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]

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 didnt 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?

It may indeed be quite improbable for an Intelligent Designer to just happen by chance. But tell me, what is the chance of an existing Designer existing? You see, if the Designer has always existed, then there would be a 100% chance that it exists. There is no probability of it existing. That which exists, exists.

This does nothing to further the debate - as you are pre-loading your terms and twisting the argument.

What is the chance of an non existing "designer" not existing? (the answer is 100%) That which does not exist - does not exist... right?

My reply was in response to the question raised by Student.

Student wrote:

Is the probability of this universe happening by chance more or less improbable than an Intelligent Designer happening by chance?

Why ask a question that is based on pure speculation. You cannot determine the chance of God existing, and so the point made is moot, and adds nothing to the debate. which is exactly what you are accusing me of doing. Okay, so the point made by Student adds nothing to the debate, and the point I made adds nothing to the debate. So we are nowhere.

The point of the question - as far as I'm reading it - was not just to simply determine the chance of something indeterminable happening, but to gauge which question is more valid:

The universe existing via intelligent designer - or - The universe existing by chance?

To which your initial reply delivered no intelligible response.

Oh well, that's easy. The chance of a universe coming into existence all on its own is infinitesimally small.

You know this from your knowledge of ONE universe and how did you calculate this probability given such a small sample. The fact that the ONE universe you are aware of proves 100% that a universe can exist and this is a ONE out of a possible ONE, good luck.

In other words, it likely couldn't happen.

Umm no.

But for an existing God to bring a universe into existence, the probability is probably closer to about 100%. But since both scenarios lack significant evidence, I think it best to toss the question out altogether. As I said. It's a moot question. But of course we can have faith in our own beliefs, you and I.

Yes when your answers fail to stack up it is better to ignore the question, I think.

[Goat]

Oh well, that's easy. The chance of a universe coming into existence all on its own is infinitesimally small. In other words, it likely couldn't happen. But for an existing God to bring a universe into existence, the probability is probably closer to about 100%. But since both scenarios lack significant evidence, I think it best to toss the question out altogether. As I said. It's a moot question. But of course we can have faith in our own beliefs, you and I.

And, please show your calculations, and then the objective evidence that shows that factors in your calculations matches the actual conditions.

It seems to me that the claim 'The chance of a universe coming into existence all on it's own is infinitesimally small' is a claim that can neither be proven or shown to be false. IN other words.. the sentence has no semantic value.

[WinePusher]

This is a very good post and it really exposes me for the novice that I am when it comes to philosophy. I'm going to suggest a new award be created called 2013 Post of the Year and nominate your post for that category!

If God is the designer of natural law, then fine tuning cannot exist. Consider the the following analogy:

To open a safe, one must first input the correct combination. We might then say that one must "fine tune" the dial on the safe in order to arrive at the correct combination. So long as this external restriction exists (set forth by the manufacturer of the safe), fine tuning can also occur. However, if the individual seeking to open the safe happens to possess the capacity to alter the combination, then any set of numbers will prove sufficient to open the safe. At this point, fine tuning becomes a veritable impossibility. From this we can derive the following conclusions:

Either,

A: The restriction obtains and fine tuning equally obtains.

Or,

B: The individual opening the safe is also capable of the setting the combination. In which case the restriction does not obtain (rendering fine tuning impossible).


In the same way, if the natural constraints which require the universal constants to fall within a very narrow range of values, in order for life to exist, are (per naturalism) not a product of God's own volition, then fine tuning can indeed occur. However, if such constraints are little more than the contingent product of an omnipotent God's arbitrary will, then it remains to be seen why it is necessary that the universal constants must be what they are. In truth, an infinite number of values would have equally sufficed in producing a life permitting universe. An omnipotent God has no (non-logical) restrictions, as such, fine tuning cannot truly occur according to this paradigm.

Its worth noting that the latter paradigm seems to render certain objections regarding the improbability of the fundamental constants being what they are "by chance" less problematic. Though it may appear exceedingly improbable that the universal constants should be what they are by chance, it is infinitely more improbable that an omnipotent God should choose any one particular set of values to account for a life permitting universe from the infinite number of possible permutations available to him/her/it.

From a theistic perspective I would have to say that the natural constraints on the universe are the product of God's own will. But, I don't see how this refutes the argument. There is nothing which requires all the numerical constants to be set to life permitting values. These constants could have easily ended up on values that did not permit life, but the fact that they did not seems to indicate that there is some purpose and intentionality to our existence. It seems like you're avoiding the larger question of why the constants are set to life permitting values (why and how the combination was entered correctly) and you are instead focusing on why the combination is designed the way it is. I would say that is irrelevant to the question at hand.

