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?

[10CC]

This is obviously evidence for a universal moral conscience that is shared by all people regardless of their race, culture, creed, etc.

Perhaps it is.

Now if we look at this statement do we find a factor common to all of the various people concerned?

It can't be the god they worship and who guides them and protects them. Because there are thousands of them.

So what is it?

Ahh, I think I see the commonality.

They are all people who's ancestors survived long enough and instilled enough morality into their offspring to make it possible for them to survive.

I'm sorry but I certainly didn't see a god in your "obvious evidence", I did though notice the contention I have made concerning your statement.

[help3434]

You have it completely backwards. My claim is that without God there is no final resolution or ultimate justice. If God does not exist then the universe is morally absurd in the sense that there is no final resolution or final justice. In order for the universe to be morally rational there has to be a God.

What do I have backwards. I agree with you point, but unless you have evidence that the universe is not morally absurd, this argument does nothing to establish that there is a God.

[Sonofason]

A few observations:
1. If this universe is ‘fine tuned’ for life, why is the vast majority of it hostile to living things?
2. If there really is an Intelligent Designer why didn’t She come up with a more sensible value of Pi?
3. Who designed the Intelligent Designer? Is the probability of this universe happening by chance more or less improbable than an Intelligent Designer happening by chance?

It may indeed be quite improbable for an Intelligent Designer to just happen by chance. But tell me, what is the chance of an existing Designer existing? You see, if the Designer has always existed, then there would be a 100% chance that it exists. There is no probability of it existing. That which exists, exists.

[TheJoshAbideth]

You have it completely backwards. My claim is that without God there is no final resolution or ultimate justice. If God does not exist then the universe is morally absurd in the sense that there is no final resolution or final justice. In order for the universe to be morally rational there has to be a God.

What do I have backwards. I agree with you point, but unless you have evidence that the universe is not morally absurd, this argument does nothing to establish that there is a God.

First, to apply morality to the universe, assumes there is a such thing as absolute morality.

Second, I would want to know what constitutes a morally rational universe, and why would final justice need to exist for it to be so?

Third, Why does the universe need to be morally rational? I'll answer this one - because those that believe in the Christian God need it to be so, if there is no God, then obviously there is no need or reason for the universe to be morally rational or absurd.

[TheJoshAbideth]

A few observations:
1. If this universe is ‘fine tuned’ for life, why is the vast majority of it hostile to living things?
2. If there really is an Intelligent Designer why didn’t She come up with a more sensible value of Pi?
3. Who designed the Intelligent Designer? Is the probability of this universe happening by chance more or less improbable than an Intelligent Designer happening by chance?

It may indeed be quite improbable for an Intelligent Designer to just happen by chance. But tell me, what is the chance of an existing Designer existing? You see, if the Designer has always existed, then there would be a 100% chance that it exists. There is no probability of it existing. That which exists, exists.

This does nothing to further the debate - as you are pre-loading your terms and twisting the argument.

What is the chance of an non existing "designer" not existing? (the answer is 100%) That which does not exist - does not exist... right?

[Sonofason]

A few observations:
1. If this universe is ‘fine tuned’ for life, why is the vast majority of it hostile to living things?
2. If there really is an Intelligent Designer why didn’t She come up with a more sensible value of Pi?
3. Who designed the Intelligent Designer? Is the probability of this universe happening by chance more or less improbable than an Intelligent Designer happening by chance?

It may indeed be quite improbable for an Intelligent Designer to just happen by chance. But tell me, what is the chance of an existing Designer existing? You see, if the Designer has always existed, then there would be a 100% chance that it exists. There is no probability of it existing. That which exists, exists.

This does nothing to further the debate - as you are pre-loading your terms and twisting the argument.

What is the chance of an non existing "designer" not existing? (the answer is 100%) That which does not exist - does not exist... right?

My reply was in response to the question raised by Student.

Student wrote:

Is the probability of this universe happening by chance more or less improbable than an Intelligent Designer happening by chance?

Why ask a question that is based on pure speculation. You cannot determine the chance of God existing, and so the point made is moot, and adds nothing to the debate. which is exactly what you are accusing me of doing. Okay, so the point made by Student adds nothing to the debate, and the point I made adds nothing to the debate. So we are nowhere.

