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.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 157 by kenblogton]

At this point I'm starting to wonder if you even read my posts.
As I have said multiple times, when I say "coming from nothing" I mean "coming from no thing", AKA "not coming from a thing", a subset of which is "not coming" (for example, not beginning, or being eternal), e.g. your God.

And, as I've said multiple times, God is, God does not come from anything or nothing or no thing. God is, everything else comes from something.
kenblogton

You see to have missed the part where I say
"I mean it's eternal, without beginning, like your God"

Presumably your God is also everywhere and nowhere, because they're about as mutually exclusive as [not coming from nothing] and [not coming from everything].

Mithrae, it's not worth it. I've made like 10 posts showing very clearly the obvious semantic logic of how "coming from nothing" = "not coming from something"

[kenblogton]

If I may leap a little late into the discussion...

1. Seems to me humans began believing in gods as an outgrowth of belief in spirits, and believed in spirits as a rudimentary explanatory tool. Why or how do I eat or talk or walk around? Because my mind or spirit decides to do so. So why or how do clouds move, rain fall, animals move, sun rise and set? 'Obviously' because some other minds or spirits make them do so.

2. If I can just steal this comment here:

You're just projecting your own imaginative descriptive concept (potential) onto reality as prescriptive and using that to justify demanding an object.

For this very reason it's important to remember that the laws of nature or laws of physics used by the science of this or previous centuries are simply consistent, unified descriptions of how reality behaves. We can now 'explain' the behaviour of clouds and rain and moon and sun in much broader and more detailed descriptions of molecular chemistry, thermodynamics, mass and gravity. But ultimately, we do not have a fundamental answer to those prehistoric question any more than our ancestors did.

3. The theistic 'theory' has been refined over the millenia, from animism to polytheism to monotheism and pantheism. But it seems that in one of those latter forms it still holds considerable merit. Not only are alternative metaphysical views equally unproven, but there's actually a reason to elevate theism above alternatives. That's the fact that there is only one causal process which we experience without mediation by our senses, which we directly engage in: Choice.

Any other form of causation (chance and determinism seem the only logical alternatives) can only be inductively inferred from observation. If I flip a coin a hundred times and get 47 heads and 53 tails, I might decide that it's governed by chance. Or perhaps, if I could precisely measure every minute variation in my hand's movement and position, every change in air molecules and temperature and every difference in the landing surface, I might instead decide that the coin's landing is determined by all these factors. But in both cases, I'm simply making inferences from observation - and I cannot say with certainty that the 101st toss won't simply turn into a pigeon and fly away.

Even with those limitations of our understanding of causality in mind, the universe does not appear to be entirely random. On the other hand, at least on the quantum level the case for an entirely deterministic universe seems shaky at best, from what I gather. And this is just from observations in a tiny corner of a single galaxy across a measly few centuries of the universe's timeline!

Can we really say with any confidence at all that any causal process exists besides choice?

4. I don't think so. Until we can, the notion that we humans are weird anomalies - thinking, choosing beings in a non-thinking, non-choosing reality - is not justified. It's a strange kind of anthropocentrism that we are special or unique; that just because we don't see the same kind of processes going on in the rest of the universe, they probably aren't there. Of course, we don't even see other people's thoughts or choices! Obviously the more reasonable presumption, until we find reason to believe otherwise, is that we are not special or unique; that the basic principles of how we operate are pretty similar to the way the universe in general operates.

Reply to 1. Anthropological accounts I've read of the earliest humans said they believed in one or a few mighty and demanding gods, perhaps through revelation. Polytheism came much later, and invoked less demanding gods.

Reply to 2. We know the universe began between 8-15 billion years ago, and that Science describes physical reality.

Reply to 3. Human choice in any given situation is a product of learned behaviour and biological predispositions, and perhaps divine inspiration. The learning was influenced by our senses.

