10/30/2009

Geisler’s Cosmological Argument

I have cited several forms of the cosmological argument for God’s existence on this blog. One effective form of this argument comes from philosopher Norman Geisler. This argument begins from an undeniable premise: I exist. This is not always assumed to be true by modern philosophy. Geisler argues that God exists because I exist. Here’ s a rough outline:


1. Some things undeniably exist (e.g., I cannot deny my own existence).

2. My nonexistence is possible.

3. Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.

4. There cannot be an infinite regress of current causes of existence.

5. Therefore, a first uncaused cause of my current existence exists.

6. This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-perfect.

7. This infinitely perfect Being is appropriately called “God.”

8. Therefore, God exists.

9. This God who exists is identical to the God described in the Christian Scriptures.

10. Therefore, the God described in the Bible exists.
(Geisler, Norman L., Christian Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Baker Book House , 1988, pp. 238-39)

This is just an outline, but it is an outline of an effective positive argument. A Non-Christian has the right to demand a defense of each of these premises, and I would welcome that discussion here.

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

"6. This uncaused cause must be infinite, unchanging, all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-perfect."

This is the part where the apologist tries to shovel in all the unnecessary features so it will fit the deity required by their belief system.

It can just as easily be a undirected unintelligent penguin shaped force which creates entire universes at random as an unintended consequence before dying or leaving this reality.

"7. This infinitely perfect Being is appropriately called “God.”"

Because your belief system requires it

"8. Therefore, God exists."

Again because your belief system requires it.

"9. This God who exists is identical to the God described in the Christian Scriptures."

Another part where apologists try to disregard every other single religion's scriptures in order to attempt to lay the claim that their religion is the more "true" one.

"10. Therefore, the God described in the Bible exists."

Only if you use circular logic.

J. K. Jones said...

I would encourage you to interact more with Geilser’s argument. He provides detail to the rough outline given here.

Also, try the posts under the search label “God Is: The Series,” and interact with the arguments given. Strt at the first post. They are in order because they build on each other. And remember, you cannot take them in isolation. They have to be addressed as supporting each other.

J. K. Jones said...

See Geilser's book "When Skeptics Ask" or his book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be and Atheist."

Anonymous said...

"A Non-Christian has the right to demand a defense of each of these premises, and I would welcome that discussion here."

"I would encourage you to interact more with Geilser’s argument."

New Christian Definition for "Discussion": Go read a book.

One Ear said...

Geisler spends so much time "grounding" his metaphysical theism that he spends literally *no* time defending the Bible itself, one of the most recalcitrant and schizophrenic texts mankind has ever inflicted upon itself. If God truly conforms to Geisler's architectonic theism, why wouldn't He justify himself as such in His autobiography, the holy scriptures (which Geisler concludes are true and unassailable, the product of a perfect mind), rather than as the shaggy, gruesome, anthropomorphic, arbitrarily indecisive, blustery, jealous, woman-hating, perpetually ticked-off, genocidal maniac of the Old Testament (and Jesus, for all his Buddhist civility, has plenty of his dad's hellfire-rhetoric burning in his veins), one of the most mentally unstable characters in ancient world literature? (Those who've read Geisler's exasperating *When Critics Ask* know his virtuoso knack of METICULOUSLY AVOIDING the most difficult criticisms of the holy book). When Geisler tries to shoot the gulf between his Infinite All-Powerful All-Knowing Perfect Deity and the chapter-and-verse reality of scripture and revelation, his position becomes feckless and desperate. Comparing his rigorously foreordained Theism with the Bible itself is like comparing a Crystal Palace to some demon-haunted village of mud-huts seething with locusts and hellfire. More importantly, if God can be described as an infinite, necessary, "uncaused cause" (a nifty little semantic distortion), then why can't the cosmos? Geisler's disappointing answer is that this Infinity must also be *intelligent* (he is presumably unimpressed by astrophysicists like Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, Atkins, and others who've argued vigorously for a non-theistic cosmology).

Why does theism (whether you accept it or not) automatically lead to the Judaeo-Christian deity in particular? Geisler's solution is a brief chapter where he "proves" that history is as objectively knowable as chemistry or geology(!), and another brief chapter that tabulates the "inescapable" and "overwhelming evidence" that the Christian scriptures are, without a doubt, historically reliable. He points to the massive quantity of Christian documents that have survived in comparison to the insignificant trickle of classical, secular manuscripts, not seeming to realize that Church libraries and monastic scriptoria of the Middle Ages had a virtual monopoly on literacy and the copying/preservation of manuscripts (i.e. why would medieval Christendom go out of its way to preserve and copy classical "pagan" texts, especially if they contravened the dominant belief-system in barbarian Europe?). He also fails to mention that all historical reference to Jesus come from texts originating long after the hypothetical death of Christ, and that nothing substantial survives from 4 B.C. to 30 A.D. or shortly thereafter, when Jesus was apparently making such a ruckus in and around Palestine.

