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.

[Zzyzx]

.

Asking for tangible evidence for non-physical God is an oxymoronic request.

What is NOT oxymoron at all is to ask those who claim KNOWLEDGE of a "god" to demonstrate that they speak truth (without recourse to testimonials, hearsay, opinions, and/or promotional literature " ancient or modern).

Not ONE has done so. Care to try?

Those who attempt to debate here promoting or supporting supernaturalism fail to provide any proof / evidence of knowledge beyond quoting ancient texts by unknown religion promoters expressing opinions, citing unverifiable testimonials or telling fanciful stories " and present that as though it was knowledge.

God is Spirit, not human!

Kindly demonstrate that this claim is true (something more than conjecture or opinion " ancient or modern).

However, logical evidence abounds,

"Logical evidence" typically consists of "If you accept these premisses . . . " OR "If you are willing to believe these things . . . ."

Kindly present the "abounding" "logical evidence" in this thread. What you may have said previously or elsewhere is immaterial. You should be capable of finding previous posts rather than requiring others to do so.

as I've previously shown, and which only one atheist has taken up. Rather than repeat what I've repeatedly stated, let me ask the question which NO atheist has been able to answer.

Give me ONE example in this world of something coming from nothing?

Kindly quote ONE example of someone in this thread taking the position of disproving "god." If you cannot that is a straw man "argument."

How does the tired "something from nothing" argument prove or support anyone's favorite god figure " when their favorite "god" supposedly came from nothing or "always was" (whatever that means)?

The "God always existed" argument is pure conjecture unsupported by any evidence (tangible or logical) other than conjecture, opinion, testimonial and hearsay.

Only one. f you can't, then you're stuck in your ability to disprove God.

Perhaps you have not noticed that few (if any) here set out to "disprove God" " which is totally unnecessary since proponents of "gods" have not demonstrated that "gods" are anything more than products of human imagination.

Most recognize that Norse or Greek or Egyptian "gods" were products of imagination but fail to recognize that the same applies to their favorite "gods."

The physical universe had its origin some 8-15 billion years ago. It did not have a physical cause,

Who knows? All sorts of "theories" are proposed " from various religious schemes to scientific to totally irrational (seemingly).

Does presence or absence of knowledge of the origin of the universe make any difference in life in the real world as we live it?

because its origin is the beginning of the physical: space, time, matter & energy. That origin demands an explanation, and God is the only plausible explanation, as the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Romans states in Chapter 1:

Correction: Perhaps the OPINIONS expressed by Paul/Saul 2000 years ago are "plausible explanation" to bible believers (who should also accept the "wisdom" of that era that included diseases being caused by "sins" or "demons" and storms caused by displeasing "gods."

Many have gone beyond such "explanations" for disease and storms " but cling to the opinions concerning "gods."

What Paul/Saul said is not proof of anything in debates in the C&A sub-forum (but may be compelling in church or in Holy Huddle).

And don't raise the by now tiresome point so who created God?

Okay. Who created OTHER (competing) "gods" (thousands of them)? Was it likely human imagination? If so, how is your favorite "god" different from the thousands of others proposed, worshiped, feared, placated, etc by humans? OR, do the competing "gods" exist also?

What, besides opinion, shows that one "god" is true and others are "false?"

Again, as myself and others have repeatedly shown, asking that question gets into an illogical infinite regress.

"infinite regress", "origin of the universe". "beginning of life" are favored catch phrases of those who discover (perhaps in debate) that their god theories cannot be supported. The diversionary tactic often employed is to delve into topics that they and others cannot answer beyond hypothesis " and insist that the god hypothesis is superior.

[instantc]

kenblogton
You complain about the "who created God" argument being a tired one, but it is a legitimate one. You don't get to make up an end to the regression just because it needs one.

It's a pointless argument. It's not even an argument, it's a question that has no implications on whether or not God exists. Even if God would require a further explanation, that does not make God itself any better or worse as an explanation for the universe.

[Bust Nak]

In other words, virtual particles are transformations of other existing particles. They are NOT examples of something coming from nothing.

I guess matter coming from no matter is not "nothing" enough for you.

Reply to 2. At http://www.doxa.ws/cosmological/No_ICR.html, it explains the logical flaw in infinite regress well.

I regonise that site. Does metacrock of CARM ring any bells?

"It basically means that any infinitely recurring causality for any event is impossible, since one never actually arrives at a cause."

Well, that's claim, where is the proof?

