Skip to main content

Okay, let's start adiscussion, if you will.  The first will be on change.  I'm sure, A-Rob, NSNS, Best, Jank, have heard this argument before, but here we are on the forum so let's all have a say 

 

 

The material world we know is a world of change 

The great oak tree before us grew from the tiniest acorn. Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. For until it comes to be, it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything.  


As for the thing that changes, although it can be what it will become, it is not yet what it will become. It actually exists right now in this state (an acorn); it will actually exist in that state (large oak tree). But it is not actually in that state now. It only has the potentiality for that state.

Now a question: To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved? Obviously, other things must be involved. Nothing can give itself what it does not have, and the changing thing cannot have now, already, what it will come to have then. The result of change cannot actually exist before the change. The changing thing begins with only the potential to change, but it needs to be acted on by other things outside if that potential is to be made actual. Otherwise it cannot change.

Nothing changes itself. Apparently self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will—something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it.

Now a further question: Are the other things outside the changing thing also changing? Are its movers also moving? If so, all of them stand in need right now of being acted on by other things, or else they cannot change. No matter how many things there are in the series, each one needs something outside itself to actualize its potentiality for change.

The universe is the sum total of all these moving things, however many there are. The whole universe is in the process of change. But we have already seen that change in any being requires an outside force to actualize it. Therefore, there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe. This is one of the things meant by "God."

Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other. Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change.

A-Rob, first off, forgive me for starting a new post, but I like paperwork filed properly, and I like to keep things organized.... And a post is kinda like paper work to me. ( I have OCD)

2) does the science of change give you any question for a God.  Any God? 

Other atheists and theist plz join in too

consider this warning Paul gave: "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22)

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by House of David:
...A-Rob, first off, forgive me for starting a new post, but I like paperwork filed properly, and I like to keep things organized.... And a post is kinda like paper work to me. ( I have OCD)...

==
No problem. But does your OCD not also compel you to cite the source of your post?
Maybe: http://garydowney.com/blog/201...rgument-from-change/

It's a shambles of an argument but it's written even worse.

Nope. So, Gary Downey didn't write it or cite the author? Is a pattern emerging? Where did Peter Kreft get it from?

As far as I can interpret it, the argument is completely illogical. I think it states that:
a. Everything in nature has a cause.
b. Everything in nature had an initial cause that was outside of nature.
c. Therefore, the supernatural cause to all natural causes, is conveniently, a god.

Three problems immediately come to mind:
1. He uses an unexplained conclusion (b) as a premise. (it's a special pleading)
2. Once something interacts with the natural it seizes to be supernatural.
3. If everything has a cause, what caused God?
3a. If the supernatural doesn't need causes, how do we know that?

I guess it can all be boiled down to: Peter Kreft/Gary Downey/etc. doesn't know how it all got started, therefore God did it! That's just not good enough.

I'll add that even if the terrible "argument from change" can be made true, it certainly wouldn't necessarily point to a Biblical/Abrahamic God or any single god at all. For example, there's nothing to prevent the same argument being used by poly-theists or even Deists, who believe in multiple gods and an impersonal god/force, respectively.

Peter Kreft got it from St. Thomas Aquinas ( it originated with Aquinas)

 

The argument from change (or motion)


1) things in the world are in motion. 

2) everything in motion was moved by something else, and that was moved by something and so on.

3) motion must have a starting point. 

4) There must be a first mover not moved by anything else

5) God is the only being that is capable of being an unmoved mover. 

6) therefor, God exists. 

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:

I'll add that even if the terrible "argument from change" can be made true, it certainly wouldn't necessarily point to a Biblical/Abrahamic God or any single god at all. For example, there's nothing to prevent the same argument being used by poly-theists or even Deists, who believe in multiple gods and an impersonal god/force, respectively.

*********************

 

The argument is not geared toward proving a specific god.  It's an argument for an infinite being outside of creation. 

Originally Posted by House of David:

Peter Kreft got it from St. Thomas Aquinas ( it originated with Aquinas)

 

The argument from change (or motion)


1) things in the world are in motion. 

2) everything in motion was moved by something else, and that was moved by something and so on.

3) motion must have a starting point. 

4) There must be a first mover not moved by anything else

5) God is the only being that is capable of being an unmoved mover. 

6) therefor, God exists. 

==
Aquinas' "cosmological argument" begins to fail at #4 and gets worse from there. Which is why there are a hundred modern variants such as Kreefts' that try to disguise some of it's weakness. All of them pose that there is a "first cause" and that that first cause is, of course, the god/gods of their choice. All of them fail to prove that a god or any theistic gods exist.