One Ear said...

Geisler suggests that atheism is self-defeating because it fails to provide a "total world view". My dear professor, atheism *has* no world-view! Atheism is merely the absence of theistic belief (e.g. faith), but is more closely linked in our Heideggerized era with the absence of metaphysical assumptions (e.g. reality is not *linguistic*, our conceptual vocabulary cannot be strictly reified into cosmic correspondence with some nomological Cathedral of Truth -- even if one believes in a divine Logos, we morlocks in our "fallen" state could hardly generate a working-replica of this deistic Word). Like all wish-fulfilling metaphysicians, Geisler constructs his theistic language-game according to a predisposed conclusion he has decided upon before the game even started (Geisler was a conservative evangelical long before he was a philosopher). His judgment seems, to an extent, foreordained. To ensure that the Universe turns out the way he wants it to, Geisler COMPARTMENTALIZES the oppositional arguments into eunuch-ized crash-test dummies that any precocious seminary-student could knock down. For in *Christian Apologetics*, Geisler is himself the Gnostic Demiurge, trying to imitate the true God, while being careful not to introduce the Holy Scripture itself, which has a tendency to deconstruct itself in the brittle arms of biblical inerrancy and theistic perfectionism.

What Geisler has ultimately "proven" is that Metaphysics and Christianity deserve each other, a tomb within a tomb. His gimcrack City of God is a necropolis for slavering Hegelian morlocks. If one accepts Geisler's epistemology, then one must also accept that this sort of metaphysical gobbledygook can be used to justify ANY belief --- just rub the genie's lamp and set up a semantic house-of-cards that conforms to the ur-Language of whatever system you want to retroactively "prove."

J. K. Jones said...

One Ear,

None of your objections are new. I’ve answered them elsewhere on this blog. See search labels “God Is” and “Argument from Scripture.”

It is interesting that you do not actually treat Geisler's argument. You just state that it is a sementic / word game much like anonymous says it is circular.

You prove nothing. You just string together impressive, but empty, rhetoric.

JK

Curt Cameron said...

I don't think that premises #3, #4, #6, or #9 are true.

#3: Not everything in existence has a cause. This is a well-established physical fact.

#4: Why can't there be an infinite regress? I see no logical reason that the universe could not be infinitely old. Now, there are physical observations that seem to indicate that it's not, but there are still gaps in our knowledge and maybe the universe has just always existed.

#6: Now he's just making sh** up. All those descriptions are complete non-sequiturs, even granting the first five steps.

#9: Wow, what a leap this one is.

This list just further demonstrates that all apologetics (all that I've ever seen) is crap.

J. K. Jones said...

“#3: Not everything in existence has a cause. This is a well-established physical fact.”
He said “Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.” He did not say that everything in existence has a cause.
What would be the thing(s) you are referring to that do not have a cause?

“#4: Why can't there be an infinite regress?”
Because you cannot traverse the infinite. You can’t reach the end of something that has no end. The string of current causes would never get to us.

“Now, there are physical observations that seem to indicate that it's not…”
What would those observations be?

“…maybe the universe has just always existed.”
Something has always existed. It must have. We could not exist otherwise.

Please see the posts under the search label “God Is: The Series.”

Curt Cameron said...

"He said 'Whatever has the possibility not to exist is currently caused to exist by another.' He did not say that everything in existence has a cause.
What would be the thing(s) you are referring to that do not have a cause?"

I don't see the difference. The things that do not have a cause? Subatomic particles pop into existence all the time, and like many quantum events, they have no cause, just a probability of occurring at any time. In fact, I know of only two kinds of things which begin to exist: subatomic particles, and the universe itself. One of those is known not to have a cause, the other is suspected not to.

"Because you cannot traverse the infinite. You can’t reach the end of something that has no end. The string of current causes would never get to us."
That makes no sense. You seem to be taking the view that this idea would mean that there was a beginning, just that it was infinitely in the past. I agree that that's nonsensical. But that's not it - I'm talking about a never-ending chain of existence, looking backwards in time. The idea is symmetric also - if time can exist infinitely far into the future, it can exist infinitely far into the past.


