Evidence For God’s Existence

For those who have been privy to the attempted discussions I’ve been trying to have at blessedatheist.com, and you actually want to have a reasonable dialogue on the evidence for God’s existence, this is for you.

My evidence for God’s existence begins with a four-pronged effort. These four ideas are thus:

1) Cosmological argument – The universe has a Cause, and that Cause is uncaused and supernatural in origin
2) Teleological argument – The overwhelming evidence of design and order to the universe implies a Designer
3) Moral argument – objective moral values exist, and the only way we can know what is morally right and morally wrong is with an objective standard for these values, which can only be found supernaturally
4) Intangibility argument – intangible things, such as ideas, emotions, etc., exist, and since the natural order shows that things must reproduce after their own kind, these intangible concepts must proceed from something intangible. This something intangible is akin to what the Bible refers to as “soul”

I will tackle each one of these in turn, but for this blog post and in an attempt to see some actual fruitful discussion occur, I’ll stick with point #1 and save the others for other posts.

The kalam cosmological argument follows deductive reasoning in logic, and is stated as thus:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

In order to break this argument down, you have to show either that one of the premises or the conclusion is invalid, using logic or factual evidence. Conjecture and hypotheses don’t kill the argument.

How do we know the universe began to exist? Well, we know two ways. First, the second law of thermodynamics, in its most famous stating, says thus: “The entropy of the universe tends to a maximum.” Translation: everything is winding down. This results in the following: According to the second law the entropy of any isolated system, such as the entire universe, never decreases. If the entropy of the universe has a maximum upper bound then when this bound is reached the universe has no thermodynamic free energy to sustain motion or life, that is, the heat death is reached.

What does that have to do with the universe’s beginning? Well anything that is coming to an end must have had a beginning, for no infinite thing can have an end by the definition of infinite. Therefore, the universe had a beginning.

The second piece of evidence lies in the expanding nature of the universe, discovered by Hubble in using the redshift of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is commonly accepted by science today that the universe is, in fact, expanding, supported by the Cosmological principle (which demands that the universe looks the same way in all directions and has roughly the same smooth mixture of material) and the Copernican principle (which demands that no place in the universe is preferred–that is, the universe has no “starting point”).

But if we take the expanding nature of the universe and dial it backwards to infinite regress, we would find that the universe would collapse in on itself to a state of nothingness. Therefore, we have to assume that the universe began “ex nihilo,” or “out of nothing.” Interestingly, this is exactly the conclusion that Lawrence Krauss has come to by determining that the total energy of the universe is zero, precisely what we would expect to see in a universe that was created out of nothing.

So we have an end to the universe supporting its beginning, and we have scientific evidence that the origin of the universe was “ex nihilo.” So that begs the question: how did the universe begin? Many misinformed people would say “The Big Bang, of course.” However the Big Bang theory doesn’t answer the origin question; note this explanation from Wikipedia: “Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition; rather, it describes and explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant.” So the underlying implication is that something caused the Big Bang.

Now there has to be a first cause to the universe. Richard Dawkins’ theory of “complex must be from more complex” makes no sense because if you take the argument to reductio absurdum you get infinite regress–there can be no cause for anything because everything must have a cause great than it. So there is no cause, which means there can be no effect. If you ask for the cause of something like an ice cube, then the cause of the ice cube must have a cause, and that cause has a cause, and so on into infinity. There must have been a first, uncaused cause to the universe in order for it to have the nature of cause-and-effect that we see today. (Note: This Dawkins argument fails to make a reasonable objection to the teleological argument for the very same reasons.)

Now let’s look at alternative theories. First, science seems to have come to this ex nihilo conclusion and realized that this answer to the uncaused cause–to the origin of our universe–lies outside of our universe. Enter the multiverse hypothesis. However, scientists like Krauss fully understand and recognize that even if a multiverse were to exist, we would never be able to see it or know it here on this earth. So it is at best an untestable hypothesis and at worst like shooting a gun with blanks in the dark hoping to kill a deer.

The other theory of course, is that a supernatural entity created the universe. This theory began at least 4,000 years ago with the author of Genesis, so in terms of dating as validation for theory, God’s existence wins. It’s a hypothesis that has been supported and documented throughout history and pre-dates modern science, and nothing that science has found contradicts what is possible with a supernatural being creating the universe. The Big Bang is completely possible as a means for beginning everything by God, timing issues aside.

