Chalk One Up for God
Greg Koukl gives students a way to respond to the common professor’s ploy, “If God existed, he would stop this chalk from reaching the ground.”
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity
————— CONNECT —————
Website: https://www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: https://training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: https://www.str.org/apps
Twitter: https://twitter.com/STRtweets
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/standtoreason93
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/standtoreason
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/stand-to-reason/
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time – (855) 243-9975. If you’d like to submit your question ahead of time, fill out the online form here: https://www.str.org/broadcast.
————— GIVE —————
Support the work of Stand to Reason: https://str.org/donate
source
I wonder if this is how religion started? If someone will repeat a story they heard of a non-miracle which can be checked up on and shown to be false, then imagine how much more convincing it would be to pass on stories of miracles which CAN'T be checked up on, as there's no way to verify them.
snopes.comreligionchalk.asp
So you are saying that professors have god like qualities ? You must hold professors on a very high esteem. =)
Of course it's a straw man. They don't win arguments with actual people, but they can if the other side of the argument is completely fictional.
I'm referring to the assumption that reality is only one of two ways (Created, or self-existent) and that one is correct while the other is false. Existential matters can be chalked up to far more variables than simply these choices, and when a viewpoint is seen only in light of limited choices it is, more often than not, based on logical fallacies. You're understanding is limited, but you can't guarantee the limits in the understanding of another…
Minds transformed existing material into other combinations of materials. Even 5 months ago you still used this tired argument in 5 months time you haven't even be able to see the glaring mistakes with your proposition. Even in this example you ignore that a minds have never been known to create matter, just reshape existing materials, so your point falls flat in an entirely new way than the 7 or 8 times its fallen flat before.
What are you referring to?
What you're suggesting is actually a false dichotomy. Consider every religion with a creation story to be fiction. Then consider that ALL fiction are valid theories to creation or independent existence. You'll find there are literally thousands, if not countless, possible scenarios that have already been imagined…
LOL… is this legit?
"If the universe came into being a finite time ago, you have two options…" Assuming that the universe had a cause does not entail that its causer was an intelligent agent. Everything that exists has come together from pre-existing materials. From what we can tell the universe itself is no different. The Big Bang was not an explosion of everything out of nothingness but a rapid expansion of an incredibly hot and tiny mass of pre-existing stuff. This would be in keeping with the First Law.
cont…the singularity; it's a description of the laready observable universe.
"While we don't exactly know how the universe"
There are some things we know for certain, that this agnostic stance you assume cannot negate. If the universe came into being a finite time ago, you have two options: either assume that it had a cause, or that it didn't. There's no way you can avoid this conclusion by saying "well, we simply dunno."
"A phenomenon by definition is restricted to something observable"
Not always. Abiogenesis isn't observable, and neither is the Big Bang. But on principle, what we do observe is the existance of the unieverse which sprang into existance 13.7 billion years ago. We can't observe the initial conditions and moments of creation. That doesn't mean they never happened.
"that energy cannot be created or destroyed"
The first law applies to the universe. It doesn't apply beyond…cont.
(CONT) that energy cannot be created or destroyed but it can be changed. By positing the existence of an agent who creates energy theists violate this firmly established law. While we don't exactly know how the universe as we know it began the evidence in no way suggests a need for any magical, "supernatural" agent.
A phenomenon by definition is restricted to something observable. An agent existing outside of existence (God?) would be impossible to observe. Cosmology, on the other hand, deals with observable phenomena. "So each phenomenon MUST have an explanation more complex than the phenomenon itself." Logically that sequence carries backward ad infinitum. To solve this problem, theists insert God "In the beginning" as the creator. I'm talking about the First Law of Thermodynamics which states (CONT)
"far more complex than the universe itself."
So each phenomenon MUST have an explanation more complex than the phenomenon itself. Apart from it being a rehashing of Dawkins' hypothesis, it's neither valid, nor logical.
"you must provide evidence"
The beginning of the universe from nothing is evidence in itself. It follows logically.
No, you don't have an agent. If you want to propose the existence of one with the properties/abilities required for it to be a creator okay. However, you must first describe/define and provide evidence for your "creator hypothesis". Until then you can't claim that everything in existence was created from from an invisible, intelligent agent existing outside of existence itself. The existence of such an agent would demand an explanation far more complex than the universe itself.
Not at all. In my case I have an agent that causes the initial moment of creation. In your case, there's no cause, it just happens…somehow. That's actually worse than magic, because with magic you at least have the props to start with.
Notice how you switched the word I used, "universe", with the word "creation" which has an entirely different meaning?
"In the theistic formulation, you at least have a cause-the atheist is forced to appeal to magic."
Quite the contrary, you're proposing an agent that exists prior to, and therefore outside of time which is nonsensical unless, of course, you appeal to magic.
"which is to say that something exists outside of everything which is a logical contradiction"
Where's the contradiction? Saying that something that exists within creation is outside of it might be a contradiction; that is not the theistic proposition,though.
"Actions take place in time"
Since there was no time prior to creation, this objection is more determintal to your cause. In the theistic formulation, you at least have a cause–the atheist is forced to appeal to magic.
Coward.
I wonder if anyone has had this 'argument' put to them in any sincere way; excepting as a story endlessly repeated by theists.
