Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?

[Jashwell]

"Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?"

Doesn't seem like much preamble is needed, but expect this largely to be filled (if at all) with arguments in favour of the existence of a God and counter-arguments. (Because the question is not "Are there good reasons to believe that a god does not exist?"). Though if you do think you have a good argument that shows it is reasonable to believe God does not exist, that is also valid.

This question comes up a lot in other threads where various classical arguments (e.g. ontological, axiological, cosmological) have been given in those threads.

If possible, try not to shotgun debate by raising lots of arguments at once. One sound argument should be sufficient.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 109 by JoeyKnothead]

Let me show the difference between God and the physical universe with respect to something coming from something.
Here in our physical universe, something always comes from something, as the laws of physics tell us.
So, if something always come from something, which includes the something that is the physical universe, then the physical universe came from something. And if the something which made the physical universe comes from something else, and if that something else comes from something else again, and so on ad infinitum, then we get into an infinite regress.
So the something which created the physical universe logically cannot have come from anything.
In other words, God is eternal - without origin, eternal, always.
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

As I have long been saying, being eternal means coming from nothing.

Let me begin by thanking you for agreeing that something cannot come from nothing, that something always comes from something.

Aside from A) I didn't say that and B) That means God came from something (or God is nothing?)

I think things can exist without coming from something. (Things can come from nothing)

But before I say more, let's look at the implications of something coming from something.
Here in our physical universe, something always comes from something, as the laws of physics tell us.

No they don't.

So, if something always come from something, which includes the physical universe, then the physical universe came from something. And if the something which made the physical universe comes from something else, and if that something else comes from something else again, then we get into an infinite regress.

Which would be a problem because?

So the something which created the physical logically cannot have come from anything
As you've stated above, ""What do you come from?" "Nothing"
Means I didn't come from anything, can be abbreviated "I didn't come", or "I am eternal""
In other words, God is eternal - without origin, eternal, always.
kenblogton

Problem 1: The laws of physics don't say "everything physical comes from something" (or everything physical comes)

Problem 2: Saying "everything physical the laws of physics observe comes from something" is like saying "everything we observe is physical". The former is no more a proof that the physical must come than the latter is a proof that everything is physical.

Problem 3: The only good/concrete definition of physical is that which can be sensed - which isn't a definition I expect you'd agree with

Problem 4: Even if every physical thing has an origin in something; it would be a composition fallacy to say that the entire collection of physical things must have an origin in something

Consider Time. Time cannot "come" as "coming" is a temporal activity. You cannot "come" in no time as that would imply that you had both been coming and had came at the same time, a contradiction.
In order for time to come, there must be an temporal interval between time "coming" (not existing) and "having came" (existing)

There cannot be a temporal interval between the existence and non-existence of time.

I personally am of the view that the Universe is eternal; it comes from nothing. The entire Universe (fully extent in time) just exists, like you think God does.

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 112 by Jashwell]

If it makes you feel any better. I realize what you are saying and I don't understand how one could not see what you are trying to get across. It is perfectly logical and makes perfect sense. Ken may not be able to recognize your train of thought here, but I'm sure there are plenty of us spectating who agree with you.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to kenblogton]

Let me begin by thanking you for agreeing that something cannot come from nothing, that something always comes from something.
But before I say more, let's look at the implications of something coming from something.
Here in our physical universe, something always comes from something, as the laws of physics tell us.
So, if something always come from something, which includes the physical universe, then the physical universe came from something. And if the something which made the physical universe comes from something else, and if that something else comes from something else again, then we get into an infinite regress.
So the something which created the physical logically cannot have come from anything
As you've stated above, ""What do you come from?" "Nothing"
Means I didn't come from anything, can be abbreviated "I didn't come", or "I am eternal""
In other words, God is eternal - without origin, eternal, always.
kenblogton

What exactly is your concept of nothing? Imagine the condition that existed at the cosmic singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang. Everything was compressed to a single entity. Absolutely NO variation of any kind existed. There was no up, there was no down, there was no front and back, there was no side to side. There was no space. There was not even the passage of time. Now, how exactly would you describe "nothing?"