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.

What renders God's properties objectively "great"? Is it God's nature which renders said properties great? Or is it some objective standard of "greatness", external to God, which establishes their objective greatness? If the former, then the theist has fallaciously assumed the existence of God in order to account for the maximal greatness of his/her/its properties. Thus, on this view, the ontological argument assumes its conclusion. If the latter, then the theist must posit the existence of an objective standard of greatness by which the quality of the God's properties is measured. Since God's greatness is contingent upon the existence of this standard, the standard is itself greater than God, thus God cannot be thought of as a "maximally great" being. As a result, the Ontological argument fails.

This argument is a non sequitor. The fact is that humans are able to make value judgments regarding various degrees of greatness and perfection. In order for us to make any judgments there must exist a perfect, maximally great standard by which everything else is compared too and the theist will claim that this maximally great standard is God. In other words, it is impossible to see a line as crooked unless there is a perfectly straight line to compare it to. The fact that we are able to judge things in this world as being 'less great' or 'more great' requires an objectively great standard to exist, otherwise we have be completely oblivious.

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.

I see no reason why we ought to assume that this cause must possess a volitional mind. Positing an impersonal initial state of necessary and sufficient causal conditions from which a universe might emerge spontaneously equally accounts for the existence of our world. This postulate also has the added benefit of avoiding the logical untenability intrinsic to the doctrine of "creatio ex nihilo", a doctrine central to most monotheistic theologies.

I don't know what you mean by 'volitional mind' but we can appropriately assume that this cause possesses intelligence due to the intricate and precise way the universe was brought into existence. The problem the unbeliever needs to reconcile with is not only how something managed to spontaneously come from nothing but also how the universe managed to maintain itself and expand throughout time. There were a variety of things that needed to happen for the universe to adequately sustain itself, and by any measurement the occurrence of all these preconditions is highly unlikely.

So, had the universe spontaneously came into existence due to the appropriate combination of necessary and sufficient causes (whatever those may be) then we would expect an erratic universe that would have collapsed upon itself. But, instead we have a universe that continues to expand and we have an improbable combination of factors that permit galaxies and solar systems to form. All this points to intelligent design.

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.

Laws, duties, and values are all the product of subjective minds. Laws/duties are ultimately subjective because they display the prescriptive property of "intentionality", intrinsic to the subjective mind. Values are ultimately subjective because they cannot logically exist in the absence of a subjective valuer. For this reason, moral laws, duties, and values cannot transcend all subjective opinion, preference, or disposition, therefore they cannot exist "objectively" in any literal sense of the term. If objective moral laws, duties, or values do not exist, it is difficult to see how such things prove the existence of an "objective" moral law giver. Human subjectivity is more than sufficient in accounting for the subjective moral laws, duties, and values we actually observe. We need not posit a God.

Other than your philosophical musings, which I did not fully understand, I see nothing here that refutes the claim that objective moral values exist. I would offer two pieces of evidence for the existence of objective morality. First, throughout the world there is a shared conscience that certain things are 'right' and certain things are 'wrong.' This shows that certain moral principles are upheld regardless of culture, race, creed, etc. Second, actions are judged by their intentions and consequences. Any action that has a good intention behind it and a good consequence can be considered 'objectively good.' Killing an innocent baby for fun can be considered objectively 'bad' because the intention and consequence of the action produces no positive outcome. However, killing a mass killer can be seen as 'objectively good' because the intention is to save innocent lives (which means the outcome from the action is positive.

[10CC]

This is a very good post and it really exposes me for the novice that I am when it comes to philosophy. I'm going to suggest a new award be created called 2013 Post of the Year and nominate your post for that category!

If God is the designer of natural law, then fine tuning cannot exist. Consider the the following analogy:

To open a safe, one must first input the correct combination. We might then say that one must "fine tune" the dial on the safe in order to arrive at the correct combination. So long as this external restriction exists (set forth by the manufacturer of the safe), fine tuning can also occur. However, if the individual seeking to open the safe happens to possess the capacity to alter the combination, then any set of numbers will prove sufficient to open the safe. At this point, fine tuning becomes a veritable impossibility. From this we can derive the following conclusions:

Either,

A: The restriction obtains and fine tuning equally obtains.

