RTB: Serious Problems with Evolution

[Philip]

Hugh: I favour the idea that the universe did have a beginning,

WHY?

Hugh: ... and that it was brought into being by an entity outside of time

WHY do you think that?

Hugh: Which I understand as God.

WHY have you determined THAT?

And so you have deduced this by ... WHAT?

Hugh: But I also understand that this is an unsupported assertion - except by Scripture and Tradition,

Well, Hugh, you've said your belief in a Creator cannot be proven. So why do you believe it - as you do seem the logical type?

And everything we KNOW of (post the universe's beginning) came from something else, derived from some prior process. And we don't have SUPPORT for ANYTHING else. Oh, there are THEORIES - but that's not support, is it?

Hugh: which may be good enough for me

OK

Hugh: but is not logical, so one cannot fault people who hold to different ideas.

But God DOES find fault - at least in Scripture, does he not? He has, in Scripture, repeatedly warned that other beliefs, if they remain unchanged, that dismiss belief in God/Christ, will end in terrible, eternal punishment. So, God obviously DOES think we have enough information to believe, that if we use the brains He gave us, we can see the truth - IF we want to see these things, He'll make them clear/obvious ENOUGH. And so GOD clearly does find fault. Do you believe that, Hugh? Is God fair, or does He punish people for what they cannot understand or know ENOUGH of to have faith? Woudn't this suggest to you, Hugh, that one's logic, ALONE, is inadequate to the task of determining things of faith. They can certainly point to it, but it can never get one all the way there. That takes an openness and desire to experience God, as He shows one. But one can repel all of God's evidences and prompting, can He not?

[Jac3510]

Is Hugh Catholic? Taking his language very, very strictly (as far as I understand it), he is correct. Let me quote Aquinas:

• Now, these arguments, though not devoid of probability, lack absolute and necessary conclusiveness. Hence it is sufficient to deal with them quite briefly, lest the Catholic faith might appear to be founded on ineffectual reasonings, and not, as it is, on the most solid teaching of God. It would seem fitting, then, to state how these arguments are countered by the partisans of the doctrine of the world’s eternity. (SCG II.38.8

That gets into the basic problem Thomists tend to have with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Yeah, it presents a good inference. It gives us good, rational warrant for concluding God almost certainly exists. But it doesn't give us a certainty, no matter how much Craig tries to tell us it does. The only way we can be certain that the universe had a beginning in time is because Scripture tells us.

Maybe that's what Hugh is getting at?

[Philip]

Jac: That gets into the basic problem Thomists tend to have with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Yeah, it presents a good inference. It gives us good, rational warrant for concluding God almost certainly exists.

Uh, how much more powerful COULD it be - that is, unless YOU WERE THERE??!!! Saying rationale based upon it is "pretty good' - that's like a huge understatement. Particularly when one has no counter to it.

Jac: But it doesn't give us a certainty, no matter how much Craig tries to tell us it does. The only way we can be certain that the universe had a beginning in time is because Scripture tells us.

So, is that not good enough, give that the immense evidences line up with that? The evidences that it DIDN'T - pointless speculation based upon unsupported metaphysics.

Jac: Maybe that's what Hugh is getting at?

And so what is the point of THAT? How is that helpful to those of no faith? God tells us that the Creation is a TESTIMONY! He says we should not doubt that He exists, due to what has been made. GOD tells us that what He has shown us is enough to get us much of the way toward belief. While there's MORE He will show us, if only we won't slam the door through which we could come to the light of faith through.

I'm reminded of what Jesus said - that seeing and realizing the magnificent - the MIRACULOUS could lead to faith! What were the odds Jesus was doing such miracles without the power of God?

"Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves (John 14:11). Doe's this not show that, with some things, the probabilities are so powerful in affirming things of faith, that even they are sufficient to produce belief - IF one is open to it?

[Jac3510]

I don't think it can be much more powerful, Phil. But it's still a God of the Gaps argument. It's fine as far as it goes, but in the end all it does is invite us (not require us) to make the inference that there exists a god of some sort. As an invitation, it's perfectly warranted. But those who decline to make the inference aren't being irrational, either.

