I like this question. Its one that is a "show stopper" for many debates, and the level of knowledge of the debaters will determine on who's side it stops. Let's look at it.
As mentioned in my post "How It All Began- Part 2", people who hold a naturalistic worldview believe that life on earth was planted here by a superior race of aliens. These people are often challenged by pointing out that they have not eliminated the need for God; they've only moved His need back one step. "Who created the aliens?" If they hold to a naturalistic worldview, they are stuck- unless they want to posit another race of aliens created the aliens who planted life on earth. Of course, they could keep going infinitely back in time, and they would never actually explain an ultimate beginning of any life.
Many Naturalists know this, so they throw the question back to us. "Who Created God?" They believe that we are in the same predicament that they are. They anticipate our response of "God is eternal" and are prepared to laugh us down by rhetorically asking, "how can you posit attributes of something that you haven't proven even exists?"
However, the table can be turned on the Naturalist by the Theist who is armed properly. Since Naturalists don't regard the Bible as a reliable source, I won't appeal to it, and neither should the Christian in this position (if he does, the Naturalist will target the Bible as a reliable source rather than the issue- not that they would provide any good evidence, they would just laugh it away, along with the audience). I will appeal to the Bible as a source for the Christian's benefit later in the post, though.
According to the general theory of relativity space, matter, energy, and time came into existence at a single point in the finite past (The Big Bang). The key here is that time itself has a beginning. Keep in mind that "create" is a verb that requires time (creator...some time passes...creation). If time did not exist before the Big Bang, then whatever is out "there" is "time-less". Whatever is out "there" is also "beginning-less" and "end-less". If something has no beginning, it has no need for a beginner (creator).
The cause of the universe caused time, therefore is outside of time, therefore has no beginning, therefore has no beginner. The Christian faith teaches that God is the Cause of the universe; therefore God is outside of time; therefore God has no beginning; therefore God has no beginner.
Not only does the Bible teach that God created the universe, it also teaches that God existed before time existed.
John 1:1-3, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." If creation includes time, then God existed before time.
John 17:24, "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world." God was active before time.
I Corinthians 2:7, "No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began." God was active before time.
That list of verses is certainly not comprehensive, but provides a good start for the Christian looking or the non-Christian checking that the Bible actual does teach this.
Here's a quick video from Randall Niles:
For more information:
Websites
Reasonablefaith.org
Podcasts
Defenders
Books
Beyond the Cosmos- Hugh Ross
God's Existence, Science and Faith, Suffering and Evil, Jesus' Resurrection, and Book Reviews
Comments Now Open!
***Comment Policy Updated for 2021 and beyond***
Before posting a comment, please read my review of the book "Before You Hit SEND: Preventing Headache and Heartache" by Emerson Eggerichs. I highly recommend reading the full book as it is an excellent guide to gentle and respectful communication online.
Additionally, here are a few explicit rules:
1. No trolling
2. No ad hominem attacks
3. No bad language, please- some people do take offense to certain words, you know which ones not to use- use a thesaurus if you have to.
4. You are to treat everyone with gentleness and respect.
1. No trolling
2. No ad hominem attacks
3. No bad language, please- some people do take offense to certain words, you know which ones not to use- use a thesaurus if you have to.
4. You are to treat everyone with gentleness and respect.
5. Speak to and about everyone with grace. There are no exceptions.
6. Don't be too sensitive (not every challenge is disrespectful)
7. Keep the comments focused on the topic in the original post
6. Don't be too sensitive (not every challenge is disrespectful)
7. Keep the comments focused on the topic in the original post
8. No "shot gun" approach to challenging, either in a single comment or multiple comments. Pick one or two things to address and be patient so the dialog may be graceful and productive
9. Show other arguments the respect you wish yours to be shown
10. Anonymity is a privilege of the internet. Do not use it to abuse others or hide from criticism
9. Show other arguments the respect you wish yours to be shown
10. Anonymity is a privilege of the internet. Do not use it to abuse others or hide from criticism
I do moderate comments, and I will approve comments that are within the spirit of the rules. Please note that I do not have time to respond to everyone's comment and there may be a delay in my approval of comments.
This Argument Is Full of Crap!
This is something that is so easy to do when in a discussion with someone. You know, your conversation is heading one direction, then one of you say something that causes it to take a hard left. In normal conversation, this is not a problem; in fact, it makes conversations lively and lengthy. However, in a conversation that involves one or both of the parties defending a position, there are a few things to look out for from your "opponent" and yourself.
They are called logical fallacies. It is advantageous to be able to recognize when your opponent is using one. It is also to your own benefit to ensure you don't use them either. In other words, be able and willing to call "Bull Crap!" on yourself and your opponent.
I'm going to quickly discuss four of the most common pitfalls.
The Genetic Fallacy
The genetic fallacy is committed anytime the truth of a claim is based on its origin. A common example is believing something is true (such as your religion) because your parents said it is true. Though it may be true, just because your parents say that it is, does not make it so.
This fallacy is commonly committed in a debate when an opponent (confronted with solid evidence) says something along the lines of, "You just believe that because that's how you were brought up," or "people believed that hundreds of years ago." From either of these, they try to make the conclusion that what you are defending can't possibly be true. But that does not follow.
If this fallacy were to be committed by your opponent, you can neutralize the attack by applying the exact same reasoning to something that both of you would agree is ridiculous. By way of the examples above, good responses might sound something like these, "I was brought up to believe the earth is a sphere. Should I not believe that either?" and "Hundreds of years ago people believed the sun was the center of the solar system. Am I wrong to believe that also?" Then explain why their attack is useless.
The ad hominem Attack
This is a fallacious attack on the person presenting the argument. Most of the time this takes place in the shape of an attack on the character or the credibility of the person presenting the argument.
Character and credibility have nothing to do with whether or not a conclusion is correct. We would all agree that Hitler is probably one of the persons with the worst character in history; however, if he told us that adultery is wrong, we would be committing an ad hominem attack if we pointed out that he killed over 6 million people, then concluded that we couldn't trust him on moral issues. We know that adultery is wrong, but we could not defend our position based on the character of the person making the argument (Hitler). The reason for this is because someone else whom we may consider to be of a much higher character than Hitler may make the exact same argument, and our counter-argument that we used against Hitler would not work against the new opponent.
The key to preventing yourself from using this kind of attack is to ask yourself if your argument (or counter-argument) could be used no matter who you were arguing against.
If this type of attack were to be made by your opponent, you may want to question its validity by asking them to defend their claim (that your character somehow makes your argument invalid). If they are placed back on the defensive, they are placed into the uncomfortable position of defending a personal attack. They may also accuse you of trying to divert the subject by asking them to defend this position, but you may reply by pointing out that an attack on your character was the diversion first attempted by them- you are just going with the flow.
Check out the Wikipedia article about ad hominem attacks.
The Straw Man Fallacy
The Straw Man fallacy is a favorite among all people. What's tricky about this one is that it can be committed knowingly or unknowingly.
The Straw Man fallacy basically involves misrepresenting the opposing argument in such a way that it is easily destroyed by your counter-arguments. A lot of times, someone setting up a "straw man" will "forget" an important piece of or over-simplify the opposing argument.
The people who commit this fallacy unknowingly typically just haven't done their homework in respect to the position they are arguing against. If someone ever says "You are misrepresenting the facts of my position", you have committed this fallacy unknowingly; you need to admit it, and promise to do more research to adjust your argument to be fighting the "real issue" not a fake issue that is in your head.
The people who commit this fallacy knowingly typically do it without the opposition to correct them. This allows the people attending to "see" why the arguments of the opposition are useless. But, when one of the attendees confront someone of the opposing position, they will be made to be a fool, because of the original presenter's "straw man" representation of the opposing argument.
This fallacy is so easy to fall into. This is why we need to make certain that we understand the opposition's position and the arguments they use to reach their conclusions. Don't spend time fighting against something that is not the actual issue (just a bad representation of it) (the "straw man"). It is best to find the strongest arguments for the opposition and argue against those. If you can successfully argue against your opponent's strongest evidences, you will do considerable damage to their position.
Common Belief Fallacy
I have seen way too many people claim that because "many" people believe something, that makes it true or at least viable. However, this does a great disservice to the definition of "truth". If a "common belief" were to hold any amount of weight for determining "truth", then "truth" would be reduced to being relative to how whims of the people. Absolute "truth" would then never be able to be known, thus destroying any reason for even arguing about the truth of anything, because it might change in the next couple years.
I would also like to know if "many" is a reference to number or percentage. If number, the relative to what other number to define it as "many"? What is the significance of using the word "many" anyway? Why not "some" or "a few" or "tons" or no quantitative (referring to number of) adjective at all? The only conclusion that can be arrived at by a claim of this sort (regardless of the adjective) is that it is in the minds of people, thus needs attention. But nothing more.
Note to All about Fallacies
By committing any of these fallacies, we commit academic dishonesty in our arguments and lose credibility among our peers, the public, and those we wish to debate.
Note to Christians about Fallacies
As a Christian, this is extremely important because the limit of our credibility will be the limit to which people will listen to our message. Also, some people will project our limited credibility onto others who hold our same position (whether or not the others have made the same mistake we did of committing these fallacies). As Christians we should understand the eternal damage we could be causing by even flirting with one of these fallacies.
Now, I'm not trying to say that I never have or never will commit one (read as "all") of these fallacies. I will make mistakes, but when I do, I back-peddle as quickly as I possibly can to maintain my (and my peers') credibility.
Here's a good blog post about intellectual honesty and the Bible:
Integrating Argument and Virtue
For more information about these fallacies and others, Norman Geisler has a great book Come, Let Us Reason.
Here are a couple episodes of Straight Thinking by Kenneth Samples in which he discusses logic and touches a bit on these fallacies.
Need for Dispassionate Analysis
Avoiding the Straw Man
Avoiding the ad-Hominem Attack
They are called logical fallacies. It is advantageous to be able to recognize when your opponent is using one. It is also to your own benefit to ensure you don't use them either. In other words, be able and willing to call "Bull Crap!" on yourself and your opponent.
I'm going to quickly discuss four of the most common pitfalls.
The Genetic Fallacy
The genetic fallacy is committed anytime the truth of a claim is based on its origin. A common example is believing something is true (such as your religion) because your parents said it is true. Though it may be true, just because your parents say that it is, does not make it so.
This fallacy is commonly committed in a debate when an opponent (confronted with solid evidence) says something along the lines of, "You just believe that because that's how you were brought up," or "people believed that hundreds of years ago." From either of these, they try to make the conclusion that what you are defending can't possibly be true. But that does not follow.
If this fallacy were to be committed by your opponent, you can neutralize the attack by applying the exact same reasoning to something that both of you would agree is ridiculous. By way of the examples above, good responses might sound something like these, "I was brought up to believe the earth is a sphere. Should I not believe that either?" and "Hundreds of years ago people believed the sun was the center of the solar system. Am I wrong to believe that also?" Then explain why their attack is useless.
The ad hominem Attack
This is a fallacious attack on the person presenting the argument. Most of the time this takes place in the shape of an attack on the character or the credibility of the person presenting the argument.
Character and credibility have nothing to do with whether or not a conclusion is correct. We would all agree that Hitler is probably one of the persons with the worst character in history; however, if he told us that adultery is wrong, we would be committing an ad hominem attack if we pointed out that he killed over 6 million people, then concluded that we couldn't trust him on moral issues. We know that adultery is wrong, but we could not defend our position based on the character of the person making the argument (Hitler). The reason for this is because someone else whom we may consider to be of a much higher character than Hitler may make the exact same argument, and our counter-argument that we used against Hitler would not work against the new opponent.
The key to preventing yourself from using this kind of attack is to ask yourself if your argument (or counter-argument) could be used no matter who you were arguing against.
If this type of attack were to be made by your opponent, you may want to question its validity by asking them to defend their claim (that your character somehow makes your argument invalid). If they are placed back on the defensive, they are placed into the uncomfortable position of defending a personal attack. They may also accuse you of trying to divert the subject by asking them to defend this position, but you may reply by pointing out that an attack on your character was the diversion first attempted by them- you are just going with the flow.
Check out the Wikipedia article about ad hominem attacks.
The Straw Man Fallacy
The Straw Man fallacy is a favorite among all people. What's tricky about this one is that it can be committed knowingly or unknowingly.
The Straw Man fallacy basically involves misrepresenting the opposing argument in such a way that it is easily destroyed by your counter-arguments. A lot of times, someone setting up a "straw man" will "forget" an important piece of or over-simplify the opposing argument.
The people who commit this fallacy unknowingly typically just haven't done their homework in respect to the position they are arguing against. If someone ever says "You are misrepresenting the facts of my position", you have committed this fallacy unknowingly; you need to admit it, and promise to do more research to adjust your argument to be fighting the "real issue" not a fake issue that is in your head.
The people who commit this fallacy knowingly typically do it without the opposition to correct them. This allows the people attending to "see" why the arguments of the opposition are useless. But, when one of the attendees confront someone of the opposing position, they will be made to be a fool, because of the original presenter's "straw man" representation of the opposing argument.
This fallacy is so easy to fall into. This is why we need to make certain that we understand the opposition's position and the arguments they use to reach their conclusions. Don't spend time fighting against something that is not the actual issue (just a bad representation of it) (the "straw man"). It is best to find the strongest arguments for the opposition and argue against those. If you can successfully argue against your opponent's strongest evidences, you will do considerable damage to their position.
Common Belief Fallacy
I have seen way too many people claim that because "many" people believe something, that makes it true or at least viable. However, this does a great disservice to the definition of "truth". If a "common belief" were to hold any amount of weight for determining "truth", then "truth" would be reduced to being relative to how whims of the people. Absolute "truth" would then never be able to be known, thus destroying any reason for even arguing about the truth of anything, because it might change in the next couple years.
I would also like to know if "many" is a reference to number or percentage. If number, the relative to what other number to define it as "many"? What is the significance of using the word "many" anyway? Why not "some" or "a few" or "tons" or no quantitative (referring to number of) adjective at all? The only conclusion that can be arrived at by a claim of this sort (regardless of the adjective) is that it is in the minds of people, thus needs attention. But nothing more.
Note to All about Fallacies
By committing any of these fallacies, we commit academic dishonesty in our arguments and lose credibility among our peers, the public, and those we wish to debate.
Note to Christians about Fallacies
As a Christian, this is extremely important because the limit of our credibility will be the limit to which people will listen to our message. Also, some people will project our limited credibility onto others who hold our same position (whether or not the others have made the same mistake we did of committing these fallacies). As Christians we should understand the eternal damage we could be causing by even flirting with one of these fallacies.
Now, I'm not trying to say that I never have or never will commit one (read as "all") of these fallacies. I will make mistakes, but when I do, I back-peddle as quickly as I possibly can to maintain my (and my peers') credibility.
Here's a good blog post about intellectual honesty and the Bible:
Integrating Argument and Virtue
For more information about these fallacies and others, Norman Geisler has a great book Come, Let Us Reason.
Here are a couple episodes of Straight Thinking by Kenneth Samples in which he discusses logic and touches a bit on these fallacies.
Need for Dispassionate Analysis
Avoiding the Straw Man
Avoiding the ad-Hominem Attack
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)