Is "god" LIKELY to exist?

[Zzyzx]

.
A religionist who realizes (perhaps after some debate experience), that there is no evidence other than ancient tales, conjectures and opinions to support a claim of existence for their favorite "god" in debate, may refine their claims for existence to "god is likely to exist".

Questions for debate:

1. Is a "god" likely to exist? Which "god" or "gods" among the thousands proposed?

2. On what basis can the likelihood of "god's" existence be evaluated?

[I AM ALL I AM]

...Is a "god" likely to exist? Which "god" or "gods" among the thousands proposed?

I believe Kurt Gdel established a mathematical theorem that if anything at all exists, then there must be something that exists necessarily--i.e., exists in itself, independently from any other entity, something that exists eternally, something for which non-existence would entail a contradiction. I personally do not have the skills to evaluate his mathematical theorem, but certainly he was a highly regarded mathemetican.

Now if Gdel's theorem is valid, then that "something" that exists necessarily would be "god." The question then becomes, "What sort of god do we have?" Can we know anything more about this "necessarily existing entity." This is the line of questioning or study that is undertaken by the various religions.

G'day EduChris.

The sum totality exists completely moment to moment, while a constant state of change of the parts that make up the sum totality move within it. Thus, if all is made up of 'energy' and 'energy' simply changes form moment to moment, the sum totality does not change in that it is still the totality of all of the 'energy' within it. That is, the 'energy' re-forms, or appears in another form, while the sum totality is consistently made up of all of the 'energy' no matter which form it is in at any given moment.

This can be equated with a kaleidoscope. What is seen is constantly changed through movement, yet the sum totality of what makes up the patterns of the kaleidoscope is constant.

The sum totality "exists in itself, independently from any other entity" because it is everything added together, and hence there can be no "other entity". The sum totality also "exists necessarily" as the culmination of the parts, for while ever there are individuated aspects of life ('energy' in form), then there must be a sum totality of those parts.

Contrary to religions, there is no requirement in anthropomorphising the sum totality. Neither is it necessary for the religious label of 'god' to be attached to the sum totality, especially as a descriptive label such as ALL THAT IS conveys what is meant. So I see the question not as "What sort of god do we have?", and more as, what interaction is possible with the sum totality and how does such an interaction benefit us ?

[Zzyzx]

.

...Is a "god" likely to exist? Which "god" or "gods" among the thousands proposed?

I believe Kurt Gdel established a mathematical theorem that if anything at all exists, then there must be something that exists necessarily--i.e., exists in itself, independently from any other entity, something that exists eternally, something for which non-existence would entail a contradiction. I personally do not have the skills to evaluate his mathematical theorem, but certainly he was a highly regarded mathemetican.

Why use a theorem that you admittedly do not understand, cited to people who probably do not understand, in an attempt to prove a point?

This is an example of why I avoid the "Science and Religion" sub-forum. Many seem to believe that their study of theology or the bible, and their personal beliefs and intuitions impart knowledge and understanding of the application of scientifically derived information.

People with "television level" science background often attempt to critique or utilize scientific information far beyond their ability and preparation to understand, let alone apply -- advanced and complex theories. Those without knowledge or backgroun often attempt to "teach" those who have extensively studied and applied specific fields. (No one in particular identified).

Now if Gdel's theorem is valid, then that "something" that exists necessarily would be "god."

The IF word indicates you are speaking hypothetically AND you are making an assumption ("would necessarily be 'god'"). Kindly substantiate the assumption.

The question then becomes, "What sort of god do we have?"

In the hypothetical situation you have proposed the hypothetical "god" might have hypothetical characteristics. Shall we hypothetically debate what those characteristics might be?

Can we know anything more about this "necessarily existing entity." This is the line of questioning or study that is undertaken by the various religions.

Upon what valid information (exactly) do the "various religions" base study of the characteristics of the hypothetical "god"?

...On what basis can the likelihood of "god's" existence be evaluated?

EduChris responded with the bolded items below:

Common sense: "Common" sense is NEITHER common nor necessarily accurate and truthful. For thousands of years it was "common sense" to consider the Earth flat and the center of the universe. What is to be accepted as common sense is an individual decision (and not suited for debate).

