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.

[wiploc]

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.

We can't give an example, so it must not exist? Okay. Give us an example of something that exists before time. If you can't do that, creator gods do not exist.

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.

There are also no examples of things that can create universes. According to your own logic, that makes the creator impossible.

[enaidealukal]

[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.

Nail meet hammer. Kenblogton clearly isn't understanding the nature of his own argument, including what steps are required in order for the argument to succeed. As it stands, the argument is eminently unsound- the premises required for the conclusion to follow at all have not been substantiated, including and especially ruling out an infinite regression of causes. Nor should we hold our breath here for him to make any improvements; the cosmological argument is just a bad argument, no matter how you slice it.

[kenblogton]

.

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.

I have given you good reason to believe in God, and, using your logic, good reasons to not believe in atheism. You say "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." I'll briefly summarize how your atheistic logic is befuddled and unsupported:
1. There are no examples of something coming from nothing, which is crucial for the case of atheism. Most would see the refusal to believe in something which has never occurred or been demonstrated as sensible and mandatory, except, it seems, atheists.
2. There are no examples of infinite regressions, which again is vital for the atheistic case. In spite of this, atheists continue to maintain their beliefs. Is this faith or delusion?
There are 2 unsupported assertions/assumptions. Need I say more?
kenblogton

[enaidealukal]

I have given you good reason to believe in God, and, using your logic, good reasons to not believe in atheism.

Deductively invalid arguments are not "good reasons"- but that you think they are probably explains alot here.

1. There are no examples of something coming from nothing, which is crucial for the case of atheism. Most would see the refusal to believe in something which has never occurred or been demonstrated as sensible and mandatory, except, it seems, atheists.
2. There are no examples of infinite regressions, which again is vital for the atheistic case. In spite of this, atheists continue to maintain their beliefs. Is this faith or delusion?
There are 2 unsupported assertions/assumptions. Need I say more?
kenblogton

Yes, because this is simply irrelevant hand-waving. Your argument requires, in order for the conclusion to logically follow, that you completely rule out infinite regressions as not just unprecedented or unobserved, but impossible/unfeasible. Simply saying "well we've never seen one so its not reasonable" isn't enough for a deductive argument- you need to conclusively rule out the mere possibility of an infinite regress, else your conclusion is non-sequitur. Well, it'll still be non-sequitur for other reasons, but you would've at least shored up ONE of the glaring, fatal flaws in your argument.

But again, nobody here is likely to hold their breath- brilliant minds have trying to come up with a defensible version of the cosmological argument for hundreds and hundreds of years, and hitherto been unsuccessful.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 414 by kenblogton]

1. 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.

2. Nail meet hammer. Kenblogton clearly isn't understanding the nature of his own argument, including what steps are required in order for the argument to succeed. As it stands, the argument is eminently unsound- the premises required for the conclusion to follow at all have not been substantiated, including and especially ruling out an infinite regression of causes. Nor should we hold our breath here for him to make any improvements; the cosmological argument is just a bad argument, no matter how you slice it.

Reply to 1. I can give you umpteen examples of something coming from something. For instance, children from parents or automobiles from manufactured components. Now, how about just one example of something coming from nothing? Only one! Give up? I thought so.
And by the way, it logically follows that if there are no examples of something, it doesn't exist. To date, there are no examples of abominable snowmen or of something coming from nothing, and, truthfully, I believe there never will be.

Reply to 2. My argument succeeds with no examples of something coming from nothing, and it fails if there are such examples. Thus far, only success!
By the way, to merely state that an argument is flawed or invalid is the weakest possible form of argument. The flaws or invalidities must be pointed out; imperious statements such as "As it stands, the argument is eminently unsound- the premises required for the conclusion to follow at all have not been substantiated, including and especially ruling out an infinite regression of causes." are appeals to faith, not to logic or reason.
For instance, where are the examples of infinite regressions? Or where are the flaws?
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 422 by kenblogton]

1) Time literally flows
2) An infinite regression of causes does not exist (e.g. is impossible)
3) The beginning of time had a cause (e.g. Causality is an innate "metaphysical law")
4) An additional dimension exists through which causality progresses
5) This dimension maps to time*
6) (*) God's first cause specifically does not map to time


vs:

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 424 by kenblogton]

I can give you umpteen examples of something not coming from God.
I can give you umpteen examples of things existing that aren't God.
I can give you umpteen examples of temporal causation.

