Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Curious
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 8

Posted 12/19/2002 2:16 AM (GMT -6)

I've been having a really good discussion with a friend recently about the existence of God (without yet mention of issues related to the divinity of Jesus Christ). My main points thus far have included the following:

1. It seems unlikely that the matter of the universe could come to exist if it wasn't created in some way by a Supernatural Power. This is supported by current views in Physics that posit that matter is non-eternal. If matter is non-eternal, then it seems that something must have brought it into being for it to come to exist. How else would it have gotten here? Moreover, it seems very improbable that such matter would organize itself in such a way that it could support the existence of life. For example, if the sun ended up a little closer to the earth, it would have been too hot for the development of life; if it ended up a little further away, it would have been too cold.

2. It seems unlikely that matter, once developed, would (or even could) organize itself in such a way as to produce life which, among other things, has to reproduce itself to sustain itself. This is supported by the second Law of Thermodynamics, which posits that matter essentially breaks down over time; it doesn't naturally organize itself into more complex units. Some science has suggested that a "swirling of certain chemicals" can produce amino acids, but none has suggested that such "swirling" can produce something as complex as our DNA. This, to me, would seem to require some "design."

3. It seems unlikely that life, once begun, would (or could) evolve by itself in such a way as to become something that has consciousness, freedom, self-awareness, a moral sense, rationality, creativity, a need for meaning, etc. Again, matter doesn't seem to naturally evolve into more complex units without, it would seem, outside intervention. Combined with the earlier points, how could nothingness and eventually non-living matter eventually come to evolve into something with life, consciousness, and these other properties? It just doesn't make sense unless there is Something Else.

I've always found this line of argumentation pretty persuasive. However, my friend basically called this evidence "weak." He and I have agreed that humans tend to turn to the conception of a Higher Power whenever there is something that seems unexplainable. However, he has argued that science has increasingly reduced the number of such unexplainables and that, over time, will offer good explanations for the origins of matter, life, and the development of complex beings such as ourselves, although there aren't really good explanations for such things any right now. In other words, his view is that man invented God originally to explain these things; but, as science progresses, we need God less and eventually won't need God at all. More than likely, according to him, time and chance explain everything we see around us; we just don't understand the details - yet. For example, there probably are tons of planets and stars out there. Although it seems improbable that one would line up just perfectly so that it wouldn't be too hot or cold on earth, when one considers all that is out there, this probability becomes more sensical. Furthermore, he has said that it is pretty unconvincing to infer the existence of God without any evidence of God being manifest now. And, I don't think this means religious experiences - these might be explained psychologically. With these possibilities, why would anyone become convinced in the existence of God?

So, I'm writing to ask if anyone else would have some insight to add to this discussion, especially as it might relate to the points mentioned above. I look forward to hearing your views!

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 12/19/2002 8:01 AM (GMT -6)

How about an online book that might answer your questions?

www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showbook?item_id=1948

I think this might answer some of your questions about God and purposefulness in the universe. I hope it helps.

Blessings,
Paul

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/19/2002 10:51 AM (GMT -6)

I am opposed to the "God of the gaps" approach to "proving" God, for all the reasons your friend gives. The question is, are there aspects to the nature of things that suggest that science couldn't conceivably answer? For my part, I suggest:
a) the finitude and unidirectionality of the physical cosmos points beyond itself.
b) the fine tuned nature of "the cosmic constants" points to a designer
c) the human experience of consciousness, freedom, moral responsibility cannot be accounted for by appealing to physical properties alone.
d) the human longing for rationality, meaning and "the good" cannot be adequate explained by materialism.

Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Starkman
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747

Posted 12/19/2002 3:18 PM (GMT -6)

Wait a sec here . . .

Curious, your friend says that your arguments are merely men turning to the idea of a god because they can't explain certain things. The fact that a person turns to the idea of a god because he can't explain something from the natural does not nullify the idea of god. It logically doesn't follow that turning to the idea of a god thus makes no god to exist.

If we're going to talk about material existance and how it came to be, let's realize what it means to start with nothing . . . NOTHING. I mean, nothing! Francis Schaeffer drove this point home. Too often an atheist wants his cake and eat it too; some chemicals got together and, well, the next thing you know, bang, there's a world. But if we're going to talk about "from nothing", we mean absolutely nothing. No chemicals, no space, no matter of any kind, no gases, no nothing.

Now, if someone can show me how something can come from absolute nothing apart from the idea of a creator/designer, I'd really be interested! And the fact is, it ain't ever been demonstrated. In this case, turning to the idea of a god isn't to run away from what one doesn't understand, it's simply to be opened enough to consider the alternative. I find nothing weak, whatsoever, about that. Docs response above, in my opinion, is simply spelling out the same thing you argued for only in different terms; terms that point the argument more towards showing that existance can give clues in and of itself that it has a creator/designer. But that's the very thing being said (more sharply, granted); if I didn't make the universe's material, and you didn't make the universe's material, and there wasn't ANYTHING to have started with to make the universe, perhaps someone (or something--a god) other than us made it. I don't find that running. I find it thought-provoking thinking.

Science has come no closer to answering the real important questions. It has, however, masked the important questions with specious answers to other questions. We are all still left to wonder from exactly where material came, from where personality came, from where the concept of right and wrong, good and bad came. These are things science will never be able to answer; this isn't even within its field of repeatable experimentation.

