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]

Give me one example of something coming from nothing. Without an example, the assertion stands: Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing means not anything. Of course, nothing needs no explanation.

A. The problem with this position is that you assume to know for certain that we came from nothing. We don't know this. There is no way we could know this.
I assume you are working under the principle that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. We have matter/energy, so it was either created originally or has always been. So, there is the possibility that all the matter/energy that is here has always been here. If you can believe in a God with no beginning, why can't you believe in a universe with a beginning. There is also the faulty assumption that the laws of physics as we know them have always existed. We can't know that. Maybe before the beginning of the universe as we know it now -- lets call it pre-big bang -- the law of conservation of matter and energy didn't apply. There is no way to know this because there is no way to observe the pre big bang universe. There is the theory that our universe is not the only universe, and that we are a byproduct of a universe who's laws of physics are different. And then of course there is the creation theory, which doesn't even get so far as supporting the Judeo-Christian God. It can support a deist view or a theist view and nothing more than that without further confirmation.

B. So here are 4 theories:
1) the universe had no beginning
2) the pre-big bang universe didn't work the same way current universe did. In other words, the laws of physics began at the same time the universe did.
3) There are any number of other universes that don't follow the same physical constants and we were a product of one of those.
4) we have a creator of unknown origin that is not restrained by these laws of physics.

No one of these theories holds any more weight than another because it is not possible for us to examine any evidence from before the universe as we know it come to be. But to assert that because we cannot explain it, it is easily explained by theory 4, is irrational and holds no logical value. It is just another baseless assumption.

Reply to A. We do know that prior to the dense singularity/big bang of somewhere between 8-15 billion years ago, there was nothing physical: no space, time, matter or energy.
We do know from that it takes something to create something, that something cannot come from nothing. From this, we can infer the following about the creative entity: the creative entity itself cannot be created and cannot change. If this creative entity were created or changing, we get into an infinite regress: this changing creative entity is created by another changing creative entity which is created by another changing creative and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, using Occams razor, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.
If we consider the physical universe of space, time, matter and energy as the created something, then we can infer some of the attributes of its non-physical creative entity: non-material, usually referred to as spiritual; not occupying space, usually referred to as invisible, and outside of time, usually referred to as eternal. We can also infer this creative entity is of supreme intelligence or omniscience, given the marvelous design observed in the inception and evolution of the physical universe, and has supreme power or omnipotence, given accepted scientific theory which states nothing physical or material " matter and energy " can either be created or destroyed. Further knowledge of the nature of the creative entity cannot be inferred directly from the physical, and requires further revelation from the creative entity itself.
There is no reason to assume the laws of physics have changed; physicists tell us they never change. And you can only speculate, you cannot give one example of a changed law of physics. Therefore, using Occam's razor, we reject all such speculation.

Reply to B. Theory 4) is the only one with logic on its side. It is not a baseless assumption, but rather the only one with logic on its side, given that something, like the physical universe, cannot come from nothing but rather comes from something. Theory 1) is false, 2) is ad hoc, and 3) is unfounded speculation.
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

Give me one example of something coming from nothing. Without an example, the assertion stands: Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing means not anything.

... no, no it doesn't.
Analogous to
"Give me one example of a god, without it, the assertion stands: Gods cannot exist."

Of course, nothing needs no explanation.

Of course, something coming from nothing needs no explanation.

You have not given one example of change not having a beginning, but have rather avoided answering my question.
If there is no explanatory value in a theory, Occam's razor says to eliminate it, like the need to explain the existence of nothing. With no examples of something from nothing, it is discarded as an explanation.

If we had definite examples we wouldn't need Occam's razor.

The explanatory value of "something from nothing" is the beginning of the Universe (to those who believe there was nothing) and is similar to the explanatory value of "something from God", the beginning of the Universe (to those who believe there was God), except it is simpler. That's why Occam's razor cuts out God.

The Heisenberg uncertainty has nothing to do with energy or with borrowing energy. It has to do with one cannot simultaneously the position and velocity of a particle.

See previous links and comment

There are no observed instances of energy creation from nothing. Energy borrowing is not energy creation.
kenblogton

I say energy is borrowed in a weird sense of the term. The energy doesn't come from anywhere, the amount borrowed is limited by the time it can be borrowed for.

The physical only came into existence somewhere between 8-15 billion years ago. Prior to that, Scientists tell us there was NOTHING - no space, time, matter or energy.
kenblogton

Incorrect. A few scientists do assert there was nothing before the big bang. This is not scientific consensus.
This means that there wasn't a state in which the big bang had not previously occurred - there wasn't some "cosmic vacuum state" with no time space matter or energy that you've imagined.

"There is no a before the big bang" is similar to "There isn't a time during the race before the race has started"

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 52 by Jashwell]

You have avoided answering my questions, so my previous reply stands until you do.
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 52 by Jashwell]

You have avoided answering my questions, so my previous reply stands until you do.
kenblogton

If by "avoided answering your questions" you mean I haven't given a demonstrable example of nothing creating something, then you haven't answered mine.

You haven't given a demonstrable example of a God existing.

On the other hand, I have in fact responded to everything you've said and if I haven't answered a question I likely have an objection to it.

[Cephus]

In reality, there's no such thing as "nothing", there's always quantum fluctuations, etc. If people are going to assert that something cannot come from nothing, they'd have to show that there is any such thing as "nothing" first and, of course, they can't.