You can't give me one example of something coming from God. (The Universe would be begging the question - it'd be like if I said the same for your "coming from nothing")

You can't give me one example of something existing that is God. (God would be begging the question)

You can't give me one example of atemporal causation. (The First Cause would be begging the question)

(These are analogies and not serious arguments. All of these are arguments from ignorance of the same form you commit)

[mwtech]

I have given you good reason to believe in God, and, using your logic, good reasons to not believe in atheism.

This is false. You have been told several times by several people why your agruments are illogical and unsound. Your refusal to accept this does not make them convincing. You keep talking about "using your logic you would have to believe this or that," which just demonstrates either that you do not understand the logic that was presented, or you are being dishonest and actually know that the logic doesn't lead us to the opposite conclusion that we used it to come to. If you are going to claim that our logic is unsound, please give a reason why, that does not involve saying the same thing over and over about examples. It has been thoroughly shown to be an invalid argument.

You say "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." I'll briefly summarize how your atheistic logic is befuddled and unsupported:
1. There are no examples of something coming from nothing, which is crucial for the case of atheism. Most would see the refusal to believe in something which has never occurred or been demonstrated as sensible and mandatory, except, it seems, atheists.

You are completely ignoring the plethora of posts addressing why this reasoning is unsound. Furthermore, you fail to acknowledge the fact that atheism in no way relies on the positive belief that "something came from nothing". The only time that statement is an issue is when you rule every possibility but God impossible based on the claim that "something cannot come from nothing." For the reasons stated in several previous posts, this claim has not been shown to be true, and cannot be accepted as valid evidence in favor of God's existence. I do not need to believe that something camoe from nothing for the existence of the universe to make sense. The options are not limited to "something came from nothing" or "YHWH created it all" there are other proposed explanations, and millions of explanations no one has ever thought of, one of which is presumably the truth. Refusal to rule out the possiblility that it could be possible for something to come from nothing requires no more example than my refusal to rule out the possibility that there is a periwinkle colored planet somewhere in the universe.

2. There are no examples of infinite regressions, which again is vital for the atheistic case. In spite of this, atheists continue to maintain their beliefs. Is this faith or delusion?

The existence of infinite regression is not essential to the atheistic case. It is essential to the argument against the immunity of god to an infinite regression. The infinite regression only becomes an issue when you start your exploration for a cosmological cause with the assumption that it was created by a creator. If there was no creator, there is no need to ponder who created the creator.

There are 2 unsupported assertions/assumptions. Need I say more?
kenblogton

There is a whole lot more you need to say if you expect anyone to take your claims seriously. You have as of yet failed to produce any argument that isn't inherently flawed, isn't based on false presumtions or premature conclusions, or that logically leads to the conclusion that God exists. You have also failed to succesfully give any reason why the arguments of your opponents are invalid, and the only argument you can seem to make is the restatement of your initial points and asking for an unneccesary example. I highly suggest using a different tactic if you epect this debate to move forward or your claims to be taken seriously. So yes, further elaboration is absolutely required if you expect someone to believe that
1) Something cannot come from nothing
2) That that matters at all
3) That God is immune from an infinite regression for any reason other than neccesity for argument's sake
4) That a God exists and that it is your specific God.

[kenblogton]

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.

Until there is an example of a periwinkle planet, I would certainly believe that such does not exist, as, I'm sure, most people would. To believe in periwinkle planets or in something coming from nothing, in the absence of any supporting evidence, takes great faith.
I believe in dinosaurs not because someone tells me there were once great monstrous lizards on the earth. I believe because of the fossil evidence for dinosaurs. Science is based on evidence. Something believed on the basis of no evidence is speculative theory.
kenblogton

[mwtech]

Reply to 1. I can give you umpteen examples of something coming from something. For instance, children from parents or automobiles from manufactured components. Now, how about just one example of something coming from nothing? Only one! Give up? I thought so.
And by the way, it logically follows that if there are no examples of something, it doesn't exist. To date, there are no examples of abominable snowmen or of something coming from nothing, and, truthfully, I believe there never will be.

I will state this one last time under the assumption that in your attempt to respond to everyone else, you simply missed this post.

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, would 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.

Unless you can give even a single reason why your claim about something coming from nothing is any different from the claim that there are no periwinkle planets, I cannot take you seriously and I doubt anyone else will either. You cant expect a productive debate if you ignore your opponents rebuttals and continue to make the same argument time and time again just asking why they can't see the logic behind it. Also, see the similar analogy provided by wiploc and feel free to explain why your lack of example is any different than ours.