"What would those observations be?"
The Big Bang, in the current standard cosmological model, was the beginning of time.


"Something has always existed. It must have. We could not exist otherwise."
I don't see how that statement is true. Can you justify it?

Curt Cameron said...

J.K., I read your "God Is" blog entry, and I like your idea of the number line. But you could use that analogy to prove that the integer "0" could not exist on a number line that goes infinitely into the negative numbers. After all, your argument is that if there are infinitely many negative integers, then we could never get to zero.

Huh?

J. K. Jones said...

"...you could use that analogy to prove that the integer "0" could not exist on a number line that goes infinitely into the negative numbers. After all, your argument is that if there are infinitely many negative integers, then we could never get to zero."

Doesn't fit the argument.

The idea is that you can't start at zero and count backwards to the end of the negative numbers. You cannot reach the end of something that has no end.

You can always start at some predetermined place in the numbers and make progress across the number line. You just can't reach the end of it in either direction.

In its simplest form, the argument against the infinite regress revolves around the notion of not reaching the end of a sequence that is unending.

Infinity is also a nonsensical a concept. It is obscured in and of itself (e. g. 1 + infinity = infinity).


I understand that there is on interpretation of QM that says subatomic particles come into being without a cause. There are other interpretations of QM. It reminds me of the old notion of life coming about by “spontaneous generation.” Science couldn’t find the answer yet, so lazy people declared the question unanswerable.

If it is the case that something happens without a cause, then science itself breaks down. Science is basically the study of cause and effect. Science would have zero chance of finding answers at that point, so we would be free to do without the scientific method at that point. QM argues science into absurdity.


In answer to the reason why something must have always existed, I’ll place the comments from my other post into the discussion here:

It is not possible to count to the end of the series of real numbers. You can always count one more. It is an infinite series of discrete things. You can’t count to the end of a series like that. It has no end. There is always one more…The end of an infinite series cannot be reached…we cannot expect that an infinite regress of finite causes exists either. That is, if we move backward from ourselves to the things that caused us, to the things that caused those things, to the things that caused those [things], and so on, we must find something that did not have a beginning. Otherwise, the end of the infinite series of causes, namely us, would never have been reached. We would never have moved through the series of causes to get to ourselves.

Whatever the first cause was, it must have always been. If it had no beginning, it would be able to start the series of causes. The series would not extend infinitely into the past.

This first cause must also have the power and ability to bring about all we see in the universe. The universe came from something that has always existed. Something, or someone, has always been here. It was not caused to be by something that existed before it. It is self-existent; it has the power of being in itself.

As J. P. Morland points out, nothing outside this first cause can cause it to either act or not act. There was a “time” when there was nothing outside it, so there was nothing to cause its actions. It acted independently of anything else. This is how we define the power of choice. Only a person has the power of choice.

Now we have a being that has always existed, is super-powerful, and displays intention. This fits the Christian notion of God quite well, but not perfectly.

J. K. Jones said...

This type of argument can also apply to the current causes of existence.

We would have never reached ourselves in the infinite number of current causes of existence. Something must have the power of being in and of itself. That thing must not have a beginning. That is Geisler’s argument.

Think of it like an extremely large number of boxcars on an extremely long, level and intertwined rail. If there is no engine, then nothing moves. There is no energy for the motion. If nothing has always existed in and of itself from all eternity, then nothing would be.

As R. C. Sproul summarizes the argument, “Something exists now, therefore something exists necessarily.” Aquinas went there too.

This is what the Christian faith has long held as transcendence. It is a being that is different from everything else in terms of its ability to be.

Curt Cameron said...

"The idea is that you can't start at zero and count backwards to the end of the negative numbers. You cannot reach the end of something that has no end."

I think that's where you're going wrong - your idea (and Geisler's) is that if you started somewhere, it could not have been infinitely long ago. But what if there were no start?

The symmetry of past and future applies perfectly. Think of it this way: if someone says that time cannot extend forever into the future, because the end of time would be infinitely far into the future and we could therefore never get there, what would you say? I hope you would inform him that if time exists infinitely into the future, then he can't talk about its "end." It never ends.

It's the same in reverse - if time exists infinitely far into the past, then there was no beginning. This is not a logical or philosophical problem.

"Science couldn’t find the answer yet, so lazy people declared the question unanswerable."

As opposed to religion, in which lazy people have simply made stuff up and declared that to be the answer.

"If it is the case that something happens without a cause, then science itself breaks down."