Now, the same cannot be said about other cosmological arguments--say the First Way. That one doesn't present us with a valid inference but rather concludes necessarily. Those who reject that conclusion are being irrational.

So, look, the KCA along with other similarly styled arguments--specific complexity and various fine tuning arguments and what not--certainly present a strong cumulative case. And if you already believe in God, it's pretty obvious what it all means. But without that preexisting belief, the cumulative case just doesn't have the warrant that you're trying to get out of it, and that for one very simple reason: there's absolutely nothing saying that in a few years or decades or whatever that science won't come up with theories that invalidate those inferences from the data as we currently have it. So, by all means, continue using the arguments in debate and more importantly continue to not be surprised when you see them pointing to a god. After all, if God really does exist, we aren't surprised to see such things. But carts and horses, Phil.

And, yes, btw, creation is a testimony to God's glory. But it's a testimony to His glory more than His existence.

[neo-x]

Jac: That gets into the basic problem Thomists tend to have with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Yeah, it presents a good inference. It gives us good, rational warrant for concluding God almost certainly exists.

Uh, how much more powerful COULD it be - that is, unless YOU WERE THERE??!!! Saying rationale based upon it is "pretty good' - that's like a huge understatement. Particularly when one has no counter to it.

Jac: But it doesn't give us a certainty, no matter how much Craig tries to tell us it does. The only way we can be certain that the universe had a beginning in time is because Scripture tells us.

So, is that not good enough, give that the immense evidences line up with that? The evidences that it DIDN'T - pointless speculation based upon unsupported metaphysics.

Jac: Maybe that's what Hugh is getting at?

And so what is the point of THAT? How is that helpful to those of no faith? God tells us that the Creation is a TESTIMONY! He says we should not doubt that He exists, due to what has been made. GOD tells us that what He has shown us is enough to get us much of the way toward belief. While there's MORE He will show us, if only we won't slam the door through which we could come to the light of faith through.

I'm reminded of what Jesus said - that seeing and realizing the magnificent - the MIRACULOUS could lead to faith! What were the odds Jesus was doing such miracles without the power of God?

"Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves (John 14:11). Doe's this not show that, with some things, the probabilities are so powerful in affirming things of faith, that even they are sufficient to produce belief - IF one is open to it?

God tells us that the Creation is a TESTIMONY! He says we should not doubt that He exists, due to what has been made. GOD tells us that what He has shown us is enough to get us much of the way toward belief.

I think wherever your quoting from, it only refers to people who have a tendency to think like it. I stopped believing that even as a child that creation alone can be proof of a Christian God. Because I saw so many people of different faiths not reaching the same conclusion. why would everyone felt different? It obviously is not as plain and simple as it sounds. It doesn't work for everyone nor is this clear enough for anyone. It just isn't. Maybe to someone who has studied philosophy or theology but not everyone. I think this argument is overrated.

Phillip, I am not sure but in all of this, you seem to miss the point, which myself, and Hugh also pointed that there are other explanations, equally possible. You can't just put them off by a wave of the hand. And then to question whether people are still Christians is perhaps your shock at the position that some of us hold rather than an honest critique of it.

If I am not swayed by your reasoning, you can forget about Audie. And the reason is not scripture at all. It's evidence and logic. I encourage you to look at Quantum mechanics or a layman reading of it but you'd immediately see that these laws break down there even if we reach back in time to the singularity. What I mean by breakdown is that the normal Newtonian physics laws don't apply there at all. Which means that our usual and normal observational facts go out of the window there as well. It's a completely different world on that scale. And that is what was in the beginning, the singularity, on a quantum level.

I am not trying to snatch God out of your hands. I am simply telling you that you need a better approach for this reasoning of yours to actually be taken seriously. Your observations on which you base that everything must have a beginning gets really challenged in QM. And it's mind-boggling for everyone.

