Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Sat Jun 14, 2014 1:14 pm

"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.

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 2:25 pm

Bust Nak wrote:
Jashwell wrote: 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.

The problem is claiming that it is a particle in the first place (or even an "it"). It isn't a particle until it collapses. That's why there's an interference pattern. Because there isn't "a photon" there's a wave of excitations in the photon field, which under collapsed circumstances is perceived as a particle.

kenblogton · Post by **kenblogton** » Sat Jul 05, 2014 10:57 am

[Replying to post 85 by mwtech]

You are the one who claims that something can come from nothing, not I, so obviously the burden of proof is with you. As an active proponent of the "something from nothing" school, you must, as they say in Missouri, "show me!"
If you are unwilling or unable to do so, I can only assume your case is weak or non-existent, since it is standard practice to muster arguments and evidence in favour of one's position, whatever that position is.
kenblogton

kenblogton · Post by **kenblogton** » Sat Jul 05, 2014 11:03 am

Jashwell wrote: 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.

Some things have a beginning, like the physical universe, somewhere between 8-15 billion years ago, and some do not, like God, as I've shown logically, or you get into an infinite regress.
kenblogton

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Sat Jul 05, 2014 11:16 am

[Replying to post 93 by kenblogton]

So beginning means coming from something?
Then if God doesn't begin, God comes from nothing.

kenblogton · Post by **kenblogton** » Sat Jul 05, 2014 11:17 am

[Replying to post 87 by JoeyKnothead]
You have a knack for avoiding the main issue. The key issue is whether something can come from nothing. If you believe that is the case, show me your proof; if not, admit it
We know the physical universe has a finite existence of some 8-15 billion years. If something can come from nothing, then maybe the physical universe can. Without proof of that, we must rely on the proven something (which has a beginning) comes from something.
If something has no beginning, like God, it has no beginning. It is not something coming from nothing, because it doesn't have a beginning - it is eternal.
kenblogton

kenblogton · Post by **kenblogton** » Sat Jul 05, 2014 11:20 am

[Replying to post 88 by Bust Nak]

Thank you for your views. I have stated mine as clearly as I am able, and have nothing further to add. Let's agree to disagree.
kenblogton

mwtech · Post by **mwtech** » Sat Jul 05, 2014 11:31 am

kenblogton wrote: [Replying to post 85 by mwtech]

You are the one who claims that something can come from nothing, not I, so obviously the burden of proof is with you. As an active proponent of the "something from nothing" school, you must, as they say in Missouri, "show me!"
If you are unwilling or unable to do so, I can only assume your case is weak or non-existent, since it is standard practice to muster arguments and evidence in favour of one's position, whatever that position is.
kenblogton

For the sake of my mental health, I will attempt to explain this one last time, and if you still cannot comprehend what I am saying I will just have to stop trying to tell you.

I am not making the claim that something can come from nothing. I am rejecting the claim that it is impossible for something to come from nothing. I do not know if something can come from nothing or not. There is no way to prove or disprove this claim so I will refrain from making a judgement on it. In order to claim that there is a god, I would have to accept the claim that something cannot possibly come from nothing. I cannot accept the existence of a creator if I am unable to make a judgement on the (im)possibility of something coming from nothing.

kenblogton · Post by **kenblogton** » Sat Jul 05, 2014 11:39 am

Jashwell wrote: [Replying to post 93 by kenblogton]

So beginning means coming from something?
Then if God doesn't begin, God comes from nothing.

God does not come from something or from nothing, God is - no beginning. The same cannot be said of the physical universe.
kenblogton

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Sat Jul 05, 2014 11:53 am

[Replying to post 98 by kenblogton]

"God does not come from nothing or something"
->
"God does not come from nothing", "God does not come from something"
nothing> not something;
"God does not come from not something", "God does not come from something"
->
"God does (not not) come from something", "God does not come from something"
->
"God does come from something","God does not come from something"

kenblogton · Post by **kenblogton** » Sat Jul 05, 2014 12:00 pm

mwtech wrote:
kenblogton wrote: [Replying to post 85 by mwtech]

You are the one who claims that something can come from nothing, not I, so obviously the burden of proof is with you. As an active proponent of the "something from nothing" school, you must, as they say in Missouri, "show me!"
If you are unwilling or unable to do so, I can only assume your case is weak or non-existent, since it is standard practice to muster arguments and evidence in favour of one's position, whatever that position is.
kenblogton
For the sake of my mental health, I will attempt to explain this one last time, and if you still cannot comprehend what I am saying I will just have to stop trying to tell you.

I am not making the claim that something can come from nothing. I am rejecting the claim that it is impossible for something to come from nothing. I do not know if something can come from nothing or not. There is no way to prove or disprove this claim so I will refrain from making a judgement on it. In order to claim that there is a god, I would have to accept the claim that something cannot possibly come from nothing. I cannot accept the existence of a creator if I am unable to make a judgement on the (im)possibility of something coming from nothing.

There are 2 ways it is possible that something can come from nothing, logic or evidence.
Logically, I have shown it's impossible.
Scientifically, there is no evidence for something coming from nothing, and the first law of thermodynamics, also known as Law of Conservation of Energy, states that energy can not be created or destroyed; it can only be redistributed or changed from one form to another. So it is also theoretically impossible for something to come from nothing according to physics.
Of course we are free to believe whatever we wish, but without any rational basis for the belief, Occam's razor demands we reject the belief in the case of rational argument.
kenblogton