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.

[mwtech]

Reply to 3. Please give me one real example to support your contention "I think things can exist without coming from something.

It has been pointed out many times that asking for an example of something coming from nothing is not a valid argument for the contrary. You have done this probably 10 times now and refuse to accept the quantum examples provided or to realize that the only other example available is "before the universe began"(there wasn't a real before the universe began because there was no time when the universe didn't exist, but you see the point I'm making) when there was nothing. It isn't as if we can observe this point in non-existant time. We can't give you an example any more than you can give us an example of God creating something or God always existing.

Further to this point, I said "

But before I say more, let's look at the implications of something coming from something.
Here in our physical universe, something always comes from something, as the laws of physics tell us.

"
and you said "No they don't." At least one example please?

Again, asking for an example is not an argument against a point.

You say "Problem 2: Saying "everything physical the laws of physics observe comes from something" is like saying "everything we observe is physical". The former is no more a proof that the physical must come than the latter is a proof that everything is physical.
I see what you have said here as incomprehensible.

He is saying that "everything physical the laws of physics observe comes from something" is not proof that everything comes from something. This leaves everything we have non observed, and everything non-physical. Saying "everything we observe is physical" is not proof that everything is physical.

You say "Problem 3: The only good/concrete definition of physical is that which can be sensed - which isn't a definition I expect you'd agree with"
I say the physical consists of matter or energy and exists in space-time. Everything physical cannot be sensed.

So you realize that not everything physical can be observed.

You say "Problem 4: Even if every physical thing has an origin in something; it would be a composition fallacy to say that the entire collection of physical things must have an origin in something"
I say this is a self-contradictory statement: every physical thing originates in something but not the entire collection. Again, time for Occam's razor.

The statement is not at all contradictory. He is just saying you can't treat individual objects and the entirety of space-time (or space-time itself) as the same thing.

I say, and Science agrees, the universe is of finite existence - somewhere between 8-15 billion years. That is not eternal.

Science is not a sentient being. "It" does not agree or disagree with anything. Science does not "say" anything. Some scientists agree that the universe is finite. Others do not.

And, as I've said in my Replies to 3. and to 5., Problem 4., something always comes from something and there are zero examples of something coming from nothing; if you wish to maintain this view without providing examples, we'll have to just agree to disagree and end our debate.

1. You still refuse to accept the fact that an example of the universe beginning from nothing is immpossible to give because there was no time to be observed when this could happen.
2. You have said this before and continued to argue about people's responses.

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.

Let's agree to disagree.
kenblogton

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 118:

As I've stated previously, God is eternal so has no beginning.

Yet you don't allow for the universe having existed eternally.

You're trying to apply two different standards here.

On the one hand, we have a universe. What we know is there it sits.

But you're not happy with that. You posit a god having created the universe, for, 'parently, no other reason than you declare such a god must have created the one thing we do know, the universe is there.

*Noting a clarification here in a bit regarding the Big Bang.

Your statement "Your argument implies a mind, and we know the mind is a product of the physical." is a straw man of your own creation: no comment.

To declare such to be a "strawman of my own creation" is to comment.

What I'm getting at with that angle, is how did this "creating of the universe" occur in a "godly" way, without said god thinking he needs to make him one?

What possible means did this god employ to set about events, such that the universe was a result of 'em?

And if the something which made the physical universe comes from something else, and if that something else comes from something else again, and so on ad infinitum, then we get into an infinite regress.

This doesn't address the universe existing in a form prior to what we find it now (pre BB if that's what we're going with).

(*Clarification) It is speculation, not fact, that there is pre-dense singularity/big bang.

I respect that, and I note I brought it up. I'm trying to determine where we stand regarding the universe.

So then, we won't bother about the Big Bang, only we're still stuck with a universe. Please know I do my best to keep up, but may mention the BB, only here we have it in writing that we both disregard that notion for our purposes here.

Since this is a continuation of your straw man in 1., no comment.

To declare such a "straw man" is to comment.

Hopefully I've elucididerated the point to where you'll offer some other commentary.

I only see the failure in your arguments.

I can dig it. And I can dig ya pointing it out.

I just can't dig ya pointing it out in public :nerd2:

If your future replies are similar to these, I think we'd do best to just agree to disagree.

