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.

[Bust Nak]

I agree, there was nothing prior to the dense singularity/big bang.

That is not agreeing. There is a huge difference between saying there was nothing prior to big bang (what you are saying) and prior to the big bang is an incoherent concept (what I am saying.)

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.

In a sense it is forever, there was no time where energy/matter didn't exist.

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.

So you accept "something cannot come from nothing" is a matter of definition?

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.

I am not speculating that matter can come from no matter all the time. Neither am I speculating when I say there was no time where energy/matter didn't exist.

If there is nothing and then there is something, that change to something was created by something else.

That is inchoherent. If there is nothing then there isn't "something" doing any creating. (Which again highlight what I said above about it being a matter of definition.)

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.

"Looking at the thing designed" is a question begging fallacy. Demostrate the thing is designed. Appealing to Einstein, is an appeal to authority.

I'm not aware where Quantum Physics says something can be in 2 places at once. Please enlighten me on this point?

Sure, check out the double slit experiment, with individual photons.

That'd be the laws of logic, it follows directly from the literal definitions of the words that something cannot come from nothing.

Does it? The definition of nothing says not anything; no single thing. The definition of thing says an object. And as I've pointed out objects pop out of no objects all the time.

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.

Coherent you say? An "empty set of properties" have the properties of a) being a set and b) being empty, sounds like something to me.

I think I've made my point, this can't get something from nothing business is nothing but a word game.

[Jashwell]

In response to Instantc;

When people use the word "nothing" it is commonly imagined as some void, vacuum, or empty set. This is the wrong way to use it.
By treating it as a noun, you make nothing into something.
Nothing instead is not anything.
For example, "there was nothing before the big bang" means "there was not anything before the big bang", a (I think improper) subset of "there was no before the big bang". (Whether or not they are the same statement is debatable, but the latter is certainly a kind of the former)

When someone says "something out of nothing" it means "something out of not anything" or "something not out of anything".
"Caused by nothing" -> "Caused by not anything" -> "Not caused by anything"

[Replying to post 81 by Bust Nak]

I would personally say that photons being "in two places at once" is a less useful and only semanticly different way of saying that photons are wave excitations - it doesn't need to be phrased as something as incoherent as "in two places at once" - they don't have a place, and as soon as you refer to the "place of a photon" you're already referring explicitly to a collapsed state and not the whole wavefunction.

It's like saying the water in a glass is in two places at once - it's not, it's a distributed volume not a point particle. If, however, you say "the water droplet" - that is not in two places at once as it already refers to a point particle (effectively).

[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.

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?

Thank you for this comment. You are the second atheist to agree that, without an example, one cannot argue that something can come from nothing. Other atheists have been unwilling or unable to agree with this point. I believe it is foundational to the case for atheism. I challenge any participant in this forum to provide such an example?
Now regarding your example of God as something coming from nothing, you are mistaken. The physical universe began 8-15 billion years ago. Since it began, it must have a cause, since causeless events are but another example of something coming from nothing. As I have shown, something always comes from something. So why not God? Simply because God has no beginning - God is eternal or always was, as I've previously shown, but let me restate the logic. I draw your attention particularly to point 3.
1. The existence of something. The question is “Why is there something rather than nothing?� If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing. If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such. However, we find only examples of something coming from something. Therefore, based on Occam’s razor, we reject all notions of something coming from nothing. It follows that a creative entity is needed to create something from nothing, whether or not that something changes.
2. The existence of something which changes. Change implies a beginning. The changed state may also be viewed as the effect of a cause. It is a well-accepted axiom of logic that a cause precedes its effect; that a cause never follows its effect. A creative entity is needed to begin, or cause, a changing something which was preceded by nothing.
3. The nature of the creative entity. The first two points demonstrate that the creative entity itself cannot be created and cannot change. If this creative entity were created or changing, we get into an infinite regress: this changing creative entity is created by another changing creative entity which is created by another changing creative and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, using Occam’s razor, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.
If we consider the physical universe of space, time, matter and energy as the created something, then we can infer some of the attributes of its non-physical creative entity: non-material, usually referred to as spiritual; not occupying space, usually referred to as invisible, and outside of time, usually referred to as eternal. We can also infer this creative entity is of supreme intelligence or omniscience, given the marvelous design observed in the inception and evolution of the physical universe, and has supreme power or omnipotence, given accepted scientific theory which states nothing physical or material – matter and energy – can either be created or destroyed. Further knowledge of the nature of the creative entity cannot be inferred directly from the physical, and requires further revelation from the creative entity itself.
Again anyone willing and able to give an example of something coming from nothing?
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 81 by Bust Nak]

