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.

[FarWanderer]

Second reply to 1. Space, time, matter & energy are the physical, and they all began at the big bang. At http://space.about.com/od/astronomybasi ... iverse.htm, it states "The second part of the question, as to what existed before the Big Bang, has scientists baffled. By definition, nothing existed prior to the beginning,"

1. "By definition, nothing existed prior to the beginning [the Universe (probable emphasis on time)]" as it has been said many, many times, this includes no God.
Nothing physical, nothing non-physical. No God.

Science says nothing about the non-physical; your statement "Nothing physical, nothing non-physical. No God." is atheistic wishful thinking.

Irrelevant. "By definition, nothing existed prior to the beginning," isn't even a scientific claim. It's a semantic claim.

In the real world of space, time, matter and energy, all events are caused, without exception.

By things in the real world of space, time, matter, and energy.

[ten10ths]

"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.

If it makes you feel good to believe in a god, great - DO IT. Other wise, don't. It seems pretty simple to me really.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 627 by Jashwell]

I have stated my views and have nothing further to add to your post for all items except the following:
kenblogton Quote:
You have never given me even one example of something coming from nothing, which underscores the necessity of causation.


Jashwell replied:
Are you really still asking this?

Please read the following slowly and thoroughly. I'm not even going to address the argument from ignorance (or the million counterexamples given to you).

You have said on many occasions that you believe coming from nothing and not coming from something are different. In other words, you believe that their are three scenarios:
1) Comes from nothing (you think this impossible)
2) Comes from something
3) Doesn't come from something "but doesn't come from nothing" (your God)

3 means that you don't believe everything has a cause.

kenblogton replied:
Something coming from nothing and something not coming from something are equivalent; they are the SAME thing, and no one has ever given an example of such. Without evidence, Occam's razor!
God does not come from nothing and God does not come from something. God does not come from anything, God simply is, always was, uncreated, uncaused, unique in that respect, the only exception to the rule of causation.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

Reply to 1. All the most reputable Science websites acknowledge the physical begins with the dense singularity/big bang - for instance, see: http://space.about.com/od/astronomybasi ... iverse.htm

That's only true of physical matter IN OUR UNIVERSE. Very few scientists think that we've got the only universe anymore, most accept the many-worlds or multiverse model now. Clearly, our Big Bang has no influence on the physical matter in other universes. Once we realize that there may be other universes, your entire argument falls apart.

Try again, without this unjustified assumption. Everything you say relies on it.

What evidence do you have of any universe besides our own? Speculation that such may be possible is no more fruitful than supposing unicorns may exist somewhere.

There are very convincing mathematical models that show that other universes are extremely likely. Show me anything like that for the existence of God.

I thought not.

Mathematical models are theory, not evidence. I have given the equivalent, logic, for the existence of God. If you would like to state the logic again, please ask.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

.

What evidence do you have of any universe besides our own? Speculation that such may be possible is no more fruitful than supposing unicorns may exist somewhere.

I agree that it is not fruitful to speculate that unicorns exist somewhere (and I include universes).

How, exactly, is it fruitful to speculate that "gods" exist somewhere?

If ancient tales, testimonials and opinions about unicorns are not regarded as anything more than imagination, why should god tales based on the same level of evidence be regarded as truthful and accurate?



Edited to add: Of course, even ardent religionists dismiss speculation about thousands of proposed "gods" (and often regard them as imaginary or false). However, "My favorite god is real even though all others are false" (and the evidence is similar).

How about logic? If interested, read on:
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 Occams 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 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.
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

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 634 by kenblogton]

I suggest adding:

5) Since there is no credible evidence that any of the thousands of proposed "gods" are anything more than imaginary, divert attention to endless discussion of "how it all began." Of course, the matter cannot be resolved but one can claim that a favorite "god" was responsible (and demand that others prove otherwise).

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 632 by kenblogton]

Something coming from nothing and something not coming from something are equivalent; they are the SAME thing, and no one has ever given an example of such. Without evidence, Occam's razor!

Ok, so follow me here.
Now we've got two alternatives.

(edit: slight restructure to make this clearer)
A: Coming from something

1) A
2) Not A (Not coming from something)

They're LOGICAL NEGATIONS, they cover ALL POSSIBILITIES
You're now accepting that 2 (Not coming from something) is THE SAME as coming from nothing.

So our two options are

1) Coming from something
2) Coming from nothing

You then say

God does not come from nothing and God does not come from something. God does not come from anything, God simply is, always was, uncreated, uncaused, unique in that respect, the only exception to the rule of causation.

You're saying God isn't A- but he also isn't not A.
In other words, you are denying the law of excluded middle.
Any logical proposition is true xor false. It can't be neither.