Or,

B: The individual opening the safe is also capable of the setting the combination. In which case the restriction does not obtain (rendering fine tuning impossible).


In the same way, if the natural constraints which require the universal constants to fall within a very narrow range of values, in order for life to exist, are (per naturalism) not a product of God's own volition, then fine tuning can indeed occur. However, if such constraints are little more than the contingent product of an omnipotent God's arbitrary will, then it remains to be seen why it is necessary that the universal constants must be what they are. In truth, an infinite number of values would have equally sufficed in producing a life permitting universe. An omnipotent God has no (non-logical) restrictions, as such, fine tuning cannot truly occur according to this paradigm.

Its worth noting that the latter paradigm seems to render certain objections regarding the improbability of the fundamental constants being what they are "by chance" less problematic. Though it may appear exceedingly improbable that the universal constants should be what they are by chance, it is infinitely more improbable that an omnipotent God should choose any one particular set of values to account for a life permitting universe from the infinite number of possible permutations available to him/her/it.

From a theistic perspective I would have to say that the natural constraints on the universe are the product of God's own will. But, I don't see how this refutes the argument. There is nothing which requires all the numerical constants to be set to life permitting values. These constants could have easily ended up on values that did not permit life, but the fact that they did not seems to indicate that there is some purpose and intentionality to our existence. It seems like you're avoiding the larger question of why the constants are set to life permitting values (why and how the combination was entered correctly) and you are instead focusing on why the combination is designed the way it is. I would say that is irrelevant to the question at hand.

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.

What renders God's properties objectively "great"? Is it God's nature which renders said properties great? Or is it some objective standard of "greatness", external to God, which establishes their objective greatness? If the former, then the theist has fallaciously assumed the existence of God in order to account for the maximal greatness of his/her/its properties. Thus, on this view, the ontological argument assumes its conclusion. If the latter, then the theist must posit the existence of an objective standard of greatness by which the quality of the God's properties is measured. Since God's greatness is contingent upon the existence of this standard, the standard is itself greater than God, thus God cannot be thought of as a "maximally great" being. As a result, the Ontological argument fails.

This argument is a non sequitor. The fact is that humans are able to make value judgments regarding various degrees of greatness and perfection. In order for us to make any judgments there must exist a perfect, maximally great standard by which everything else is compared too and the theist will claim that this maximally great standard is God. In other words, it is impossible to see a line as crooked unless there is a perfectly straight line to compare it to. The fact that we are able to judge things in this world as being 'less great' or 'more great' requires an objectively great standard to exist, otherwise we have be completely oblivious.

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.

I see no reason why we ought to assume that this cause must possess a volitional mind. Positing an impersonal initial state of necessary and sufficient causal conditions from which a universe might emerge spontaneously equally accounts for the existence of our world. This postulate also has the added benefit of avoiding the logical untenability intrinsic to the doctrine of "creatio ex nihilo", a doctrine central to most monotheistic theologies.

I don't know what you mean by 'volitional mind' but we can appropriately assume that this cause possesses intelligence due to the intricate and precise way the universe was brought into existence. The problem the unbeliever needs to reconcile with is not only how something managed to spontaneously come from nothing but also how the universe managed to maintain itself and expand throughout time. There were a variety of things that needed to happen for the universe to adequately sustain itself, and by any measurement the occurrence of all these preconditions is highly unlikely.

So, had the universe spontaneously came into existence due to the appropriate combination of necessary and sufficient causes (whatever those may be) then we would expect an erratic universe that would have collapsed upon itself. But, instead we have a universe that continues to expand and we have an improbable combination of factors that permit galaxies and solar systems to form. All this points to intelligent design.

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.

Laws, duties, and values are all the product of subjective minds. Laws/duties are ultimately subjective because they display the prescriptive property of "intentionality", intrinsic to the subjective mind. Values are ultimately subjective because they cannot logically exist in the absence of a subjective valuer. For this reason, moral laws, duties, and values cannot transcend all subjective opinion, preference, or disposition, therefore they cannot exist "objectively" in any literal sense of the term. If objective moral laws, duties, or values do not exist, it is difficult to see how such things prove the existence of an "objective" moral law giver. Human subjectivity is more than sufficient in accounting for the subjective moral laws, duties, and values we actually observe. We need not posit a God.

