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?

[olavisjo]

.

So because this universe is capable of supporting an infinite number of different lifeforms that proves it was "fine tuned" for life? I'm sorry but that doesn't sound at all like fine tuning.

If you think it is not all that fine tuned, then try creating life, and see how many t's you have to cross and i's you have to dot before you can say...

[youtube][/youtube]

[10CC]

.

So because this universe is capable of supporting an infinite number of different lifeforms that proves it was "fine tuned" for life? I'm sorry but that doesn't sound at all like fine tuning.

If you think it is not all that fine tuned, then try creating life, and see how many t's you have to cross and i's you have to dot before you can say...

Why?
I make no claim to be able to create life.
You on the other hand claim that the universe is fine tuned for the existence of any lifeforms based upon any known or unknown chemical combination. That sounds incredibly random to me.
Do you really believe that the existence of any lifeforms at all is proof of fine tuning? You see the fine tuning argument is specifically concerned with the carbon based lifeforms on planet earth. If any other lifeforms exist anywhere in the universe then the fine tuning argument is false. Are you prepared to claim that there is no other lifeforms in the entire universe and then support that claim? I need only propose the possibility of other lifeforms to defeat the argument, I don't need to provide evidence of such.

[olavisjo]

.

You see the fine tuning argument is specifically concerned with the carbon based lifeforms on planet earth. If any other lifeforms exist anywhere in the universe then the fine tuning argument is false.

I can agree with that, carbon based life forms on Earth is fine tuning. Other non carbon based life forms existing elsewhere would be "extreme fine tuning".

[10CC]

.

You see the fine tuning argument is specifically concerned with the carbon based lifeforms on planet earth. If any other lifeforms exist anywhere in the universe then the fine tuning argument is false.

I can agree with that, carbon based life forms on Earth is fine tuning. Other non carbon based life forms existing elsewhere would be "extreme fine tuning".

I blew a bubble so large that I floated all the way to a.centauri and am continuing my journey as we speak.

[keithprosser3]

I think the apparent fine-tuning of the universe is the only 'argument for god' that is any good at all. I don't say it proves god, but I am surprised it isn't used more by theists.

I am led to believe a small adjustment to a physical constant or two and, for example, atoms wouldn't form into molecules. Life without carbon is conceivable, but life when there is nothing but freely moving, widely-separated individual atoms? That may be too much to be considered 'possible'.

[Student]

A few observations:
1. If this universe is ‘fine tuned’ for life, why is the vast majority of it hostile to living things?
2. If there really is an Intelligent Designer why didn’t She come up with a more sensible value of Pi?
3. Who designed the Intelligent Designer? Is the probability of this universe happening by chance more or less improbable than an Intelligent Designer happening by chance?

[Jax Agnesson]

What about the 'argument from humility'?
If we presume we are the purpose for the universe, then we can be astonished at how precise the design needed to be, in order to make us possible. And at how ridiculously huge the universe is, just to accommodate our little planet. What a fantastically profligate, grandiose effort.
If you make no such assumption of our huge significance, then we can look at how many potentially life-sustaining planets there are in our universe, and also ponder how many other universes could exist with potential for life, and then consider whether it is likely that we, here on earth, for our few millennia of existence, are the actual purpose for all that immensity.
Is it probable that a mind capable of conceiving (and creating ex nihilo) a universe like ours, (billions of years of time, trillions of cubic lightyears of space) would have done the whole thing specifically to generate us?
Really? Li'l ol'' us? Who are we kidding? Ourselves?

[10CC]

What about the 'argument from humility'?
If we presume we are the purpose for the universe, then we can be astonished at how precise the design needed to be, in order to make us possible. And at how ridiculously huge the universe is, just to accommodate our little planet. What a fantastically profligate, grandiose effort.
If you make no such assumption of our huge significance, then we can look at how many potentially life-sustaining planets there are in our universe, and also ponder how many other universes could exist with potential for life, and then consider whether it is likely that we, here on earth, for our few millennia of existence, are the actual purpose for all that immensity.
Is it probable that a mind capable of conceiving (and creating ex nihilo) a universe like ours, (billions of years of time, trillions of cubic lightyears of space) would have done the whole thing specifically to generate us?
Really? Li'l ol'' us? Who are we kidding? Ourselves?

I've often regarded it as the argument from hubris, but kudos for presenting it.

[Jax Agnesson]

Life without carbon is conceivable, but life when there is nothing but freely moving, widely-separated individual atoms? That may be too much to be considered 'possible'.

In the absence of a god, yes. But given an infinitely powerful god, why shouldn't entities like Fred Hoyle's conscious cloud exist?
(PS. Hoyle was a very fine astrophysicist in his day, [pre- big bang) and a theist. He wrote a story (quite a naff story, IIRC) which involved an intelligent cloud of basic particles, capable of navigating itself around the universe.. And why shouldn't an intelligent god design such beings? Much simpler than all this grubby flesh and slimy fluids and such.)

[keithprosser3]

Perhaps a more interesting question is why would a god make the universe suitable for life? Why does He want us to exist?