Oh, and the fact that God doesn't reveal himself in the manner that your opponents think He should, is only to say that they have already concluded how and what a god should be. So, if he isn't being as they think he should be, perhaps its because he doesn't think it wise to be so. In other words, if god is like us--can be somewhere and manifest himself--is to say that if he doesn't, this doesn't prove he doesn't exists. It may mean only that he simply has his reasons for not manifesting himself. He can still exist and not manifest himself. It's the same issue as the college prof who says, "I'm going to drop this piece of chalk. If the chalk breaks, there is no god." The prof drops the chalk, it breaks. Hence, no god. WRONG! Someone else steps up and says, "Prof, drop the chalk. If I don't stop it from breaking, I don't exist." See the bad logic in both this and the idea that if God doesn't manifest Himself, He doesn't exist?

Got to run,

Starkman

Edited by - Starkman on 12/19/2002 10:49:52 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/19/2002 5:58 PM (GMT -6)

I'm confortable if this post gets ignored in the flow of this thread. But it is not necessary for it to.

I thought of this: Man exists; therefore God exists.

Its different from what I found while searching the web: "God created man. // Man exists. // Therefore, God exists. // It is really very simple when you think about it." THAT seems based on physical observable objects. And the weakness, as something convincing on the street, is in the difference between man--who we can see, and God--who we can't see.

What I said above is different. I'm simply pointing to the nature of man, and saying that that teaches about God.

The problem with this (and there is one) is in the blindness of sin. One man's sin, and the man who observes' sin.

But the renewed man, Christ, the God-incarnate deified, recapitulated man, HE is proof of God's existence.

And we are created with that in mind. WE are, potentially, PROOF of God's existence.

Curious
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 8

Posted 12/20/2002 8:19 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks for your comments thus far! I find this fascinating!

I really like what Starkman had to say when he wrote:

"If we're going to talk about material existance and how it came to be, let's realize what it means to start with nothing . . . NOTHING. I mean, nothing! Francis Schaeffer drove this point home. Too often an atheist wants his cake and eat it too; some chemicals got together and, well, the next thing you know, bang, there's a world. But if we're going to talk about "from nothing", we mean absolutely nothing. No chemicals, no space, no matter of any kind, no gases, no nothing."

I find this consistent with what I originally posted, only more compelling!

I also was very intrigued by Doc's comment that he also finds the "God of the gaps" approach unconvincing. Maybe at some level, I experience some doubt about the existence of God because of this issue. But, when Doc suggests that:

"a) the finitude and unidirectionality of the physical cosmos points beyond itself.
b) the fine tuned nature of "the cosmic constants" points to a designer
c) the human experience of consciousness, freedom, moral responsibility cannot be accounted for by appealing to physical properties alone.
d) the human longing for rationality, meaning and "the good" cannot be adequate explained by materialism"

. . . I'm not sure if I follow. I'm sure that there is some profound insight here, but I don't know if I'm personally sophisticated enough to follow all that I'm sure is jam-packed in. Like Starkman, I thought that it overlapped a lot with what I originally wrote, but Doc seemed to be suggesting otherwise. Would anyone (Doc included) care to elaborate a bit?

Curious

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 12/23/2002 2:14 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
I've always found this line of argumentation pretty persuasive. However, my friend basically called this evidence "weak." He and I have agreed that humans tend to turn to the conception of a Higher Power whenever there is something that seems unexplainable. However, he has argued that science has increasingly reduced the number of such unexplainables and that, over time, will offer good explanations for the origins of matter, life, and the development of complex beings such as ourselves, although there aren't really good explanations for such things any right now. In other words, his view is that man invented God originally to explain these things; but, as science progresses, we need God less and eventually won't need God at all. More than likely, according to him, time and chance explain everything we see around us; we just don't understand the details - yet. For example, there probably are tons of planets and stars out there. Although it seems improbable that one would line up just perfectly so that it wouldn't be too hot or cold on earth, when one considers all that is out there, this probability becomes more sensical. Furthermore, he has said that it is pretty unconvincing to infer the existence of God without any evidence of God being manifest now. And, I don't think this means religious experiences - these might be explained psychologically. With these possibilities, why would anyone become convinced in the existence of God?

Curious,
While I agree with Doc about avoiding "God of the gaps" reasoning (that is, simply appealing to the supernatural to explain whatever we cannot currently explain), I don't think your arguments suffer from this defect. They are evidence FOR belief in the supernatural over against naturalism because they appeal to things that naturalism has a REALLY TOUGH time explaining. In fact, the more we learn about the complexity of living organisms, the conditions on earth when life is thought to have sponteneous arisen, etc., the worse the problems have gotten for naturalism over the past century. There is no fallacious appeal to a God of the gaps here. The case for God is built on WHAT WE KNOW, not on what we don't know. Your friend, on the other hand, seems to me to be guilty of an obstinate "naturalism of the gaps", an unwarranted FAITH that, however bleak the prospects for naturalistic explanations may look, there must be a viable naturalistic explanation out there. Give us more time, we'll eventually find it. On the contrary, the mounting evidence suggest that the difficulties for naturalism will continue to get worse, not better.

Merry Christmas,
Alan

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:51 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual