Does God Exist?

The Cosmological Argument

Goldsmith & McAtee

The Design Argument

Dana & Betsy Harris

God & the Meaning of Life

Hedges & Homoya

Science & Christianity

Brenner & Scott

The Cosmological Argument

by: Reid Goldsmith

and Ben McAtee

Overview of the Kalam Argument

K a lam A rg u m en t

P erson a l N o t P erson a l

C au sed N ot cau sed

B eg in n in g N o B eg in n in g

U n ive rse

Actual Infinity

Represented by the figure to the right

=

+1=

n=

+n=

* =

0An actual infinite cannot exist because it creates irreconcilable paradoxes

Potential Infinity

• A potential infinite increases its number through time

• A potential infinite is always finite

• A potential infinite can never become an actual infinite.

lim1/n= n 0

Kalam: First Premise and First Argument

• Since an actual infinite cannot exist, then there is a finite number of past events in this universe.

• If there is a finite number of past events, at some point, there was no universe

• Therefore, there must have been a beginning to our universe

Kalam: First Premise and Second Argument

• Even if an actual infinite could exist, it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite

• If there are an actual infinite number of points between point Z and point Y, then it would take infinite time to traverse that segment

• The argument from nature of causal sequences helps us to understand this phenomenon.

ABY Z

Argument from Causal Sequences

• Imagine, if you will, a helicopter flying over your head. How did it get there?

• Here’s how it got there. The pilot got into the helicopter. The pilot getting into the helicopter is the direct cause of the helicopter flying over your head.

• The fact that there is a causal relationship between the pilot getting in the chopper and the chopper flying over your head means that there are specific instances in the past that you can determine, thus proving that there isn’t an actual infinite number of past events. (The chicken and the egg is a perfect example of this)

Expansion from Nothing• In 1920, Astronomer Edwin

Hubble discovered the Red Shift.– The red shift proves the universe

is expanding

• If the universe is expanding, it must have had a starting point. Hence, the universe had a beginning.

• The big bang theory states that this beginning was a giant explosion from an infinitesimal point.

Second law of Thermodynamics

• The Second law defines Entropy as either energy, disorder, or information.

• The second law states that Entropy is always increasing in the universe.

• If the universe had not had a beginning, we would have reached an equilibrium of disorder right now, the universe being completely in disorder. We would all be a bunch of quarks and mesons flying around in a soup of energy. But, since that hasn’t happened, then the universe had a beginning.

Kalam Premise 2: The Beginning of the Universe was Caused

• Because the universe began to exist, it’s logical to assume it was caused.

• Something does not come from nothing without a cause.

• Events have a definite beginning and end and do not happen without something causing them.

God Needed no Cause Because He had no Beginning

• God does not need a cause, because He is neither an event or a contingent being.

• Because God is a necessary being, He does not need a cause.

• Asking for a cause for God is illogical. It’s asking for a cause for an uncaused Being.

So….

• Even if the beginning being something from nothing were logically possible, it’s still physically impossible

• There is therefore no reason to deny what we witness every day: events have causes.

• The beginning, being an event, must have had a cause.

Kalam Premise 3: The Cause for the Universe was Personal

• The cause had to either be personal or impersonal.

• Prior to the universe, there was a state of no time, no space, and no change of any kind.

• The conditions for the beginning were either existent from all eternity in a state of “immutability,” or they had to come to be.

So What is the “First Event?”

• If the conditions had to come to be, then that in itself was the first event.

• This couldn’t be because before the initial universe, there was no order and no change.

• The only way to avoid the first event being uncaused is to say that conditions existed in a timeless, changeless state.

And…

• If this was an impersonal beginning, then when the cause existed, the effect would have taken place, simply because all the conditions were in their proper place.

• If there is no waiting, then an infinite cause would have caused an infinite effect. This goes back to the universe being infinite.

The Cause had to be Personal

• The only way the first event could have come spontaneously from a timeless, changeless state is to be caused by a free act of a person or agent, meaning it was created on purpose.

• You can raise your arm if conditions are right, but conditions don’t cause it. It’s an act of free will.

To Sum it all Up:

• It’s not logical to believe that the beginning of the universe was caused by a timeless, impersonal act or force.

• This shows that for us to exist there needs to be some supreme, necessary Being who was our cause.

