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?

[instantc]

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.

Could you introduce me to these statistics about the ways in which different universes turn out? From wikipedia: Statistics is the study of the collection, organization, analysis, interpretation and presentation of data. Statistics deals with real data, not possible data.

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.

But, does it have to be a person?

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.

If there is a law giver, then the moral law is dependent on that individual, and therefore it cannot be objective as per your above definition.

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

You certainly haven't yet shown that they are.

[Divine Insight]

Before you can ask this question you really need to define what you mean by "God".

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

If you are speaking of a generic abstract concept of "God" and you aren't pointing to any particular folklore or dogma of a very specific God then, IMHO, the arguments for God and against God are probably equal in value. Leaving the honest person to confessing agnosticism (lack of knowledge to make a firm conclusion).

On the other hand if you want to argue for a very specific folklore or dogma that claims to be the "Word of God" in a very human-like personified way then the number of arguments against such a God suddenly overwhelm any arguments that can be made for these kinds of God.

It is my position and conclusion that this is absolutely true of all the Abrahamic Religions, and in particular Christianity and Islam. It it my conclusion that these detailed descriptions of God cannot possibly be true because they totally contradict their own claims of what this God should be about.

So yes, IMHO, there are very sound and credible arguments against the Biblical fables of "God".

If any spiritual philosophies have a prayer in the world of potentially referring to an actual God they would the more abstract philosophies of things like Buddhism, Taoism and other forms of mysticism where those philosophies do not demand specifics about God that can easily be shown to be false.

[Project I.D.]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

Are there any arguments against the existence of God?

The Evidential Argument from Divine Hiddenness

What possible reason could God, if He existed, have for not revealing Himself? He is absent from all reality as we know it, why? Some proclaim that this would interfere with our "Free Will", but this cannot be proven, because it has never happened, other than some Bible stories, in which it did not stifle the free will of man then. I call this the ZERO SIGNAL SYNDROME. There is absolutely no empirical evidence for God's existence.

[WinePusher]

Could you introduce me to these statistics about the ways in which different universes turn out?

Here is a paragraph from Wikipedia explaining the basic premise of the teleological argument. The premises of all these arguments are pretty much indisputable, so you are simply wasting your time by trying to challenge them.

The premise of the fine-tuned Universe assertion is that a small change in several of the dimensionless fundamental physical constants would make the Universe radically different. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned ... se#Premise

From wikipedia: Statistics is the study of the collection, organization, analysis, interpretation and presentation of data. Statistics deals with real data, not possible data.

This is real data, and the purpose of statistics is to take a data set and draw conclusions from it. The cosmological and teleological arguments are based on real, observable, testable facts. These arguments are deductive arguments, meaning if the premises of the argument are true, then the conclusion (God exists) must follow with necessity.

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.

If there is a law giver, then the moral law is dependent on that individual, and therefore it cannot be objective as per your above definition.

This is debatable. First of all, if the moral argument is valid and sound that would mean that all more morality is based upon God, making it objective. Second of all, the point of contention is essentially how God would determine what is right and what is wrong. This is known as the euthyphro dilemma. Does God command it because it is good? Or is it good because God commands it? I find William Lane Craig's take on this dilemma sensible, and he asserts a third option God commands it because God is good.

1) Are these arguments logically valid and sound?

You certainly haven't yet shown that they are.

Why don't you take another look at the topic. I have already explained why I think these argument sufficiently prove God's existence and you have written nothing to refute this.

[100%atheist]

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.

This is wrong. The laws of physics tell us that the universe and "improbable" structures in it exist primarily because they are THE most probable by the second law of thermodynamics.

[WinePusher]

Before you can ask this question you really need to define what you mean by "God".

I already stated in my topic that for the purposes of this thread we would use the generic, deistic definition of God. The basic attribute of a deistic God is maximal greatness, ie: omniscience, omnipotentence, omnipresence, etc.

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

If you are speaking of a generic abstract concept of "God" and you aren't pointing to any particular folklore or dogma of a very specific God then, IMHO, the arguments for God and against God are probably equal in value. Leaving the honest person to confessing agnosticism (lack of knowledge to make a firm conclusion).

While I appreciate your candor you seem to be conceding that all these arguments are bulletproof. Yes, when it comes to theism (specially Christianity) Christians have a huge burden to prove and many of the atheistic objections are valid to a certain extent. However, when it comes to deism, when it comes to a generic intelligent designer the evidence is overwhelming. This is why atheism is an untenable position. Atheism does not reject Christianity, it rejects the possibility of God entirely.