Its a god of the gaps argument. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not prove anything or even attempt to follow to a logical end. It just assumes without any evidence the answer is God or a god. No one yet knows what lies outside our universe so what he is saying is that we should just stop at that and assume there is a god. That in no way proves the existence of god.

Originally Posted by House of David:

Aquinas is trying to argue that it is impossible to rationally look at our world without seeing  the reality of a creator God. 

==
Aquinas was and is empirically and philosophically wrong. The world shows every possible sign of lacking in intelligent creation or design. All scientific models work perfectly without adding a god into the calculus.

I think that Aquinas had very good intentions, but, as I have recently posted, I don't really think that god can fit into any scientific equation.... And that motion has to start from somewhere cannot be used as proof of God's existence. I believe he was trying to put it in terms that a purely scientific/tangible mind could get around- but, aquinas had one extra thing going for him- faith- Unfortunately those he is trying to convince are not faithful, therefore his reasoning cannot be accepted as proof. Just my opinion. Faith has to be present- God is not subject to the rules of physics or motion..
quote:   Originally Posted by A. Robustus:

3.  If everything has a cause, what caused God?


Hi Robust,

 

If God had a "cause" then, He would not be God, but only a link in the causal chain.  For all things there must be one cause which started it all.   That cause is God -- for He was not caused, but has always existed.  No matter how far we go back, there has to be that initial cause.  And, that initial cause IS GOD.

 

This is also why scientist are stumped in trying to explain our origin.  Some throw out the Big Bang.  But, for the Big Bang to work -- there had to be some minute object hanging in space to explode.  What caused that minute object?  What caused the space in which it hung?  Can you see that both would only be links in the causal chain?  They had to have a cause.  And since science cannot provide the initial cause -- we must assume it to be God.

 

The same applies to Darwinian Evolution.  The followers of this theory tell us that a simple lifeless cell was floating in a primordial swamp -- and then somehow that lifeless cell was given life and eventually became today's scientists.  But, once again -- what caused the primordial swamp?   And, what caused that simple cell?  These, too, are merely links in the causal chain.  What or who was the initial cause which was not caused by any other source.  Science cannot tell us.   So, what is wrong with believing that initial cause to be God?

 

Can you see, Robust, that no matter how we walk around the block -- we always come back to the same point:   God is that initial cause which had no cause, because He is preexisting outside our universe.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

 

1 - Bible-Science-Space_GODS-STORY

Attachments

Images (1)
  • 1 - Bible-Science-Space_GODS-STORY
quote:   Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

But thats just it HOD.  He starts with the assumption that there is something supernatural outside the universe.  That is not a true argument.  That is an assumption.


Hi Jan,

 

Can you give us an example of anything which occurred or was brought into being -- without an initial cause?   There can be no action, no inertia, without a cause.  Neither the Big Bang nor Darwinian Evolution can give you that answer.  Those scientists have admitted that they have no idea what caused the beginning of our universe and life. 

 

What do you say was the initial cause?  We Christians say that the initial cause was God.  Can you give a better explanation?   Most science only supporters, including the scientists in the different mediums, just say, "We don't know" and then walk away.   That is not an answer.  That is a cop-out.

 

True, those who are determined to not believe in God will give that answer.  But, what are they afraid of -- that God does exist?  And, when one admits that God does, indeed, exist -- then one is accountable to God. 

 

In my opinion, that is the greatest fear of atheists and other non-believers -- having to be accountable to someone other than themselves..

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Well Bill, in my case you would be wrong. I am accountable to all kinds of people, and of course I am accountable to myself. I can't speak for all atheist but for me I am more than willing to be shown some evidence of a god. I think it would be exciting! I am completely open to the idea. I have yet to be giving anything more than wishful thinking and assumptions.

 

Also "we don't know" is not a cop out. Its a honest answer. Trying to fill the void in the equation with "god did it" with no evidence at all, simply because it is the easiest route to take, is the real cop out.

 

As for the initial cause. I have no idea. As far as I know no one does. Some explanations make more sense than others and have a bit more evidence to back them up, but the god theory has absolutely nothing to give it credence.

 

I have no problem with those that choose to believe in a god. I believe that there are many people that get a lot of joy out of it. Many Christians I know can accept that both science and god could exist together. When science makes new discoveries they believe that it was still god. I am not one of those kinds of people. Doesn't make them bad and me good, or them stupid and me smart, its just the differences in how people think.

 

Those that try and distort what facts and evidence we have to explain life and our universe are the ones I don't have any patience or respect for. In my opinion they are afraid to rationally examine these facts for fear of loosing their faith. It appears to me those that deny things like evolution are desperately trying to hold on to something they don't really believe is possible anyway. Even something like evolution is such a threat to their beliefs that they disregard facts and evidence to cling to their religion. What are YOU afraid of Bill Gray?