I have individually replied to your comments:

kenblogton wrote:
I agree, there was nothing prior to the dense singularity/big bang.
Bust Nak wrote:
That is not agreeing. There is a huge difference between saying there was nothing prior to big bang (what you are saying) and prior to the big bang is an incoherent concept (what I am saying.)
kenblogton replied:
Time begins with the dense singularity/big bang. Before time - and space, matter and energy, there was nothing physical.

kenblogton wrote:
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.
Bust Nak wrote:
In a sense it is forever, there was no time where energy/matter didn't exist.
kenblogton replied:
What you say is true but trivial. As long as there has been time, there has been space, matter and energy. That is not eternity or even 20 billion years.

kenblogton wrote:
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.
Bust Nak wrote:
So you accept "something cannot come from nothing" is a matter of definition?
kenblogton replied:
It is a matter of fact and of logic, not definition. There are many examples of something coming from something, and none of something coming from nothing.

kenblogton wrote:
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.
Bust Nak wrote:
I am not speculating that matter can come from no matter all the time. Neither am I speculating when I say there was no time where energy/matter didn't exist.
kenblogton replied:
Matter can come from energy, and vice versa. That is not something coming from nothing but rather something coming from something.
To say that there was no time when energy/matter didn't exist is true but trivial. They, along with space, came into existence at the same time. When there was no time, there was also no space, matter or energy.

kenblogton wrote:
If there is nothing and then there is something, that change to something was created by something else.
Bust Nak wrote:
That is inchoherent. If there is nothing then there isn't "something" doing any creating. (Which again highlight what I said above about it being a matter of definition.)
kenblogton replied:
Let me say it again with an example: If there is nothing physical and then (8-15 billion years ago) there is something physical, that change was created by something non-physical, using the logic that something always comes from something and that something that doesn't exist (like the physical) cannot cause anything.

kenblogton wrote:
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.
Bust Nak wrote:
"Looking at the thing designed" is a question begging fallacy. Demostrate the thing is designed. Appealing to Einstein, is an appeal to authority.
kenblogton replied:
The thing designed is evidence of the designer. That is obvious; it is fallacy to think otherwise.

kenblogton wrote:
I'm not aware where Quantum Physics says something can be in 2 places at once. Please enlighten me on this point?
Bust Nak wrote:
Sure, check out the double slit experiment, with individual photons.
kenblogton replied:
At http://www.higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm, it says “Two Slits
The simplest experiment to demonstrate quantum weirdness involves shining a light through two parallel slits and looking at the screen. It can be shown that a single photon (particle of light) can interfere with itself, as if it travelled through both slits at once.�

instantc wrote:
That'd be the laws of logic, it follows directly from the literal definitions of the words that something cannot come from nothing.
Bust Nak wrote:
Does it? The definition of nothing says not anything; no single thing. The definition of thing says an object. And as I've pointed out objects pop out of no objects all the time.
kenblogton replied:
What are examples of objects popping out of no objects?

instantc wrote:
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.
Bust Nak wrote:
Coherent you say? An "empty set of properties" have the properties of a) being a set and b) being empty, sounds like something to me.
Bust Nak also wrote:
I think I've made my point, this can't get something from nothing business is nothing but a word game.
kenblogton replied:
You've given no examples of something coming from nothing, so that make you the word gamer.
kenblogton

[mwtech]

Thank you for this comment. You are the second atheist to agree that, without an example, one cannot argue that something can come from nothing. Other atheists have been unwilling or unable to agree with this point. I believe it is foundational to the case for atheism. I challenge any participant in this forum to provide such an example?

I feel a little awkward having to point out that Danmark was essentially mocking you. He was pointing out that it is fantasy for you to insist that God created the universe when there is no way to give an example of this. Nobody was ever claiming that the universe did indeed come from nothing. We are rejecting your insistence that it is impossible. You are the only one making a positive claim here.

Also, the explanation of burden of proof keeps falling on deaf ears. You insist that it is impossible for "something to come from nothing." You have no proof for this other than that you have never seen it happen before.

Others refuse to accept this claim as an absolute truth because there is not enough evidence to rule it out completely.

You say that it is incorrect to not accept this as fact because we can't give an example of it not happening.

We are telling you that we don't accept "there is no known example, so it is impossible" as a sound argument for the impossibility of this happening. You continuing to ask for an example wont trick us into suddenly accepting that as logical proof. It is just continual circular arguing and it continues to hold no weight.

