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]

[Replying to post 417 by mwtech]

1. mwtech wrote:
"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."
kenblogton replied:
I say until there is confirming evidence supporting something coming from nothing, I will choose to disbelieve it, just as I will not believe in striped emerald green rhinos until I see evidence for one.

2. mwtech wrote:
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?"
kenblogton replied:
I said what I said about God because that's the approach you use. You make logically unsupported statements.
The fact that there have never been examples of something coming from nothing or of infinite regressions is ample proof for the logical necessity of God.
kenblogton asked:
On what basis do you say there is no God? What evidence or logic drives you to such a conclusion?
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 430 by kenblogton]

You don't mean disbelieve. You mean choose to believe the opposite. That is an argument from ignorance.

Normally it's the theists that are saying "absence of evidence isn't absence of evidence".

Regardless, your view that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence is sufficient to defeat your position, as well as your argument.

[kenblogton]

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?

The website is an appeal to logic and reason. But that particular logic and reason is not required. All that is required is one example of infinite regression. In the absence of such, it is illogical or speculative to believe such a case exists. There are no 6-legged chickens, and it is almost as illogical or speculative to believe that such exists. Science is based on evidence, not mere speculation or hypothesizing.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

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.

Second reply to A. Creator God exists before time (eternal), exists not in space, and consists neither of matter nor energy. Since something always comes from something and since the time-space-matter-energy didn't begin until somewhere between 8-14 billion years ago, God, OF LOGICAL NECESSITY, cannot be physical in any way. That would be like saying a physical God created the physical universe before the physical existed. I hope you can see the illogic of that.

Second reply to C. You said "There are also no examples of things that can create universes. According to your own logic, that makes the creator impossible."
But there is a universe which, because something always comes from something, had to come from something, a something which is non-physical. I can only think of God.
Do you have a better explanation?
kenblogton

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 417 by mwtech]

1. mwtech wrote:
"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."
kenblogton replied:
I say until there is confirming evidence supporting something coming from nothing, I will choose to disbelieve it, just as I will not believe in striped emerald green rhinos until I see evidence for one.

2. mwtech wrote:
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?"
kenblogton replied:
I said what I said about God because that's the approach you use. You make logically unsupported statements.
The fact that there have never been examples of something coming from nothing or of infinite regressions is ample proof for the logical necessity of God.
kenblogton asked:
On what basis do you say there is no God? What evidence or logic drives you to such a conclusion?
kenblogton

So I'm starting to see the problem here. You aren't arguing with anything I've said. You are arguing with what you expect me to believe. You are assuming I take the position of strong atheism and actively deny the possibility of the existence of a god or gods. I don't I think it improbable that a god exists, and I certainly don't actively believe that there is one because I have never seen any reason to.

I do not believe that there is no God, nor have I ever stated that I believe this. I believe ther might be, just as easily as there might be any other explanation, but I certainly do not believe the God exists. I reject the claim that he does.

I said what I said about God because that's the approach you use. You make logically unsupported statements.

What statement have I made that is logically unspupported? Are you claiming that it is illogical to say that it is premature to rule out the possibbility of something coming from nothing? I have said before, and I will say it again for clarity sake. I do not make the claim that the universe came from nothing. It many have very well come from somehting. I don't know whether it came from something or nothing, and you don't either. What I don't believe is that it is impossible for something to come from nothng. I have no reason to doubt the possiblity of this. There are many things that are possible that I have never personally witnessed.

I say until there is confirming evidence supporting something coming from nothing, I will choose to disbelieve it, just as I will not believe in striped emerald green rhinos until I see evidence for one.

this doesn't address the question and you have again missed the point entirely. Let me try to show you the spectrum of belief that we are discussing
1) Something came from nothing
2) something might have come from nothing and it might have come from something. We don't know
3) Something has never and will never come from nothing.

I do not believe 1 or 3 to be true. You are basing your argument for god off of 3 and refuting my arguments as if I was arguing from the 1st position when my statements have all been what 2 says. To say that the only options are believing that something definitely came from nothing or that something can never come from nothing is creating a false dichotomy. The only honest option is that we can't know that it has, and we can't know that it hasn't. Knowing that, I ask again....Is it correct to say that there are definitely no periwinkle planets in existence? If not, why? We have never seen a periwinkle planet. By your logic (and saying this I actually mean this is a direct parallel to the logic you presented) because we have never seen an example of a periwinkle planet, we are justified in claiming that ther have never been and will never be any examples of periwinkle planets, and are now free to base further assumptions off of that claim.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 430 by kenblogton]

You don't mean disbelieve. You mean choose to believe the opposite. That is an argument from ignorance.