Reason: If reasoning is to be used, what base assumptions are to be made, and how does the reasoning proceed from those assumptions to a conclusion?

Logic: This is nothing more than the study of reasoning. How can it show existence of "gods"? .

Philosophy: Exactly how can philosophy be utilized to evaluate the likelihood that "gods" exist?

Intuition: Is "intuition" a reliable and accurate basis upon which to make major decisions? Whose "intuition" shall prevail in the case of differences in "intuition"?

Personal experience: Whose personal experience shall prevail? Is this not an individual matter (and thereby unsuited for debate)?

History: What aspects of history involve the existence of "gods"? Does historical reference to worship of "gods" indicate that the worshiped (or feared) "gods" actually exist?

Testimony of others: Are testimonials accepted as truthful and accurate without verification? How can testimonials be inspected for truth and accuracy?


Perhaps it would be wise to say that decision to worship a "god" (and which "god" to worship) is a personal matter -- and that the "existence of god" is a matter of belief rather than knowledge (and is a personal matter that does not extend beyond the individual -- and cannot be effectively defended in debate because it is purely subjective)

[EduChris]

...Why use a theorem that you admittedly do not understand, cited to people who probably do not understand, in an attempt to prove a point?

This is an example of why I avoid the "Science and Religion" sub-forum. Many seem to believe that their study of theology or the bible, and their personal beliefs and intuitions impart knowledge and understanding of the application of scientifically derived information.

People with "television level" science background often attempt to critique or utilize scientific information far beyond their ability and preparation to understand, let alone apply -- advanced and complex theories. Those without knowledge or backgroun often attempt to "teach" those who have extensively studied and applied specific fields...

My post was an example of an "argument from authority." You see it used every day, particularly whenever someone who is not a PhD scientist asserts something like, "All scientists believe this" or "science refutes that notion." Now with regard to Godel's theorem, I did major in mathemetics in college, so I suppose I could haul out all of my old textbooks and attempt to follow the arguments of a world-class mathematician--but what would I gain from that? Isn't it enough for most people to just admit that something can be over their head, but yet still be reasonable to accept on the basis of a world-class expert's claims in his own field of expertise?

...you are making an assumption ("would necessarily be 'god'"). Kindly substantiate the assumption...

If there were a necessarily existing entity, an entity that exists eternally, an entity that exists independently from any other entity, an entity whose nonexistence would entail a contradiction, that entity would meet the minimal definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. Certain each of these religions would want to extend this minimal definition, but yet each group would immediately recognize this "necessarily existing entity" as an entity which could not be anything other than God.

...In the hypothetical situation you have proposed the hypothetical "god" might have hypothetical characteristics. Shall we hypothetically debate what those characteristics might be?...

Are you averse to thought-experiements?

...For thousands of years it was "common sense" to consider the Earth flat...

Actually, you are referring to science here, and according to Wikipedia, you appear to be slightly misinformed. Indeed, if past history is any guide, anything anyone ever says about "science" is either incomplete or flat-out wrong.

...Reason: If reasoning is to be used, what base assumptions are to be made, and how does the reasoning proceed from those assumptions to a conclusion? ... Logic: This is nothing more than the study of reasoning. How can it show existence of "gods"? ... Philosophy: Exactly how can philosophy be utilized to evaluate the likelihood that "gods" exist? ... Intuition: Is "intuition" a reliable and accurate basis upon which to make major decisions? Whose "intuition" shall prevail in the case of differences in "intuition"? ... Personal experience: Whose personal experience shall prevail? Is this not an individual matter (and thereby unsuited for debate)? ... History: What aspects of history involve the existence of "gods"? Does historical reference to worship of "gods" indicate that the worshiped (or feared) "gods" actually exist? ... Testimony of others: Are testimonials accepted as truthful and accurate without verification? How can testimonials be inspected for truth and accuracy?...

If you're going to take a thorough-going skeptical approach to these avenues of learning, then you're not going to be able to demonstrate the validity (or lack thereof) of any statements or views or propositions whatever.

...Perhaps it would be wise to say that decision to worship a "god" (and which "god" to worship) is a personal matter -- and that the "existence of god" is a matter of belief rather than knowledge (and is a personal matter that does not extend beyond the individual -- and cannot be effectively defended in debate because it is purely subjective)

All of our "knowledge" is subjective. So far as we know, all of our "knowledge" is just a bunch of electrons flitting about in our heads.