So if you were a betting man, would you bet on a cosmological theory that pre-dates modern science and has been only corroborated by the scientific evidence found, even in recent years, or would you go with a theory that has never been and never will be tested, one that we can never see or understand (much in the same way that atheists feel about the God hypothesis), and has only been proffered in the past 100 years?

I’ll go with the evidence supporting God’s existence as the much more plausible worldview.

Advertisements

16 responses to this post.

  1. Very good research on your part. Keep up the great work!

    Reply

  2. Blog Editor’s Note: Some of this post has been edited for unnecessary content. Rebuttals supported by evidence and reason remain within the comment.

    Kalam is a dead argument. It’s premise, that everything that has a beginning has a cause, is false. There are a number of events that have no preceding cause, such as the formation of virtual particle pairs and radioactive decay. The premise is falsified and thus the argument falls apart.

    The “intangibility argument” (you seem to be invoking TAG here) falls flat when one realizes that the concept of the number 7 can be held in a computer. Does this mean a computer has a “soul”? And if you are invoking dualism, how do you explain profound personality changes induced by brain injury or pharmaceuticals?

    You are correct to point out that the Big Bang theory does not yet describe what happened at the very beginning (the stress is on the “yet”), but that does not mean that this is t=0. The no-boundary condition means that there was no such point and there is no absolute time frame. (See Hawking’s latest book The Grand Design for a discussion.)

    You are wrong, however, that multiverse hypotheses are untestable just because we can not visit or observe them. For instance, if the inflationary model is correct, then the fact that it demands the existence of multiple universes means we can be highly confident that other universes exist. We are forced to accept the consequences of the whole theory, not just those which are directly testable.

    Richard Dawkins’ theory of “complex must be from more complex” makes no sense because if you take the argument to reductio absurdum you get infinite regress–there can be no cause for anything because everything must have a cause great than it.

    Why not just stop at the multiverse not having a cause? Why add an untestable element which is superfluous and thus ends up on the cutting room floor when Ockham’s Razor is applied?

    The other theory of course, is that a supernatural entity created the universe. This theory began at least 4,000 years ago with the author of Genesis, so in terms of dating as validation for theory, God’s existence wins. It’s a hypothesis that has been supported and documented throughout history and pre-dates modern science, and nothing that science has found contradicts what is possible with a supernatural being creating the universe.

    First, who cares if supernatural hypotheses predates modern science? How does that make it better than hypotheses backed by solid physics?

    It is not up to science to disprove the supernatural. It is up to those positing supernatural explanations to support their proposition. Science hasn’t disproven the supernatural because science ignores it, which is not exactly a point in its favor.

    God as explanation is vacuous. It doesn’t even answer the question asked – how things came to be. It answers who, a question that wasn’t asked. Until you can tell us how god did it, you can not say god did it.

    Reply

    • Kalam is a dead argument. It’s premise, that everything that has a beginning has a cause, is false. There are a number of events that have no preceding cause, such as the formation of virtual particle pairs and radioactive decay. The premise is falsified and thus the argument falls apart.

      You’ve offered a rebuttal argument. Where’s the evidence to support your statements? Cannot falsify a premise without your own verifiable evidence.

      The “intangibility argument” (you seem to be invoking TAG here) falls flat when one realizes that the concept of the number 7 can be held in a computer. Does this mean a computer has a “soul”? And if you are invoking dualism, how do you explain profound personality changes induced by brain injury or pharmaceuticals?

      You’re putting the cart before the horse. Let’s re-visit this when we get to that discussion topic.

      You are correct to point out that the Big Bang theory does not yet describe what happened at the very beginning (the stress is on the “yet”), but that does not mean that this is t=0. The no-boundary condition means that there was no such point and there is no absolute time frame. (See Hawking’s latest book The Grand Design for a discussion.)

      This I will do. Glad we at least agree on something. 🙂

      You are wrong, however, that multiverse hypotheses are untestable just because we can not visit or observe them. For instance, if the inflationary model is correct, then the fact that it demands the existence of multiple universes means we can be highly confident that other universes exist. We are forced to accept the consequences of the whole theory, not just those which are directly testable.

