Quote Originally Posted by Juliet View Post
Churchwork,


The problem with Step 2 is the amount of question begging:
Second step: someone says, ok fine, but what if the universe started all by itself at some point? Look at the cosmos and know it is very complicated. Since nothing in nature happens all by itself, there is always a cause and an effect. Therefore, since nothing, in more than a trillion examples, ever proves something happens without a cause, we can with the greatest of probabilities conclude everything has a cause. Since everything has a cause that is in known existence, then logic states that which is uncreated must have created. This is step 2 in the proof.
There is no question begging except in your accusing of such and in your own beliefs of an eternity of the past. Again, the difference is, Christians have evidence, but you don't put anything forth yet to make your case.

There are 2 primary objections to this statement, the first is a theological objection, the second is a scientific objection:


- Theological objection:
This has probably never occurred to you, but if Step 2 is true, then your religion is false, even if God exists or not, because the statement "nothing in nature happens all by itself, there is always a cause and an effect" is a fundamental denial of free will, on the basis that the cause of all of their actions must come from a prior effect, which in turn must come from a prior cause, ad infinitum until the first cause which you believe to be God. If God is the ultimate cause of everything, he is the ultimate cause of all the evil in the universe, and people never actually made a free choice to believe or disbelieve in God, because all events were set in motion and determined from the very beginning. (Some people have no problem with predestination, but I think that view of God is extremely offensive to religion, because a god who predestines people to go to hell is a monster and not worthy of worship.)

On the contrary, if people do have free will, then we have at least one example of something in nature happening outside of the laws of cause and effect, which serves to falsify Step 2.
Because all things have a prior cause including free-will, this poses no problem for the fact that God created. The free-will cause is that God made us in His image and since God is uncreated, this is acceptable. The finding is that the uncreated is the only thing that does not need to be caused since all things in creation are caused.

God did not create evil, but those beings that existed chose to be evil. God did not force them to be that way, they chose it. Similarly, in God foreseeing all events does not infringe on our free-will. We still choose. To set in motion events is not to pre-program robots, but to allow the free-will to choose freely to receive God or not. God predestinates by foreknowing (Rom. 8.29) our free-choice (John 3.16, see Abel's free-will offering).

There are two kinds of predestination. One is false, one is true. The one that is false is the kind you describe which is under calvinism. Calvinism is not Christianity. God's way of salvation is to predestinate us by foreknowing our free-choice: a conditional election, unlimited atonement, resistible grace, for preservation of the saints. This is called OSAS Arminian.

So as we see here your argument failed you.


- Scientific objection:
My biggest problem with your argument is that you havent actually shown Step 2 to be true, you only stated it categorically. At best, you're statement is just an intuitional statement, but it is ignorant and arrogant to an extreme to think you can refute science with your own intuitional preconceptions, and its ignorant to think you can define science with your intuitions.
Actually, step 2 is not stated categorically, but is proven. With the highest of probabilities we know nothing in nature is causeless that we know of, therefore it is a reasonable assessment to conclude that the ultimate cause was causeless. It is both logical and reasonable, intuitive and with a clear conscience.

Now what is illogical and extremely arrogant is to see that nothing in the trillions of effects in our universe is without a cause and we are able to test trillions of causes for effects, yet still hold out the idea that the universe has been going on infinitely in the past. That's like rolling a twenty sided die and expecting to get the number 1 to land each time for a hundred times in a row. Your intuition is sorely wrong to think you can win that way. Your preconception is simply to assume an eternity of the past of causes and effects, but still you have no basis, none whatsoever.

God does not want those with such horrible reasoning and mindlessness.

Since what I have shown is based on hard evidence and not only intuition, and what you believe is based on your corrupted intuition only, does it not stand to reason that you should repent?

Intuition is one of the first, but least accurate tools for gaining knowledge of the universe. As is frequently the case, its just wrong, and there are many apparently "paradoxes" that have been developed with exploit our usually fallible intuitional beliefs:
- The classic example, the Birthday Paradox: lets say started gathering random people into a room. How many people do you think we need to grab before we can say, with 50% probability, that two people in that room share the same birthday? How many people do we need before we have 99% probability that two people will share the same birthday? You only need 23 for 50% probability, and about 100 people for 99% probability. This completely contradicts our intuitional expectations that you need at least 365/2 people, but just look at the page I linked and you can play with the mathematics yourself.
Don't accuse someone of only using intuition, when they are using reason. After all you are only using intuition and not reason, so your accusation applies to you.

However, your reasoning is incorrect. Intuition happens to be the best tool of all, because if your intuition is clear, so shall you reasoning be right. You must understand that the reason your reasoning is so bad is because your intuition is so dull. One must aid their intuition with their mind with correct facts and not be so overassuming. The spiritual knowledge you receive in your innerman will cause you to conduct yourself outwardly in your soul and body, and to think properly non-overassumingly about the universe.

Understand why the Birthday Paradox for you is a true axiom, because your intuition is not right and your math skills suck. But for Christians it is not a paradox at all, but our intuition leads to proper reasoning of the finding that you need not the greater number cited because we know reasonably there is much overlapping for two people to have a birthday on the same day. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Where the problems lie is in your assumptions which were wrong, just like your assumptions about the universe. The fact of the matter is you don't know if the universe is a closed or open system. You don't know how much more time exists. But what a Christian says is not to overassume things you don't know and just look at the evidence from the minimal facts approach. This is the beginning of wisdom: humility.

Since all things are created then it must be true the uncreated created since no other possibly reveals itself. This is why we believe in God.

It doesn't stand to reason that since your intuition is so bad, that others would be as bad as yours is in assessing probabilities by guessing. That same intuition actually is infused with God-consciousness, so deep down inside you know God did it, but like Satan, you would rather see what hell is like even to spend eternity there. Your choice. God did not make you do it.