R.C. Sproul on the Law of Causality: http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/video/law-causality/
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Law of Causality- R.C. Sproul
A friend recommended this video concerning the law of causality to me. I found it relevant to my research on the Cosmological Argument and thought that others might enjoy!
R.C. Sproul on the Law of Causality: http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/video/law-causality/
R.C. Sproul on the Law of Causality: http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/video/law-causality/
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
My History with the Cosmological Argument
It has been some time since I have written anything on the blog. This was mostly due to finals being quite difficult this year. But now that school is over I am ready to go again!
I have decided to write an Honors Thesis concerning the Cosmological Argument. In my eyes, the most exciting part of this project is that Dr. Micah Green, a professor at Texas Tech and deacon at Redeemer Church has agreed to be my adviser. In the following series of blog posts, I will be sharing some of the correspondence between Dr. Green and myself concerning the Cosmological Argument and related topics. These posts will hopefully move in a more scholarly direction. If anyone has any questions or would like additional explanations of anything please let me know!
Without further ado, here is an email from myself to Dr. Green concerning where I have been thus far with the Cosmological Argument:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Micah!
I thought it would be helpful to share with you my experience thus far with the CA (Cosmological Argument), so that you know where I'm coming from. Sorry this is so long.
Early in high school I read 'The Case for A Creator.' It was in this book that I was exposed to several forms of the CA. I learned about the Kalam argument from Craig. My favorite version of the argument, however, was that which had to do with the impossibility of an infinite set- especially with regards to time.
My favorite version (while certainly not the only version I knew of) went like this:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Argument A- "Impossibility of infinite time"
If time goes infinitely into the past (there is no beginning), and travels in one direction at a finite rate, then we would never reach the present. In fact, no point in time would ever be reached because there would always be an infinite amount of time preceding any point in time. However, if a non-time, non-matter, non-energy being that 'just is' (or from it's perspective, 'I AM'), then this being could create a beginning of time. Therefore, it would be possible for us to reach the present only if an outside being had created a beginning.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the other versions that I befriended:
Argument B(i)- "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics"
All reactions give off heat. If reactions had been going on infinitely into the past, we would have reached heat death long before we ever got to the present. Once again, an outside being could create a beginning.
Argument B(ii)
Perhaps there were matter that existed but had not reached heat death due to activation energy. Even if this were the case (which seems a little outlandish), there would need to be an outside force to get everything moving.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Argument C- The Kalam CA
I don't think I need to restate this one.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Argument D- The Deductive Argument from Contingency
Once again, we've been over this one several times.
[Note: for a summary of Arguments C and D see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, those were the four main categories of the CA that I was familiar with throughout high school. I would often times share them with non-believers, with my FCA club, with my friends, and pretty much anyone who would listen. (However, the CA was not even what I considered to be the strongest argument for God's existence, but we can talk about other arguments another time.
It was a few years into college that I identified the assumptions that I was making about the versions of the argument:
With regards to argument A: I was assuming that time flowed in one direction at a finite rate. This is a good assumption to make after the big bang. In fact, this argument is only relevant if the big bang didn't happen. If the big bang did happen, we already know that there was a beginning to time, and we work from there. In addition, time is very unlike what I understood it to be in high school. Summary: I do not understand time well enough to justify my assumption (yet), and the argument's main function is as a fall-back if we were to discover that the big bang singularity did not actually happen (as opposed to the big bang phase).
With regards to argument B: I assumed that the 2nd law of thermo held true in the big bang singularity. This is why in my blog posts I talk about the laws of physics being broken! If the 2nd law of thermo held true at the big bang, then argument B is legit. However, if the 2nd law of thermo does not hold true in a singularity, then argument B breaks down at the very point at which it becomes useful to us.
With regards to argument C: I assumed that cause and effect reasoning held true in a singularity. This is why in my blog posts that I questioned the laws of logic (and I should have just been questioning cause and effect, not the other three laws that I mentioned in an earlier email on that topic). If cause and effect holds true in a singularity (or causelessness is impossible in a singularity), then we have ourselves a legit argument. However, it may in fact be the case that if there were a point in history when it looked like something came from nothing, we would no longer be able to say that it is impossible for things to come from nothing (or lack a cause). So, the argument wraps around on itself and shoots itself in the foot.
