More on the Argument from Creation

In the Last post we stated the following syllogism:

1. The Universe has a beginning

2. Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else.

3. Therefore, the universe was caused by something else, and this cause was God.

I want to now give you five lines of Scientific Evidence that support the argument stated above. The first line of evidence is found in the Second law of thermodynamics.

This law states among other things that the universe is running out of usable energy. So what on earth does this mean? What it means is that with each passing moment, hour, day month, and year, the usable energy that the universe has is getting smaller and smaller. This fact is leading scientists to believe that a some point in the finite future the universe will run out of energy and die. If one is to really think about it this is common sense given the Argument that is stated above. Replace the universe with a Car, if you were to fill a car up with gass and then leave it running in the drive way, any school boy knows that eventually that car will run out of gas.

The Second Law of thermodynamics is also called the law of Entropy. This is a scientific way to state that nature tends to bring things to disorder. It is important to note that is one of many point that shows that evolution is not scientific at all. Evolution would have you believe that out of disorder there randomly came order. This stands completely in the face of the law of entropy.

So we have seen that in light of the Second law of thermodynamics that the universe did have a beginning and that one day the universe will have an end. The next line of evidence is the idea that the universe is Expanding. We will discuss this in the next post.

The Intial Argument from Creation

The most important belief that one can hold, is what they believe about God. If there is no God then there is no basis for morals and there is no meaning. In this next set of post I want to discuss the Existence of God. There are two questions that need to be asked when thinking on the existence of God. The First question is dose God exist? If so then we have to ask the second question which is what is he like? It is in this second question which we will look at the issue of God and his relationship to the meaning in our lives. In first set of post we are going to answer the first question then we will move to the second.

Let us begin by looking at the question does God exist? Historically there have been four arguments for the existence of God. They are, the Cosmological, teleological, axiological, and ontological. I you are not sure what these terms mean its okay. As I discuss each of them I will define the term. The first Argument for consideration is the Cosmological Argument this is the argument from creation.

Argument from Creation

The organizing principle of this argument is based on the law of causality. This law states that everything that is created has to be caused by something. This argument can be broken down into two parts. The first part is that the universe needs a cause. The second part is that the universe needs something to sustain it. Let’s look at the first part of this argument which says that the universe needs a cause.

The Universe was caused at the beginning.

This part of the argument says that the universe is limited in that it had a beginning, thus there must have been an outside source. The argument can be stated this way,

1. The Universe has a beginning
2. Anything that had a beginning must have been caused by something else.
3. Therefore, the universe was caused by something else, and this cause was God.

In order to avoid this conclusion one of two things must happen. First you will have to argue that the universe had the power to jump start its self. Or that the universe has always existed. Either one of the above objection fall short both philosophically and scientifically. In the next section we will be looking at the philosophical and scientific evidence for the idea that the universe was caused.

Deplomacy or D-Day

In Chapter one Koukl the three major concepts that begin to lay the foundation for all that will be discussed in both the book and The American Institute for Faith and Culture.

The three important in this chapter are as follows. First is that tactics helps us do in our in counter with culture. Second is the role of tactic in the development of our Apologetics, and finally the danger that is involved in this method.

I want to briefly talk about these issues that are raised in this first chapter. As stated above the first issue is how tactic helps us in our interaction with Culture. Often time when I hear christens talking to those of a different persuasion. They tend to be easily guided by the innumerable objections that are being raised against the faith. This is where the Tactic comes in to play. Tactics helps you to stay in control of the conversation, while at the same time allowing meaningful dialogue to take place. Koukl in this chapter gives what I want to call a metaprinciple. This principle will keep you from two terrible pitfalls. The first is digging yourself a whole, and second is not allowing the interlocutor to intimidate you rhetorically. The principle is “never make a frontal assault on a superior force.” It is sad to say that many Christians seem to think that the only way to engage the culture is to do Christian Jihad. I am afraid this is not the way the Master prescribed for us to interact with the disciples. Consider Matthew 10:16, “Look, I’m sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as serpents and as harmless as doves.” In this passage Jesus uses this as a principle, because he wanted his disciple to understand that the message that they bare is going to be irritating enough, and is also going to bring persecution. So there is no need causing more trouble.

One important concept that I have learned while using the tactics that are set out in this wonderful book, is that there are going to be times when your encounter is going to be made up only of asking questions. At first this is a hard concept, but as time goes on you begin to understand that not every encounter that you have is going to “plant a seed” and that is okay.

Logic 1.3

Arguments, Premises, and Conclusion

Arguments, Premises, and conclusion, are the three major building blocks of a major argument. The term inference refers to the process by which one proposition is arrived at and affirmed on the basis of one or more other propositions accepted as the starting point of the process. It is precisely this cluster of propositions that make an argument. So what do we mean by the word Argument. Simply put what we mean is, any group of propositions of which on is claimed to follow from the others, which are regarded as providing support or grounds for the truth of that one. In order for a person to make an argument there as to be a certain structure that is present. This structure consists of two components. First, is premises and the second, is a conclusion.

Lets begin by looking at the conclusion of an argument is the proposition that is affirmed on the sole basis of the other propositions, that are in the argument. These other propositions are the proof of the argument. I want to now begin looking at one of the simplest forms of an argument. This form has one premise and a conclusion. For example;

Every man is fallen, for every man is part of the fall.

In most cases the argument is going to be much more complicated then this. One of the important things to remember is that it takes at two propositions at minimum to make an argument. As an apologist one of the classic mistakes that I hear in peoples argumentation is, the setting forth one proposition and calling it an argument. The classic forms of stating an argument as defined above is what is called a Syllogism.

Syllogism

Now when one is going to use a Syllogism there are two things you need. First, is you need at least two Premise (these are two separate propositions), then you need a conclusion. When one uses a Syllogism he or she is going to engage in what is called inductive logic. What this means is that, it starts with the cause and reasons to the effect. Then on the flipside of this coin there is the inductive argument. This starts with the effect and reasons to the cause. So what is the major difference between these two types of arguments. Well simply put Syllogism (deduction) is more Philosophical in nature. Whereas induction is more scientific. One very important distinction needs to be kept in mind. Deduction’s conclusion is necessary, meaning that the conclusion is inescapable. Where induction’s conclusion stand in the realm of probability.