God HAS to fit one of these categories - the SECOND CATEGORY includes things that are eternal and don't come, and the UNIVERSE fits the same category as you believe God does.

The Universe is uncreated
The Universe is uncaused - in fact, because it's the only object that can be said to touch the boundary point of spacetime, it can't be caused

Now, regardless of what you think about coming from something and coming from nothing, why can't the Universe follow what you think God does? Aren't you just specially pleading?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 634:

...
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 Occams 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.

My problem with this angle is that it excludes this "creative entity" from the very rules it imposes on the universe.

We can observe the universe, and can reasonably apply the attributes of this "creative entity" to the universe itself - It poofed itself into existence, by way of the Big Bang, using stuff that already existed for the same amount of time as we may propose for this "creative entity".

Occam's razor should surely work best if we stop adding anthropomorphic attributes to the beginning of the universe in its current form.

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.

So, picking up Occam's razor, we conclude the universe itself "caused" its own change, and can support this notion better where we know things act according to their properties.

Or, we introduce an anthropomorphic "creative entity", and hope folks don't bother using the razor.

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 Occams razor, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.

The infinite regress is best solved when we say there the universe is, and I'm sure proud of that.

Instead, the religionist must violate his own "laws" of the universe in order to support their favored "creative entity". You simply refuse to accept that things act according to their properties, where some cause created the Big Bang, but you refuse to accept any possible "mundane" explanation. Instead, it is you who becomes the "creative entity", creating a god where none need be posited.

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.

Those attributes are equally effective at describing something that isn't there.

Again, using that razor, we slice off the malignancy of anthroporphism, and conclude the universe exists because it contains the unique, if not fully understood, attribute of sitting there.

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

I'm unaware of any reliable data in support of this "design".

Please offer some means to confirm the universe was designed.

1st challenge.

Intelligent design theory has been soundly rebuked in scientific and legal circles.

As the remainder of the paragraph relies on this false, unsupported assumption, I'll leave it be for now.

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.

Ya know what else is outside the domain of the scientific?

That which ain't there to study.

[kenblogton]

.
[Replying to post 634 by kenblogton]

I suggest adding:

5) Since there is no credible evidence that any of the thousands of proposed "gods" are anything more than imaginary, divert attention to endless discussion of "how it all began." Of course, the matter cannot be resolved but one can claim that a favorite "god" was responsible (and demand that others prove otherwise).

Your reply does not deal with what I said. I have dealt with the logical necessity of a creative entity for the physical universe; you are going on about gods in general and not addressing the issues I raised.
1. Everything physical comes from something. The physical ball is gotten rolling, so to speak, by what must, of logical necessity, be a non-physical creative entity, which most refer to as God. The entity must be non-physical since, prior to the big bang/dense singularity, there was nothing physical: no space, time, matter, or energy.
2. The entity which gets the ball rolling must, of logical necessity, be uncreated, or we get into an infinite regress of creative entities getting the ball rolling. God is uncreated and eternal - always was or is.
3. Occam's razor tells us there is only one creative entity; only one God.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 636 by Jashwell]

I'll reply to the second part of your post, cited below:

kenblogton Quote:
God does not come from nothing and God does not come from something. God does not come from anything, God simply is, always was, uncreated, uncaused, unique in that respect, the only exception to the rule of causation.

Jashwell reply
God HAS to fit one of these categories - the SECOND CATEGORY includes things that are eternal and don't come, and the UNIVERSE fits the same category as you believe God does.

The Universe is uncreated
The Universe is uncaused - in fact, because it's the only object that can be said to touch the boundary point of spacetime, it can't be caused

Now, regardless of what you think about coming from something and coming from nothing, why can't the Universe follow what you think God does? Aren't you just specially pleading?

kenblogton reply:
At http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-cause ... -bang.html, one of many Science sites which say similar things, it says "The real problem with this question of what caused the big bang is ultimately a biological one; our brains have evolved to assume that everything has a cause, we can't imagine any event ever not having one.

But 100 years ago, we couldn't imagine that our galaxy was only one in an ocean of one hundred billion. 200 years ago, we couldn't imagine that the stars were more than 13,000 light years away. 500 years ago, we couldn't imagine that the Earth revolved around the Sun. If our past enquiries into the universe are any guide, the truth of the cosmos is always more than we have imagined.

The answer to the cause of the universe will almost certainly be something strange and, by definition, wholly beyond our experience. Our occluded brains must always be open the answer, especially when asking questions that push the limits of our capacity to understand."

The universe is NOT uncaused or uncreated, because the physical universe had a beginning!

God does not have a beginning; no beginning, no cause.

kenblogton