Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?

[Jashwell]

"Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?"

Doesn't seem like much preamble is needed, but expect this largely to be filled (if at all) with arguments in favour of the existence of a God and counter-arguments. (Because the question is not "Are there good reasons to believe that a god does not exist?"). Though if you do think you have a good argument that shows it is reasonable to believe God does not exist, that is also valid.

This question comes up a lot in other threads where various classical arguments (e.g. ontological, axiological, cosmological) have been given in those threads.

If possible, try not to shotgun debate by raising lots of arguments at once. One sound argument should be sufficient.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 52 by Jashwell]

A. You have avoided answering my questions, so my previous reply stands until you do.
kenblogton

If by "avoided answering your questions" you mean I haven't given a demonstrable example of nothing creating something, then you haven't answered mine.

You haven't given a demonstrable example of a God existing.

On the other hand, I have in fact responded to everything you've said and if I haven't answered a question I likely have an objection to it.

Jashwell, you are obfuscating, and I have no interest in indulging you.
Let me illustrate your obfuscations:

Obfuscating is making unclear.
If you want to claim I'm obfuscating, you could at least quote my full responses.

B. Exchange 1. I said "Give me one example of something coming from nothing. Without an example, the assertion stands: Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing means not anything." and you said

"... no, no it doesn't." Look up the definition of nothing.

Give me one example of something coming from nothing. Without an example, the assertion stands: Something cannot come from nothing. Nothing means not anything.

... no, no it doesn't.
Analogous to
"Give me one example of a god, without it, the assertion stands: Gods cannot exist."

Of course, nothing needs no explanation.

Of course, something coming from nothing needs no explanation.

C. As you can tell from my analogy, the implication of the question is obviously fallacious. Absence of evidence of possibility is not evidence of absence of possibility. Your question is as much a distraction as my rhetoric response "show me one example of a God existing".

My other response is another rhetoric. You are claiming that nothing needs no explanation with no justification in order to avoid justification. I'm not even asserting anything, I'm just not accepting an assertion of yours "Something can't come from nothing" (I'm not saying I know I can, just that I don't know it can't). My response is to highlight the pointlessness of such an assertion. I can just assert the opposite.

D. Exchange 2. I said "You have not given one example of change not having a beginning, but have rather avoided answering my question.
If there is no explanatory value in a theory, Occam's razor says to eliminate it, like the need to explain the existence of nothing. With no examples of something from nothing, it is discarded as an explanation." and you said

"If we had definite examples we wouldn't need Occam's razor."

Occam's razor states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Clearly, something coming from something has fewer assumptions than something coming from nothing, since you can give me no examples of something coming from nothing, we reject that hypothesis using Occam's razor.

I also said

The explanatory value of "something from nothing" is the beginning of the Universe (to those who believe there was nothing) and is similar to the explanatory value of "something from God", the beginning of the Universe (to those who believe there was God), except it is simpler. That's why Occam's razor cuts out God.

The difference between "Something from God" and "Something from nothing" is that the latter doesn't presuppose a God.
Occam's razor means the latter is a better hypothesis.

E. Not only is it wrong to demand an example - it is your burden of proof to demonstrate the impossibility, I am not asserting possibility (once again, just that I don't know it's impossible).
On the other hand, if we did play it your way, it would then be your burden of proof to give an example of something coming from God. I'd like to see that without begging the question.

F. Exchange 3. I said "There are no observed instances of energy creation from nothing. Energy borrowing is not energy creation." and you said

"I say energy is borrowed in a weird sense of the term. The energy doesn't come from anywhere, the amount borrowed is limited by the time it can be borrowed for." This is pure obfuscation.

I also gave about 4 different references. "Borrowed" is the term usually used by physicists, for reasons beyond me. I made this response ironically to try and make it more clear what I meant. The energy doesn't observably disappear from somewhere else is what I meant by "not really borrowed". (As then it wouldn't violate conservation)

It definitely violates the conservation principle as it is currently formulated.
You said nothing could. You were wrong. Do you take back your statement?