Lawrence Krauss considers the current state of the universe to be simply a quantum fluctuation in the ongoing struggle between energy and gravity. We currently have "something" because there currently is variation. A condition in which absolutely no variation of any kind exists is exactly the same condition as nothing at all. And yet from just such a condition came the Big Bang.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 105 by instantc]

An empty set is a thing; you can sum an empty set (0); take the product of the entire set (1), but doing this with nothing means not doing it.

Regardless, if an empty set and "no thing" are synonymous, what is your objection?
"Empty set" is certainly not a better definition than "no thing", and is certainly not more coherent.

My objection was directed to those who use the word nothing to refer to things like quantum fields that obviously do have properties and therefore are something rather than nothing.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 111:

Here in our physical universe, something always comes from something, as the laws of physics tell us.
So, if something always come from something, which includes the something that is the physical universe, then the physical universe came from something.

Which introduces the question of from where comes this entity you propose. Your argument implies a mind, and we know the mind is a product of the physical.

And if the something which made the physical universe comes from something else, and if that something else comes from something else again, and so on ad infinitum, then we get into an infinite regress.

This doesn't address the universe existing in a form prior to what we find it now (pre BB if that's what we're going with).

So the something which created the physical universe logically cannot have come from anything.

Nor can it be logically argued that a mind is disconnected from the physical.

In other words, God is eternal - without origin, eternal, always.

Only by the 'logic' of your failed argument.

[kenblogton]

1. As I have long been saying, being eternal means coming from nothing.

2.

Let me begin by thanking you for agreeing that something cannot come from nothing, that something always comes from something.

Aside from A) I didn't say that and B) That means God came from something (or God is nothing?)

3. I think things can exist without coming from something. (Things can come from nothing)

But before I say more, let's look at the implications of something coming from something.
Here in our physical universe, something always comes from something, as the laws of physics tell us.

No they don't.

So, if something always come from something, which includes the physical universe, then the physical universe came from something. And if the something which made the physical universe comes from something else, and if that something else comes from something else again, then we get into an infinite regress.

Which would be a problem because?

4. So the something which created the physical logically cannot have come from anything
As you've stated above, ""What do you come from?" "Nothing"
Means I didn't come from anything, can be abbreviated "I didn't come", or "I am eternal""
In other words, God is eternal - without origin, eternal, always.
kenblogton

5. Problem 1: The laws of physics don't say "everything physical comes from something" (or everything physical comes)

Problem 2: Saying "everything physical the laws of physics observe comes from something" is like saying "everything we observe is physical". The former is no more a proof that the physical must come than the latter is a proof that everything is physical.

Problem 3: The only good/concrete definition of physical is that which can be sensed - which isn't a definition I expect you'd agree with

Problem 4: Even if every physical thing has an origin in something; it would be a composition fallacy to say that the entire collection of physical things must have an origin in something

6. Consider Time. Time cannot "come" as "coming" is a temporal activity. You cannot "come" in no time as that would imply that you had both been coming and had came at the same time, a contradiction.
In order for time to come, there must be an temporal interval between time "coming" (not existing) and "having came" (existing)

There cannot be a temporal interval between the existence and non-existence of time.

7. I personally am of the view that the Universe is eternal; it comes from nothing. The entire Universe (fully extent in time) just exists, like you think God does.

Reply to 1. Something that comes from nothing or anything is not eternal; eternal means no beginning.

Reply to 2. My apologies. When you said ""Coming from nothing" = "Coming from no thing" = "Not coming from a thing"
Not coming from something is synonymous with coming from nothing." I took this to mean you were agreeing that something cannot come from nothing.

