WIIO
This morning a new acronym was born.
I was reading a thread on Theology Web about someone’s journey from being a young earth creationist to accepting the theory of evolution. A user named Zimri responded sympathetically:
My thoughts resonate with the OP strongly, for I had a teenage infatuation with YECism. However, I have left it behind now I’m in University…One of the things that resulted in me opening my mind again was the ridiculous rhetoric of YEC arguments against the “compromisers”. I found it very offensive. Now, in University I totally enjoy learning. As you put it, “sheer joy of learning basic science”. Christ set me free not to get shut into another cramped box!
I believed that being a theist (specifically Christian) would expand one’s horizons. I don’t have to worry about the metaphysical side of things–its already taken care of. I’m free to investigate, learn, without any predetermined conclusions. Alas, with YECism I found the exact opposite of that.
To which Jorge, the forum’s “resident YEC”, replied:
You have a lot to learn, young man …. a LOT! May our LORD guide you (’cause, from the above, you’re already somewhat lost).
That’s kind of Jorge’s MO: make vague claims but never offer any substantiation. SoZimri asks Jorge to “kindly point out why I’m lost.”
Sure! You are ‘lost’ because from your first post it is abundantly clear that you are uniformed, misinformed and confused.
This was a stupid response, and several people called him out on it. Zimri even went to so far as to say:
I guess, asking how exactly I’m uninformed/misinformed/confused is asking too much from you.
Get ready for this. You are going to love this. Clearly, Jorge has no choice but to give actual reasons for thinking that Zimri is lost and confused right? Of course not!
No, it’s not. When someone commits or implies as many errors in one short post as you did, I’ve learned to take
that as a sign that the person may well be beyond my personal assistance, hence my prayer that the LORD guide you.Does that make it clearer?
…?
And that is where my new acronym comes in. This is what I refer to as a WIIO reply: Well, isn’t it obvious???
The same scenario plays out over and over on Ray Comfort’s blog:
Creationist: You atheists ignore any evidence for God!
Atheist: Probably because there is none.
Creationist: No way! There’s TONS of evidence for God’s existence!
Atheist: Perhaps you could provide some.
Creationist: Well, isn’t it obvious???
Ugh. This is my life. I have to keep reminding myself that these people aren’t the devil. They’re practice.
Stumble it!
September 12th, 2008 at 10:17 am
As a theist, I went through an “enlightenment period,” where I took steps down the road towards atheism. Now I ask theists to “show me the money,” and more often than not I get the “WIIO” response.
One of my faves is “Just look around you, THERE’S the evidence of god;” I see evidence for evolution.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:19 am
At least I am an honest theist: I’m not emotionally able to give up my belief. Maybe someday I will be, maybe not. But I refuse to cling to retarded logic like WIIO.
The dumbest one is Ray Comfort’s “Creation implies a Creator.” Puh-leeze.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Maybe Ray’s line should be altered to be “explainable creation implies a creation”, like a computer with obviously man made components, or a bicycle or other machines… it could be found sometime in the future that evolution is a designed process, but right now there is no evidence that a process like that was created. Saying, ’see that mountain? it’s obviously created’ doesn’t seem obvious like ’see that building? it’s obviously created’ because the methods that generate each structure are so completely different. I dunno… I think that if I was a theist, I’d *claim* evolution as part of the toolkit of the all mighty god. I think that’s a better way than denying the process exists. Anyway, I should stop trying to wax philosophic now - my thoughts aren’t very cogent because I’m too worried about that TRAP. WIIO plz!
September 12th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Remember, Admiral, a mountain must have a mountainer.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Well, is there any evidence that would be good enough for you? I mean are you open minded enough to consider other possibilities? Are you interested enough in exploring and learning that you can step beyond “No God?” I mean, except for epistemic, experiential, logical, coherent and reasonable evidence for the existence of God, I could be an atheist. Instead, my belief in God begins with the following observations:
. Because of clear scientific (observable, repeatable, verifiable) evidence, we know that whatever begins to exist has a cause.
. Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that the universe began to exist.
Because those premises are true and coherent we can know that the following conclusion is also true: The universe has a cause.
====
. We know from scientific evidence that matter and energy cannot precede themselves or preexist themselves either physically or chronologically.
. The reason that no event can precede itself is because “Coming Into Being” is an essential and objective feature of time. Time did not exist prior to the Big Bang.
. We know from scientific evidence that matter and energy do not have the ability to create themselves or bring themselves into existence from nothing or ex nihilo.
. As will be shown below, matter and energy cannot exist from infinity past.
. Whatever brought matter, energy, space, time and the laws of physics into existence had to have existed outside of these entities.
====
. We know from scientific evidence that anything that exists has an explanation of it’s existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is what we call God. That is because:
Existing outside of time, the Cause is infinite or Eternal,
Existing outside of matter, the Cause is immaterial or Spiritual,
Existing as the Cause of time and energy, space, matter and the laws of physics, the Cause is immeasurably more powerful than the mathematically precise universe and its exquisitely Finely Tuned constants and quantities.
The cause cannot be “scientific” because neither matter nor the laws of physics existed prior to the Singularity.
Therefore the cause is not scientific but Personal.
The transcendent Cause of the universe is therefore on the order of a Mind. It’s omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. That Cause, at least in the West is described as God.
