Evidence for God's Existence

[WinePusher]

When I first joined this forum I remember McCulloch was creating a series of topics devoted to the various arguments for God's existence. I'd like to explore those issues in this thread and for the purpose of this thread God will be defined as a deistic, supernatural intelligent designer. We will not be using any theistic definition of God.

Teleological arguments prove God's existence based on the design and precise structure of the universe. The universe is structured in an improbable and an unlikely way. The physical laws that govern the universe are fine tuned to an extremely unlikely numerical value, and had these laws been set at any other parameter life could not exist. Statistically speaking, chance/coincidence is not an appropriate explanation, therefore a fine tuner/intelligent designer designed the universe.

Ontological arguments prove God's existence based on the definition of God. God is defined as a maximally great being, meaning that God can have no defects. Nonexistence is a defect, therefore God must exist. First of all, this argument pretty much destroys the ignostic position. Yes, I realize ignostics are willingly ignorant of all the philosophical scholarship surrounding God, but the fact is that the concept of God is pretty well defined. Therefore, the ignostics usergroup should be abolished.

Cosmological arguments prove God's existence based on the fact that the universe began to exist. Meaning, at one point in the distant past, the universe did not exist at all. The universe is itself contingent. Mathematically speaking, it is impossible for the chain of causes to regress backwards infinitely. Therefore, a non contingent first cause must exist. This cause supernatural, in the sense that it must be spaceless and timeless since space and time are bound by the universe.

Moral arguments prove God's existence based on the existence of objective morality. By objective morality I mean a moral statement or declaration. Something like 'killing is an innocent person for fun is wrong.' This is a moral declaration that is objectively true, regardless of any individuals personal opinion. Since an objective moral law exists, there must be a moral law giver. Another version of the moral argument would be the fact that the world would be morally absurd and irrational absent a moral law giver.


Questions:
1) Are these arguments logically valid and sound?

2) In light of these four philosophical arguments, will atheists please stop making the false, disingenuous claim that there is no evidence for God?

3) Are there any arguments against the existence of God?

[TheJoshAbideth]

When I first joined this forum I remember McCulloch was creating a series of topics devoted to the various arguments for God's existence. I'd like to explore those issues in this thread and for the purpose of this thread God will be defined as a deistic, supernatural intelligent designer. We will not be using any theistic definition of God.

Teleological arguments prove God's existence based on the design and precise structure of the universe. The universe is structured in an improbable and an unlikely way. The physical laws that govern the universe are fine tuned to an extremely unlikely numerical value, and had these laws been set at any other parameter life could not exist. Statistically speaking, chance/coincidence is not an appropriate explanation, therefore a fine tuner/intelligent designer designed the universe.

Ontological arguments prove God's existence based on the definition of God. God is defined as a maximally great being, meaning that God can have no defects. Nonexistence is a defect, therefore God must exist. First of all, this argument pretty much destroys the ignostic position. Yes, I realize ignostics are willingly ignorant of all the philosophical scholarship surrounding God, but the fact is that the concept of God is pretty well defined. Therefore, the ignostics usergroup should be abolished.

Cosmological arguments prove God's existence based on the fact that the universe began to exist. Meaning, at one point in the distant past, the universe did not exist at all. The universe is itself contingent. Mathematically speaking, it is impossible for the chain of causes to regress backwards infinitely. Therefore, a non contingent first cause must exist. This cause supernatural, in the sense that it must be spaceless and timeless since space and time are bound by the universe.

Moral arguments prove God's existence based on the existence of objective morality. By objective morality I mean a moral statement or declaration. Something like 'killing is an innocent person for fun is wrong.' This is a moral declaration that is objectively true, regardless of any individuals personal opinion. Since an objective moral law exists, there must be a moral law giver. Another version of the moral argument would be the fact that the world would be morally absurd and irrational absent a moral law giver.


Questions:
1) Are these arguments logically valid and sound?

2) In light of these four philosophical arguments, will atheists please stop making the false, disingenuous claim that there is no evidence for God?

3) Are there any arguments against the existence of God?

teleological arguments:

The arguments do not prove God, and they are not evidence for any God in particular, they simply offer room for postulating any number of theories that attempt to explain the origins of the universe and why it is the way it is, of which "A" God is one.

ontological arguments:

Just because a conclusion is valid, does not mean it's true - The argument succeeds at merely validating the concept - not proving or providing evidence for what the concept attempts to explain in reality.

