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]

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?

At http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-cause ... -bang.html, it states:
"For many "God caused the big bang" is a perfectly reasonable response. This seems to help many cope with the unsatisfying prospect of an event without a cause.

The problem of course is that one is then immediately forced to ask, "From where did the creator come?"

If the answer is "he always existed" then we have a situation, from a causality standpoint, that is no more satisfying than a universe that springs forth from nothing. A creator that has always existed is an entity that somehow exists without a cause."

This is an example of the weak reasoning often used by atheists. Let me explain:
1. The universe is physical and begins with the big bang/dense singularity. Prior to that there is nothing physical.
2. The cause of the universe must, of necessity, be non-physical, since the universe heralds the origin of the universe.
3. The cause of the universe must itself, of necessity, not have a cause, or else we get into infinite regress. The first cause, God, is the only uncaused caused. After God, all somethings are caused by something. God did not come from anything; of logical necessity, God always is, or was.
4. I, and most, if not all, Deists believe the above is a tautology: a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.
My experience and the literature tells me that people are reluctant to accept arguments which don't support theirs, because to do so would require them to change their views.
kenblogton

[enaidealukal]

Since you admit there are no examples of infinite regresses, logically, that is enough.

No, that is not enough- for your argument to be deductively valid. Logical possibility means "free of contradiction". And pointing out that an infinite regression of causes would be unprecedented does not establish that an infinite regress is self-contradictory- or logically impossible. But if you do not establish that the infinite regress entails a contradiction (i.e. is not logically possible), then your conclusion does not follow necessarily- it is not entailed by the premises- and your argument is invalid.

You are the one who maintains its true. Similarly, because you have yet to experience God does not mean that God does not exist

No, that is not "similar" to the point I'm making, and though it is irrelevant to what we're talking about, this observation goes against what you're trying to say anyways (one could just as easily say "because you have yet to experience an infinite regress does not mean that it doesn't exist"). We aren't talking about whether an infinite regress is true, but whether it is possible; your argument requires that it is NOT logically possible, else your argument is not deductively valid. Proponents of the argument you're advancing, like Craig, are well aware of this, which is why they take the time to try to argue that infinite regresses are not logically possible. Unfortunately, they haven't succeeded yet- nor should we hold our breath for you to fare any better.

And, as you point out, I have used deductive logic to establish the existence of God.

You have tried. As I've also pointed out, due to the nature of deductive arguments, your argument is invalid unless and until you establish that an infinite regression of causes is not logically possible. Once again, if it is (logically) possible that there was an infinite regression of causes, then it cannot be (logically) necessary that there was a first cause. This is an uncontroversial, trivial point about modality. If P is possible, then ~P cannot be necessary.

[wiploc]

You are the one who posits that an infinite regress is possible, without being able to give an example of such.

You posit an uncaused cause without being able to give an example. If that's fair for you, why isn't it fair for him?

Since you admit there are no examples of infinite regresses, logically, that is enough.

And yet you don't seem convinced that the lack of examples of uncaused causes is proof of infinite regress. Why is that? Why is it that sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander?

You are the one who maintains its true.

Like you maintain that an uncaused cause is true.

Similarly, because you have yet to experience God does not mean that God does not exist

So lack of experience of X proves the nonexistence of X when X is infinite regress, but not when X is god. How is this not special pleading? How is this not just a confession that you like gods better than you like infinite regresses?

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.

The same goes for your failure to accept infinite regresses.

Where re your arguments? And, as you point out, I have used deductive logic to establish the existence of God.

But the same kind of logic can prove the nonexistence of gods and the existence of infinite regresses. So you haven't actually proven anything other than, possibly, a predisposition to believe in gods.

Where is your logic or reason or evidence that argue against the existence of God?

Since you're arguing against atheism as a whole, all we have to say is that we don't need an argument, because atheism is the default position.

I tell you what, though. If you ever want to quit arguing definitions, and pit your theism against my strong atheism, then I'll be happy to pit my affirmative arguments against your affirmative arguments.

