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]

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.

At http://www.ask.com/question/what-do-mos ... e-big-bang, it says “Many scientist believe that nothing existed before the Big Bang, that is just happened and nothing happened before it. There is really no way to know for sure if anything did happen or exist before.� and “Scientists know nothing about what happened before the Big Bang.� and “A scientist friend of mine tried (largely in vain) to explain this to me once. Whilst various theories abound, a widely accepted answer is that there was no "before the Big Bang�� and “a dense singularity�
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

1. 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?

2.

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?

3.

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.

4.

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."

Reply to 1. "At http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sa ... ol1005.htm, it says
Overview (of the origin of the universe) Our universe consists of all known mass, energy, space, and time. Evidence suggests that our universe began as an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity. The science called cosmology studies and hypothesizes on how the universe has evolved from singularity to its present as well as possible future states. The dominant theory of universal evolution goes by the familiar name of big bang (or big bang cosmology). At its simplest the big bang refers to an explosive expansion of the entire universe, starting from singularity and continuing to today. Thus, the big bang encompasses all of the events in our universe that have occurred subsequent to singularity. Particularly, all of the energy and mass in our universe was formed within and subsequent to singularity. Every atom that ever was and every atom that ever will be (such as those in our bodies) was created in the course of the big bang."
As previously, the dense singularity/big bang is the origin of the physical. Prior, there was nothing physical.

Reply to 2. I assume you're joking. Our world only has examples of something coming from something and none of something coming from nothing. Can you give me one example of something coming from nothing?

Reply to 3. Again, I assume you're joking. The laws of physics begin with the physical - no physical, no laws of physics.

Reply to 4. I have given you the logic for God as creator. Here it is again:
1. The existence of something. The question is “Why is there something rather than nothing?� If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing. If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such. However, we find only examples of something coming from something. Therefore, based on Occam’s razor, we reject all notions of something coming from nothing. It follows that a creative entity is needed to create something from nothing, whether or not that something changes.
2. The existence of something which changes. Change implies a beginning. The changed state may also be viewed as the effect of a cause. It is a well-accepted axiom of logic that a cause precedes its effect; that a cause never follows its effect. A creative entity is needed to begin, or cause, a changing something which was preceded by nothing.
3. The nature of the creative entity. The first two points demonstrate that 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 Occam’s 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.
4. The limitations of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge consists of two types, generally speaking, empirical or observational knowledge regarding the physical universe, and theoretical or inferred or deduced knowledge about that universe, such as quantum theory. Scientific knowledge of the creative entity is impossible given that it, the creative entity, is not physical. It is logical error to negate the existence of the creative entity based on scientific reasoning; the creative entity is outside the domain of the scientific.
kenblogton

[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.

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.

I'm sorry but you are way off. A cause, according to the dictionary definition, would be a person, thing or a condition that gives rise to something. If a quantum field gave rise to the universe, then that would be the cause of the universe. As I suspected, you reject the first cause principle solely due to your own absurd and unnecessarily narrow definition of the word '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.

I'm sorry but you are way off. A cause, according to the dictionary definition, would be a person, thing or a condition that gives rise to something. If a quantum field gave rise to the universe, then that would be the cause of the universe. As I suspected, you reject the first cause principle solely due to your own absurd and unnecessarily narrow definition of the word 'cause'.

Let's be honest, that's not what a theist is talking about when they're talking about a first cause. Our universe came into existence at the point of the Big Bang. That says nothing about what came before it. It says nothing about the existence of other universes before ours began to exist. If you want to assume that some quantum fluctuation was the cause of the Big Bang, fine. We both know that's not what's being talked about by creationists though.

[mwtech]

Reply to 1. "At http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sa ... ol1005.htm, it says
Overview (of the origin of the universe) Our universe consists of all known mass, energy, space, and time. Evidence suggests that our universe began as an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity. The science called cosmology studies and hypothesizes on how the universe has evolved from singularity to its present as well as possible future states. The dominant theory of universal evolution goes by the familiar name of big bang (or big bang cosmology). At its simplest the big bang refers to an explosive expansion of the entire universe, starting from singularity and continuing to today. Thus, the big bang encompasses all of the events in our universe that have occurred subsequent to singularity. Particularly, all of the energy and mass in our universe was formed within and subsequent to singularity. Every atom that ever was and every atom that ever will be (such as those in our bodies) was created in the course of the big bang."
As previously, the dense singularity/big bang is the origin of the physical. Prior, there was nothing physical.