G. Exchange 4. I said "The physical only came into existence somewhere between 8-15 billion years ago. Prior to that, Scientists tell us there was NOTHING - no space, time, matter or energy." and you said

"Incorrect. A few scientists do assert there was nothing before the big bang. This is not scientific consensus.
This means that there wasn't a state in which the big bang had not previously occurred - there wasn't some "cosmic vacuum state" with no time space matter or energy that you've imagined."

Again, pure obfuscation. The vast majority of scientists agree there was nothing before the big bang - a fact for which I've previously provided the support.

Latter part is a different point. (followed with

"There is no a before the big bang" is similar to "There isn't a time during the race before the race has started"

)
Former part is simply the fact that there is currently no reasonably conclusive evidence in support of theoretical models that spacetime began with the big bang.
I'd like to see the statistics, but 50.1% is not what is implied by consensus.[/quote]

Reply to A. To obfuscate means to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy or to make obscure or unclear. You avoid the issues I raise by muddying the waters, so to speak.
Reply to B. You say something coming from nothing needs no explanation, yet are unable to provide even one example: obfuscation!
Reply to C. Same as B: no evidence. I have given you the logical necessity for a creative entity not amenable to scientific method. You say the implication of the question is obviously fallacious: more obfuscation. You say that you don't accept my assertion that something can't come from nothing, which is a rational assertion, and you tell me it is pointless. I can give you many examples of something coming from something, and you can give me none of something coming from nothing - more obfuscation!
Reply to D. You say "The difference between "Something from God" and "Something from nothing" is that the latter doesn't presuppose a God.
Occam's razor means the latter is a better hypothesis."
Since there are no examples of something coming from nothing, and I have shown the logical necessity of God, Occam's razor rejects your empty obfuscative assertion.
Reply to E. You said "Not only is it wrong to demand an example - it is your burden of proof to demonstrate the impossibility, I am not asserting possibility (once again, just that I don't know it's impossible)"
This is perhaps your worst example of obfuscation. If you cannot provide an example, and even further say it is wrong to demand such, you are tacitly admitting your logic storehouse is empty.
I have used logic to demonstrate the logical necessity for God as physical universe creator. You obviously have decided neither logic nor reason will persuade you to alter your position, which seems to me delusional.
Reply to F. You said "It definitely violates the conservation principle as it is currently formulated.
You said nothing could. You were wrong. Do you take back your statement?"
You say that nothing of what you've said requires retraction, even though is is baseless. Again, more obfuscation.
Reply to G. At http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... ematically, it says "As we know time began with the big bang. Before that there was no time, no laws, nothing. Mathematically how can an event take place when no time passes by? How did the big bang took place when there was no time?" That's what the majority of scientists believe. If you go to http://futureandcosmos.blogspot.ca/2013 ... ce-of.html, you will discover there is not one shred of real evidence that anything existed before the big bang.
If you respond to this posting with your typical obfuscations, I will not reply.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 70 by mwtech]

Give me one example of something coming from nothing. If you have none, it is because it doesn't happen. You can speculate all you want, but without a real example, it's just fantasy.
And will respond separately to Bust Nak's arguments countering mine.
kenblogton

[instantc]

If there was no physical laws, then what exactly is stopping something from coming nothing?

That'd be the laws of logic, it follows directly from the literal definitions of the words that something cannot come from nothing. The most coherent definition of nothing is an empty set of properties. Potentiality to produce something is a property, so we would already be talking about something rather than nothing.

[kenblogton]

1. Just because there is a theory does not make it valid. The simplest scenario with the greatest scientific consensus is that there was nothing prior to the dense singularity/big bang.

2. No, the simplest scenario with the greatest scientific consensus is that was no such thing as "before the singularity/big bang," which is entirely different to there was nothing before the singularity/big bang. Re: Hawking.

3.

Everything physical has a beginning, and something never comes from nothing. To say differently is ad hoc, rejected by Occam's razor.

That depends on how you define "thing." Matter comes from no matter all the time.

4.

