Evidence for God's Existence

[WinePusher]

When I first joined this forum I remember McCulloch was creating a series of topics devoted to the various arguments for God's existence. I'd like to explore those issues in this thread and for the purpose of this thread God will be defined as a deistic, supernatural intelligent designer. We will not be using any theistic definition of God.

Teleological arguments prove God's existence based on the design and precise structure of the universe. The universe is structured in an improbable and an unlikely way. The physical laws that govern the universe are fine tuned to an extremely unlikely numerical value, and had these laws been set at any other parameter life could not exist. Statistically speaking, chance/coincidence is not an appropriate explanation, therefore a fine tuner/intelligent designer designed the universe.

Ontological arguments prove God's existence based on the definition of God. God is defined as a maximally great being, meaning that God can have no defects. Nonexistence is a defect, therefore God must exist. First of all, this argument pretty much destroys the ignostic position. Yes, I realize ignostics are willingly ignorant of all the philosophical scholarship surrounding God, but the fact is that the concept of God is pretty well defined. Therefore, the ignostics usergroup should be abolished.

Cosmological arguments prove God's existence based on the fact that the universe began to exist. Meaning, at one point in the distant past, the universe did not exist at all. The universe is itself contingent. Mathematically speaking, it is impossible for the chain of causes to regress backwards infinitely. Therefore, a non contingent first cause must exist. This cause supernatural, in the sense that it must be spaceless and timeless since space and time are bound by the universe.

Moral arguments prove God's existence based on the existence of objective morality. By objective morality I mean a moral statement or declaration. Something like 'killing is an innocent person for fun is wrong.' This is a moral declaration that is objectively true, regardless of any individuals personal opinion. Since an objective moral law exists, there must be a moral law giver. Another version of the moral argument would be the fact that the world would be morally absurd and irrational absent a moral law giver.


Questions:
1) Are these arguments logically valid and sound?

2) In light of these four philosophical arguments, will atheists please stop making the false, disingenuous claim that there is no evidence for God?

3) Are there any arguments against the existence of God?

[10CC]

Can someone who is advocating the fine-tuning argument explain me one simple thing about the argument. Whenever I post this somewhere, I never get a response. So it must be because my question is either too stupid or too witty.

First, it is evident that simply because an event was unlikely, it does not follow that it had to be intentional. Let's look at an example situation where we instinctively apply this kind of rationale.

Suppose we are playing cards and I, the dealer, get a straight flush three times in a row. This is obviously a good reason to suspect that I have intentionally rigged the deck, but why is that the case? An apologist might be inclined to say that it's because getting a straight flush three times in a row is very unlikely. But, anybody who knows the basics of probability calculus also knows that the probability for any given combination of three hands is equally unlikely.

As shown above, the reasonable suspicion doesn't arise from the low probability of the event alone, but also from the fact that straight flush has a great value in poker.

Thus, it seems to me that in order for fine-tuning to be evidence for an intentional creation, we have to assume two things. First, that formation of life permitting conditions would be very unlikely to happen by chance. Second, that life is the straight flush of the universe.

My question is, what reason do we have to assume the latter?

You can not use probability theory as explanation for the fine-tuning. That is because we have no other examples of universes with life.

People do not answer you because your use of probability theory premise is wrong.

You are way off. I am making a subsidiary argument, my objection doesn't rely on the low probability of this so called fine tuning. Rather, the fine tuning argument itself relies on the contention that the probability for life permitting conditions to arise by chance is very low. If this is granted, the argument is still open to my objection.

If the universe were slightly different and completely different sentient life forms developed would they be justified in claiming the fine tuning argument?
The life form exists in the environment in which it can exist, the environment does not exist to support a life form.

[instantc]

Can someone who is advocating the fine-tuning argument explain me one simple thing about the argument. Whenever I post this somewhere, I never get a response. So it must be because my question is either too stupid or too witty.

First, it is evident that simply because an event was unlikely, it does not follow that it had to be intentional. Let's look at an example situation where we instinctively apply this kind of rationale.