This is not the only model for our universe. There are theories about the universe that suggest that there was no beginning. For example, the rainbow gravity theory.
"The extreme energies needed to bring out strong consequences from rainbow gravity, although rare now, were dominant in the dense early universe, and could mean things got started in a radically different fashion than we tend to think. Awad and his colleagues found two possible beginnings to the universe based on slightly different interpretations of the ramifications of rainbow gravity. In one scenario, if you retrace time backward, the universe gets denser and denser, approaching an infinite density but never quite reaching it. In the other picture the universe reaches an extremely high, but finite, density as you look back in time and then plateaus. In neither case is there a singularity—a point in time when the universe is infinitely dense—or in other words, a big bang. "This was, of course, an interesting result, because in most cosmological models, we have singularities," Awad says. The result suggests perhaps the universe had no beginning at all, and that time can be traced back infinitely far."
There is still not enough evidence to say for sure whether there was a beginning.

Reply to 2. I assume you're joking. Our world only has examples of something coming from something and none of something coming from nothing. Can you give me one example of something coming from nothing?

Reply to 3. Again, I assume you're joking. The laws of physics begin with the physical - no physical, no laws of physics.

If the laws of physics begin with the physical, and there was no physical before the universe began, then there would be no laws of physics. Which means no law of conservation of matter and energy. Which means no reason that something wouldn't come from nothing. And there is no way to give an example because the laws of physics have been the same since then. That's like asking me to give an example of someone cheating at basketball before basketball was invented. You can't break a rule that doesn't exist yet.

Reply to 4. I have given you the logic for God as creator. Here it is again:
1. The existence of something. The question is “Why is there something rather than nothing?� If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing. If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such. However, we find only examples of something coming from something. Therefore, based on Occam’s razor, we reject all notions of something coming from nothing. It follows that a creative entity is needed to create something from nothing, whether or not that something changes.

This was addressed above.

2. The existence of something which changes. Change implies a beginning. The changed state may also be viewed as the effect of a cause. It is a well-accepted axiom of logic that a cause precedes its effect; that a cause never follows its effect. A creative entity is needed to begin, or cause, a changing something which was preceded by nothing.

Just because change implies a beginning does not mean change implies creation.

3. The nature of the creative entity. The first two points demonstrate that 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 Occam’s razor, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.

The first two points don't indicate a creator. They imply a cause. Occam's razor doesn't always apply, and while it is often useful, we cannot assume the absolute truth of the origin of the universe because some of the theories are complicated. It is a complicated subject.

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.

I would disagree with the notion that we have to assume the cause of the universe to be super-intelligent and or omniscient because the universe isn't that fine tuned. People often like to boast that if the Earth were a little closer to or further from the sun we couldn't live. Well, humans as we know them might not, but whatever creatures evolved on the slightly different planet would just have adapted to those conditions. There are an unknown number of stars each with their own planets and moons, and it is highly likely that many, however different from Earth, would still have life in some form or fashion. If they are as egocentric as humans, they probably think the universe is fine tuned to them and that life s impossible anywhere other than their "perfect" planet.

4. The limitations of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge consists of two types, generally speaking, empirical or observational knowledge regarding the physical universe, and theoretical or inferred or deduced knowledge about that universe, such as quantum theory. Scientific knowledge of the creative entity is impossible given that it, the creative entity, is not physical. It is logical error to negate the existence of the creative entity based on scientific reasoning; the creative entity is outside the domain of the scientific.
kenblogton

The impossibility of negating the creative entity is precisely why it is not a valid hypothesis. For a statement to be questioned using observation, it needs to be at least theoretically possible that it can come in conflict with observation. Also, the fact that we can't negate it is not even close to evidence for it. Just consider the vast number of unfalsifiable claims one could make. Is the inability to prove them wrong to be offered up as proof for their existence?

Even if I were to humor you and accept your reasoning that there must be a god, this does not support Theism. It supports Deism. This still leaves the problem of figuring out which God is the right one, or if it has ever revealed itself at all. It would be a wild goose chase.

[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.

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.

