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.

[Bust Nak]

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.

It might owe another elephant 3 legs? If it is incoherent then how can it have truth value, and if it doesn't have turth value, how can you rephrase it as A & A, and how then is it a logical contradiction? Surely you meant to say an elephant has -3 legs contradict the statement elephants cannot have less than zero legs?

[instantc]

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.

If it is incoherent then how can it have truth value

Incoherent sentences may have truth values, for example the proposition 'Dave is a married bachelor' involves a logical contradiction, and as a result, the sentence is untrue. Dave cannot be a married bachelor. Similarly infinity has two contradictory implications, which I showed you in my example, namely a equals b and a equals two times b. Surely you agree that those two statements are contradictory, as long as a and b represent something that actually exists in the real world?

Surely you meant to say an elephant has -3 legs contradict the statement elephants cannot have less than zero legs?

No I didn't, an elephant with -3 legs is simply an incoherent idea, it doesn't refer to anything, it's not a 'thing'.

[Bust Nak]

Incoherent sentences may have truth values, for example the proposition 'Dave is a married bachelor' involves a logical contradiction, and as a result, the sentence is untrue. Dave cannot be a married bachelor. Similarly infinity has two contradictory implications, which I showed you in my example, namely a equals b and a equals two times b. Surely you agree that those two statements are contradictory, as long as a and b represent something that actually exists in the real world?

No, not at all. I disagree that those two are contradictory. Trivially when a and b are both 0 and infinity. 0 surely exists in the real world, why not actual infinity?

No I didn't, an elephant with -3 legs is simply an incoherent idea, it doesn't refer to anything, it's not a 'thing'.

But how is it a contradiction?

[enaidealukal]

[Replying to post 360 by Zzyzx]

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.

No, it doesn't follow- since "that something cannot come from nothing" is neither a logical truth, nor entailed by "something exists".

Therefore, based on Occams razor, we reject all notions of something coming from nothing.

A misapplication of the razor. The razor pertains to concepts or entities that are redundant for the relevant explanandum- in other words, if we know that A is sufficient to account for B, positing C to account for B as well is redundant, and thus unparsimonious. But we don't know whether some sort of causation "ex nihilo" would be redundant or not, so ruling it out would be premature and unwarranted.

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.

No, that's not an axiom of logic. That's just a fact about classical causation.

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.

An infinite regression of causes is not only not a contradiction, its quite intuitively plausible. Without ruling out an infinite regression (something Christian apologists, from Aquinas to Craig, have hitherto not managed to do), the conclusion remains non-sequitur.

Therefore, using Occams razor, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.

Another misapplication of the razor.

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.

Science studies facts. To say that God (or to use your code word, "the creative entity") is not an object of scientific investigation, even in principle, is tantamount to admitting that God does not exist, as his existence is not factual- it is not a state of affairs.

[enaidealukal]

Re OP: No, there are no epistemically justifiable reasons for believing in the existence of (any) God. All of the arguments of natural theology for the existence of God (ontological, cosmological, teleological, etc) are either invalid or question-begging. There is a glaring absence of the necessary evidence (evidence which, to our best understanding, could not fail to exist if the event in question actually occurred) for the minimal scriptural/doctrinal claims of all extant forms of theism. Worse, the very conception of the theistic God (i.e. a transcendent creator-God) is patent nonsense- it is unintelligible, lacking any apparent truth-conditions, and appears to contain contradictory predicates. No such entity could exist, even in principle. Personal religious/mystical experiences (and anecdotes thereof) interpreted through subjective bias and unconfirmed by any external, objective means cannot constitute an epistemically justifiable basis for belief in anything.

But not only do these considerations rule out theism, they rule out agnosticism as well- agnosticism is unwarranted, given that theism is incoherent and its minimal truth-claims fail to admit of necessary evidence; there are no grounds for asserting that one does not/can not know whether (any) God exists. The only rationally tenable position is atheism.

[mwtech]

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.

I think you miss the point as to why it's a valid question. If someone claims that the reason we know god exists is because everything has a cause, and God was the cause, then it is a valid question to ask what caused God. Then apologists will say that God has no cause; that he is eternal and outdid the laws of physics because he created the laws of logic and physics. But there is no way to have evidence of that claim. It is simply made up because that would be what is necessary to make it true that God created the universe. I could make up any cause I wanted and give it those same attributes because it has to have them in order to exist. That won't make the cause actually exist. The first cause argument is not evidence for God, it is evidence for a first cause, that could be any number of things. Whether or not we have enough information available to even make a guess as to what the cause is, won't change the cause, and it doesn't make it the God of Abraham just because you picked him to be that cause.

[kenblogton]

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.

1.

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.

2.

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

Where, you meant the site you linked to?

Reply to 1. If there are no examples, it doesn't exist, like infinite regressions.
There is an uncaused cause, and only one; the only uncaused cause is God.

Reply to 2. When logic fails, try insult.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

Re OP: No, there are no epistemically justifiable reasons for believing in the existence of (any) God. All of the arguments of natural theology for the existence of God (ontological, cosmological, teleological, etc) are either invalid or question-begging. There is a glaring absence of the necessary evidence (evidence which, to our best understanding, could not fail to exist if the event in question actually occurred) for the minimal scriptural/doctrinal claims of all extant forms of theism. Worse, the very conception of the theistic God (i.e. a transcendent creator-God) is patent nonsense- it is unintelligible, lacking any apparent truth-conditions, and appears to contain contradictory predicates. No such entity could exist, even in principle. Personal religious/mystical experiences (and anecdotes thereof) interpreted through subjective bias and unconfirmed by any external, objective means cannot constitute an epistemically justifiable basis for belief in anything.

But not only do these considerations rule out theism, they rule out agnosticism as well- agnosticism is unwarranted, given that theism is incoherent and its minimal truth-claims fail to admit of necessary evidence; there are no grounds for asserting that one does not/can not know whether (any) God exists. The only rationally tenable position is atheism.

Here's proof of God:
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

[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.

I think you miss the point as to why it's a valid question.

I didn't say that it's not a valid question. I said that it is not an argument, nor does it have any implications on whether or not God exists.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 360 by Zzyzx]

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.

No, it doesn't follow- since "that something cannot come from nothing" is neither a logical truth, nor entailed by "something exists".

Therefore, based on Occams razor, we reject all notions of something coming from nothing.

A misapplication of the razor. The razor pertains to concepts or entities that are redundant for the relevant explanandum- in other words, if we know that A is sufficient to account for B, positing C to account for B as well is redundant, and thus unparsimonious. But we don't know whether some sort of causation "ex nihilo" would be redundant or not, so ruling it out would be premature and unwarranted.

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.

No, that's not an axiom of logic. That's just a fact about classical causation.

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.

An infinite regression of causes is not only not a contradiction, its quite intuitively plausible. Without ruling out an infinite regression (something Christian apologists, from Aquinas to Craig, have hitherto not managed to do), the conclusion remains non-sequitur.

Therefore, using Occams razor, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.

Another misapplication of the razor.

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.

Science studies facts. To say that God (or to use your code word, "the creative entity") is not an object of scientific investigation, even in principle, is tantamount to admitting that God does not exist, as his existence is not factual- it is not a state of affairs.

Reply to 1. If what I say is incorrect, give me one example of something coming from nothing>
Reply to 2. This is quibbling about which domain the truth lies in; whatever domain, it's still truth.
Reply to 3. The logic remains without a reasoned reply; by fiat doesn't qualify.
Reply to 4. Your reply indicates a lack of understanding of Science. Science studies the physical universe; the spiritual is outside the realm of Science.
kenblogton