[TheJoshAbideth]

A few observations:
1. If this universe is ‘fine tuned’ for life, why is the vast majority of it hostile to living things?
2. If there really is an Intelligent Designer why didn’t She come up with a more sensible value of Pi?
3. Who designed the Intelligent Designer? Is the probability of this universe happening by chance more or less improbable than an Intelligent Designer happening by chance?

It may indeed be quite improbable for an Intelligent Designer to just happen by chance. But tell me, what is the chance of an existing Designer existing? You see, if the Designer has always existed, then there would be a 100% chance that it exists. There is no probability of it existing. That which exists, exists.

This does nothing to further the debate - as you are pre-loading your terms and twisting the argument.

What is the chance of an non existing "designer" not existing? (the answer is 100%) That which does not exist - does not exist... right?

My reply was in response to the question raised by Student.

Student wrote:

Is the probability of this universe happening by chance more or less improbable than an Intelligent Designer happening by chance?

Why ask a question that is based on pure speculation. You cannot determine the chance of God existing, and so the point made is moot, and adds nothing to the debate. which is exactly what you are accusing me of doing. Okay, so the point made by Student adds nothing to the debate, and the point I made adds nothing to the debate. So we are nowhere.

The point of the question - as far as I'm reading it - was not just to simply determine the chance of something indeterminable happening, but to gauge which question is more valid:

The universe existing via intelligent designer - or - The universe existing by chance?

To which your initial reply delivered no intelligible response.

[Sonofason]

A few observations:
1. If this universe is ‘fine tuned’ for life, why is the vast majority of it hostile to living things?
2. If there really is an Intelligent Designer why didn’t She come up with a more sensible value of Pi?
3. Who designed the Intelligent Designer? Is the probability of this universe happening by chance more or less improbable than an Intelligent Designer happening by chance?

It may indeed be quite improbable for an Intelligent Designer to just happen by chance. But tell me, what is the chance of an existing Designer existing? You see, if the Designer has always existed, then there would be a 100% chance that it exists. There is no probability of it existing. That which exists, exists.

This does nothing to further the debate - as you are pre-loading your terms and twisting the argument.

What is the chance of an non existing "designer" not existing? (the answer is 100%) That which does not exist - does not exist... right?

My reply was in response to the question raised by Student.

Student wrote:

Is the probability of this universe happening by chance more or less improbable than an Intelligent Designer happening by chance?

Why ask a question that is based on pure speculation. You cannot determine the chance of God existing, and so the point made is moot, and adds nothing to the debate. which is exactly what you are accusing me of doing. Okay, so the point made by Student adds nothing to the debate, and the point I made adds nothing to the debate. So we are nowhere.

The point of the question - as far as I'm reading it - was not just to simply determine the chance of something indeterminable happening, but to gauge which question is more valid:

The universe existing via intelligent designer - or - The universe existing by chance?

To which your initial reply delivered no intelligible response.

Oh well, that's easy. The chance of a universe coming into existence all on its own is infinitesimally small. In other words, it likely couldn't happen. But for an existing God to bring a universe into existence, the probability is probably closer to about 100%. But since both scenarios lack significant evidence, I think it best to toss the question out altogether. As I said. It's a moot question. But of course we can have faith in our own beliefs, you and I.

[Ionian_Tradition]

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.

If God is the designer of natural law, then fine tuning cannot exist. Consider the the following analogy:

To open a safe, one must first input the correct combination. We might then say that one must "fine tune" the dial on the safe in order to arrive at the correct combination. So long as this external restriction exists (set forth by the manufacturer of the safe), fine tuning can also occur. However, if the individual seeking to open the safe happens to possess the capacity to alter the combination, then any set of numbers will prove sufficient to open the safe. At this point, fine tuning becomes a veritable impossibility. From this we can derive the following conclusions:

Either,

A: The restriction obtains and fine tuning equally obtains.

Or,

B: The individual opening the safe is also capable of the setting the combination. In which case the restriction does not obtain (rendering fine tuning impossible).


In the same way, if the natural constraints which require the universal constants to fall within a very narrow range of values, in order for life to exist, are (per naturalism) not a product of God's own volition, then fine tuning can indeed occur. However, if such constraints are little more than the contingent product of an omnipotent God's arbitrary will, then it remains to be seen why it is necessary that the universal constants must be what they are. In truth, an infinite number of values would have equally sufficed in producing a life permitting universe. An omnipotent God has no (non-logical) restrictions, as such, fine tuning cannot truly occur according to this paradigm.

