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.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 215 by jcb]

End of the universe theory is very speculative at best at this point and should not be relied upon to prove or disprove creation. Secondly you need to connect the bible verse you believe describes the scientific theory you think best connects to your biblical theory.

Even if you can establish this you have not established a creator. This basically is a false dichotomy fallacy as you leave only two possibilities

1. End of Universe theory reflects the biblical description and therefore creator

2. End of Universe theory does not reflect biblical description therefore no-creator

Both possibilities are not reflective of all possible scenarios of truth or fact. There are a plethora of other possibilities that have yet to be considered here. So establishing similarities between the bible and an end of universe theory does not really do anything to prove their is a creator.

[jcb]

[Replying to post 220 by DanieltheDragon]

Hebrews 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
Heb 1:11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
Heb 1:12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

2Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 221 by jcb]

We don't in any way accept the Bible as authoritative. Even if we did, it'd be an appeal to authority to acknowledge it.

Quotes from it are practically meaningless to us.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 192 by kenblogton]

1. If God may come from neither something nor "nothing" (as it is by now clear that by "nothing" you do not mean "no thing"), then to avoid special pleading so may the Universe.

2. You have not once addressed the fact that either context of eternal - "not coming into existence" and "for all time" may apply to the Universe when considered across the entire time line, regardless of whether or not it is finite. (The latter is trivially true - of course time exists for all of time)

Reply to 1. As I've said many times, God comes from neither something nor nothing; God simply always is. As I've shared since my initial posting to this sub-forum, since something always comes from something, God is the something from which the physical universe comes, and God must be immutable, or we get into an infinite regress. No amount of evading or obscuring the issue will change this.
Reply to 2. By definition, the physical universe is not eternal, since eternal is defined as " lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning." For all time is simply that: 8-15 billion years; that is NOT eternal.
kenblogton

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 192 by kenblogton]

1. If God may come from neither something nor "nothing" (as it is by now clear that by "nothing" you do not mean "no thing"), then to avoid special pleading so may the Universe.

2. You have not once addressed the fact that either context of eternal - "not coming into existence" and "for all time" may apply to the Universe when considered across the entire time line, regardless of whether or not it is finite. (The latter is trivially true - of course time exists for all of time)

Reply to 1. As I've said many times, God comes from neither something nor nothing; God simply always is. As I've shared since my initial posting to this sub-forum, since something always comes from something, God is the something from which the physical universe comes, and God must be immutable, or we get into an infinite regress. No amount of evading or obscuring the issue will change this.
Reply to 2. By definition, the physical universe is not eternal, since eternal is defined as " lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning." For all time is simply that: 8-15 billion years; that is NOT eternal.
kenblogton

You persist in making this special pleading for 'God.' What you deny to the universe, you attribute to God. The universe cannot be eternal, but undefined and undefinable God can. This is fantasy speculation of the highest order.

In Philosophical Fragments, Kierkegaard handled this folly well when he wrote:

"Let us call this unknown something: God. It is nothing more than a name we assign to it. The idea of demonstrating that this unknown something (God) exists, could scarcely suggest itself to Reason. For if God does not exist it would of course be impossible to prove it; and if he does exist it would be folly to attempt it. For at the very outset, in beginning my proof, I would have presupposed it, not as doubtful but as certain (a presupposition is never doubtful, for the very reason that it is a presupposition), since otherwise I would not begin, readily understanding that the whole would be impossible if he did not exist. But if when I speak of proving God's existence I mean that I propose to prove that the Unknown, which exists, is God, then I express myself unfortunately. For in that case I do not prove anything, least of all an existence, but merely develop the content of a conception."

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 192 by kenblogton]

1. If God may come from neither something nor "nothing" (as it is by now clear that by "nothing" you do not mean "no thing"), then to avoid special pleading so may the Universe.

2. You have not once addressed the fact that either context of eternal - "not coming into existence" and "for all time" may apply to the Universe when considered across the entire time line, regardless of whether or not it is finite. (The latter is trivially true - of course time exists for all of time)

Reply to 1. As I've said many times, God comes from neither something nor nothing; God simply always is.

I'm fully aware you've said this. I've even stopped using the proper meaning of nothing (no thing) as it would not work with your terminology.
(If nothing = no thing; then coming from nothing = not coming from something)
I know you think God doesn't come into existence. You don't need to repeat this.