I'm sorry but you are way off. A cause, according to the dictionary definition, would be a person, thing or a condition that gives rise to something. If a quantum field gave rise to the universe, then that would be the cause of the universe. As I suspected, you reject the first cause principle solely due to your own absurd and unnecessarily narrow definition of the word 'cause'.

Let's be honest, that's not what a theist is talking about when they're talking about a first cause. Our universe came into existence at the point of the Big Bang. That says nothing about what came before it. It says nothing about the existence of other universes before ours began to exist. If you want to assume that some quantum fluctuation was the cause of the Big Bang, fine. We both know that's not what's being talked about by creationists though.

You cannot deny a premise that stands to reason just because you assume an ulterior motive. Besides, I think that the first cause premise gives rise to an interesting conversation even if one doesn't think that God is a good explanation.

[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.

Jashwell, you are obfuscating, and I have no interest in indulging you.
Let me illustrate your obfuscations:

Obfuscating is making unclear.
If you want to claim I'm obfuscating, you could at least quote my full responses.

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.

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.

As you can tell from my analogy, the implication of the question is obviously fallacious. Absence of evidence of possibility is not evidence of absence of possibility. Your question is as much a distraction as my rhetoric response "show me one example of a God existing".

My other response is another rhetoric. You are claiming that nothing needs no explanation with no justification in order to avoid justification. I'm not even asserting anything, I'm just not accepting an assertion of yours "Something can't come from nothing" (I'm not saying I know I can, just that I don't know it can't). My response is to highlight the pointlessness of such an assertion. I can just assert the opposite.

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.

I also said

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 difference between "Something from God" and "Something from nothing" is that the latter doesn't presuppose a God.
Occam's razor means the latter is a better hypothesis.

Not only is it wrong to demand an example - it is your burden of proof to demonstrate the impossibility, I am not asserting possibility (once again, just that I don't know it's impossible).
On the other hand, if we did play it your way, it would then be your burden of proof to give an example of something coming from God. I'd like to see that without begging the question.

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.

I also gave about 4 different references. "Borrowed" is the term usually used by physicists, for reasons beyond me. I made this response ironically to try and make it more clear what I meant. The energy doesn't observably disappear from somewhere else is what I meant by "not really borrowed". (As then it wouldn't violate conservation)

It definitely violates the conservation principle as it is currently formulated.
You said nothing could. You were wrong. Do you take back your statement?

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.

Latter part is a different point. (followed with

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

[/quote])
Former part is simply the fact that there is currently no reasonably conclusive evidence in support of theoretical models that spacetime began with the big bang.
I'd like to see the statistics, but 50.1% is not what is implied by consensus.

[kenblogton]

A. Reply to 1. "At http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sa ... ol1005.htm, it says
Overview (of the origin of the universe) Our universe consists of all known mass, energy, space, and time. Evidence suggests that our universe began as an incredibly hot and dense region referred to as a singularity. The science called cosmology studies and hypothesizes on how the universe has evolved from singularity to its present as well as possible future states. The dominant theory of universal evolution goes by the familiar name of big bang (or big bang cosmology). At its simplest the big bang refers to an explosive expansion of the entire universe, starting from singularity and continuing to today. Thus, the big bang encompasses all of the events in our universe that have occurred subsequent to singularity. Particularly, all of the energy and mass in our universe was formed within and subsequent to singularity. Every atom that ever was and every atom that ever will be (such as those in our bodies) was created in the course of the big bang."
As previously, the dense singularity/big bang is the origin of the physical. Prior, there was nothing physical.

This is not the only model for our universe. There are theories about the universe that suggest that there was no beginning. For example, the rainbow gravity theory.
"The extreme energies needed to bring out strong consequences from rainbow gravity, although rare now, were dominant in the dense early universe, and could mean things got started in a radically different fashion than we tend to think. Awad and his colleagues found two possible beginnings to the universe based on slightly different interpretations of the ramifications of rainbow gravity. In one scenario, if you retrace time backward, the universe gets denser and denser, approaching an infinite density but never quite reaching it. In the other picture the universe reaches an extremely high, but finite, density as you look back in time and then plateaus. In neither case is there a singularity—a point in time when the universe is infinitely dense—or in other words, a big bang. "This was, of course, an interesting result, because in most cosmological models, we have singularities," Awad says. The result suggests perhaps the universe had no beginning at all, and that time can be traced back infinitely far."
There is still not enough evidence to say for sure whether there was a beginning.