Reply to 3. Please give me one real example to support your contention "I think things can exist without coming from something. (Things can come from nothing)" If you have no examples, let's apply Occam's razor to that belief. If you refuse to provide at least one example and also refuse to apply Occam's razor to your theory, we'll have to agree to disagree. I see no basis for debate under such conditions.
Further to this point, I said "

But before I say more, let's look at the implications of something coming from something.
Here in our physical universe, something always comes from something, as the laws of physics tell us.

"
and you said "No they don't." At least one example please?

Reply to 4. No comment.

Reply to 5. You say "Problem 1: The laws of physics don't say "everything physical comes from something" (or everything physical comes)"
I say when the laws of physics say that neither nor energy can be created nor destroyed, only transformed, they are saying just that: each example of transformation is of something coming from something.

You say "Problem 2: Saying "everything physical the laws of physics observe comes from something" is like saying "everything we observe is physical". The former is no more a proof that the physical must come than the latter is a proof that everything is physical.
I see what you have said here as incomprehensible.

You say "Problem 3: The only good/concrete definition of physical is that which can be sensed - which isn't a definition I expect you'd agree with"
I say the physical consists of matter or energy and exists in space-time. Everything physical cannot be sensed.

You say "Problem 4: Even if every physical thing has an origin in something; it would be a composition fallacy to say that the entire collection of physical things must have an origin in something"
I say this is a self-contradictory statement: every physical thing originates in something but not the entire collection. Again, time for Occam's razor.

Reply to 6. You say "There cannot be a temporal interval between the existence and non-existence of time."
I agree. There is no time and then there is time.

Reply to 7. You say "I personally am of the view that the Universe is eternal; it comes from nothing. The entire Universe (fully extent in time) just exists, like you think God does.[/quote]
I say, and Science agrees, the universe is of finite existence - somewhere between 8-15 billion years. That is not eternal.
And, as I've said in my Replies to 3. and to 5., Problem 4., something always comes from something and there are zero examples of something coming from nothing; if you wish to maintain this view without providing examples, we'll have to just agree to disagree and end our debate.
All the best kenblogton

[kenblogton]

From Post 111:

1. Here in our physical universe, something always comes from something, as the laws of physics tell us.
So, if something always come from something, which includes the something that is the physical universe, then the physical universe came from something.

Which introduces the question of from where comes this entity you propose. Your argument implies a mind, and we know the mind is a product of the physical.

2. And if the something which made the physical universe comes from something else, and if that something else comes from something else again, and so on ad infinitum, then we get into an infinite regress.

This doesn't address the universe existing in a form prior to what we find it now (pre BB if that's what we're going with).

3. So the something which created the physical universe logically cannot have come from anything.

Nor can it be logically argued that a mind is disconnected from the physical.

4. In other words, God is eternal - without origin, eternal, always.

Only by the 'logic' of your failed argument.

Reply to 1. As I've stated previously, God is eternal so has no beginning. Your statement "Your argument implies a mind, and we know the mind is a product of the physical." is a straw man of your own creation: no comment.

Reply to 2. It is speculation, not fact, that there is pre-dense singularity/big bang.

Reply to 3. Since this is a continuation of your straw man in 1., no comment.

Reply to 4. I only see the failure in your arguments.

If your future replies are similar to these, I think we'd do best to just agree to disagree.

All the best. kenblogton

[kenblogton]

[Replying to kenblogton]

Let me begin by thanking you for agreeing that something cannot come from nothing, that something always comes from something.
But before I say more, let's look at the implications of something coming from something.
Here in our physical universe, something always comes from something, as the laws of physics tell us.
So, if something always come from something, which includes the physical universe, then the physical universe came from something. And if the something which made the physical universe comes from something else, and if that something else comes from something else again, then we get into an infinite regress.
So the something which created the physical logically cannot have come from anything
As you've stated above, ""What do you come from?" "Nothing"
Means I didn't come from anything, can be abbreviated "I didn't come", or "I am eternal""
In other words, God is eternal - without origin, eternal, always.
kenblogton

What exactly is your concept of nothing? Imagine the condition that existed at the cosmic singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang. Everything was compressed to a single entity. Absolutely NO variation of any kind existed. There was no up, there was no down, there was no front and back, there was no side to side. There was no space. There was not even the passage of time. Now, how exactly would you describe "nothing?"

