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]

"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.

Delusional is defined as having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions.
If as a university undergrad, I had mentioned to my chums that I was debating with people who believed in things for which they could give no examples, my chums would have asked me why would I waste my time debating with people who were obviously delusional. I now ask myself the same question.

Can anyone, atheist or not, do either of the following:
1. Give an example of something which comes from nothing?
2. Give an example of an infinite regression?

Let's look at the possibilities for each:
Regarding 1. a. There are examples, of which X is one, or
b. There are no such extant examples, so we must accept that something comes from something.
Regarding 2. a. There are examples, of which Y is one, or
b. There are no such extant examples, so we must accept that there are only finite regressions.

Possible example of X for 1: The physical universe.
At http://futureandcosmos.blogspot.ca/2013 ... ce-of.html, it states "The paper by Penrose and Gurzadyan attracted attention in the popular press, and it led to a few headlines back in 2010 saying that scientists may have detected traces of something from before the Big Bang. Other very careless headline writers used the paper by Penrose and Gurzadyan to justify headlines about hints of a cyclical universe or hints of a universe existing before our universe. But this uproar was a gigantic case of a false alarm, a classic case of runaway hype. No one has detected any evidence of all of anything occurring before the Big Bang, nor have they detected anything supporting the idea of a cyclical universe.

Other scientists tried to replicate the findings of Penrose and Gurzadyan, and ended up debunking their findings. There was this scientific paper by Wehus and Eriksen which examined the same data, and found no evidence of anomalies other than what would be produced by chance. Then there was this scientific paper by Moss, Scott, and Zibin which also debunked the findings of Penrose and Gurzadyan. Then there was this scientific paper by Hajian which also found that the alleged circles are not anomalous.

The link here gives a Nature article on the controversy, which is entitled “No evidence of time Before Big Bang: Latest research deflates the idea that the Universe cycles for eternity.”

Apparently there may be some way to statistically torture the WMAP data to get something weakly resembling concentric circles, but it is nothing different from what one would be expected to get from a random data set. It's a little like the fact that hundreds of digits deep into a printout of the digits of pi (the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle) we find 7777 followed about 80 digits later by another 7777. But nonrandom as it may seem, this type of thing is exactly what one might expect to find in a set of random digits of the same length.

If we did find evidence of circles in the cosmic background radiation, which were hard to explain by chance, it would not be evidence of some cosmic cycle existing before the Big Bang. It would merely be another unexplained mystery about the Big Bang. We already have lots of those, such as the mystery of what caused the Big Bang. In fact, it can be said rather firmly that there is nothing we could detect in the cosmic background radiation that would be evidence of a previous cycle of a cyclical universe. If there had been any activity or previous cycle before the Big Bang, all trace of it would have been entirely wiped out by the unimaginable heat and density of the Big Bang, far more certainly than a 100 megaton H-bomb would wipe out any trace of a building if that building is at ground zero. This point has been made by numerous scientists such as Robert Jastrow, who pointed out that even if there had been some history of the universe before the Big Bang, it would have been entirely wiped out by the Big Bang.

We have not one particle of evidence of any natural events or processes or history existing prior to the Big Bang. And it is extremely unlikely that we ever will have any such evidence. Like it or not, the Big Bang is a locked door. We are forever barred from tracing back any history of our universe prior to this event."

The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can not be created or destroyed; it can only be redistributed or changed from one form to another. Therefore, a fundamental law for the operation of the universe states its creation from nothing is now impossible! But it exists, with an origin which defies physical explanation. What other non-physical explanation is possible? The most reasonable is by some non-physical entity capable of creating the universe. What would be the characteristics of such a creative entity?

Possible examples of Y for 2: the creative entity.
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, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.
Other attributes of this creative entity which can be inferred are 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.

kenblogton

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 490 by Jashwell]

Please read my post 500 on page 50.
kenblogton

[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.

Delusional is defined as having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions.
If as a university undergrad, I had mentioned to my chums that I was debating with people who believed in things for which they could give no examples, my chums would have asked me why would I waste my time debating with people who were obviously delusional. I now ask myself the same question.

Can anyone, atheist or not, do either of the following:
1. Give an example of something which comes from nothing?
2. Give an example of an infinite regression?

Let's look at the possibilities for each:
Regarding 1. a. There are examples, of which X is one, or
b. There are no such extant examples, so we must accept that something comes from something.
Regarding 2. a. There are examples, of which Y is one, or
b. There are no such extant examples, so we must accept that there are only finite regressions.

This doesn't address the fact that it is an argument from ignorance and that it is self contradictory logic.