I reject the notion of agreeing to disagree, when it occurs on a site dedicated to debate


I respect you have a different take on the issue, and I declare it as fact that you do what you can to defend it in an honorable fashion.

But we can't fault the observer who thinks maybe my position is such that you can't argue against it when you say something like that.

Like we can't fault 'em for thinkin' I'm a big ol' doofus, and how you've been polite as ya can be, but polite's gotta end somewhere

All the best.

Here's hoping you ain't ever met a steak too tough to eat.

[Divine Insight]

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

It has not been determined that the universe came into existence from nothing. This is neither required for science, nor is it required for atheism.

Therefore your entire argument is a straw man.

Moreover, there is no reason to argue that the universe came from a "God" without sufficient reason or evidence to suggest that such an entity exists.

Therefore you argument does not stand as an argument of pure logic, nor does it stand as a scientific argument.

Furthermore, if you are going to postulate the existence of a "God" then it is far to ask you to define this entity in a way that we can understand what you mean by this concept.

If you point to the Hebrew mythology (i.e. the fables of the God of Abraham) as a definition for your God, then this is laughable because those fables describe a totally self-contradictory character who also necessarily has personally traits and flaws far beneath many humans.

So your proposal that the hypothesis that a "God" created the universe is absolutely meaningless until you can define a meaningful God that is not self-contradictory and one that you can also point to evidence for why you are speculating that it should exist, other than your current straw man argument that the universe could not have come from nothing therefore it had to have come from a God.

That is not a logical argument at all.

Especially when you haven't even defined what you mean by "God".

Edited to add:

Even if I were to agree with your suggestion that these ideas bring the speculation of a potential "God" into the realm of rationale consideration, then we'd still be stuck with asking which picture of God best fits this hypothesis.

At that point I would argue that the God described by the Eastern Mystics and Taoism is a far better candidate for a description of such a God than something like Hebrew mythology.

So even if you made any convincing progress in your current line of thinking you would be very far from supporting a Biblical picture of God.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 120 by Jashwell]

Reply to 1. You said "No beginning" = "Not coming [from anything]" = "Coming from nothing"
You keep acting like nothing refers to some ultimate void or whatever.
When people say "What are you doing?" and people say "Nothing", that means that they aren't doing anything, I gave many examples, being eternal is equivalent to coming from nothing (which means not coming from anything)"
I say you are confusing the term nothing in everyday usage and scientific nothing. In terms of the physical universe, nothing means no space, time, matter or energy. That is scientific nothing, the state that existed before the dense singularity/big bang of some 8-15 billion years ago. I have nothing more to say on this topic.

Reply to 3. You said "You think God can [come from nothing]."
I said God does not come from anything, God is eternal, always was, no beginning, a point which you refuse to accept. I have nothing more to say on the topic.

Reply to 5. You said "Energy needs to be neither created nor destroyed to not have an origin.
That is what coming from nothing means. An origin in nothing. No origin [in anything], implicitly"
I say The laws of physics apply to the existing physical world. The coming into existence of the dense singularity/big bang violates the law of conservation of energy. I have nothing more to say on this topic.

Reply to 7. You said "Yes time is finite. No, the Universe is eternal.
(Time itself being eternal by definition)
The problem with "eternal" in this context is it's used to mean "having no origin" / "not coming from anything" (whether you agree or not, coming from nothing)."
You say time is both finite and eternal by definition. I say since time has a beginning at the origin of the universe, by definition it is not eternal. I have nothing more to say on this topic.
kenblogton

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 120 by Jashwell]

Reply to 1. You said "No beginning" = "Not coming [from anything]" = "Coming from nothing"
You keep acting like nothing refers to some ultimate void or whatever.
When people say "What are you doing?" and people say "Nothing", that means that they aren't doing anything, I gave many examples, being eternal is equivalent to coming from nothing (which means not coming from anything)"
I say you are confusing the term nothing in everyday usage and scientific nothing. In terms of the physical universe, nothing means no space, time, matter or energy. That is scientific nothing, the state that existed before the dense singularity/big bang of some 8-15 billion years ago. I have nothing more to say on this topic.

Reply to 3. You said "You think God can [come from nothing]."
I said God does not come from anything, God is eternal, always was, no beginning, a point which you refuse to accept. I have nothing more to say on the topic.

