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.

[mwtech]

Kenblogton, Your argument that something doesn't come from nothing because we have no examples would be similar to someone centuries ago saying bacteria don't exist because we have never sen examples of them. Before microbes were discovered, people assumed the reason for illness was punishment by God, much like you believe the cause of the universe is creation by God. When the first person suggested that God might not be the cause of illness, he/she would have likely been met with the same argument you gave. 'Of course God is what causes the illnesses. Can you give me an example of anything else causing an illness? Until you can give an example of something physical causing illness, the only logical conclusion is that God causes it. And then it turns out that we did find examples of "little bugs" causing illnesses. There is just as likely a chance that in the future, near or distant, someone somewhere might find an example of something coming from nothing, or some other explanation for the existence of the universe. Until that happens "we don't know how it got here" is the only logical, only truly honest answer.

[Zzyzx]

.

Your argument that something doesn't come from nothing because we have no examples would be similar to someone centuries ago saying bacteria don't exist because we have never sen examples of them. Before microbes were discovered, people assumed the reason for illness was punishment by God, much like you believe the cause of the universe is creation by God. When the first person suggested that God might not be the cause of illness, he/she would have likely been met with the same argument you gave. 'Of course God is what causes the illnesses. Can you give me an example of anything else causing an illness?

Exactly

The "something from nothing" "argument" is bogus. It assumes, without evidence, the "argument" AND proposes that its "solution" – a "god" – came from nothing or "always was" (neither of which can be shown to be anything more than conjecture, opinion, imagination, etc).

AND proponents attempt to shoehorn / coerce opponents into a position that they do not take (that something comes from nothing).

Since origins of the universe are unknown it is unwise to claim knowledge.

Until you can give an example of something physical causing illness, the only logical conclusion is that God causes it. And then it turns out that we did find examples of "little bugs" causing illnesses.

That is the fatal flaw in "god of the gaps" thinking (If we don't know an answer "it must be god"). As knowledge increases the "need" for "gods" decreases

[Bust Nak]

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?

The website is an appeal to logic and reason.

Well, a failure there of anyway, see my counter-argument above.

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.

And yet there you are, illogically, unscientifically and speculatively believing an uncaused cause in the absence of any examples of uncaused causes. And you want us to join you?

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...

Yet again you fail to see that you are in the exact same boat:

"To believe that something can exist without coming from something and that uncaused cause 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."

Does the following "logical necessity" work?
1. Something always comes from something; there are no examples of something from nothing.
2. The physical universe's "creative entity" must come from something, to avoid uncaused cause, of which there are NO examples.
3. And that something must also have come from something else. i.e. infinite regression.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 437 by Jashwell]

Jashwell said:
A. 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.

B. 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)

C. 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

kenblogton replied:
Reply to A. You said "I don't have to believe something can come from nothing, I just have to lack the belief that it can't."
Because you lack the belief that something can't come from nothing is irrelevant to this debate, just as my belief in God is irrelevant to this debate.
What's important to this debate is logic, reason, evidence, that proves/supports or disproves/removes support from some argument. Personal opinions are perhaps interesting but irrelevant to the debate.
You further said "You need to demonstrate that it's impossible. Otherwise, your argument is not logically conclusive."
That's like saying because there are no purple 6-legged green-striped hippos is no reason to believe that such do not exist, or that the failure to find green cheese on the moon is no reason to believe that it is not there.
We believe that things exist because they are discovered or invented, not because they exist in imagination; belief in imagined things is the domain of children's thinking.

Reply to B. I agree: if there are no examples of something coming from God, then there is no necessity for God. However, as I've shown, the physical universe, of logical necessity, came from an uncreated non-physical creative entity, whom most choose to call God.

Reply to C. If there are no examples of something, like something coming from nothing, that something is hypothetically possible, but until there are actual examples of something coming from nothing, that something does not exist in fact; it rather only exists in some speculative or imaginative realm.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

"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.

I agree. Here's one sound argument.
1. Since there are no actual examples of something coming from nothing, only speculation, it is best to reject such a notion and stick with the proven something always comes from something. The physical universe is the first something.

2. At http://space.about.com/od/astronomybasi ... iverse.htm, it states "Once it was understood that the Universe had a beginning, scientists began to ask “how did it come into existence, and what existed before it?”

Most scientists now believe that the answer to the first part of the question is that the Universe sprang into existence from a singularity -- a term physicists use to describe regions of space that defy the laws of physics. We know very little about singularities, but we believe that others probably exist in the cores of black holes.

The second part of the question, as to what existed before the Big Bang, has scientists baffled. By definition, nothing existed prior to the beginning, but that fact creates more questions than answers. For instance, if nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, what caused the singularity to be created in the first place?"

The physical begins at the big bang, and came from something. That something could not be physical, since the physical began at the big bang. A creative entity, which I term eternal spiritual God logically fills the bill.