Basketball needs no rules until there is basketball. There is no physics until there is physical. To conjecture that something could come from nothing before there was physical is mere phantasy, or desperation, like assuming fairies and leprechauns.

You are undermining your own point. Remember, you were appealing to the laws of physics to support the claim that something cannot come from nothing. If there was no physical laws, then what exactly is stopping something from coming nothing?
Beside, re:point 1, there was never a time where there is no physics.

5.

If there is nothing, then of course change implies creation.

Creation implies consciousness, change does not imply consciousness. Change does not implie creation, no, it implies formation.

6.

Name me anything invented that approaches the intelligent design of the universe. The existence of life on other planets is mere speculation, another flight of fancy.

First you have to demostrate that the universe is intelligently designed.

7.

The impossibility of negating something that is logically necessary is precisely the reason to accept that something.

Is it a logical necessary? Logic can't get anywhere without premises, empirical evidence trumps what is seemingly impossible. Common sense says an it is impossibe for an entity to be at two places at once, yet that is exactly what we observed re: quantum physics.

Reply to 1. I agree, there was nothing prior to the dense singularity/big bang.
Reply to 2. In a trivial sense, you are correct: since time began at the big bang, there is no "before the big bang" However, I can say that time only began somewhere between 8-15 billion years ago. That is not forever.
Reply to 3. Again, what you say is true but trivial. Matter comes from either matter or energy; neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed, only transformed.
Reply to 4. You can only speculate about something coming from nothing. Speculation is not evidence. Without evidence, Occam's razor. And of course the laws of physics only come into force when there is something physical - that is what those laws are about.
Reply to 5. If there is nothing and then there is something, that change to something was created by something else.
Reply to 6. To infer intelligent design, you look at the thing designed. A functioning automobile is a thing intelligently designed. Einstein, a Deist, waxed eloquent about the intelligent design of the universe. For me, to doubt that the universe is intelligently designed is either delusion or a deliberate attempt to reject the obvious.
Reply to 7. I'm not aware where Quantum Physics says something can be in 2 places at once. Please enlighten me on this point?
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

Reply to A. To obfuscate means to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy or to make obscure or unclear. You avoid the issues I raise by muddying the waters, so to speak.

Obfuscate implies intent

Reply to B. You say something coming from nothing needs no explanation, yet are unable to provide even one example: obfuscation!

... As I said, it is a rhetoric to highlight the absurdity of just throwing away the burden of proof. Rather than playing along with such a red herring, accidental or otherwise, I just gave you an example of applying your ideas of what should happen in an argument to the opposite position.

I don't necessarily advocate the position by the statement, the fact that it's a direct quote of you with the position swapped and that I say in advance "analogous to" should indicate that.

Reply to C. Same as B: no evidence. I have given you the logical necessity for a creative entity not amenable to scientific method. You say the implication of the question is obviously fallacious: more obfuscation. You say that you don't accept my assertion that something can't come from nothing, which is a rational assertion, and you tell me it is pointless. I can give you many examples of something coming from something, and you can give me none of something coming from nothing - more obfuscation!

Logical necessity?
You certainly have not.

What you have done is created a dichotomy of "from nothing or from God" and then said "from nothing is personally absurd to me, therefore it must have been from God", with your further justification being "prove it's from nothing then".

This is saying "I say I'm right, so prove me wrong" implying that if I don't that you are right by default.

Reply to D. You say "The difference between "Something from God" and "Something from nothing" is that the latter doesn't presuppose a God.
Occam's razor means the latter is a better hypothesis."
Since there are no examples of something coming from nothing, and I have shown the logical necessity of God, Occam's razor rejects your empty obfuscative assertion.

"Since there are no examples of something coming from God, and I have shown the logical necessity of nothing, Occam's razor rejects your empty obfuscative assertion."

Does this seem right to you?

Reply to E. You said "Not only is it wrong to demand an example - it is your burden of proof to demonstrate the impossibility, I am not asserting possibility (once again, just that I don't know it's impossible)"
This is perhaps your worst example of obfuscation. If you cannot provide an example, and even further say it is wrong to demand such, you are tacitly admitting your logic storehouse is empty.
I have used logic to demonstrate the logical necessity for God as physical universe creator. You obviously have decided neither logic nor reason will persuade you to alter your position, which seems to me delusional.