Cosmological arguments:

Like teleological arguments, it simply claims the space left vacant by our ignorance of what actually transpired at the universes inception. It is again conjecture - not proof or evidence of anything other than to say that God as an explanation is a possibility.

Moral Arguments:

Are not proof or evidence of anything - For them to provide valid evidence for the existence of God, you would first need to prove that absolute morality is actually a thing, that exists in reality other than as a concept.

Answers:

1. they may be - but as stated previously validity does not necessarily speak to the truth of a thing. As far as soundness goes, I think it is self evident that I think not.

2. If the above arguments were more than simply evidence for the "possibility" of a God or the mere existence of a concept, then your request might be reasonable.

3. Sure, but most that I can think of pertain to a specific theological iteration or definition of God. beyond that - the God concept in it's most deistic neutral form is so vague that it digresses into mere philosophical exercise anyway.

[Divine Insight]

However, when it comes to deism, when it comes to a generic intelligent designer the evidence is overwhelming. This is why atheism is an untenable position. Atheism does not reject Christianity, it rejects the possibility of God entirely.

I disagree. The evidence for a deist God is not overwhelming. On the contrary, even in deistic philosophies there is a lot of evidence against an "Intelligent Designer". Even Deists need to have faith that there can be explanations that basically defy reason.

For example, why would an "Intelligent Designer" design a dog-eat-dog world in the first place? I confess that this troubles me to an extreme extent. Almost to the point of confessing that my continued hold-out to "believe" in a mystical God is indeed "against all odds".

As you point out, a God is supposed to be, "omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.", as a matter of simply semantic definition. A God that is any less then these things seems to be an entity that may not be the end-and and be-all of everything,.

Some forms of deism allow that God may not have complete choice in everything it does. That would give support for utterly stupid things like a dog-eat-dog world, for example.

The fact that the world is dog-eat-dog (and was so long before humans showed up on the planet) is pretty conclusive evidence that Humans most certainly can't be held responsible for this situation.

On the other hand if you want to argue for a very specific folklore or dogma that claims to be the "Word of God" in a very human-like personified way then the number of arguments against such a God suddenly overwhelm any arguments that can be made for these kinds of God.

I agree, there are valid arguments on both sides of this issue.

That's not what i said. I said, "the number of arguments against such a God suddenly overwhelm any arguments that can be made for these kinds of Gods."

It is my position and conclusion that this is absolutely true of all the Abrahamic Religions, and in particular Christianity and Islam. It it my conclusion that these detailed descriptions of God cannot possibly be true because they totally contradict their own claims of what this God should be about.

? Go ahead and be more specific.

I am more specific all the time in my posts on this issue. Like I just said above, the idea of a God trying to pin the blame of "evil" onto humans in the Bible is absurd. Humans didn't create a dog-eat-dog world. Moreover, why would a God who wants us to be moral create a world that is inherently immoral itself?

That would be giving us an extremely bad example.

I could go on and on with countless contradictions, but this one is already profound enough.

So yes, IMHO, there are very sound and credible arguments against the Biblical fables of "God".

So am I to take it that you believe a deistic God may exist? If this is the case, the entire argument shifts from whether or not God exists to whether or not Christianity or Islam or any other religion is correct.

Yes, this is true. For the sake of argument I'll be glad to give anyone who argues for Christianity or Islam the premise that a deistic God may possibly exist. I will not accept that a deist God "must" exist. Only that it's "may" be possible with a whole lot of apologies for why it isn't acting "omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc."

The mystic philosophies offer far better apologies for why a deistic God may not appear to behave "omniscience, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc." However, I confess that even their excuses for God require one whale of a lot of faith.

Finally, it is my firm conclusion after having studied the Bible intently that the excuses for the Abrahamic God are often worse than the claims made by the Bible itself. But the problem is that the claims made by the Bible cannot be true.

In Genesis Chapter 1 this God creates a dog-eat-dog and sees that its "good"?

