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]

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

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 637 by JoeyKnothead]

I'll only reply to the following point:

kenblogton wrote:
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.


Joey Knothead replied:
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.

kenblogton replied:
At http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-cause ... -bang.html, one of many Science websites 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 had a beginning, perhaps some 13.7 billion years ago. It came into existence. Prior, there was no space, time, matter, or energy. Nothing physical! It's beginning demands an explanation. The uncreated always was God meets the logical criteria for explaining its beginning.

So the universe had a beginning, and did not spontaneously arise. If not God, what do you suggest caused it?

kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 638 by kenblogton]

I've asked this before, but

Given that you think there is no evidence of things coming from nothing (or physical things or w/e) and that we shouldn't believe it because of that (which is an argument from ignorance), don't you think we shouldn't believe in the non-physical?


"Prior to the big bang there was nothing physical: no space, time ..."
No, prior to the beginning of time there was nothing AT ALL. This is in one of the quotes you use as evidence and is purely logically necessary.

Beginning of x: The first or earliest stage of x
Earliest: coming before all others in time or order
First: coming before all others in time or order; earliest; 1st.
Prior: going before another in time or order

Lets use an order as an example. In the actual case, we'd be referring to time (though that itself can be an order).

We have an order of numbers.
(..?..) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (..?..)
Now, someone tells you that 1 is the beginning or first of the order

If someone else tells you that the number 0 is in the order, prior to 1, are they wrong?

Well, prior means that 0 would go before 1.
But 1 is the beginning - by definition, 1 is before all others - that would include a 0.

Therefore, it is logically necessary that they are wrong - as we know that 1 is the beginning.


To apply this to your 'logic':
If God must be prior to X, then by definition X is not the beginning of time or that order.

So, either it is logically necessary that you are wrong or you are dishonestly exchanging temporal order and some made up, ad hoc order ("existentially prior" as some apologists say, for instance).
I doubt the latter.

Also, your reply, deep astronomy is not a credible source. You've mentioned it before, and I've said this before.
Oh, and this is from the same page

In this realm, the solution, whatever it is, will seem very strange to us, and it will almost certainly make no sense to our brains because here, it is possible to have an event with no cause. There is no time, there is no before in which the Big Bang could have occurred, there simply is no cause and effect.

[Jashwell]

Since there's not been any discussion the past week, and most of (if not all of) the thread has been based on cosmological arguments:

Some consider the moral or axiological argument to be a good reason to believe a God exists.

P1) If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist
P2) Objective morality does exist
C (P1 && P2)) God exists

Assuming the above is a valid representation of the moral argument, is this argument sound - and a good reason to believe that a god exists?

//

Personally, I generally see weak justification for P1 if any - it is often assumed by theists (in informal settings) that not only does theism provide an objective morality but that it is the only possible basis for objective morality.
The only real argument I've heard in favour of P1 is this
God is perfect/maximally great/etc and therefore omni-benevolent
The problem with this is it's begging the question. Ignoring semantic arguments about whether perfect would need to include being morally good;

First, if you define God as omni-benevolent you have a trivial solution (even then a problem shows up as will follow). One could just as easily define a new abstract concept as omni-benevolent and then substitute God for it.
The 'other' aspects of God aren't ever shown to be necessary for his supposed omni-benevolence. Why would he need to be a person? Why would he need to be very powerful?
The reality is, he wouldn't need to be anything other than omni-benevolent. Literally the plain concept of objective morality itself could substitute God in this argument. In fact, the mere fact that it can substitute God should prove the premise false.

And second, one can just as easily ask "By what standards is God omni-benevolent?" - if the standard/basis is any of the following: "Because God says so", "Because it is consistent with God's will", "Because it is consistent with God's nature", etc, then you are literally saying "God does what God wants therefore he is perfectly good" or "God is entirely consistent with God's will ...".
One loses the ability (some theists would approve of this) to 'judge' God - not because you shouldn't, or because he's some ultimate judge, but because it would be entirely meaningless. Under this, "God is good" means literally nothing.


I would also object to the second premise. Other than developing a logical or mathematically rigorous morality, which would invalidate the first premise, how could you possibly demonstrate this to any reasonable degree?