Suppose we are playing cards and I, the dealer, get a straight flush three times in a row. This is obviously a good reason to suspect that I have intentionally rigged the deck, but why is that the case? An apologist might be inclined to say that it's because getting a straight flush three times in a row is very unlikely. But, anybody who knows the basics of probability calculus also knows that the probability for any given combination of three hands is equally unlikely.

As shown above, the reasonable suspicion doesn't arise from the low probability of the event alone, but also from the fact that straight flush has a great value in poker.

Thus, it seems to me that in order for fine-tuning to be evidence for an intentional creation, we have to assume two things. First, that formation of life permitting conditions would be very unlikely to happen by chance. Second, that life is the straight flush of the universe.

My question is, what reason do we have to assume the latter?

You can not use probability theory as explanation for the fine-tuning. That is because we have no other examples of universes with life.

People do not answer you because your use of probability theory premise is wrong.

You are way off. I am making a subsidiary argument, my objection doesn't rely on the low probability of this so called fine tuning. Rather, the fine tuning argument itself relies on the contention that the probability for life permitting conditions to arise by chance is very low. If this is granted, the argument is still open to my objection.

If the universe were slightly different and completely different sentient life forms developed would they be justified in claiming the fine tuning argument?
The life form exists in the environment in which it can exist, the environment does not exist to support a life form.

Yes, I fully agree. Whatever the conditions turned out to be, one could always equally claim that it couldn't happen by chance.

[JohnA]

Can someone who is advocating the fine-tuning argument explain me one simple thing about the argument. Whenever I post this somewhere, I never get a response. So it must be because my question is either too stupid or too witty.

First, it is evident that simply because an event was unlikely, it does not follow that it had to be intentional. Let's look at an example situation where we instinctively apply this kind of rationale.

Suppose we are playing cards and I, the dealer, get a straight flush three times in a row. This is obviously a good reason to suspect that I have intentionally rigged the deck, but why is that the case? An apologist might be inclined to say that it's because getting a straight flush three times in a row is very unlikely. But, anybody who knows the basics of probability calculus also knows that the probability for any given combination of three hands is equally unlikely.

As shown above, the reasonable suspicion doesn't arise from the low probability of the event alone, but also from the fact that straight flush has a great value in poker.

Thus, it seems to me that in order for fine-tuning to be evidence for an intentional creation, we have to assume two things. First, that formation of life permitting conditions would be very unlikely to happen by chance. Second, that life is the straight flush of the universe.

My question is, what reason do we have to assume the latter?

You can not use probability theory as explanation for the fine-tuning. That is because we have no other examples of universes with life.

People do not answer you because your use of probability theory premise is wrong.

You are way off. I am making a subsidiary argument, my objection doesn't rely on the low probability of this so called fine tuning. Rather, the fine tuning argument itself relies on the contention that the probability for life permitting conditions to arise by chance is very low. If this is granted, the argument is still open to my objection.

If the universe were slightly different and completely different sentient life forms developed would they be justified in claiming the fine tuning argument?
The life form exists in the environment in which it can exist, the environment does not exist to support a life form.

Yes, I fully agree. Whatever the conditions turned out to be, one could always equally claim that it couldn't happen by chance.

You can not use probability theory as explanation for the fine-tuning. That is because we have no other examples of other universes:
with natural laws, and/or
with life, and /or
that developed the condition to support life in this/other universe or on earth, and/or
life that evolved to suit that/our universe or suite the conditions.

The fine-tuning arguments fails because it assumes a god created life (it does not cater for the fact that life was an accident/chance). You are trying to argue it does, so you do not understand probability theory or the fine-tuning argument.

[10CC]

Can someone who is advocating the fine-tuning argument explain me one simple thing about the argument. Whenever I post this somewhere, I never get a response. So it must be because my question is either too stupid or too witty.

First, it is evident that simply because an event was unlikely, it does not follow that it had to be intentional. Let's look at an example situation where we instinctively apply this kind of rationale.

Suppose we are playing cards and I, the dealer, get a straight flush three times in a row. This is obviously a good reason to suspect that I have intentionally rigged the deck, but why is that the case? An apologist might be inclined to say that it's because getting a straight flush three times in a row is very unlikely. But, anybody who knows the basics of probability calculus also knows that the probability for any given combination of three hands is equally unlikely.