If we must accept that the absence of examples of Z means Z is reasoned to be impossible, then we must consider the fact that there are no examples of Z being impossible. Therefore Z is impossible while Z being impossible is, itself, impossible


You also refuse to acknowledge the true dichotomy that is origin.

Either you come from something, or you don't come from something.
If you don't come from something, by definition you come from nothing.
You are imagining some other meaning of nothing, your nothing is something.

"What thing does God come from?"
God comes from no thing.

At http://futureandcosmos.blogspot.ca/2013 ... ce-of.html, it states "The paper by Penrose and Gurzadyan ... it led to a few headlines back in 2010 saying that scientists may have detected traces of something from before the Big Bang ... this uproar was a gigantic case of a false alarm, a classic case of runaway hype. No one has detected any evidence of all of anything occurring before the Big Bang, nor have they detected anything supporting the idea of a cyclical universe.
...
We have not one particle of evidence of any natural events or processes or history existing prior to the Big Bang. And it is extremely unlikely that we ever will have any such evidence. Like it or not, the Big Bang is a locked door. We are forever barred from tracing back any history of our universe prior to this event."

"As for the notion of a cyclical universe, it is on life-support "
This doesn't seem biased at all.

From a blogspot, no less.

But of course, as previously stated, absence of evidence for a cyclical Universe isn't evidence of absence of a cyclical Universe.
This wouldn't be an example of 1 anyway - this would be an example of 2 (infinite regression).

The first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can not be created or destroyed; it can only be redistributed or changed from one form to another. Therefore, a fundamental law for the operation of the universe states its creation from nothing is now impossible! But it exists, with an origin which defies physical explanation. What other non-physical explanation is possible? The most reasonable is by some non-physical entity capable of creating the universe. What would be the characteristics of such a creative entity?

Step 1. Take a well accepted law of nature.
Step 2. Claim that something your opponent proposes would violate this law of nature.
Step 3. Subtly invent a new group of things that are allowed to violate this law of nature.
Step 4. This group happens to include your proposal! Convenient.
Step 5. Take credit.

Energy doesn't need to be created for the Universe to "come from nothing", because there isn't a "time of nothing", there isn't a time without "something".

It's like saying that there's a tablecloth covering the entire table, and then complaining that the tablecloth doesn't cover things that aren't on the table therefore it's not a tablecloth.

The law of conservation of energy (which gets violated anyway) can be rephrased as such:
dE/dt = 0
The net change of energy in the Universe over time is zero.
There isn't a change in time "between nothing and something", you are taking nothing and turning it into a thing, into a state. There is JUST "something", NO "nothing".

Possible examples of Y for 2: the creative entity.
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, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.

Not an example of 2. Isn't an infinite regress.
Comes from no thing. An example of 1.

Other attributes of this creative entity which can be inferred are non-material, usually referred to as spiritual; not occupying space, usually referred to as invisible, and outside of time, usually referred to as eternal.

I suppose that's a convenient modern interpretation of a millennia old book.
But say, I don't suppose you could give an example of something non-material that's evidenced and doesn't beg the question (like God)?
.. or something not occupying space. Or something "outside of time".

Incidentally, eternal means "for all time". You aren't saying God is outside of time, you're trying to say he wholly covers time. It's one or the other.

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

Yet again you don't demonstrate this design.

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.

Which the existence of God would prove wrong. Special pleading of course would say "but there is a special class of entities that can violate this law _{(which only includes things that I say)}"

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.

Which is not identifiable.
You could in no way identify the creative entity's revelation from something else's revelation.
Not at all.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 499 by wiploc]

I don't think the issue is with the word 'begin' at all. God is not part of the universe he created so it's not possible to know whether he had a beginning or not. We however can only know about our reality and within what we generally know is that 'everything had a beginning'.

(If God is part of the universe then we Christians are idol worshippers.)

[instantc]

You also refuse to acknowledge the true dichotomy that is origin.

Either you come from something, or you don't come from something.
If you don't come from something, by definition you come from nothing.
You are imagining some other meaning of nothing, your nothing is something.

"What thing does God come from?"
God comes from no thing.

This is just a needless confusion with words, there is no real dichotomy, it just seems like there is due to the insufficency of the linguistic means. There are three conceivable options. It is conceivable that a being comes from something, "comes to be" but not from something pre-existing or does not "come to be" at all. This is easier if we use the term 'begin to exist'. A being may begin to exist out of something, begin to exist out of nothing or it may not begin to exist at all. You do recognize that there is a difference between the last and the second last option I mentioned, don't you?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 504 by instantc]

Coming from nothing includes if not is not coming
"I come from no thing" -> "I don't come from anything" -> "I don't come"

The verb "come" explicitly requires travel.
To come from nowhere is not to come.
If you don't come, then it stands to reason that you don't come from something (therefore you come from nothing).

