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?

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 26 by olavisjo]

I was asking WP how he defended his argument against the WAP.
I don't see how I could possibly know that in advance.
But to address your firing squad analogy: this is new to me, and rather sketchy.
We hear silence. We look around and see that there might have been this huge firing squad. We reckon that if there was such a thing, it is highly improbable that they all wouyld have missed.
So we can think
a. they all missed because some designer fixed it for us, or
b. that the apparent 'firing squad' is itself a product of the limitations of our understanding. or
c. That we are indeed very fortunate to be here at all.

You are free to choose a; and I would have no rock-solid way of establishing that you are wrong; but likewise, if I choose b, you are in no stronger position.
By the way, what do you make of my faux-Kalam argument?

[olavisjo]

.

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

I don't think it is hubris at all, I just value my fellow humans more than those who think humanity is just "old hat".

[10CC]

.

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

I don't think it is hubris at all, I just value my fellow humans more than those who think humanity is just "old hat".

You believing that the entire universe was created so that you could live for 70yrs or so isn't hubris? In that case hubris must mean cow droppings as the religious claim.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 18 by WinePusher]

If someone saw me in a hardware store, could they then pick me up and use me to build their walls?

THat depends, on just how cute she was. A lot of guys would build walls to get a nice pick up.

[instantc]

.

How do you defend this argument against the weak anthropic principle?
If conscious beings look out to see what sort of world they live in, it will be the sort of world in which it is possible for conscious beings to exist. This is true, no matter how 'improbable' the conscious beings think a world like theirs is, compared to (what they beleive to be) all possible worlds.

I will pretend you did not know the answer to your question before you asked.

• In response to this objection, defenders of the argument from fine-tuning often make use of a story involving a firing-squad devised by John Leslie. You are to be executed by a firing-squad of a hundred trained marksmen, the story goes. You hear the command to open fire, and the sound of the guns, and then silence; you are not dead, you hear silence. All of the marksmen missed! Pondering, you realise that had the marksmen not missed you would not have been able to reflect on the attempted execution, that only a failed execution would have allowed you to be here now, listening to the silence. However, you do not infer from this that the fact that the marksmen missed is unsurprising. You remain astonished that one hundred trained marksmen could all miss simultaneously.

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/th ... principle/

Granted, that is a fair rebuttal to that particular objection. Let me offer you an analogy. Suppose I throw a coin in the air, how many different possible outcomes are there? It could land on its side on one angle or it could land on its side on a slightly different angle. In other words, there are infinite different ways in which the coin could land. Whatever way it lands, probability for that exact outcome was one out of infinite slightly different possibilities. Should we be amazed that it landed on one specific spot?

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 31 by olavisjo]

The argument for fine tuning is little more than an appeal from ignorance - just because something appears to be fine tuned, does not necessarily mean it is. Unless you have some falsifiable evidence that you would like to lay out here...

How can you claim that "A god created the universe" is more valid than "there are an infinite number of universes of which ours is one" Both of which explain fine tuning or the appearance thereof.

[TheJoshAbideth]

[Replying to post 44 by Goat]

This I'm sure would have some sway - though I'm not sure how effectively I would be able to pound their nails.

[Project I.D.]

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.

By your statement this would means that all religious experiences had by all people throughout time proves all possible believed Gods. There is said to be about 2500 gods in this world to believe in by people who I am sure would say they have had "Religious Experiences" Lets take your theory and apply it to Hinduism. They claim to have religious experiences and have a book to go along with it. Does this make it true and prove that "The Divine Hideousness" argument is false?

I'll flip your argument, does the fact that Atheists claim to have no religious experiences prove that God does not exist?

Here is a challenge you cannot meet: Show us some empirical evidence that God exists and then we might have something to go on beside your feelings. Faith is not evidence and the Bible is not evidence.

[olavisjo]

.

You believing that the entire universe was created so that you could live for 70yrs or so isn't hubris? In that case hubris must mean cow droppings as the religious claim.

No, not me. But God would for you, even I would spend an eternity building a universe so that you could live for 70 years or so to decide if you want to spend an eternity with God.

[olavisjo]

.

Should we be amazed that it landed on one specific spot?

YES!!!