. The universe exists.
. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true: The explanation of the existence of the universe is God
====
. What that means is, if atheism is true, then the universe has no explanation of its existence. This in fact is what atheists would have us believe as literally over a dozen theories have come and gone in a vain attempt to rule out God as the Cause of a beginning universe.
. If there IS an explanation of the universe’s existence, then atheism is not true.
. Most atheists go with the scientific evidence and admit that the universe does indeed have a beginning.
. Hence, most atheists are implicitly committed to God being the explanation of why the universe exists.
====
Some may deny that the universe began to exist, but in reality the universe cannot be infinite. That is because: The Second Law of Thermodynamics rules out the possibility of the universe existing from infinity past. As well -
. It is physically impossible to have an Actual Infinite Number of Things or Events preceding our today.
. A beginningless Series of events in time entails an actual infinite number of things.
. Therefore, a beginningless Series of events in time that leads to the beginning of our universe cannot exist.
====
. Neither can we get to our point in time by forming an actual infinite Collection of things by adding one member after another.
. A series of events in time is a collection formed by adding one member after another
. A collection formed by adding one member after another cannot be an actual infinite.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true: A collection of events in time cannot be actually infinite - therefore the universe cannot be infinite. Therefore the universe had to have a beginning and a Cause.
The fact is, the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.
====
I think we have evidence that point toward God because His existence answers not just, Why did the universe come into being, but Why is it so finely tuned that we can exist? Note: Fine Tuning is a neutral secular term in that it refers to constants and quantities (atomic weight, gravitational constant, strong & weak force, etc.) being just right for the existence of intelligent life. That’s in comparison with the virtually infinite range of possible values. So:
. The fine tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance or design. If you can think of another possibility you’re welcome to explain what that might be.
. The fine tuning is not due to physical necessity (there is no reason whatsoever that any given universe would be so finely tuned) nor is this fine tuning due to chance (the fine tuning of our universe is so exquisite that an infinitesimal change in any one of the necessary constants and quantities would mean that neither we nor any life would happen).
. True claim: If observers who have evolved within a universe observe its constants and quantities, it is highly PROBABLE that they will observe them to be fine-tuned for their existence.
. True claim: It is highly and extraordinarily IMPROBABLE that a universe exists which is finely tuned for the evolution of observers within it.
Some might think that if the constants and quantities of our universe were different, then other life forms would have evolved. This is simply not true. Those people have probably been listening to the neurotic hyperbole of Richard Dawkins. “Life” means the ability to take in food and use its energy, to grow and adapt and reproduce. Without the fine tuning that we observe, not even atomic matter would exist, not to mention planets where life might evolve. Among other things the universe would have either recollapsed or expanded beyond any ability to congeal. Again, there is no reason to expect that a universe as finely tuned as is our universe should exist by chance, nor is there any need or physical necessity for such a universe to exist anywhere except for the sole purpose of life. Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true: The fine tuning of the universe is due to design.
====
I also believe there is evidence that point toward God because:
. If God does not exist, objective morals, values and duties do not exist
. But objective morals, values and duties DO exist.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion must also be true:
God exists.
Physical laws are fully realised in the physical world. Objective moral laws are fully realised in Jesus and Father God. Our daily interactions with others shows we believe that objective moral order is as real and independent of our recognition as is the natural order of things. Our perceptions of natural and moral laws are givens of our experience.
Fact: Objective moral Goodness and Duty are based on God’s character.
Since our moral duties are grounded in the Divine commands, they are not independent of God.
Neither are God’s commands arbitrary, for they are the necessary expression of His just and loving nature.
. Mercy is required of me if and only if a just and loving God commands me to be merciful. Meanness is forbidden of me if and only if a just and loving God commands me to not be mean. Mercy or meanness are permitted or denied for me if and only if a just and loving God commands me to / not to commit acts of mercy or meanness. God is merciful therefore He commands us to be merciful. God is not mean therefore He commands us to not be mean. God is Just therefore He commands us to act Justly. What God commands or permits is good and what He forbids is wrong, bad, evil, self-destructive. This is what it means for morality to be objective vs. subjective or relative to the situation or to the individual’s character or personality or level of empathy, likes or dislikes, sanity or insanity.
====
I believe there is evidence that points toward God because of the following philosophical and metaphysical evidence. Virtually all philosophers agree that if there is the slightest chance of God existing, then He does in fact exist. Therefore, we can ask ourselves, “What is the greatest conceivable being?” Our answer goes past me and you and the Dali Lama and any other “great” human being we can think of and we come to an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being that we commonly call “God” We can call it a Mind or something else but it amounts to the same thing ie. The Greatest Conceivable Being That Can Possibly Exist.Therefore we can know that God exists because:
. It is in fact metaphysically possible that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists.
. Because it’s possible that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists, a Greatest Conceivable Being does exist in some possible reality.
. Because of the very nature of a Greatest Conceivable Being, if a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in SOME possible reality, it exists in EVERY possible reality.
. If a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in every possible reality, then it exists in actual reality.
. If a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in the actual reality, then a Greatest Conceivable Being exists in our reality.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, it stands to reason that the conclusion is also true: A Greatest Conceivable Being or God exists.