You have created a false dichotomy, and then shifted the burden of proof.
I'm not asserting the Universe came from nothing, I'm saying you haven't given sufficient reason to think it couldn't have, and are creating a false dichotomy where it's either nothing or God.

If I asserted "The Universe came from nothing" (my objection to such a statement is that it implies the wrong thing, a better way of putting it would be "The Universe did not come [from anything]", and even then it's still an assertion) then I would have a burden of proof. But you're the one asserting that it's impossible and that the only alternative is God.

You're the one that should be providing examples of God making things.
(And obviously it'd be begging the question to say "ah! but this Universe is an example")

Reply to F. You said "It definitely violates the conservation principle as it is currently formulated.
You said nothing could. You were wrong. Do you take back your statement?"
You say that nothing of what you've said requires retraction, even though is is baseless. Again, more obfuscation.

I don't remember saying anything that I would retract, maybe something I'd reword but not to change the original intent. (But it's been a long thread so you never know)

Reply to G. At http://physics.stackexchange.com/questi ... ematically, it says "As we know time began with the big bang. Before that there was no time, no laws, nothing. Mathematically how can an event take place when no time passes by? How did the big bang took place when there was no time?" That's what the majority of scientists believe. If you go to http://futureandcosmos.blogspot.ca/2013 ... ce-of.html, you will discover there is not one shred of real evidence that anything existed before the big bang.
If you respond to this posting with your typical obfuscations, I will not reply.
kenblogton

These sources aren't amazing (one or more people on stackexchange and a blogpost) but it's of little consequence to me.
You were right that there was more consensus than I thought. (Though cosmologists such as Sean Carroll seem keen that there isn't proof the Universe couldn't be 'eternal' in any sense beyond the trivial one, and a consensus certainly isn't proof)


I didn't say that the Universe doesn't come from nothing.
I think it's a bad way of phrasing it personally.
I don't think the Universe came from anything.

If time had a beginning, there isn't a "before the beginning".
If space had a beginning, there isn't a "where did it begin?" any more than there is a "where is space?".

The implication of "the Universe came from nothing" is not that there was some eternal infinite void preceding the Universe. Regardless of whether or not you think a void implies space, a preceding state of affairs implies time.

The Universe is all that we know exists, bounded temporally 13.8 billion years ago.
But I don't need to justify a "Universe from nothing" - or a "Universe not from", because there is no true dichotomy of "Nothing and God".

Even if you could prove empirically that the Universe had to come from something, it would do nothing for supporting the idea of God's special creation.

[mwtech]

I think what kenblogton calls obfuscation is just Jashwell presenting an argument he disagrees with. It certainly doesn't seem confusing to me. I understand it perfectly, and I agree. If you are confused by his argument maybe instead of accusing him of malevolence, you should just try to read it again, this time with a different perspective perhaps. A good one to try is one of someone who hasn't already decided that God exists.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 75 by Jashwell]

No additional comments.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 76 by mwtech]

Let's agree to disagree.
kenblogton

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 70 by mwtech]

Give me one example of something coming from nothing. If you have none, it is because it doesn't happen. You can speculate all you want, but without a real example, it's just fantasy.

Ken, I agree with you wholeheartedly. If one cannot give such an example then I agree you are correct, "... because it doesn't happen. . . . without a real example, it's just fantasy."

"God" is an example of something that 'comes from nothing." He either 'came from nothing' or he has always been. Why do the God promoters so easily accept that 'God' came from nothing, or has always been, but they are adamant in their denial of either of these attributes if applied to the universe?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 75 by Jashwell]

No additional comments.
kenblogton

Moderator Comment

This post, and the one immediately following it, are one line comments that neither advance the topic nor help. If all you want to to is agree with someone, use the token system, If all you want to do is disagree...without comment...then the 'without comment' is probably the best way to go.

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.