No - that's absurd! The fact that events happen, and particles pop into existence, completely uncaused, is not controversial among people who understand QM. And they are definitely doing science.

J. K. Jones said...

“The symmetry of past and future applies perfectly. Think of it this way: if someone says that time cannot extend forever into the future, because the end of time would be infinitely far into the future and we could therefore never get there, what would you say? I hope you would inform him that if time exists infinitely into the future, then he can't talk about its "end." It never ends.”

A sequence of events can go on and on to infinity, but we will not reach the end of it.

“It's the same in reverse - if time exists infinitely far into the past, then there was no beginning. This is not a logical or philosophical problem.”

But the situation is that we are moving through a sequence of events. You are trying to reach the end of something which has no end.



“The fact that events happen, and particles pop into existence, completely uncaused, is not controversial among people who understand QM. And they are definitely doing science.”

Please define science without reference to cause and effect.

Curt Cameron said...

"But the situation is that we are moving through a sequence of events. You are trying to reach the end of something which has no end."

No, I'm not. I'm happy moving through the middle of a sequence of events which extends infinitely in both directions. I'm not trying to reach the end.

Reminds me of the Groucho Marx line "I want to live forever, or die trying!"

"Please define science without reference to cause and effect."

There are several good definitions of "science," but I don't think any of them mention cause and effect. The best definition is something like "a systematic study of the natural world or knowledge gained from it."

J. K. Jones said...

Like it or not, if you are in the middle, you have moved through an infinite series.

Science cannot discover the cause of something that has no cause. Therefore it has broken down. It cannot go beyond the sub-atomic particle. That is, if you are right.

What would science be without experimentation? How do you experiment without studying cause and effect?

J. K. Jones said...

Like it or not, if you are in the middle, you have moved through an infinite series.

Science cannot discover the cause of something that has no cause. Therefore it has broken down. It cannot go beyond the sub-atomic particle. That is, if you are right.

What would science be without experimentation? How do you experiment without studying cause and effect?

Curt Cameron said...

For an example of how to study uncaused events, consider nuclear decay. Occasionally, an atom of U235 will spontaneously split apart. There is no cause to this, it just happens with a given statistical probability. Every day there is a small chance that it will split apart that day. We've figured out that after 700 million years, any U235 atom has a 50/50 chance of having split up. If you start with a chunk of U235, after 700 million years half of it will have split. Now for the half that's left, those atoms don't know about the half already gone, so they still have the same probability each day, and after 700 million more years, half of those will split (so there will be 1/4 of the chunk left that's still U235).

Now if you were the one to discover this, would you, at that point, just throw up your hands and declare the science to be over, broken down, caput?

J. K. Jones said...

I would not.

I would keep looking for a cause.

You on the other hand, might look for a cuase, but you would not be consistent with the view that nuclear decay is an uncaused event.

Tony Faber said...

There is one philosophical argument that I find strangely absent in today's discussions between atheists and Christian theists. It simply goes, if Christian theists, as some confessing Christians do, believe in an omnibenevolent Creator, then the personal freedom that flows from the Creator must include the offering knowledge of Himself through the Universe that can in one hand affirm the atheists' position yet in the other affirm the theists' position from this same pool of discernible knowledge... That is, those that seek Him will find Him, and those that do not will, on the contrary, find something quite different, yet just as convincing.

I would also add this: as a scientist, I find Jesus quite testable (perhaps as anything testable we have in the laboratory). Of course the problems lie within who has access to these "data"-- it is only the believer that can confirm the effects of a Christian faith, and we don't have the language (and the unbeliever doesn't have the capacity to understand the language, anyway) to communicate this proof. I think together, these are two strong reasons that explain why the atheist and the Christian theist will always be far apart on their final analysis.

J. K. Jones said...

Tony,

Do you believe that Christianity rests on evidence?

JK

Tony Faber said...

JK,

I think Christianity rests on not just the idea of faith but actual faith as given to us freely. I think evidence (philosophical, scientific, experiential) can support our faith. For me, I became a Christian when I was convinced of the evidence of the resurrection -- but it was the faith given to me that got me to this point.

What are your feelings on the matter? thanks, Tony

J. K. Jones said...

Christianity is demonstrated to be true by evidence. Any unbiased person would be a Christian.

But none of us are unbiased. Our sin blinds us to the truth until God gives us A new heart. This new heart responds in faith. In that sense faith is a gift of God.

Alyn said...