I also believe in a Greatest Conceivable Being - God - because:
. Abstract objects, such as numbers and propositions, are either independently existing realities or else they are concepts that find their grounding in and from some Mind.
. Abstract objects are not independently existing realities. Yet we intuitively know that they exist. Our problem is that when we become aware of the sheer volume of potential abstract objects we know for certain that the mind which causes them to exist and find their being and grounding could never be any human mind.
. If abstract objects are concepts in some Mind, then an omniscient, metaphysically necessary being exists. That is, only in an omniscient intelligence or mind can we find the grounding or cause for abstract objects.
. Because some of these concepts exist necessarily they cannot find their grounding in contingent beings, namely us.
Because the above premises are true and coherent, the conclusion must also be true: An omniscient, metaphysically necessary being exists. That Being is what we call God.
====
. Because the cosmological argument shows that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists who is the cause or grounding of reality as we know it, and
. Because the teleological argument shows more than just the appearance of design, and
. Because the moral argument shows that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists who is the cause or grounding of all objective morals, values, duties and Truth, and
. Because the conceptualist argument shows that a Greatest Conceivable Being exists who is the necessary intelligence for the grounding of abstract objects,
I believe that there are very good reasons for believing that a Creator God exists. This is especially true in the absence of any natural explanation for these realities.
====
While any or all the above may or may not give you pause for thought, The most important basis for my belief in God has nothing to do with any of the above. Instead, His palpable presence in my life, His counsel, His comfort, His correction and guidance, His love and mercy and grace. All of these things are so very real in my innermost being that they compel me to acknowledge the truth of His existence. I am so very grateful that I have been granted the gift of “Wide-Band Awareness.” This is an Gift / ability that is shared and immediately recognised by people from around the world regardless of race, social stature, gender or intellectual ability. For some reason atheists seem denied this perceptive ability.
Secondly, I believe in God because of the historicity of Jesus. His life, death and resurrection cannot be adequately explained away. Something totally other took place when Jesus appeared on earth.
Third, I believe in God because the heavens and the earth declare His handiwork. There is simply no sufficient explanation for why the universe began to exist exactly as it did other than “Creator God.” This is not an explanation from ignorance because Creator God is the conclusion that fits current scientific evidence. While it’s true that atheists have proposed other theories for the “Creation” of the universe, it was not because of any inadequacy in or lack of evidence for the idea of God as Creator. The presentation of alternative theories is only because God as Creator is philosophically unacceptable to atheists.
The type of belief in God that I’m talking about is sometimes called “faith.” But faith is often misunderstood as being separate from reason or evidence. That could not be more inaccurate. For one thing, we are told to love the Lord our God with, among other things, “all our mind.” Second the Bible describes Faith as being “The substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not yet seen.” While one’s faith does not find its origin in evidence (the origin is purely from God - John 6:44), faith is clearly supported by evidence, reason and logic. In other words, Faith is anything but blind or uninformed. In my opinion agnostics are the only ones who ‘go as far as empirical evidence will let them.’ Atheists, as I’ve stated, take the next step because of a philosophically unacceptable conclusion to where the evidence points: Creator God exists. Christians take the next step because of the reality of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord of lords and King of kings who lives within their very being. Nevertheless, my epistemic and experiential belief in God is grounded in logic and reason and that is why I’m not an atheist.
You don’t need to refer me to Wikki. I’m well aware that there have been criticisms of the above premises. What’s important to note is that a criticism or an objection is not a refutation.
When an intelligent person willfully abandons reason and begins to posit finite infinities, causeless beginnings and beginningless beginnings, I know that I’m dealing with someone involved in a desperate attempt to avoid a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.
When an intelligent person willfully abandons classical historical scholarship and begins to deny known and knowable facts of history, but only as they apply to the person of Jesus, I know that I’m dealing with someone who is confronted with a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.
When an intelligent person willfully and falsely claims to follow whatever ethical standard is currently in vogue and calls that a reasonable way to live, I know that I’m dealing with someone involved in a desperate, fearful attempt to avoid a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.
When someone goes in search of ever more complicated solutions, abandoning one after another, after another, after another, not because of new evidence but because of a need to avoid current evidence, and when that person never returns to a simple solution that coincides with current knowledge and common sense, I know that I’ve encountered an individual who has been confronted with a philosophically unacceptable conclusion: Creator God exists.
That is sad and that is why I’m not an atheist.
September 12th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Makarios, who are you addressing? I assume it’s not me, because you asked, “Are you interested enough in exploring and learning that you can step beyond ‘No God?’”, and I have already established here that I believe in God.
September 12th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
That was either the most exquisite trolling ever using the most complex WIIO ever or a fallacy laden rant. I really, really want to believe it’s the former.
September 12th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
And the fallacy is?
September 12th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
I vote complex WIIO. Any vote for “proof of God” is going to be WIIO in the end.
Jason, I applaud and admire you for admitting your emotional inability to abandon everything you believe. There’s nothing at all wrong with that. There’s just as much proof that there IS a God as there is proof that there ISN’T a God.
There. I said it. Fire away.
September 12th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
How about we start with the broad and inaccurate assumption that the universe came from nothing and the idea that morality and values are the exclusive domain of God and go from there?
