Greg Koukl - Can God's Existence Be Proved? - Part 1 of 2

[MagenticAdam66]

GOD-PROOF POST-2: In the gospels, there be numerous PROMISES apparently from the mouth of Christ himself, that to the TRUE BELIEVER, NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE ~ for instance tell a mountain to remove from its place, AND IT SHALL BE DONE!!! And, don't forget the "Great Promise" ~ "Whatsoever thou shalt ask in my name shall be granted thee".

Such avenues of scientifically verifiable proof are not open to unbelievers ~ once again the onus of proof falls upon the Christians. Set too, zealots ~ PROVE IT!

[IWantToKnowChrist]

@MagenticAdam66 how can you understand heavenl;y things if you don't understand earthly things? i'm sure if jesus told you that you needed to be born again, you'd say " how can a man get back into his mother's womb?" cause thats the exact same thing you just did with what you just said.

[MagenticAdam66]

GOD-PROOF POST-1: There are two factors Christians MUST prove concerning god's existence:

1. Firstly, a man-like "True God" exists.

2. "Biblical Jesus-God" is the One True God, for without that proof, then not one should believe "that all men must come to The Father through Jesus", for they may well be worshipping a false god!

Unbelievers loathe the quoting of biblical scripture as proof of itself, HOWEVER ALL should note that scripture actually provides for SCIENTIFIC METHODS OF PROOF!

[MagenticAdam66]

What are the stated purposes of Satan's being?

It is to usurp the TRUE divinity & creation, and to destroy Earth & mankind ~ yes?

What are the purposes of Jesus, apart from of the "PROMISED" end result of salvation of men, and the restoration of an earth to pristine condition?

It is to claim to be true god, and to burn the Earth, and to destory most of mankind (excepting those who sign a "spiritual contract" with him) ~ yes?

And you just can't see why we plonkers DEMAND PROOF from you, bloke?

[MagenticAdam66]

Now, if The Divine All is the creator of everything, including Satan, who incidentally, although an angel, is also reputedly in the image of man; and as such wishes to usurp The Divine All (who/which is constituted of ALL MATTER), then do you not find it more than a little passing strange that the god of your bible claims himself to be the model, or image, of man??? Hmmmm! Who exactly is this guilt-instilling man-god, and goody-two-shoes redemtive god-son of the bible? Destroyers of Earth & Man?

[MagenticAdam66]

Now here's a poser for you: if we are created in the image of "god", no doubt penis, arsehole, and all, then that would indicate that god is manlike, yes? Ahhh, but he is also "The All", so may we not then presume that "god" is also in the image of a tree, of an ant, of a snake, of a goose, perhaps? Who runs the sanitation department in Heaven? Where do the royal turds get banished to? Who launders the big bloke's robes? Please provide PROOF with your counter-arguments. Can't sign-up without it!

[MagenticAdam66]

Don't ever forget bloke, that whilst you exhort upon us, the cute and cuddly Jesus who has come to redeem us from the vengeful, wrathful, destructive, bloodthirsty father, to accept such individual salvation of one's soul, one MUST in effect, sign a spiritual covenant with biblical god/Jesus that something like 90% of one's fellow brethren are but shit, worthy only of eternal spiritual burning. NOW THEN, do you not see why the burden of proof rests entirely with you, and only you, oh fisherman?

[MagenticAdam66]

Satan is to be encountered as prosecutor in a test of Job's loyalty to God. This, then, is God utilizing Satan. So, what are we to deduce? Satan & co-sinners are to be punished by God to expunge evil, yet Satan is also required to play his role faithfully to the end so all that God preordains may come to pass. Everything in bible is "Big Secret" to confuse Satan & sinners, yet apparently Satan had the foresight to set-up pre-cursor god-son religions prior to Christ? Smell anything fishy?

[MagenticAdam66]

You have to truely get the concept of what I am after from you here. I've successfully forseen events 40 years into the future. I've also had an out of body walk in spirit experience. In self-recognition of my very individual consciousness, and connection to The Cosmic All, The Cosmic Nature, I also believe very strongly that there is a divinity. The Question of you: PROVE ABSOLUTELY BEYOND DOUBT that your biblical god is THE ALL, THE TRUE DIVINITY, AND NOT SOME POWER WISHING TO USURP THAT ROLE!