[FarWanderer]

1. The universe is physical and begins with the big bang/dense singularity. Prior to that there is nothing physical.

It's logically impossible for anything to exist prior to the beginning of time, be it physical or non-physical or whatever.

Can we all go home now?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 453 by FarWanderer]

All he has to do is:

>Invent a new dimension (e.g. "God is ontologically prior")
>Unintentionally do a kind of reverse poisoning of the well by substituting a direction in his new dimension for "precede" (when in reality it'd be no different to him saying "left" or some other arbitrary direction)
>Require that causation is objectively true without exception on the basis of intuition (which requires proving A theory)
>Claim that causation follows his new dimension, contrary to the intuition he previously relies on
>Specially plead that causality is always temporal except when God (and only God) is involved
>Show that the Universe did begin to exist

and then the cosmological argument will be valid.

[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?

At http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-cause ... -bang.html, it states:
"For many "God caused the big bang" is a perfectly reasonable response. This seems to help many cope with the unsatisfying prospect of an event without a cause.

The problem of course is that one is then immediately forced to ask, "From where did the creator come?"

If the answer is "he always existed" then we have a situation, from a causality standpoint, that is no more satisfying than a universe that springs forth from nothing. A creator that has always existed is an entity that somehow exists without a cause."

This is an example of the weak reasoning often used by atheists. Let me explain:
1. The universe is physical and begins with the big bang/dense singularity. Prior to that there is nothing physical.
2. The cause of the universe must, of necessity, be non-physical, since the universe heralds the origin of the universe.
3. The cause of the universe must itself, of necessity, not have a cause, or else we get into infinite regress. The first cause, God, is the only uncaused caused. After God, all somethings are caused by something. God did not come from anything; of logical necessity, God always is, or was.
4. I, and most, if not all, Deists believe the above is a tautology: a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.
My experience and the literature tells me that people are reluctant to accept arguments which don't support theirs, because to do so would require them to change their views.
kenblogton

None of that changes the fact that your argument begs the question. You say that there are no examples of something coming from nothing. How do you know that the universe is not an example of something coming from nothing?

[Bust Nak]

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.

That would be in the post you've just skipped over.

Plus the charge of special pleading with regard to what the first cause could be, why not stop at the singularity?

[wampe]

[Replying to post 456 by Bust Nak]

Isn't the whole "something from nothing" argument a straw man? The Big Bang Theory proposes that "at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point". I can not find where it says what banged, how it banged, or what caused it to bang. There are lots of ideas but none seem to have much supporting evidence at this time. My personal favorite is the big bang was something like a white hole, but like I said, no evidence.

[Bust Nak]

Isn't the whole "something from nothing" argument a straw man?

Pretty much, the "nothing" the cosmologists and physicist some times talk about, isn't the nothing that theists have in mind. The kind of nothing theists have in mind, doesn't exist anywhere. Read "A universe from nothing" by Lawrence Krauss to see how theists are misrepresenting scientists.

[kenblogton]

A. Since you admit there are no examples of infinite regresses, logically, that is enough.

No, that is not enough- for your argument to be deductively valid. Logical possibility means "free of contradiction". And pointing out that an infinite regression of causes would be unprecedented does not establish that an infinite regress is self-contradictory- or logically impossible. But if you do not establish that the infinite regress entails a contradiction (i.e. is not logically possible), then your conclusion does not follow necessarily- it is not entailed by the premises- and your argument is invalid.

B.

You are the one who maintains its true. Similarly, because you have yet to experience God does not mean that God does not exist

No, that is not "similar" to the point I'm making, and though it is irrelevant to what we're talking about, this observation goes against what you're trying to say anyways (one could just as easily say "because you have yet to experience an infinite regress does not mean that it doesn't exist"). We aren't talking about whether an infinite regress is true, but whether it is possible; your argument requires that it is NOT logically possible, else your argument is not deductively valid. Proponents of the argument you're advancing, like Craig, are well aware of this, which is why they take the time to try to argue that infinite regresses are not logically possible. Unfortunately, they haven't succeeded yet- nor should we hold our breath for you to fare any better.

