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.

instantc · Post by **instantc** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:38 am

Jashwell wrote:
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?

Why did you ignore half of his definition? "Eternal, existing for ever, without end or beginning" Time obviously had a beginning, therefore it is not eternal.

jcb · Post by **jcb** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:13 am

1. 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.

I can tell you exactly what God is, with considerable Biblical documentation to back it up, but:

1. Seeing that all the sceptics here have closed minds it will be rejected without the least bit of consideration

2 Others will post... we do not accept or believe anything from the Bible.

You don't want to debate if God exists, you want to get others to your view that the God thing is only a fantasy.

I'll give you a challenge.. Prove to me there is no God Almighty like the Bible says.

Just remember, I don't come from the Christian or any other known religious establishments

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:19 am

[Replying to post 230 by instantc]

They're different contexts of the same word.
There's certainly no reason to suggest time will have an end, but then beginning largely comes down to your definition.

If you think there was some state prior to time and then time - implying that there was a state and then time 'begun' - that is a falsity - but if you are merely using begin to mean a boundary of time, then time does begin.

If for example, you describe the "beginning of x" as the "time before which no x existed", then there can be no beginning of time, as there isn't a time before time existed. When people say nothing existed before the beginning of spacetime, many people think of some kind of "state of nothing" or "ultimate void" and then the big bang. This isn't an appropriate usage of the word nothing - nor of the word beginning. If there's a void there's space and if there's a previous state there's time. If there's going to be something then there isn't nothing (and if there's a God there isn't nothing... at least for theists), though that comes down to my views on 'exist'. It is more appropriate to say that the Universe always (for all time) existed, always will exist, and never (for no time) didn't exist. That there isn't a prior "state" of nothing, that the word is simply a negation indicating that there isn't a 'before'.

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:25 am

jcb wrote: 1. 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.

I can tell you exactly what God is, with considerable Biblical documentation to back it up, but:

1. Seeing that all the sceptics here have closed minds it will be rejected without the least bit of consideration

2 Others will post... we do not accept or believe anything from the Bible.

You don't want to debate if God exists, you want to get others to your view that the God thing is only a fantasy.

I'll give you a challenge.. Prove to me there is no God Almighty like the Bible says.

Just remember, I don't come from the Christian or any other known religious establishments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof
"presumption of innocence until proven guilty"

Leads to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophi ... n_of_proof
"the burden of proof is on he who asserts, not he who denies"
(& no presumption of existing until proven otherwise)

& this leads in to your use of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
"you can't prove i'm wrong"

and with regards to the bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_f ... uthorities

We aren't being closed minded. Have you considered that the Bible might not be true? What convinced you that it was true?

In order for a logical argument to go as follows:
P) The Bible says X
... ??? ...
C) X is true

You have to show
A) The Bible is true about EVERYTHING
or B) The Bible is true about X

Showing it's true about everything requires you to show that it's true about X. Showing that it's true about X would be as follows:
P1) X is true
P2) The Bible says X
C) X is true.
Why bother with the middleman? If you can show that X is true in the first place, you don't need the Bible.

jcb · Post by **jcb** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:30 am

[Replying to post 232 by Jashwell]

Science and sceptics do not believe in the super natural. This very belief is and will be their downfall.
By this belief, whatever first started the expansion of the universe came from something of visible substance, and what that something came from also came from something of visible substance, and on and on and on. The sceptics will never admit, but scientist will eventually have to admit that something of visible substance can come from something that has no visible substance... and this is exactly what the Bible says.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:42 am

jcb wrote:The sceptics will never admit, but scientist will eventually have to admit that something of visible substance can come from something that has no visible substance... and this is exactly what the Bible says.

And exactly where is this stated in the Bible?

jcb · Post by **jcb** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:48 am

McCulloch wrote:
jcb wrote:The sceptics will never admit, but scientist will eventually have to admit that something of visible substance can come from something that has no visible substance... and this is exactly what the Bible says.
And exactly where is this stated in the Bible?

Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the 'invisible God',

jcb · Post by **jcb** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:09 am

[Replying to post 233 by Jashwell]

"you can't prove i'm wrong" - I hope to prove you're wrong

We aren't being closed minded. Have you considered that the Bible might not be true? What convinced you that it was true?

In 1978 I rejected everything that had to do with religion, and I was raised in the church from infancy. 11 years later my brother said something that really got my full attention. Not because he said, because it was something I never heard before. This started my search. I did search and search and search. Later we were not on scripture speaking terms. Today I am not on scripture speaking terms with any Christian.

You have to show
A) The Bible is true about EVERYTHING
or B) The Bible is true about X

Showing it's true about everything requires you to show that it's true about X. Showing that it's true about X would be as follows:
P1) X is true
P2) The Bible says X
C) X is true.
Why bother with the middleman? If you can show that X is true in the first place, you don't need the Bible.

Will you agree that everything of visible substance people from the stone age until today originated from nothing of visible substance?

Jashwell · Post by **Jashwell** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:19 am

jcb wrote: [Replying to post 233 by Jashwell]

"you can't prove i'm wrong" - I hope to prove you're wrong

You realise this was your argument?

Prove to me there is no God

It was fallacious. I just pointed that out.

We aren't being closed minded. Have you considered that the Bible might not be true? What convinced you that it was true?

In 1978 I rejected everything that had to do with religion, and I was raised in the church from infancy. 11 years later my brother said something that really got my full attention. Not because he said, because it was something I never heard before. This started my search. I did search and search and search. Later we were not on scripture speaking terms. Today I am not on scripture speaking terms with any Christian.

What convinced you that the Bible was true?

You have to show
A) The Bible is true about EVERYTHING
or B) The Bible is true about X

Showing it's true about everything requires you to show that it's true about X. Showing that it's true about X would be as follows:
P1) X is true
P2) The Bible says X
C) X is true.
Why bother with the middleman? If you can show that X is true in the first place, you don't need the Bible.

Will you agree that everything of visible substance people from the stone age until today originated from nothing of visible substance?

I'm not sure what you mean.
Hydrogen and Helium are invisible substances, but we know that our planet and everything on it comes from elements made in stars or supernovae, and those stars come from hydrogen and helium clouds.

instantc · Post by **instantc** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 7:34 am

Jashwell wrote: There's certainly no reason to suggest time will have an end, but then beginning largely comes down to your definition.

Your constant demand to define each word, and then giving them absurd and unnecessarily complicated definitions, is coming close to intentional obscurification. This is simple, really. If you can, in theory, look back in time and count how much time has passed, then time had a beginning. If an infinite amount of time has passed, then time did not began.

Jashwell wrote: If for example, you describe the "beginning of x" as the "time before which no x existed", then there can be no beginning of time, as there isn't a time before time existed.

But, there was a point of time before which there was no time, as there was no 'before' to begin with. Therefore, as per the above definition, time indeed had a beginning.