[MagenticAdam66]

Oh, and let's not forget, I'll also need the proof that the bible is the inerrant word of God. No doubt you will point to prophetic happenstance. Well, 45 years ago, I dreamt the name of the trainer, and the horse, which were to win the Oz Melbourne Cup, 40 years into the future! Now, I don't expect you to believe that, of course ~ take it as you will. However, it must stand to reason that I do not lie ~ for why else would I then consider ANY entity may prophesise, including Satan, old mate?

[MagenticAdam66]

Bloke, you beat incessantly about the bush in regards of proof of god. Let's cut to the chase, huh? I'll grant you Jesus as a real entity, even, OK? Now, prove to me that he is the son of God. Prove to me that he was not tempted by Satan upon the mount. Prove to me that he was of virgin birth. Prove to me that the serpent was Satan. Give me ABSOLUTE PROOF buddy, so that I am willing, without regret, to endorse 90% of mankind fit for eternal spiritual burning, so that I may redeem my own soul!

[BillsHawks]

This guy's logic is so incredibly flawed.

[quintessential37]

@BillsHawks In what way?

[Micahthetatter]

@BillsHawks how so? you make the claim his logic is flawed but provide no argument to back up your claim

[LukeShetler]

This guy takes SO fucking long to come to his simple-minded message in all of his videos, that I can't even sit through long enough to comment.

[Micahthetatter]

@LukeShetler so you comment out of ignorance then?

[YouAreIsrael]

If God can be proven 100% true what is the reason for, and need for, faith?

[pjwatty]

@YouAreIsrael The question, for most, is not whether God exists. The disagreement lies in the answer to this question: Which belief system, or faith, is the TRUE faith and revelation of God? Faith in God is not what makes one a Muslim, Budhist, Christian, nor Agnostic; but your belief in how, or whether, God has expressed/revealed [Himself] to us.

[YouAreIsrael]

@pjwatty - The atheist denies God exists. So coming to a common ground on the existence of God through faith is indeed paramount to the revelation of His nature and character through His Son. For example if you were to tell me of a friend you have with great nature and great character, but I never had met your friend, I'd have to take it on faith that you have such a great friend. Once I met this friend and could examine your claims for myself then my own knowledge becomes very real!

[YouAreIsrael]

@pjwatty - (Con't) For those already acquainted with God be they Muslim, Buddhist, Christian, or Agnostic it then becomes imperative to reveal the nature and character of God as expressed and revealed in His Son - Jesus Christ. People may have faith in God but that faith is strengthened as it is revealed in Jesus. Yet before we can reveal Christ to the atheist we have to come to the agreement first that God does indeed exist. This belief is once built on faith and not simply evidence.

[pjwatty]

@YouAreIsrael Ok, I misunderstood your question and you’re absolutely right. The goal of apologetics is similar to an attorney’s, which is not to prove “100%,” but to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt.” So, even with 99.9% evidence, where you and I may put .01% faith; the atheist may put .01% “unreasonable doubt.” Faith is still necessary in the company of evidence. (cont.^)

[keith1y]

@YouAreIsrael Good point, the word translated faith in the New Testament is better understood as "TRUST", as the Jewish New Testament translates it. So there is no need for "blind faith" at all.

[Hufflewaffle]

"Every effect requires an adequate cause and nothing can cause itself."

What kind of premise is this? - Cause itself to what? - I just caused myself to type that! Cause itself to exist? - but life causes itself to exist every moment of every day!

The beginning of the universe (ie. space/time) is an effect therefore it needs an adequate cause outside of itself. 'Outside space' and 'Before time' are meaningless statements. There is no such thing.

Its not even an argument - let alone proof!!

[kdog203]

Yes, what he meant was "nothing ever causes itself to exist." Life does not cause itself to exist...nothing does. Children come from parents, etc... Nothing in all of the universe has brought itself into existence.  This is not a religious statement, but a scientific one, from observation. Take a glass box, suck out the air, minimize any energy infiltration, and nothing will ever bring itself into existence within that box. Call it fact, theory, or proof. It is simply the way things are.

