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.

[Goat]

"1. Everything that has a beginning comes from something."

This has been refuted by pointing out that this is unknowable, seeing as we haven't observed anywhere close to everything that had a beginning.

Logic dictates that everything that has a beginning comes from something, it's almost tautologous.

Please show that 'Logic' dictates this.

Please define 'has a beginning'. DO you mean reforming from pre-existing 'stuff', or do you mean 'out of nothing'.

Clarify what you mean, and then show what you mean is correct, rather than just proclaim it.

[instantc]

Please show that 'Logic' dictates this.

'Nothing' is an empty set of properties by definition. If we are talking about properties, then we are already talking about something rather than nothing. Potentiality to produce something is a property, and therefore if prior to A there was something that had the potentiality to produce A, then A did not begin to exist out of nothing but out of something. If prior to A there was no potentiality to produce A, then it is impossible for A to exist.

Please define 'has a beginning'.

Let me use the following definition, A begins to exist on a given moment if, and only if, A has not existed prior to that moment, or if A has existed and ceased to exist prior to that moment.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 142 by instantc]

"Not being a thing" is a property,
"No dimensions" is a property,
"Nothing is in the set" is a property

Why does something need to be produced by something?
If the answer is it doesn't, then something can be produced by no thing - aka, not produced.

[instantc]

"Not being a thing" is a property,.

No, that's lack of a specific property.

Why does something need to be produced by something?

Let's put it in simpler terms so that there is no confusion with the terminology. If A began to exist, then prior to A existed at least the potentiality for A to come about. Since that potentiality existed prior to A, it cannot be a property of A, so it has to be a property of something else.

[Jashwell]

"Not being a thing" is a property,.

No, that's lack of a specific property.

(these are using google's define search, I believe it uses the Oxford English Dictionary)

property: an attribute, quality, or characteristic of something.
attribute: a quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something
quality: a distinctive attribute or characteristic possessed by someone or something
characteristic: typical of a particular person, place, or thing.

"Not being a thing" is typical of nothing.
"No dimensions" is typical of nothing.
"Nothing in the set" is typical of an empty set.

If you consider there to be a property called potentiality; this much is trivially true:
If something has no potentiality for A, it has potentiality (and the necessary effect of) !A, where !A is [Not A].
If the empty set has no potentiality for A, it has potentiality for !A.

That's an inescapable property.

Why does something need to be produced by something?

Let's put it in simpler terms so that there is no confusion with the terminology. If A began to exist, then prior to A existed at least the potentiality for A to come about. Since that potentiality existed prior to A, it cannot be a property of A, so it has to be a property of something else.

I see no justification for "prior to A existed at least the potentiality for A to come about".
If A began to exist, then prior to some certain time there is no A.

If by potentiality for A to come about you mean "the ability for A to begin to exist", then that much is tautologically true. It is simply circular.

Imagine a timeline. If A begins to exist and shortly thereafter ceases to exist, A will be a finite line on the timeline. Why should we attribute the existence of A to anything? Why must A be brought about? Can this line not simply exist? Why attribute the existence of this line to things to the left rather than the right?

[instantc]

"Not being a thing" is typical of nothing.

In other words, being a thing is not typical of nothing, therefore nothing does not have the property of being a thing --> as I said, nothing is an empty set of properties.

I see no justification for "prior to A existed at least the potentiality for A to come about"

Really, you think it's logically coherent for something to come about if there was no potentiality for that something to come about in the first place? Seems logically contradictory to me. I think it follows directly from the definition of 'potentiality' that if A begins to exist, then prior to A there was potentiality for A to begin to exist.

If by potentiality for A to come about you mean "the ability for A to begin to exist", then that much is tautologically true. It is simply circular.

Here is the crux of the argument. When I say potentiality for A to come about, I do not mean the ability of A to begin to exist, for how could A have that ability before it exists? Therefore the potentiality for A to begin to exist must be attributed to something else than A.

[Jashwell]

"Not being a thing" is typical of nothing.