Reply to 5. You said "Energy needs to be neither created nor destroyed to not have an origin.
That is what coming from nothing means. An origin in nothing. No origin [in anything], implicitly"
I say The laws of physics apply to the existing physical world. The coming into existence of the dense singularity/big bang violates the law of conservation of energy. I have nothing more to say on this topic.

Reply to 7. You said "Yes time is finite. No, the Universe is eternal.
(Time itself being eternal by definition)
The problem with "eternal" in this context is it's used to mean "having no origin" / "not coming from anything" (whether you agree or not, coming from nothing)."
You say time is both finite and eternal by definition. I say since time has a beginning at the origin of the universe, by definition it is not eternal. I have nothing more to say on this topic.
kenblogton

So to summarize,

You make all the claims you made before even though they have all been refuted, but offer no actual evidence to the contrary, and are forfeiting the debate?
So we can assume that you have no evidence and you are just giving us your opinion.

[Jashwell]

For your convenience, I'll change from using "nothing" to "no thing", as I mean nothing in the true sense of the word.

[Replying to post 120 by Jashwell]

Reply to 1. You said "No beginning" = "Not coming [from anything]" = "Coming from nothing"
You keep acting like nothing refers to some ultimate void or whatever.
When people say "What are you doing?" and people say "Nothing", that means that they aren't doing anything, I gave many examples, being eternal is equivalent to coming from nothing (which means not coming from anything)"
I say you are confusing the term nothing in everyday usage and scientific nothing. In terms of the physical universe, nothing means no space, time, matter or energy. That is scientific nothing, the state that existed before the dense singularity/big bang of some 8-15 billion years ago. I have nothing more to say on this topic.

No.
[No thing] is not a state. A state is a thing.
There cannot be a state before the big bang, as you believe time begun with the big bang. 'Before' denotes temporal precedence not possible in this context.

Your definition of nothing is a mostly empty state. The reason I bring up a void as an example is because a void implies space. A previous state implies time.

Reply to 3. You said "You think God can [come from nothing]."
I said God does not come from anything, God is eternal, always was, no beginning, a point which you refuse to accept. I have nothing more to say on the topic.

As I have said before, what [no thing] actually means, is the negation of a thing. Not this "state before the big bang". I am using nothing in the context of no thing.
In the context of nothing I am using (no thing), "coming from nothing" is trivially semantically equivalent to "not coming" or being eternal. Hence, my example that you've requested for something coming from no thing, is your God.

I understand very much what is meant by eternal, or not coming, and it is exactly the same as coming from nothing in the true meaning of no thing.
"Coming from no thing" MEANS no beginning. It is EQUIVALENT to saying it is eternal.
As I have repeatedly shown, "Not coming" = "Not coming from anything" = "Coming from no thing".

Reply to 5. You said "Energy needs to be neither created nor destroyed to not have an origin.
That is what coming from nothing means. An origin in nothing. No origin [in anything], implicitly"
I say The laws of physics apply to the existing physical world. The coming into existence of the dense singularity/big bang violates the law of conservation of energy. I have nothing more to say on this topic.

As I've said before, the Universe doesn't need to come into existence for time to have begun with the big bang. Example repeatedly given to show that the first point in time is not equivalent to the "beginning" of (the sense of the coming into existence of) time.

If you're going to make the assumption that things exist that are not based on physical laws, then physical laws should not constrain secular explanations for the existence of the Universe.
i.e. if it's plausible that God is not bound by the laws of physics, it's plausible that the singularity wasn't bound by the laws of physics (wasn't physical), no requirement for God necessary.

Reply to 7. You said "Yes time is finite. No, the Universe is eternal.
(Time itself being eternal by definition)
The problem with "eternal" in this context is it's used to mean "having no origin" / "not coming from anything" (whether you agree or not, coming from nothing)."
You say time is both finite and eternal by definition. I say since time has a beginning at the origin of the universe, by definition it is not eternal. I have nothing more to say on this topic.
kenblogton

Time has existed for all of time. Obviously.
Time is therefore eternal.
Time has always existed, and always will exist.
Time has only existed for ~13.8 billion years.

