Re-GII (Origin of Universe)Response to GII. God did not magically appear nor did He magically craft the universe. Rather, when one suggests that there need be an actual infinite chain of explanations or causes (e.g. A caused B, which caused C, which caused D, ad finitum) such claims lead to absurdities (e.g. try to subtract and infinity from an infinity; now subtract all the odd numbers from an infinity, what do you get?). This is called the problem of Infinite Regress, eventually you get to foundational explanation/cause. God is suggested to be such a cause/explanation and considered necessary. For more clarification on this point see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAAOvzwFiCo&feature=channel_page Two philosophical arguments against an actual infinite/static universe: (1) An actual infinite cannot exist. (2) An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. (3) Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. (1) A collection formed by successive addition cannot be an actual infinite. (2) The temporal series of events is a collection formed by successive addition. (3) Therefore, the temporal series of events cannot be an actual infinite. Scientific findings that suggest (along with General Relativity) that universe is not static: Friedmann-Lemaitre model/Hawking-Penrose Theorum (see): Friedmann, A. (1922). Uber die Krummung des Raumes. Zeitschrift fur Physik 10, 377-86. Lemaitre, G. (1927). Un univers homogene de masse constante et de rayon croissant, rendant compte de la vistesse radiale des nebuleuses extragalactiques. Annales de la Societe sceinfique de Bruxelles, 47, 49-59 Hawking, S., & Penrose, R. (1970) The singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 314, 529-48 Scientism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZoTBhARZhI&feature=channel_page (Clarification of 5 e.g.s) First, science cannot account for logic and mathematics because science presupposes these in order to function, so if one were to attempt to prove math and science they would be arguing in a circle. Second, science cannot account for metaphysical truths like there are other minds for science can only detect brain structure but cannot quantify and define an individuals thoughts and ‘aboutness.’ Third, science cannot account for morale judgments because you can not establish via science that Nazi scientists who experimented on people during the holocaust were wrong in comparison to scientists of post-modernism. Fourth, beauty cannot be scientifically proven for it is an abstract concept like good and evil. Lastly, science cannot be proven via science because it contains unprovable assumptions like the speed of light or other boundary conditions. References: Craig, W.L., & Moreland, J.P. (2009). The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Polishing Ltd Craig, W.L., & Moreland, J.P. (2003). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press Einstein, A. (1917). Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity: The Principles of Relativity. New York: Dover Publications Moreland, J.P. (1987). Scaling the Secular City. Grand Rapids: MI, Baker Book House http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ code pour embarquer la vidéo : >>> http://www.youtube.com/embed/QIUlMFcSbvg <<< |