Quote:
Proof of God?
The first-cause proof: God must be the first cause of the world:
Because the universe had a beginning according to the expanding universe theory. If something has a beginning, it has to have a cause.
|
Actually the expanding universe theory doesn't know if the universe had a beginning. There's a theory that the universe expands, then contracts, collapses on itself, and another big bang happens and it starts all over again in an infinitely cyclical loop.
Quote:
1.Whatever has a beginning had a cause
2.The universe had a beginning
3.Therefore, the universe had a cause
|
Deceitful sylligism. That's kind of like saying Any apple is a fruit, that cow is an apple, therefore the cow is a fruit. The second postulation in my example is not true. The second postulation in your proof is not proveable. We do not know that the universe had a true beginning because we were not there. Since we cannot prove that the universe had a beginning, we cannot prove that it had a cause.
Quote:
|
Whatever had a beginning had a cause-things don't come into existence by themselfs. They must be caused by something.
|
Your theory writer needs to brush up on her quantum physics. Particles appear and disappear all the time, and there's no known cause. I highly doubt that a god is witching them all into existance.
Plus, even if we grant that every thing which has a beginning must be caused by something, that does not necessarilly mean it must be caused by
a god
Quote:
|
In science the law for this concept is called the "Principle of Causality." It says that every effect must have a cause. Can you think of anything that poped from absolutly nothing? "Nothing comes from nothing."
|
But who's to say that cause must be a god?
Quote:
|
God is eternal and uncreated and doesn't need a cause.
|
Says who? I hope you're not using the bible as proof - it's generally considered poor form to use a document to prove that document. So you'll need to find some other proof that 1) God exists and 2) God is eternal and 3) God is uncreated.
And if God is eternal and uncreated then logically that means it is possible for something to be eternal and uncreated. Therefore it is possible that the universe itself is eternal and uncreated. I'm afraid that blows a rather large hole in the divine causation argument.
Quote:
|
If this were not so we would have to search for God's cause- and so on and so on into infinity.
|
Ahhh, so we say God is eternal and uncreated because it would be decidedly inconvenient to declare otherwise. Unfortunately principals declared out of convenience rather than research are valueless.
Quote:
|
Never reaching the beginning. If this is true, there must be a cause in the past that doesn't need a cause. This cause we call "God". The first cause of all that exists must be eternal and uncreated in order to have the power to start everything else, including the universe.
|
Conjecture conjecture conjecture. Write with a scholarly enough tone and you can get almost anyone to believe anything.
Quote:
|
The universe had a beginning.
|
Prove it.
Quote:
|
Several years ago, many scientists believed the universe was eternal, with no beginning. In the 20th century Scientists discovered new information that indicates the universe must have a beginning.
|
indicates teh universe MAY have a beginning. We have hypotheses, but when you get right down to it, we simply don't know.
Quote:
|
First, by 1927, astronomer Edwin Hubble shocked the scientific community by discovering the expaning movements of our galaxy and beyond. Hubble found that galaxies were moving away from us at high speeds. This explansion is similar to a bomb exploding. This discovery was called the "Expanding Universe," it caused some scientists to change their view from an eternal universe ro one that must have a beginning. If you were to reverse the expansion, you would arrive back to a point of beginning beyond which there was nothing.
|
That theory has been challenged. And the concept of an exploding universe is not correct anyway. It's more accurate to think of the universe as being drawn on the surface of a balloon which is being blown up.
Quote:
|
Second, mordern scientists are favoring a model of origins called "The Big Bang." It suggest a beginning in our universe. (Genesis 1:1) If the universe had a beginning it must have a cause.
|
No, it does not. It suggests that at one point in history the universe was very very small and dense, but it does not suggest that this means the universe began at this point.
Quote:
|
Third, A proof that points to a beginning is the wearing down and running out of usable energy. Our universe is growing old. The law of "Thermodynamics."
|
Actually the word you are searching for is entropy, which is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Not all of them.
Quote:
|
1. Uncaused: No, this violates the Principle of Causality
|
No it does not because we do not have any proof that the universe has not always existed.
Quote:
|
2. Self-caused: Imposable beacuse somehting can't create itself. The universe would exist prior to it existing.
|
The universe and the laws that govern it are much more bizzarre than our little human minds can grasp. We simply do not know enough to be able to say that for certain. It's likely, but it is not a certainty. Unless you have a certainty you cannot prove anything with it.
Quote:
|
3.Caused by something or someonelse:Yes, it is the only reasonable explanation and is consistent with the principle of causality. It's more reasonable to believe the existence came from nothing by someone then nothing by nothing. (Hebrews 11:3)
|
So far your only reference is the document that you are trying to prove, namely the bible. That just doesn't work. And just because it is more reasonable to believe something does not make it true. It is more reasonable to believe that as an electron transfers from a lower to a higher orbit around its atom, it will travel between the two orbits in a linear fashion, much as you would do if you drove your car down the block. That's a very reasonable belief. It's also flat out wrong. The electron simultaneously disappears from the first orbit and appears in the second orbit, without crossing any points in between.
It is reasonable to believe that one particle cannot effect its mate if the one particle is in San Francisco and its mate is on the moon. But it's been shown that if you manipulate the first particle, its mate immediately reacts. How is THAT possible? We don't know, but it does happen, and these two examples do not follow reasonable conclusions. In short, just because it's reasonable to believe that a god started all of this does not in any way make it true.