There is no inconsistency here. "Always" means for all time. "Time has existed for all time", well clearly. "Time will exist for all time" equally straightforward.
"Time has existed for ~13.8 billion years" according to many popular cosmological models.

As I've said before, it's entirely consistent to think of the Universe as a whole as just existing.
You, on the other hand, need to first rely on the assumption that time literally flows, and then when you get to the big bang you need to make the other assumption that there's an additional flow in order to justify saying there's a transition between ["Nothing" + God] and [Universe + God].

It's like watching someone show a flip book. A-theory says only one page exists, B-theory says the whole book exists. I'm saying, that everything exists like a flip book, and we're just perceiving (similar to the book being 'played'). There's no need for the flip book itself to come into existence - the flip book is eternal. But there's still a first page from which nothing is prior, as that is the beginning of 'time'.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 125 by mwtech]

You said "So to summarize,

You make all the claims you made before even though they have all been refuted, but offer no actual evidence to the contrary, and are forfeiting the debate?
So we can assume that you have no evidence and you are just giving us your opinion."

I say none of my assertions has been refuted. To summarize.
1. Something comes from something, and there are no instances of something coming from nothing.
2. God of necessity has no beginning, so as to avoid an infinite regress.
If there are refutations, please - let's see them.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 126 by Jashwell]

Thanks for your comments. I've said all I have to say of these topics, and have no further reaction to your posting.
Let me say in parting that by failing to give instances of something coming from nothing, you show me the only logical position, respecting Occam's razor, is that, for everything that begins, something comes from something.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

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

It has not been determined that the universe came into existence from nothing. This is neither required for science, nor is it required for atheism.

Therefore your entire argument is a straw man.

Moreover, there is no reason to argue that the universe came from a "God" without sufficient reason or evidence to suggest that such an entity exists.

Therefore you argument does not stand as an argument of pure logic, nor does it stand as a scientific argument.

Furthermore, if you are going to postulate the existence of a "God" then it is far to ask you to define this entity in a way that we can understand what you mean by this concept.

If you point to the Hebrew mythology (i.e. the fables of the God of Abraham) as a definition for your God, then this is laughable because those fables describe a totally self-contradictory character who also necessarily has personally traits and flaws far beneath many humans.

So your proposal that the hypothesis that a "God" created the universe is absolutely meaningless until you can define a meaningful God that is not self-contradictory and one that you can also point to evidence for why you are speculating that it should exist, other than your current straw man argument that the universe could not have come from nothing therefore it had to have come from a God.

That is not a logical argument at all.

Especially when you haven't even defined what you mean by "God".

Edited to add:

Even if I were to agree with your suggestion that these ideas bring the speculation of a potential "God" into the realm of rationale consideration, then we'd still be stuck with asking which picture of God best fits this hypothesis.

At that point I would argue that the God described by the Eastern Mystics and Taoism is a far better candidate for a description of such a God than something like Hebrew mythology.

So even if you made any convincing progress in your current line of thinking you would be very far from supporting a Biblical picture of God.

There is no accepted notion of anything of physical existence prior to the dense singularity/big bang - that is the start of space, time, matter and energy. There is no evidence of anything prior.
Regarding God logic, as I've previously stated:
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.
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 128 by kenblogton]

I'm not sure how many times I'll need to say this, but when I say coming from nothing, I mean coming from no thing, the true meaning of nothing.

Does your God come from a thing?
If not, then he comes from no thing.

As I have repeatedly shown, "not coming" = "not coming from anything" = "coming from no thing".

Unless you wish to use the word "nothing" to denote something other than "no thing", you cannot deny, as I have shown many times, that God comes from nothing.

God comes from no thing means God does not come from a thing.
If God doesn't come, then he doesn't come from a thing. Ergo, he comes from no thing.

My example is your God.

Not to mention this entire discussion is a massive red herring - as I have previously stated, when someone says "coming from nothing" and means "coming from no thing", it is semantically equivalent to being eternal.
It doesn't matter whether I use the proper meaning of the words "coming from nothing" or whether I say "is eternal", my view is still the same. The Universe, across the entirety of time, exists. It doesn't need to come into existence.


Regardless, even if these weren't my views, and I didn't think that this state/thing that you call nothing couldn't create things, it would still be on you to demonstrate impossibility. Not on me to demonstrate possibility.