[EnlightenU]

Some look at empty space and say, God is not. Others look at space and say God truly is. Yet, the truth, or real is beyond both of these relative descriptions. Reason, logic, proof, all require an observer. Find out "who" is observing and you will see light of love in your worst enemy. The man who thinks he is God, and the man who doubts him - both are deluded. 

[igwood71]

...so, the problem with your argument is the premise. you're claiming knowledge of nature that the best scientists won't. it may be that a being as you describe is behind all this. but that's just one of many ideas. and since natural explanations have repeatedly banished the original god explanation, we have no good reason to take god as the "first cause", even if we may never understand it.

[igwood71]

...for 200 years newtonian physics adequately explained our observations. but the more we could observe, the more problems until einstein provided a better model. the work continues.

is it possible that matter and/or energy ALWAYS (time) existed? in this question you have three ingredients about which it's clear we don't have a full understanding. in our narrow range of experience things have beginning and end. but as einstein's revolution showed, things aren't always as they first seem.

[igwood71]

the argument that uses the cause-effect chain, concluding that it all must have been initiated by an uncaused transcendent being assumes the we have a good understanding of the nature of space, time, matter and energy. i don't know why theists who use this argument can't see that we DON'T have a complete understanding of these. that's why billions are spent on the likes of the LHC - to deepen our understanding.

[devine1215]

Any atheist i've ever argued with about God's existence always has this notion that God is some old guy in the sky who made everything and watches over earth, and that is it. What atheists need to understand is that the Christian God that I believe in (or any/most Christian believes in) is that God transcends space, time, and anything else because He made it. Atheists try to simplify God in arguments to make the idea sound crazy. They should know what they are actually arguing against.

[mcshundess]

What do you mean by "new atheist" ? Where do the "old" ones are ?

[eswcaliber]

You're constraining God by time, which is a property of the universe. God transcends the universe and time.

[Cthulu54]

Where was God Located before the Universe existed?

[miked518]

@Cthulu54 Your making the premise that God MUST exist in the Universe only? Or that there is NO realm besides the Universe itself? The Bible is clear that God CREATED the universe and that God is not finite, but is eternal and infinite. therefore he was outside the realm of the universe. This 'place' needs not to be proved or shown...how could it be to a finite mind to begin with. God is Spirit and He is not confined to a place called the Universe.

[miked518]

@Cthulu54 Your making the premise that God MUST exist in the Universe only? Or that there is NO realm besides the Universe itself? The Bible is clear that God CREATED the universe and that God is not finite, but is eternal and infinite. therefore he was outside the realm of the universe. This 'place' needs not to be proved or shown...how could it be to a finite mind to begin with. God is Spirit and He is not confined to a place called the Universe.

[slycotto66]

Why is "god" exempt from this claim that "everything requires a cause, and nothing causes itself"?

What caused god? Logically, something had to.

His argument proves nothing.

[jerelesli]

@slycotto66 God is outside natural laws. greg is expressing natural laws. so we cannot know if these laws apply to something that is outside nature. natural things cannot create themselves. God is not natural so this law of cause and effect does not explicitly apply to God existence

[miked518]

@slycotto66 . No, you are making the premise that God, who created the physical realm(universe and everything in it) is confined to the same physical laws(that He created by the way). God is Spirit, timeless,eternal,etc. The Bible makes that claim..which is exempt of the wrong thinking that God must also have a cause as well. Before science came to the more recent conclusions(which is the majority of scientest by the way) that the universe had a beginning, an atheist would claim(cont)

[miked518]

@slycotto66 (cont)..thaT the universe WAS eternal(which science has now shown that it is not,but did indeed had a beginning). The atheist claim to value science should then (if being honest with oneself) show the atheist,agnostic,skeptic,etc, that updated science(the universe had a beginning,complicated DNA structures,etc) that science in fact backs up the biblical account of creation. To those that say there is no Intelligent Creator(God), then what feesible options DO you have?