September 12th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Also, the specific referencing of “Creator God” totally started creeping me out for some reason. Perhaps I am too close to an electromagnetic flux that tampered with the right hemisphere of my brain, causing me to feel emotions and respond to instincts that aren’t really called for…hmmm…
September 12th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
That’s simply a scientific fact. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing. No time, no space, no matter, no laws of physics - nothing. That’s the reason atheist scientists put themselves through such contortions trying to avoid the Big Bang theory. Because the Big Bang IS the beginning of the universe and a beginning implies a Beginner. Before the Big Bang there was nothing - nothing except whatever caused the Big Bang! For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity. As atheist physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler emphasize, “At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo.” Anyone who posits that the beginning of the universe is an exception to the Principle of Sufficient Reason is forced into the very awkward position of maintaining, not merely that the universe exists eternally without explanation, but rather that for no reason at all it magically popped into being out of nothing, a position which borders on farce. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is to quit doing serious metaphysics and to resort to magic.
Let me quote some prominent atheist scientists:
[The concept of the Big Bang] is preposterous, incredible, repugnant.” Astronomer Arthur Eddington.
“I find it hard to accept the big bang theory. I would like to reject it.” Physicist Philip Morrison.
“The Big Bang forces us to such a strange conclusion that it cannot really be true.” Carnegie Laboratories head Allan Sandage.
The laws of physics cannot be used to explain the Big Bang because they did not exist prior to the singularity. In fact the terms “prior” or “before” have no meaning pre Big Bang since time itself did not exist “prior to” the singularity.
Again, Arthur Eddington, “The beginning seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look at it as frankly supernatural.” Eddington is an atheist so he isn’t saying “God.” He’s just acknowledging the reality that the cause of nature was beyond and before nature.
Astronomer Robert Jastrow, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream.”
For decades, atheist scientists denied that the universe had a beginning, that way they could say there was no need for God. Because scientists can no longer deny that the universe began, they are now forced to deny that the universe had a cause. Turning on their predecessor, David Hume, who stated, “I have never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without cause,” and because of the clear implications of a universe with a beginning, today’s atheist scientists are forced to do exactly that, assert the absurd proposition that we can have causeless beginnings.
Victor Stenger, “The universe may be uncaused and may have emerged from nothing.”
I’m not sure that you want to hitch you wagon to that star.
I didn’t say morality and values are the exclusive domain of God. You might be a wonderfull morally upright individual just like billions of other people. What I said was, without God there is no such thing as OBJECTIVE morality, values and duties.
So, which line do you disagree with,
Without God there is no such thing as objective morals, values and duties
or
Objective morals, values and duties exist
If it’s the first, how do you define objective? On what is it based. Your values? Mine? Who decides?
If it’s the second sentence that you think you disagree with, I’ll bet all the money in my bank account that you don’t live as though you don’t think there is such a thing as objective right and wrong, good and bad etc.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
First, let me say that I find it particularly interesting that you’re willing to accept “The Big Bang” as scientific fact although you have cited opponents to the THEORY while rejecting the Theory of Evolution on the same grounds. I’d be fascinated to find out why there’s a disparity.
I also find it interesting that you correctly describe “The Big Bang” as a singularity but still claim there was nothing prior to. Even to someone unfamiliar with the scientific term, a singularity implies at least one of something. If you accept “The Big Bang” as scientific fact, then you must also accept the current general consensus of the theory that there WAS something before the big bang but what that was isn’t yet known. Infinity does not equal “nothingness” and does not automatically prove something besides science can explain what that was.
Objective morality exists independent of God. There are Atheist, Deist, Polytheistic and Theistic models. I’m sure you’ve heard of Ayn Rand? Besides, saying morals are objective because God told you there were is a fallacy assuming God is objective, which He can’t be because He would have to base His moral standards on an objective source else they become subjective. I wonder what God reads when he needs to know what’s right from wrong?
If I did disagree with “Objective morals, values and duties exist”, I’d be more than happy to take your account and tracking numbers because, while you assume OBJECTIVE morality is the only moral framework that exists, I could very well prescribe to relative morality or natural morality or realistic morality.
If you continue this, I ask two things: Don’t assume mine or anyone else’s religious beliefs and don’t assume you know what I believe. Thank you.
September 13th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
“First, let me say that I find it particularly interesting that you’re willing to accept “The Big Bang” as scientific fact although you have cited opponents to the THEORY.”
I cite ATHEIST opponents to the Big Bang theory by way of explaining that while atheist scientists are forced to accept the Big Bang as fact, at the very same time they hate the concept because a beginning universe points directly to a Cause, a Cause that existed outside of and superior to the singularity. That’s what the two premises are saying:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe has a cause
Maybe I just can’t write clearly but another possibility is that your preconceived ideas of what I believe cause you to read something into my words that just isn’t there. It sounds like we’re both doing it.
“. . . while rejecting the Theory of Evolution on the same grounds. I’d be fascinated to find out why there’s a disparity.”
There isn’t any disparity. Where, in all of what I wrote did I indicate that I oppose Natural Selection? If you had read my first response carefully, you would see that in my argument for the presence of design I speak as though evolution is understood; as though it’s a given. Perhaps you’re confusing abiogenesis and evolution?
