Why I believe in God?

[YesNo]

He said that the universe's beginning was the inevitable result of physical laws. He said that God is not needed in order to explain how the universe came to be. When a theologically oriented philosopher makes statements about cosmology that directly contradict the opinion of the world's foremost cosmologist ... doubts are raised in my mind.

And I honestly don't think you can have it both ways. If infinity is impossible then God cannot be infinite.

We still don't know for certain what happened yet. The experiments going on in Switzerland with the particle accelerator are going to reveal a lot more about our universe in the coming years.

If it is just a matter of picking sides in a culture war I think Craig has the better odds of being right. At the moment, the evidence is all on his side.

I don't know what this God is that is implied by the beginning of the universe. All I know is something started it outside of space and time and that involved a choice. It might be some demi-god for all I know. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it is more than a demi-god and that our consciousness is related to it somehow.

I agree that we will no doubt learn more and I'm all in favor of further experimentation and creating alternate scenarios that we could try to test. The last time I looked they hadn't found the Higgs boson so there might be some shakeup in the quantum mechanics community should they announce that it likely doesn't exist. I don't know what that would have to do with this current discussion, but a lot of our knowledge is still in flux.

What I liked about Craig's contribution is that he helped clarify some of the issues related to the question. I didn't think Smith did as good of a job with it and he seemed a bit desperate, but by participating in the discussion Smith did help Craig to clarify his position.

[Darcy88]

If it is just a matter of picking sides in a culture war I think Craig has the better odds of being right. At the moment, the evidence is all on his side.

I don't know what this God is that is implied by the beginning of the universe. All I know is something started it outside of space and time and that involved a choice. It might be some demi-god for all I know. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it is more than a demi-god and that our consciousness is related to it somehow.

I agree that we will no doubt learn more and I'm all in favor of further experimentation and creating alternate scenarios that we could try to test. The last time I looked they hadn't found the Higgs boson so there might be some shakeup in the quantum mechanics community should they announce that it likely doesn't exist. I don't know what that would have to do with this current discussion, but a lot of our knowledge is still in flux.

What I liked about Craig's contribution is that he helped clarify some of the issues related to the question. I didn't think Smith did as good of a job with it and he seemed a bit desperate, but by participating in the discussion Smith did help Craig to clarify his position.

I don't know how you can say that all the evidence is on Craig's side when his conclusions on cosmology flatly contradict those of the world's most renowned cosmologist. I simply can't get past that.

I can't even take him seriously anyway. Arguing that Christ's resurrection can be considered objective historical fact and proof of God's existence?

It comes down to the authority of a theologian dabbling in science versus that of the world's most renowned cosmologist in addition to the overwhelming majority of the remaining cosmologists, nearly all of whom are atheists.

Its not a culture war - its science. If the science was on Craig's side then the cosmologists would be ranged alongside him as well. As it stands they are not.

[YesNo]

I don't know how you can say that all the evidence is on Craig's side when his conclusions on cosmology flatly contradict those of the world's most renowned cosmologist. I simply can't get past that.

I can't even take him seriously anyway. Arguing that Christ's resurrection can be considered objective historical fact and proof of God's existence?

It comes down to the authority of a theologian dabbling in science versus that of the world's most renowned cosmologist in addition to the overwhelming majority of the remaining cosmologists, nearly all of whom are atheists.

Its not a culture war - its science. If the science was on Craig's side then the cosmologists would be ranged alongside him as well. As it stands they are not.

I'm actually not interested in what Craig might have to say about Christianity and so far Christianity has not come up in what I have read. Nor does authority play any role in this for me.

The empirical evidence that the universe had a beginning--from nothing--under 14 billion years ago is what is crucial, not someone's religious beliefs or their status in their field. An atheist faced with the Big Bang has to find an explanation for how it could have occurred by chance, not by choice. It is as simple as that. Craig, however, doesn't have to do anything but challenge any such explanation they might come up with. That is why the evidence is all on his side. Amusingly, it is evidence many atheists themselves collected and accept.

[Darcy88]

I'm actually not interested in what Craig might have to say about Christianity and so far Christianity has not come up in what I have read. Nor does authority play any role in this for me.

The empirical evidence that the universe had a beginning--from nothing--under 14 billion years ago is what is crucial, not someone's religious beliefs or their status in their field. An atheist faced with the Big Bang has to find an explanation for how it could have occurred by chance, not by choice. It is as simple as that. Craig, however, doesn't have to do anything but challenge any such explanation they might come up with. That is why the evidence is all on his side. Amusingly, it is evidence many atheists themselves collected and accept.

Hawking does have an alternative. As I keep saying, he can account for the universe's origin without relying on this notion of choice. I take the opinion of the world's leading cosmologist to be of greater import than that of a theologian/philosopher.

Authority is central here. On matters of medicine I would consult the doctor, not the engineer.