As shown above, the reasonable suspicion doesn't arise from the low probability of the event alone, but also from the fact that straight flush has a great value in poker.

Thus, it seems to me that in order for fine-tuning to be evidence for an intentional creation, we have to assume two things. First, that formation of life permitting conditions would be very unlikely to happen by chance. Second, that life is the straight flush of the universe.

My question is, what reason do we have to assume the latter?

You can not use probability theory as explanation for the fine-tuning. That is because we have no other examples of universes with life.

People do not answer you because your use of probability theory premise is wrong.

You are way off. I am making a subsidiary argument, my objection doesn't rely on the low probability of this so called fine tuning. Rather, the fine tuning argument itself relies on the contention that the probability for life permitting conditions to arise by chance is very low. If this is granted, the argument is still open to my objection.

If the universe were slightly different and completely different sentient life forms developed would they be justified in claiming the fine tuning argument?
The life form exists in the environment in which it can exist, the environment does not exist to support a life form.

Yes, I fully agree. Whatever the conditions turned out to be, one could always equally claim that it couldn't happen by chance.

You can not use probability theory as explanation for the fine-tuning. That is because we have no other examples of other universes:
with natural laws, and/or
with life, and /or
that developed the condition to support life in this/other universe or on earth, and/or
life that evolved to suit that/our universe or suite the conditions.

The fine-tuning arguments fails because it assumes a god created life (it does not cater for the fact that life was an accident/chance). You are trying to argue it does, so you do not understand probability theory or the fine-tuning argument.

No you don't understand what I said.

[JohnA]

Can someone who is advocating the fine-tuning argument explain me one simple thing about the argument. Whenever I post this somewhere, I never get a response. So it must be because my question is either too stupid or too witty.

First, it is evident that simply because an event was unlikely, it does not follow that it had to be intentional. Let's look at an example situation where we instinctively apply this kind of rationale.

Suppose we are playing cards and I, the dealer, get a straight flush three times in a row. This is obviously a good reason to suspect that I have intentionally rigged the deck, but why is that the case? An apologist might be inclined to say that it's because getting a straight flush three times in a row is very unlikely. But, anybody who knows the basics of probability calculus also knows that the probability for any given combination of three hands is equally unlikely.

As shown above, the reasonable suspicion doesn't arise from the low probability of the event alone, but also from the fact that straight flush has a great value in poker.

Thus, it seems to me that in order for fine-tuning to be evidence for an intentional creation, we have to assume two things. First, that formation of life permitting conditions would be very unlikely to happen by chance. Second, that life is the straight flush of the universe.

My question is, what reason do we have to assume the latter?

You can not use probability theory as explanation for the fine-tuning. That is because we have no other examples of universes with life.

People do not answer you because your use of probability theory premise is wrong.

You are way off. I am making a subsidiary argument, my objection doesn't rely on the low probability of this so called fine tuning. Rather, the fine tuning argument itself relies on the contention that the probability for life permitting conditions to arise by chance is very low. If this is granted, the argument is still open to my objection.

If the universe were slightly different and completely different sentient life forms developed would they be justified in claiming the fine tuning argument?
The life form exists in the environment in which it can exist, the environment does not exist to support a life form.

Yes, I fully agree. Whatever the conditions turned out to be, one could always equally claim that it couldn't happen by chance.

You can not use probability theory as explanation for the fine-tuning. That is because we have no other examples of other universes:
with natural laws, and/or
with life, and /or
that developed the condition to support life in this/other universe or on earth, and/or
life that evolved to suit that/our universe or suite the conditions.

The fine-tuning arguments fails because it assumes a god created life (it does not cater for the fact that life was an accident/chance). You are trying to argue it does, so you do not understand probability theory or the fine-tuning argument.

No you don't understand what I said.

How do you know that?
Sure the fine-tuning also fails because it has not established that the universe is suited to life and not life is suited to the universe.
The fine tune-tuning arguments fail on other fallacies as well.
But my concern is that you could not find your understanding in my response to instantc and then blame this on me.