I heard this 'story' back when I was in college 25 years ago. It's just a story told by Christians (which probably never happened) so that they can refute an argument. It's called a straw man.
"Trust me" are the first words out of the mouth of every con artist.
No, the existence of the universe does -not- require a creator. We can only say that the world -does- exist and the evidence supports that the early universe at one time was an unstable singularity. There is no way to determine any before the universe all we have is just the evidence of the universe. Any belief in a creator is an assumption based entirely in faith not in evidence. The scientific method does not allow an assumption or speculation of a creator as an answer. Evidence is required.
Poe, Poe, Poe.
Poe, Poe, Poe.
Poe, POE, Poe, Poe, Poe
Oh what fun it is to ride in a Poe, Poe, Poe, Poe, Poe-hey
Why don't you advidse faithful Christians to simply pray for God to catch the chalk? That would really show your imaginary professor up.
Actions take place in time. Your defining God as an agent that exists and acts outside of time which is nonsensical. A nontemporal agent is akin to a nonspatial mountain or a nonaudible sound.
i love fine orations against jaundice arguments.
…Youtube makes it very difficult to have lengthy conversations
I don't want to ignore your questions, but they are relatively irrelevant to the question we are addressing. Why don't you email me and we can have a discussion… it is my youtube username at hotmail.com
Title your email "youtube discussion"
I do not. I believe God is not bound by time but created it. This of course is beyond our comprehension but is a necessary implication if the universe did indeed have a beginning. This is where it becomes necessary to make the causal and temporal distinction. I believe God exists causally prior to the beginning of the universe, but not temporally prior. In other words, there was no time before the beginning of the universe, but the beginning of the universe had to have a cause, and that is God.
…They had different specific ideas of this reality, and different ways of approaching it; but that the universe is not self-explanatory, and that it requires some explanation beyond itself, was something they accepted as fairly obvious."
Keith Ward
Consider this quote: "To the majority of those who have reflected deeply and written about the origin and nature of the universe, it has seemed that it points beyond itself to a source which is non-physical and of great intelligence and power. Almost all of the great classical philosophers — certainly Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Locke, Berkeley — saw the origin of the universe as lying in a transcendent reality…
I believe, for both scientific and philosophical reasons that the universe had a beginning. The universe has not always existed, the universe did not come out of nothing by nothing, but rather the universe came out of nothing by a being outside of time, space, matter, etc. properties by which the universe is bound. I believe that being is God, the Christian God.
This is not based on, and actually contradicts modern science. Science is your ultimate authority, but your belief about the existence of the universe is not at all based on science. You see Christians are ridiculed for their faith (even though no unbelievers define/explain Biblical faith properly), but your belief about the existence of the universe is completely blind faith. How do you explain this?
The Hubble telescope has plenty of pictures of star formation. See also the James Webb Space Telescope still being developed. You may want to check out the Smithsonian's American Museum of Natural History or NASA for more information. The steps in a scientific experiment involve defining a problem, collecting information, forming a hypothesis, experimentation, observation and recording of data and drawing conclusions. Abiogenesis is therefore scientific unlike appeals to the supernatural.
Everything is part of the Cosmos. You're claiming an intelligent agent exists outside of the universe, which is to say that something exists outside of everything which is a logical contradiction. Appeals to a mysterious "supernatural" realm also fail since the actions of the agent you propose exists would occur in our universe and would therefore have empirically observable consequences. Unlike your "God did it" hypothesis, star formation doesn't violate the First Law of Thermodynamics.
The sun is part of the cosmos! You are using circular reasoning. You are saying that the creation created itself and the proof is the creation… You've got nothing…
Sure, human minds created all the things you mentioned, not the "Mind" you're attempting to prove. That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not there is a God. As for something that is used on a daily basis that was not created by a mind I can think of no better example than the sun without which life on earth would be impossible. Our sun is a star and astronomers know how stars are formed through, once again, natural processes.There is no evidence of and no need for a creative "Mind".
Minds created your computer, t v, cell phone, kitchen appliances, automobile, literally everything you use on a daily basis… Give me an example of something you use on a daily basis that was not created by a mind that would support your belief that eternally existing matter created the cosmos.
I think the one with evangelical presuppositions is you. You believe that a Mind (meaning God) created everything. You are incapable of giving an example of that because the existence of that Mind is the very thing you are trying to prove in the first place. The only argument you've proposed is that you think "it's more reasonable to believe and scientifically valid to say that Mind created matter." I've shown you verifiable, natural processes while you've only given baseless assertions.
your thoughts?
7)the beginning of the universe
8)the existence of scientific laws
9)the existence of conscious minds
10)the fine-tuning of the physical constants
11)most of the things that are of greatest importance to us such as love, meaning, purpose and the need for significance and finally it cannot fully explain
12)most of the things that happen in our lives such as why a person lives in a certain place, works in a particular job or marries a particular person.
12 things science can't explain:
1)Logical and mathematical truths(presupposed by science)
2)Metaphysical truths (like the past was not created 5 minutes ago with an appearance of age)
3)Ethical truths
4)Aesthetic truths
5)Science itself (based on assumptions that can’t be proven)
6)why is there a universe at all?
I've never heard anyone make the chalk argument, except for the professor character in a story (the prof gets humiliated of course) snopes.com/religion/chalk.asp .