[manutdfan4321]

Big Banger lol nice

[CondorDM]

NO god :)

[godismyjudge1000]

Anthony Flew i really want to read his book.

[godismyjudge1000]

I always hear athiests say that the universe is in some evolving state, as though this gives them some sort of hope for something. I just really don't understand. What a disappointing thought. What is hope, what is happiness why did these emotions evolve, and why are they subject to our attitudes. We all long for something we all hope for something. In a Random universe this is completely meaningless. Stop hoping, stop being happy, stop being sad, its just electrons coliding.

[portantwas]

@godismyjudge1000 I don't know if every atheist says that the universe is evolving just cos they think this causes hope. The universe evolving is just a fact. Earth is not the same as it was a million years ago (and neither was Mars we have found out recently). So, as time passes everything changes. That's a fact. Whether you find this hopeful or depressing (I can find it depressing sometimes, at other times I find it gives me perspective) is besides the point. It just is.

[portantwas]

So if ever effect has a cause, and God is the big banger who banged the universe into being, then who/what caused God?

Oops. If something caused God then that would mean the God who created the universe is not infinite, no? Or is there a congo line of Gods, each more infinite than the one that came after?

This guy needs to not confuse wordplay with real proof.

[JayMM112]

@portantwas You assume that God requires a cause.

[portantwas]

@JayMM112 I'm just using their own argument (that proof of God is evident because 'somebody' made the universe) to test their theory. It is just as possible to say the universe IS the original causal agent and is/has been evolving from state to state.

Hostility to fundamental religions arises cos so many use God as an excuse to boss other ppl around (in a free democracy too!): 'don't have sex before marriage', 'wear a scarf over your hair', 'this war is justified and God is on our side' etc.

[JayMM112]

The Universe is subject to the absurdity of infinite regress. Besides, it is absurd in itself to think that the Universe caused itself. God, however, in a timeless state, would not be subject to the absurdity of infinite regress, because there is nothing into which to regress infinitly.

[Dhorpatan]

@Jay

"The Universe is subject to the absurdity of infinite regress"

^^^But the totality of existence isn't subject to infinite regress. so God is not needed. Also, as you've been told, an immaterial mind is a fallacy of hypostatization and is incredibly illogical.

[portantwas]

@JayMM112 Why is it any more absurb to think the universe created itself, then that God did? BTW I meant the universe has always existed in some state or another (energy field) and that our 'world' etc, has evolved from this earlier state. Any 'intelligence' behind everything certainly shouldn't be presented in human terms (as most creeds present it). If it 'timeless' (time not being a dimension it resides in) then we can't present its behaviour in our time-based language/thoughts.

[godismyjudge1000]

I apreciate your arguments, your vocabulary is far better than mine. why do you get up in the morning?

[portantwas]

@godismyjudge1000 ?Why do I get up in the morning? Because I'm awake, and I'm usually hungry.

Or do you mean 'what is the point of my life' since I don't believe in the Christian God? If so, I like life. It is full of wonder and an adventure. You don't need God to have purpose.

[dmn22]

@portantwas You mean you don't need God to have objective purposes. You see life as having wonder and adventure but that would be a subjective view. One's life without God would be objectively meaningless.

[portantwas]

@dmn22 In reality there is no objective meaning, since your experience of God (real or not) would always be subjective, coloured by your personality etc.

I mean, since God is suppose to be outside time and space, and humans are within time and space, it would always be a subjective experience to the individual.

[miked518]

@portantwas . Are you making the premise that God who created the universe CANNOT enter into it? The Bible doesnt make that claim..in fact, it makes the claims that God IS present within and without our known physical realm.

[godismyjudge1000]

have you read signature in the cell?

[s3tione]

"The big bang needs a big banger" - well here we go again. God is simply hiding where our knowledge is scant; He has done this before. The cause of the universe is a tricky matter for science, since it conception occurred outside of our observable universe. However, science has shown us that God needn't be the cause for stars, planets, and galaxies or the life which exists on Earth. So why would we assume God is *the* cause of the universe above all other hypothesizes?