And so to simply say it's God is at its heart a God of the gaps. It's not a simple idea nor a logical one. And yes I believe that God created everything I just don't understand exactly how. But that is it, it's a belief. It's my belief. I am yet equally open to the idea of infinite universes popping out. We could just be one of them. Does that mean I should throw my bible in the trash can? WHY? But you sincerely seem to think so. I just don't get it why you can't accept that people can be Christians without accepting your ideas on creation?

I know it's frustrating but stop and think for a moment how clearer can you be that what you have already written? and you have written a lot explaining yourself...and it's clear, but I still don't agree. I have good enough reasons to not accept your idea. You keep on emphasizing so many words in your posts and I really cringe sometimes...why do you have to shout? I can read easily.

I have seen so many Christians using the BB theory as proof of God, but almost none of them take the theory seriously and how God-less it really is.

But God DOES find fault - at least in Scripture, does he not? He has, in Scripture, repeatedly warned that other beliefs, if they remain unchanged, that dismiss belief in God/Christ, will end in terrible, eternal punishment. So, God obviously DOES think we have enough information to believe, that if we use the brains He gave us, we can see the truth - IF we want to see these things, He'll make them clear/obvious ENOUGH. And so GOD clearly does find fault. Do you believe that, Hugh? Is God fair, or does He punish people for what they cannot understand or know ENOUGH of to have faith? Wouldn't this suggest to you, Hugh, that one's logic, ALONE, is inadequate to the task of determining things of faith. They can certainly point to it, but it can never get one all the way there. That takes an openness and desire to experience God, as He shows one. But one can repel all of God's evidences and prompting, can He not?

To be honest with you, that bold part to me is fear talking. Reminded me of my ex-Pastor's attitude, which was quite the same on all doctrines that he didn't approve on.

[Audie]

Jac: That gets into the basic problem Thomists tend to have with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Yeah, it presents a good inference. It gives us good, rational warrant for concluding God almost certainly exists.

Uh, how much more powerful COULD it be - that is, unless YOU WERE THERE??!!! Saying rationale based upon it is "pretty good' - that's like a huge understatement. Particularly when one has no counter to it.

Jac: But it doesn't give us a certainty, no matter how much Craig tries to tell us it does. The only way we can be certain that the universe had a beginning in time is because Scripture tells us.

So, is that not good enough, give that the immense evidences line up with that? The evidences that it DIDN'T - pointless speculation based upon unsupported metaphysics.

Jac: Maybe that's what Hugh is getting at?

And so what is the point of THAT? How is that helpful to those of no faith? God tells us that the Creation is a TESTIMONY! He says we should not doubt that He exists, due to what has been made. GOD tells us that what He has shown us is enough to get us much of the way toward belief. While there's MORE He will show us, if only we won't slam the door through which we could come to the light of faith through.

I'm reminded of what Jesus said - that seeing and realizing the magnificent - the MIRACULOUS could lead to faith! What were the odds Jesus was doing such miracles without the power of God?

"Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves (John 14:11). Doe's this not show that, with some things, the probabilities are so powerful in affirming things of faith, that even they are sufficient to produce belief - IF one is open to it?

God tells us that the Creation is a TESTIMONY! He says we should not doubt that He exists, due to what has been made. GOD tells us that what He has shown us is enough to get us much of the way toward belief.

I think wherever your quoting from, it only refers to people who have a tendency to think like it. I stopped believing that even as a child that creation alone can be proof of a Christian God. Because I saw so many people of different faiths not reaching the same conclusion. why would everyone felt different? It obviously is not as plain and simple as it sounds. It doesn't work for everyone nor is this clear enough for anyone. It just isn't. Maybe to someone who has studied philosophy or theology but not everyone. I think this argument is overrated.

Phillip, I am not sure but in all of this, you seem to miss the point, which myself, and Hugh also pointed that there are other explanations, equally possible. You can't just put them off by a wave of the hand. And then to question whether people are still Christians is perhaps your shock at the position that some of us hold rather than an honest critique of it.

If I am not swayed by your reasoning, you can forget about Audie. And the reason is not scripture at all. It's evidence and logic. I encourage you to look at Quantum mechanics or a layman reading of it but you'd immediately see that these laws break down there even if we reach back in time to the singularity. What I mean by breakdown is that the normal Newtonian physics laws don't apply there at all. Which means that our usual and normal observational facts go out of the window there as well. It's a completely different world on that scale. And that is what was in the beginning, the singularity, on a quantum level.