With regards to argument D: It seems to me that this argument is dependent on the other arguments. If A,B, and C do not hold true for the specific reasons I mentioned, then argument D also does not hold true.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion:
I have identified the assumptions upon which I based my reasoning concerning the CA. Now I am simply trying to find out if those are good assumptions. Can they be justified or will they be demonstrated to be false?
I hope that this will help to focus our discussions!
Thank you for reading!!!
-Josh
I have decided to write an Honors Thesis concerning the Cosmological Argument. In my eyes, the most exciting part of this project is that Dr. Micah Green, a professor at Texas Tech and deacon at Redeemer Church has agreed to be my adviser. In the following series of blog posts, I will be sharing some of the correspondence between Dr. Green and myself concerning the Cosmological Argument and related topics. These posts will hopefully move in a more scholarly direction. If anyone has any questions or would like additional explanations of anything please let me know!
Without further ado, here is an email from myself to Dr. Green concerning where I have been thus far with the Cosmological Argument:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Micah!
I thought it would be helpful to share with you my experience thus far with the CA (Cosmological Argument), so that you know where I'm coming from. Sorry this is so long.
Early in high school I read 'The Case for A Creator.' It was in this book that I was exposed to several forms of the CA. I learned about the Kalam argument from Craig. My favorite version of the argument, however, was that which had to do with the impossibility of an infinite set- especially with regards to time.
My favorite version (while certainly not the only version I knew of) went like this:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Argument A- "Impossibility of infinite time"
If time goes infinitely into the past (there is no beginning), and travels in one direction at a finite rate, then we would never reach the present. In fact, no point in time would ever be reached because there would always be an infinite amount of time preceding any point in time. However, if a non-time, non-matter, non-energy being that 'just is' (or from it's perspective, 'I AM'), then this being could create a beginning of time. Therefore, it would be possible for us to reach the present only if an outside being had created a beginning.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the other versions that I befriended:
Argument B(i)- "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics"
All reactions give off heat. If reactions had been going on infinitely into the past, we would have reached heat death long before we ever got to the present. Once again, an outside being could create a beginning.
Argument B(ii)
Perhaps there were matter that existed but had not reached heat death due to activation energy. Even if this were the case (which seems a little outlandish), there would need to be an outside force to get everything moving.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Argument C- The Kalam CA
I don't think I need to restate this one.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Argument D- The Deductive Argument from Contingency
Once again, we've been over this one several times.
[Note: for a summary of Arguments C and D see http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, those were the four main categories of the CA that I was familiar with throughout high school. I would often times share them with non-believers, with my FCA club, with my friends, and pretty much anyone who would listen. (However, the CA was not even what I considered to be the strongest argument for God's existence, but we can talk about other arguments another time.
It was a few years into college that I identified the assumptions that I was making about the versions of the argument:
With regards to argument A: I was assuming that time flowed in one direction at a finite rate. This is a good assumption to make after the big bang. In fact, this argument is only relevant if the big bang didn't happen. If the big bang did happen, we already know that there was a beginning to time, and we work from there. In addition, time is very unlike what I understood it to be in high school. Summary: I do not understand time well enough to justify my assumption (yet), and the argument's main function is as a fall-back if we were to discover that the big bang singularity did not actually happen (as opposed to the big bang phase).
With regards to argument B: I assumed that the 2nd law of thermo held true in the big bang singularity. This is why in my blog posts I talk about the laws of physics being broken! If the 2nd law of thermo held true at the big bang, then argument B is legit. However, if the 2nd law of thermo does not hold true in a singularity, then argument B breaks down at the very point at which it becomes useful to us.
With regards to argument C: I assumed that cause and effect reasoning held true in a singularity. This is why in my blog posts that I questioned the laws of logic (and I should have just been questioning cause and effect, not the other three laws that I mentioned in an earlier email on that topic). If cause and effect holds true in a singularity (or causelessness is impossible in a singularity), then we have ourselves a legit argument. However, it may in fact be the case that if there were a point in history when it looked like something came from nothing, we would no longer be able to say that it is impossible for things to come from nothing (or lack a cause). So, the argument wraps around on itself and shoots itself in the foot.