[10CC]

Can someone who is advocating the fine-tuning argument explain me one simple thing about the argument. Whenever I post this somewhere, I never get a response. So it must be because my question is either too stupid or too witty.

First, it is evident that simply because an event was unlikely, it does not follow that it had to be intentional. Let's look at an example situation where we instinctively apply this kind of rationale.

Suppose we are playing cards and I, the dealer, get a straight flush three times in a row. This is obviously a good reason to suspect that I have intentionally rigged the deck, but why is that the case? An apologist might be inclined to say that it's because getting a straight flush three times in a row is very unlikely. But, anybody who knows the basics of probability calculus also knows that the probability for any given combination of three hands is equally unlikely.

As shown above, the reasonable suspicion doesn't arise from the low probability of the event alone, but also from the fact that straight flush has a great value in poker.

Thus, it seems to me that in order for fine-tuning to be evidence for an intentional creation, we have to assume two things. First, that formation of life permitting conditions would be very unlikely to happen by chance. Second, that life is the straight flush of the universe.

My question is, what reason do we have to assume the latter?

You can not use probability theory as explanation for the fine-tuning. That is because we have no other examples of universes with life.

People do not answer you because your use of probability theory premise is wrong.

You are way off. I am making a subsidiary argument, my objection doesn't rely on the low probability of this so called fine tuning. Rather, the fine tuning argument itself relies on the contention that the probability for life permitting conditions to arise by chance is very low. If this is granted, the argument is still open to my objection.

If the universe were slightly different and completely different sentient life forms developed would they be justified in claiming the fine tuning argument?
The life form exists in the environment in which it can exist, the environment does not exist to support a life form.

Yes, I fully agree. Whatever the conditions turned out to be, one could always equally claim that it couldn't happen by chance.

You can not use probability theory as explanation for the fine-tuning. That is because we have no other examples of other universes:
with natural laws, and/or
with life, and /or
that developed the condition to support life in this/other universe or on earth, and/or
life that evolved to suit that/our universe or suite the conditions.

The fine-tuning arguments fails because it assumes a god created life (it does not cater for the fact that life was an accident/chance). You are trying to argue it does, so you do not understand probability theory or the fine-tuning argument.

No you don't understand what I said.

How do you know that?
Sure the fine-tuning also fails because it has not established that the universe is suited to life and not life is suited to the universe.
The fine tune-tuning arguments fail on other fallacies as well.
But my concern is that you could not find your understanding in my response to instantc and then blame this on me.

I am not not making the claim in red and therefore neither is instantc by agreeing with me.

[JohnA]

Can someone who is advocating the fine-tuning argument explain me one simple thing about the argument. Whenever I post this somewhere, I never get a response. So it must be because my question is either too stupid or too witty.

First, it is evident that simply because an event was unlikely, it does not follow that it had to be intentional. Let's look at an example situation where we instinctively apply this kind of rationale.

Suppose we are playing cards and I, the dealer, get a straight flush three times in a row. This is obviously a good reason to suspect that I have intentionally rigged the deck, but why is that the case? An apologist might be inclined to say that it's because getting a straight flush three times in a row is very unlikely. But, anybody who knows the basics of probability calculus also knows that the probability for any given combination of three hands is equally unlikely.

As shown above, the reasonable suspicion doesn't arise from the low probability of the event alone, but also from the fact that straight flush has a great value in poker.

Thus, it seems to me that in order for fine-tuning to be evidence for an intentional creation, we have to assume two things. First, that formation of life permitting conditions would be very unlikely to happen by chance. Second, that life is the straight flush of the universe.

My question is, what reason do we have to assume the latter?

You can not use probability theory as explanation for the fine-tuning. That is because we have no other examples of universes with life.

People do not answer you because your use of probability theory premise is wrong.

You are way off. I am making a subsidiary argument, my objection doesn't rely on the low probability of this so called fine tuning. Rather, the fine tuning argument itself relies on the contention that the probability for life permitting conditions to arise by chance is very low. If this is granted, the argument is still open to my objection.