[McCulloch]

If there were a necessarily existing entity, an entity that exists eternally, an entity that exists independently from any other entity, an entity whose nonexistence would entail a contradiction, that entity would meet the minimal definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.

No it does not. The JCI God, even minimally defined, has will and intelligence.

Certain each of these religions would want to extend this minimal definition, but yet each group would immediately recognize this "necessarily existing entity" as an entity which could not be anything other than God.

It is the extensions which are most troubling. The deist god by itself seldom gets debated.

[EduChris]

If there were a necessarily existing entity, an entity that exists eternally, an entity that exists independently from any other entity, an entity whose nonexistence would entail a contradiction, that entity would meet the minimal definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.

No it does not. The JCI God, even minimally defined, has will and intelligence...

Let me rephrase: If there were a necessarily existing entity, an entity that exists eternally, an entity that exists independently from any other entity, an entity whose nonexistence would entail a contradiction, that entity would meet the minimal definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God in the sense that each group would immediately recognize this "necessarily existing entity" as an entity which could not be anything other than God.

[ksed]

What are offered are reasons in support of the concept of gods...none speak to that concept being an extant reality.

The point of theistic arguments are precisely to show that god exists. The cosmological argument, for example, takes a feature of the universe, namely its contingent nature, and then attempts to draw a reasonable inference as to its existence. Something caused the universe to exist. So the argument is trying to show that an actual being brought the universe into being. And Im not clear what you mean by concept of gods.

Correction " the universe, as we observe it, has the appearance of having begun to exist.

If something has the appearance of having begun to exist, then the common sense reaction, it seems to me, is to believe it actually did begin to exist. If the tree in front o f me has the appearance of being green and leafy, then, assuming my cognitive faculties are working properly, I am well within my intellectual rights to believe that there actually is a tree that exists which is in fact green leafy. I can also ask several other people whether they also see the green and leafy tree. I can take a photograph of the tree. There are different ways of verifying my visual perception of the tree as an actual existing thing.

The universe is in the same boat. Numerous scientists in different observatories and universities have determined that the universe actually came into existence.

This points to a change in state.

Is there any reason to dismiss the possibility that the universe, in some shape or form, has always existed and will always exist?

Yes there is. The universe is a contingent being. It did not have to exist. To understand this, just imagine every single piece of the universe suddenly disappeared. Would the universe still exist? I think not. The universe itself would also disappear and cease to exist. A contingent thing cannot have always existed. God, on the other hand, as a necessary being, suffers from no such handicap.

That the universe, as we observe it appears to have come into existence, is what the evidence suggests.

The evidence strongly suggests this. Ill agree that mathematical certainty is nigh impossible in almost anything in life. But surely if the probability of some event is greater than 50%, that merits some serious consideration.

These support BELIEF in god, not the existence of god.

One doesnt need an argument to BELIEVE in god. Someone could believe for any dumb reason. But the arguments do provide good (as opposed to dumb) reasons for believing in the existence of god. The arguments are not coercive, certainly, but surely still strong and hopefully persuasive.
Using your logic, no argument for anything is useful for showing that anything exists, merely that it supports ones belief in that thing. Is universal health care a good thing? If youve got a good argument that it is, then all you could claim is that it supports your belief that its a good thing. But never mind trying to actually implement it.

This is a case of question begging or assuming the precedent.

Im not sure what you mean here. If the universe actually began to exist, then pantheism is rendered implausible. In Pantheism the universe is eternal. This has shown to be false. Im not assuming what needs to be proved. I already provided some evidence that the universe is finite. I then draw a reasonable conclusion that since the universe is not eternal, any religious view that sees the universe as eternal is highly unlikely.
The argument can be forumulated:
1)If pantheism is true, then the universe is eternal
2) The universe is not eternal.
3)Therefore, pantheism is false.

This is built on an assumption that is not validated.

For as start " can you prove that time exists?

Time doesnt exist? Do you really believe that? Time is a common, ever present feature of reality. The burden of proof surely falls on the non-believer of times existence to show that it doesnt exist.