A dog-eat-dog is not good, IMHO, and if there was a reason that it needed to be that way that reason should have been explained in the Bible. Trying to pin the blame for this onto humans doesn't cut it for me. The evidence that animals ate each other and were designed to do so long before humans showed up on the planet is, IMHO, conclusive.

In Genesis Chapter 3 verse 3:16 to be exact, God curses Eve with greatly multiplied sorry and pain in conception and childbirth, and then punishes her by proclaiming that her husband shall rule over her.

IMHO, any creator who would use the procreation of life itself as a punishment has to be one sick and demented being. And condoning Male Chauvinism when Adam himself was every bit as guilty is nonsense.

Also, in these stories Eve confessed everything and even turned in the guilty party and explained precisely how it happened. Why should a God be mean and cruel to someone who has just confessed everything to God? I thought this God was supposed to forgive people who confess their sins?

Also, the fact that in this same chapter this God curses the evil serpent to crawl on his belly and eat dirt for the rest of his days is also absurd, IMHO. Not only does this seem like an unwise thing to do (two evil acts do not make a right in my book), but it also had absolutely no effect at all. It didn't even come close to addressing the problem of sin. On the contrary this same God had to come back and flood the entire planet out to kill the sinners later.

So I don't see where these stories represent any "wisdom". Nothing this God does even works. Did his curses on Eve work? Apparently not.

So these fables describe a God who does truly violent and unwise things in the hope that this might solve some problem, but the problem is NEVER SOLVED.

What kind of wisdom is that?

I have no choice but to conclude that these Biblical fables are simply far too unwise to be the words and actions of a supposedly all-wise God. And this was just in the first few chapters of Genesis, it only goes downhill from there.

I don't see where it's even worth trying to support the Bible as being anything more than truly unwise and poorly-thought-out myths.

So offering them the possibility of a deistic God isn't even going to help, IMHO.

[100%atheist]

.

The laws of physics tell us that the universe and "improbable" structures in it exist primarily because they are THE most probable by the second law of thermodynamics.

This sounds like an argumentum ad verbum sem to those who are not experts in science. Can you explain what you mean a bit more?

This is why I discourage people who don't know science to make general comments on failures of science.

The OP states that "the universe is structured in an improbable and unlikely way" which can't be explained by science. The truth is that thermodynamics describes the order in systems based on probability and does it pretty well. Specifically, the second law of thermodynamics states that a closed system tends to move to the most likely state that is the state with the highest probability. What is the state with the highest probability? If ALL DIFFERENT possible states (microstates) are equally probable then the system will move to a state that is a part of a group of SIMILAR states (macrostate). For example, if you have three coins and throw them, there are eight possible outcomes. h- head, and t- tail:

hhh
hht
hth
htt
thh
tht
tth
ttt

out of this 8 outcomes, 8 MICROSTATES:
1 all heads
1 all tails
3 two heads and one tail
3 two tails and one head
These groups of outcomes are MACROSTATES

The probability to get two heads and one tail is 3/8 = 0.375
But the probability to get all heads is 1/8 = 0.125
It is three times more likely to get 2 heads than 3 heads.

When the number of the microstates increases to the number of atoms/molecules/people/etc., the most probable macrostate becomes more probable than all other states by a VERY large margin.

The entropy S is simply proportional to the logarithm of the number of the microstates N that is
S=constant * ln(N).

//by the way, the constant is the Boltzmann constant, and this formula is on Boltzmann's gravestone//

When a system is in the most probable MACROSTATE we have the largest number of the microstates in that macrostate, so the entropy tends to be at maximum.

Also, the change in the entropy (S1-S2) is proportional to the minus-change in energy -(E1-E2), which means that when the entropy increases, the energy decreases. Thus, the state of a system with the maximum entropy, that is the most likely state, is also the state with the minimum of energy. The system tends to go to a state with the minimum energy.

This is the second law of thermodynamics in the nutshell.

In systems with a high degree of organization/symmetry like crystals, for example, the number of possible ways for the system to arrive to that organized form is hugely larger than the number of ways to be organized in any other possible form. This is how we explain organization using thermodynamics. And this explanation works pretty well so far.

[Goat]

When I first joined this forum I remember McCulloch was creating a series of topics devoted to the various arguments for God's existence. I'd like to explore those issues in this thread and for the purpose of this thread God will be defined as a deistic, supernatural intelligent designer. We will not be using any theistic definition of God.