If the universe were slightly different and completely different sentient life forms developed would they be justified in claiming the fine tuning argument?
The life form exists in the environment in which it can exist, the environment does not exist to support a life form.

Yes, I fully agree. Whatever the conditions turned out to be, one could always equally claim that it couldn't happen by chance.

You can not use probability theory as explanation for the fine-tuning. That is because we have no other examples of other universes:
with natural laws, and/or
with life, and /or
that developed the condition to support life in this/other universe or on earth, and/or
life that evolved to suit that/our universe or suite the conditions.

The fine-tuning arguments fails because it assumes a god created life (it does not cater for the fact that life was an accident/chance). You are trying to argue it does, so you do not understand probability theory or the fine-tuning argument.

No you don't understand what I said.

How do you know that?
Sure the fine-tuning also fails because it has not established that the universe is suited to life and not life is suited to the universe.
The fine tune-tuning arguments fail on other fallacies as well.
But my concern is that you could not find your understanding in my response to instantc and then blame this on me.

I am not not making the claim in red and therefore neither is instantc by agreeing with me.

The red is a conclusion, not the premise.
You have not showed that I do not understand what you said. I made it quite bold [pun intended] that what I understood what you said twice now, and you agreed with me now by making some of the not bold red.

You could even take that a step further and say:
We have no examples of other universes and/or [your point] therefore you can not use probability theory for the fine-tuning. It is a conclusion that follows from the premises. You may have more conclusions, but you have not shown that it is a non sequitur.

Mental gymnastics is entertaining.

[olavisjo]

.

If there is no objective morality, then killing people for fun is NOT wrong, ...

Care to show this is correct?? This is a rather challenging opinion, one that has been countered quite a few times , which you totally ignored.

I still don't understand why you have a problem with this.
If you are going to deny the objectivity of something, then you can't make an objective determination about it. For example; if a person is going to deny the objectivity of the geometry of the Earth, then he can't say to the person that claims the Earth is not spherical, that she is wrong.
The same goes for morality, if you are going to deny that there is any objective reality with morality, then there is no point in telling anyone that they are wrong, no matter what their position is, as there would be nothing objectively wrong.

[10CC]

.

If there is no objective morality, then killing people for fun is NOT wrong, ...

Care to show this is correct?? This is a rather challenging opinion, one that has been countered quite a few times , which you totally ignored.

I still don't understand why you have a problem with this.
If you are going to deny the objectivity of something, then you can't make an objective determination about it. For example; if a person is going to deny the objectivity of the geometry of the Earth, then he can't say to the person that claims the Earth is not spherical, that she is wrong.
The same goes for morality, if you are going to deny that there is any objective reality with morality, then there is no point in telling anyone that they are wrong, no matter what their position is, as there would be nothing objectively wrong.

What makes your opinion objective?

[WinePusher]

The three main explanations being thrown around by scientists are either chance, intelligent design or the multiverse theory. To use Paley's analogy, if you saw a watch in the middle of a deserted beach and were trying to figure out how it got there, you would conclude that a person designed it and placed it there. A watch cannot spontaneously generate, and since the watch exhibits signs of intricate complexity it would have required intelligence to design it. The same is true for the universe, and modern scientific discoveries have pretty much justified this.

The three main explanations are - even the ones lauded by scientists - at their core ignorant of what actually happened – we have no way of testing, no way of truly knowing. God is a possibility… but cannot be shown to be measured for probability – hence the arguments are not by any means evidence.

What don't you understand about the fact that arguments use evidence. Cosmological arguments are about as evidenced based as it gets. The Cosmological argument takes into account three basic facts:

The universe is contingent, not necessary.
The universe encompasses everything that is natural, including space and time.
The universe began to exist out of nothing.

These three facts support the claim that God exists. The fact that the universe is contingent begs the question of WHY there is a universe rather than nothing. This automatically puts this question outside the realm of natural science, since science cannot deal with WHY problems. The fact that the universe encompasses all that is natural, including space and time means that the cause of the universe must be supernatural, spaceless and timeless (eternal).