Concepts of god are all you have shown to be possible.

Got anything on the extant reality of any god?

See above.

[Flail]

EduChris:

If there were a necessarily existing entity, an entity that exists eternally, an entity that exists independently from any other entity, an entity whose nonexistence would entail a contradiction, that entity would meet the minimal definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God in the sense that each group would immediately recognize this "necessarily existing entity" as an entity which could not be anything other than God.

Perhaps, but only so long as the membership of each group could immediately recognize the fact that everyone in the other group was condemned by this entity to Hell.

[I AM ALL I AM]

If there were a necessarily existing entity, an entity that exists eternally, an entity that exists independently from any other entity, an entity whose nonexistence would entail a contradiction, that entity would meet the minimal definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.

No it does not. The JCI God, even minimally defined, has will and intelligence...

Let me rephrase: If there were a necessarily existing entity, an entity that exists eternally, an entity that exists independently from any other entity, an entity whose nonexistence would entail a contradiction, that entity would meet the minimal definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God in the sense that each group would immediately recognize this "necessarily existing entity" as an entity which could not be anything other than God.

G'day EduChris.

Please explain how "Judeo-Christian-Islamic God" "exists independently from any other entity".

Would you also please explain what is the "minimum definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God".

In case you missed my initial reply to you from post #30 ...

...Is a "god" likely to exist? Which "god" or "gods" among the thousands proposed?

I believe Kurt Gdel established a mathematical theorem that if anything at all exists, then there must be something that exists necessarily--i.e., exists in itself, independently from any other entity, something that exists eternally, something for which non-existence would entail a contradiction. I personally do not have the skills to evaluate his mathematical theorem, but certainly he was a highly regarded mathemetican.

Now if Gdel's theorem is valid, then that "something" that exists necessarily would be "god." The question then becomes, "What sort of god do we have?" Can we know anything more about this "necessarily existing entity." This is the line of questioning or study that is undertaken by the various religions.

G'day EduChris.

The sum totality exists completely moment to moment, while a constant state of change of the parts that make up the sum totality move within it. Thus, if all is made up of 'energy' and 'energy' simply changes form moment to moment, the sum totality does not change in that it is still the totality of all of the 'energy' within it. That is, the 'energy' re-forms, or appears in another form, while the sum totality is consistently made up of all of the 'energy' no matter which form it is in at any given moment.

This can be equated with a kaleidoscope. What is seen is constantly changed through movement, yet the sum totality of what makes up the patterns of the kaleidoscope is constant.

The sum totality "exists in itself, independently from any other entity" because it is everything added together, and hence there can be no "other entity". The sum totality also "exists necessarily" as the culmination of the parts, for while ever there are individuated aspects of life ('energy' in form), then there must be a sum totality of those parts.

Contrary to religions, there is no requirement in anthropomorphising the sum totality. Neither is it necessary for the religious label of 'god' to be attached to the sum totality, especially as a descriptive label such as ALL THAT IS conveys what is meant. So I see the question not as "What sort of god do we have?", and more as, what interaction is possible with the sum totality and how does such an interaction benefit us ?

[Zzyzx]

.

My post was an example of an "argument from authority." You see it used every day, particularly whenever someone who is not a PhD scientist asserts something like, "All scientists believe this" or "science refutes that notion."

Yes, Appeal to Authority is regarded as a logical fallacy (though it may be acceptable in informal logic in some instances).

Now with regard to Godel's theorem, I did major in mathemetics in college, so I suppose I could haul out all of my old textbooks and attempt to follow the arguments of a world-class mathematician--but what would I gain from that? Isn't it enough for most people to just admit that something can be over their head, but yet still be reasonable to accept on the basis of a world-class expert's claims in his own field of expertise? .

Did the expert conclude, within his field of expertise, "that 'something' that exists necessarily would be 'god'"? Or did you graft that onto his mathematical theorem?

Are you citing Godel as an authority in mathematics or as an authority in theology? His "authority" status ended with the mathematic theorem " the extent of his field of expertise. If he went beyond that to extrapolate "gods", he has exceeded his expertise.

If you took it upon yourself to extend his theorem to indicate "gods", that is nothing more than a layman OPINION attempting to cite an "authority" inappropriately.