With regards to argument D: It seems to me that this argument is dependent on the other arguments. If A,B, and C do not hold true for the specific reasons I mentioned, then argument D also does not hold true.
--------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion:
I have identified the assumptions upon which I based my reasoning concerning the CA. Now I am simply trying to find out if those are good assumptions. Can they be justified or will they be demonstrated to be false?
I hope that this will help to focus our discussions!
Thank you for reading!!!
-Josh
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Spiritual Doorway in the Brain Chapter 5 Part 1: The Brain at Death’s Portal
Nelson’s finally pinpointed when the NDE occurs! We’ve determined what its neurophysiologic cause is. The symptoms of a NDE generally crop up due to a lack of blood to the brain. Even a reduction in blood flow can cause a NDE.
Nelson has noticed a correlation between the amount of blood flow to the brain and the experiences that follow. The “tunnel” phenomenon actually occurs because of lack of blood flow to the eyes (an extension of the optic nerve of the brain). The retina is particularly sensitive to blood availability. When blood is in low supply peripheral vision suffers first, therefore the patient with limited blood flow feels as though they are looking through a tunnel. They are only able to see a small circle of their usual field (right in the middle where the concentration of rods and cones are higher).
As it turns out, when blood deprivation occurs, the first function to fail is the visual system (peripheral vision being the absolute first). This explains why people blackout before a NDE and remain semiconscious before losing consciousness completely.
This phenomenon was discovered through the work of Dr. Lambert using a machine simulating G-force for research participants and specialized goggles that would allow blood flow to the eyes for a longer period of time than without them.
When exposed to 2Gs of gravitational force (without afore mentioned goggles) the eyes lose blood and the subject is temporarily blind. When that force is increased or lasts too long (just a few seconds) the person loses consciousness/faints.
During experiments the specialized goggles allowed the subjects to keep their vision, that is, until they passed out (then it didn’t matter whether they had blood flow to the eyes because the brain couldn’t process visual information anyway).
People regularly have NDEs during a faint (this cause was at the top of the list for Nelson’s fifty-five subjects during his research experiments, making it possibly the most common cause for NDEs).
20% of the blood that the heart pumps goes to and feeds/oxygenates the brain. If a third of this blood is reduced the brain stays active for about ten to twenty seconds before it loses consciousness.
Unfortunately, if the brain’s blood flow is reduced by 90% for 30 minutes or more there will be permanent damage. If no blood reaches the brain for a minute or two, the patient will fall into a coma that may last longer than a few hours. If no blood goes to the brain for 4 minutes or longer the temporary brain problems become permanent damage.
The portions of the brain that are most sensitive in this scenario are memory structures (limbic system/hippocampus). This (product of selection during evolution) is another way the body is able to keep itself alive under dire circumstances.
The brain structures that keep the body operational will be the absolute last thing to go.
Let’s revisit fainting.
Our own Dr. Nelson involved himself in a game where he and his friends decided to make themselves safely (theoretically) pass out and see what happened. Nelson was successful and had an experience in which he pictured his father calling him home. This turned out to be somewhat of a premonition because Dr. Nelson was supposed to be home for a family outing he’d forgotten about. However, he realized (later in life) that something triggered his memory about the plans his family made while he was under his intentional unconsciousness.
Experiments for NDEs involve subjects safely fainting in laboratories and recording what happens on a high speed video camera. Then the subjects are asked about their experiences. The research team then compared their descriptions to what Raymond Moody (the first person to record his patient’s near-death experiences in the 1970s) described as the near-death experience. The team “found no real difference between the two types of experiences.” Nelson determined that this would be a great system for his research strategy; making people faint would give the same results as any experience that resulted from lack of blood flow but would be much safer for the subjects when done correctly.
Have you ever had a NDE while unconscious or having fainted?
Personally, I’ve had an experience in which I fainted and felt as though I was surrounded by people when there was really only one person around. I saw a white concentrated light right at the center of the beings I envisioned. It seemed to last much longer than the faint actually occurred (I know this now).
I encourage anyone who reads this blog to remember any such experience and try to compare and contrast the details of it with what we’ve learned because of Dr. Nelson’s research.
To be continued…
Wait for my next post for the rest of the story. I hate to make you wait too long so I’ve decided to do each chapter in parts. It should also make it more pleasant to read as well!
See you next time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)