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]

.

Of course God precedes the existence of time . . .

Kindly substantiate this claim with something more than additional conjecture.

[kenblogton]

.
A.

Second reply to 1. How can you expect anyone to believe in something whose existence you cannot give an example of?

Religion promoters / priests / prophets have been persuading people for thousands of years to believe in something for which they cannot provide an example of existence. Thus, any church congregation indicates that people will believe without examples (or evidence).

B.

Science studies the physical: space, time, matter, energy. The spiritual is not physical, so not subject to scientific inquiry.

Agreed. Science does not study the "spiritual" or imaginary or fictional.

What "non-scientific evidence" can be presented to indicate the presence / existence of "spiritual" entities or events?

Will "take my word for it (or his word)" suffice?

Are unverifiable opinions, claims and stories by ancient unidentified writers to be considered as evidence?

Are unverifiable testimonials about personal emotional / psychological episodes credible evidence?

Is religious dogma, doctrine, tradition adequate evidence? If so, which religion and why?

Is conjecture that "goddidit" non-scientific evidence?

What other evidence is there to demonstrate the truth and accuracy of "spiritual" claims?

C.

If you are only willing to accept physical reality, then of course you are only able to deal with a "straw man" concept of God, who is not physical but Spirit. by both logic and the Bible.

To avoid the "straw man concept of God", kindly provide an accurate, verifiable, definition, description and identification of the "god" (among thousands proposed / worshiped / etc) to which you refer (beyond platitudes and conjecture).

Reply to A. I have shown the logical necessity of God based on the inability of atheists to give any evidence of something coming from nothing. So God can be defined as the logically necessary Creator of the Physical Universe.
I have also given scientific evidence of brain areas where mystics commune with God. There is also lots of evidence of miraculous healings which defy scientific understanding.

Reply to B. What sort of evidence would you be willing to accept regarding the spiritual, other than scientific evidence?

Reply to C. God is the Creator of the Physical Universe, of logical necessity, since the universe did not simply spontaneously arise because, as stated in A, there are NO examples of something coming from nothing.

kenblogton

[kenblogton]

.

Of course God precedes the existence of time . . .

Kindly substantiate this claim with something more than additional conjecture.

The Creator of the Physical Universe must, of logical necessity, be non-physical, since the physical: space, TIME, matter & energy begin with the dense singularity/big bang. And remember, there are NO examples of something coming from nothing.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

At http://www.doxa.ws/cosmological/No_ICR.html, it deals in an excellent manner with infinite regress. In part, it states "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.

Again, that's the claim. Prove it.

They have actually been denying that infinite causal regress is impossible.

Why wouldn't we? Ever proof I've seen ends up being question begging.

The website deals effectively with 3 objections to arguments for infinite regress. If you're interested, please check it out.

I did, and found the same quibble:
"It's not possible because you can't get to here."
"Hibert doesn't believe in actual infinity."
"There is no grand cause for an infinite regression."

Go to the website and to valid arguments (3 proofs) against 3 arguments for infinite regress, if you're really interested in proof.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

If there are no examples of something, like infinite regression? You CANNOT say it exists. You can certainly speculate that somewhere, somehow an example will be found, but until then you cannot

For me to reject the first premise of your argument, "something CANNOT come from nothing, so it had to have been created" I DO NOT need to show that "something from nothing" exists. But for me to accept it, you have to COMPLETELY rule it put as a possibility. That's what I am saying about the unimaginably massive size of the universe. You CANNOT say that "since there are no examples of something coming from nothing, that cannot and has never happened. Therefore the universe had a creator." Until you have shown that there are no examples in the remaining 99.99999999% of the universe, and that there never have been in all time, you can't make an argument based on the impossibility of that happening.
Since you keep seeming to miss this, let me put it in the clearest words I possibly can.

I am NOT saying:
The universe definitely came from nothing, even though there are no examples.

I AM saying:
The basis of your argument (something cannot come from nothing, so it must have been created) is fallacious because you have not shown definitively that something CANNOT come from nothing. This leaves us at a position of not knowing whether or not the universe could have come from nothing. The same way I can't assume it did with a lack of an example, you cannot claim that it did not without searching the other 99.999999999% for examples and all of time and still coming up lacking. As long as the concept is open to speculation, and not ruled impossible, your first argument, "something CANNOT come from nothing," can not be accepted as truth, nor can any assumptions that follow that first premise.

