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]

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

This completely ignores the last 6 posts I made explaining why your reasoning is flawed. Guessing that a tornado is acting in the current situation the same way it acted the last time it occurred under the exact conditions you are in, is not the same as deducing that, because something is not happening currently on one little speck in the universe that s that it never has and never will. The conditions right here, right now are not the same as the conditions before the universe began to exist, so the same method of reasoning cannot apply. Simalarly if you experienced tornadoes all your life in Kansas and they always rotated counterclockwise, and you were in New Zealand and saw a tornado and concluded it would be rotating counter clockwise, you would be incorrect. Even though every experience you ever had in the USA indicates that tornadoes always rotate counter clockwise, you would be surprised to find that they rotate clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. So thank you for providing a perfect analogy for why your argument is invalid. You prematurely base a conclusion on conditions that only apply in certain places at certain times and every time you are right it will be a lucky guess.

[enaidealukal]

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"

Unfortunately, this isn't really a reply to A- you've just posted some information regarding the difference between inductive and deductive arguments. Which is great- except, apparently you didn't read it. The Kalam cosmological argument-

Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence;
The universe has a beginning of its existence;
Therefore: The universe has a cause of its existence

Is a deductive argument. If its conclusion doesn't follow necessarily from the premises, it is invalid.

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.

Again, this does not address B. You have argued that we have no examples of an infinite regress. But you also pointed out, and I quote, "because you have yet to experience God does not mean that God does not exist".

In other words, "because you have yet to experience X does not mean X does not exist". So we could easily say "because you have yet to experience an infinite regress does not mean an infinite regress does not exist".

By your own admission, the fact that we have not observed or experienced an infinite regress doesn't mean they don't/can't exist. Oops!

In any case, as already noted, this is not relevant, because the question is not whether infinite regressions do exist, but whether they are logically possible. If an infinite regression of causes is logically possible, a first cause is not logically necessary- so, in order for the conclusion to follow, for the argument to be valid, it needs to be shown that an infinite regress is logically impossible (i.e. contradictory), not just that we have no known examples.

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

Already covered, above.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 455 by instantc]

At http://futureandcosmos.blogspot.ca/2013 ... ce-of.html, it states: "The link here gives a Nature article on the controversy, which is entitled No evidence of time Before Big Bang: Latest research deflates the idea that the Universe cycles for eternity."

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?

Once the singularity was created (however it happened), it began to expand through a process called inflation. The Universe went from very small, very dense, and very hot to the cool expanse that we see today. This theory is now referred to as the Big Bang, a term first coined by Sir Fred Hoyle during a British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) radio broadcast in 1950.

Interestingly, there really wasnt any sort of explosion (or bang) as the name suggests, but rather the rapid expansion of space and time. It is like blowing up a balloon, as you blow air in, the exterior of the balloon expands outward."

This is the only time that it is known that the laws of thermodynamics were violated. I would draw your attention particularly to the first law. Those laws are, according to http://physicsforidiots.com/physics/thermodynamics/, are: "There are 4 laws to thermodynamics, and they are some of the most important laws in all of physics. The laws are as follows
Zeroth law of thermodynamics If two thermodynamic systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other.
First law of thermodynamics Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. In any process, the total energy of the universe remains the same. For a thermodynamic cycle the net heat supplied to the system equals the net work done by the system.
Second law of thermodynamics The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.
Third law of thermodynamics As temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant minimum."

To believe that the creation of the universe was some chance one-time occurrence seems to me not logical at all; it seems to me to require a belief in magic.

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 something coming from nothing.
2. instantc is unable to give a valid example.
3. I conclude that there are no valid examples of something coming from nothing.
4. Therefore the universe came from something.
kenblogton

[mwtech]

Here is my example:
1. No one has ever given an example of something coming from nothing.
2. instantc is unable to give a valid example.
3. I conclude that there are no valid examples of something coming from nothing.
4. Therefore the universe came from something.
kenblogton

Are you really just going to kep saying the same thing over and over no matter how many times it is shown to be invalid logic. You are contributing nothing to this debate by doing so. All you are doing is giving people oppurtunities to show why the same argument is invalid in new and creative ways each time. If anything has been established here, it is that no one accepts this train of logic to be a valid reason to believe in God. Even if every participant besides you hadn't given multiple reasons why you were wrong, you have still been unsuccesful in convincing anyone. If this isn't the only argument you have to support your views (which I believe it is considering how firmly you stick to it despite being pelted with demonstrations of it's invalidity) then now would be the appropriate time to start making the others.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 455 by instantc]

At http://futureandcosmos.blogspot.ca/2013 ... ce-of.html, it states: "The link here gives a Nature article on the controversy, which is entitled No evidence of time Before Big Bang: Latest research deflates the idea that the Universe cycles for eternity."

No. What it says is "Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist."

[FarWanderer]

First Reply:1. Everything that exists comes from something.

P: Everything that exists comes from something.
P: God did not come from something.
C: Therefore, God is not something that exists.

This is a deductive proof that God does not exist. That means it's logically impossible that God exists so long as both premises are true.

So, which premise do you disagree with?

[JoeyKnothead]

"Everything that exists comes from something."

"God exists."

"From what something did, from him he come?"

"Now you cut that out!"

Special pleading. The theist's response to reason.

[enaidealukal]

First Reply:1. Everything that exists comes from something.

P: Everything that exists comes from something.
P: God did not come from something.
C: Therefore, God is not something that exists.

This is a deductive proof that God does not exist. That means it's logically impossible that God exists so long as both premises are true.

So, which premise do you disagree with?

[Danmark]

1. No one has ever given an example of something coming from nothing.
2. instantc is unable to give a valid example.
3. I conclude that there are no valid examples of something coming from nothing.
4. Therefore the universe came from something.

This tired, ancient, and failed 'proof' should be called, 'The proof of God by definition.'

A more transparent way of saying it is:

1. I can't think of anything that 'comes from nothing.'
2. Except God, which I define as coming from nothing... OR 'having always been.'
3. I deny that anything else, including the universe, comes from nothing or has always been.
4. Therefore God exists since God is the only thing that fits the definition I made up.

In other words, 'God exists because I define "God" however I want to in order to claim he exists.'

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 460 by mwtech]

It remains true that there are no examples of something coming from nothing and none of valid infinite regresses. That being the case, your belief that such are possible becomes a matter of faith and not of reason.
I believe your faith is misplaced, but it is your faith and I wish you well with it.
kenblogton