Good for you for reading Lewis...also check out Robert Jennson, Leslie Newbigen, and David Yeago...alll good theological reads. Also, I was TA for a professor once who taught a class called world religions. The book they used was written by a member of each religion, i.e., the viewpoints of each religion by someone from that religion. The book was fairly recent, I think it was Intro to World Religions, published by Augsburg Fortress out of minneapolis. Hope that helps.
I think you misunderstood the point I was making. The idea is a philosophical necessity, not a scientific proposition, so evidence is rather irrelevant to the point I was making. Something cannot create itself. In order for a box to exist, something that is not the box has to create it. Philosophy relies on deductive reasoning, reasoning from general priciples to specific applications, whereas science uses inductive reasoning almost exclusively, reasoning from specific data to a general concept. This is the very heart of the scientific method ... hypothesize, test, rehypothesize, retest, lather, rinse, and repeat. Don't get me wrong, philosophy and science are not at odds with each other, they simple go about finding thing in different manners. They are in fact interrelated in that science relies on the philosophical concept of non-contradiction. Without non-contradiction (which states that two mutually exclusive ideas cannot both be true at the same time and in the same way), science would be impossible. The point I was trying to make is that IF (just consider it a hypothetical right now), IF the universe was created by something, that thing would have to necessarily be something independant from the universe it created. Call it God, call it Uber-Nature, call it "That which must not be named." It doesn't matter. It can't be part of the universe it created. Science can disprove this philosophical necessity by producing one single verifiable thing that can create itself from nothing, completely unaided. It has yet to find that one thing, however, so the principle has stood unchallenged since before the birth of modern science.
As much as some like the deny the existence of God, they cannot escape that it is He who put the knowledge of His existence in their minds: Romans 1:20 -- For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. So, clearly there is no such thing as an aetheist. The rest of the chapter in Romans 1 deals with those with the behavior of those who turn away from God.
I understood your point perfectly. I was merely suggesting that people have a hard time grasping this concept because it assumes that anything goes outside of our universe, if such a "place" exists.
You mean can we prove beyond resaonable doubt that it's impossible to make man from dust, certainly, you mean can we prove that it's in turn impossible to make women from mens ribs, certainly, you mean can we prove beyond reasonable doubt that the earth wasn't covered in water at the time of noah, certainly, you mean can we prove it's impossible to part oceans with little more than sticks, certainly, you mean can we prove that it's impossible for a virgin to have a child, certainly, all the proof is there, wether you choose to see it or not is up to you....
There is a fundamental problem with the God debate: faith is not reinforced by logic. The only correct answer to "Is there a God?" is "Nobody knows". Believing that some great power created our entire universe, that this power still exists and influences our lives, and/or that there is an afterlife and we will be judged and sent to heaven or hell, has absolutely nothing to do with logic, reason, or science. To say that something must have created us is as stupid as saying the world must be flat. If something must create something else, what created that something that created us? And that something? And that something? Feeling a little circular? If something cannot come from nothing, the only way that something could have created us is if the cycle of creation were infinite... which disproves the fundamental principle behind the original argument! But please, be my guest and continue proving yourselves wrong. The exception to the above is if the something that created us lived by different physical rules and did not need to be created. But this is an assumption - a placeholder belief - and has no part outside of philosophy. Much like assuming the Earth is flat since we can't see past the horizon. I don't intend to offend anyone, and I actually have respect for those who have faith in their religion but can accept other's beliefs and maintain an open mind. My personal opinion is that the God we see in most religions is a symbol and the result of the nature of humans to create explanations where we cannot find them. It takes a strong and independent person to admit that we simply do not know, because it means facing the world alone and not in the comfort of a cozy set of rules and explanations. God as a symbol is a crutch, and God as a reality is the universe itself. These are obviously just my opinions, but honestly after hundreds of such debates with people from all walks of life... the most convincing evidence I can find that God exists is that in times of great emotional stress, almost everyone on this planet throws their hands up and looks to the sky for an answer.
Well, have you ever had experiences that you just can´t logically explain? How about who created the beginning, the first molecule. Can you explain that? It´s all a matter of believing or not. You can´t proof that God exists or doesn´t exist. But there are signs everywhere leading to his existance.
Tekim. The correct SCIENTIFIC answer to “Is there a God?†Is that nobody knows through the scientific method. So while I disagree with your reasoning that science is always the absolute, I agree that in the scientific frame of reference, the answer you gave is correct. Strict adherence to science, and believing that it has, or will find, all of the answers is actually a belief and religion in and of it’s self. Just as faith that money can see you through is a religion. I am a scientist, and an Engineer, and am also a Christian. I believe that God exists, and that he created us all, and that he has a plan. I also believe that when working with a voltage source of 5v, and running it through a resistive circuit of 5 ohms (including the internal resistance of the voltage source), I will get a current of 1 amp. Of course this is a simplified model that neglects inductance and capacitance, or assumes that they are perfectly balanced (which doesn’t really happen all that often). The fact that science does not definitively support or deny the existence of God, and my choice to believe in my Lord Jesus Christ does not make me unscientific, it just means that in addition to being a man of logic, I am also a man of faith.
A couple of points ... Per my previous post, if something is outside of the time - space continuum and not dependent upon it, it would follow that it is not subject to the universe's laws. The Programmer is not subject to the program. One of those laws of the universe is causality. If there is no time (outside of our universe), then asking "what came before" is meaningless. What is before without time? I understand, and hope everyone else here does too, that this argument isn't going to be settled in an internet forum, of all places. The nature of existence is a conversation that is as old as human thought. I will grant you that science does not offer any evidence for God that can be reproduced in a laboratory under controlled circumstances. I would ask you to consider that science is not our only means of knowledge (see my previous post about science and philosophy). Science is a wonderful thing. It is simply inadequate to explain some things. It cannot show evidence for such things and on such topics stays silent. Silence is not proof one way or the other -- it supports neither point of view. It is a logical fallacy to use such silence in a logical argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence). There is evidence for other things that touch on religion, such as the historical evidence for Christ. Like all evidence, it bears scrutiny on both sides before it should be either accepted at face value or dismissed as "religious rubbish." Both sides of this debate should be big enough to honestly examine the actual logical arguments the other side makes and to draw their own conclusions. Such arguments have been made on both sides by people much more eloquent than myself and I will not presume to try and reproduce their work here. I leave you all with a couple of quotations on the issue that I find particularly apt: I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo Galilei There is sufficient light for those who desire to see, and there is sufficient darkness for those of a contrary disposition. - Blaise Pascal
Please don't say things such as Big Bang or Evolution to support any of your evidence because its BS.