Lawrence Krauss considers the current state of the universe to be simply a quantum fluctuation in the ongoing struggle between energy and gravity. We currently have "something" because there currently is variation. A condition in which absolutely no variation of any kind exists is exactly the same condition as nothing at all. And yet from just such a condition came the Big Bang.

In terms of the physical universe, nothing means no space, time, matter or energy. That is scientific nothing, the state that existed before the dense singularity/big bang of some 8-15 billion years ago.
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

1. As I have long been saying, being eternal means coming from nothing.

2.

Let me begin by thanking you for agreeing that something cannot come from nothing, that something always comes from something.

Aside from A) I didn't say that and B) That means God came from something (or God is nothing?)

3. I think things can exist without coming from something. (Things can come from nothing)

But before I say more, let's look at the implications of something coming from something.
Here in our physical universe, something always comes from something, as the laws of physics tell us.

No they don't.

So, if something always come from something, which includes the physical universe, then the physical universe came from something. And if the something which made the physical universe comes from something else, and if that something else comes from something else again, then we get into an infinite regress.

Which would be a problem because?

4. So the something which created the physical logically cannot have come from anything
As you've stated above, ""What do you come from?" "Nothing"
Means I didn't come from anything, can be abbreviated "I didn't come", or "I am eternal""
In other words, God is eternal - without origin, eternal, always.
kenblogton

5. Problem 1: The laws of physics don't say "everything physical comes from something" (or everything physical comes)

Problem 2: Saying "everything physical the laws of physics observe comes from something" is like saying "everything we observe is physical". The former is no more a proof that the physical must come than the latter is a proof that everything is physical.

Problem 3: The only good/concrete definition of physical is that which can be sensed - which isn't a definition I expect you'd agree with

Problem 4: Even if every physical thing has an origin in something; it would be a composition fallacy to say that the entire collection of physical things must have an origin in something

6. Consider Time. Time cannot "come" as "coming" is a temporal activity. You cannot "come" in no time as that would imply that you had both been coming and had came at the same time, a contradiction.
In order for time to come, there must be an temporal interval between time "coming" (not existing) and "having came" (existing)

There cannot be a temporal interval between the existence and non-existence of time.

7. I personally am of the view that the Universe is eternal; it comes from nothing. The entire Universe (fully extent in time) just exists, like you think God does.

Reply to 1. Something that comes from nothing or anything is not eternal; eternal means no beginning.

Reply to 2. My apologies. When you said ""Coming from nothing" = "Coming from no thing" = "Not coming from a thing"
Not coming from something is synonymous with coming from nothing." I took this to mean you were agreeing that something cannot come from nothing.

Reply to 3. Please give me one real example to support your contention "I think things can exist without coming from something. (Things can come from nothing)" If you have no examples, let's apply Occam's razor to that belief. If you refuse to provide at least one example and also refuse to apply Occam's razor to your theory, we'll have to agree to disagree. I see no basis for debate under such conditions.
Further to this point, I said "

But before I say more, let's look at the implications of something coming from something.
Here in our physical universe, something always comes from something, as the laws of physics tell us.

"
and you said "No they don't." At least one example please?

Reply to 4. No comment.

Reply to 5. You say "Problem 1: The laws of physics don't say "everything physical comes from something" (or everything physical comes)"
I say when the laws of physics say that neither nor energy can be created nor destroyed, only transformed, they are saying just that: each example of transformation is of something coming from something.

You say "Problem 2: Saying "everything physical the laws of physics observe comes from something" is like saying "everything we observe is physical". The former is no more a proof that the physical must come than the latter is a proof that everything is physical.
I see what you have said here as incomprehensible.