“Infinity does not equal “nothingness”
Of course it doesn’t. I’ve never suggested that it does. First of all, the numerous unsuccessful “theories” that have come and gone regarding an infinite universe or a “pre universe” are proposed in an attempt to avoid the singularity from which the evidence shows that our universe was born. Multiverses, and baby universes and ocillating models of the universe, and the Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario, and String theories and Vacuum theories and on and on, ALL of these propose something prior to the Big Bang in a desperate attempt to avoid the implications of the cosmological singularity. The reason that these theories come and go is that none of them account for what we know to be true about the universe. For one thing, none of these theories can explain away the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the rapid and continuing expansion of the universe, and the fact that everything about our universe appears young (15 billion years) as opposed to infinitely old.
In a certain respect the evidence of thermodynamics is even more impressive than the evidence afforded by the expansion of the universe. For while an accurate physical description of the universe prior to the Planck time remains and perhaps always will remain unknown, thereby affording room for speculations aimed at averting the origin of time and space implied by the expanding cosmos, no such uncertainty attends the laws of thermodynamics and their application. Indeed, thermodynamics is so well established that this field is virtually a closed science. Even though we may not like it, we must say on the basis of the thermodynamic properties of the universe that the universe’s energy was somehow simply “put in” at the creation as an initial condition. Prior to the creation, the universe simply did not exist.
As to the question that some people then ask, If God can be infinite why not the universe? (I’m only telling you this because you asked me to not assume what you do or do not know)
- On “A Theory” of time the universe does endure through successive intervals of time. It arrives at its present event-state only by enduring through a series of prior event-states. So before the present event could occur, the event immediately prior to it would have to occur; and before that event could occur, the event immediately prior to it would have to occur; and so on ad infinitum. So one gets driven back and back into the infinite past, making it impossible for any event to occur. Thus, if the series of past events were beginningless, the present event could not have occurred, which is absurd. Now some point to Zeno’s paradoxes of motion, but in reality nobody really believes that motion is impossible. Even if Achilles must pass through an infinite number of halfway points in order to cross the stadium, somehow he manages to do so. As well, such an objection fails to reckon with two crucial disanalogies of an infinite past to Zeno’s paradoxes: whereas in Zeno’s thought experiments the intervals traversed are potential and unequal. But in the case of an infinite past, the intervals are actual and equal. The claim that Achilles must pass through an infinite number of halfway points in order to cross the stadium is question-begging, for it already assumes that the whole interval is a composition of an infinite number or point, whereas Zeno’s opponents take the line as a whole to be conceptually prior to any divisions which we might make in it. Moreover, Zeno’s intervals being unequal, sum to a merely finite distance, whereas the intervals in an infinite past sum to an infinite distance. Thus, his thought experiments are crucially disanalogous to the task of traversing an infinite number of equal, actual intervals to arrive at our present location. Besides, how is the claim that from any given moment in the past there is only a finite distance to the present even relevant to the issue? The defender of the kalam argument could agree to this happily. For the issue is how the whole series can be formed, not a finite portion of it. Does anyone think that because every finite segment of the series can be formed by successive addition that the whole infinite series can be so formed? That is as logically fallacious as saying because every part of an elephant is light in weight, the whole elephant is light in weight. The claim is therefore irrelevant.
Another example. Suppose we meet a man who claims to have been counting down from infinity and who is now finishing . . ., -3 -2 -1, 0. We could ask, why didn’t he finish counting yesterday or the day before or the year before? By then an infinite time had already elapsed, so that he could already have finished. Thus, at no point in the infinite past could we ever find the man finishing his countdown, for by that point he should already be done! In fact, no matter how far back into the past we go, we can never find the man counting at all, for at ANY point we reach he will already have finished. But if at no point in the past do we find him counting, this contradicts the hypothesis that he has been counting from eternity. This shows again that the formation of an actual infinite by never beginning but reaching and end is as impossible as beginning at a point and trying to reach infinity. If the universe did not begin to exist a finite time ago, then the present moment would never arrive. But obviously it has arrived. Therefore, we know that the universe is finite in the past and began to exist. Finally, an actual infinite is not constructable and therefore not actualizable. This is precisely why a realised past infinity in time is not considered possible, since it represents endorsements of BOTH the kalam arguments. Therefore, if one wishes to deny the beginning of the universe, he must refute, not one, but both of these arguments. The arguments against an infinite past time are strong and in no way fallacious. It’s simply not constructable in terms of events or instants of time, besides being conceptually indefinite.
As I stated in my first response, the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely of an idea. Hillbert’s Hotel shows the absurdity of infinity. The absurdities can be seen to result precisely because we DO understand the notion of a collection with an actually infinite number of members. If an actually infinite number of things were possible, then such a hotel must be possible. It logically follows that if such a hotel is impossible, then the real existence of an actual infinite is also impossible.
I know this is long but it’s important that you understand that self-creation is metaphysically absurd, since in order to cause itself to come into being, the universe would have to already exist.
There are two types of causal explanations: a scientific explanation in terms of laws and initial conditions, and then there are personal explanations in terms of agents and their volitions. Now, a first state of the universe CANNOT have a scientific explanation, since there is nothing before it. There wasn’t, as some people imagine, some little bit of dense matter floating around in space waiting to go K-BOOM. There was not space! There was no matter! There wasn’t anything!. Therefore prior to Planck time cannot be accounted for in terms of laws operating on initial conditions. It can only be accounted for in terms of an agent and His volitions, in other words, a personal explanation. Also, the personhood of the cause of the universe is implied by its timelessness and immateriality.
