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?

[Flail]

Goat wrote:

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.

Bingo. It is difficult if not impossible to argue logically when the initial premise from which inferences must be drawn is without logical, factual basis.

[WinePusher]

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.

Bingo. It is difficult if not impossible to argue logically when the initial premise from which inferences must be drawn is without logical, factual basis.

I suppose the both of you would be able to show how the intial premise of the cosmological arugment begs the questions and/or committs circular reasoning?

[LiamOS]

The argument examines the concept of God, and states that if we can conceive of the greatest possible being, then it must exist. The argument is often criticized as committing a bare assertion fallacy, as it offers no supportive premise other than qualities inherent to the unproven statement. This is also called a circular argument, because the premise relies on the conclusion, which in turn relies on the premise.

[WinePusher]

The argument examines the concept of God, and states that if we can conceive of the greatest possible being, then it must exist. The argument is often criticized as committing a bare assertion fallacy, as it offers no supportive premise other than qualities inherent to the unproven statement. This is also called a circular argument, because the premise relies on the conclusion, which in turn relies on the premise.

I was talking about the cosmological argument, not the ontological argument.

[EduChris]

...Are you citing Godel as an authority in mathematics or as an authority in theology?...

I am citing Godel as a recognized authority in mathematics.

...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....

That would be true only if an "eternally existing, independently existing, necessarily existing entity" could be regarded as anything other than God by theists--or more specifically, by Jewish, Christian, and Islamic theists.

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

When we are dealing with matters of logic, reason, and philosophy, often all we have are thought experiments. That's the nature of the case, and yet we still do have debates about logic, reason, and philosophy. If you're not comfortable with philosophical debates, this probably isn't an appropriate forum for you.

...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? ...

I am not qualified to make such a statement on my own authority; instead, I have pointed out an article in the Scientific American that suggests that science cannot tell us whether our particular place in the universe has three dimensions, or only two.

...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...

When it comes to matters of worldview, we all have our personal beliefs and opinions. That doesn't mean we can discuss our views and what arguments might be used to support our beliefs, and what limitations we encounter when we try to extend our views toward their logical conclusions.

[LiamOS]

Sorry WinePusher, in Grumpy's quote I saw "I have yet to see any ontological argument for God that does not make some fatal logical errors.", so I went ahead and did that one.
However, the cosmological argument is also flawed in that it is based on causailty, which is yet to be shown to be applicable in all instances.

Physicist Michio Kaku directly addresses the cosmological argument in his book Hyperspace, saying that it is easily dismissed by the law of conservation of energy and the laws governing molecular physics. He gives an example" "gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything or anyone to get them moving except the walls of the container."[25] According to Kaku, these molecules could move forever, without beginning or end. So, there is no need for a First Mover to explain the origins of motion.

There are also two thread that I started on the matter - 'The Nature of Causality' and 'Cause and Effect' - in which no logical or scientific evidence was put forth to establish the legitimacy of causality.

[I AM ALL I AM]

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?

G'day Zzyzx.

Having a look around on the net, I haven't been able to find anything about that being a part of Godel's theorem, though he stated "My belief is theistic" ...

Kurt Gdel

Religious views

Gdel was a convinced theist. He rejected the notion of others like his friend Albert Einstein that God was impersonal. He believed firmly in an afterlife, stating: "I am convinced of the afterlife, independent of theology. If the world is rationally constructed, there must be an afterlife."[18] In an unmailed answer to a questionnaire, Gdel described his religion as "baptized Lutheran (but not member of any religious congregation). My belief is theistic, not pantheistic, following Leibniz rather than Spinoza."[19] He said about Islam: "I like Islam: it is a consistent idea of religion and open-minded."[20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_G%C3%B6del

... which might be why he is being cited and the appellation made.

[ksed]

re: Prof. Kaku's comment:

He gives an example" "gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anything or anyone to get them moving except the walls of the container."[25] According to Kaku, these molecules could move forever, without beginning or end. So, there is no need for a First Mover to explain the origins of motion.

But where did the molecules come from in the first place? Are they eternal? Surely a common sense questioner would ask the first question,no? and isn't that the point of the Cosmological argument?

[EduChris]

...Having a look around on the net, I haven't been able to find anything about that being a part of Godel's theorem, though he stated "My belief is theistic" ...

Click here for the Wikipedia article on the theorem.

[I AM ALL I AM]

...Having a look around on the net, I haven't been able to find anything about that being a part of Godel's theorem, though he stated "My belief is theistic" ...

Click here for the Wikipedia article on the theorem.

"This uniqueness proof will only work if one supposes that the positiveness of a property is independent of the object to which it is applied, a claim which some have considered to be suspect."

G'day EduChris.

Thank you for the link.

The axioms are built upon assumptions, axiom 1 being based upon ... "Positive means positive in the moral aesthetic sense (independently of the accidental structure of the world)... It may also mean pure attribution as opposed to privation (or containing privation)." (Gdel 1995) ... a "moral aesthetic sense". Which appears that there are other suspect parts to Godel's equation.

Anyway, to save retyping what I have already posted, here's two posts that I replied to you with earlier in the thread (posts #30 & #37) ...

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 ?