[s3tione]

To continue the evidence requirements: How about anything observable by multiple observers or anything tangible. How about another Jesus and more miracles? How about some angles descending from heaven? The bible is full of actual events which convinced whole reams of new believers back in ancient times, but which are noticeably absent from our own age.

[godismyjudge1000]

my friend ripped his ACL and i saw him healed instantly. i know that this won't convince, you and you won't believe me. But he went to the doctor and the doctor told him his ACL was torn. That very night his ACL was prayed for and healed. God chooses when and where to cause miracles. i only hope that God moves in a way to show you that he is real.

[portantwas]

@godismyjudge1000 I believe cures can happen that doctors don't understand, but I always wonder, if God can cure a person from a disease or save someone in a plane crash, doesn't that mean God caused the disease or the plane to crash in the first place?

[s3tione]

What kind of evidence for God would count? Anything that showed clearly that there was a creator of the universe and all that was and is in it. Anything which could verify that the bible was indeed the inspired word of God. Anything which could clearly indicate that the Christian faith is in fact the correct religion. I mean, i could go on and on. None of the above are provable conclusively and thus neither is God.

[Cthulu51]

I hope I didn't just lash out at an ally. Perhaps I'm getting my ego too invested in this thing. Koukl seems like a nice enough and bright enough fellow. I very much enjoy listening to him. But, he's trotting out arguments that Hume, Kant, et al. put paid to long ago.

[cowlark2000]

I honestly don't understand how grown men can be so ignorant of even basic logic. Begging the question, anyone?

[Cthulu51]

There is no begging the question here. I merely will not allow you to have your cake and eat it to in terms of causation.

[Cthulu51]

Part of the problem is that time is a property of the universe. Causation implies temporal progression. A cause occurs in time. Something happened prior to the universe to cause it. But, as time begins with the universe, suggesting a cause for the universe would seem to imply a contradiction. (I may or may not have a dangling modifier here.) Something couldn't have happened at a previous moment in time if time didn't exist yet. I believe St. Augustine may have attempted a response to this.

[Cthulu51]

Since causation takes place within the context of the universe, to speak of a cause for the universe makes no sense.

[dtower76]

So, are you saying that because causation happens in the context of the universe, the universe cannot be caused? Are you saying the universe is eternal? There is much strong evidence against such a belief (even from people that don't believe in any kind of god).

[nowaydudebook]

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20)

[truevoiceofsanity]

"What kind of proof are you looking for".

Hmmm.

Your premise "everything has a cause" is hard to establish. We don't know this. Matter/energy could have existed forever.

[godsource]

The #1 fallacy of atheists is asking proof of something that transcends the universe. The #1 fallacy of theists is to attempt to proof something that transcends the universe. This debate is a waste of time and useless.

[godsource]

right, you still can't prove it I agree. But take in account we are talking millions with the same imaginary friend, if not billions... absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. That is why it's a continuous circling debate. The only thing I can think of that doesn't abide by the laws of our universe would be a supernatural being.

[mikeywikeybikey]

Just have a think about this notion.

If someone created something in their own head. For example: An imaginary friend yet this friend was invisible and did not have matter then how could you disprove that this isn't real? Then if they tell you that you dont need proof if you have faith. How can you disprove something that isnt real and does not need to obide by the laws of our universe???

[mikeywikeybikey]

If god could be proven it wouldnt be god.. That is somewhat convenient. How the god of the bible only excists by not needing space, time or matter. Just because you say that god cant be disproven does not mean he is real. There is no evidence (not bias) that proves god. The bible was written by man so that is not an unbias source of evidence. There is not one piece of scientific evidence that proves a creator. And if there was a creator then wouldnt there be evidence which proves it?

[baltusd]

If you know that god is this that, then he

is prooveble, whitch its not

[worldsworstjukebox]

"We will show them our proofs in the horizons, and within themselves, until they realize that this is the truth. Is your Lord not sufficient enough as a witness of all things?"

[Inqoinf]

the problem isn't proving that there is a god... Christians get mixed up in this... what good is it providing evidence for a god if it isn't evidence for the specific god you believe in. If the evidence you have is only evidence for some abstract being out there then what good has it done for you? The only thing that would change if we knew there was a god but knew nothing about it would be that everyone would believe there is a god but still no one would know which god it is...