You say "Problem 3: The only good/concrete definition of physical is that which can be sensed - which isn't a definition I expect you'd agree with"
I say the physical consists of matter or energy and exists in space-time. Everything physical cannot be sensed.

You say "Problem 4: Even if every physical thing has an origin in something; it would be a composition fallacy to say that the entire collection of physical things must have an origin in something"
I say this is a self-contradictory statement: every physical thing originates in something but not the entire collection. Again, time for Occam's razor.

Reply to 6. You say "There cannot be a temporal interval between the existence and non-existence of time."
I agree. There is no time and then there is time.

Reply to 7. You say "I personally am of the view that the Universe is eternal; it comes from nothing. The entire Universe (fully extent in time) just exists, like you think God does.
I say, and Science agrees, the universe is of finite existence - somewhere between 8-15 billion years. That is not eternal.
And, as I've said in my Replies to 3. and to 5., Problem 4., something always comes from something and there are zero examples of something coming from nothing; if you wish to maintain this view without providing examples, we'll have to just agree to disagree and end our debate.
All the best kenblogton

1. "No beginning" = "Not coming [from anything]" = "Coming from nothing"
You keep acting like nothing refers to some ultimate void or whatever.
When people say "What are you doing?" and people say "Nothing", that means that they aren't doing anything, I gave many examples, being eternal is equivalent to coming from nothing (which means not coming from anything)

3. You think God can.
Regardless, if you think EVERYTHING comes from something then the obvious answer is "then what does that something come from?", and since coming is temporal, for time to come from something would be absurd (there's no interval over which it can come), for example.

And what do you mean an example that there aren't laws that say "something always comes from something"? You should be showing us one that does. I didn't say there was a law saying "things can come from nothing"

E=MC²
Here's another one
E=¹/₂MV²
Or another
Entropy always tends to increase as time from the big bang increases in a closed system.

The point is you're the one that's saying there is a law that does it, so show us that law. You're just shifting the burden of proof.
If we'd had a discussion like this:
Me: The law says you can't go out on Saturdays
You: No it doesn't
Me: Give an example.

That would be weird of me. I should be the one giving examples of laws that do.

5. Energy needs to be neither created nor destroyed to not have an origin.
That is what coming from nothing means. An origin in nothing. No origin _{[in anything], implicitly}

6. "Then"? This doesn't work if there's no time.
There can be no distinction of this sort if there is no time.
The issue is that you can't just rely on A-theory for this sort of thing. You have to superimpose an additional flow, not of time (as that doesn't exist), in order to transition from no-time to time. And then the question is, "why doesn't that flow also begin?" and the answer is "because it's an ad hoc explanation"

7. Yes time is finite. No, the Universe is eternal.
(Time itself being eternal by definition)
The problem with "eternal" in this context is it's used to mean "having no origin" / "not coming from anything" (whether you agree or not, coming from nothing).

The Universe fully extent in time, meaning the entire timeline of the Universe, just exists. It's fully consistent.

Think of it this way: It's kind of like a film. The entire film exists in the same sense; you could stack each frame on top of one another and get a 3D object. That's sort of what I'm thinking of, a continuous self contained 4D object that just exists.

Suppose the entire film existed. There wasn't some transition from no-film to film.
But the frames are still separated spatially/temporally (depending on your perspective, though would there be a difference?). So we still have time going from the big bang infinitely onwards (analogous to starting at the first frame 13.8 bln years ago, playing an infinitely long film) but we don't have a transition from "no time > time", we just have time, and it's finite.

Is the first frame - the beginning of the film (the beginning of time) - analogous to the film (time) coming into existence? No it's not.

This is entirely consistent and much less presumptive (it's just another perspective, eliminating a-theory assumptions that produce inconsistencies), and so long as there is a comparable alternate explanation, the cosmological argument does not stand.


- and for the record, nothing is not a state, and it is certainly absurd to say "the no time before time".