THE DESIGNARGUMENT

DESIGN ARGUMENTDESIGN ARGUMENT

DESIGN ARGUMENTIGN ARGUMENTDESIGN ARGUMENTDESIGN ARGUMENTDESIGN ARGUMENT

DESIGN ARGUMENT

DESIGN ARGUMENDESIGN ARGUMENT

DESIGN ARGUMENTIGN ARGUMENTDESIGN ARGUDESIGN ARGDESIGN AR

DESIGN

KINDS OF DESIGNORDER

*THE UNIVERSE IS ARRANGED*

Quantitative sequences (orderly arrangements)

the color spectrum

Regularities of spatial compresence

roads on maps at right angles

Regularities of temporal succession

sequence of notes in a song

KINDS OF DESIGNPURPOSEARRANGEMENT REFLECTS A PLAN OF THE

DESIGNER

Biological vs. Nonbiological

e.g. body functions, eyes, etc. = biological

e.g. freezing point of water, answer to prayer =

nonbiological

KINDS OF DESIGNSIMPLICITYTHE UNIVERSE IS A RESULT OF A

SINGLE, RATIONAL, EFFICIENT MIND

The Grand Unified Theory = one simple theory which unifies forces

e.g. an apple falling and the galaxy rotating all because of the Law of Gravity

KINDS OF DESIGNCOMPLEXITYTHE UNIVERSE IS COMPLEX

Simple unity with complex diversity shows great design

EXAMPLES:

Snowflakes

Organic compounds and DNA

KINDS OF DESIGNBEAUTYBEAUTY POINTS TO A GRAND ARTIST

BEAUTY IN MATH POINTS TO A GRAND MIND

The world demonstrates objective beauty (e.g. sunsets)

This leads to a Creative Designer

KINDS OF DESIGNSENSE &COGNITIONWE CAN PERCEIVE AND THINK

ABOUT THE WORLD

Our senses did not evolve out of survival value

Senses we use to accurately think about our world go beyond what we need to survive

KINDS OF DESIGNINFORMATION

INFORMATION EXISTS OUT OF AND PRIOR TO THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE PARTS-MEANING EXISTS IN THE AUTHOR

High order, little information = snowflakes

High order, high information = living organisms, DNA

KINDS OF DESIGNCOSMICCONSTANTS*ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE*

The universe unfolded with life in mind

CONSTANTS:

1. No life could be possible had all the forces in the world been slightly smaller or larger

2. Only on earth is life possible and probable

3. Formation of life from non-life is 1x 1040000 chance

KINDS OF DESIGNCOSMICCONSTANTS

“It is hard to resist the impression that the present structure of the universe, apparently so sensitive to minor alteration in the numbers, has been rather carefully thought out ... the seemingly miraculous concurrence of [these] numerical values must remain the most compelling evidence for cosmic design.”

- theoretical physicist Paul Davies

God and the Meaning of Life

By Aaron Homoya

&

Josh Hedges

God and the Meaning of Life

• Most Urgent of Questions– Why does the universe exist? Why is there

something instead of nothing?– Why do human beings in general exist?– Why do I exist?

God and the Meaning of Life

• Are there any objective values which provide significance and a goal or purpose for the universe as a whole, human life in general, or my life in particular?

-What is the meaning of moral statements?-Why should I be moral?

The Meaning of Moral Statements

• Metaethics: That branch of philosophy which analyzes the meaning of certain moral terms – (right, wrong, good, bad, ought, worth, and so

forth)

The Meaning of Moral Statements

• “You Can’t Know” Theories - Statements do not give information, and are not true or false– ex. “x is right” really means “hurray for x!”– or “x is right” means “do x!”

The Meaning of Moral Statements

• “You Can Know” Theories - statements give factual information and can be true or false

- Subjectivist Theories: moral statements convey information about the speaker

-ex. “x is right” means “I think x is right”- Or “we in our culture like x” -

Objectivist Theories: moral statements convey information by properties of people or acts

-ex. “x is right” means “what is best for the most amount of people”

- Or “x is right” simply means “x is right”

Reasons for Being Moral

• Why should I adopt the moral point of view as a guiding force over my life?

• Justifications for morality– What rational justification can be given to me

as to why it would be reasonable for me to adopt the moral point of view?

Four Views of the Meaning of Life

N ihilism E xis tentia lism Transcendenta lism C hris tian Theism

The F our V iew s of the M eaning of L ife

Nihilism

• Beliefs– Human existence is totally meaningless– There are no values, thus no reason to be moral– God is dead– Science has shown life to be meaningless

Nihilism• Objections

– Values may exist even though they cannot be proven• Proof of everything is not necessary. Proving proof would

continue ad infinitum.• Nazi genocide and the torture of babies is obviously

wrong.