Other than your philosophical musings, which I did not fully understand, I see nothing here that refutes the claim that objective moral values exist. I would offer two pieces of evidence for the existence of objective morality. First, throughout the world there is a shared conscience that certain things are 'right' and certain things are 'wrong.' This shows that certain moral principles are upheld regardless of culture, race, creed, etc. Second, actions are judged by their intentions and consequences. Any action that has a good intention behind it and a good consequence can be considered 'objectively good.' Killing an innocent baby for fun can be considered objectively 'bad' because the intention and consequence of the action produces no positive outcome. However, killing a mass killer can be seen as 'objectively good' because the intention is to save innocent lives (which means the outcome from the action is positive.

I have asked others here and I'd like to ask you the same.

Can you name any objective moral imperative that your god is not guilty of ignoring or ordering others to ignore? ie breaking that imperative?

[JohnA]

This is a very good post and it really exposes me for the novice that I am when it comes to philosophy. I'm going to suggest a new award be created called 2013 Post of the Year and nominate your post for that category!

If God is the designer of natural law, then fine tuning cannot exist. Consider the the following analogy:

To open a safe, one must first input the correct combination. We might then say that one must "fine tune" the dial on the safe in order to arrive at the correct combination. So long as this external restriction exists (set forth by the manufacturer of the safe), fine tuning can also occur. However, if the individual seeking to open the safe happens to possess the capacity to alter the combination, then any set of numbers will prove sufficient to open the safe. At this point, fine tuning becomes a veritable impossibility. From this we can derive the following conclusions:

Either,

A: The restriction obtains and fine tuning equally obtains.

Or,

B: The individual opening the safe is also capable of the setting the combination. In which case the restriction does not obtain (rendering fine tuning impossible).


In the same way, if the natural constraints which require the universal constants to fall within a very narrow range of values, in order for life to exist, are (per naturalism) not a product of God's own volition, then fine tuning can indeed occur. However, if such constraints are little more than the contingent product of an omnipotent God's arbitrary will, then it remains to be seen why it is necessary that the universal constants must be what they are. In truth, an infinite number of values would have equally sufficed in producing a life permitting universe. An omnipotent God has no (non-logical) restrictions, as such, fine tuning cannot truly occur according to this paradigm.

Its worth noting that the latter paradigm seems to render certain objections regarding the improbability of the fundamental constants being what they are "by chance" less problematic. Though it may appear exceedingly improbable that the universal constants should be what they are by chance, it is infinitely more improbable that an omnipotent God should choose any one particular set of values to account for a life permitting universe from the infinite number of possible permutations available to him/her/it.

From a theistic perspective I would have to say that the natural constraints on the universe are the product of God's own will. But, I don't see how this refutes the argument. There is nothing which requires all the numerical constants to be set to life permitting values. These constants could have easily ended up on values that did not permit life, but the fact that they did not seems to indicate that there is some purpose and intentionality to our existence. It seems like you're avoiding the larger question of why the constants are set to life permitting values (why and how the combination was entered correctly) and you are instead focusing on why the combination is designed the way it is. I would say that is irrelevant to the question at hand.

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.

What renders God's properties objectively "great"? Is it God's nature which renders said properties great? Or is it some objective standard of "greatness", external to God, which establishes their objective greatness? If the former, then the theist has fallaciously assumed the existence of God in order to account for the maximal greatness of his/her/its properties. Thus, on this view, the ontological argument assumes its conclusion. If the latter, then the theist must posit the existence of an objective standard of greatness by which the quality of the God's properties is measured. Since God's greatness is contingent upon the existence of this standard, the standard is itself greater than God, thus God cannot be thought of as a "maximally great" being. As a result, the Ontological argument fails.

This argument is a non sequitor. The fact is that humans are able to make value judgments regarding various degrees of greatness and perfection. In order for us to make any judgments there must exist a perfect, maximally great standard by which everything else is compared too and the theist will claim that this maximally great standard is God. In other words, it is impossible to see a line as crooked unless there is a perfectly straight line to compare it to. The fact that we are able to judge things in this world as being 'less great' or 'more great' requires an objectively great standard to exist, otherwise we have be completely oblivious.

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.

I see no reason why we ought to assume that this cause must possess a volitional mind. Positing an impersonal initial state of necessary and sufficient causal conditions from which a universe might emerge spontaneously equally accounts for the existence of our world. This postulate also has the added benefit of avoiding the logical untenability intrinsic to the doctrine of "creatio ex nihilo", a doctrine central to most monotheistic theologies.

I don't know what you mean by 'volitional mind' but we can appropriately assume that this cause possesses intelligence due to the intricate and precise way the universe was brought into existence. The problem the unbeliever needs to reconcile with is not only how something managed to spontaneously come from nothing but also how the universe managed to maintain itself and expand throughout time. There were a variety of things that needed to happen for the universe to adequately sustain itself, and by any measurement the occurrence of all these preconditions is highly unlikely.