Using your logic, I need no proof of the existence of God, I merely have to state that God is!
kenblogton

[Zzyzx]

.

Using your logic, I need no proof of the existence of God, I merely have to state that God is!

That is all that god proponents CAN do -- make or repeat unverified / unverifiable claims, testimonials and stories (theirs or others')

Many then seem befuddled when their unsupported assertions and assumptions are not accepted by those who are not gullible and who require verifiable evidence upon which to make informed decisions.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 414 by kenblogton]

No, because your argument requires that things MUST come from something, something you have to show.

He isn't required to show that things MIGHT come from nothing, because you have to eliminate that possibility for your argument to actually work.

For an argument to be logically valid, it's conclusion must NECESSARILY follow it's premises.

"You haven't given an example of something that can come from nothing" doesn't necessarily lead to "something can't come from nothing", this is an argument from ignorance.

[mwtech]

If there are no examples of something, like infinite regression? You CANNOT say it exists. You can certainly speculate that somewhere, somehow an example will be found, but until then you cannot

For me to reject the first premise of your argument, "something CANNOT come from nothing, so it had to have been created" I DO NOT need to show that "something from nothing" exists. But for me to accept it, you have to COMPLETELY rule it put as a possibility. That's what I am saying about the unimaginably massive size of the universe. You CANNOT say that "since there are no examples of something coming from nothing, that cannot and has never happened. Therefore the universe had a creator." Until you have shown that there are no examples in the remaining 99.99999999% of the universe, and that there never have been in all time, you can't make an argument based on the impossibility of that happening.
Since you keep seeming to miss this, let me put it in the clearest words I possibly can.

I am NOT saying:
The universe definitely came from nothing, even though there are no examples.

I AM saying:
The basis of your argument (something cannot come from nothing, so it must have been created) is fallacious because you have not shown definitively that something CANNOT come from nothing. This leaves us at a position of not knowing whether or not the universe could have come from nothing. The same way I can't assume it did with a lack of an example, you cannot claim that it did not without searching the other 99.999999999% for examples and all of time and still coming up lacking. As long as the concept is open to speculation, and not ruled impossible, your first argument, "something CANNOT come from nothing," can not be accepted as truth, nor can any assumptions that follow that first premise.

Using your logic, I need no proof of the existence of God, I merely have to state that God is!
kenblogton

I would say that is a gross misunderstanding of my logic. Do you not see the problem with this statement?
"something cannot come from nothing." How do you know it CANNOT? Have you checked everywhere and every event and shown this to be the case every time? How can you possibly conclude that something cannot come from nothing.

I don't know what logic you pretend to follow by saying you simply need to state that God 'is'. I explicity said that you cannot make such ridiculous claims without conclusive evidence supporting the conclusion. This is just an incorrect, one-liner post and gives no explaination as to what you think is wrong with the logic. Do you disagree that it is incorrect to base an argument on the statement that something CANNOT happen when you do not know that it cannot?

[mwtech]

Reply to C. God is the Creator of the Physical Universe, of logical necessity, since the universe did not simply spontaneously arise because, as stated in A, there are NO examples of something coming from nothing.

kenblogton

If I were to say to you that there are no periwinkle colored planets, and my reason for that was that no one has ever been able to provide an example of a periwinkle planet, wouls you accept that claim to be the truth? Furthermore, if I went on to make some more points that didn't logically follow even if it were true that there were no periwinkle planets, would you accept the conclusion I come to? That is exactly the same position we are in regarding your claim that there is no evidence of something coming from nothing. you don't know that there is no evidence anywhere in the universe because we have only been able to observe a fraction of a percent of what is even visible to us. Everything that you base off of that assumption can justly be ignored becuase your first claim (something cannot come from nothing) is not shown to be true.

[Bust Nak]

Go to the website and to valid arguments (3 proofs) against 3 arguments for infinite regress, if you're really interested in proof.

I did that the first time round, and found the usual quibbles, these are taken from the website you linked to:

"It's not possible because you can't get to here."
"Hibert doesn't believe in actual infinity."
"There is no grand cause for an infinite regression."

None of which proves that infinite regression is impossible, or valid for that matter.

The first is question begging. It presumes there is a beginning to "get here" from.
The second is an appeal to authority. It seems Hibert was wrong about the size of the universe.
The third is a red herring. So what if there is no grand cause?

Now are you going to debate that or brush it under the carpet for a third time?