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.

[instantc]

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.

You'd better substantiate that somehow. To me a equals b and a equals two times b seem logically contradictory if the values represent something in the real world. I mean, with every cycle planet A is doing one more orbit than planet B, and yet they have both done exactly equal amounts of orbiting for an infinite amount of time? Seems to me to be equally nonsensical to a rock that is no a rock. Your counter argument that mathematics is constructed in such a way that infinity can be made use of doesn't do much anything.

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

I haven't looked into it, but I'm assumuming that boundless does not mean infinitely wide?

[Bust Nak]

You'd better substantiate that somehow. To me a equals b and a equals two times b seem logically contradictory if the values represent something in the real world. I mean, with every cycle planet A is doing one more orbit than planet B, and yet they have both done exactly equal amounts of orbiting for an infinite amount of time? Seems to me to be equally nonsensical to a rock that is no a rock. Your counter argument that mathematics is constructed in such a way that infinity can be made use of doesn't do much anything.

No? I think Hilbert's Grand Hotel expresses it way better than I can. It doesn't seem to make sense how a full hotel can accomdate a bunch of extra guests, but it makes perfect sense in detail. I am also influenced by Cantor's work. Seeing his diagonal argument is probably as close to a revelation an atheist can get to.

I haven't looked into it, but I'm assumuming that boundless does not mean infinitely wide?

Boundless by itself doesn't mean that, one can move indefinitely across a globe without hitting and edge. Flat AND boundless does mean infinitely wide. We are pretty sure the universe is boundless. Last I checked, they are saying the universe is flat with a 0.4% margin of error.

[instantc]

I haven't looked into it, but I'm assumuming that boundless does not mean infinitely wide?

Boundless by itself doesn't mean that, one can move indefinitely across a globe without hitting and edge. Flat AND boundless does mean infinitely wide. We are pretty sure the universe is boundless. Last I checked, they are saying the universe is flat with a 0.4% margin of error.

You need to provide me a reference, where the theory and it's substance is explained in straight terms, so that I can comment on it. At face value, it is difficult to see what kind of evidence could convince us that the universe is infinitely wide. Then again, I am not a physicist.

[Bust Nak]

You need to provide me a reference, where the theory and it's substance is explained in straight terms, so that I can comment on it. At face value, it is difficult to see what kind of evidence could convince us that the universe is infinitely wide. Then again, I am not a physicist.

Start here:
http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

[instantc]

You need to provide me a reference, where the theory and it's substance is explained in straight terms, so that I can comment on it. At face value, it is difficult to see what kind of evidence could convince us that the universe is infinitely wide. Then again, I am not a physicist.

Start here:
http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

Having looked at a few sources, what seems to be suggested by physicists is not that the universe is infinitely wide, but that it has the potential to expand infinitely. That is not an example on an infinite set existing in reality.

Also, from the source you linked, "All we can truly conclude is that the universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe"

[Bust Nak]

Having looked at a few sources, what seems to be suggested by physicists is not that the universe is infinitely wide, but that it has the potential to expand infinitely. That is not an example on an infinite set existing in reality.

Also, from the source you linked, "All we can truly conclude is that the universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe"

"This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent." The universe will expand infinitely, we knew that a while ago when we realise everything is accerating away from us. This lastest development is that the universe is infinitely wide.

How exactly do you imagine that a flat and boundless area, can be anything other than infinite in size?

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 395 by Bust Nak]

Really how could the universe not be infinite? What happens when you get to the edge of the universe and take another step forward. Are you not in the universe anymore? Where are you? Is it like PacMan where you wrap around to the other side and start over again?

[Goat]

[Replying to post 395 by Bust Nak]

Really how could the universe not be infinite? What happens when you get to the edge of the universe and take another step forward. Are you not in the universe anymore? Where are you? Is it like PacMan where you wrap around to the other side and start over again?

Where is the end of the surface of a ball? How do you know the universe is finite but unbounded?

[kenblogton]

.

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.[/quote

Comments on 1. As previously stated, at http://www.doxa.ws/cosmological/No_ICR.html, it explains "The Infinite causal regress is an important issue in dealing with the cosmological argument, especially the Kalam version, and the argument form final cause. It basically means that any infinitely recurring causality for any event is impossible, since one never actually arrives at a cause. The importance of this argument applies not only to the now largely abandoned notion of an oscillating universe, but to any finite causes of space/time. This is because in light of the impossibility it means that the ultimate cause of the universe must be a final cause, that is to say, the cause behind all other causes, but itself uncaused and eternal. These are two major issues because they indicate why the ultimate cause of the universe has to be God. Since arbitrary necessities are impossible, the ultimate cause cannot be something which is itself contingent, such as an eternal singularity. The ultimate cause, or "final cause" must be God, since God is a logical necessity.

But lately skeptics have sought to deny these principles. They have actually been denying that infinite causal regress is impossible. This causes me to suspect that they don' really understand the concept. For no one truly understanding the notion of an eternally repeating cause could seriously consider that an infinite causal regress can actually exist."

If you go to the website, it demonstrates the illogic of the 3 arguments for infinite regress. In your reply, you give no logical refutation of what is said, you merely indicate you dislike the response.
Debate involves showing flaws in reasoning; blanket statements of disagreement suggest an absence of the ability to find flaws.

Comments on 2. You said "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."

You demonstrate NO thinking in 1, only insulting comments. Is that sort of thinking popular in atheistic circles? And where do your comments include reason or opposition viewpoints? The website I cite includes both reason and deals with several opposing viewpoints.

Comments on 3. It is only rational to ask where God comes from until you understand the illogic of the question because of infinite regress. You refuse to accept that God did not come into existence, but always was. So the problem is not with the concept of God but with the illogic of the question.

kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 398 by kenblogton]

Even if causality were objectively true of nature; and even if A theory were objectively true;
God cannot precede the beginning of time.
Therefore, in order for God to cause the Universe, it must not be the case that "cause must precede effect".
If cause doesn't have to precede effect, there's no problem with an infinite regress of causes, because that doesn't lead to a necessary infinite regress of time.


(This is of course ignoring the fact that there's no reason to believe causality is true of nature and there are reasons to believe A theory isn't)