Its worth noting that the latter paradigm seems to render certain objections regarding the improbability of the fundamental constants being what they are "by chance" less problematic. Though it may appear exceedingly improbable that the universal constants should be what they are by chance, it is infinitely more improbable that an omnipotent God should choose any one particular set of values to account for a life permitting universe from the infinite number of possible permutations available to him/her/it.

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.

What renders God's properties objectively "great"? Is it God's nature which renders said properties great? Or is it some objective standard of "greatness", external to God, which establishes their objective greatness? If the former, then the theist has fallaciously assumed the existence of God in order to account for the maximal greatness of his/her/its properties. Thus, on this view, the ontological argument assumes its conclusion. If the latter, then the theist must posit the existence of an objective standard of greatness by which the quality of the God's properties is measured. Since God's greatness is contingent upon the existence of this standard, the standard is itself greater than God, thus God cannot be thought of as a "maximally great" being. As a result, the Ontological argument fails.

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.

I see no reason why we ought to assume that this cause must possess a volitional mind. Positing an impersonal initial state of necessary and sufficient causal conditions from which a universe might emerge spontaneously equally accounts for the existence of our world. This postulate also has the added benefit of avoiding the logical untenability intrinsic to the doctrine of "creatio ex nihilo", a doctrine central to most monotheistic theologies.

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.

Laws, duties, and values are all the product of subjective minds. Laws/duties are ultimately subjective because they display the prescriptive property of "intentionality", intrinsic to the subjective mind. Values are ultimately subjective because they cannot logically exist in the absence of a subjective valuer. For this reason, moral laws, duties, and values cannot transcend all subjective opinion, preference, or disposition, therefore they cannot exist "objectively" in any literal sense of the term. If objective moral laws, duties, or values do not exist, it is difficult to see how such things prove the existence of an "objective" moral law giver. Human subjectivity is more than sufficient in accounting for the subjective moral laws, duties, and values we actually observe. We need not posit a God.

[JohnA]

A few observations:
1. If this universe is ‘fine tuned’ for life, why is the vast majority of it hostile to living things?
2. If there really is an Intelligent Designer why didn’t She come up with a more sensible value of Pi?
3. Who designed the Intelligent Designer? Is the probability of this universe happening by chance more or less improbable than an Intelligent Designer happening by chance?

It may indeed be quite improbable for an Intelligent Designer to just happen by chance. But tell me, what is the chance of an existing Designer existing? You see, if the Designer has always existed, then there would be a 100% chance that it exists. There is no probability of it existing. That which exists, exists.

This does nothing to further the debate - as you are pre-loading your terms and twisting the argument.

What is the chance of an non existing "designer" not existing? (the answer is 100%) That which does not exist - does not exist... right?

My reply was in response to the question raised by Student.

Student wrote:

Is the probability of this universe happening by chance more or less improbable than an Intelligent Designer happening by chance?

Why ask a question that is based on pure speculation. You cannot determine the chance of God existing, and so the point made is moot, and adds nothing to the debate. which is exactly what you are accusing me of doing. Okay, so the point made by Student adds nothing to the debate, and the point I made adds nothing to the debate. So we are nowhere.

The point of the question - as far as I'm reading it - was not just to simply determine the chance of something indeterminable happening, but to gauge which question is more valid:

The universe existing via intelligent designer - or - The universe existing by chance?

To which your initial reply delivered no intelligible response.

Oh well, that's easy. The chance of a universe coming into existence all on its own is infinitesimally small. In other words, it likely couldn't happen. But for an existing God to bring a universe into existence, the probability is probably closer to about 100%. But since both scenarios lack significant evidence, I think it best to toss the question out altogether. As I said. It's a moot question. But of course we can have faith in our own beliefs, you and I.

But there is is examples of other universes being created or formed. So you can you say you KNOW the probability (The chance of a universe coming into existence all on its own is infinitesimally small)?

But for an existing God to bring a universe into existence, the probability is probably closer to about 100%.

And you know this how?
100% is not a probability at all, it means it did happen, hu.
Who created your god? Saying he in uncreated is saying that the universe is uncreated as all.
At least we have an example of a universe - ours! We have zero examples of gods.

But of course we can have faith in our own beliefs, you and I.

You still do not understand faith.
When we say we do not know how this universe came to be, we are NOT saying it came from 'nothing' by chance. That has nothing to do with FAITH.
However, you say you god did it, but you have no evidence, then you are saying that based on a faith based belief.