“and does not automatically prove something besides science can explain what that was.”
I know. It’s atheism of the gaps. An explanation from ignorance :-)
“Objective morality exists independent of God. There are Atheist, Deist, Polytheistic and Theistic models. I’m sure you’ve heard of Ayn Rand? Besides, saying morals are objective because God told you there were is a fallacy assuming God is objective, which He can’t be because He would have to base His moral standards on an objective source else they become subjective. I wonder what God reads when he needs to know what’s right from wrong?”
Because this is in print what I say might come across as harsh. None of this is written in that tone. I just don’t know how to soften up my words more than I have.
Having said that, it is my belief that you simply haven’t given this serious enough consideration. Nor, it seems, do you understand the nature of, or the definition of “Objective” within this context. Anyhow, some people say that objective moral values and duties don’t need to have their grounding in God. Rather, they just exist. It is difficult, however, even to comprehend this view. What does it mean to say that Justice just exists? It is clear what is meant when it is said that a person is Just; but it is bewildering when it is said that in the absence of any people, Justice itself exists. Moral values are not mere abstractions or part of someone’s shopping list of how the world should work. It seems to me that atheists lack any adequate foundation in reality for moral values but just leave them floating around waiting for an individual to pluck this one or that one out of the air as needed in the moment. But atheists also say that there ARE right and wrong ways of being. How can that be said? For example, let’s say that one set of abstractions include: mercy, justice, love, patience, and that they just exist, with no objective source. How does that result in any moral obligations for me? Why would I have a moral duty to be merciful? Who, or what lays such an obligation on me? This is like saying Might makes Right. Which by the way is the logical conclusion of any country or individual attempting to live by selective or relative morality. Or say that a different set of abstractions include: Greed, Hatred, and Selfishness that also presumably just exist with no objective source. Why am I obligated to align my life with one set of these abstractly existing objects rather than the other set? I might believe that my survival needs supercede my communities survival needs. Who are you or anyone else to tell me that I’m wrong?
Now, here is where you need to listen carefully and not let your biases cause you to read something that isn’t here. Theism, in contrast to atheism, provides a plausible basis for moral duty. Certainly we have a sense of morality, but in atheism that sense is an illusion wrought by socio-biological conditioning or survival instinct. Actually the socio-biological claim might be construed as evidence that objective morals exist. Because our moral beliefs have been selected by evolution, not for their truth, but for their survival value, we can have no confidence in the deliverances of our moral experience. Eg. Condoning slavery used to be seen as good by the community but now it’s seen as wrong by virtually the same community. In other parts of the world slavery is still an essential part of the economy yet who are we too judge them - Unless there is an objective source of right and wrong that says demeaning people is wrong?
The reason that I suggest that you haven’t thought this trough carefully enough is:
The question is NOT: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives? Obviously not.
The question is NOT: Can we recognise the existence of objective moral values without reference to God. Obviously we can and in fact the Bible says that these values are imprinted on our hearts.
The point is this. God is necessary that there might BE objective moral goods and duties, NOT that we might DISCERN the moral goods and duties that there are.
If we are to hold to the natural selection continuum then we are forced into saying that rape is wrong in the human animal, even though the physical activity that counts as rape among the human animal goes on all the time in the rest of the animal kingdom. The same acts that count as murder and theft when done by one human animal to another occur constantly between members of other animal species - without any moral significance whatsoever. This is surely strange and cries out for explanation.
Now, if I understand the atheist / psychological evolutionary stance correctly, the claim is made that since our moral beliefs have been instilled through socio-biological pressures, objective moral values and duties do not exist. Such reasoning is fallacious, since:
A belief could be true regardless of how it came to be held. As well,
If God exists, then objective moral values and duties exist regardless of how conditioned we may be by the evolutionary process.
Now, forgive me if I’m wrong but I believe you are referring Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro - Either something is good because God wills it or else God wills something because it is good. If it is good just because God wills it, then what is good becomes arbitrary. God could have willed that hatred and jealousy be good, and then we should have been obligated to hate and envy one another. But that seems implausible; at least some moral goods seem to be necessary. But if we say instead that God wills something because it is good, then whether something is good or bad is independent of God. In that case, it seems that moral value exists independently of God, which undermines premise (1) of the moral argument. If God were not to exist, then objective moral values and duties would exist anyway.
The Euthyphro Dilemma can thus be construed as an argument for Atheistic Moral Platonism. That is why, in my first response, I phrased the moral argument within the context of what a just and loving God commands or condemns.
You must have just skimmed the post because I specifically said, Since our moral duties are grounded in the divine commands, they are NOT INDEPENDENT of God. Neither are God’s commands ARBITRARY, for they are the necessary expression of His just and loving nature.
