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]

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

You merely reposted the same argument I had already pointed out the flaws in. If anything, this constitutes evidence for my point that arguments for the existence of God are, without exception, invalid or question-begging (as your argument is yet another example of this). All the problems I pointed out still stand- most particularly that without showing that an infinite regression of causes could not be the case, the conclusion of your argument is simply non-sequitur.

[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]

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.

To say that because you have never seen something, therefore it does not and cannot exist is the epitome of a premature conclusion. In our galaxy alone, there are an estimated two to three trillion planets. With at least 200 galaxies out there, we are talking about at least 10^24 planets in our observable universe. Written out, that's 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets. Then you have different kinds of stars and nebulas and all the dark matter ("dark matter" is just a placeholder for "unknown stuff" we don't even know if it's matter, let alone what kind. It could be anything.) and whatever may be outside our observable universe. It would be arrogant to claim that, in all of that, you know that nothing doesn't, and has never come from something, because you have never seen an example of it here on Earth, which takes up only one hundred billionth of the known universe. If this is the only point you have holding up your argument, then you don't really have a convincing argument.

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.

](*,) Okay, this has been refuted several times now, but I will try again. As it has been stated, your statement, "If we accept that something exists, it follows that something cannot come from nothing." is false. This is not something that logically follows. And as I previously stated, because there are no examples of something coming from nothing in our 0.000000001% of the known universe, does not mean it has never happened. Let me be clear, This is not an argument that the universe came from nothing. It is a rebuttal to the claim that the universe could not have come from nothing. You cannot rule out that possibility.
Furthermore, you are not using Occam's razor correctly here. Occam's razor states that "entities should not be multiplied unnecisarily." If your two options are 'maybe something came from nothing' and 'maybe God created something' then the option with the least amount of things involved is the simplist. Occam's razor would make something coming from nothing more likely because it involves less entities. The only time the razor will ever support a God is if the alternate involves more than one God. But, occam's razor, while it can sometimes be useful, is not an epistimological tool that always leads you to the truth. It is helpful in making assumptions about what could be most likely, but it is not always correct. You shouldn't use it as evidence in an argument for the truth of a claim.

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.

Since your first point is flawed, the following points don't really have anything to stand on, but I'll point out how this one is wrong to. All the change implies is a beginning, which implies a cause. It says nothing as to what the cause is or how the cause behaves, or anything about the cause. It means there was a cause, but not even that the cause was a thing. The existence of change alone cannot take you that far. Your statement, "A creative entity is needed to begin, or cause, a changing something" is false. Your assumption that this universe was preceeded by nothing is a premature conclusion. We simply cannot know that.

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.

You have not even yet shown that the reason the universe exists is because of something, let alone that it is an entity. You have not demonstrated that the cause cannot be created. You have only stated that it must not be able to or there would be an infinite regress, which just invokes special pleading for God and says he is immune to the regress, but with no reason other than "he has to be to make sense"
Not only is it special pleading, and fallicious, but an infinite regress isn't inherently a problem that needs a solution.

The point I want to make is that, although it makes our brains hurt, there is nothing inherently contradictory about an infinite regress. Nobody has shown that, if an infinite heirarchy of causes occurred, then both A and not-A would be true. We havent demonstrated that, with an infinite regress, some basic piece of knowledge about the world would be contradicted. Perhaps someone will produce such a contradiction in the future, but until then we cannot make a sound argument by saying which leads to an infinite regress, and is therefore logically impossible.

None of the evidence you have shown supports an inability to change. Even if there was a cause to the universe, and that cause had remained unchanged until the universe began, the universe could somehow change the cause after that point. The existence of the universe could have completely erased the cause from existence. There is no way we could know the changability of the cause based on any of your arguments. You can only declare it unchanging if you already assume it is the thing you're trying to prove, which I do not.

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.

There is no basis for the assumption that becuase the cause caused the universe it shares no attributes of the universe. You can't assume that it is non-physical, immaterial, invisible, or timeless just because the universe is physical, material, visible and finite. There is nothing to indicate that a cuase, if there is one, is in some way inverse to the universe. To claim that the cause is intelligent because the universe is designed, you would first need to prove that the universe was indeed designed. I don't think it was. Many of the "marvelous designs" are explained by natural selection. Many of the cosmological constants are explained the same way, and some of them simply could not be any way other than what they are. The law of conservation of matter and energy is a physical law. Physical laws didn't exist before the universe existed. The physical laws that exist now have nothing to do with the cause of the universe. If the cause can change, which you haven't succesfully ruled out, then it could currently be bound by any physical laws. Or, the law of conservation of matter and energy might not always apply, as Bust Nak has pointed out with his Virtual Particle example. Like I said before, we don't know what goes on all over the universe. You would have to justify a lot of your points before succesfully making claims about the nature of your proposed cause, and do so without using confirmation bias to support what you already believed to be true.

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.

The limitations of science has absolutely no effect on what the cause is if there is one. Whatever the cause is/was, it is/was thta regardless of whether or not science can currently observer it. You have not proven that the cause is an entity, or that it is not physical. These remain unbased assumptions. There is no reason to conclude that scientific methods will never be able to tell us anything about the cause of the universe. That is just another premature conclusion. Even if everything you said in your point 4 was true, it does not support the existence of God.
All of your arguments, even if they weren't flawed, only support a cause. They are not arguments supporting God's existence. But they are flawed and don't even support a 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

This is just another false statement. You have not shown that God is, or that he must be, the uncaused cause. You have failed to even show that there must be a cause. Your insistence that you have succeeded in doing so doesn't change the reality that your arguments are flawed and don't lead to the conslusions that you propose they do.

[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?