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?

[10CC]

The universe is contingent, not necessary.
The universe encompasses everything that is natural, including space and time.
The universe began to exist out of nothing.

These would be more accurately described as unsupported assumptions, I don't believe that claiming them as "fact" is wrong.

[WinePusher]

The universe is contingent, not necessary.
The universe encompasses everything that is natural, including space and time.
The universe began to exist out of nothing.

These would be more accurately described as unsupported assumptions, I don't believe that claiming them as "fact" is wrong.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but these are not unsupported assumptions. These are all self evident facts. Please, go ahead and explain which one of these points is wrong. Are you saying the universe is not contingent? Are you saying that the universe does not encompass the entire natural order, including space and time? Are you saying that the universe did not begin to exist out of nothing?

If everything I said is incorrect it should be easy for you to prove me wrong.

[10CC]

The universe is contingent, not necessary.
The universe encompasses everything that is natural, including space and time.
The universe began to exist out of nothing.

These would be more accurately described as unsupported assumptions, I don't believe that claiming them as "fact" is wrong.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but these are not unsupported assumptions. These are all self evident facts. Please, go ahead and explain which one of these points is wrong. Are you saying the universe is not contingent? Are you saying that the universe does not encompass the entire natural order, including space and time? Are you saying that the universe did not begin to exist out of nothing?

If everything I said is incorrect it should be easy for you to prove me wrong.

The universe is contingent on what?
I have no idea and neither do you whether the universe encompasses the entire natural order.
Can you prove that
1) The universe had a beginning?
and
2) That it began from nothing?
and
3) Can you define nothing?

[10CC]

BTW why would someone assume that Paley's watch was designed? By comparing it to the beach it is found on?

[WinePusher]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but these are not unsupported assumptions. These are all self evident facts. Please, go ahead and explain which one of these points is wrong. Are you saying the universe is not contingent? Are you saying that the universe does not encompass the entire natural order, including space and time? Are you saying that the universe did not begin to exist out of nothing? If everything I said is incorrect it should be easy for you to prove me wrong.

The universe is contingent on what?

How does this refute anything I said? Just because you don't know what the universe is contingent upon does not mean that the universe is not contingent. The universe is contingent, this is a fact. There is nothing in the philosophical literature that disputes this.

But to answer your question, I would say a supernatural uncaused first cause, God. The contingency of the universe is proof for God, in the sense it shows that the universe is not self sufficient. The existence of the universe requires an explanation.

I have no idea and neither do you whether the universe encompasses the entire natural order.

Actually, I do have an idea about this because I've actually read the literature. Do you know what I mean when I say that the universe encompasses the entire natural order? I am referring to the laws of physics that govern the universe, that exist only within this universe. Scientists also agree that time and space and exclusive properties of this universe. Please refer to this earlier post of mine:

Something cannot come from nothing, and by nothing I do not mean empty space. By 'nothing' I mean whatever came before the big bang. Physicists will admit that they do not know what came before since it is nearly impossible for humans to comprehend a 'reality' without space and time. All we can say for sure is that space and time did not exist prior to the beginning of the universe.

Can you prove that
1) The universe had a beginning?
and
2) That it began from nothing?

However in 1915, Einstein introduced his revolutionary General Theory of Relativity. In this, space and time were no longer Absolute, no longer a fixed background to events. Instead, they were dynamical quantities that were shaped by the matter and energy in the universe. They were defined only within the universe, so it made no sense to talk of a time before the universe began. Source: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of ... verse.html

3) Can you define nothing?

Not really. All I can say for certain is that 'nothing' refers to whatever state of existence preceded the initial singularity. We know that this state of existence was not bound by space and time.

[10CC]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but these are not unsupported assumptions. These are all self evident facts. Please, go ahead and explain which one of these points is wrong. Are you saying the universe is not contingent? Are you saying that the universe does not encompass the entire natural order, including space and time? Are you saying that the universe did not begin to exist out of nothing? If everything I said is incorrect it should be easy for you to prove me wrong.

The universe is contingent on what?

How does this refute anything I said? Just because you don't know what the universe is contingent upon does not mean that the universe is not contingent. The universe is contingent, this is a fact. There is nothing in the philosophical literature that disputes this.

But to answer your question, I would say a supernatural uncaused first cause, God. The contingency of the universe is proof for God, in the sense it shows that the universe is not self sufficient. The existence of the universe requires an explanation.

So your first premise is actually your conclusion, so not factual as you claimed.
You want the universe to be contingent on your imaginary skydaddy so you claim that it is. Well good for you and I DO mean you.

I have no idea and neither do you whether the universe encompasses the entire natural order.

Actually, I do have an idea about this because I've actually read the literature. Do you know what I mean when I say that the universe encompasses the entire natural order? I am referring to the laws of physics that govern the universe, that exist only within this universe. Scientists also agree that time and space and exclusive properties of this universe. Please refer to this earlier post of mine:

Something cannot come from nothing, and by nothing I do not mean empty space. By 'nothing' I mean whatever came before the big bang. Physicists will admit that they do not know what came before since it is nearly impossible for humans to comprehend a 'reality' without space and time. All we can say for sure is that space and time did not exist prior to the beginning of the universe.