God is essentially compassionate, fair, kind, impartial and so forth, and His commandments are reflections of His own character. God’s character is definitive of moral goodness; it serves as the paradigm of moral goodness. Thus, the morally good or bad is determined by reference to God’s nature; the morally right or wrong is determined by reference to His will. The divine will or commands come into play as a source of moral obligation, NOT moral value. As necessary expressions of his nature, God’s commands are NOT arbitrary, and so we need not trouble ourselves about counterfactuals with impossible antecedents like “If God were to command child abuse . . .” On the customary understanding, counterfactuals with impossible antecedents have no non-vacuous truth value. Even if we reject the customary semantics and allow that some counterfactuals with impossible antecedents may be non-vacuously true or false, how are we to assess the truth value of a statement with an antecedent like this? It’s like wondering whether, if there were a round square, its area would equal the square of one of its sides. And what would it matter how one answered, since what is imagined is logically incoherent? I don’t see that the divine command theorist is committed to the non-vacuous truth of the counterfactual in question or that anything of significance hangs on his thinking it to be non-vacuously true of false.
If you should ask, as you appear to have asked, “Why pick God’s nature as definitive of the Good?” the answer is that God, by definition, is the Greatest Conceivable Being, and a Being which is the paradigm of goodness, is greater than one which merely exemplifies goodness. Unless we are nihilists, we have to recognize some Ultimate Standard of Value, and God is the least arbitrary stopping point. Surely that makes sense to you!! You can’t be the stopping point. I can’t. No other human can. If we claim to believe in objective morals, values and duties and as stated, only a full-blown nihilist doesn’t, then you must be able to see that the only philosophically logical stopping point is a Greatest Conceivable Being.
Remember, we are not talking about moral absolutes. We are talking about Objective Morality. An action can be objectively wrong without its being absolutely wrong. Killing another person might be objectively wrong without it being absolutely wrong. It would be wrong for me to kill you, but it would not be wrong for a police officer to kill me in order to stop me from killing you. Nevertheless, each set of circumstances will contain its own set of objectively right and wrong things to do. The moral argument is interested in objectivity, not absoluteness.
On the one hand, people like you seem to have been taught that moral relativism is true, that moral values and duties are culturally and even personally relative and that you have no right to judge another. On the other hand, people like you sound to be steeped in political correctness and the values it entails. While we give lip service to relativism, we don’t really believe it nor do we live that way.
Example would be:
The Nazi’s rounding up homosexuals and putting them into concentration camps. Is that ok with you?
Racial discrimination was ok as long as it was socially and culturally important? Is that ok with you?
Inquisitions? ok?
Priests abusing boys? ok?
I’m asking your opinion so that I don’t assume anything about you. However, if you are to avoid the argument’s conclusion, then you must deny one of the premises. I asked it last time but I’ll ask it again:
Without God (A Greatest Conceivable Being) objective morals, values and duties do not exist.
But objective morals, values and duties do exist.
In order to avoid the logical coherent conclusion, Therefore God (A Greatest Conceivable Being) exists, which of these premises do you deny, ignore or claim to be false?
“If I did disagree with “Objective morals, values and duties exist”, I’d be more than happy to take your account and tracking numbers because, while you assume OBJECTIVE morality is the only moral framework that exists, I could very well prescribe to relative morality or natural morality or realistic morality.
I don’t know what this means. Would you explain it?
I hope I didn’t assume too much this time around. Sorry if I screwed up again.
September 13th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
To say that existence necessitates a creator is fallacious. If existence requires a creator then a creator would require a creator and so forth and so on. So why assume? As an atheist, I make no claim as to knowing the origins or “genesis” of all things, but for all we know we are the billionth billionth universe that has arisen each in turn from the remnants of the one before it. We just don’t know. To assume a creator or creators just because we cannot fathom the beginning is myth and superstition, not fact.
As for the argument that there is no proof against god(s) therefore god(s) exists…False logic. There is also no proof that an invisible astral unicorn is taking an ethereal dump immediately behind you, neither is there proof against it.
September 14th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
“We just don’t know.”
Yes!!! We Do Know!!! We know for scientific certainty the following:
. What ever begins to exist has a cause. The word that you need to pay attention to is begins. Begins! BEGINS, BEGINS, BEGINS!!! Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause.
Only in unproven and unsupportable theories, as well as unobserved theoretical unsupportable events does something begin without a cause.
The premise isn’t WHATEVER EXISTS has a cause. It’s whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause. Please don’t make me guess as to why this is so difficult for you because the stuff I’m thinking of is not good.
Second. The universe BEGAN to exist. Scientific fact! Our universe had a BEGINNING. It did not always exist. Its beginning is called the Big Bang.
Now, as to our universe being just the latest in long line of billions and billions of former universes; an infinite number of universes if you will, IT CAN NOT HAPPEN. This is another fact that is based solely and purely on scientific AND philosophical evidence.
This is true for at least two reasons.
1) You cannot have an infinite number of anything. The theories mentioned above are based on potential infinites, not actual infinites.
2) None of the scenarios proposed in order to avoid the beginning of our universe stand up to the scientific observations as to the makeup of our universe. ALL of the known facts about our universe rule out ALL so far proposed theories. If you want to take just one common denominator in all these failures, I suppose it would be the low level of entropy that was in place at the beginning of our universe. Again, that’s a scientifically verifiable fact. And the only reason that atheist scientists are continuing to look for alternatives to the Big Bang is that “our” singularity implies that something brought (Caused) it to happen.
There are only two points that you need to remember, both of which come directly from scientific evidence. This has nothing to do with religious beliefs or dogma or whatever. This is pure science.