You also ignored my entire post 70 and replied to it by again insisting that without an example of the universe coming from nothing that God must have created it. This wasn't even the point of that post. I said that you can't go from not being able to prove anything straight to "God is the only answer." This leaves no room for further evidence, improvement of theories, and ultimately eliminates the ability to falsify the current claim. Your insistence upon an example of a negative claim is not only inappropriate considering the burden of proof is on you (the one making the positive claim) but it is irrelevant to the point of the argument I was making.

To clarify one last time:
Your claim that it is impossible for something to come from nothing is not supported by the absence of an example of such. You have the burden of proof. You have created a false dichotomy. Your "logical proof" of the existence of God is full of flawed logic and therefore not proof.

[Jashwell]

I think it largely depends what is meant by "something can come from nothing".

For instance, if your God is eternal, it 'was always there'.
It didn't come from anything.
It came from nothing.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 83:

...
1. The existence of something. The question is “Why is there something rather than nothing?� If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing. If it were possible for something to come from nothing, we would expect to find examples of such. However, we find only examples of something coming from something. Therefore, based on Occam’s razor, we reject all notions of something coming from nothing. It follows that a creative entity is needed to create something from nothing, whether or not that something changes.

Well don't that beat all, something can't come from nothing, but here it is, I got me a god that did!

You're violating the very restrictions you place on the universe (in one form or another), of which, we can at least look up to, point at it, and say, see, that right there.

Regarding Occam's shaving habits, it ain't always the simple answer that's the best, or the closest to the truth. Consider you have you an old lady who does all the biscuit making, only she makes 'em dry, but not so dry a wash of milk won't help set 'em down the gullet.

Then she asks you, "Are my biscuits the best?"

The simple answer is no.

The more complicated answer is yes, and God have mercy on my soul for lying about it, just so's I can have me another.

2. The existence of something which changes. Change implies a beginning. The changed state may also be viewed as the effect of a cause. It is a well-accepted axiom of logic that a cause precedes its effect; that a cause never follows its effect. A creative entity is needed to begin, or cause, a changing something which was preceded by nothing.

You're merely assigning attributes you have no means of confirming.

The use of logic is fine, so long as at the end of it, there's some means to confirm the veracity of the input, and the conclusions drawn from it.

For every instance of you declaring your god "unchanged", or even changed, we can say the same for the universe...

"God hasn't changed"

"Yeah he has, but my universe ain't, it's been the universe right up since the time that's what we set to calling it."

Your god "changes" with each new instance of him getting upset. He goes from a proud god, to a god upset.

Or...

"God changed when he created something, and got upset at how it didn't turn out in a way that prided him all up, to the point he flooded the planet."

"The universe, having found itself a bit upset that humans'd sit there and be just that, well it just up and flooded the whole danged planet, 'cept for the few humans who could swim through a flood, the likes of which, not even the fish could endure."

How can we separate your god from my universe?

When here I am, I can point at it?

this changing creative entity is created by another changing creative entity which is created by another changing creative and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, using Occam’s razor, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.

As above, a razor may be fine for such as shavin' or even whitlin', but its use at getting at the truth is not always reliable.

3. The nature of the creative entity. The first two points demonstrate that the creative entity itself cannot be created and cannot change.

No they don't.

They're merely your declaring such to be the case, based on input (there god is) you can't confirm.

You're basically putting the cart backwards in front of the horse, and then turning the horse around so's you can hook up the cart.

We have the universe, on that we all agree. Then, you propose this "entity" (anthropomorphic as it be), and fit the "logic" to it.

If this creative entity were created or changing, we get into an infinite regress...

The infinite regress occurs when you declare an entity has always existed, but the universe (in one form or another) hasn't.

The Big Bang, if it be, is merely the universe changing forms, if we're in Occam's barbershop.

this changing creative entity is created by another changing creative entity which is created by another changing creative and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, using Occam’s razor, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.

Or, we quit carrying on about how there's this great "creative entity", and just tell it like we see it, "There sits the universe, and that makes me proud."

The use of "entity" is what's so problematic in all this. It clearly implies some "creature", some "mind", some thing that can't be shown to be.

It's anthropomorphism to its core.

If we consider the physical universe of space, time, matter and energy as the created something...

"Created" being the key word.

I see no reason to use such a religiously loaded term.

As well, it begs the question of what created this "creator" (anthropomorphism and all).

...then we can infer some of the attributes of its non-physical creative entity: non-material, usually referred to as spiritual...

Sometimes referred to as nothing.

not occupying space, usually referred to as invisible

AKA nothing.

and outside of time, usually referred to as eternal. We can also infer this creative entity is of supreme intelligence or omniscience

We have sound reason to conclude intelligence is the product of the brain / mind.

