. He was invited to give a few presentations at my university.

I listen to their webcast show Creation Update (http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/creation_update/) once in a while too. I emailed in the odd question during the program and occasionally they answered. I really find their guest discussions interesting which included Gish, Eugenie Scott, and others.

I think they're a step above the YEC's as far as intellectual content goes. They accept modern geology but don't go as far as accepting common ancestry as some in the ID movement do. They really hammer away at Big Bang cosmology and the anthropic principle, asserting it's a scientific argument for the existance of God.

They take the unusual approach of making a "testable creation model" that they think explains the fossil record through progressive creation better than evolution. But I think their explanations just end up being as absurd as the arguments of their YEC counterparts. For instance, we are expected to believe that God continuously intervened and tinkered with the world to introduce new species over time. So for the 23 different species of elepants (including the two that are alive today) that existed over the past 5 million years, an elephant was created, goes extinct, created goes extinct, created, goes extinct, created goes extinct, and so on... God can't seem to get an elephant right the first time.. :huh:

RTB just seems to want to throw out the logic parsimony and their 'creation model' is merely the same as pointing at gaps and saying "that's God there!" If I were a Christian theist, I'd be very uncomfortable basing my faith on such shaky ground like RTB's apologetics.