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?

[olavisjo]

.

How can you claim that "A god created the universe" is more valid than "there are an infinite number of universes of which ours is one" Both of which explain fine tuning or the appearance thereof.

Because there is no evidence for an infinite number of universes of which ours is one.

[10CC]

.

How can you claim that "A god created the universe" is more valid than "there are an infinite number of universes of which ours is one" Both of which explain fine tuning or the appearance thereof.

Because there is no evidence for an infinite number of universes of which ours is one.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. BOOM

[TheJoshAbideth]

.

How can you claim that "A god created the universe" is more valid than "there are an infinite number of universes of which ours is one" Both of which explain fine tuning or the appearance thereof.

Because there is no evidence for an infinite number of universes of which ours is one.

And the only evidence for God is a bunch of people running around saying there is one.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 51 by olavisjo]

.

How can you claim that "A god created the universe" is more valid than "there are an infinite number of universes of which ours is one" Both of which explain fine tuning or the appearance thereof.

Because there is no evidence for an infinite number of universes of which ours is one.

Yes there is. I believe the point that TheJoshAbideth was making was that if fine-tuning is valid evidence for God, it can equally be valid evidence for the multiverse.

[100%atheist]

.

Are you certain that non carbon based life forms do not exist in the universe, because if they do then the universe by your estimation must have been fine tuned for their existence also.

We do know of germanium and silicon based life forms. That is why I think fine tuning is a slam dunk proof of a creator.

Could you please explain what exactly you mean by fine tuning?
Thanks

Edit: I'll add: it seems to me that theists without understanding or with ill intents hang to abusing words said by scientists. A good example is "the goddamn particle" used by Lederman to describe Higgs boson and later changed to "the God particle" in order to satisfy editorial puritanism. Is saying that the "fine-tuned" universe requires Jesus or any other magic being basically the same as saying that Mendeleev's table was magically inspired and so god exists?

I understand that forums are designed to spill your "BLAH" in the public domain, but c'mon, aren't you bored by doing this over and over again? I am.

[WinePusher]

Mine and Goats point is that you cannot use an argument in place of evidence as it seems you are suggesting.

And just like Goat, you are totally wrong. If you've ever taken a logic class you would understand that an argument is simply a method where someone provides reasons for why you should or shouldn't believe something. For example, you should believe God exists because the universe had a beginning. The beginning of the universe (the big bang) is the evidence being submitted to support my argument for God's existence.

Just because you make an argument for something does not make it evidence of that thing, this is because if I were to take your argument as evidence for that thing I would also be making a statement regarding how sound or valid your argument is... now isn't that the point of the rules of logic??? to determine the validity and soundness of an argument?

Yes, arguments can be valid or invalid, or sound or unsound. The same is true for evidence. Evidence can either be strong or weak, convincing or unconvincing, admissible or inadmissible, etc. These arguments for God's existence are logically constructions which use evidence. If you have some sort of disdain for logical argumentation then I'll simply rephrase them. The evidence for God's existence would be the fine tuning of the universe, the beginning of the universe, the existence of objective morality, the a priori definition of God, the existence of various degrees of perfection, etc.

[JohnA]

Mine and Goats point is that you cannot use an argument in place of evidence as it seems you are suggesting.

And just like Goat, you are totally wrong. If you've ever taken a logic class you would understand that an argument is simply a method where someone provides reasons for why you should or shouldn't believe something. For example, you should believe God exists because the universe had a beginning. The beginning of the universe (the big bang) is the evidence being submitted to support my argument for God's existence.

Just because you make an argument for something does not make it evidence of that thing, this is because if I were to take your argument as evidence for that thing I would also be making a statement regarding how sound or valid your argument is... now isn't that the point of the rules of logic??? to determine the validity and soundness of an argument?

Yes, arguments can be valid or invalid, or sound or unsound. The same is true for evidence. Evidence can either be strong or weak, convincing or unconvincing, admissible or inadmissible, etc. These arguments for God's existence are logically constructions which use evidence. If you have some sort of disdain for logical argumentation then I'll simply rephrase them. The evidence for God's existence would be the fine tuning of the universe, the beginning of the universe, the existence of objective morality, the a priori definition of God, the existence of various degrees of perfection, etc.

Yet nobody has been given a Nobel prize for your so called supernatural thing that can break the laws of nature but can not break the laws of logic.

Faith says you have no evidence. Why are you trying to contradict your faith by saying there is evidence for your god?

[WinePusher]

teleological arguments:

The arguments do not prove God, and they are not evidence for any God in particular, they simply offer room for postulating any number of theories that attempt to explain the origins of the universe and why it is the way it is, of which "A" God is one.

