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.

[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.

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.

It's not a valid question, because as I've shown, God is, and must be, the uncaused cause to avoid the infinite regress.
kenblogton

[Zzyzx]

.

It's not a valid question, because as I've shown, God is, and must be, the uncaused cause to avoid the infinite regress.

Perhaps you THINK you have SHOWN that jumble of words; however, you certainly have not shown me (and presumably others) any such thing or anything even close.

Is that sort of thinking popular or accepted in church or in Holy Huddle? It is not viewed with credibility in reasoned debate that includes opposition viewpoints.

When people purport to know about invisible, undetectable, supernatural entities it is very rational to ask "Where did it come from (if not from imagination)?" That applies to all the thousands of proposed "gods" -- and most (Theist or not) recognize that they are/were imaginary. However, Theists seem to believe that their favorite God is an exception -- that they have chosen the only "real god" from the multitudes available for worship.

[enaidealukal]

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

1. That would be irrelevant- I didn't state that something can come from nothing, only that it cannot does not follow from the fact that something exists, which was what you had claimed. "Follows from" means is logically entailed by. But that something exists does not, in itself, entail that something cannot come from nothing.

2. Quibbling? Perhaps. We still don't want to be making false assertions about what is or isn't "well-accepted" in a particular field.

3. The logic remains? Sure- without successfully ruling out an infinite regression of causes, First Cause arguments are logically invalid. So I suppose the logic remains invalid. Apologists appear to think that merely showing that the alternative to God's existence leads to an infinite regress counts as showing that the alternative is false- except, there is nothing self-contradictory about an infinite regress of causes. Not only that, its far more intuitively and metaphysically defensible than an uncaused first cause (which is, upon close inspection, an incoherent concept in itself). At least some apologists, like Craig, at least try to rule out the infinite regress- having at least the sense to realize that failing to do so is fatal for the validity of their arguments- but so far, I haven't seen you even make such an attempt, wishing rather to rule out the infinite regress by fiat (irony alert).

4. If science could not study "the spiritual", even in principle, that doesn't suggest that what I said was false, only that "the spiritual" does not exist- it is not factual, and isn't comprised of any state of affairs.

[enaidealukal]

[instantc]

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?

0 doesn't exist in the real world, it's the number we use when there is none of something, in other words, it describes things that do not exist.

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?

I didn't say that it is a contradiction, I said that it is incoherent.

[Bust Nak]

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.

That's circular argument, see how easily it can be turned back on you.

There are no example of uncaused causes, it doesn't exist, like God.
There is an infinite regressions, and only one; the regression that lead up to the present universe.

Reply to 2. When logic fails, try insult.

That's terrible advice. When logic fails, try changing you position. I ask again, where have you shown that infinite regression is a logical fallacy?

[Bust Nak]

0 doesn't exist in the real world, it's the number we use when there is none of something, in other words, it describes things that do not exist.

A basket with no apples in it, is not a manifestation of the number zero? By that reasoning, 1 doesn't exist in the real world either.

I didn't say that it is a contradiction, I said that it is incoherent.

But you did bring it up when I said "that mathematics can be constructed to accommodate infinity means it's not a logical contradiction." If an elephant with -3 legs isn't a contrdiction, how is it supposed to counter my statement?

[instantc]

0 doesn't exist in the real world, it's the number we use when there is none of something, in other words, it describes things that do not exist.

A basket with no apples in it, is not a manifestation of the number zero? By that reasoning, 1 doesn't exist in the real world either.

You could be right, depending on semantics. However, this is just unnecessary derailment. Consider what I said, "a equals b and a equals two times b are contradictory propositions as long as a and b represent something that exists in the real world". If a and b are both zero, then they literally do not represent anything. For example, if a represents the number of apples I have in my bag, and I have zero apples in my bag, then a does not represent anything that exists in the real world. Do you agree?

I didn't say that it is a contradiction, I said that it is incoherent.

But you did bring it up when I said "that mathematics can be constructed to accommodate infinity means it's not a logical contradiction." If an elephant with -3 legs isn't a contrdiction, how is it supposed to counter my statement?

Fair enough, that wasn't an apt response on my part. However, mathematics is an abstract language, there's no reason in principle why it couldn't accommodate something that would be logically contradictory in the real world, just like it can accommodate concepts that could not coherently represent anything in the real world, such as the number -3.

[mwtech]

[Bust Nak]

You could be right, depending on semantics. However, this is just unnecessary derailment. Consider what I said, "a equals b and a equals two times b are contradictory propositions as long as a and b represent something that exists in the real world". If a and b are both zero, then they literally do not represent anything. For example, if a represents the number of apples I have in my bag, and I have zero apples in my bag, then a does not represent anything that exists in the real world. Do you agree?

Or you could have an infinite number of apples?

Fair enough, that wasn't an apt response on my part. However, mathematics is an abstract language, there's no reason in principle why it couldn't accommodate something that would be logically contradictory in the real world, just like it can accommodate concepts that could not coherently represent anything in the real world, such as the number -3.

I think mathematics and logic are one in the same, not ever two sides of the same coin but same side of the same coin - they are both abstract rules of deduction. Mathematics can absolutely accommodate things that doesn't actually exists in the real world, but I don't think it can accommodate logical contradictory at all.

What do you think of the lastest in cosmology that think the universe is flat and boundless?