Reply to 4. In the book Newberg, A., DAquili, E.G. and Rause, V. WHY GOD WONT GO AWAY: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief. New York: Ballantine Books, 2002, the authors state As the human brain evolved, something remarkable happened: The brain, with its great perceptual powers, began to perceive its own existence, and human beings gained the ability to reflect, as if from a distance, upon the perceptions produced by their own brains. There seems to be, within the human head, an inner personal awareness, a free-standing, observant self. We have come to think of this self, with all its emotions, sensations, and cognitions, as the phenomenon of mind"
What we think of as reality is only a rendition of reality that is created by the brain. Our modern understanding of the brains perceptual powers bears this out. Nothing enters consciousness whole. There is no direct, objective experience of reality. The idea that our experience of reality " all our experiences, for that matter " are only secondhand depictions of what may or may not be objectively real, raises some profound questions about the most basic truths of human existence and the neurological nature of spiritual experience."
Using a single-photon emission computerized tomography (SPECT) camera, the authors injected radioactive material intravenously then scanned a meditating subjects brain at the moment he notified them that he had achieved mystical transcendence. The finished scan images showed unusual activity in a specialized bundle of neurons known as the posterior superior parietal lobe, which the authors dubbed the orientation association area, or OAA. (3-4) The primary job of the OAA is to orient the individual in physical space " it keeps track of which end is up, helps us judge angles and distances, and allows us to negotiate safely the dangerous physical landscape around us. To perform this crucial function, it must first generate a clear, consistent cognition of the physical limits of the self. In simple terms, it must draw a sharp distinction between the individual and everything else, to sort out you from the infinite not-you that makes up the rest of the universe. It may seem strange that the brain requires a specialized mechanism to keep tabs on this you/not-you dichotomy; from the vantage point of normal consciousness, the distinction seems ridiculously clear. But thats only because the OAA does its job so seamlessly and so well. In fact, people who suffer injuries to the orientation area have great difficulty maneuvering in physical space. To do its job so well, the orientation area depends upon a constant stream of nerve impulses from each of the bodys senses. The OAA sorts and processes these impulses virtually instantaneously during every moment of our lives. The scan taken at the peak of [the subjects] meditative state, however shows the orientation area to be bathed incolors that indicate a sharp reduction in activity levels. This finding intrigued us. We know that the orientation area never rests, so what could account for this unusual drop in activity levels in this small section of the brain?...a fascinating possibility emerged: What if the orientation area was working as hard as ever, but the incoming flow of sensory information had somehow been blocked?...What would happen if the OAA had no information upon which to work?...With no information flowing in from the senses, the OAA wouldnt be able to find any boundaries. Would the orientation area interpret its failure to find the borderline between the self and the outside world to mean that such a distinction doesnt exist? In that case, the brain would have no choice but to perceive that the self is endless and intimately interwoven with everyone and everything the mind senses. And this perception would feel utterly and unquestionably real. (4-6)
kenblogton

[Danmark]

Reply to 1. Anthropological accounts I've read of the earliest humans said they believed in one or a few mighty and demanding gods, perhaps through revelation. Polytheism came much later, and invoked less demanding gods.

Reply to 2. We know the universe began between 8-15 billion years ago, and that Science describes physical reality.

Reply to 3. Human choice in any given situation is a product of learned behaviour and biological predispositions, and perhaps divine inspiration. The learning was influenced by our senses.

Reply to 4. In the book Newberg, A., DAquili, E.G. and Rause, V. WHY GOD WONT GO AWAY: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief. New York: Ballantine Books, 2002, the authors state As the human brain evolved, something remarkable happened: The brain, with its great perceptual powers, began to perceive its own existence, and human beings gained the ability to reflect, as if from a distance, upon the perceptions produced by their own brains. There seems to be, within the human head, an inner personal awareness, a free-standing, observant self. We have come to think of this self, with all its emotions, sensations, and cognitions, as the phenomenon of mind"
What we think of as reality is only a rendition of reality that is created by the brain. Our modern understanding of the brains perceptual powers bears this out. Nothing enters consciousness whole. There is no direct, objective experience of reality. The idea that our experience of reality " all our experiences, for that matter " are only secondhand depictions of what may or may not be objectively real, raises some profound questions about the most basic truths of human existence and the neurological nature of spiritual experience."....

I agree with all of this [and appreciate the long quote from Newberg, A., DAquili, E.G. and Rause. All of this demonstrates exactly why man, when he could think of nothing else to explain natural phenomena, projected his own mind onto a super version of himself as a 'cause' for it all. Very natural, understandable, but wrong. There is no need to speculate and project a giant version of oneself as the cause of everything. I imagine that if human beings born the last 100 years or so were well educated about science and natural explanations, but were not indoctrinated by ancient mythologies, the idea of a 'God' would never emerge at all. "God" quite literally is the product of ignorance; an answer to a question that is not asked when one understands the natural world today.

[instantc]

Hence is the problem with use of the word property. What is or isn't a property is easily debatable. Please provide a more concrete definition.

I don't see a problem that would be significant to the discussion at hand. The relevant question is the one you raise below, namely why potentiality to produce something would require an explanation.

2) Why prior?

Because the potentiality for A to come about exists before A comes about, otherwise it is logically impossible for A to come about.

"Why does the potentiality for A to come about have to be prior?"
"Because the potentiality for A to come about exists before A comes out"

... so, why does the potentiality for A to come about exist before A comes out?

Because it is logically impossible for A to begin existing if there were no potentiality for A to come into existence.

"How to explain the capability of A occurring" is begged as much as "How to explain the purpose of A occurring" is. .

I think this is the heart of the issue. The purpose of A occuring is only relevant if one assumes that A was created by an intelligent agent of some sort. The capability of something occurring, on the other hand, seems to always beg for an explanation, at least that appears to be a good prima facie assumption. For example, my capability of writing this message can be explained in physical, psychological and perhaps in sociological terms.