      I hadn’t heard this about the inflationary model, so I did some quick research. From everything I’ve seen, the inflationary model doesn’t speak to the multiverse theory at all. All it has to do is with the change in our cosmological horizon based on the expanding nature of the universe. The inflationary model doesn’t even touch on multiple universes, much less what would happen if the edges of multiple universes were to intersect as they expanded. If we’re the only universe expanding, there’s no evidence for that either. This argument holds no merit, in my opinion. To pass the scientific method, the multiverse hypothesis has to be observable, measurable and repeatable. By your own admission, the first standard is not met, therefore in terms of scientific merit the multiverse theory has none. I’m not claiming the God hypothesis has scientific merit, but it is the inference to the best explanation about “who” or “what” created the universe. See more on this below.

      Richard Dawkins’ theory of “complex must be from more complex” makes no sense because if you take the argument to reductio absurdum you get infinite regress–there can be no cause for anything because everything must have a cause great than it.

      Why not just stop at the multiverse not having a cause? Why add an untestable element which is superfluous and thus ends up on the cutting room floor when Ockham’s Razor is applied?

      So the implication that there are no absolute causes for anything is simpler than the implication that there are? That’s the test of Ockham’s Razor in this instance. Dawkins’ argument raises far more questions, so I think his argument loses this one.

      The other theory of course, is that a supernatural entity created the universe. This theory began at least 4,000 years ago with the author of Genesis, so in terms of dating as validation for theory, God’s existence wins. It’s a hypothesis that has been supported and documented throughout history and pre-dates modern science, and nothing that science has found contradicts what is possible with a supernatural being creating the universe.

      First, who cares if supernatural hypotheses predates modern science? How does that make it better than hypotheses backed by solid physics?

      The problem is that both hypotheses (supernatural and multiverse) are supposedly backed up by solid physics, but only one has its origins before we even knew what physics was. That seems like greater plausibility to me, if one theory leads to physics (see the works of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, etc. for their views on determining the “how” of God’s creation) and the other theory is only governed by it. Since both theories claim in essence the same thing (unmeasurable and unobservable), by what are we left to determine their merits and plausibility? All we have is corroboration through documented history and early science, and that favors the supernatural hypothesis. That’s the only point I’m making here.

      It is not up to science to disprove the supernatural. It is up to those positing supernatural explanations to support their proposition. Science hasn’t disproven the supernatural because science ignores it, which is not exactly a point in its favor.

      When you say “point in its favor” is the “its” supernaturalism or science? Seems to me you are (or ought to be) talking about science in this case. Theism only asks that science consider the possibility. Science’s unwillingness to do so shows where it really lacks in its evidentiary integrity.

      God as explanation is vacuous. It doesn’t even answer the question asked – how things came to be. It answers who, a question that wasn’t asked. Until you can tell us how god did it, you can not say god did it.

      This goes back to the question covered two paragraphs up. It’s clear that science has determined that the cause to the universe lies outside of the universe. So we’re left with plausibility and evidence for the who or what that explains that cause. The “how”–I think we both agree–was likely the Big Bang. The who or what is at play here, and I think I’ve shown that the stronger evidence lies with the God hypothesis versus the multiverse hypothesis.

      Thanks for sharing your opinions, and I hope my responses make sense.

      Reply

  3. I don’t appreciate my comments being edited, particularly since the application of Ockham’s Razor (the part you cut out for an inexplicable reason, considering the caveate you placed on it) is particularly applicable here. Extraneous and superfluous aspects of a hypothesis are always to be cut out and is why parsimony is such an important concept in science.

    Reply

    • That’s what you agree to by coming here. I have full rights over the content on my blog. I also listed my terms for discussion on Blessed Atheist, so you would’ve done well to look there before making your own statements. I kept all of your information that met those conditions. Your comments that were unsupported or inserted your own opinion where the things that were removed. I think you can look below and see that I’ve represented your position quite well. We both know that to be the truth.

      You’ll also notice that I didn’t cut out the part about the application of Ockham’s Razor. So my response cut out everything to the simplest arguments made for both. Dawkins’ view is that with God there are no absolute causes. The supernaturalist view is that with God there are the exact types of cause-and-effect relationships we see today. When you take the arguments both out to reductio absurdum, you get Ockham’s Razor applied at its best. Dawkins’ view raises too many questions, for it implies that everything must have a greater cause to infinite regress, and we know from the finite nature of our universe that reasoning simply isn’t the case.