[G L Wilson]

I think that there is something in the Bible which says in effect not to argue with a fool lest you look the fool.

[YesNo]

Hawking does have an alternative. As I keep saying, he can account for the universe's origin without relying on this notion of choice. I take the opinion of the world's leading cosmologist to be of greater import than that of a theologian/philosopher.

Authority is central here. On matters of medicine I would consult the doctor, not the engineer.

It looks like we have different personalities. I don't trust authority. I don't even trust a medical doctor, although I will listen to a doctor's opinion if the need arises. There may be need for a second opinion.

The alternatives I'm aware of from Craig's listing are (1) the "oscillating universe", (2) the "chaotic inflationary universe" which leads to a multiverse, (3) the "vacuum fluctuation universe" and (4) the "quantum gravity universe" which I think is the one you are referring to that Hawking promotes. According to Craig, and I agree, (1), (2) and (4) all still have a universe with a beginning, and therefore need a creator God. They just move around the beginning from a Big Bang singularity to a point in a deeper past, hopefully hiding it.

(3) is the only real alternative. The claim is that there exists an eternal vacuum out of which our universe popped by chance. If that vacuum really is eternal and made no choice then our universe should have popped out long ago. Why is our universe so young? Why did the eternal vacuum wait so long?

Are there any other alternatives?

None of the four alternatives mentioned above is anything more than an opinion or speculation. None of them have any evidence like the cosmic background radiation that validates the Big Bang to support it. If any of them did, there wouldn't be four opinions. There would be only one.

To avoid choice a cosmologist needs something eternal that cannot make a choice, but which can also cause a Big Bang. Prior to the evidence for the Big Bang, a cosmologist could say the universe itself was eternal and brush the issue of beginnings aside. That is no longer possible.

[MarkBastable]

I think that there is something in the Bible which says in effect not to argue with a fool lest you look the fool.

I doubt anyone will argue with you about that.

[Darcy88]

It looks like we have different personalities. I don't trust authority. I don't even trust a medical doctor, although I will listen to a doctor's opinion if the need arises. There may be need for a second opinion.

The alternatives I'm aware of from Craig's listing are (1) the "oscillating universe", (2) the "chaotic inflationary universe" which leads to a multiverse, (3) the "vacuum fluctuation universe" and (4) the "quantum gravity universe" which I think is the one you are referring to that Hawking promotes. According to Craig, and I agree, (1), (2) and (4) all still have a universe with a beginning, and therefore need a creator God. They just move around the beginning from a Big Bang singularity to a point in a deeper past, hopefully hiding it.

(3) is the only real alternative. The claim is that there exists an eternal vacuum out of which our universe popped by chance. If that vacuum really is eternal and made no choice then our universe should have popped out long ago. Why is our universe so young? Why did the eternal vacuum wait so long?

Are there any other alternatives?

None of the four alternatives mentioned above is anything more than an opinion or speculation. None of them have any evidence like the cosmic background radiation that validates the Big Bang to support it. If any of them did, there wouldn't be four opinions. There would be only one.

To avoid choice a cosmologist needs something eternal that cannot make a choice, but which can also cause a Big Bang. Prior to the evidence for the Big Bang, a cosmologist could say the universe itself was eternal and brush the issue of beginnings aside. That is no longer possible.

Personality has nothing to do with it. It comes down to whether in a scientific debate you would side with the world renowned expert or with the dilettante. Craig is first and foremost a theologian. He shouts his bias from the roof-top. It is absurd to place his scientific conclusions in the same class as Hawking`s, a man widely considered to possess one of the greatest scientific minds of all time. And you can go beyond Hawking - hardly a credible cosmologist would categorically state that the universe began by choice. My previous objections still stand(no infinite God, no mind beyond time and space) but they are not necessary to reiterate considering the plain fact that the science and scientists are against Craig on this.

Is it not possible that Stephen Hawking the quantum cosmologist has a better handle on cosmology than William Lain Craig the theologian/philosopher? I have a hard time even calling him a philosopher. A Christian philosopher would be more accurate. Theologian would be the most accurate. Scientific authority? I think not.

[G L Wilson]

Personality has nothing to do with it. It comes down to whether in a scientific debate you would side with the world renowned expert or with the dilettante. Craig is first and foremost a theologian. He shouts his bias from the roof-top. It is absurd to place his scientific conclusions in the same class as Hawking`s, a man widely considered to possess one of the greatest scientific minds of all time. And you can go beyond Hawking - hardly a credible cosmologist would categorically state that the universe began by choice. My previous objections still stand(no infinite God, no mind beyond time and space) but they are not necessary to reiterate considering the plain fact that the science and scientists are against Craig on this.

Is it not possible that Stephen Hawking the quantum cosmologist has a better handle on cosmology than William Lain Craig the theologian/philosopher? I have a hard time even calling him a philosopher. A Christian philosopher would be more accurate. Theologian would be the most accurate. Scientific authority? I think not.

