Sarah and I have spent the weekend in the small village of Åsele in northern Sweden, doing evangelism with the pancake church at a big market fair. We’ve had the opportunity to talk to, pray with and love hundreds of people, mostly youths. One girl received salvation there and then after she was healed in her neck, many others received Bibles and were very interested in getting to know God more.
On Saturday evening I hung a paper plate around my neck that said “Evidence for God in 2 minutes”. Needless to say it caught lot of attention, and I got to have apologetic and evangelistic discussions with at least 25 people. I illustrated my points using my phone, which was very effective and increased the attention rate of my listeners even more.
“This phone is very unique”, I said, “because it has no cause for its existence. It popped into being out if nothing without a cause, and now I use it to call people and take photos. Do you believe me?” Nobody said yes, some looked at me as if I was a madman and others just laughed out loud. Then I explained that of course this is not the case, everything that begins to exist must have a cause. “So what do you think is the cause for the big bang and the origin of the universe?”
By now the expression of my listeners’ faces changed. They realised that it would be just as absurd to claim that the universe came from nothing or that it caused itself as if one claims that this is how my phone originated. I then explained that the cause of the universe must be immaterial, outside of time and space, and very powerful in order to construct such a complex entity as the universe. “This is what we mean when we say that God created the universe”, I said.
I then went on to the teleological argument: “OK, this phone didn’t pop into being for no reason. But how do you think it was produced? Was it carefully designed by engineers and manufactured in a factory with high precision for it to function properly, or is it a result of random chance where different minerals and metals happened to melt together in a volcano?” When they acknowledged that its complexity requires design, I talked about the fine-tuning of the universe and how the creation that surrounds us carries all the characteristics of intelligent design.
Finally, I claimed that my phone was evil and had treated me very badly, so I will drag it into court. When they once again agreed that my claim was absurd, I talked about how we on naturalism are just a bunch of blind atoms bumping around without any souls or objective morality. Nothing is ontologically good or evil in an atheist universe, but that’s obviously not the universe we’re living in since everyone knows that some things are objectively wrong. Hence, God exists.
Charismactivism 
Actually in so far as it is a tool created by a mind forged through evolutionary forces, it IS in fact an product of natural processes.
The nonsense in this ‘article’ has been blown out of the water so often it’s virtually a plane.
Hello! It sounds like you have a refutation of the Kalam cosmological argument then! If so, which of the following statements are true:
1) Anyhing can pop into being from nothing without any cause whatsoever.
2) The big bang never happened and there has been an infinite time preceding this moment.
If you agree with any of them, please provide some support for why they would be true. If they both are false, I see no reason why the Kalam argument would be false.
Blessings!
i have a refutation, micael.
1) ex nihilo nihil fit
2) nothing never existed and something is eternal
3) either we personify this “eternality” or this “eternality is volitional
4) parsimoniously, this “eternality” is not logically necessary since we may merely be personifying
5) since god is not a necessary conclusion, the kalam is not a sound argument
6) the kalam is a valid argument, but it is a meaningless argument … sense logically, validity of merely syntax and grammar and content of these propositions do not matter since we admit we already buy the premises, and know the conclusion doesn’t actually matter.
Hello Steven!
You seem to miss that the Kalam argument’s conclusion isn’t that God is the cause of the universe. It simply states that the universe has a cause, which you seem to agree with. So in your opinion, this is indeed both a valid and sound argument:
(1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
(2) The universe began to exist
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause
Identifying this cause as God is an independent argument which is more inductive in nature. Since the universe is all of space, time and matter, the cause must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. It must also be very powerful since it is able to cause universes. Furthermore, for an eternal, timeless cause to produce a limited, temporal effect, personality is needed. Otherwise, the eternality would never change and would not create anything.
Blessings!
i didn’t miss anything. you however miss the fact that i specifically said and showed the kalam is not sound. i also said that making an argument valid is just a matter good grammar, and so the kalam, as such, is completely uninteresting.
notice that you throw in a fourth premise saying a personality is needed … that’s called “conclusory” and IS the issue i said is an independent argument. namely, THAT is the argument “god” relies on, not the kalam.
Hello again!
I think we’re at cross purposes. The Kalam argument does not mention God, and so one cannot say that the Kalam is unsound because one does not thing it proves God’s existence. For the argument to be unsound, premises (1) or (2) have to be false. You have not demonstrated that they are but in the contrary seem to accept the premises and the conclusion, that the universe had a cause.
Now, to show that this cause is God I use two other arguments. I’m sorry if that’s unclear. The first one is:
(1) The universe is all of time, space and matter.
(2) The cause of the universe is not part of the universe
(3) Therefore, the cause of the universe is spaceless, timeless and immaterial
The second one, which you have criticised, is:
(1) Timeless causes with temporal effects have to be personal
(2) The cause of the personal is a Timeless cause with a temporal effect
(3) Therefore, the cause of the universe is personal
In defence of this third argument, an inanimate object that had existed eternally would not change. If it caused something it should be as timeless as it. Therefore the first premise holds, and the second is self-evident.
it’s of that you keep saying the kalam doesn’t mention god, yet you claim it proves god.
interesting.
first, i know what soundness is. i’m calling some things into question. first is that premises being true and accepted as true lead us to any conclusion whatever; calling either sound or valid. second, that soundness is questionable, given more than one conclusion may exist given the very same premises. so, this regards the implication that with SOUND arguments mean something because conclusions of sound arguments must be true.
this is not a remarkable note i’m having you make. no logician would imply logic proves anything aside from the limited meaning of “proof” in axiomatic systems. in reality, logic for real world applications simply requested to “linear thinking”and not much more.
to the point however, and what i’m focusing on from here out, is this idea that this “eternality” MUST be volitional.
to wit:
1) from ex nihilo nihil fit, something always existed.
2) things which exist change.
3) not all things which change are volitional.
4) therefore, it is not a sound argument that this “eternality” is volitional.
5) further more, from ex sicut a similibus, non temporal causes cannot effect temporal reality.
6) the kalam describes god as changeless.
7) from 5 and 6, this “eternality” cannot be god, and
8) therefore, this line of argumentation cannot prove anything about god.
also, i hope you can forgive my phone’s text gesturing mistakes … and in the previous premises, add a 3A, such that “all things which exist are causal”.
if you want to explore this more, by the way, micael, then notice that the only premise that matters is your last one; that personality is required, else the eternality would never change and would not create anything.
one flaw in your logic is the hidden premise that this “eternality” must have a will because CAUSES must be volitional. of course that’s the second logical mistake. we know from common experience and common sense that most causes are completely inert and mindless. this is why i say that since this “eternality” MAY BE or MAY NOT BE volitional, the conclusion THAT it is or isn’t cannot be a necessary conclusion and therefore cannot be a sound argument, therefore is only perhaps valid, therefore, an uninteresting argument as valid arguments about anything are easy to make and are merely a matter of grammar.
[…] Jag själv har satsat en hel del på gatuapologetik när vi varit ute, Ny Generations käcka tröja ”Jag är kristen, fråga mig varför?” har varit på och en kväll gjorde jag en liten skylt av en papptallrik där jag utlovade Gudsbevis på två minuter. Vad jag sa då har jag beskrivit på min engelska blogg Holy Spirit Activism. […]
[…] I and Sarah were evangelising in the Swedish town of Åsele over a month ago, my team leader was Steffen Holm from Denmark. A radical evangelist, he is […]
[…] Steffen’s Heal… on Proving God’s Existence… […]