The three main explanations being thrown around by scientists are either chance, intelligent design or the multiverse theory. To use Paley's analogy, if you saw a watch in the middle of a deserted beach and were trying to figure out how it got there, you would conclude that a person designed it and placed it there. A watch cannot spontaneously generate, and since the watch exhibits signs of intricate complexity it would have required intelligence to design it. The same is true for the universe, and modern scientific discoveries have pretty much justified this.

ontological arguments:

Just because a conclusion is valid, does not mean it's true - The argument succeeds at merely validating the concept - not proving or providing evidence for what the concept attempts to explain in reality.

Please explain which premise of the argument is not true. If premises are valid and sound then the conclusion follows with necessity.

1) God is defined as a maximally great being.
2) Being maximally great requires being void of any defects or flaws.
3) Nonexistence is a flaw/defect
4) Therefore, God exists.

Cosmological arguments:

Like teleological arguments, it simply claims the space left vacant by our ignorance of what actually transpired at the universes inception. It is again conjecture - not proof or evidence of anything other than to say that God as an explanation is a possibility.

No, it really isn't conjecture. You are misapplying the term 'conjecture.' The cosmological argument is a deductive argument that proves God's existence using a combination of empirical evidence and observations. Something cannot come from nothing, and by nothing I do not mean empty space. By 'nothing' I mean whatever came before the big bang. Physicists will admit that they do not know what came before since it is nearly impossible for humans to comprehend a 'reality' without space and time. All we can say for sure is that space and time did not exist prior to the beginning of the universe.

Science has also established that the universe did, in fact, come from nothing. The universe began with an initial singularity and then proceeded to expand and the question is, what caused this singularity? A thoughtful person would answer by simply saying that they do not know, but it does leave room for the idea of an uncaused first mover.

Moral Arguments:

Are not proof or evidence of anything - For them to provide valid evidence for the existence of God, you would first need to prove that absolute morality is actually a thing, that exists in reality other than as a concept.

First of all, your line of argumentation here is completely futile. The basic premise of all these arguments are irrefutable, so you are wasting your time by attacking the premises. Even Sam Harris has conceded that objective morals do exist, and he has attempted to provide a nontheistic explanation for objective morality.

Second of all, will you admit that the world be morally absurd and irrational without God, or an afterlife?

[instantc]

teleological arguments:

The arguments do not prove God, and they are not evidence for any God in particular, they simply offer room for postulating any number of theories that attempt to explain the origins of the universe and why it is the way it is, of which "A" God is one.

The three main explanations being thrown around by scientists are either chance, intelligent design or the multiverse theory. To use Paley's analogy, if you saw a watch in the middle of a deserted beach and were trying to figure out how it got there, you would conclude that a person designed it and placed it there. A watch cannot spontaneously generate, and since the watch exhibits signs of intricate complexity it would have required intelligence to design it. The same is true for the universe, and modern scientific discoveries have pretty much justified this.

I genuinely want you to help me understand the argument here. From what rule of inference does it follow, that because an outcome was unlikely, it had to be intentional?

Person A wins the lottery. The chance of A winning the lottery is almost non-existent (surely not as low as in the fine-tuning argument, but that's not relevant here). Does it follow from here that the system must be rigged because chance isn't an appropriate explanation for A's winning?

[WinePusher]

The three main explanations being thrown around by scientists are either chance, intelligent design or the multiverse theory. To use Paley's analogy, if you saw a watch in the middle of a deserted beach and were trying to figure out how it got there, you would conclude that a person designed it and placed it there. A watch cannot spontaneously generate, and since the watch exhibits signs of intricate complexity it would have required intelligence to design it. The same is true for the universe, and modern scientific discoveries have pretty much justified this.

I genuinely want you to help me understand the argument here. From what rule of inference does it follow, that because an outcome was unlikely, it had to be intentional?

Person A wins the lottery. The chance of A winning the lottery is almost non-existent (surely not as low as in the fine-tuning argument, but that's not relevant here). Does it follow from here that the system must be rigged because chance isn't an appropriate explanation for A's winning?

You seem to understand the argument perfectly fine, you just disagree with my conclusion. If a person wins the lottery over and over and over then yes, it would be absolutely appropriate to suggest that the game is rigged and that the person is winning because somebody behind the scenes is pulling the strings. If an extremely unlikely event occurs repeatedly then it is reasonable to think that it was intentional and not just the result of random chance.

My purpose isn't to get you to believe in God. My purpose with these arguments is to show that belief in God is not irrational and that there are in fact some very good reasons to believe that God exists.