So, had the universe spontaneously came into existence due to the appropriate combination of necessary and sufficient causes (whatever those may be) then we would expect an erratic universe that would have collapsed upon itself. But, instead we have a universe that continues to expand and we have an improbable combination of factors that permit galaxies and solar systems to form. All this points to intelligent design.

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.

Laws, duties, and values are all the product of subjective minds. Laws/duties are ultimately subjective because they display the prescriptive property of "intentionality", intrinsic to the subjective mind. Values are ultimately subjective because they cannot logically exist in the absence of a subjective valuer. For this reason, moral laws, duties, and values cannot transcend all subjective opinion, preference, or disposition, therefore they cannot exist "objectively" in any literal sense of the term. If objective moral laws, duties, or values do not exist, it is difficult to see how such things prove the existence of an "objective" moral law giver. Human subjectivity is more than sufficient in accounting for the subjective moral laws, duties, and values we actually observe. We need not posit a God.

Other than your philosophical musings, which I did not fully understand, I see nothing here that refutes the claim that objective moral values exist. I would offer two pieces of evidence for the existence of objective morality. First, throughout the world there is a shared conscience that certain things are 'right' and certain things are 'wrong.' This shows that certain moral principles are upheld regardless of culture, race, creed, etc. Second, actions are judged by their intentions and consequences. Any action that has a good intention behind it and a good consequence can be considered 'objectively good.' Killing an innocent baby for fun can be considered objectively 'bad' because the intention and consequence of the action produces no positive outcome. However, killing a mass killer can be seen as 'objectively good' because the intention is to save innocent lives (which means the outcome from the action is positive.

Would you agree if your god decrees murder as not wrong?
Biased and broken reason filters are not needed to answer this. Please show me wrong.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 113 by WinePusher]

It seems like you're avoiding the larger question of why the constants are set to life permitting values

You're missing the counter-question that neutralizes it:

In the first place, why does life itself require such precise conditions in order to exist?

Theists have no answer besides "God just made us that way". On the other hand, the answer is completely obvious from the perspective of Darwinian thinking.

we can appropriately assume that this cause possesses intelligence due to the intricate and precise way the universe was brought into existence

"Brought into existence" tempts me to think you are reasoning from a circular foundation.

The problem the unbeliever needs to reconcile with is not only how something managed to spontaneously come from nothing

No one has said that. Ionian referred to initial conditions. They didn't "come from" anywhere. That's what initial conditions means.

It's essentially the same as your world view, except that the initial conditions (what you refer to as God) aren't a person.

There were a variety of things that needed to happen for the universe to adequately sustain itself, and by any measurement the occurrence of all these preconditions is highly unlikely.

How in heck do you measure the likelihood of existence's initial conditions being a certain way!?

killing a mass killer can be seen as 'objectively good' because the intention is to save innocent lives (which means the outcome from the action is positive.

"Objective good" only functions when value stipulations are presupposed. In this case, "innocent lives have value" is clearly being used as one such value stipulation.

Hence why the claim that "value is inherently subjective" is relevant.

[Ionian_Tradition]

This is a very good post and it really exposes me for the novice that I am when it comes to philosophy. I'm going to suggest a new award be created called 2013 Post of the Year and nominate your post for that category!

Thank you WinePusher. That is very kind of you.

If God is the designer of natural law, then fine tuning cannot exist. Consider the the following analogy:

To open a safe, one must first input the correct combination. We might then say that one must "fine tune" the dial on the safe in order to arrive at the correct combination. So long as this external restriction exists (set forth by the manufacturer of the safe), fine tuning can also occur. However, if the individual seeking to open the safe happens to possess the capacity to alter the combination, then any set of numbers will prove sufficient to open the safe. At this point, fine tuning becomes a veritable impossibility. From this we can derive the following conclusions:

Either,

A: The restriction obtains and fine tuning equally obtains.

Or,

B: The individual opening the safe is also capable of the setting the combination. In which case the restriction does not obtain (rendering fine tuning impossible).


In the same way, if the natural constraints which require the universal constants to fall within a very narrow range of values, in order for life to exist, are (per naturalism) not a product of God's own volition, then fine tuning can indeed occur. However, if such constraints are little more than the contingent product of an omnipotent God's arbitrary will, then it remains to be seen why it is necessary that the universal constants must be what they are. In truth, an infinite number of values would have equally sufficed in producing a life permitting universe. An omnipotent God has no (non-logical) restrictions, as such, fine tuning cannot truly occur according to this paradigm.