Darcy88, why are you wasting your time with the fool?

[Darcy88]

Darcy88, why are you wasting your time with the fool?

I don't think YesNo is a fool. Craig is a very persuasive individual. He's a sophist of remarkable skill. Add to this an aspect of wishful thinking and you've got the recipe for credulity.

Why do I persist in this argument? Because Craig is emblematic of a pernicious movement that in America is attempting to have creationism taught as science in public schools. Its been rebranded as "Intelligent Design," dressed up in pseudo-scientific garb and presented to people as legitimate science.

Also, I can't stand it when people try to take the faith out of faith, when they think they can believe without making any leap. Its dishonest.

The irony is that there's nothing I'd personally like more than some compelling evidence of God's existence.

[YesNo]

I don't think YesNo is a fool. Craig is a very persuasive individual. He's a sophist of remarkable skill. Add to this an aspect of wishful thinking and you've got the recipe for credulity.

Why do I persist in this argument? Because Craig is emblematic of a pernicious movement that in America is attempting to have creationism taught as science in public schools. Its been rebranded as "Intelligent Design," dressed up in pseudo-scientific garb and presented to people as legitimate science.

Also, I can't stand it when people try to take the faith out of faith, when they think they can believe without making any leap. Its dishonest.

The irony is that there's nothing I'd personally like more than some compelling evidence of God's existence.

Thanks for responding, Darcy88. These discussions allow each of us to think through our positions. That is all. There is no winning or losing in these arguments.

I don't know much about Craig, but I assume if I learned more he would claim that the something that made a choice triggering the Big Bang was Jesus or Yahweh. He probably wouldn't think it was Vishnu or Rama or Krishna or some generic dimension of consciousness where choices could be made. However, I don't think this cosmological argument does more than show something outside the universe made a choice. It leaves the issue wide open to any religious development, not just Christianity.

Also Craig isn't the one who gave me the basic idea. I've had it already. Craig just added details, both philosophical and scientific, that I was not aware of. Previously, I thought the Big Bang was part of an endless cycle of beginnings and endings until I found out that it was a more radical beginning than I had imagined. So don't blame Craig. He is expressing ideas that reasonably arise when someone understands what the evidence of the Big Bang actually means.

My own view is that I think there is a dimension of consciousness outside but permeating the universe of matter and energy that explains our consciousness, explains near-death and shared-death experiences and explains general "paranormal" experiences that people have. It is these experiences that I am more interested in. The realization that the universe had a radical beginning from nothing only confirms it.

[laidbackperson]

Though I have seen much to make me believe there might very well be a God, I couldn't prove it. And though I have seen much that would leave me to believe there isn't a God, I couldn't prove that either. There for Agnosticism seems to make sense.

What you say is very true and both believers and non-believers face this question. But then have you wondered what makes the believers stick with God.
I think a real believer has two traits:
First is humility. It comes from a clear belief that there is a benevolent Power far superior to him/her and his/her success is not solely due to him/her but also due to God’s grace. Hence success does not enter his/her head. I can also add here that a person with humility, ( believer or non-believer) will not rant unnecessarily and insult others, but quietly take his /her option, after trying to see both sides of a coin in all matters.
Second trait is acceptance of all bad, tragic events, out of their control, as God’s will. This quality enables him/her face the rough of the world and get up on his/her feet after he /she has been thrown to ground.
And from where he /she gets these traits.
I think It is a type of wisdom that comes from God’s grace and your personal experiences in life begin to supplement it.
I will just narrate one experience of believers (Mind you, getting true humility is still a long journey for them) which I know from close quarters.
Husband and wife go for their regular 30minutes evening walk, locking their house from front, leaving behind their teenage daughter who was studying for exams in upper room.
Just three minutes later wife gets a call on her cell phone from her sister that some relatives will be coming to their house in an hour. Instead of continuing the walk, she decides to return home, another reason for which being was she also started having a headache. She is back in house in total time less than five minutes.
In this short time a stalker who must have been watching the set up for quite some time has got inside the house with a duplicate key.
Seeing the door open the wife is angry at the daughter thinking she has been casual and calls out angrily to her from down.
The stalker unable to go out from the front door, runs up through the shocked daughter’s room, opens her balcony door and runs away jumping in the neighboring house terrace.
Anything could have happened that day.
Believers will call it God’s grace, non-believers can call it a lucky chance.
P.S. : The stalker was not caught but he would not make another attempt.

[cafolini]

As far as religion and any of its branches go, I think you may believe or disbelief anything you wish safely, so long as you don't confuse the belief or disbelief with knowledge. Confusing it is not safe unless you are a good hypocrite.

[Brett Cottrell]

My dog Tico is dyslexic, so he prays to the Dog. I, for one, believe him.

[Vonny]

My dog Tico is dyslexic, so he prays to the Dog. I, for one, believe him.

Dogs know. He's beautiful.