I am not trying to snatch God out of your hands. I am simply telling you that you need a better approach for this reasoning of yours to actually be taken seriously. Your observations on which you base that everything must have a beginning gets really challenged in QM. And it's mind-boggling for everyone.

And so to simply say it's God is at its heart a God of the gaps. It's not a simple idea nor a logical one. And yes I believe that God created everything I just don't understand exactly how. But that is it, it's a belief. It's my belief. I am yet equally open to the idea of infinite universes popping out. We could just be one of them. Does that mean I should throw my bible in the trash can? WHY? But you sincerely seem to think so. I just don't get it why you can't accept that people can be Christians without accepting your ideas on creation?

I know it's frustrating but stop and think for a moment how clearer can you be that what you have already written? and you have written a lot explaining yourself...and it's clear, but I still don't agree. I have good enough reasons to not accept your idea. You keep on emphasizing so many words in your posts and I really cringe sometimes...why do you have to shout? I can read easily.

I have seen so many Christians using the BB theory as proof of God, but almost none of them take the theory seriously and how God-less it really is.

But God DOES find fault - at least in Scripture, does he not? He has, in Scripture, repeatedly warned that other beliefs, if they remain unchanged, that dismiss belief in God/Christ, will end in terrible, eternal punishment. So, God obviously DOES think we have enough information to believe, that if we use the brains He gave us, we can see the truth - IF we want to see these things, He'll make them clear/obvious ENOUGH. And so GOD clearly does find fault. Do you believe that, Hugh? Is God fair, or does He punish people for what they cannot understand or know ENOUGH of to have faith? Wouldn't this suggest to you, Hugh, that one's logic, ALONE, is inadequate to the task of determining things of faith. They can certainly point to it, but it can never get one all the way there. That takes an openness and desire to experience God, as He shows one. But one can repel all of God's evidences and prompting, can He not?

To be honest with you, that bold part to me is fear talking. Reminded me of my ex-Pastor's attitude, which was quite the same on all doctrines that he didn't approve on.

If I did believe in God, I'd have said much the same, for all that how I think and write very differently than you.

As for the shouting, it is so counter productive!

A good deal of the recent unpleasantness between phil and myself had to do with his shouting of demands, which I, oddly, interpret as an attempt to bully me. Even if I had an interest in discussing cosmo, I wouldn't respond well to
that.

People who are shouting sure are not listening. Or learning anything. As so well exemplified when I finally got exasperated with his repetition of a nonsensical claim about me, and used the L- word to get his attention.
He still didnt get it, but shouted louder.

Maybe maybe he will listen to you.

[hughfarey]

Philosophy is not logical?

No. A philosophical proposition need not depend on evidence. It may derive logically from assumptions, but those assumptions need not be evidence based. In a discussion of what happened "before" the Big Bang, working on the idea that the universe is eternal is no less, or more, justified than the opposite.

Hugh: I favour the idea that the universe did have a beginning,

WHY?

Good question. I guess it's the Western European Judaeo-Christian culture into which I was born. Had I been Hindu, perhaps, I might have taken to the cyclic universe idea.

And so you have deduced this by ... WHAT?

I haven't deduced it at all, as I keep saying. It is a philosophical proposition. No deduction is possible.

And everything we KNOW of (post the universe's beginning) came from something else, derived from some prior process. And we don't have SUPPORT for ANYTHING else. Oh, there are THEORIES - but that's not support, is it?

Our knowledge of the universe breaks down at the Big Bang, so the idea that because everything we know of was caused by the Big Bang does not support the argument that the Big Bang must have been caused by something else.