Normally it's the theists that are saying "absence of evidence isn't absence of evidence".

Regardless, your view that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence is sufficient to defeat your position, as well as your argument.

To believe that something can come from nothing and that infinite regress is possible, in the absence of any examples of such, is truly an argument from ignorance. And absence of evidence is evidence of absence of the existence of something.
In meteorology, I can see an actual tornado, or the effects of that tornado, to believe that one has occurred. The physical universe is, of logical necessity, the effect of a non-physical creative entity which I refer to as God. The logical necessities are:
1. Something always comes from something; there are no examples of something from nothing.
2. The something that caused the physical universe to come into existence must, of logical necessity, be non-physical.
3. The physical universe's creative entity must be one and uncreated, to avoid infinite regress, of which there are NO examples.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

A. 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.

B. 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.

Reply to A. What's the problem with my deductive arguments?

Reply to B. I don't have to rule out infinite regressions or something coming from nothing. Until you can give examples of them, they must be treated as mere speculations, like the Easter Bunny.
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 430 by kenblogton]

You don't mean disbelieve. You mean choose to believe the opposite. That is an argument from ignorance.
Normally it's the theists that are saying "absence of evidence isn't absence of evidence".
Regardless, your view that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence is sufficient to defeat your position, as well as your argument.

To believe that something can come from nothing and that infinite regress is possible, in the absence of any examples of such, is truly an argument from ignorance. And absence of evidence is evidence of absence of the existence of something.
In meteorology, I can see an actual tornado, or the effects of that tornado, to believe that one has occurred. The physical universe is, of logical necessity, the effect of a non-physical creative entity which I refer to as God. The logical necessities are:
1. Something always comes from something; there are no examples of something from nothing.
2. The something that caused the physical universe to come into existence must, of logical necessity, be non-physical.
3. The physical universe's creative entity must be one and uncreated, to avoid infinite regress, of which there are NO examples.
kenblogton

I don't have to believe something can come from nothing, I just have to lack the belief that it can't.

You need to demonstrate that it's impossible. Otherwise, your argument is not logically conclusive. No amount of things that do appear to come from things is proof that things must come from other things.

It is like me saying "while there are many examples of things coming from other things, there are no examples of things coming from God, therefore nothing can come from God". This is your logic, and defeats your position.

(And no, saying "The Universe" would be begging the question - I could easily say the same thing in response to your quest for examples)

1 is a non sequitur in the form of an argument from ignorance.
"There are no examples therefore it's not possible"
2 is not a logical necessity. esp. given closed timelike curves
3 need not be one, nor is it necessary to be creative, nor is it necessary to avoid infinite regress

[FarWanderer]

Creator God exists before time (eternal), exists not in space, and consists neither of matter nor energy. Since something always comes from something and since the time-space-matter-energy didn't begin until somewhere between 8-14 billion years ago, God, OF LOGICAL NECESSITY, cannot be physical in any way. That would be like saying a physical God created the physical universe before the physical existed. I hope you can see the illogic of that.

You are equivocating our universe with "the physical".

Our most respected cosmologists are working on a variety of theories that extend "the physical" beyond our 14-billion year old universe.

There is absolutely no logical necessity that things independent of our universe must be non-physical.

[enaidealukal]

Reply to A. What's the problem with my deductive arguments?

Go back and read the last couple of my posts that were directed towards you, which you've yet to respond to. I don't want to just repeat myself. If you want to know, go look.

Reply to B. I don't have to rule out infinite regressions or something coming from nothing. Until you can give examples of them, they must be treated as mere speculations, like the Easter Bunny.
kenblogton

Outside of the context of a deductive argument? There may be some truth to that. But a deductive argument is, like mathematics, a matter of logical/necessary connections between the premises and the conclusion- if it is possible that there was an infinite regression of causes, then it cannot be necessary that there was a first cause, and the conclusion "there was a first cause/cause of the universe, and it is God" does not follow (necessarily) from the premises, and the argument is deductively invalid. This is like logic 101- as I said, not only have you failed to adequately defend your argument, you appear to not be understanding the nature of your argument and what is required for that type of argument to succeed (in general), on a fairly basic level.