...you are making an assumption ("would necessarily be 'god'"). Kindly substantiate the assumption...

If there were a necessarily existing entity, an entity that exists eternally, an entity that exists independently from any other entity, an entity whose nonexistence would entail a contradiction, that entity would meet the minimal definition of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. Certain each of these religions would want to extend this minimal definition, but yet each group would immediately recognize this "necessarily existing entity" as an entity which could not be anything other than God. .

In other words, it is your OPINION that Godel's theorem can be extended to "gods" based on your personal opinion (and note that others represented in Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions agree with you). Is that correct?

...In the hypothetical situation you have proposed the hypothetical "god" might have hypothetical characteristics. Shall we hypothetically debate what those characteristics might be?...

Are you averse to thought-experiements? .

I am not opposed " in their place. Debate, in my opinion, is not the proper place for "thought experiments". Other sub-forums set aside for discussion may be more appropriate.

...For thousands of years it was "common sense" to consider the Earth flat...

Actually, you are referring to science here, and according to Wikipedia, you appear to be slightly misinformed. .

Do wish to argue the there was no period of thousands of years when "it was 'common sense' to consider the Earth flat"?

Notice that I did not specify any particular time period or location. I am quite aware that some ancient societies and individuals had determined that the Earth was spherical (and even accurately calculated its size).

Indeed, if past history is any guide, anything anyone ever says about "science" is either incomplete or flat-out wrong. .

Can you say that a statement that the statement, "The Earth has been determined by scientific study to be a spheroidal planet which orbits the sun" is WRONG or incomplete?

If you're going to take a thorough-going skeptical approach to these avenues of learning, then you're not going to be able to demonstrate the validity (or lack thereof) of any statements or views or propositions whatever. .

I disagree. In the field of Earth sciences, with which I am somewhat familiar, research and study focus upon actual object and events in the real world. Intuition, conjectures, testimonials, opinions, fantasy, wishful thinking, etc are NOT the basis of systematic study of the real world.

...Perhaps it would be wise to say that decision to worship a "god" (and which "god" to worship) is a personal matter -- and that the "existence of god" is a matter of belief rather than knowledge (and is a personal matter that does not extend beyond the individual -- and cannot be effectively defended in debate because it is purely subjective)

All of our "knowledge" is subjective. So far as we know, all of our "knowledge" is just a bunch of electrons flitting about in our heads.

Do you disagree with the statement "Perhaps it would be wise to say that decision to worship a "god" (and which "god" to worship) is a personal matter -- and that the "existence of god" is a matter of belief rather than knowledge"?

When it is pointed out that belief is purely an individual matter, a common apologetic response is to claim "everything is subjective" rather than address the issue raised.

"The electrons flitting about n our heads" can be used to decide if an "argument" presented for the existence of "gods" depends upon such personal issues as "intuition", "personal experience", "testimonials" " and individual acceptance of information from history, philosophy, reasoning.

My point is that the existence (or non-existence) of proposed "gods" cannot rationally be decided based upon such personal issues EXCEPT for the individual involved. The individual can decide on the basis of "intuition" or "feelings" or whatever that "god exists" " in their OPINION, for their personal use.

Personal opinion has no validity as evidence in debate.

Notice that I do NOT take the position that "gods" do not exist " but instead (and very specifically) "I have not encountered evidence to indicate that invisible, undetectable, supernatural beings are anything more than imagination".

A common "rebuttal" to that position is "You refuse to accept my evidence" " as though I should abandon my standards for evidence and accept testimonials, conjecture, opinions and tales told by storytellers and religion promoters (perhaps that is because what the "critic" accepts " and because that is the "best" evidence that can be offered to "substantiate" that "gods" exist and influence human lives).

[Goat]

The point of theistic arguments are precisely to show that god exists. The cosmological argument, for example, takes a feature of the universe, namely its contingent nature, and then attempts to draw a reasonable inference as to its existence. Something caused the universe to exist. So the argument is trying to show that an actual being brought the universe into being. And Im not clear what you mean by concept of gods.

Are there any cosmological arguments that don't have circular arguments, beg the question, or make unsupportable assumptions? I have yet to see any ontological argument for God that does not make some fatal logical errors