1) The universe had a beginning, which means that it had a cause, apart from and superior to anything that came into existence post Planck time.
2) There is no such thing as an infinite universe or infinite anything else that began to exist. Even if we’re the billion, billion billionth universe, we cannot go on ad infinitum. There had to be a beginning.
God / Creator / Mind / Greatest Conceivable Being does not need an explanation because God IS eternal. He is eternal for all the reasons that I explained in my last two explanations. Just read them and think.
“As for the argument that there is no proof against god(s) therefore god(s) exists…False logic. There is also no proof that an invisible astral unicorn is taking an ethereal dump immediately behind you, neither is there proof against it.”
I have no clue what you are trying to say. Where did I say anything approaching what you are talking about here?
September 14th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
“God / Creator / Mind / Greatest Conceivable Being does not need an explanation…”
“Greatest Conceivable Being” is exactly right. You cannot conceive of anything greater (however more accurate it is), so GOD it must be.
Three…two…one…WIIO.
September 14th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Fun Fact: people are more convincing when they use more caps.
September 14th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Like, shower caps?
I wager I’d be less convincing with a shower cap on…
September 14th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I’m wearing a shower cap. no one ever questions me.
Rawr!
September 14th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Touche, Dinosaur.
September 14th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
I think Dinosaur and I need to write a Rock Opera. It’s a Trap.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Children. I waste my time talking to children. Good night and good luck.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Listen, we’re not children, we’re infants.
OK, we’re children infants.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
“I wager I’d be less convincing with a shower cap on…”
Depends what else you’re wearing.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
“Children. I waste my time talking to children. Good night and good luck.”
Oh crap! Edward R. Murrow just called us Children! Man, I should’ve seen that trap comin’. Oh well.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
It’s amazing how quickly our friend makarios resorted to veiled insults and condescension. That’s a debate team fail.
September 14th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Edward James Olmos called us children? he is probably right, he is so wise.
Rawr.
September 14th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Dear Edward James Olmos,
I’m sorry I called you Edward R. Murrow.
Signed,
It’s a Trap, WIIO?
September 14th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe has a cause
Let me rephrase:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause
God began to exist
Therefore God has a cause
You seem to fail to see that if you dictate that all things must have a cause then ALL things must have a cause and you cannot separate your deity from that case, else you make an assumption based on an assumption which is not based anywhere in fact.
I make no assumptions.
Oh, and as for the “Big Bang” being the beginning of the universe; at best it is the beginning of THIS universe (if the theory holds). The theory makes no assumptions beyond that point.
It’s amazing the long-windedness of your posts, and the fallacies and inflammatory arguments you make. To this point I have made no claim as to the cause and/or effect of morality, but i feel the need. I am a complete moral relativist. Morality is a societal construct; our passions and indignations are inflamed by that which we perceive to be “wrong,” but the only true right is that which furthers the species biologically. The rest is superfluous in the natural world. In order to function as a group, a pack, a tribe, and on to a society, we adopt ever more elaborate “moral” values that allow us to coexist and to thrive within the construct. Even then within the construct, there is “wiggle room” that allows for shades of morality while still promoting the overall welfare and function of society. That’s how “times change;” that’s how a society’s “slave race” one day has the ability to run for the highest office in the land. It is not because of the whims of an omnipotent being. As a matter of fact, slavery itself is held in moral regard in the bible which you would, I suppose, take as the infallible word of god.
BTW, go count your ribs.
September 14th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Oh, and just to be thorough: If you do not take the Bible to be infallible, then do you find that places in it are false–corrupt, if you will? Do you now pick and choose what is truth and what is not and then demand that I accept the same?
Maybe you’re closer to being an atheist than you’d like.
September 18th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I nominate “WIIO” for Best New Acronym of 2008. And if it isn’t really new, I still nominate it for “Best Acronym I First Hearrd OF in 2008.”
September 18th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
BTW, I just Googled “wiio acronym” and got the following:
That’s right, folks - you first saw it here!
September 18th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Amen! I’ve always wanted to be a history maker / speaker of truth to all mankind! I accept your nomination!
October 20th, 2008 at 7:51 am
[…] KNOW this, but they have no other interpretation of the evidence. Why is it so impossible? Think about it! How does generation one give birth to generation 2? It is simply illogical.” […]
January 3rd, 2009 at 9:02 am
In response to one argument, this was said,
“Whatever begins to exist has a cause
God began to exist
Therefore God has a cause”
Under the classical conception of God, God is eternal and did not begin to exist. God has either existed for an infinite period of time or is atemporally timeless (at least sans the universe). So the second premise (God began to exist) is simply false.
This is not to say it’s clear sailing for the theist however in arguing for God as the Creator of the universe. The theist’s burden of proof is to provide reasons for thinking the universe began to exist instead of the universe existing eternally. Theists have argued this using physical evidence (the universe as we know it began to exist if e.g. the Big Bang theory is true, arguably the simplest explanation is that the universe really did begin to exist) and philosophical reasoning (the supposed impossibility of an infinite past, thereby requiring a Creator that transcends space and time). You can see how theists argue this point http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-smith1.html (it’s part of a debate between a theist and an atheist; an good one since both sides are competent philosophers).
For the moral argument I recommend http://www.angelfire.com/mn2/tisthammerw/rlgnphil/morality.html