B.

Reply to 2. I assume you're joking. Our world only has examples of something coming from something and none of something coming from nothing. Can you give me one example of something coming from nothing?

Reply to 3. Again, I assume you're joking. The laws of physics begin with the physical - no physical, no laws of physics.

If the laws of physics begin with the physical, and there was no physical before the universe began, then there would be no laws of physics. Which means no law of conservation of matter and energy. Which means no reason that something wouldn't come from nothing. And there is no way to give an example because the laws of physics have been the same since then. That's like asking me to give an example of someone cheating at basketball before basketball was invented. You can't break a rule that doesn't exist yet.

C.

Reply to 4. I have given you the logic for God as creator. Here it is again:
1. The existence of something. The question is “Why is there something rather than nothing?� If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing. If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such. However, we find only examples of something coming from something. Therefore, based on Occam’s razor, we reject all notions of something coming from nothing. It follows that a creative entity is needed to create something from nothing, whether or not that something changes.

This was addressed above.

2. The existence of something which changes. Change implies a beginning. The changed state may also be viewed as the effect of a cause. It is a well-accepted axiom of logic that a cause precedes its effect; that a cause never follows its effect. A creative entity is needed to begin, or cause, a changing something which was preceded by nothing.

Just because change implies a beginning does not mean change implies creation.

D.

3. The nature of the creative entity. The first two points demonstrate that 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 Occam’s razor, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.

The first two points don't indicate a creator. They imply a cause. Occam's razor doesn't always apply, and while it is often useful, we cannot assume the absolute truth of the origin of the universe because some of the theories are complicated. It is a complicated subject.

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.

I would disagree with the notion that we have to assume the cause of the universe to be super-intelligent and or omniscient because the universe isn't that fine tuned. People often like to boast that if the Earth were a little closer to or further from the sun we couldn't live. Well, humans as we know them might not, but whatever creatures evolved on the slightly different planet would just have adapted to those conditions. There are an unknown number of stars each with their own planets and moons, and it is highly likely that many, however different from Earth, would still have life in some form or fashion. If they are as egocentric as humans, they probably think the universe is fine tuned to them and that life s impossible anywhere other than their "perfect" planet.

4. The limitations of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge consists of two types, generally speaking, empirical or observational knowledge regarding the physical universe, and theoretical or inferred or deduced knowledge about that universe, such as quantum theory. Scientific knowledge of the creative entity is impossible given that it, the creative entity, is not physical. It is logical error to negate the existence of the creative entity based on scientific reasoning; the creative entity is outside the domain of the scientific.
kenblogton

The impossibility of negating the creative entity is precisely why it is not a valid hypothesis. For a statement to be questioned using observation, it needs to be at least theoretically possible that it can come in conflict with observation. Also, the fact that we can't negate it is not even close to evidence for it. Just consider the vast number of unfalsifiable claims one could make. Is the inability to prove them wrong to be offered up as proof for their existence?

Even if I were to humor you and accept your reasoning that there must be a god, this does not support Theism. It supports Deism. This still leaves the problem of figuring out which God is the right one, or if it has ever revealed itself at all. It would be a wild goose chase.

Reply to A. Just because there is a theory does not make it valid. The simplest scenario with the greatest scientific consensus is that there was nothing prior to the dense singularity/big bang.
Everything physical has a beginning, and something never comes from nothing. To say differently is ad hoc, rejected by Occam's razor.
Reply to B. Basketball needs no rules until there is basketball. There is no physics until there is physical. To conjecture that something could come from nothing before there was physical is mere phantasy, or desperation, like assuming fairies and leprechauns.
Reply to C. If there is nothing, then of course change implies creation.
Reply to D. Name me anything invented that approaches the intelligent design of the universe. The existence of life on other planets is mere speculation, another flight of fancy.
The impossibility of negating something that is logically necessary is precisely the reason to accept that something.
You are correct to say that what I've said supports Deism, not Theism. With belief in God, you must start somewhere. The Bible is the best source I know if you want to get into Theism.
kenblogton

[Bust Nak]

Just because there is a theory does not make it valid. The simplest scenario with the greatest scientific consensus is that there was nothing prior to the dense singularity/big bang.