Nothing is just a negation, not a thing like it is commonly used as.

[Bust Nak]

Just want to point out, my post here, remained unanswered.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 483 by wiploc]

Many logical arguments are logical but don't make sense.

That's crazy talk. Don't take that pitch on the road.

I can't see how your argument connects with the issue.

Okay, then.

Partly the problem is that Christianity always has separated God from the universe.

Jehovah used to live on the sky, and he used to use a pillar of fire to get up and down. Jesus was born of a virgin woman. Your claim, therefore, seems to me an obvious falsehood, unsupportable.

I request that you support your claim or withdraw it.

If God is the universe or part of the universe then we are just idol worshippers.

I won't touch that with a ten foot pole.

Plus, we don't get to say that a creator god is unbegun unless we call the rest of the universe unbegun. By any single test, either both are begun or both are unbegun. It is only by equivocation (on the meaning of the word "begin") that one can claim that god is unbegun but the rest of the universe not.

For special pleading to be valid you need to show that the general rule applies first and then you can insist they are special pleading.

Pick any rule you like. What is a beginning? Apply the rule to god and the rest of the universe equally, and guess what? Either god and the rest are both begun, or god and the rest are both unbegun.

The only way to claim that god is unbegun and the rest of the universe is begun is to use one definition to test whether the rest of the universe began, and then surreptitiously two-step to another definition when you are testing to see whether god began. Then you have to hope that nobody noticed your equivocation.

Here's an example of someone equivocating:

Joe: "My car is better than yours, because it has a white top."

Sara: "But my car has a white top too."

Joe: "Well, but your car is blue on the bottom, so it is inferior."

Sara: "Your car has a blue bottom too."

Joe: "But my car has a white top, see? So mine is better."

Joe uses one test for her car, and another for his own. The only way he can make his case is to switch back and forth from one test to the other. He's equivocating. He's special pleading.

Theists equivocate on the meaning of the word "begin" in order to show that a god is unbegun but the rest of the universe is begun. They don't all do this, of course. And most of them who do do it are unaware that they are doing it. But the cosmological argument depends entirely on this sleight of mouth trick. If you don't do special pleading, then you can't have a cosmological argument.

Moderator Comment

Please strive for a more civilized tone, and do not characterize positions that you disagree with as "crazy talk", even though they may seem crazy to you.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 504 by instantc]

Coming from nothing includes if not is not coming
"I come from no thing" -> "I don't come from anything" -> "I don't come"

The verb "come" explicitly requires travel.
To come from nowhere is not to come.
If you don't come, then it stands to reason that you don't come from something (therefore you come from nothing).

Nothing is just a negation, not a thing like it is commonly used as.

So you busted him for linguistic clumsiness? Well done. The fact remains that there are three conceivable options.

1. The being began to exist from something pre-existing
2. The being began to exist, but not from anything pre-existing
3. The being did not begin to exist at all

When he says that God did not come from anything, he is referring to the option 3, when he says that things cannot come out of nothing, he is referring to the option 2. Your objection thereof is completely unnecessary.

[mwtech]

Delusional is defined as having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions.
If as a university undergrad, I had mentioned to my chums that I was debating with people who believed in things for which they could give no examples, my chums would have asked me why would I waste my time debating with people who were obviously delusional. I now ask myself the same question.

Can anyone, atheist or not, do either of the following:
1. Give an example of something which comes from nothing?
2. Give an example of an infinite regression?

Let's look at the possibilities for each:
Regarding 1. a. There are examples, of which X is one, or
b. There are no such extant examples, so we must accept that something comes from something.
Regarding 2. a. There are examples, of which Y is one, or
b. There are no such extant examples, so we must accept that there are only finite regressions.

I am astounded that you have yet again misunderstood the atheist position on this subject. You say we are entertaining delusions for believing these things are not impossible. I will say this one more time, amd if you don't grasp it this time, I might as well give up.
Atheists do not believe the universe came from nothing. God or nothing is a false dichotomy. Atheist do not maintain anypositive belief about how the universe came to be. We may have an option we see as most likely, but there is not enough information to know.
You have ignored every analogy and reasoning offered to try and explain to you why the abscence of something is not proof of impossibility and you ignore it, and then accuse anyone who accepts the logic as delusional.

Atheist are not the one making positive claims that the universe came from some thing that no one has ever observed. That is what you are doing, and how dare you call us delusional.