From where does a something that has no physicality get it a brain / mind?

I demand a replacement for you breaking the anthropomorphometer.

given the marvelous design observed in the inception and evolution of the physical universe

"Design" need not be infered when "acts according to its properties" is a better, more accurate, and confirmable descriptor.

and has supreme power or omnipotence,

Can it make a beer so big it can't drink it all?

given accepted scientific theory which states nothing physical or material – matter and energy – can either be created or destroyed. Further knowledge of the nature of the creative entity cannot be inferred directly from the physical, and requires further revelation from the creative entity itself.

Or, it requires your anthropomorphic incredulity.

Again anyone willing and able to give an example of something coming from nothing?

In the case we have before us, I'm gonna say religious belief.

[Bust Nak]

Time begins with the dense singularity/big bang. Before time - and space, matter and energy, there was nothing physical.

No, no, no. The difference is huge. Let me try an analogy.

Does it make sense to say there is nothing (physical or otherwise) in my purse when I have no purse?

I have no purse. Stop insisting that I have nothing in my purse.

What you say is true but trivial. As long as there has been time, there has been space, matter and energy. That is not eternity or even 20 billion years.

Again, a matter of semantics. If the universe have always existed (as defined as "at all times") how is it not eternal?

It is a matter of fact and of logic, not definition. There are many examples of something coming from something, and none of something coming from nothing.

Let me demostrate: Something (as defined as matter,) pops out of nothing (as defined as the absense of all matter) all the time. Whether "the absense of all matter" is really "nothing" IS a matter of definition.

Matter can come from energy, and vice versa. That is not something coming from nothing but rather something coming from something.

It's not just the conversion of energy and matter I am talking about here. Matter can come from no energy too re:virtual particles. Is that "nothing" enough?

To say that there was no time when energy/matter didn't exist is true but trivial. They, along with space, came into existence at the same time. When there was no time, there was also no space, matter or energy.

There is no such thing as "when there was no time." The concept of "when" is only coherent in time. That's the whole point of Hawkings thesis, and that is the current scientific consensus, tenuous as it is.

Let me say it again with an example: If there is nothing physical and then (8-15 billion years ago) there is something physical, that change was created by something non-physical, using the logic that something always comes from something and that something that doesn't exist (like the physical) cannot cause anything.

I see you believe that something can come from nothing (as defined as the absense of any objects.)

Even if I grant you that there was nothing physical, create implies a mind, a cause doesn't have to be conscious.

The thing designed is evidence of the designer. That is obvious; it is fallacy to think otherwise.

That much is obvious but the point is you have yet to demostrate that the universe is designed. You say the universe is interlligently designed. I asked you to demostrate that. Saying designed implies a designer doesn't demostrate that the universe is designed.

At http://www.higgo.com/quantum/laymans.htm, it says “Two Slits
The simplest experiment to demonstrate quantum weirdness involves shining a light through two parallel slits and looking at the screen. It can be shown that a single photon (particle of light) can interfere with itself, as if it travelled through both slits at once.�

Pretty cool yeah?

What are examples of objects popping out of no objects?

That's easy. Energy to matter conversion re: nuclear physics. Go ahead if you want to argue energy is an object.

You've given no examples of something coming from nothing, so that make you the word gamer.
kenblogton

I would argue I've give you two examples. You go ahead and define nothing and I'll show how it is actually something.

I would personally say that photons being "in two places at once" is a less useful and only semanticly different way of saying that photons are wave excitations...

Well, the photon is "not anywhere until it hits the screen" is no more coherent than "two places at once."

[Jashwell]

Because you've phrased it that way.

The wavefunction can describe the probability a photon is in particular places.

Where's the incoherency in that sentence?

It's like saying that tomorrow I'm in two places at once, because I haven't decided yet. If I give you a list of places I could be and the chances I'll be there, that's not the same as saying I'll be in all those places at once. But for all practical purposes, my position tomorrow is in flux.

There isn't a "place of the photon" until the wavefunction collapses.

[Bust Nak]

It's like saying that tomorrow I'm in two places at once, because I haven't decided yet. If I give you a list of places I could be and the chances I'll be there, that's not the same as saying I'll be in all those places at once. But for all practical purposes, my position tomorrow is in flux.

First of all we are talking about yesterday, not tomorrow, the photon has ready reached the screen to form the interference pattern. Then we ask, so where were you, you were at all those places at once, it was your presence at those places that caused the interference pattern. The experiment demostrate more than the mere uncertainty as to where a particle is.

There isn't a "place of the photon" until the wavefunction collapses.

That is if the photon was observed at one of the slit. In which case the interference pattern disappear.