[instantc]

"It basically means that any infinitely recurring causality for any event is impossible, since one never actually arrives at a cause."

Well, that's claim, where is the proof?

Actual infinite number of something in the real world involves a logical contradiction, just like an idea of a married bachelor. Both are just ideas in our heads, they cannot exist in the real world.

[Bust Nak]

"It basically means that any infinitely recurring causality for any event is impossible, since one never actually arrives at a cause."

Well, that's claim, where is the proof?

Actual infinite number of something in the real world involves a logical contradiction, just like an idea of a married bachelor. Both are just ideas in our heads, they cannot exist in the real world.

By all means phrase it in the from of A & A for examination.

[instantc]

"It basically means that any infinitely recurring causality for any event is impossible, since one never actually arrives at a cause."

Well, that's claim, where is the proof?

Actual infinite number of something in the real world involves a logical contradiction, just like an idea of a married bachelor. Both are just ideas in our heads, they cannot exist in the real world.

By all means phrase it in the from of A & A for examination.

Consider the following example. If planet A orbits the sun twice as quickly as planet B, and both planets have been doing it for an infinite amount of time, then both propositions 'A has orbited the sun twice as many times as B' and 'A has orbited the sun exactly as many times as B' would be true, since they have both orbited the sun an infinite number of times. While mathematics can be constructed in such a way to accommodate infity, in real world both propositions a equals b and a equals two times b cannot be true at the same time. I think this thought experiment shows that an actual infinity involves a logical contradiction.

[kenblogton]

kenblogton
You complain about the "who created God" argument being a tired one, but it is a legitimate one. You don't get to make up an end to the regression just because it needs one. And if you did make one up, it wouldn't have to be a sentient, personal creator. Your argument is not an argument for God, it is an argument for a beginning of the universe. Whatever caused it, if it was caused, could be an entity, an event, or any number of things we have absolutely no knowledge of or an ability to comprehend. Just because you can't think of anything to end the regression besides God, does not actually make God the only option. It just leaves us in an agnostic position, not knowing how the universe came to be.

Can you give me one example of an infinite regression? If you can't, its because it doesn't exist. As I believe I've shown, it is a logical fallacy.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 360 by Zzyzx]

To say that something is untrue or nonsense without demonstrating the error is not refutation. Let me restate what I've previously stated, which you and your fellow atheists reject but do not refute.
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 Occams 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 Occams 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.
4. The limitations of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge consists of two types, generally speaking, empirical or observational knowledge regarding the physical universe, and theoretical or inferred or deduced knowledge about that universe, such as quantum theory. Scientific knowledge of the creative entity is impossible given that it, the creative entity, is not physical. It is logical error to negate the existence of the creative entity based on scientific reasoning; the creative entity is outside the domain of the scientific.
kenblogton

[Bust Nak]

By all means phrase it in the from of A & A for examination.

Consider the following example. If planet A orbits the sun twice as quickly as planet B, and both planets have been doing it for an infinite amount of time, then both propositions 'A has orbited the sun twice as many times as B' and 'A has orbited the sun exactly as many times as B' would be true, since they have both orbited the sun an infinite number of times. While mathematics can be constructed in such a way to accommodate infity, in real world both propositions a equals b and a equals two times b cannot be true at the same time. I think this thought experiment shows that an actual infinity involves a logical contradiction.

At worse it's a paradox, the fact that mathematics can be constructed to accommodate infinity means it's not a logical contradiction.

Can you give me one example of an infinite regression? If you can't, its because it doesn't exist.

You say that like you have an example of an uncaused cause.

As I believe I've shown, it is a logical fallacy.

Where, you meant the site you linked to?

[instantc]

By all means phrase it in the from of A & A for examination.

Consider the following example. If planet A orbits the sun twice as quickly as planet B, and both planets have been doing it for an infinite amount of time, then both propositions 'A has orbited the sun twice as many times as B' and 'A has orbited the sun exactly as many times as B' would be true, since they have both orbited the sun an infinite number of times. While mathematics can be constructed in such a way to accommodate infity, in real world both propositions a equals b and a equals two times b cannot be true at the same time. I think this thought experiment shows that an actual infinity involves a logical contradiction.

At worse it's a paradox, the fact that mathematics can be constructed to accommodate infinity means it's not a logical contradiction.

No it doesn't at all. Mathematics accommodate the number -1, but that doesn't make it coherent to say that I an elephant has -3 legs.