The physical only came into existence somewhere between 8-15 billion years ago. Prior to that, Scientists tell us there was NOTHING - no space, time, matter or energy.
kenblogton

That only goes to prove that you know nothing about science because that's just not the case. Scientists say they DON'T KNOW what came before the Big Bang, they do not say that there was nothing before the Big Bang. Current theoretical models certainly do not propose nothing. You need to do some homework, you know not what you speak of.

[mwtech]

Reply to A. We do know that prior to the dense singularity/big bang of somewhere between 8-15 billion years ago, there was nothing physical: no space, time, matter or energy.

And how do we know this? What evidence do you have for this that is any more than assumption?

We do know from that it takes something to create something, that something cannot come from nothing.

No we don't know this. How could we know this?

There is no reason to assume the laws of physics have changed; physicists tell us they never change. And you can only speculate, you cannot give one example of a changed law of physics. Therefore, using Occam's razor, we reject all such speculation.

Physicists don't try to tell us that they know how the laws of hysics worked before the big bang. We don't know if there were laws of physics before the big bang. There probably wasn't time before the big bang, so there isn't even such a thing as before the big bang. So Occam's razor does not apply here. None of these theories are any less complicated than another. You just think your theory is because you have already decided that it's the truth. There is an emotional bias there. Your familiarity with the theory makes the holes invisible to you. If it didn't, you would realize that it is no better than any of the rest.

Reply to B. Theory 4) is the only one with logic on its side. It is not a baseless assumption, but rather the only one with logic on its side, given that something, like the physical universe, cannot come from nothing but rather comes from something. Theory 1) is false, 2) is ad hoc, and 3) is unfounded speculation.
kenblogton

You cannot know whether theory 1 is true or false because it is impossible to know. Theory 2 is only ad hoc if you unjustly assume that theory 1 is false. Otherwise, it is just as equally an option. all of these theories are unfounded speculation. 1,2, and 4 are no exception. Theory 4 has no logic on its side either. It is a non-answer. Claiming the supernatural is just a placeholder for I don't know. And you are prematurely giving up all hope of ever being able to know. You can't just say "I can't explain it, therefor I can explain it by saying God did it."

[instantc]

In reality, there's no such thing as "nothing", there's always quantum fluctuations, etc. If people are going to assert that something cannot come from nothing, they'd have to show that there is any such thing as "nothing" first and, of course, they can't.

Obviously there is no such thing as 'nothing', for nothing is not a thing at all. By affirming that there has never been 'nothing', i.e. there has always been something, you are effectively affirming the theistic premise that something cannot come from nothing and consequently there had to be a first cause.

[Cephus]

In reality, there's no such thing as "nothing", there's always quantum fluctuations, etc. If people are going to assert that something cannot come from nothing, they'd have to show that there is any such thing as "nothing" first and, of course, they can't.

Obviously there is no such thing as 'nothing', for nothing is not a thing at all. By affirming that there has never been 'nothing', i.e. there has always been something, you are effectively affirming the theistic premise that something cannot come from nothing and consequently there had to be a first cause.

It does nothing of the sort, as a first cause implies something intelligent that purposefully created everything and that has no evidence whatsoever to support it. What you've got there is wishful thinking.

[Bust Nak]

Obviously there is no such thing as 'nothing', for nothing is not a thing at all. By affirming that there has never been 'nothing', i.e. there has always been something, you are effectively affirming the theistic premise that something cannot come from nothing and consequently there had to be a first cause.

There are two alternatives other than a first cause: infinite regression and circular dependency.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 52 by Jashwell]

You have avoided answering my questions, so my previous reply stands until you do.
kenblogton

If by "avoided answering your questions" you mean I haven't given a demonstrable example of nothing creating something, then you haven't answered mine.

You haven't given a demonstrable example of a God existing.

On the other hand, I have in fact responded to everything you've said and if I haven't answered a question I likely have an objection to it.

Jashwell, you are obfuscating, and I have no interest in indulging you.
Let me illustrate your obfuscations:
Exchange 1. I said "Give me one example of something coming from nothing. Without an example, the assertion stands: Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing means not anything." and you said

"... no, no it doesn't." Look up the definition of nothing.

Exchange 2. I said "You have not given one example of change not having a beginning, but have rather avoided answering my question.
If there is no explanatory value in a theory, Occam's razor says to eliminate it, like the need to explain the existence of nothing. With no examples of something from nothing, it is discarded as an explanation." and you said

"If we had definite examples we wouldn't need Occam's razor."

Occam's razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Clearly, something coming from something has fewer assumptions than something coming from nothing, since you can give me no examples of something coming from nothing, we reject that hypothesis using Occam's razor.

Exchange 3. I said "There are no observed instances of energy creation from nothing. Energy borrowing is not energy creation." and you said

"I say energy is borrowed in a weird sense of the term. The energy doesn't come from anywhere, the amount borrowed is limited by the time it can be borrowed for." This is pure obfuscation.

Exchange 4. I said "The physical only came into existence somewhere between 8-15 billion years ago. Prior to that, Scientists tell us there was NOTHING - no space, time, matter or energy." and you said

"Incorrect. A few scientists do assert there was nothing before the big bang. This is not scientific consensus.
This means that there wasn't a state in which the big bang had not previously occurred - there wasn't some "cosmic vacuum state" with no time space matter or energy that you've imagined."

Again, pure obfuscation. The vast majority of scientists agree there was nothing before the big bang - a fact for which I've previously provided the support.

You are of course entitled to your views. I see them as obfuscations or avoiding the issues which I raise, so I have no interest in pursuing this exchange with you any further.
kenblogton