– Questions of meaning and value are outside the limits of science

– Nihilism is unlivable and cannot be rationally recommended

Existentialism

• Beliefs– There is no reason for existence, but humans create

values and give life their own meaning– Life can be subjectively satisfying

• Objections– Suggests living a life of delusion– No rational justification over nihilism– No rational objection to obvious moral atrocities

(ex. Nazis, torturing babies, etc.)

Transcendentalism

• Beliefs– There is no reason for existence, but life has

objective meaning because objective values can be found within life

• Objections– Cannot account for moral guilt (Guilt requires a

Person to feel guilty towards)– Moral values without moral law-giver does not

make sense

Transcendentalism

• Objections (continued)– If moral values are cosmic entities, why would

they have do with us?– Cannot explain how detailed aspects of

morality can be known– Has no adequate answer for why to obey

morality over one’s selfish interests

Christian Theism

• Beliefs– The universe, man, and individuals have reason

for existence and for living– Cosmos exists to glorify God and promote the

good of His creatures– Human history has purpose, showing the struggle

between good and evil– Values come from God, through nature and the

Bible

Christian Theism

• Beliefs (continued)– Motives for morality

• the love of God

• the sake of doing right

• the rewards of obeying God

– Morality is based on God’s nature– Man has free will and was designed to find

meaning in God– Value and purpose are based in God’s nature

Conclusion

• Nihilism and Existentialism are empty and lacking purpose

• Transcendentalism and Christian Theism affirm the existence of values and purpose– Christian Theism has a better explanation– Christian Theism has only weak objections

Science and ChristianityBy

Dave Scottand

Daphne Brenner

Science vs. Religion

• Description of relationship: allies, enemies, other

• Science claims that it alone is the model of truth and rationality; Christianity must conform to it

• Religion argues that it has yet to be proven irrational or a matter of opinion

Is Science Reliable?Successful?

• The majority of modern scientists embrace realism

• Most Creation/ Evolution debates assume scientific realism

• 3 views of scientific realism– Rational realism– Nonrational realism– Nonrational nonrealism

Rational Realism

• Scientific theories are true or approximately true• A properly developed theory makes existence

claims• Rationality is an objective notion and conceptual

relativism is false• A scientific theory will be simple, clear consistent,

relevant, and useful.• The aim of science is a literally true picture of the

world

Nonrational Realism• Objectivity, but reality lies beyond what our senses tell us

• Science presently gives inaccurate descriptions

– Scientific knowledge is only what we can perceive with our senses

– Theories are just sets of lab operations and recorded numbers

– Science only desires working theories, which might not be true

– Science aims to find theories that adequately yield desirable results and observations

Nonrational Nonrealism

• There is no objective sense in which science is rational

• There are no givens

• Rival theories or models cannot be compared

• Science is no more than rules scientists have chosen to accept

The Value of Opposing Arguments

• Science is limited by its own rules.

• Science’s main support lies in philosophy

• Science assumes the senses are reliable and give accurate information about the physical world

• Science is an ever-changing discipline

Science as Solid Fact?:Presuppositions of Science

• Objects are immediate, not sensual• The laws of logic are true and truth exists• The mind is logical and can understand the

universe.• Assumes uniformity of nature, boundary

conditions, and universals• Validity of scientific method; sound,

honorable conduct

Science and Theology are Compatible

• Both disciplines speak about the origin of the cosmos, man and life in general.

• They describe the same reality using different methods

• Complementary view: How? What? + Who? Why?

• Theology asserts that God acts directly and indirectly

• The Christian worldview is most congruent with science

• Ex nihilo creation• Inadequacy of macroevolutionary theory• plants and animals created within fixed limits• “Man ain’t no

. monkey!”• Catastrophism in geology• Young Earth

Creation Science: Outlined

Scientific Validity of Creation Science

• Supernatural terms (God) can function within theories describing the natural

• Biblical roots do not disqualify truth

• Makes predictions

• No less open to revision than modern evolutionary science

Support for a Literal Genesis Account

• Yom- Hebrew word -“Day”– In Mosaic books, a numerical adjective always

means a literal 24 hours– In OT, 97% of its 1900 uses, it is literal

• Chronological order usually the backbone of Biblical narrative

• Genesis 1&2 set the tone for a historical narrative

Flaws in Macroevolutionary Theory

• Myth of the Prebiotic Soup

• Limited Genetic Potential

• Problems in the fossil record

• 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says “A chance of 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power”

Closing Statements

• Science is not infallible

• Religion is not irrational

• Christian theology is integrable with science

• Creation science is scientific

• Darwinian science is not proven fact