Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:14 pm

"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.

jcb · Post by **jcb** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:44 am

[Replying to post 238 by Jashwell]
You realise this was your argument?

You started this debate with >> Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?

What convinced you that the Bible was true?

An extensive search on my own convinced me the King James Bible was true. I think what you are more interested in is, 'What did my brother say that got my attention?'

It had to do with the kingdom of heaven/of God having nothing to do with a place of bodily habitation.

I'm not sure what you mean.
Hydrogen and Helium are invisible substances, but we know that our planet and everything on it comes from elements made in stars or supernovae, and those stars come from hydrogen and helium clouds.

This is not what I'm referring to. I'll ask in another way. From what does everything originate that comes from scientific research and other inventions that brought the world from the stone age to what it is today?

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:55 am

Jashwell wrote: [Replying to post 177 by Bust Nak]

What's more coherent: "the coin is both heads and tails until it lands"; "the coin is neither heads nor tails until it lands"?

I would say the latter, but the latter doesn't convay the idea that the neither side of the coin faces upwards during the flip.

What's more coherent: "the coin is both heads and tails until it lands"; "at no point during the flip, did either heads or tails faced upwards until it lands"?

Mutual exclusives

Is it really? Or just a permise that is taken for granted?

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:56 am

[Replying to post 221 by jcb]

Alright this is an attempt to consildate JCB's arguments so that they are more easily discussed. JCB if you feel I have misrepresented your argument please let me know what changes should be made.

The universe did come from nothing of visible substance. Science will have to admit it sooner or later. As for the universe being infinite/time without end, this is completely false according to science. As science recently described it, the universe is like a rubber band that will not break. It will continue to stretch and stretch until eventually it will all collapse back to what it originally was, which is nothing. This is exactly what The Bible says (though in different words) will occur.

Science is proving the existence of a Supreme Power (God), they just don't know it yet.

-Universe is not infinite it will collapse back to nothing
-Universe came from nothing(no visible substance)
-Science will prove the existence of God(it is just not known yet)
-The Bible describes a Cyclical Universe Model(i.e. Big Crunch Big Bounce etc.)

His biblical support for the Cyclical Universe Model
__________________________________________________________________

Hebrews 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Heb 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

2Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

____________________________________________________________________

Big Crunch(most similar to your rubber band analogy)

the Big Crunch is one possible scenario for the ultimate fate of the universe, in which the metric expansion of space eventually reverses and the universe recollapses, ultimately ending as a black hole singularity or causing a reformation of the universe starting with another big bang.

Alright this is the JCB argument in a nutshell:

what some scientist believe is documented in the Bible, and supports what they believe.

Claims
_________________________________________________________

1. The Bible also supports what ALL scientists believe, that the earth at one time was all one continent and came to be what it is now by a massive shifting of the earths plates.

2.The Bible also supports what science says of pre-historic creatures/mammals living before pre-historic humankind.

Counter argument will follow

kenblogton · Post by **kenblogton** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:33 am

[Replying to post 224 by Danmark]

When the universe came into existence, it came from something, as does every something that has occurred since. If the creative something that created the universe came from something, we get into an infinite regress, as I've previously explained. Therefore God, the originator of something from something, is necessarily exempt.
kenblogton

jcb · Post by **jcb** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:37 am

[Replying to post 242 by DanieltheDragon]

Alright this is the JCB argument in a nutshell:

God will be proven by science because the Big Crunch resembles biblical scripture

This is not what I said. The documentary and scientist that participated said, 'the universe will retract back into nothing, creating a black hole and could remain nothing or begin all over again'.

And I did not say this will prove a God exists. I only posted this to show that what some scientist believe is documented in the Bible, and supports what they believe.

1. The Bible also supports what ALL scientists believe, that the earth at one time was all one continent and came to be what it is now by a massive shifting of the earths plates.

2.The Bible also supports what science says of pre-historic creatures/mammals living before pre-historic humankind.

Science has concluded through intensive research that 1 and 2 occurred billions of years ago, not 6000 years. It took science billions of years to come to this conclusion. 1 and 2 are both recorded in chapters 6 and 10 of Genesis.

Which scientists are right about the retraction of the universe or not is something that remains to be seen. The other shows that science is drawing closer and closer to agree with what is written in the Bible. Further research will eventually prove a supreme source exists that started all of what we know as the universe and life.

DanieltheDragon · Post by **DanieltheDragon** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 10:53 am

[Replying to post 244 by jcb]

well you did say that science will prove god's existence and then you went on to describe that connection by describing the "biblical" connection to Big Crunch theory. So I am sorry if there was a miscommunication.

I will update the post to reflect your criticisms.

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:06 pm

[Replying to post 240 by jcb]

The most currently well respected scientific theory of the development of the early Universe is the Big Bang model and Inflation. If you mean further back then that, that would of course be speculative. Attempts to inject your own beliefs out of absence of alternate explanations would of course be an argument from ignorance.

jcb · Post by **jcb** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:19 pm

[Replying to post 246 by Jashwell]

I have no idea what you are referring to in post 240. the only thing I can think of is this.

This is not what I'm referring to. I'll ask in another way. From what does everything originate that comes from scientific research and other inventions that brought the world from the stone age to what it is today?

It clearly says from the stone age to what it is today. You can take the time period back to the big bang and expansion if you want

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:50 pm

[Replying to post 247 by jcb]

I'm not sure entirely what you mean.
Everything that comes from scientific research obviously comes from scientific research.

Do you mean where does scientific research comes from? It wasn't well defined or practised until the 17th century (not the stone age)
Beyond that, it was largely based on philosophy with a bit of mathematics (which itself comes from philosophy), which is largely attributed to the ancient greeks.

I don't know what you're getting at...

Cephus · Post by **Cephus** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:08 pm

Bust Nak wrote:
Jashwell wrote: [Replying to post 177 by Bust Nak]

What's more coherent: "the coin is both heads and tails until it lands"; "the coin is neither heads nor tails until it lands"?
I would say the latter, but the latter doesn't convay the idea that the neither side of the coin faces upwards during the flip.

What's more coherent: "the coin is both heads and tails until it lands"; "at no point during the flip, did either heads or tails faced upwards until it lands"?

We only consider the result after the flip is finished, while it is in the air, whether heads or tails points up for a split second is irrelevant. Therefore, it isn't "both" or "neither", but "who cares?"