Whatever begins to exist has a cause
(premise)
The universe began to exist (premise)
Therefore, the universe has a cause
(conclusion)
(A basic summary of the Kalam
Cosmological Argument)
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/in-defense-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument
The basic opposite to this argument is
that the universe, you and I came from nothing, with no purpose or
cause. That's equivalent to magic. Out of
nothing, came something (the universe), and that something is
incredibly complex, shows evidence of unfathomable design and has
rationality and logic. That is, there are laws, constants,
structure, order, rules, life, reproduction, love, hate, morals,
justice, intelligence.....
Even Richard Dawkins, begrudgingly acknowledges the problem with the inverse of
the Kalam Cosmological argument:
Even if we allow the dubious luxury of
arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress and
giving it a name, simply because we need
one, there is absolutely no reason to
endow that terminator with any of the properties normally ascribed to
God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design, to say
nothing of such human attributes as listening to prayers, forgiving
sins and reading innermost thoughts.
p77, The God Delusion, Dawkins 2006.
Without going into a great amount of
detail, it is a general acceptance, (not fact), that the physical
evidence, indicates the universe had a beginning. At that beginning,
space, matter and time were born. Before that, they did not
exist.
If we agree on the premise that
everything that begins to exist has a cause, then what was the cause
of the universe? That cause has to be outside of time, space and
matter. Answer: God - "I AM"
"In the beginning, God created the
heavens and the earth". (Gen 1)
"In the beginning was the Word
(the logos, logic, wisdom), and word was with God and the Word was
God. (John 1)
Before we go on to the meat of today's
discussion, the question of infinite regress is brought up: Well who
made God? Who created the God of the universe, and then who
created the God who created the God of the created universe... and on
it goes.
Philosophy has by my limited research
accepted that infinite regress is illogical and irrational. In short
there is a consensus that you don't have to have an explanation for
the explanation. i.e you see carvings on a cave, you see (infer) they
were ingrained by a human, but you don't know who the humans were,
but it doesn't lessen the truth that they were made by humans, it's
just that you just don't know who the humans who actually did it.
Secondly infinite regress implies there
is no beginning (which scientifically is implausible or reproducible
- think about that one for a second) which is illogical. We
live in a world / universe which has a start and end. Everything
around us has these properties (entropy for one, life and death for
another, thermodynamics). Furthermore, infinity is
abstract, that is, it doesn't actually exist in the universe.
There are reams and reams of material
covering this argument in much greater detail than I am going to
cover here, as there are many arguments for and against the kalam
cosmological argument.
So where am I going with all this?
What's the point?
First I am laying a philosophical
foundation for the existence of a creator of the universe. If such a
creator exists, then they are the author of Truth. If we know
the Truth, then we can walk in it.
What's the opposite of walking in
Truth, walking in a lie.
Just stop and consider this: Your whole
life since the beginning until now, is based on a lie.
Consider this: Your whole life, you
were taught the purpose of your life is to imitate a mule.
Consider this: You whole life, you were
taught there is no reason why you exist.
Another one to consider, is to watch
this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXUzG6YKuvo
Guys, to me, this has begun to answer a
big whole in my heart, about Truth. I have generally always
accepted Jesus and the Father as the author of Truth, but never
really had an explanation of how and why I knew that the source (God)
was the actual source of Truth. (I am dramatically over
simplifying this BTW)
The implications of this are profound,
deeply profound. If I am living a lie, then I need to find the Truth.
NOW WHEN I SAY TRUTH I MEAN OBJECTIVE TRUTH (immoveable truth).
Isn't it a wondrous relief and
sense of peace when you find the truth about a situation
circumstance, or past event. It's like " Finally! , ahh, I
understand now, that makes so much sense, what a relief I
now know the truth to that puzzle!" And every fibre in
your body is in concert with that truth.
Secondly, I am laying a spiritual
foundation for Truth:
"I am the way, the TRUTH and the
life, NO ONE comes to the Father but through me" (John 14)
You see Truth is underpinned by
rationality, reason and purpose. Without them Truth has no meaning or
purpose and therefore becomes irrelevant.
and try this for size, is it truth or
fiction?:
"15 “If you love me, keep my commands. 16 And I
will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to
help you and be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of
truth. The world cannot accept him,because it neither sees him
nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will
be[c] in
you.18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to
you. 19 Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but
you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 On
that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you
are in me, and I am in you. 21 Whoever has my commands and
keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be
loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to
them.” (John 14)
and
4 Remain
in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by
itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless
you remain in me.
5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me
and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do
nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a
branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up,
thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and
my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done
for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory,that you bear
much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples. (John 15)
and best of all:
-->
and best of all:
33 Pilate then went back inside
the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, “Are you the king of the
Jews?”
35 “Am
I a Jew?” Pilate replied. “Your own people and chief priests
handed you over to me. What is it you have done?”
36 Jesus
said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants
would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my
kingdom is from another place.”
Jesus answered, “You say that I am a
king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to
testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.”
38 “What is truth?” retorted
Pilate. With this he went out again to the Jews gathered there and
said, “I find no basis for a charge against him. (John 18)
If I am to walk in truth, then what's
the answer ? Follow, obey, listen and copy the Author of Truth - Christ, His words, his commands, his
works.
BTW, it doesn't mean stop looking for
it, seeking it out, being scared of it, "test everything".
On an interesting note, to the person who sees Christ as "another sage/guru/teacher/wise man / enlightened".... think about this:
Of the one major test to Truth that Christ claims, that would be absolutely difficult to "falsify" was his claim that he was to physically resurrect from the dead. Why would a man make such a statement before his death, when there would be absolutely no doubt as to whether or not his claim is truthful. I mean, make another claim, make it abstract, ethereal, vague, immeasurable, but not something that is completely "out there".
Mohammad centuries later refutes it, Buddha states he become "enlightened", the Hindu states re-incarnation.... all unprovable empirically scientifically, historically (though there are other historians with different views - to be expected, like mythologists who believe Jesus was a myth) or through historical and evidential study (put the evidence through a court of law) and scrutiny have proved Jesus historically lived, was crucified, dead for 3 days and rose again.
Check out these scholars : http://www.garyhabermas.com/
This guy is quite unique: Jim Wallace, a Cold Case detective - his job is to prove the murderer guilty, where no body is found.... this guys knows his stuff about evidence, and a court of law: http://pleaseconvinceme.com/
Another really good article on Truth:
http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/is-there-an-absolute-truth/
On an interesting note, to the person who sees Christ as "another sage/guru/teacher/wise man / enlightened".... think about this:
Of the one major test to Truth that Christ claims, that would be absolutely difficult to "falsify" was his claim that he was to physically resurrect from the dead. Why would a man make such a statement before his death, when there would be absolutely no doubt as to whether or not his claim is truthful. I mean, make another claim, make it abstract, ethereal, vague, immeasurable, but not something that is completely "out there".
Mohammad centuries later refutes it, Buddha states he become "enlightened", the Hindu states re-incarnation.... all unprovable empirically scientifically, historically (though there are other historians with different views - to be expected, like mythologists who believe Jesus was a myth) or through historical and evidential study (put the evidence through a court of law) and scrutiny have proved Jesus historically lived, was crucified, dead for 3 days and rose again.
Check out these scholars : http://www.garyhabermas.com/
This guy is quite unique: Jim Wallace, a Cold Case detective - his job is to prove the murderer guilty, where no body is found.... this guys knows his stuff about evidence, and a court of law: http://pleaseconvinceme.com/
Another really good article on Truth:
http://pleaseconvinceme.com/2012/is-there-an-absolute-truth/
No comments:
Post a Comment