[Nickspasic]

I have undeniable proof of the exsistance of god, For the first 18 years of my life i was an athiests and i spent my time studying science and many different fields of science then it finally hit me. There has to be a God,whom is eternal,intelligent very powerful and i proved this using modern science. I am not talking religeon because they cant all be true.i have proven logically who and what god is and there is only one religeon that mirror's the research i have done message me for the proof:)

[confluential]

Then is "God" as so-called effect? Does God have a cause? Why does he assume a beginning for the universe? Man, these arguments are silly. Basically there aren't any new "proofs" for the existence of a so-called "God."If this guy wants to beg his own question, even by saying the word"god," then more power to him, but his whole attempt at deductive proofs is all wet.

[veritaslogos]

no God doesn't have a cause

[confluential]

And you base this on???It's just as convenient for me to say the Universe doesn't have a cause.You have no logical ground to stand on because if you're using the First Cause Argument for the existence of a God or gods, then you have to be able to prove that "God's" existence is and always was and will be forever, etc...but simply stating this won't do..There's no difference between an "uncaused god" and an "uncaused anything else,"ie, The Universe, The Great Purple Pixie, The Great Pumpkin..etc

[veritaslogos]

well it may be convenient for u to say it, but it goes against what we know. I base this on what is classically thought of when talking about a diety, one of the attributes being that the diety is infinite. i mean if we weren't talking about such a being we would be having this conversation. and your committing the same error most atheist who are repeating the rhetoric of their heroes do, and thats straw maning the idea of God with other things that are obviously meant for ridicule

[confluential]

It's a brilliant comparison, and definitely not a straw man to question the validity of your claim while testing it against something you may not have reason to believe in for yourself.Both tests apply.Both questions are valid because they simply test.If you do not believe in or worship The Great Pumpkin, please explain why you do not?

[veritaslogos]

well maybe you can provide some information for me about the great purple pixie and the great pumpkin and what ever else etc you left out.

[confluential]

Sure...The Great Pumpkin flies in the air and gives gifts to all the boys and girls on Halloween...Linus Van pelt is his prophet and spokesperson.

The Great Puprple pixie asks that we admit our sins, and we'll be forgiven, and live with him in heaven. Now,why wouldn't you believe in these?Are these really any different to your God?

[veritaslogos]

so when did this belief come about?

[confluential]

I don't know how many adherents there are to The Great Pumpkin or The Great Purple Pixie in the sky or when it came about exactly.Probably sometime between then and now.The point is, I take it you believe differently.What are your reasons for believing differently?To me, your belief in a god and assertions thereof are no different than what people assert about The Great Pumpkin.Different names, same epistemological requirements.

[veritaslogos]

well i didn't ask about how many adherents there are. i just wanna know what you DO know about it. that could help me answer your question better

[maxbigwood]

The universe needs to have a cause, because it is subject to the rules of the universe, which is that every action needs a cause.... These rules do not exist outside of the universe

[swimmer1293]

So the universe is eternal?

[Cthulu54]

@swimmer1293 Perhaps a better question would be is God eternal? If so, then an infinite amount of time would have to have passed before he created the Universe. This seems to be problem.

[jpkushin]

Philosophers speak of 'proof' only in the context of logic and mathematics. The question of whether one can "prove" the existence of God reduces to the question of whether there is strong evidence for God. It is a mistake to think that deductive arguments are somehow intrinsically stronger than nondeductive arguments. So long as the premises are not 100% certain, uncertainty will redound to the conclusion. Finally, it begs the question to call the universe an effect.

[flamedturtle]

Big Bang is a theory, in science theories are composed because they can't be proven but it "could of happened" but that doesn't matter in the proof to the existence of God because God could of used the big abng to create everything else..there's no excuse..

[tincture]

omfg man, GET TO THE FUCKING POINT!

[GeneralMortix]

Look you clicked on it GET OVER IT Your post was annoying to my eyes and vomit of your mouth Either be patient and listen or Get lost Its only your Future life wich could be at stake

[rilus]

Learn to make some sense.