But God DOES find fault - at least in Scripture, does he not? He has, in Scripture, repeatedly warned that other beliefs, if they remain unchanged, that dismiss belief in God/Christ, will end in terrible, eternal punishment. So, God obviously DOES think we have enough information to believe, that if we use the brains He gave us, we can see the truth - IF we want to see these things, He'll make them clear/obvious ENOUGH. And so GOD clearly does find fault. Do you believe that, Hugh? Is God fair, or does He punish people for what they cannot understand or know ENOUGH of to have faith? Wouldn't this suggest to you, Hugh, that one's logic, ALONE, is inadequate to the task of determining things of faith. They can certainly point to it, but it can never get one all the way there. That takes an openness and desire to experience God, as He shows one. But one can repel all of God's evidences and prompting, can He not?

This is circular reasoning with a vengeance. One cannot derive the truth of the Bible simply from the Bible. But you are correct that "one's logic, ALONE, is inadequate to the task of determining things of faith"; that's what I've been saying all along. However a desire to experience God can only be felt if one has faith in God in the first place, so it's unfair to blame people who don't believe in God for not exploring Him. You may feel that God's word is obvious and irresistible, but there are clearly many who don't. So, yes, God is fair, and he doesn't punish people for "what they cannot understand or know ENOUGH of."

Is Hugh Catholic?

Oh, well spotted. Good ol' Thomas Aquinas.

The only way we can be certain that the universe had a beginning in time is because Scripture tells us.

Only if we believe Scripture to be true. Or if we believe our interpretation of Scripture to be correct. And where St Thomas went wrong (followed too closely by Philip, I fear) is in his overconfidence in the basic assumption that everything has a cause. It seemed to him obvious and axiomatic, but it isn't.

We must go with our understanding of science now and the big bang is king and there is nothing for the foreseeable future in science that is even close to changing it. On the one hand you imply we cannot impose God in science because it is supposition,but then you allow yourself to suppose by suggesting other theories in science that not all scientists agree on and agree about. This is typical with modern day scientific thinking we are not allowed to insert God into but yet they are free to speculate about unpeer reviewed scientific hypothesis's that are less tested and proven than the big bang. I wish science would drop this thinking. I mean they do not even have to choose one God,they could just consider a higher-power,but no! We can't do that!

Eh! What on earth is this about? Why not take a deep breath, slow down, and see if you can express your ideas more coherently.

[Jac3510]

And where St Thomas went wrong (followed too closely by Philip, I fear) is in his overconfidence in the basic assumption that everything has a cause.

Thomas never claimed this. Neither have I.

[Audie]

And where St Thomas went wrong (followed too closely by Philip, I fear) is in his overconfidence in the basic assumption that everything has a cause.

Thomas never claimed this. Neither have I.

is that assuming, or asserting that god could not have created himself?

[Jac3510]

And where St Thomas went wrong (followed too closely by Philip, I fear) is in his overconfidence in the basic assumption that everything has a cause.

Thomas never claimed this. Neither have I.

is that assuming, or asserting that god could not have created himself?

Not even God could create Himself. Aquinas is clear on that point.

[Audie]

And where St Thomas went wrong (followed too closely by Philip, I fear) is in his overconfidence in the basic assumption that everything has a cause.

Thomas never claimed this. Neither have I.

is that assuming, or asserting that god could not have created himself?

Not even God could create Himself. Aquinas is clear on that point.

"Just ask the boy from Tupeio,
He's t he King, and he outta know"

[Jac3510]

"'Nonsense doesn't cease to be nonsense just because we put the words 'God can' in front of them."

[Audie]

"'Nonsense doesn't cease to be nonsense just because we put the words 'God can' in front of them."

That is better than calling up either Elvis or Aquaman as a authority.

[Jac3510]

Who called anyone up as an authority?

[hughfarey]

And where St Thomas went wrong (followed too closely by Philip, I fear) is in his overconfidence in the basic assumption that everything has a cause.

Thomas never claimed this.

Apart from God, of course. He doesn't specifically claim it, but he does assume it. His Argument of the First Cause begins "In the world we can see that things are caused" and implies that this applies to everything. He links everything in a long chain of causes, and arbitrarily claims that this long chain cannot be infinite. But there is no justification for that either. Those who think the Universe is eternal think that no first cause is necessary, because the long chain actually is infinite.