Its worth noting that the latter paradigm seems to render certain objections regarding the improbability of the fundamental constants being what they are "by chance" less problematic. Though it may appear exceedingly improbable that the universal constants should be what they are by chance, it is infinitely more improbable that an omnipotent God should choose any one particular set of values to account for a life permitting universe from the infinite number of possible permutations available to him/her/it.

From a theistic perspective I would have to say that the natural constraints on the universe are the product of God's own will. But, I don't see how this refutes the argument.

If the natural constraints which appear to limit the number of possible universes in which life can evolve and persist are truly the product of God's will, then these constraints cannot have constrained God prior to their creation. How then can it be said that God was ever truly constrained in the number of possible life permitting universes he/she/it could have created prior to the implementation of the constraints which make fine tuning possible in the first place? Moreover, if God is the author of these constraints, then God is certainly sovereign over them. How then, can these contingent constraints prove binding to their omnipotent author in any meaningful fashion? If no a priori (non-logical) constraint restricted the number of possible (life permitting) universes God could have created prior to the creation of natural law, then it seems quite apparent that God was never truly constrained in the number of possible (life permitting) universes he/she/it could have created. Thus God never truly "fine tuned" the universe according to constraints that were, for him/her/it, never truly constraining.

There is nothing which requires all the numerical constants to be set to life permitting values. These constants could have easily ended up on values that did not permit life, but the fact that they did not seems to indicate that there is some purpose and intentionality to our existence.

If the number of possible values an omnipotent God could have assigned to these constants is truly infinite, then no "non-life permitting values" actually exist. Thus, your supposition that purpose and intentionality is implicit in God's decision to select "life permitting values" for the universal constants over their converse seems far less persuasive. Only if we assume naturalism, can a valid distinction between life, and non-life, permitting values truly be made.

It seems like you're avoiding the larger question of why the constants are set to life permitting values (why and how the combination was entered correctly) and you are instead focusing on why the combination is designed the way it is. I would say that is irrelevant to the question at hand.

My desire has been to call your attention to the fact that if we assume that the individual who entered the combination correctly is also the individual who designed the safe, then the fact that this individual opened the safe is far less impressive than if the safe were to be opened by an individual who had no part in its design. The reason for this is that the designer of the safe is not constrained in the number of possible combinations she can use to open the safe. She knows the way to reset the combination without ever having to enter the "correct combination" in the first place. Thus for her, every possible combination is "correct". It is only the individual who lacks the power to reset the combination who must dial in a specific sequence of numbers in order to open the safe. For that individual, fine tuning is made possible by virtue of certain constraining factors. For the designer, no such constraints exist, thus fine tuning is not possible.

With respect to God, the same applies. If there exists certain constraints, external to God, which limit the number of possible values God can assign to the constants of a life permitting universe, then it can reasonably be said that God has fined tuned the universe according to these constraints. If an omnipotent God is constrained by nothing, then it is difficult to imagine how it can be meaningfully said that God has "fine tuned" the universe according to constraints which, for him/her/it, were never truly operative.

This of course leaves open the question concerning why the universal constants hold the values they do. Cosmologists are working to find an answer to this deeply profound question. At present, the most prevalent hypothesis seems to be that of the "multi-verse" (a consequence of both inflationary theory and certain models derived from string theory). Regardless of whether or not this theory proves valid, it appears, none the less, that only from a naturalistic perspective can the notion of (apparent) "fine tuning" be meaningfully applied and understood. For this reason the argument from "fine tuning" remains ill-equipped to demonstrate the existence of a God. If an omnipotent God did exist, "fine tuning" would not.

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.

What renders God's properties objectively "great"? Is it God's nature which renders said properties great? Or is it some objective standard of "greatness", external to God, which establishes their objective greatness? If the former, then the theist has fallaciously assumed the existence of God in order to account for the maximal greatness of his/her/its properties. Thus, on this view, the ontological argument assumes its conclusion. If the latter, then the theist must posit the existence of an objective standard of greatness by which the quality of the God's properties is measured. Since God's greatness is contingent upon the existence of this standard, the standard is itself greater than God, thus God cannot be thought of as a "maximally great" being. As a result, the Ontological argument fails.