 

Hi Jan,

 

You ask, "What are YOU afraid of Bill Gray?"

 

I am afraid that when I die one day, if the Rapture does not occur first -- there might be one more person who could have believed and received Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior -- if only I had shared the Gospel just one more time, if only I had written just one more article.   That is my fear -- that a soul might be lost because I stopped one effort short.

 

Now, let me ask you a question.  Do you agree that there must be an initial cause for all things?  There must be an initial cause for the universe; there must be an initial cause for life; there must be an initial cause for all the sciences and all the laws which govern them.

 

Who, what, or where is that initial cause?   And, "I don't know" IS a cop-out.   If you know for certain it is not God -- then, what or who is it?  No inertia happens without a cause.  What or who is our cause?

 

I know it is God.   You say it is not.  Then, tell us who or what is that initial cause in your world.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Bill,

 

 Not knowing what the first cause was or even if there was one is not a cop out. I am not going to just throw out unprovable guesses. That would merely be opinion or speculation on my part. Saying that you know that the Christian God created the universe is  complete guess work and assumption on your part. I have as much proof that giant teddy bears ,from outer space, created all we know, as I do that your God created it. I don't put much stock in either of those ideas.

 

It is not necessary to guess at what I believe MIGHT be the beginning of our universe, that does not prove or disprove your idea. We don't even know if their was a beginning. It could all be infinite. Coming to be then dieing then repeating over and over. Who knows!!!  I find that very exciting. I think the idea of not knowing scares some people. I don't know everything (or even the majority of things)  about this world but it does not worry me in the least. The longer I live the more I learn and the more scientist discover. It is truly exciting times.

 

 

This is an interesting argument and it is as old as Aristotle (about 340 B.C.).  But Aristotle identified the cause of all movement as the prime mover instead of God.  The Christian church of the medieval period adopted this philosophy as its own because it validated its own monotheistic philosophy by linking itself to   linked the greatest known philosopher (Aristotle, whose philosophical and scientific works survived thanks to the Arab world.) 

 

But anyway, lets consider this argument to be true, that God is the cause of everything.  If so, then one must conclude that God is the cause of evil!  Evil does exist, does it not?  And if it exists, then it must have a cause.  If God is not the cause of evil, then how can one say God is the cause of everything? 

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Jan,

I am afraid that when I die one day, if the Rapture does not occur first -- there might be one more person who could have believed and received Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior -- if only I had shared the Gospel just one more time, if only I had written just one more article.   That is my fear -- that a soul might be lost because I stopped one effort short.

 Bill

_______

Good grief!

Many souls have been lost because of you, Billy. Your delivery is Hell in a hand basket. That & the fact that you're a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Originally Posted by A. Robustus:
Originally Posted by House of David:

Peter Kreft got it from St. Thomas Aquinas ( it originated with Aquinas)

 

The argument from change (or motion)


1) things in the world are in motion. 

2) everything in motion was moved by something else, and that was moved by something and so on.

3) motion must have a starting point. 

4) There must be a first mover not moved by anything else

5) God is the only being that is capable of being an unmoved mover. 

6) therefor, God exists. 

==
Aquinas' "cosmological argument" begins to fail at #4 and gets worse from there. Which is why there are a hundred modern variants such as Kreefts' that try to disguise some of it's weakness. All of them pose that there is a "first cause" and that that first cause is, of course, the god/gods of their choice. All of them fail to prove that a god or any theistic gods exist.


It fails sooner than that.  We've known for 99 years that 2+3 are false. In fact, most things can never be truly at rest.

Originally Posted by House of David:

Nothing changes itself. Apparently self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will—something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it.

Quite the opposite, in fact:

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/m...mb2/part1/myosin.htm

 


Who, what, or where is that initial cause
?   And, "I don't know" IS a cop-out.   If you know for certain it is not God -- then, what or who is it?  No inertia happens without a cause.  What or who is our cause?


-------------------------

The rest of the atheists have pretty much covered it. Bill, IF there was a god I could ask you the same question. What is our purpose??  I've posted it so many times, but you have such a short memory here it goes again. I don't know how we came to be here.  I am interested, I would like to know, but, and I can't speak for others, it doesn't consume my life. We will NEVER know how we came to be here. I listen to and read all sorts of different theories/ideas.


The ones that make a glimmer of sense to ME, I read more of as they "progress", the ones that don't make a glimmer of sense, such as "someone who was always here played in the dirt, and HERE WE ARE to worship and grovel at his feet", I toss. That's the one many believe. Really? That's it? We're here to spend our days and nights worshiping and singing the praises of a god that played in the dirt???  Not to mention that god sounds more like a monster. "God did it" is the BIGGEST cop-out there is. 