And the fact that the universe came from nothing certainly confirms the ancient Hebrew conception of the universe, ie: creation ex nihilo. It's interesting how modern science has now confirmed an ancient biblical theory of the origins of the universe.

And yes the watch maker argument… it’s been around the block you know – and is just as deficient when you use it as when anybody else does. It’s a self-attesting argument made only because we already knew the watch was designed. Furthermore if you want we can take the argument a bit further – God is a complex being, should we then assume that God was created?

Show the analogy to be flawed. According to the rules of analogy, the watchmaker argument is perfectly valid and sound. A random watch sitting along a beach is out of place, complex, could not have been able to spontaneously generate, and is contingent, meaning that the watch did not necessarily have to be on the beach. It could have been elsewhere. From all these things we infer intentional design. The same is true with the universe. The universe is out of place, complex, could not have spontaneously generated itself, and is contingent meaning that the universe did not necessarily have to exist.

Please explain which premise of the argument is not true. If premises are valid and sound then the conclusion follows with necessity.

1) God is defined as a maximally great being.
2) Being maximally great requires being void of any defects or flaws.
3) Nonexistence is a flaw/defect
4) Therefore, God exists.

1. Presupposes that God exists or else how do you define a thing that doesn't exist?

Premise 1 assumes that maximal greatness exists, and this is true. Please refer to my arguments from various degrees of perfection link. Various degrees of greatness and perfection exist. This means that there must be a supremely perfect, maximally great being. This being is God. There, premise 1 has now been established. If anything this argument shows that the concept of God is not a logical contradiction, which many atheists falsely assert.

No, it really isn't conjecture. You are misapplying the term 'conjecture.' The cosmological argument is a deductive argument that proves God's existence using a combination of empirical evidence and observations. Something cannot come from nothing, and by nothing I do not mean empty space. By 'nothing' I mean whatever came before the big bang. Physicists will admit that they do not know what came before since it is nearly impossible for humans to comprehend a 'reality' without space and time. All we can say for sure is that space and time did not exist prior to the beginning of the universe.

Science has also established that the universe did, in fact, come from nothing. The universe began with an initial singularity and then proceeded to expand and the question is, what caused this singularity? A thoughtful person would answer by simply saying that they do not know, but it does leave room for the idea of an uncaused first mover.

I am not misapplying the term conjecture – you simply don’t like how I am using it.

No, you're misapplying it. Plain and simple. Please go look at any philosophy text, you will see that these are deductive arguments NOT conjectures.

First of all, your line of argumentation here is completely futile. The basic premise of all these arguments are irrefutable, so you are wasting your time by attacking the premises. Even Sam Harris has conceded that objective morals do exist, and he has attempted to provide a nontheistic explanation for objective morality.

Second of all, will you admit that the world be morally absurd and irrational without God, or an afterlife?

Wait… when did Sam Harris become the final say on whether or not there is such a thing as objective morality? I don’t agree with Sam Harris, and neither do many other prominent atheists – your attitude towards this is quite arrogant – and it seems that you are inserting your arrogance here as a proxy instead of an actual argument.

Your objections are completely laughable. My point with using Sam Harris was to show how ridiculous your position is because a huge number philosophers, including many prominent atheists, believe that objective morality exists. How can you deny something so self evident? Every single person has a conscience which leads them to behave uniformly when placed in similar situation. And without objective morality it would be impossible to make moral value judgments. Criminal law assumes that objective morality exists.

With all that said, I think this earth is plenty morally absurd… so if there is a God, he messed up big time.

No actually, these absurd things you speak of would only be absurd if God does not exist. The existence of God, and of an afterlife, provides a moral order for the world. The fact is that the world is morally irrational, ie: bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. The fact in and of itself shows that the world is morally irrational. If there is no God, there is no final resolution. There is no ultimate justice.

On a side note… why Wine Pusher? I only ask because I am getting ready to press off about 450lbs of Cab Sav grapes…

Because AnonymousAlcoholic was already taken. x)

No, I have a friend who works as a wine salesman. I kinda stole this name from him because I'm an unoriginal plagiarist.