On the other hand if you want to argue for a very specific folklore or dogma that claims to be the "Word of God" in a very human-like personified way then the number of arguments against such a God suddenly overwhelm any arguments that can be made for these kinds of God.

I agree, there are valid arguments on both sides of this issue.

It is my position and conclusion that this is absolutely true of all the Abrahamic Religions, and in particular Christianity and Islam. It it my conclusion that these detailed descriptions of God cannot possibly be true because they totally contradict their own claims of what this God should be about.

? Go ahead and be more specific.

So yes, IMHO, there are very sound and credible arguments against the Biblical fables of "God".

So am I to take it that you believe a deistic God may exist? If this is the case, the entire argument shifts from whether or not God exists to whether or not Christianity or Islam or any other religion is correct.

[WinePusher]

Are there any arguments against the existence of God?

The Evidential Argument from Divine Hiddenness

What possible reason could God, if He existed, have for not revealing Himself? He is absent from all reality as we know it, why? Some proclaim that this would interfere with our "Free Will", but this cannot be proven, because it has never happened, other than some Bible stories, in which it did not stifle the free will of man then. I call this the ZERO SIGNAL SYNDROME. There is absolutely no empirical evidence for God's existence.

If what you say is true, that God hides himself from the world, then we would expect for most of the people in the world to be nonbelievers. The complete opposite is true. Most of the human race adhere to some sort of religious creed of doctrine. There are thousands of people who claim to have religious experiences of God. There are historical texts that document God's revelation to the world. The premise of this argument, that God voluntarily hides himself from us, is wrong. Plain and simple. Besides, you offered no evidence to support this premise. Just because you have not experienced God does not mean God does not exist.

[olavisjo]

.

The laws of physics tell us that the universe and "improbable" structures in it exist primarily because they are THE most probable by the second law of thermodynamics.

This sounds like an argumentum ad verbum sem to those who are not experts in science. Can you explain what you mean a bit more?

[Haven]

Thanks for this interesting and thought-provoking post, WP . I'll respond as best I can.

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.

Please define the word "supernatural." I have no idea what it means (or if it's even logically coherent), other than "non-natural." This tells me nothing about the concept, but only what it is not -- that is, it's not part of nature.

Teleological arguments prove God's existence based on the design and precise structure of the universe.

What is the evidence of any "design" in the universe? I'm not aware of anything in the universe (not created by humans) that suggests intentional design or intelligent causation.

The universe is structured in an improbable and an unlikely way.

Where is the evidence of this? Furthermore, how is it even meaningful to assign a probability to something (the universe) for which we have a sample size of one? Probabilities are based on the likelihood of X occurring in N tries, but since, in this case, N=1 (i.e., the structure of our universe is the only one we observe), in what sense is it rational to assign any kind of probability?

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.

Evidence?

Also, once again, how can you claim something is "extremely unlikely" based on a sample size of 1?

Statistically speaking . . .

Statistically speaking, we have a sample size of one. This means that we can't extract any meaningful statistics.

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.

Please define "maximally great." Please define "defects." Those are both socially constructed English words, and there is no reason to believe they have any metaphysical meaning.

Nonexistence is a defect, therefore God must exist.

Evidence?

Also, keep in mind that existence is not a property.

First of all, this argument pretty much destroys the ignostic position.

No, it doesn't. I have literally no idea what you mean by "defect." Defective compared to what?

Yes, I realize ignostics are willingly ignorant of all the philosophical scholarship surrounding God,

That is an ad hominem attack.

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.

Evidence? Also, keep in mind that time is a function of the universe. Without the universe, it is meaningless to speak of time.

The universe is itself contingent.

Evidence?

Mathematically speaking, it is impossible for the chain of causes to regress backwards infinitely. Therefore, a non contingent first cause must exist.

Evidence? There is nothing in mathematics that suggests the impossibility of infinite regress. This cause supernatural, in the sense that it must be spaceless and timeless since space and time are bound by the universe.

Moral arguments . . .

Morality is a socially and culturally constructed concept, and therefore requires no ontological justification outside of human society.

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

Yes: the problem of definitions (god concepts are vague, logically incoherent, or unknowable by definition), the problem of natural evil, the problem of poor design, and the problem of interaction (how could a non-physical entity causally interact with a physical one?), to name a few.