C.

And, as you point out, I have used deductive logic to establish the existence of God.

You have tried. As I've also pointed out, due to the nature of deductive arguments, your argument is invalid unless and until you establish that an infinite regression of causes is not logically possible. Once again, if it is (logically) possible that there was an infinite regression of causes, then it cannot be (logically) necessary that there was a first cause. This is an uncontroversial, trivial point about modality. If P is possible, then ~P cannot be necessary.

Reply to A. At http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition ... -reasoning, it defines inductive reasoning as follows "Inductive reasoning is a logical process in which multiple premises, all believed true or found true most of the time, are combined to obtain a specific conclusion.

Inductive reasoning is often used in applications that involve prediction, forecasting, or behavior. Here is an example:
Every tornado I have ever seen in the United States rotated counterclockwise, and I have seen dozens of them.
We see a tornado in the distance, and we are in the United States.
I conclude that the tornado we see right now must be rotating counterclockwise."

Here is my example:
1. No one has ever given an example of a valid infinite regression.
2. enaidealukal is unable to give a valid example.
3. I conclude that there are no valid examples of infinite regressions.

At http://www.livescience.com/21569-deduct ... ction.html, it defines deductive reasoning as follows: "Deductive reasoning is a basic form of valid reasoning. Deductive reasoning, or deduction, starts out with a general statement, or hypothesis, and examines the possibilities to reach a specific, logical conclusion. The scientific method uses deduction to test hypotheses and theories.

In deductive reasoning, if something is true of a class of things in general, it is also true for all members of that class. For example, "All men are mortal. Harold is a man. Therefore, Harold is mortal." For deductive reasoning to be sound, the hypothesis must be correct. It is assumed that the premises, "All men are mortal" and "Harold is a man" are true. Therefore, the conclusion is logical and true."

Here is my example:
1. There are no known members of the class "infinite regressions"
2. Neither enaidealukal, nor any of his fellow atheists, all intelligent and knowledgeable people, are able to name a member of the class.
3. Therefore, there are no members of the class "infinite regressions"

Reply to B. In the book Fitzpatrick, M. 2012. Dr. Bob and Bill W. Speak: AAs Cofounders Tell Their Stories. Hazelden: Center City, MN., the author quotes Bill Wilson, one of the cofounders of AA as follows "For you see I still rebelled against the idea that there would be a God who could save me; who could enable me to do what I couldnt do myself. But presently my rebellion ceased and in an agony I cried out, If there is a God, will He show Himself? And then came an experience which, of course, is the great event of my whole life. I had a very sudden experience in which it seemed that the [hospital] room lighted up. I was caught into a great ecstasy. It seemed as though I were on top of the mountain and a great wind blew. And I knew it was Spirit. And at length I found myself still on the bed, now surrounded by a Presence. And I thought to myself, So this is the God of the preachers. So I pondered there, after this experience. I thought about the very simple terms on which it had come. I thought about its profound simplicity and yet its deep mystery. For indeed, I did feel released." (39) "I have not had a drink since." (41)

At least, I am able to give you one well-documented example of someone's encounter with God. You are unable to give me any for infinite regression.

Reply to C.
First Reply:1. Everything that exists comes from something.
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore the universe comes from something.
Second Reply: 1. A thing which does not exist cannot cause something.
2. There was no physical prior to the universe coming into existence.
3. Therefore, the universe did not have a physical cause.
4. God is a non-physical causal agent.
Third Reply: To reiterate from above:
1. No one has ever given an example of a valid infinite regression.
2. enaidealukal is unable to give a valid example.
3. I conclude that there are no valid examples of infinite regressions.
4. Therefore God is an uncaused causal agent.
kenblogton