[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.

Let me be more specific.

Do you mean a beginning because of the reformation of existing material, or out of nothing?

Both.

Can you show anything that has a beginning that is not out of pre existing material?

No, nor have I claimed anything like that. Can you?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 164 by instantc]

Why is it logically impossible?

This should only be the case if potentiality is a redefinition of "A comes into existence", in which case there is no burden on other things to have this property.

A solid definition of potentiality is requisite - and a reason to say it must exist before but not after.

Capability does not always beg for an explanation. It is not a good assumption. It is a personification. There are many situations where we can speak of possibility; of capability; but when time comes into question (e.g. the beginning of time, situations involving high degrees of general relativity, quantum physics) it is not a good model to use. Hence it should not be used to make overarching statements such as "something needs to come from something".

Do you believe time began with the big bang?
If so, there was no potentiality for time to come prior - as there was nothing prior (aka there is no thing as prior).

I also dispute the phrase come into existence. If you're watching a horror film, and you get to the part where the monster shows up, that monster hasn't 'just come into existence', it's been on the frames the entire time, it's just the first time you've got to the frames.

Once again, by "coming from nothing" I mean "not coming from anything" or "not coming", whether or not you believe that requires potentiality seems relevant.

[instantc]

And, as I've said multiple times, God is, God does not come from... no thing.

If it's not the case that God comes from no thing, then logically God comes from some thing.

I wonder if you can provide any examples of something with no beginning?

I think by 'come' he means begins to exist. Thus, he is saying that God did not begin to exist out of nothing, nor did he begin to exist out of something, suggesting that he didn't begin to exist at all.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 164 by instantc]

Why is it logically impossible?

This should only be the case if potentiality is a redefinition of "A comes into existence", in which case there is no burden on other things to have this property..

To say that I have the potentiality to produce something means that I am capable of producing that something. If I, for example, do not have the potentiality to procude A, then it is logically impossible for me to produce A. If I produce A, then I clearly was capable of producing A at that time. I cannot explain it in any clearer terms.

That's like asking why something can't both be a rock and not be a rock at the same time, and then demanding me to define the words 'why', 'can', 'be', 'rock' and 'time'.

Capability does not always beg for an explanation. It is not a good assumption. It is a personification.

It is difficulty for me to see how it would not need an explanation. It seems very rational to me that, since there was potentiality for producing A, then there also was something to which that potentiality can be attributed to.

Hence it should not be used to make overarching statements such as "something needs to come from something".

Nobody has made that statement. We are talking about things that begin to exist.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 164 by instantc]

Why is it logically impossible?

This should only be the case if potentiality is a redefinition of "A comes into existence", in which case there is no burden on other things to have this property..

To say that I have the potentiality to produce something means that I am capable of producing that something. If I, for example, do not have the potentiality to procude A, then it is logically impossible for me to produce A. If I produce A, then I clearly was capable of producing A at that time. I cannot explain it in any clearer terms.

That's like asking why something can't both be a rock and not be a rock at the same time, and then demanding me to define the words 'why', 'can', 'be', 'rock' and 'time'.

Why does it need to be produced?
Why something else have to produce it?
Why does the thing producing it have to be before it?

The scenario you're writing itself tries to implicit the truth of what you're saying. "If I produce A..." you're already ascribing A to yourself.

Capability does not always beg for an explanation. It is not a good assumption. It is a personification.

It is difficulty for me to see how it would not need an explanation. It seems very rational to me that, since there was potentiality for producing A, then there also was something to which that potentiality can be attributed to.

Why before? Why not at the same time or after?

Once again, this whole idea of capability is taking an occurrence and inventing a requirement for another object based on personification.

Hence it should not be used to make overarching statements such as "something needs to come from something".

Nobody has made that statement. We are talking about things that begin to exist.

I've said so many times it's not even funny, when I say "coming from nothing" I mean "coming from no thing", which means "not coming [from anything]", a subset of which is things that don't begin to exist. I don't believe the Universe (in the 4D sense) began to exist.

I don't even know if you can call beginning to exist meaningful in an overarching sense. It seems only useful in scenarios where the passage of time and order of events is clear, and the entropy difference is significant.

[instantc]

Why does it need to be produced?

That's just another word for 'begin to exist'. Since there was potentiality for A to begin existing, we can say that A was produced by whatever that potentiality can be attributed to. If the potentiality has no explanation, but A simply spontaniously began to exist, then it would make no sense to use the word 'produce'. However, as I have been explaining, it seems more reasonable that there was something to which the potentiality can be attributed to.

Why something else have to produce it??

Because it cannot produce itself, that also seems logically impossible.

Why does the thing producing it have to be before it?

Because one cannot produce something that already exists.