As I've shared since my initial posting to this sub-forum, since something always comes from something,

You've yet to demonstrate this; and you also present a false dichotomy.
You are saying either something comes from nothing or something - BUT THEN you say that God comes from NEITHER something nor nothing, that he always exists / doesn't come into existence.
You can't have it both ways. If you accept that God doesn't need to come into existence - then there is something that doesn't come from something.

Either you pick the first false dichotomy and you eliminate always existing (eliminating god), or you pick the second dichotomy and it's special pleading to say that the Universe can't always exist (always is a bad word to use - always means for all time. Time exists for all time by definition)

God is the something from which the physical universe comes, and God must be immutable, or we get into an infinite regress. No amount of evading or obscuring the issue will change this.

Reply to 2. By definition, the physical universe is not eternal, since eternal is defined as " lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning." For all time is simply that: 8-15 billion years; that is NOT eternal.
kenblogton

"Lasting or existing forever"
"Forever: for all future time; for always"
"always: at all times"

You're saying that time hasn't existed for all time? That time hasn't existed at all times?

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 188 by jcb]

You said, "The Bible is the only place to find the answer, which is one of the easiest things to understand in the Bible."

How do I get past that, which says science is irrelevant, and hearsay is proof.

I said the Bible is the only place to find answers about God. I also said finding WHAT (not who) God is, is one of the easiest things to find in the Bible. Nothing of what I have said, and nothing of what the Bible has written, says science is irrelevant.

When the only "evidence" it uses is hearsay, it dismisses reason and thereby dismisses science.

In fact, science is very relevant because it goes hand in hand with the Bible. It is just a question of time and research as to when science will declare (in their terminology) that there is a God.

So far, science has been unable to extract anything at all from beyond that cosmic firewall known as the Big Bang. And if God does exist, I think It put that firewall there in order to maintain It's anonymity, and thus maintain our free will.

This very day science is on the verge of making this announcement, because they are not far from conclusive proof to what they publicly announced a few short years ago.

What, the so-called "God Particle"? If that's what you're talking about, that's a misnomer. It is not evidence for God at all.

You and I are pretty much in the same boat with the same goal. Your approach will never convince anyone on your position. My approach, if the mindset of people does not change, I also will be no more successful than you.

What mindset, the growing demand for evidence?

I am not a typical believer, nor am I a member of any religious organization, sect or other. My position is, in a few words, they have a whole lot to learn to get it right.

Who has a whole lot to learn to get what right?

[DanieltheDragon]

Hold on a second folks I asked him to connect his End of universe theories i.e. Big Crunch Big Rip etc. to the biblical ending to see if they match up. Lets let him do that This is not assuming the bible is evidence. I asked him to show the connection. So he can better illustrate his point please let him do that.

[Zzyzx]

.

Reply to 1. As I've said many times, God comes from neither something nor nothing; God simply always is.

Repeating a claim does not substantiate a claim

As I've shared since my initial posting to this sub-forum, since something always comes from something,

That is known as a claim. Those who make a claim are expected and required to substantiate the claim if challenged. I challenge.

God is the something from which the physical universe comes, and God must be immutable, or we get into an infinite regress.

That is known as a claim. Those who make a claim are expected and required to substantiate the claim if challenged. I challenge.

No amount of evading or obscuring the issue will change this.

Okay. I look forward to your substantiation without evading or obscuring

Reply to 2. By definition, the physical universe is not eternal, since eternal is defined as " lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning." For all time is simply that: 8-15 billion years; that is NOT eternal.

Do you propose or accept the age of the universe at 8 " 15 billion years? If so, based on what evidence?

Do you propose or accept that "God" is eternal? If so, based on what evidence?

Is the age of the universe figure based on the work of a multitude of scientists working in numerous fields of study, worldwide, without connection to any one viewpoint -- that can be verified by anyone capable and interested?

Is the eternal God concept based on ancient writings by unidentified promoters of a specific religion expressing their opinions that cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate?

[ThePainefulTruth]

Hold on a second folks I asked him to connect his End of universe theories i.e. Big Crunch Big Rip etc. to the biblical ending to see if they match up. Lets let him do that This is not assuming the bible is evidence. I asked him to show the connection. So he can better illustrate his point please let him do that.

Huh?