Post by Athans on Nov 20, 2014 4:09:16 GMT -6
I am going to make an argument on behalf of religious people, which I believe is quite strong when compared to scientific evidence. Please read the entire post before jumping to conclusions.
This argument is generally called the Cosmological Argument, First Mover, Unmoved Mover, or Prime Mover argument. I am sure most people are familiar with this argument. I know I have personally been arguing AGAINST it since high school. It is the classic first argument believers make. Obviously we know the general objections…
Who and why the first cause and why does it not need a cause?
Could the first mover create itself?
The nature of time-What existed before time, before the Big Bang.
After spending years of putting Ph.D.s in their place, I find the arguments against it fairly shallow from a scientific stand point. The objections are purely philosophical based on hypotheticals. I think the strongest philosophical arguments for and against it is “I don’t know, and you don’t either.”
Let’s look at the argument from a scientific point of view.
What does science tell us about the creation of the universe? The accepted scientific theory on how the universe came into existence is the Big Bang theory. That is a scientific theory, it is not up for debate in this discussion as we are talking about science.
My debate is about before the Big Bang. How or why did the Big Bang happen? The fact of the matter is that we do not have any science to make a conclusion. There are unscientific theories by physicists, but nothing which we would consider science, it is really philosophy at best. Until Stephen Hawking proves his “Theory of Everything” or someone else answers the questions of the universe, science has not answered this question. The only honest intellectual and scientific conclusion is that we do not currently know or that we cannot know. This is the definition of agnostic.
Personally, I see no reason to insert a god or supernatural power into the argument. Though I do not know the answer, I would bet it is natural as opposed to supernatural. That being said, it does leave open the argument for a first mover god, or a deist god.
I am not going to suggest that this is a valid argument for say the Christian God, but this is a valid argument for a deistic god, the one objection being that we should not impose a god when there is no reason to do so. At the very least, a belief in a deistic god is not illogical. It is not any more illogical than an atheist claiming more than “we do not know.”
Without the philosophical games, and looking purely at the science, this is one of the better arguments for a deistic god. The philosophical objections address hypotheticals that we do not know, which makes them moot in my opinion.
Any comments or objections?
This argument is generally called the Cosmological Argument, First Mover, Unmoved Mover, or Prime Mover argument. I am sure most people are familiar with this argument. I know I have personally been arguing AGAINST it since high school. It is the classic first argument believers make. Obviously we know the general objections…
Who and why the first cause and why does it not need a cause?
Could the first mover create itself?
The nature of time-What existed before time, before the Big Bang.
After spending years of putting Ph.D.s in their place, I find the arguments against it fairly shallow from a scientific stand point. The objections are purely philosophical based on hypotheticals. I think the strongest philosophical arguments for and against it is “I don’t know, and you don’t either.”
Let’s look at the argument from a scientific point of view.
What does science tell us about the creation of the universe? The accepted scientific theory on how the universe came into existence is the Big Bang theory. That is a scientific theory, it is not up for debate in this discussion as we are talking about science.
My debate is about before the Big Bang. How or why did the Big Bang happen? The fact of the matter is that we do not have any science to make a conclusion. There are unscientific theories by physicists, but nothing which we would consider science, it is really philosophy at best. Until Stephen Hawking proves his “Theory of Everything” or someone else answers the questions of the universe, science has not answered this question. The only honest intellectual and scientific conclusion is that we do not currently know or that we cannot know. This is the definition of agnostic.
Personally, I see no reason to insert a god or supernatural power into the argument. Though I do not know the answer, I would bet it is natural as opposed to supernatural. That being said, it does leave open the argument for a first mover god, or a deist god.
I am not going to suggest that this is a valid argument for say the Christian God, but this is a valid argument for a deistic god, the one objection being that we should not impose a god when there is no reason to do so. At the very least, a belief in a deistic god is not illogical. It is not any more illogical than an atheist claiming more than “we do not know.”
Without the philosophical games, and looking purely at the science, this is one of the better arguments for a deistic god. The philosophical objections address hypotheticals that we do not know, which makes them moot in my opinion.
Any comments or objections?