In other words, being a thing is not typical of nothing, therefore nothing does not have the property of being a thing --> as I said, nothing is an empty set of properties.

"Not being a thing" is a property by previous definition

Please address previous comments on the potentiality of nothing?
(If something has potential A, and nothing doesn't have potential A, then nothing has potential [Not A])

I see no justification for "prior to A existed at least the potentiality for A to come about"

Really, you think it's logically coherent for something to come about if there was no potentiality for that something to come about in the first place? Seems logically contradictory to me. I think it follows directly from the definition of 'potentiality' that if A begins to exist, then prior to A there was potentiality for A to begin to exist.

Probably not the best place to break up the argument at.

If by potentiality for A to come about you mean "the ability for A to begin to exist", then that much is tautologically true. It is simply circular.

Here is the crux of the argument. When I say potentiality for A to come about, I do not mean the ability of A to begin to exist, for how could A have that ability before it exists? Therefore the potentiality for A to begin to exist must be attributed to something else than A.

I don't see why you're attributing the ability to A.
It's more like the word means reality has that ability. That seems to be what's meant by potentiality.

Here's a different example; a flip book.
Does the next page of the flip book require the "potentiality to exist" from previous pages of the flip book?
No.
The page doesn't require other pages to exist. It might even be impossible for the flipbook not to exist - it might be mandated by physical laws, in which case "possibility" wouldn't even make sense (objectively, at least).

If you look at a flip book, you only see one page. Does this mean there's only one page, and that the ink is literally changing?
No.
The whole flipbook exists, and the page number / depth / time (being effectively the same thing in this context) is just another dimension.

The animation begins at the first page. Does this mean that the flipbook "begins to exist" at the first page?
No.
The first page is simply a boundary.

Not to mention the lack of any justification for associating 'potentiality' with the past.
A has no more requirement for the past than the past has a requirement for A.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 133 by Jashwell]
I have no comment on your post. But I do have a question for you.
Why do you believe in empty sets? The empty set is the set containing no elements. In mathematics, and more specifically set theory, the empty set is the unique set having no elements; its size or cardinality (count of elements in a set) is zero.
Something coming from nothing is an empty set, as are the sets unicorns and tooth fairies.
An empty set specifies things which do not exist. To my way of thinking, the only reason to believe this unbelievable is an unwillingness to face the emptiness of the belief and a desire to maintain the fiction of atheism.
What do you say?
kenblogton

[instantc]

"Not being a thing" is a property by previous definition

Please address previous comments on the potentiality of nothing?
(If something has potential A, and nothing doesn't have potential A, then nothing has potential [Not A])"

Exactly, nothing has potential "Not A", as you say, which means that nothing DOES NOT have that property.

Here is the crux of the argument. When I say potentiality for A to come about, I do not mean the ability of A to begin to exist, for how could A have that ability before it exists? Therefore the potentiality for A to begin to exist must be attributed to something else than A.

I don't see why you're attributing the ability to A.
It's more like the word means reality has that ability. That seems to be what's meant by potentiality.

We agree that the ability cannot be attributed to A. Now you suggest that it should be attributed to 'reality', which I find a bit odd, but I don't even want to comment on that. My point stands that in the abovementioned scenario, prior to A existed the potentiality for A to come about. That is not nothing. Therefore, if A begins to exist, something rather than nothing existed prior to A.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 134 by agnosticatheist]

I have given ample proof of the existence of this subforum which you and your fellow atheists cannot refute, but rather maintain your unwarranted belief in empty sets. The empty set is the set containing no elements. In mathematics, and more specifically set theory, the empty set is the unique set having no elements; its size or cardinality (count of elements in a set) is zero. Examples of empty sets include something coming from nothing, unicorns, tooth fairies, and the few you mentioned in your post.
If the set something from nothing is not empty, name an actual element in this set. There are none, but to maintain belief in this fiction is to enable belief in atheism - a belief based upon an empty set.
kenblogton