Teleological arguments prove God's existence based on the design and precise structure of the universe. The universe is structured in an improbable and an unlikely way. The physical laws that govern the universe are fine tuned to an extremely unlikely numerical value, and had these laws been set at any other parameter life could not exist. Statistically speaking, chance/coincidence is not an appropriate explanation, therefore a fine tuner/intelligent designer designed the universe.

Ontological arguments prove God's existence based on the definition of God. God is defined as a maximally great being, meaning that God can have no defects. Nonexistence is a defect, therefore God must exist. First of all, this argument pretty much destroys the ignostic position. Yes, I realize ignostics are willingly ignorant of all the philosophical scholarship surrounding God, but the fact is that the concept of God is pretty well defined. Therefore, the ignostics usergroup should be abolished.

Cosmological arguments prove God's existence based on the fact that the universe began to exist. Meaning, at one point in the distant past, the universe did not exist at all. The universe is itself contingent. Mathematically speaking, it is impossible for the chain of causes to regress backwards infinitely. Therefore, a non contingent first cause must exist. This cause supernatural, in the sense that it must be spaceless and timeless since space and time are bound by the universe.

Moral arguments prove God's existence based on the existence of objective morality. By objective morality I mean a moral statement or declaration. Something like 'killing is an innocent person for fun is wrong.' This is a moral declaration that is objectively true, regardless of any individuals personal opinion. Since an objective moral law exists, there must be a moral law giver. Another version of the moral argument would be the fact that the world would be morally absurd and irrational absent a moral law giver.


Questions:
1) Are these arguments logically valid and sound?

2) In light of these four philosophical arguments, will atheists please stop making the false, disingenuous claim that there is no evidence for God?

3) Are there any arguments against the existence of God?

teleological arguments:

The arguments do not prove God, and they are not evidence for any God in particular, they simply offer room for postulating any number of theories that attempt to explain the origins of the universe and why it is the way it is, of which "A" God is one.

ontological arguments:

Just because a conclusion is valid, does not mean it's true - The argument succeeds at merely validating the concept - not proving or providing evidence for what the concept attempts to explain in reality.

Cosmological arguments:

Like teleological arguments, it simply claims the space left vacant by our ignorance of what actually transpired at the universes inception. It is again conjecture - not proof or evidence of anything other than to say that God as an explanation is a possibility.

Moral Arguments:

Are not proof or evidence of anything - For them to provide valid evidence for the existence of God, you would first need to prove that absolute morality is actually a thing, that exists in reality other than as a concept.

Answers:

1. they may be - but as stated previously validity does not necessarily speak to the truth of a thing. As far as soundness goes, I think it is self evident that I think not.

2. If the above arguments were more than simply evidence for the "possibility" of a God or the mere existence of a concept, then your request might be reasonable.

3. Sure, but most that I can think of pertain to a specific theological iteration or definition of God. beyond that - the God concept in it's most deistic neutral form is so vague that it digresses into mere philosophical exercise anyway.

I think with all that, the main point is that 'Arguments are not evidence'. And, when it to arguments for God, they all seem to have unprovable premises, and untestable conclusions, leaving their value to be more mental patting on the back and ego stroking than anything else.

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 14 by Goat]

Good point - Arguments for a thing are not necessarily evidence for it, unless the premises can be shown to be probable - they don't even necessarily have to be true, the problem with all arguments for God that I have ever heard is that there is no way to test the probability of them... which is why at best they are just like the concept they are trying to prove - a philosophical exercise.

[100%atheist]

When I first joined this forum I remember McCulloch was creating a series of topics devoted to the various arguments for God's existence. I'd like to explore those issues in this thread and for the purpose of this thread God will be defined as a deistic, supernatural intelligent designer. We will not be using any theistic definition of God.

Teleological arguments prove God's existence based on the design and precise structure of the universe. The universe is structured in an improbable and an unlikely way. The physical laws that govern the universe are fine tuned to an extremely unlikely numerical value, and had these laws been set at any other parameter life could not exist. Statistically speaking, chance/coincidence is not an appropriate explanation, therefore a fine tuner/intelligent designer designed the universe.