      Reply

  4. You’ve offered a rebuttal argument. Where’s the evidence to support your statements? Cannot falsify a premise without your own verifiable evidence.

    Do you deny radioactive decay occurs?

    You’re putting the cart before the horse. Let’s re-visit this when we get to that discussion topic.

    No, actually. I’m not. Profound personality changes occur following injury. For instance, injury to the prefrontal cortex can diminish ability to inhibit anger, to differentiate between conflicting thoughts, etc. That’s strong evidence of my statement that the mind is what the brain does.

    The problem is that both hypotheses (supernatural and multiverse) are supposedly backed up by solid physics, but only one has its origins before we even knew what physics was.

    What testable predictions does any supernatural “explanation” yield? The multiverse model makes testable predictions, what they are depends on the model. For instance, if the brane hypothesis is correct, then it may be possible to detect gravity as being stronger at very small distances. Note to writer: the rest of your comment here was your opinion, not a critique of mine.

    The inflationary model doesn’t even touch on multiple universes, much less what would happen if the edges of multiple universes were to intersect as they expanded.

    Note to writer: your statement here had no facts or evidence.

    The problem is that both hypotheses (supernatural and multiverse) are supposedly backed up by solid physics, but only one has its origins before we even knew what physics was. That seems like greater plausibility to me, if one theory leads to physics (see the works of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, etc. for their views on determining the “how” of God’s creation) and the other theory is only governed by it.

    Is Newton’s description of gravity better than Einstein’s because it came first? Is the hypothesis that lightning is a result of the anger of the gods more likely than that it is a static discharge because the first preceeded the latter?

    When you say “point in its favor” is the “its” supernaturalism or science?

    No, supernaturalism is what I was referring to. My bad.

    So the implication that there are no absolute causes for anything is simpler than the implication that there are? That’s the test of Ockham’s Razor in this instance.

    It would also be a good idea to learn what Ockham’s Razor really says. What it says is that from amongst a number of hypotheses the one with the fewest new assumptions is the most likely to be correct. I would call invoking the supernatural a new assumption, more than any naturalistic explanation (since no naturalistic explanation has EVER had any need to invoke the supernatural).

    Reply

    • You’ve offered a rebuttal argument. Where’s the evidence to support your statements? Cannot falsify a premise without your own verifiable evidence.

      Do you deny radioactive decay occurs?

      Not really, but where’s your evidence that it’s uncaused? That’s the evidence you’re missing here.

      You’re putting the cart before the horse. Let’s re-visit this when we get to that discussion topic.

      No, actually. I’m not. Profound personality changes occur following injury. For instance, injury to the prefrontal cortex can diminish ability to inhibit anger, to differentiate between conflicting thoughts, etc. That’s strong evidence of my statement that the mind is what the brain does.

      Actually, yes you are. You’re trying to discuss a topic that I have explicitly stated will be covered later. Your argument is not putting the cart before the horse; your timing is. Holster those guns.

      The problem is that both hypotheses (supernatural and multiverse) are supposedly backed up by solid physics, but only one has its origins before we even knew what physics was.

      What testable predictions does any supernatural “explanation” yield? The multiverse model makes testable predictions, what they are depends on the model. For instance, if the brane hypothesis is correct, then it may be possible to detect gravity as being stronger at very small distances.

      So what you’re saying is, they created something and then came up with things to support it? Sounds kind of like the attack on the God hypothesis to me.

      The problem is that both hypotheses (supernatural and multiverse) are supposedly backed up by solid physics, but only one has its origins before we even knew what physics was. That seems like greater plausibility to me, if one theory leads to physics (see the works of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Mendel, etc. for their views on determining the “how” of God’s creation) and the other theory is only governed by it.

      Is Newton’s description of gravity better than Einstein’s because it came first? Is the hypothesis that lightning is a result of the anger of the gods more likely than that it is a static discharge because the first preceeded the latter?

      Not if you consider that both viewpoints don’t present the same evidence. In the case of supernatural evidence vs. multiverse theory, they present EXACTLY THE SAME EVIDENCE. A postulated theory with no way of verifying or corroborating it because it’s not observable, measurable or repeatable. And neither one claims to be able to ever present proof. That’s where the appeal to tradition can make an impact as to which theory is more plausible. When both offer the same hypothesis, end result, and means of testing, history has commonly gone to the appeal to tradition to assert plausibility. Appeal to the masses would also favor supernaturalism, because the masses include the historical (ergo, appeal to tradition). Do your homework.