This argument is a non sequitor. The fact is that humans are able to make value judgments regarding various degrees of greatness and perfection. In order for us to make any judgments there must exist a perfect, maximally great standard by which everything else is compared too and the theist will claim that this maximally great standard is God. In other words, it is impossible to see a line as crooked unless there is a perfectly straight line to compare it to. The fact that we are able to judge things in this world as being 'less great' or 'more great' requires an objectively great standard to exist, otherwise we have be completely oblivious.

If you assume that this standard is God, then you've presupposed the existence of God in order to argue that a "maximally great being" (God) possibly exists, and therefore necessarily exists in all possible worlds. In other words, you committed the fallacy of begging the question by assuming the conclusion of the ontological argument and positing it as one of the argument's key premises. Thus by positing God as the standard of objective greatness (a postulate you've in no way defended), you've rendered the Ontological argument logically invalid.

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.

I see no reason why we ought to assume that this cause must possess a volitional mind. Positing an impersonal initial state of necessary and sufficient causal conditions from which a universe might emerge spontaneously equally accounts for the existence of our world. This postulate also has the added benefit of avoiding the logical untenability intrinsic to the doctrine of "creatio ex nihilo", a doctrine central to most monotheistic theologies.

I don't know what you mean by 'volitional mind'

A mind which is capable of exercising volition.

but we can appropriately assume that this cause possesses intelligence due to the intricate and precise way the universe was brought into existence.

You're alluding to "fine tuning" again, yet fine tuning only obtains if theism does not.

The problem the unbeliever needs to reconcile with is not only how something managed to spontaneously come from nothing but also how the universe managed to maintain itself and expand throughout time. There were a variety of things that needed to happen for the universe to adequately sustain itself, and by any measurement the occurrence of all these preconditions is highly unlikely.

Regardless of how improbable such things may appear to be, I have argued that it is infinitely more improbable that God should choose any one particular set of values to correspond to the initial conditions of our universe out of the infinite number of potential values available to him/her/it. With that said, you're speaking in rather vague terms. Perhaps our discussion would benefit from an added level of specificity. What measurements are you referring to exactly?

So, had the universe spontaneously came into existence due to the appropriate combination of necessary and sufficient causes (whatever those may be) then we would expect an erratic universe that would have collapsed upon itself. But, instead we have a universe that continues to expand and we have an improbable combination of factors that permit galaxies and solar systems to form. All this points to intelligent design.

Why should we expect this? Why would it not be equally reasonable to expect that this initial state should spark eternal cosmic inflation from which differential decay events produce an exceedingly large number of pocket universes of which our universe is but one which happens to possess all the necessary conditions which allow for creatures like us to remark on how seemingly improbable it is that we should exist (as certain cosmological models entail). Now we can speculate as to whether such a model constitutes an accurate depiction of reality, the point is that there is no logical impediment which renders these models untenable. And out of an almost infinite number of possible universes (each possessing its own unique set of conditions), it seems far less improbable that one universe among this vast multitude should, by chance, possess the necessary conditions conducive for life. Thus the Kalam Cosmological argument has not shown that God is logically necessary in order to account for the universe. Nor has it shown that theism is any less improbable or "ad hoc" than current cosmological models which attempt to explain our origins. In fact, the logical untenability of "creatio ex nihilo" gives us logical grounds to reject certain monotheistic cosmologies which are theologically dependent upon this doctrine.

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.

Laws, duties, and values are all the product of subjective minds. Laws/duties are ultimately subjective because they display the prescriptive property of "intentionality", intrinsic to the subjective mind. Values are ultimately subjective because they cannot logically exist in the absence of a subjective valuer. For this reason, moral laws, duties, and values cannot transcend all subjective opinion, preference, or disposition, therefore they cannot exist "objectively" in any literal sense of the term. If objective moral laws, duties, or values do not exist, it is difficult to see how such things prove the existence of an "objective" moral law giver. Human subjectivity is more than sufficient in accounting for the subjective moral laws, duties, and values we actually observe. We need not posit a God.

Other than your philosophical musings, which I did not fully understand, I see nothing here that refutes the claim that objective moral values exist. I would offer two pieces of evidence for the existence of objective morality. First, throughout the world there is a shared conscience that certain things are 'right' and certain things are 'wrong.' This shows that certain moral principles are upheld regardless of culture, race, creed, etc.