By nothing you actually mean something, I get it. So what you really mean to say is that something can't come from something, well good for you, again. Do you have some science that absolutely denies the possibility of other universes or prohibits anything existing beyond what we consider to be the universe?

Can you prove that
1) The universe had a beginning?
and
2) That it began from nothing?

However in 1915, Einstein introduced his revolutionary General Theory of Relativity. In this, space and time were no longer Absolute, no longer a fixed background to events. Instead, they were dynamical quantities that were shaped by the matter and energy in the universe. They were defined only within the universe, so it made no sense to talk of a time before the universe began. Source: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-origin-of ... verse.html

And yet you claim that your god existed for all time before creation, you really need to decide which horse you are riding, cos at the moment you got more than one under you.

3) Can you define nothing?

Not really. All I can say for certain is that 'nothing' refers to whatever state of existence preceded the initial singularity. We know that this state of existence was not bound by space and time.

You don't know what it was but you do know what some of it's properties are, how can you possibly make these claims. You can even say for CERTAIN that it was a state of existence, that elicits a great big WOW.

[help3434]

Your objections are completely laughable. My point with using Sam Harris was to show how ridiculous your position is because a huge number philosophers, including many prominent atheists, believe that objective morality exists.

As far as I know Sam Harris is not considered to be a great philosopher.

How can you deny something so self evident? Every single person has a conscience which leads them to behave uniformly when placed in similar situation. And without objective morality it would be impossible to make moral value judgments. Criminal law assumes that objective morality exists.

Have you ever heard of sociopaths? If criminal law is based on objective morality then why isn't criminal the same everywhere?

With all that said, I think this earth is plenty morally absurd… so if there is a God, he messed up big time.

No actually, these absurd things you speak of would only be absurd if God does not exist. The existence of God, and of an afterlife, provides a moral order for the world. The fact is that the world is morally irrational, ie: bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. The fact in and of itself shows that the world is morally irrational. If there is no God, there is no final resolution. There is no ultimate justice.

Do you have any evidence that there is final resolution and ultimate justice? This seems to be an argument from wishful thinking.

[Star]

What don't you understand about the fact that arguments use evidence. Cosmological arguments are about as evidenced based as it gets. The Cosmological argument takes into account three basic facts:

The universe is contingent, not necessary.
The universe encompasses everything that is natural, including space and time.
The universe began to exist out of nothing.

These three facts support the claim that God exists. The fact that the universe is contingent begs the question of WHY there is a universe rather than nothing. This automatically puts this question outside the realm of natural science, since science cannot deal with WHY problems. The fact that the universe encompasses all that is natural, including space and time means that the cause of the universe must be supernatural, spaceless and timeless (eternal).

These three claims are NOT known. The cosmological argument is a philosophical and theological argument, and doesn't establish any scientific fact, so you must be mistaken.

According to physicist Lawrence Krauss (a real scientist), who wrote A Universe from Nothing, even nothing is something. You should look up his work. He provides a plausible explanation of why there is something rather than nothing.

Scientists also agree that time and space and exclusive properties of this universe.

No they don't.

This would require special knowledge of how many universes exist, as well as their properties.

[WinePusher]

Your objections are completely laughable. My point with using Sam Harris was to show how ridiculous your position is because a huge number philosophers, including many prominent atheists, believe that objective morality exists.

As far as I know Sam Harris is not considered to be a great philosopher.

He definitely isn't a great philosopher but he is a prominent atheist who researches topics in the field of moral philosophy. And he also upholds the existence of objective moral truths, just as Christians do.

How can you deny something so self evident? Every single person has a conscience which leads them to behave uniformly when placed in similar situation. And without objective morality it would be impossible to make moral value judgments. Criminal law assumes that objective morality exists.

Have you ever heard of sociopaths? If criminal law is based on objective morality then why isn't criminal the same everywhere?

I would actually say that it is. Most criminal justice systems are very similar throughout the entire world. Most of the major criminal laws dealing with murder, theft, rape, etc are enforced by most, if not all, the countries in the world. I doubt there's any country that actually permits things like murder and rape. This is obviously evidence for a universal moral conscience that is shared by all people regardless of their race, culture, creed, etc.

No actually, these absurd things you speak of would only be absurd if God does not exist. The existence of God, and of an afterlife, provides a moral order for the world. The fact is that the world is morally irrational, ie: bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people. The fact in and of itself shows that the world is morally irrational. If there is no God, there is no final resolution. There is no ultimate justice.

Do you have any evidence that there is final resolution and ultimate justice? This seems to be an argument from wishful thinking.

You have it completely backwards. My claim is that without God there is no final resolution or ultimate justice. If God does not exist then the universe is morally absurd in the sense that there is no final resolution or final justice. In order for the universe to be morally rational there has to be a God.

[instantc]

Your objections are completely laughable. My point with using Sam Harris was to show how ridiculous your position is because a huge number philosophers, including many prominent atheists, believe that objective morality exists. How can you deny something so self evident?

Every time someone mentions a name of anybody here, people are immediately calling an argument from authority, but this right here is a properly fallacious argumentum ab auctoritate.

Sam Harris and many other prominent atheists also believe that there is no God, so it would be quite laughable to argue otherwise, wouldn't it?