      When you say “point in its favor” is the “its” supernaturalism or science?

      No, supernaturalism is what I was referring to. My bad.

      Let this one in just so you could clarify your point, but I already hit on this as a failure of methodological naturalism. No need to readdress.

      So the implication that there are no absolute causes for anything is simpler than the implication that there are? That’s the test of Ockham’s Razor in this instance.

      It would also be a good idea to learn what Ockham’s Razor really says. What it says is that from amongst a number of hypotheses the one with the fewest new assumptions is the most likely to be correct. I would call invoking the supernatural a new assumption, more than any naturalistic explanation (since no naturalistic explanation has EVER had any need to invoke the supernatural).

      Seems to me invoking an infinite number of causes creates more new assumptions than one supernatural Being. The Being would generate more CHARACTER assumptions, not SCIENTIFIC ones like Dawkins’ theory. I suggest you leave the admonishing to someone who might actually need it, and just address the issues.

      Reply

  5. […] conclusions. A couple popular opinions are as follows. If you believe that everything in the world has a cause, well then there must be a cause agent. If you believe that nature is a wonderful design, there […]

    Reply

  6. Shamless has this pretty well summed up, but I feel the need to restate the points a little bit here.

    I address the Prime Mover arguement in my post Something from Nothing (http://pointofcontention.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/something-from-nothing-sorry-professor-my-conclusion-ate-my-premise/) so you can read my full rebuttal there, I will just surmise here.

    If everything must have a cause then God must have a cause. If God does not need a cause then not everything needs a cause, and your conclusion falsifies your premise, making the whole argument silly.

    Another way to put it: Infinite regress is a problem, but positing an eternal God to solve infinite regress is inconsistent to a point of absurdity. How an educated person can say, “Infinity is a problem, let’s solve it with eternity” is beyond me.

    I have rebuttals to the other points, but I’ll save it for when you make those posts.

    Cheers

    Reply

    • Hensatri,

      Thanks for your well thought-out argument, and for your candor.

      My issue with your rebuttal is that you mis-interpret the initial premise of my argument. The argument isn’t “everything has a cause.” It’s “everything that begins to exist has a cause.” Supernaturalism is governed in most cases by the belief that there is an entity that not only has always existed, but also exists outside of the normal limits of finitude. Infinite regress is only an issue for those things (like cause-and-effect) that are bound to finitude. For something that possesses the attribute of infinity, infinite regress is a moot point, and eternity is a supporting factor instead of an initial assumption.

      What is beyond me is how an educated person can say, “If God were to exist, then He must be just like me.” What created entity do we see in our own world that possesses all of the qualities of its creator? Even something with human-like intelligence, like IBM’s Watson computer, is limited in other ways that makes it lesser than its creator. For instance, it cannot move on its own, it has no emotions, no morality, etc. Yet we would expect that our own Creator wouldn’t have that same type of superiority? That is the position that seems more illogical to me.

      I appreciate you limiting yourself to the scope of this discussion. Looking forward to hearing your rebuttals on the other points as well. Thanks again!

      Reply

  7. Posted by Ron on March 6, 2011 at 7:40 PM

    Quote: The argument isn’t “everything has a cause.” It’s “everything that begins to exist has a cause.” — sabepashubbo

    Is there any evidence to support this premise at a cosmological level?

    If I build a log cabin, I could say that the log cabin began to exist, but in reality, I did not create anything new — I simply changed the form of existing materials (in this case trees) and reclassified the end result.

    Reply

    • Ron,

      Good question. My understanding of the law of cause and effect is that is applied when describing how something changes states. For instance, if an ice cube melts, we look for something (likely the sun or some type of heat) to explain why the ice cube melted. Similarly, if we have a bunch of trees in a forest and suddenly all the trees are gone and a log cabin is what’s there, we look for something to explain how this happened. The end state seems to be an effect, and the transformation between states is where we determine the cause. Pretty logical, in my opinion, though if someone wants to further clarify the full logic behind the law of cause and effect, I’d welcome it.