[rilus]

That logical proof would work except for the fact that you're assume the premise:

That everything that exists must have a cause. There's no evidence to believe that everything that exists had to have been created.

Even if we accept this premise, if something did create the universe, it doesn't have to have been sentient, intelligence, or even alive.

Also, if everything that exists was created, what created God?

[PaulHarrison1976]

Christians qualify this argument by saying that everything "that began" to exist needs a cause. Because God is described as never having begun, but is an eternal, uncaused first-cause of everything that has a beginning, God is exempt from needing a cause. He just always was.

Now that that fancy argument rests in our minds, how would we go about testing it to see if its true?

[rilus]

Of course, if they use that argument, you can still say that there is no evidence that the universe began.

Also, as we both know, that assumption is not testable.

[PaulHarrison1976]

They would say that the big bang and Einstein's relativity confirms the beginning of the universe to a degree that would be dishonest to deny.

If we say our universe is a product of natural causes before it we are stuck in infinite regress. So the naturalist asks what is so irrational about believing that nature always was or "just is" as a brute fact and these processes keep making universes?

Theists complain that this is a naturalist fairy tale with no proof, but God is not?

[rilus]

The problem would be that there is only evidence that the current universe had a point of convergence. That's basically all. BBT is not a theory of the origin of the universe.

And to say that there is no evidence for the BB would be either a dishonest or an ignorant statement. Here's a short list of evidence:

Large-scale homogeneity

Hubble Diagram (red shifting)

Abundance of light elements

Cosmic background radiation

Tolman tests

Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect

Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect

etc

[rilus]

And again, unlike the deity theory, the Big Bang theory has plenty of evidence. Not to say that some being couldn't have created the universe, but currently there is no testable, demonstrable, and verifiable evidence for this.

Whether we were stuck in infinite regress, is irrelevant. A lot of science defies common sense (particularly quantum physics and mechanics.)

[rilus]

Also, there even if there is a creator and it is an intelligent being, there is no proof or reason to believe that he always was. For he may very well have its own creator.

So, as you see, there's a lot of baseless assumptions we have to buy:

1) The universe had a beginning

2) The beginning had a creating force

3) The creating force is an intelligent creator

4) The creator always existed

While it is possible that these assumptions are true, there is simply no proof.

[Christianjr4]

"1) The universe had a beginning"

Yeah, that's called the BIG BANG. Have you ever heard of it? Well pretty much everyone now believes in it, so that's hardly an assumption. You need to seriously update your scientific world view.

[rilus]

If you actually had any scientific background or knowledge, you would know that the Big Bang is not a theory on the creation of the universe. It is simply a theory that states that since the universe is expanding today, if we go backwards in time, there is evidence that the universe was at some point much hotter and denser than it is now.

Read up a bit before you make a completely incorrect argument that has no basis on real knowledge.

[Christianjr4]

Stephen Hawking in his book "The Nature of Space and Time" on page 20, says "almost everyone now believes that the UNIVERSE and time itself had a BEGINNING, at the Big Bang".

Either you can say Hawking is wrong (I doubt you would have the audacity to say that) or admit an error on your part.

The Big Bang is an event that according to current science, took place 13.7 billion years ago. It's obvious to anyone that this implies a beginning of the universe. I know much more than you think.

[rilus]

"The universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have no beginning nor end, would simply be. What place then for a creator?"

Care to guess who said this? Stephen Hawkings. So, sorry but despite what your incomplete and insincere quote mining by mainly Christian sites doesn't believe that the universe began at the Big Bang. What Hawkings believes like most modern physicist is that the CURRENT universe or expansion was created at the Big Bang.

[Christianjr4]

"What Hawkings believes like most modern physicist is that the CURRENT universe or expansion was created at the Big Bang."

Yes, this is what I said. What did you think I was talking about, Superman's universe 2 doors down? Your attempt to defend yourself by saying "current" is desperate. THIS IS THE ONLY UNIVERSE WE KNOW ABOUT

Moreover I wasn't quote mining from Christian websites. Stop playing fast ones with me. I have the book right next to me. Again I'm more well informed than you think (1)

[Christianjr4]

"'The universe is really self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have no beginning nor end, would simply be. What place then for a creator?'

Care to guess who said this? Stephen Hawkings"

Indeed Hawking did say this. Only with the use of imaginary time for the Hartle-Hawking model can he really say this. But it still doesn't eliminate (really) the beginning of the universe. It eliminates a beginning POINT. In short this is instrumentalism that lacks ontological significance (2)

[rilus]

"The other situation in which singularities are predicted is in the past at the beginning of the present expansion of the universe. This led to the abandonment of attempts (mainly by the Russians) to argue that there was a previous contracting phase and a non singular bounce into expansion. Instead almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang." This is a more complete quote and explains what he meant more clearly.

[Christianjr4]

Are you serious? What exactly about this fuller quote changes the fact that the universe, and time itself had a beginning at the Big Bang? Absolutely nothing. Hawking was just explaining how the "Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorems" led to the demise of the oscillating models so favored by the Russians in the 1970s. That's it. Nothing in this expanded quote changes anything about my point that the universe began to exist, to which if you remember, you denied contrary to what Hawking said.

[rilus]

So, if you still don't get what he meant in that quote, let me clarify: he's saying that physics predicts singularities at the beginning and the end of the universe. However, when they talk about the universe, they mean the CURRENT one.

If you still don't get it, just read up a bit more.

[Christianjr4]

"he's saying that physics predicts singularities at the beginning and the end of the universe."

Yes I know that. What's your point? It changes nothing. Certainly you don't think that the future singularity spawns a universe do you? If you're saying this then, with all due respect to you, you don't know anything about the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorem.

"If you still don't get it, just read up a bit more"

Oh, I get it. I'm having serious doubts now as to whether you actually get it.

[AnthonyBlunt]

My sympathies lie with the Jew. I have never thought that God's existence can be proven conclusively. It seems to me that in order to prove God's existence, you need to give arguments, and by their nature, those arguments will be contingent, i.e. less fundamental than the conclusion. I don't think something less fundamental can prove conclusively something more fundamental.

Eg. you cannot prove conclusively the existence of gravity. It just is.You either accept it as an assumption or you don't.

[mediusnacht]

Anthony: It seems you're tangentially talking about inductive arguments. It has nothing to do with something being "fundamental." Inductive arguments are always tentative. An inductive proof doesn't really exist, but in common parlance it means proof beyond reasonable doubt.

That is the sense in which we deal with gravity and other such things. Acceptance or rejection of the theory of gravity are not equally weighted: one is a more reasonable (*much* more reasonable) proposition.

[mediusnacht]

This is the realm in which many atheists (myself included) deal with the idea of proof of a god. Ultimately, there is an objective proof, to be arrived at through an inductive argument. I'll go out on a limb here and say one cannot hope to create a valid deductive argument for a god, since such will only ever be as good as its inductive premises. You can, however, make an inductive argument for god, and this is where many feel the burden of proof is not met.

[mediusnacht]

Correction: "... there is objective *truth*..."

[onmywaytube]

This is too good to be true... maybe it's only true for me, and no one else! This is awesome!!!! Good to see you on the air, Greg! I'm so thankful for STR!

[grandconjunct]

After listening to your radio program for over 15 years, Its very interesting to see it for the first time, I was even listening live when the famous chicken call came in many years ago, that now inspires the clucking chicken sound on every show. Im hoping you get your own T.V. show soon, or at least a bigger radio studio with a golden STRB microphone !

[ThatChristian]

I finally figured out how to actually subscribe to the podcast! Praise God! I've had to go and hunt down all the archived clips before.

Anyway, I really appreciate STR's efforts to fill a very serious void - intelligent support of Christianity (or any idea, for that matter)

[Yesica1993]

I am so excited these are being filmed!

[philochristos]

I listened to this on my ipod just the other day. Seeing Greg sculpt the air while saying the same things just makes it all come alive!

[justchemicals]

More, please. ;)

[grandconjunct]

Awsome I hope you will put up many more live videos like this

[Veritas48]

Good stuff Greg

[AwokenSpirit]

I knew I would find you here my good bro ;)