So, my "purpose" is to raise my kids, love and enjoy my family and friends, live out my life, help out people I CAN help, and try not to dwell on the ones I can't, and do it in a way that matters NOW. I want the people I love, that I "leave" when I die, to be happy when they remember me. Apparently you think your purpose is to spread lies about people you don't even know, just because they don't believe, or believe a different way than you. Some people bring to my mind the phrase, "no redeeming social value". You are one of those that bring that to my mind.

In my opinion, that is the greatest fear of atheists and other non-believers -- having to be accountable to someone other than themselves..


=================

Tired old "argument" that not only isn't true, but one that I don't think you actually believe yourself. Just one more lie in your ar se nal of lies. Atheists and, as you call them, other non-believers, know they are just as accountable to others as any christian. The difference-there is one less "being" that I have to answer to, and that is your mythical god. I've heard people make the statement that they are ONLY accountable to god. To me that means they, just like you, don't have any regard for others.

Originally Posted by Jankinonya:

Bill,

 

 Not knowing what the first cause was or even if there was one is not a cop out. I am not going to just throw out unprovable guesses. That would merely be opinion or speculation on my part. Saying that you know that the Christian God created the universe is  complete guess work and assumption on your part. I have as much proof that giant teddy bears ,from outer space, created all we know, as I do that your God created it. I don't put much stock in either of those ideas.

 

It is not necessary to guess at what I believe MIGHT be the beginning of our universe, that does not prove or disprove your idea. We don't even know if their was a beginning. It could all be infinite. Coming to be then dieing then repeating over and over. Who knows!!!  I find that very exciting. I think the idea of not knowing scares some people. I don't know everything (or even the majority of things)  about this world but it does not worry me in the least. The longer I live the more I learn and the more scientist discover. It is truly exciting times.

 

 

Jank dear the language in Genesis is far too scientifically significant to have been invented by ancient sheepherders. To be specific: instantaneous  light concept, void concept , darkness concept, face of the deep, without form concept I will bet my life the same language is as foreign to your group of naysayers as it would have been to the non scientific minds of that time when it was written. Yes there is a “God Particle” and it is not the Higgs nor the field thereof.  It is not classical nor quantum but as this thread suggests; outside the concept of a classical universe. As long as you people insist on finding God explained in some classical nature you will never find Him. The very concept was understood by no one when God was made flesh. Much language in the Bible before Christ had to show the classical God who walked and talked. The understanding of God in ancient times never allowed the concept of the supernatural God being manifest in other than in a classical sense.

Originally Posted by vega:
Originally Posted by Jankinonya:
 

Jank dear the language in Genesis is far too scientifically significant to have been invented by ancient sheepherders. To be specific: instantaneous  light concept, void concept , darkness concept, face of the deep, without form concept I will bet my life the same language is as foreign to your group of naysayers as it would have been to the non scientific minds of that time when it was written. Yes there is a “God Particle” and it is not the Higgs nor the field thereof.  It is not classical nor quantum but as this thread suggests; outside the concept of a classical universe. As long as you people insist on finding God explained in some classical nature you will never find Him. The very concept was understood by no one when God was made flesh. Much language in the Bible before Christ had to show the classical God who walked and talked. The understanding of God in ancient times never allowed the concept of the supernatural God being manifest in other than in a classical sense.

*********************************************

 

Buffy,

 

Genisis was written in the 5th or 6th century. At that point in scientific history these things were not unheard of or unknown. Heck Hipparchus was charting the stars in the 2nd century and discovered the precession of the equinoxes in the 3rd. He had no way of explaining it but he observed it understood that the stars were moving, his calculations were pretty darn accurate.

 

So yes, by the 5th century science was well on its way and there is no reason to believe that these things (light, darkness and void of space) weren't already being studied and observed by the scientist of the times. Matter of fact we know they were. Aristarchus, who had been threatened with impiety for saying the earth orbited the sun in the 3rd century was a great influence on Copernicus.

 

Also, I didn't ask for anyone to prove to me that God exist. HOD started this line of question and ask for our input. I have long come to accept that those that choose to believe completely disregard the science and rely on their faith. That is fine by me. It neither picks my pocket or nor breaks my legs.

Originally Posted by vega:

jank!!!!Quotes"Genisis was written in the 5th or 6th century"[quote bclose]

 

So you have taken my advice about the 6k package w/instructions. I know you don't mean after the big bang and certainly not B.C. You can't quote Davies, your contemporary, and expect me not to catch you.

****************************

 

Who is Davies? I didn't quote anyone. Maybe I should have!

Add Reply


Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×