No, the simplest scenario with the greatest scientific consensus is that was no such thing as "before the singularity/big bang," which is entirely different to there was nothing before the singularity/big bang. Re: Hawking.

Everything physical has a beginning, and something never comes from nothing. To say differently is ad hoc, rejected by Occam's razor.

That depends on how you define "thing." Matter comes from no matter all the time.

Basketball needs no rules until there is basketball. There is no physics until there is physical. To conjecture that something could come from nothing before there was physical is mere phantasy, or desperation, like assuming fairies and leprechauns.

You are undermining your own point. Remember, you were appealing to the laws of physics to support the claim that something cannot come from nothing. If there was no physical laws, then what exactly is stopping something from coming nothing?
Beside, re:point 1, there was never a time where there is no physics.

If there is nothing, then of course change implies creation.

Creation implies consciousness, change does not imply consciousness. Change does not implie creation, no, it implies formation.

Name me anything invented that approaches the intelligent design of the universe. The existence of life on other planets is mere speculation, another flight of fancy.

First you have to demostrate that the universe is intelligently designed.

The impossibility of negating something that is logically necessary is precisely the reason to accept that something.

Is it a logical necessary? Logic can't get anywhere without premises, empirical evidence trumps what is seemingly impossible. Common sense says an it is impossibe for an entity to be at two places at once, yet that is exactly what we observed re: quantum physics.

[mwtech]

Reply to A. Just because there is a theory does not make it valid. The simplest scenario with the greatest scientific consensus is that there was nothing prior to the dense singularity/big bang.
Everything physical has a beginning, and something never comes from nothing. To say differently is ad hoc, rejected by Occam's razor.
Reply to B. Basketball needs no rules until there is basketball. There is no physics until there is physical. To conjecture that something could come from nothing before there was physical is mere phantasy, or desperation, like assuming fairies and leprechauns.
Reply to C. If there is nothing, then of course change implies creation.
Reply to D. Name me anything invented that approaches the intelligent design of the universe. The existence of life on other planets is mere speculation, another flight of fancy.
The impossibility of negating something that is logically necessary is precisely the reason to accept that something.
You are correct to say that what I've said supports Deism, not Theism. With belief in God, you must start somewhere. The Bible is the best source I know if you want to get into Theism.
kenblogton

Thankfully, Bust Nak has already pointed out the obvious problems with you arguments, so I won't be redundant. But there is an even bigger problem here. You have to realize that just because a majority of of somebody believes something, it doesn't make it true. Not even the greatest scientist in the world would claim that they are so sure that something cannot possibly come from nothing that there is no logical explanation for the existence of anything other than the existence of a creator. The huge leap from thinking you know for sure that your first assumption is right, to knowing that the only explanation for existence is your favorite idea of a creator is so enormous that it cannot be taken seriously. If the logic is so clear, why is it that none of the great logicians of our time have so kindly pointed this out to us? Before you can ever get to your point 4, point 1 has to be firmly established. The fact that the Rainbow Gravity theory is not yet accepted by the majority doesn't negate it. The fact that the majority of people once thought the Sun revolved around the Earth didn't make Galileo wrong. But his revolutionary idea, while not proven yet and accepted by few if any, would be proven eventually.

How arrogant was it for his opposition to assume that it logically had to be the way they thought it was? But we're better than that today. Scientific methods have been improved so much that we know that until something is proven beyond a doubt, it is the correct thing to do to keep looking for answers. If we assume that because we can't understand something coming from nothing, and we are so sure there was ever nothing, and we are so sure there is some law that began at the same time as everything else keeping that from being a possibility, that there must be a God, what reason is there to keep looking for answers? We will just stop trying to figure it out and stick with the easy, comfortable solution even though our only logic supporting it is that we don't have logic supporting anything else yet. This has been the case with plenty of scientific questions before, and if they had just stopped looking once they came up with some unfalsifiable theory that couldn't be proven wrong and didn't look for the logic in anything else, we would still be in the dark ages, and we certainly wouldn't be having this conversation over the internet. This is not a valid way to prove anything, let alone the important question of whether or not we are governed by a supreme being whose existence will determine how we live our everyday lives. This is not something we can just accept and drop all other options because we aren't smart enough to understand them yet.