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]

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.'

You call what I've said a tired and failed proof.
Please show me where it fails; which line of the logic is incorrect?
If you reject something without reason, that is not debate, it is by fiat (a decree or arbitrary order).
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

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?

Part 1 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.

Part 2 Reply:
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

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 461 by enaidealukal]

Quote:
Reply to B by kenblogton. 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 kenblogton by enaidealukal. 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.

Second reply by kenblogton:
enaidealukal said "But you also pointed out, and I quote, "because you have yet to experience God does not mean that God does not exist"."
I said no such thing. What I said was "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."
You have distorted what I said so you can make your point.
That is unacceptable debate technique.
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 471 by kenblogton]

Without begging the question, give evidence of a non-physical cause, give an example of a God existing, give an example of something existing "before the beginning of time", etc.


"There are no examples of X therefore X is impossible"
Well, you can't give an example of the impossibility of something.
Y is the impossibility of X.
"There are no examples of Y therefore Y is impossible"
We now have an absurd scenario where X is both impossible AND necessary.

[mwtech]

[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

I am really starting to think you are just a troll at this point. What faith does it take to not rule out something as impossible in the entirity of the Universe? Do you not understand the incredibly massive scope of the UNIVERSE? What faith it must take to believe that because here on one little rock that takes up ONE HUNDRED BILLIONTH PERCENT of the visible universe it has never happened and will never happen anywhere else.
I repeat again, I do no base any belief on either of those things being possible. I just don't rule them out, and therefore don't make arguments that require them to be impossible. You constanstantly and continually fail to acknowledge any of the points explaining to you the impossibility of ruling something out based on no examples. Faith is belief without evidence. I have seen no evidence of the impossibility of something coming from nothing, so I will not prematurely declare it impossible in and outiside the entire universe because my insignificant planet has never experienced such. If you do that, you are doing it with no basis in evidence, but with a minute survey of our own planet as if it accounts for the conditions all over existence. This is absolutely and untolerably wrong of you to do.

Futhermore, you have the audacity to keep repeating the same argument as if it is fool-proof and then act surprised when no one believes it. And you ask us to show you the problems with it as if we have not already.
Your entire argument is special pleading. You claim nothing can come from nothing, but God can, and this is only so because you define God a certain way. This is fallicious.

You base your entire argument on an invalid premise. You say that because there are no examples of X, it does not exist. I ask again, is it correct to say that because no periwinkle planet can be seen, that there are none in existence? Can I make an argument about how impossible it is to have a periwinkled planet because I can't see one? The answer is no, and unless you can tell me why I'm wrong, your argument holds no weight. The abscence of examples does not rule something out as impossible. If it did, there being no examples of God existing would mean God does not and has never existed.

You fail to realize that an "encounter with God" is no more valid than an encounter with Shiva or Vishnu. Atheist believe all God experiences to be delusions orlconfirmation bias. They are incredibly unconvincing and do not serve as evidence for the existence of God.
Your failure to adress these issues with nothing more than repeating your flawed arguments has lost you all credibility in my eyes.

[otseng]

I believe your faith is misplaced, but it is your faith and I wish you well with it.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make any comments of a personal nature.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[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.'

You call what I've said a tired and failed proof.
Please show me where it fails; which line of the logic is incorrect?
If you reject something without reason, that is not debate, it is by fiat (a decree or arbitrary order).

Yes I did and I explained why your 'proof' is not one by reframing your claim more candidly by exposing its true elements:

'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.'

It is not a proof because you simply define 'God' as the only thing that fits your definition. To put it more simply, you assume there is one thing that did not come from nothing [or always has been] and you call that thing 'God.' This exercise you suggest proves nothing.

You might as well say "God is whatever I say he is and I also say nothing else can fit that definition."

[enaidealukal]

I said no such thing.

Actually, I was quoting your exact words, from post 449-

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

Part 1 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.

Part 2 Reply:
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

None of this is a reply to Far Wanderer's argument. So anwer the question- which premise do you reject? Also, as pointed out, "Part 2 Reply" is invalid. As you adequately (and astutely) pointed out, that there are no known examples of X does not entail that X does not exist. But then, an uncaused first cause doesn't follow. It appears that you think that these arguments will somehow become valid, or improved, by mere repetition- needless to say, that's very unlikely.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 474 by mwtech]

Your entire argument is special pleading. You claim nothing can come from nothing, but God can, and this is only so because you define God a certain way. This is fallacious.

Special pleading is when the circumstances are the same but one argues for a different conclusion because their example in and off itself is unique and separates it from the general case.

Since God is not from within the universe I don't see why kenblogton is special pleading.

You say that because there are no examples of X, it does not exist.

Clearly it's true to say that all swans are white becomes false when we find the first swan however it would not be rational to act as if there were black swans until we saw one.

So there is a weight to the argument kenblogton is making that you wish to deny in this thread that you would not deny in normal life.

Do you not simply assume, and is not rational to do so, that they sun will rise each day?

[Wootah]

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?

First premise is false. Everything that exists in our universe came from something is how I would amend it.

P: Everything that exists in our universe came from something.
P: God always existed.
C: God did not come from our universe.
C: Therefore, God is not something that exists.