Subjective consensus does not an objective truth make. At best you've shown that there are certain moral maxims which most (certainly not all) human beings possess a subjective affinity toward (perhaps due to certain biological or pragmatic factors). In order to demonstrate that objective moral values exist, you must demonstrate that such values transcend all subjective opinion, preference, or disposition. Citing subjective consensus as a means of demonstrating this seems to me a rather counter productive method of doing so.

Second, actions are judged by their intentions and consequences. Any action that has a good intention behind it and a good consequence can be considered 'objectively good.' Killing an innocent baby for fun can be considered objectively 'bad' because the intention and consequence of the action produces no positive outcome. However, killing a mass killer can be seen as 'objectively good' because the intention is to save innocent lives (which means the outcome from the action is positive.

Positive for who exactly? No doubt the killer would not deem his own demise a "positive" outcome. You seem to be positing a Utilitarian view of morality which is anything but objective. Yes, certain actions may objectively produce certain outcomes, but concepts such as "positive" or "negative", which we assign to these outcomes (which also instruct Utilitarianism), are, at their core, subjective judgements informed by our own subjective values. In the absence of subjective valuers, subjective value judgements such as "good", "bad", "positive" and "negative" cannot logically exist. If such values cannot exist in the absence of a subjective mind, they cannot transcend all subjective opinion, preference or disposition. How then can they be thought of as "objective" in any literal sense of the term?

[WinePusher]

[Replying to post 117 by Ionian_Tradition]

It will take me a couple days to read through your excellent post and provide responses to all your points. Honestly, a lot of what you say is over my head and you seem to definitely know more about these matters than I do so I apologize if you find my rebuttals to be lacking and inadequate.

[WinePusher]

You're missing the counter-question that neutralizes it:

In the first place, why does life itself require such precise conditions in order to exist?

Theists have no answer besides "God just made us that way". On the other hand, the answer is completely obvious from the perspective of Darwinian thinking.

I've already said this question is wholly irrelevant to the issue. The issue is why are all these constants and conditions set to the precise value that permits life to exist. What explanation have nonbelievers offered for this? You asking a question that is not answerable using our current repository of knowledge. We can say for certain that life requires precise external conditions in order to exist, but we do not know why this is. That is a separate issue that requires further inquiry, but it neither proves or disproves the fine tuning argument.

The problem the unbeliever needs to reconcile with is not only how something managed to spontaneously come from nothing

No one has said that. Ionian referred to initial conditions. They didn't "come from" anywhere. That's what initial conditions means.

It's essentially the same as your world view, except that the initial conditions (what you refer to as God) aren't a person.

What are these 'initial conditions.' Modern physics tells us that the universe came from nothing. This is problematic because we cannot comprehend a realm of existence that is not governed by space and time. So, what I am saying is that the cause of the universe must itself be spaceless, timeless (eternal) and supernatural.

[JohnA]

You're missing the counter-question that neutralizes it:

In the first place, why does life itself require such precise conditions in order to exist?

Theists have no answer besides "God just made us that way". On the other hand, the answer is completely obvious from the perspective of Darwinian thinking.

I've already said this question is wholly irrelevant to the issue. The issue is why are all these constants and conditions set to the precise value that permits life to exist. What explanation have nonbelievers offered for this? You asking a question that is not answerable using our current repository of knowledge. We can say for certain that life requires precise external conditions in order to exist, but we do not know why this is. That is a separate issue that requires further inquiry, but it neither proves or disproves the fine tuning argument.

The problem the unbeliever needs to reconcile with is not only how something managed to spontaneously come from nothing

No one has said that. Ionian referred to initial conditions. They didn't "come from" anywhere. That's what initial conditions means.

It's essentially the same as your world view, except that the initial conditions (what you refer to as God) aren't a person.

What are these 'initial conditions.' Modern physics tells us that the universe came from nothing. This is problematic because we cannot comprehend a realm of existence that is not governed by space and time. So, what I am saying is that the cause of the universe must itself be spaceless, timeless (eternal) and supernatural.

Would you agree if your god decrees murder as not wrong?


The fine tuning argument falls flat because it assumes a god did it.
If life was an accident, then the fine tuning argument fails. Since the argument does not cater for this, it assumes a god, or begs the question.
Did your god first tune the universe and then went back to fine tune it for life?
How do you know that the universe is fine tuned for life and not that life is fine tuned to the universe?

How can something (your god or whatever) exist inside/outside nothing before it created everything (the universe) some x years ago?
You need to reject logic to hold that irrational belief.

Faith says you have no evidence, why are you trying to contradict your dogma by presenting evidence?

Biased and broken reason filters are not needed to answer this. Please show me wrong.