Hello. I'm a young christian guy. I'm debating with some atheists, friends of mine.
They ask me something simple: Why there can't be an infinite regress of causes? They even say that to deny that is absurdity, and they acused me of "special pleading" because of my First Cause argument! So, how could you logical refute an infinte regress of causes?
Can you help me please?
God bless you!

ps:sorry for my english, i'm from Romania!

J. K. Jones said...

Alyn,

Thank you for your question. It makes me feel good to have a comment from Romania!

The best answer I know to this form of argument is from William Lane Craig’s formulation of the Kalaam Cosmological argument. Please see the link below for my statement of it. In addition, please read the posts under the Cosmological Argument label / link to the left on the blog panel (The label / link is also just below this post.).

http://jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com/2010/01/time-and-beginning.html


Here is a brief version:

God has no beginning and no end. This forms the basis for one argument for God’s existence.

It is not possible to count to the end of the series of real numbers. We can always count one more. It is, in one sense, an infinite series of discrete things. We cannot count to the end of a string like that. It has no end. An unending series of discrete things cannot have an end.

Similarly, we cannot expect that an infinite regress of finite causes exists either. That is, if we move backward from ourselves to the things that caused us, then backward to the things that caused them and so on, we must find something that did not have a beginning. Otherwise, the unending series of causes would have never arrived at us.

The infinite regression cannot exist in reality. Whatever the first cause was, it must have always been, and it must have the power and ability to bring about all we see in the universe.

Something, or someone, has always been here. It was not caused to be by something that existed before it. It is self-existent; it has the power of being in itself because it existed by itself before it created.

As J. P. Morland points out, nothing outside this first cause can cause it to either act or not act. At the beginning, there was nothing outside it, so there was nothing to cause its actions. It has the power of choice. Only a person can choose to act or not to act.

This personality has always existed, is powerful enough to create the universe, and displays intention. This fits the Christian notion of God quite well, but not perfectly. However, it must be kept in mind that this is not the only argument that can be given (Please see search label “Teleological Argument," among others.).



There is another answer by analogy. Geisler uses this argument. Imagine that you are looking at a train track that winds in and out upon itself and is infinitely long (You need a great imagination for this.). If the train track is filled with boxcars, and the ground was level, how would the boxcars move? They could not. You must have at least one locomotive engine in the string of boxcars on the track for them to move.

Similarly, if we have an infinite set of finite causes and no thing with the power of being within itself, then the finite causes would never be. This thing with the power of being within itself would be eternal. It would have always been.

Other arguments from design (Teleological Argument, Transcendental Argument, etc.) then lead us to an eternal being that is powerful, intelligent, intentional, and has the power of choice. This being we call: God. We then move on to the Argument from Scripture in order to show that this God showed Himself to us in the Person of Jesus Christ.

I hope my answer is not too long.

In Christ,

J. K. Jones

Alyn said...

J.K. Jones

Hey, thank you so much for the answer. I cant't believe you really answered me.Hope so much take some time to answer me again.
But I'm still confused, and I want to get sure I understand it.
First,it is logically corect if I'm saying something like that:if I count from number 1, to infinity(just in my mind, I "count", if you know what I mean), it is really an infinity? Why? Because I'm starting from 1, to infinity, but it is really an infinity? It seems to me that this infinity has an end, and that would be 1. Only "on the other side", it is really an infinity.So, this is my first questions!

J.K. Jones:
"Otherwise, the unending series of causes would have never arrived at us."

I really don't understand that. This conclusion assumes time somehow, time outside the Univers, because we're talking here of causes "after" the Big Bang. But is that possible? Time outside from the Univers? Anyway, I think this is linked with my first question, so I'll just wait until you aswer me,please.
Question 3:
One of my atheists friends, told me something very, very weird: that somehow, independent from our minds (wich are build to understand everything under the cause-effect conexion, he says), the reallity isn't really intrinsically determinable.In other words, he believes that something could come into existence uncaused. So, how should I answer to that? I know somehow it's impossible, but it really got me thinking seriously at this perspective, and I even begin to doubt about this cause-effect relation. Could you help me, please? I'm really desperate on this. I know that science would abolish if it be so, but I need a much more powerful argument, something philosophical.
Sorry to bother you so much, but it's hard to find help those days, even on the internet.
God bless you, and your family to.

ps: I hope you understand this "english". Please forgive me about that!

J. K. Jones said...

Alyn,
“…it is logically corect if I'm saying something like that:if I count from number 1, to infinity(just in my mind, I "count", if you know what I mean), it is really an infinity?...”


