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]

.

1. Everything that exists had a beginning.

What was the first thing that had a beginning?

[olavisjo]

.

There can be reason why you can't detect God, but where can you put an infinite number of universes and find no trace of them?

Anywhere outside your light-cone.

Why would they be able to hide there?

[no evidence no belief]

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.

The creator of the universe is clearly fine tuned for the purpose of creating the universe. If his intelligence and fine-tuning abilities had been slightly different, if the physical laws governing his existence had been slightly different, he would have been unable to create the universe as it is. Statistically speaking, chance/coincidence is not an appropriate explanation. Therefore a fine tuner/intelligent designer designed God.

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.

Lol. Of course, if you define God as "an entity which exists", then God exists! Duh! If I define God as an entity which doesn't exist, then he doesn't exist. What kind of joke is this? You're just playing with words. Your rationale is no more valid than this one: God is the most powerful entity imaginable. Who is more powerful an entity that can create the entire universe, or an entity that can create the whole universe while simultaneously not existing? Clearly hte latter, therefore God doesn't exist. Meaningless mumbo jumbo.

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.

Err, space and time are not bound by the universe. You haven't read much on relativity, have you? An entity can be spaceless and timeless without being supernatural. It's called a singularity. If you want to define God as a singularity, then ok, God exists. In fact there is a God at the center of every black hole in the universe. the Large Hadron Collider can create Gods.

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.

Well, there is no such thing as objective morality, so this argument is moot. "Killing people for fun is wrong" is not an objective statement. Just a broadly shared consensus among sentient being who have a evolution-driven instinctive impulse to discourage behavior that causes loss in societal health.

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

No

2) In light of these four philosophical arguments, will atheists please stop making the false, disingenuous claim that there is no evidence for God?

In light of the fact that these four arguments are not valid and not sound, the claim that no evidence for God has been presented is not false or disingenuous.

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

There don't need to be any. The lack of evidence is all that is necessary for lack of belief.

[olavisjo]

.

Well, there is no such thing as objective morality, so this argument is moot. "Killing people for fun is wrong" is not an objective statement. Just a broadly shared consensus among sentient being who have a evolution-driven instinctive impulse to discourage behavior that causes loss in societal health.

If there is no objective morality, then killing people for fun is NOT wrong, if a person does not share the consensus among sentient beings who have an evolution-driven instinctive impulse to discourage behavior that causes loss in societal health.

[FarWanderer]

If there is no objective morality, then killing people for fun is NOT wrong

Can you provide an "objective" reason to care?

[instantc]

Can someone who is advocating the fine-tuning argument explain me one simple thing about the argument. Whenever I post this somewhere, I never get a response. So it must be because my question is either too stupid or too witty.

First, it is evident that simply because an event was unlikely, it does not follow that it had to be intentional. Let's look at an example situation where we instinctively apply this kind of rationale.

Suppose we are playing cards and I, the dealer, get a straight flush three times in a row. This is obviously a good reason to suspect that I have intentionally rigged the deck, but why is that the case? An apologist might be inclined to say that it's because getting a straight flush three times in a row is very unlikely. But, anybody who knows the basics of probability calculus also knows that the probability for any given combination of three hands is equally unlikely.

As shown above, the reasonable suspicion doesn't arise from the low probability of the event alone, but also from the fact that straight flush has a great value in poker.

Thus, it seems to me that in order for fine-tuning to be evidence for an intentional creation, we have to assume two things. First, that formation of life permitting conditions would be very unlikely to happen by chance. Second, that life is the straight flush of the universe.

My question is, what reason do we have to assume the latter?

[Goat]

.

Well, there is no such thing as objective morality, so this argument is moot. "Killing people for fun is wrong" is not an objective statement. Just a broadly shared consensus among sentient being who have a evolution-driven instinctive impulse to discourage behavior that causes loss in societal health.

If there is no objective morality, then killing people for fun is NOT wrong, if a person does not share the consensus among sentient beings who have an evolution-driven instinctive impulse to discourage behavior that causes loss in societal health.

Care to show this is correct?? This is a rather challenging opinion, one that has been countered quite a few times , which you totally ignored.

[JohnA]

.

Well, there is no such thing as objective morality, so this argument is moot. "Killing people for fun is wrong" is not an objective statement. Just a broadly shared consensus among sentient being who have a evolution-driven instinctive impulse to discourage behavior that causes loss in societal health.

If there is no objective morality, then killing people for fun is NOT wrong, if a person does not share the consensus among sentient beings who have an evolution-driven instinctive impulse to discourage behavior that causes loss in societal health.

I would never say killing is wrong. How absurd.
Murder (unlawful killing) is wrong because it is prohibited by law.

You and I kill other living things all the time. Soldiers kill other people in war. People kill other people in self-defense.

Can you please define this "objective morality" that you refer to?

[JohnA]

Can someone who is advocating the fine-tuning argument explain me one simple thing about the argument. Whenever I post this somewhere, I never get a response. So it must be because my question is either too stupid or too witty.

First, it is evident that simply because an event was unlikely, it does not follow that it had to be intentional. Let's look at an example situation where we instinctively apply this kind of rationale.

Suppose we are playing cards and I, the dealer, get a straight flush three times in a row. This is obviously a good reason to suspect that I have intentionally rigged the deck, but why is that the case? An apologist might be inclined to say that it's because getting a straight flush three times in a row is very unlikely. But, anybody who knows the basics of probability calculus also knows that the probability for any given combination of three hands is equally unlikely.

As shown above, the reasonable suspicion doesn't arise from the low probability of the event alone, but also from the fact that straight flush has a great value in poker.

Thus, it seems to me that in order for fine-tuning to be evidence for an intentional creation, we have to assume two things. First, that formation of life permitting conditions would be very unlikely to happen by chance. Second, that life is the straight flush of the universe.

My question is, what reason do we have to assume the latter?

You can not use probability theory as explanation for the fine-tuning. That is because we have no other examples of universes with life.

People do not answer you because your use of probability theory premise is wrong.

[instantc]

Can someone who is advocating the fine-tuning argument explain me one simple thing about the argument. Whenever I post this somewhere, I never get a response. So it must be because my question is either too stupid or too witty.

First, it is evident that simply because an event was unlikely, it does not follow that it had to be intentional. Let's look at an example situation where we instinctively apply this kind of rationale.

Suppose we are playing cards and I, the dealer, get a straight flush three times in a row. This is obviously a good reason to suspect that I have intentionally rigged the deck, but why is that the case? An apologist might be inclined to say that it's because getting a straight flush three times in a row is very unlikely. But, anybody who knows the basics of probability calculus also knows that the probability for any given combination of three hands is equally unlikely.

As shown above, the reasonable suspicion doesn't arise from the low probability of the event alone, but also from the fact that straight flush has a great value in poker.

Thus, it seems to me that in order for fine-tuning to be evidence for an intentional creation, we have to assume two things. First, that formation of life permitting conditions would be very unlikely to happen by chance. Second, that life is the straight flush of the universe.

My question is, what reason do we have to assume the latter?

You can not use probability theory as explanation for the fine-tuning. That is because we have no other examples of universes with life.

People do not answer you because your use of probability theory premise is wrong.

You are way off. I am making a subsidiary argument, my objection doesn't rely on the low probability of this so called fine tuning. Rather, the fine tuning argument itself relies on the contention that the probability for life permitting conditions to arise by chance is very low. If this is granted, the argument is still open to my objection.