Ontological arguments prove God's existence based on the definition of God. God is defined as a maximally great being, meaning that God can have no defects. Nonexistence is a defect, therefore God must exist. First of all, this argument pretty much destroys the ignostic position. Yes, I realize ignostics are willingly ignorant of all the philosophical scholarship surrounding God, but the fact is that the concept of God is pretty well defined. Therefore, the ignostics usergroup should be abolished.

Cosmological arguments prove God's existence based on the fact that the universe began to exist. Meaning, at one point in the distant past, the universe did not exist at all. The universe is itself contingent. Mathematically speaking, it is impossible for the chain of causes to regress backwards infinitely. Therefore, a non contingent first cause must exist. This cause supernatural, in the sense that it must be spaceless and timeless since space and time are bound by the universe.

Moral arguments prove God's existence based on the existence of objective morality. By objective morality I mean a moral statement or declaration. Something like 'killing is an innocent person for fun is wrong.' This is a moral declaration that is objectively true, regardless of any individuals personal opinion. Since an objective moral law exists, there must be a moral law giver. Another version of the moral argument would be the fact that the world would be morally absurd and irrational absent a moral law giver.


Questions:
1) Are these arguments logically valid and sound?

They are a well documented trash.

2) In light of these four philosophical arguments, will atheists please stop making the false, disingenuous claim that there is no evidence for God?

See (1).

3) Are there any arguments against the existence of God?

If you wish, I can make all the same arguments against god.

For example, let's make an Ontological argument for god non-existence.
a) God is defined as a maximally great being (your words).
b) Maximally great means that any changes of the being will make it less great, making it a non-candidate for god.
c) If god created the universe, then god must have been interacting with the universe.
d) If (c) then god changed because there must not be one-sided interactions.
e) If god changed, it is not god. So, god does not exist by definition.

[WinePusher]

Thanks for this interesting and thought-provoking post, WP . I'll respond as best I can.

Thanks Haven! Good to see you back.

Please define the word "supernatural." I have no idea what it means (or if it's even logically coherent), other than "non-natural." This tells me nothing about the concept, but only what it is not -- that is, it's not part of nature.

The term supernatural is simply the negation of the concept of naturalism, which asserts that the natural, physical world is all that exists. To use crude terms, another 'dimension' or 'reality' would exist beyond the universe.

Teleological arguments prove God's existence based on the design and precise structure of the universe.

What is the evidence of any "design" in the universe? I'm not aware of anything in the universe (not created by humans) that suggests intentional design or intelligent causation.

Refer to my post 5 in this thread. This isn't a debatable point. Physicists including Stephen Hawking agree that the universe is structured in an improbable way. The point of contention is determining what the best explanation for this anomaly is. As I have said, and has I will repeatedly say, the best explanation for the complexity and improbability of the universe is an intelligent designer. If you look at it in terms of Paley's watchmaker analogy it would make perfect sense.

The universe is structured in an improbable and an unlikely way.

Where is the evidence of this? Furthermore, how is it even meaningful to assign a probability to something (the universe) for which we have a sample size of one? Probabilities are based on the likelihood of X occurring in N tries, but since, in this case, N=1 (i.e., the structure of our universe is the only one we observe), in what sense is it rational to assign any kind of probability?

You misunderstand. The purpose isn't to determine the probability of the existence of the universe, although it is reasonable to suggest that it's highly unlikely that the universe originated from nothing via unexplainable quantum mechanics. The purpose is to determine the probability of all the features and 'fundamental numbers' of the universe. Please refer to the Wikipedia article I cited. Out of the entire range of numbers that the size of an electron could have landed on, it lands on the one and only numerical value that permits life. How probable is this?

The physical laws that govern the universe are fine tuned to an extremely unlikely numerical value, and had these laws been set at any other parameter life could not exist.

Evidence?

Also, once again, how can you claim something is "extremely unlikely" based on a sample size of 1?

Again, refer to the article. We are not talking about one single universe. We are talking about many various forces, laws and constants that all happen to be set to the numerical value that permits life.

Statistically speaking . . .

Statistically speaking, we have a sample size of one. This means that we can't extract any meaningful statistics.

Uh no. As I already explained, the sample would contain every single law, constant and physical force that was finely tuned for life.