      Now when applied to cosmology, we still have two states we’re talking about: non-existence and existence. We know from our physical world that there is existence, and if something begins to exist, that means at one time it did not exist. So the transformation from the state of non-existence to the state of existence has an implicit cause that engineered this transformation. That is how the first premise of the argument is satisfied cosmologically.

      The supernatural position of “Uncaused Cause” also fits this premise, because the supernatural entity that created the universe in this worldview never began to exist, but has always existed. Therefore, this entity does not need a cause for existence, but can still be the Cause of everything else.

      Thanks for the good question! I welcome any other ones you have. 🙂

      Reply

      • Posted by Ron on March 10, 2011 at 8:10 PM

        Sure, the ice/water/steam transformation is attributable to increased kinetic energy. However both the H2O molecules and the applied energy comes from already existing sources. Likewise with the log cabin: trees are felled and turned into logs, stripped bark, a pile of branches, and wood shavings, but all of the original materials remain in some form or another — no new elements are created or brought into existence, and to my knowledge no one has ever wished a log cabin into existence or melted ice cubes with pure mind power.

        So categorizing items into things which ‘begin to exist’ (and thus require a cause) and things which don’t begin to exist (and thus don’t require the cause) is really just begging the question. How do you know that the universe as we know it didn’t originate from some pre-existing substance prior to the Big Bang, or that there is a supernatural entity which doesn’t require a cause? Simply stating it must be so amounts to special pleading.

      • Ron,

        To your second paragraph (your first just seems to be support for the second), the classification is merely to show where the cause is needed in order to produce the effect. And it is in the changing of states, which is why the ice cube and log cabin visuals illustrate that point. In this case, we’re talking about changing states from non-existence to existence, ergo the classification. So if some pre-existing substance prior to the Big Bang caused the universe, unless it has always existed it still needs a cause. And that’s where we would get to infinite regress if we kept taking that argument out, and the argument falls apart.

        What I am suggesting is that there was something pre-existing the universe, but that has always existed and therefore doesn’t need a cause, so the infinite regress problem is not a problem at all. Do I know this for a certainty? No. What I am suggesting is merely that the idea of some supernatural entity that has always existed and is the Cause of the universe is the most plausible theory for the origin of the universe, based on all of the evidence we have before us. I don’t think it “must be so,” so no special pleading. Just that it is the most logical and has the most evidentiary support.

  8. Ok fine, all things that began to exist must have a cause, sure. The system as we know it began at the big bang. We have absolutely no justification to make claims about the qualities of what came before. I see you not only making claims about what came before, but making claims about specific qualities of what came before ie “did not begin to exist”. I would like to know what possible justification you have to call this idea anything other than wild speculation.

    Essentaily the ONLY thing we can (currently) say about what came before the Big Bang is, “if the system prior to the Big Bang was generally the same as the one after, then it is likly that there was something that existed.”

    If you have any good reason to posit information other than that, especially with soul-wagering certainty, then you must have information I do not.

    Reply

    • Hensatri,

      Thanks for the comment. This is where Dawkins’ argument and its rebuttal come into play. If whatever created the universe had a cause, then whatever created that thing must have had a cause, and that thing had a cause before it, and so on to infinite regress. This does two things: 1) challenges the premise of “everything has a cause,” not “everything that begins to exist has a cause,” and 2) never allows for the beginning of anything, because it began with the initial cause that had a cause that had a cause to infinite regress. So where is the beginning?

      What we’re left with is that the universe had to have had an initial cause that exists outside of the scope of our natural realm. Science has finally come to realize this as well; why do you think the multiverse hypothesis was postulated? The problem is that somewhere along the line there has to be an Uncaused Cause, because otherwise we are still left with infinite regress (the multiverse created our universe, but what created the multiverse? And what created that? etc.).

      But how silly is it to believe that something that exists outside the system must be confined to the same rules as the system (the creator and its creation example of IBM Watson)? Doesn’t the idea of “Uncaused Cause” already defeat that claim, as I have shown evidence of its necessity? And in order for it to be uncaused, doesn’t that imply infinity? For everything finite has a beginning, therefore must have a cause to that beginning. So the Uncaused Cause must both exist outside of our system and possess the attribute of infinity. The God hypothesis has been around for thousands of years and posited that exact position before we even knew its necessity, so to me that gives it far more credibility than the current scientific theory that will change 10 minutes from now.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: