Thinking to Believe

I explain the contingency argument, and explain why the universe cannot be a metaphysically necessary being or brute fact. I also provide a few tactical ways you can explain the contingency argument to others using illustrations. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

The contingency argument for God's existence is a cosmological argument, but unlike the kalam argument, it does not require a temporally finite universe. The contingency argument holds that even an eternal universe requires a cause, and that cause is God. The essence of the argument is that things which don’t have to exist, but do, can only be explained by something that does have to exist, namely God. In this episode, I cover the objective of the argument, the keys to the argument, key concepts to understand, and offer three brief formulations of the argument. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

In this last episode in the kalam series, I address more objections to the conclusion of the argument. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

I show how we can get from the generic concept of a "god" creating the universe to the God of Christian theism, and then move on to objections against the conclusion of the Kalam, starting with the most common of all objections: Who caused God? Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

In addition to having the properties of immateriality, spacelessness, eternality, and power, I argue that the First Cause must also possess the properties of intelligence and volition. Since intelligence and volition are features of personal agents, the First Cause must be a personal agent. Only the God of theism fits the bill. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

Now that we have established that the Kalam successfully demonstrates that the universe has a cause, we need to determine what or who that cause is. Using a logical analysis, I explain the necessary properties of such a cause. I examine each one to determine whether they exhibit the necessary properties of the First Cause and find each one wanting. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

I answer several objections against the argument for the impossibility of an actual infinite that I offered in the last episode: 1. Infinite set theory shows that infinities exist 2. You can divide anything an infinite number of times 3. God is said to be infinite 4. God’s knowledge is infinite Then, I explain the last two philosophical arguments against an infinite past, namely (1) that an infinite cannot be formed by successive addition and (2) it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

In this episode, I deal with a few objections to the scientific evidence for premise 2 of Kalam before proceeding on to provide the first of three philosophical evidences for premise 2 (the logical impossibility of an actual infinite). Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

I address the concerns that cause many Christians to reject the Big Bang theory, show how the theory has come to be accepted as fact by the consensus of scientists, and why all of the new models being put forward by scientists hoping to escape a cosmic beginning fail in their attempt to do so. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

While the Big Bang theory has become the standard model in science and accepted by the vast majority of scientists, that was not always the case. Initially, many scientists rejected the theory because of its theistic implications. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

I continue my examination of the Big Bang theory. I look at what scientists think of the theory and why the theory is so important. Then, I look at the concept of the singularity in more detail, arguing that it was not a thing that existed, but a scientific description of nothingness. That morphed into a brief discussion of the meaning of "nothing." Finally, I offered four lines of empirical evidence in favor of the Big Bang theory. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

I begin my examination of premise 2 of the Kalam (the universe began to exist). I present three scientific evidences in support of the premise: 1. Radioactive decay 2. Second Law of Thermodynamics 3. Big Bang The Big Bang theory takes a lot of unpacking, so I've only just begun the conversation in this episode by explaining the theory and its historical development. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

I conclude my examination of objections to the first premise of the KCA that everything which begins to exist must be caused to exist. I focus on scientific objections related to quantum mechanics such as virtual particles, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and the indeterminate nature of radioactive decay. I also address the objection that it is nonsensical to speak of efficient causation in the absence of material causation. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

I continue my examination of objections to the first premise of the KCA that everything which begins to exist must be caused to exist. The objections I cover in this episode include: (1) The argument equivocates on the meaning of "begins to exist" (2) Science cannot support the first premise it only shows that the transformation of matter from one state to another requires a cause - not that the origin of matter itself requires a cause. (3) We have no experience of things coming into being from nothing to know that they require a cause Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

I address what I consider to be the best argument against premise 1, namely Stephen Hawking's objection that the universe cannot have a cause because causes must precede their effect in time, and there was no time prior to the universe. I spent the entire episode on this single objection. Other objections will be addressed next episode. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

In this first episode of the detailed analysis of the Kalam cosmological argument, I provide four reasons for thinking that premise 1 is true ("Anything that begins to exist requires a cause"). Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

My third argument for God’s existence is the Kalam cosmological argument. In this 1-N-Done episode, I summarize the argument. I will explore the argument in-depth starting next week. The essence of the Kalam cosmological argument is that temporally finite things require a cause for their existence. Since the universe began to exist in the finite past, it also requires a cause. An examination of the properties required of such a cause match the properties of the theistic God. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

My second argument for God's existence is the Argument from the Impossibility of Nothingness. This is a lesser-known argument for God's existence, but I think it is quite powerful. The essence of the argument: If there was ever a time when nothing existed, there would still be nothing now because nothing has no potential to become something. And yet something exists, so there could never be a time in the past when nothing existed. Something must have always existed. The universe is not that something since physical reality came into existence at the Big Bang, so the eternal something must transcend physical reality. The eternal something must be immaterial, spaceless, and eternal, which is a basic description of God. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

My first argument for God's existence is the argument from personal experience. The essence of the argument is that if one has an experience of God, then God must exist. I argue that this experience is not aimed at convincing atheists of God's existence so much as it is demonstrating that theists who believe in God based on experience are rational for doing so. I end the episode by examining a few common objections raised against the argument, including the "well, then, why haven't I experienced God?" objection. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve

I begin the conversation on theism, looking specifically at the relationship between reason and belief in God. I discuss two kinds of reasons, explain why empirical evidence is not required for belief in God, discuss whether we can prove God's existence, discuss how best to argue for God’s existence, and why we need to make people want God to exist before we give them evidence that He exists. Web: ThinkingtoBelieve.com Email: ThinkingToBelieve@gmail.com Facebook: facebook.com/thinkingtobelieve Twitter & Gettr: @thinking2believ Parler & Truth: @ThinkingToBelieve