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?

[FarWanderer]

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.

(responding specifically to the part I bolded)

No, you're pivoting from the assumption that life's requirements are necessarily what they are, while on the other hand you're assuming that the universe's constants could have been different. There's absolutely no logical grounds for this.

The real "issue" is why life's needs and the universe's constants are so well aligned with one another.

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.

If modern physics tells us that the universe didn't come from anything, then it tells us that it didn't come from God.

The 'initial conditions' are whatever they need to be to mechanistically lead to the current state of existence.

[10CC]

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.

To the bolded.

Is this your absolute belief, a belief from which you will not resile?

If so how do YOU recognise design, how do YOU recognise complexity?

Ergo, how do YOU recognise the hand of god? (not maradonna)

[no evidence no belief]

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.

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

I'm glad that you and I, together, were finally able to demonstrate the complete lack of necessity for an intelligent designer.

[otseng]

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

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

Moderator Comment

I'm not too clear on your meaning here, but it doesn't have a very civil tone.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Ionian_Tradition]

[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.

Its no trouble at all. I look forward to taking a deeper look at this topic with you when you're ready. If you require any further clarification regarding the points I've already made, don't hesitate to ask. I'm more than happy to explain them as best I can.


Cheers

[help3434]

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.

This does not make any sense. We can't see this maximally great standard, even if it does exist, and yet here we are judging. We don't need to know the highest theoretical temperature to know if one thing is hotter than another. We don't need to know the speed of light to know if one thing is moving faster than another.

[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.

(responding specifically to the part I bolded)

No, you're pivoting from the assumption that life's requirements are necessarily what they are, while on the other hand you're assuming that the universe's constants could have been different. There's absolutely no logical grounds for this.

The real "issue" is why life's needs and the universe's constants are so well aligned with one another.

We have observed the natural world and the laws that govern it and we have concluded (through scientific observations) that biological life requires precise and exact conditions in order to exist. The question at the heart of this issue is not why does life require these precise and exact conditions to exist, but rather why is the universe structured in such a way that permits biological life to exist. Why do we have the most improbable configuration of the universe (that happens to permit life), as opposed to a more probable configuration (that would not support life).

And I am by no means saying that your question has no merit. It does, but it does not refute my argument in anyway whatsoever. Besides, you said that using Darwinian thought (whatever that is) you have come up with an answer that explains why life requires precise and exact conditions to exist. Want to share it with the forum?

If modern physics tells us that the universe didn't come from anything, then it tells us that it didn't come from God.

Modern physics tells us that the universe did not come from any material or natural substance. Again, this is basic physics. The universe had a beginning and prior to the beginning of the universe there was nothing (in the sense that there was no material and natural world). No one has ever claimed that God was confined to the material realm and is bound by the laws of nature. The fact that the universe had an external cause means that this cause is supernatural (outside and external to the universe) and supersedes properties such as time and space.

The 'initial conditions' are whatever they need to be to mechanistically lead to the current state of existence.

Like what? Matter exists only within the confines of this universe. Since all matter, including subatomic matter, exists only within this universe that would mean that prior to the big bang (the beginning of the universe) there was no matter at all. And the question remains, how do you possibly get something from nothing?

Any materialistic or naturalistic attempt to answer this is futile, so positing a supernatural explanation (God) seems entirely appropriate.

[WinePusher]

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.

To the bolded.

Is this your absolute belief, a belief from which you will not resile?

If so how do YOU recognise design, how do YOU recognise complexity?

Ergo, how do YOU recognise the hand of god? (not maradonna)

Didn't I already answer this? The only way anybody can recognize an imperfection is if they have some knowledge or realization of what perfection is. We can recognize complexity, and we can judge things as complex or simple because of our experiences with various forms of complexity. If the very first thing a person sees is a computer they would not view it in terms of complexity. The only way they would begin to see the computer as a complex tool is if they had something else to compare it to.

This does not make any sense. We can't see this maximally great standard, even if it does exist, and yet here we are judging. We don't need to know the highest theoretical temperature to know if one thing is hotter than another. We don't need to know the speed of light to know if one thing is moving faster than another.

A lot of what you're arguing has validity. But, the point you're missing is that if you are making judgment in terms of a scale, and whenever there is a scale there will be a greatest/maximum point on the scale. Look at the two examples you used. There is a greatest/maximum temperature and there also is a greatest/maximum speed. Using this logic, there is also a greatest/maximum degree of perfection. This would be God.

[10CC]

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.

To the bolded.

Is this your absolute belief, a belief from which you will not resile?

If so how do YOU recognise design, how do YOU recognise complexity?

Ergo, how do YOU recognise the hand of god? (not maradonna)

Didn't I already answer this? The only way anybody can recognize an imperfection is if they have some knowledge or realization of what perfection is. We can recognize complexity, and we can judge things as complex or simple because of our experiences with various forms of complexity. If the very first thing a person sees is a computer they would not view it in terms of complexity. The only way they would begin to see the computer as a complex tool is if they had something else to compare it to.

So how do you recognise the hand of god?

How do you recognise perfection?

Have you ever encountered perfection?

Do you recognise the hand of god in perfection?

Do you recognise the hand of god in imperfection?

Do you recognise the hand of god in complexity?

Do you recognise the hand of god in simplicity?

[JohnA]

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.

To the bolded.

Is this your absolute belief, a belief from which you will not resile?

If so how do YOU recognise design, how do YOU recognise complexity?

Ergo, how do YOU recognise the hand of god? (not maradonna)

Didn't I already answer this? The only way anybody can recognize an imperfection is if they have some knowledge or realization of what perfection is. We can recognize complexity, and we can judge things as complex or simple because of our experiences with various forms of complexity. If the very first thing a person sees is a computer they would not view it in terms of complexity. The only way they would begin to see the computer as a complex tool is if they had something else to compare it to.

This does not make any sense. We can't see this maximally great standard, even if it does exist, and yet here we are judging. We don't need to know the highest theoretical temperature to know if one thing is hotter than another. We don't need to know the speed of light to know if one thing is moving faster than another.

A lot of what you're arguing as validity. But, the point you're missing is that if you are making judgment in terms of a scale, and whenever there is a scale there will be a greatest/maximum point on the scale. Look at the two examples you used. There is a greatest/maximum temperature and there also is a greatest/maximum speed. Using this logic, there is also a greatest/maximum degree of perfection. This would be God.

Nothing new here. Nothing worth to respond to.
These posts just seem to be so riddled with incoherence that I am needing to make a comment on the new level of obsurdity reached here. This discussion about beings not being beings, that can live outside/inside nothing before it created everything seems ridiculously illogical to even a talking donkey or a dead maggot infested body rising from the dead after 3 days.


Also, please do remember to answer my post that was directed at you.
We need to finish the discussion and debate on the religious beliefs, if they are not already ungraded or replaced or at least correctly informed by reality.