Ontological arguments prove God's existence based on the definition of God. God is defined as a maximally great being, meaning that God can have no defects.

Please define "maximally great." Please define "defects." Those are both socially constructed English words, and there is no reason to believe they have any metaphysical meaning.

These are frivolous objections. You're making it seem as if this argument, and its premises, were pulled out of some cereal box somewhere. Maximal greatness would encompass things like total power, total knowledge, total existence, etc. A defect would be a negative attribute. Besides, the argument originated with Anselm in the 11th century and has been refined by modern philosophers.

Nonexistence is a defect, therefore God must exist.[/color]

Evidence?

Also, keep in mind that existence is not a property.

Existence isn't a property? Is this agreed upon in philosophical circles or is it something you've just made up? Either something does exist or it does not exist. Anselm's point was that existence is a greater attribute than nonexistence, and since God is defined as a maximally great being God must exist.

The universe is itself contingent.

Evidence?

It began to exist. This is a scientific fact. If the universe were necessary (the opposite of contingency) then it would by definition have existed eternally.

Mathematically speaking, it is impossible for the chain of causes to regress backwards infinitely. Therefore, a non contingent first cause must exist.

Evidence? There is nothing in mathematics that suggests the impossibility of infinite regress.

Abstract mathematics makes room for infinite values. In reality, we have never witnessed an infinite number of anything. Since atheists like to pride themselves as being reality based empiricists, and since we have no experience of an infinite value in reality, this concept should be rejected prima facie. Besides, the community of physicists already agrees that the universe began to exist. The question is what caused it.

Morality is a socially and culturally constructed concept, and therefore requires no ontological justification outside of human society.

You ignored everything I wrote regarding this issue, including the part where I asserted that the world would be morally absurd and irrational without a transcendent moral law giver.

3) Are there any arguments against the existence of God?

Yes: the problem of definitions (god concepts are vague, logically incoherent, or unknowable by definition),

No, there really are no problems with any definitions. The ignostic position is based on ignorance. Philosophers agree on what the basic attribute of God is, ie: a maximally great being.

the problem of natural evil,

Right. This is a serious problem that all religious people have spent much time studying and contemplating. An entire book in the Bible is devoted to this dilemma.

the problem of poor design,

This is probably the worst objection of them all because poor design still requires a designer. If true, this objection would simply prove the designer to be incompetent. That's all it does.

and the problem of interaction (how could a non-physical entity causally interact with a physical one?)

Who knows. I certainly don't claim to know. But, unless you can prove that is impossible for a non-physical entity causally interact with a physical one, this in no way refutes the claim that a non-physical supernatural entity exists.

[WinePusher]

I think with all that, the main point is that 'Arguments are not evidence'.

Wow, this is such a ridiculous statement. Arguments use evidence. Arguments and evidence are essentially different sides of the same coin. An argument cannot exist without evidence, and whereas an argument attempts to persuade, the purpose of evidence is to prove. Argumentation is the process by which evidence is collected and organized. All these arguments, many of which were developed by Medieval thinkers, used evidence to prove their conclusions. Your statement is completely absurd.

[TheJoshAbideth]

I think with all that, the main point is that 'Arguments are not evidence'.

Wow, this is such a ridiculous statement. Arguments use evidence. Arguments and evidence are essentially different sides of the same coin. An argument cannot exist without evidence, and whereas an argument attempts to persuade, the purpose of evidence is to prove. Argumentation is the process by which evidence is collected and organized. All these arguments, many of which were developed by Medieval thinkers, used evidence to prove their conclusions. Your statement is completely absurd.

No WP... you are the one in the wrong here I am afraid. A. Argumentation does not equal Evidence, otherwise there would be absolutely no point to having an argument. B: Arguments do not not necessarily require evidence - though the soundness of the conclusions I am arguing for may waiver in the case of a lack of evidence, I can after all make an argument that is neither valid or sound... otherwise, what is the point of the rules of logic anyway?

I would go back and review the definitions for both the terms "evidence" and "argument" before you dismiss another's statement as being completely absurd.

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 18 by WinePusher]

I used a hammer to build a wall today... am I a hammer? If someone saw me in a hardware store, could they then pick me up and use me to build their walls?