3. An obvious question immediately arises: what created God? Some of the Science websites, for instance, raise this question. However, the question creates a logical impasse:
a. What created God?
b. What created the entity that created God?
c. What created that entity and so on ad infinitium?
In other words, infinite regress, of which there are no valid examples.
Therefore God is the only uncreated entity. And because God is uncreated and eternal, God does not violate the something coming from something, or nothing coming from nothing, logic.

I'm confident members of the atheist persuasion will disagree with the above. For those who do, I would ask that you not simply disagree but rather poke holes in the logic. Let's make this a debate, not an attack.
kenblogton

[instantc]

Since there are no actual examples of something coming from nothing, only speculation, it is best to reject such a notion and stick with the proven something always comes from something. The physical universe is the first something.

Let me point out that your argument begs the question, which means that you are prematurely assuming the conclusion in the premises. You say that (1) there are no examples of something coming from nothing, and (2) therefore the universe came from something. Premise (1) already presupposes that the universe came from something, otherwise how would you know that the physical universe is not such example of something coming from nothing?

[Bust Nak]

I'm confident members of the atheist persuasion will disagree with the above. For those who do, I would ask that you not simply disagree but rather poke holes in the logic. Let's make this a debate, not an attack.

Hello? I've poked holes and have been waiting for the debate to start for a week. Each time you brushed me off with the same link.

[enaidealukal]

3. An obvious question immediately arises: what created God? Some of the Science websites, for instance, raise this question. However, the question creates a logical impasse:
a. What created God?
b. What created the entity that created God?
c. What created that entity and so on ad infinitium?
In other words, infinite regress, of which there are no valid examples.
Therefore God is the only uncreated entity. And because God is uncreated and eternal, God does not violate the something coming from something, or nothing coming from nothing, logic.

I'm confident members of the atheist persuasion will disagree with the above. For those who do, I would ask that you not simply disagree but rather poke holes in the logic. Let's make this a debate, not an attack.
kenblogton

I don't see anyone attacking you. I do, however, see you repeating yourself while ignoring objections and counter-arguments. As I pointed out, given that you're offering a deductive argument for the existence of God, in order for the conclusion (that there was a first cause and that cause was God) to follow logically (i.e. necessarily), it needs to be necessary that there is a first cause, given the premises of your argument. However, if you have not shown that an infinite regress is logically impossible- not just unobserved or unprecedented- then it is NOT necessary that there was a first cause, because it is possible that there was an infinite regress. The possibility of an infinite regress prevents the argument from being deductively valid- which is why I've pointed out, several times now, that you need to conclusively rule out an infinite regress, by showing it to be a logical impossibility.

Simply pointing out that we have yet to observe one, and that we are thus unwarranted in positing one (which isn't entirely incorrect, so far as it goes), is not enough.

[kenblogton]

I'm confident members of the atheist persuasion will disagree with the above. For those who do, I would ask that you not simply disagree but rather poke holes in the logic. Let's make this a debate, not an attack.

Hello? I've poked holes and have been waiting for the debate to start for a week. Each time you brushed me off with the same link.

Where, or what, are the logical or evidence or reason holes with arguments for why they are holes, not merely statements that they are holes.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 447 by enaidealukal]

enaidealukal said:
"I don't see anyone attacking you. I do, however, see you repeating yourself while ignoring objections and counter-arguments. As I pointed out, given that you're offering a deductive argument for the existence of God, in order for the conclusion (that there was a first cause and that cause was God) to follow logically (i.e. necessarily), it needs to be necessary that there is a first cause, given the premises of your argument. However, if you have not shown that an infinite regress is logically impossible- not just unobserved or unprecedented- then it is NOT necessary that there was a first cause, because it is possible that there was an infinite regress. The possibility of an infinite regress prevents the argument from being deductively valid- which is why I've pointed out, several times now, that you need to conclusively rule out an infinite regress, by showing it to be a logical impossibility.

Simply pointing out that we have yet to observe one, and that we are thus unwarranted in positing one (which isn't entirely incorrect, so far as it goes), is not enough.

kenblogton replied:
You are the one who posits that an infinite regress is possible, without being able to give an example of such.
you say:
"Simply pointing out that we have yet to observe one, and that we are thus unwarranted in positing one (which isn't entirely incorrect, so far as it goes), is not enough."
kenblogton replied:
Since you admit there are no examples of infinite regresses, logically, that is enough. You are the one who maintains its true. Similarly, because you have yet to experience God does not mean that God does not exist
I can say to you similarly that simply because you don't accept the existence of God does not mean that God does not exist. Where re your arguments? And, as you point out, I have used deductive logic to establish the existence of God. Where is your logic or reason or evidence that argue against the existence of God?
kenblogton