Yes. There are infinitely many numbers in the sequence in that it has no end. In math, it is called a “ray.” Maybe “infinity” is the wrong word, but it is technically correct. Maybe I should just say “unending.”

You are close to the point of the argument. When the sequence of finite causes starts at a particular point, the sequence can progress to a particular cause / effect. When the series of finite causes has no beginning, the sequence cannot progress to a particular cause / effect. The sequence cannot progress through infinity.

“… This conclusion assumes time somehow, time outside the Univers, because we're talking here of causes "after" the Big Bang. But is that possible? Time outside from the Univers?”


The big bang needs a ‘big banger.’ There are no uncaused events (more on that later.).

I have an opinion on time. This is my own opinion, and I have no experts to cite on this. Time is an abstraction we develop because we experience the change in the sequence of causes. In the truest sense, it is not real. It is our perception. That is why scientists can speak of time being wrapped up in the fabric of the universe. Of course, it is; it is just a perception.

The only way we can measure time is to measure a change in material things. It could be the movement of gears in a watch or the decay of a radioactive isotope, but it is a physical thing that is changing.

I do not speak of time in the argument for this reason. William Lane Craig does. Please see his papers at the following links:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-articles/existence-and-nature-of-god
You can also follow links around the site to articles that are more philosophical. Craig also deals with the impossibility of an actual infinite through philosophical objections to that actual infinite.

Craig has degrees in both science and philosophy. My degrees are in industrial engineering and business. He is the better resource on this argument.

J. K. Jones said...

Alyn (continued),

“…reallity isn't really intrinsically determinable.In other words, he believes that something could come into existence uncaused…”

One interpretation of quantum physics says something like this. There are other interpretations.

One of the central tenants of science and philosophy is “Nothing comes from nothing (Latin: ex nihilo nihil fit.” I am unwilling to concede this tenant based on a controversial interpretation of some data.

More resources:

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=434


“…I know that science would abolish if it be so…”

How can there be a more powerful argument to a scientist than that one? If something is truly uncaused, then science cannot explore that area. Science has a boundary that it cannot cross. The only way we could find out what was beyond that boundary is if something crossed that boundary so we could observe it.

If science breaks down at some point in its analysis because it finds something uncaused, then science is not a reliable judge of truth. Everything in science depends on exploration of the causes of events. Since we see from experience that science and reason work, we know that it must be valid and everything must have a cause we can explore.

“Sorry to bother you so much, but it's hard to find help those days, even on the internet.”

You are not a bother to me at all. I enjoy these types of discussions. Just keep in mind I am an amateur and not a professional. There are better arguments out there than I can put forth.

You might find some better resources at the following links:

http://www.rzim.eu/biography-vlad-criznic

http://www.rcrwebsite.com/apolo.htm

http://carm.org/

http://www.ligonier.org/search/?q=apologetics

http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=issuedisplay&var1=IssRead&var2=98

http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html

Some other arguments I use:

http://www.jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com/2010/09/thought-processes.html

http://www.jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com/search/label/Alvin%20Plantinga

http://www.jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com/2007/11/stenger-part-one.html

http://www.jkjonesthinks.blogspot.com/2007/05/richard-dawkins-2.html

God bless you. And keep asking questions. I am happy to discuss these things.

J. K. Jones

J. K. Jones said...

I forgot one link to resources:

http://www.4truth.net/

Alyn said...

Hy there. Thanks alot for the links, they've helped me alot.
Some questions:
Why there cannot be more than 1 God as an Uncaused Cause, maybe 3 or 4 or many simultaneous eternal? Do you have something for that, please ?

Why it cannot be the Universe the uncaused cause? Yes, I know about the big bang, but some atheists have an ideea of an universe wich is in the same time had a begining, and is infinite too( ex. a circle). Don't you have any links about the "orthodox" big bang, the objections and so on...?
Thank you.
In Christ,
Alyn !

J. K. Jones said...

The cosmological and the kalam cosmological argument prove that God is infinite, or not limited. Since there was a time when nothing existed but God, he was not bound or limited by anything.

This leaves us with an argument:

“…this would mean that there are multiple Gods. Granted, [the cosmological argument] by itself does not eliminate [multiple Gods]. However, Aquinas learned from Aristotle, and in fact Parmenides had it even earlier, that there could only be a single uncaused or infinite being. Any second infinite would have to differ from the first in some way, but an infinite being cannot be either more or less than anything. We all learned early on that infinity minus or plus anything is still infinity. So there can only be one infinite God.”

- David Beck at:

http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbgod.aspx?pageid=8589952710

Search This Blog