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.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 479 by Wootah]

It is special pleading to create an add hoc dichotomy as kenblogton does (physical vs non physical) or as you do ("in the Universe vs not in the Universe") in order to support your argument.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 479 by Wootah]

It is special pleading to create an add hoc dichotomy as kenblogton does (physical vs non physical) or as you do ("in the Universe vs not in the Universe") in order to support your argument.

Special pleading is when we say all children have to go bed before 8pm and a child Admits that they fit that rule but in this case, because it is the holidays for example, they should stay up.

So the special pleading occurs because their is an acknowledgement that the rule applies but not in this case.

However if an adult says they want to stay up then they are not special pleading against the rule because they don't fit the rule in the first place.

The rule about something cannot come from nothing is a premise for things created within our universe.

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 479 by Wootah]

It is special pleading to create an add hoc dichotomy as kenblogton does (physical vs non physical) or as you do ("in the Universe vs not in the Universe") in order to support your argument.

Special pleading is when we say all children have to go bed before 8pm and a child Admits that they fit that rule but in this case, because it is the holidays for example, they should stay up.

So the special pleading occurs because their is an acknowledgement that the rule applies but not in this case.

However if an adult says they want to stay up then they are not special pleading against the rule because they don't fit the rule in the first place.

The rule about something cannot come from nothing is a premise for things created within our universe.

Special pleading is accepting a standard, and then excepting something from these standards for an unjustifiable reson. For example,
1. Ken accepts the standard that something CANNOT come from nothing (which in itself is already fallicious)
2. Ken says that because God has always existed God came from no thing
3. This must be case in order for God to exist.

This is special pleading because there is no good reason to except God from the standard you apply to enerything else, simply because it is neccessary for the argument to continue.

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?

You are doing the same thing Ken is. No one is here is asserting that the universe DID come from nothing. The fact is, we have never observed the circumstances present at the beginning of the universe. We have never observed the massive majority of the visible universe to conclude that things don't come from nothing.
We maintain that it could be true that something can come from nothing, or it could be true that it is impossible for something to come from nothing. We cannot make a conclusion because we don't have enough information.

If the only thing you have ever seen is a white swan, then it would be silly to claim to people that there are definitely black swans. Likewise it would be silly to assert that the universe definitely came from nothing. Luckily no one is doing that.
However, it wuld be just as silly to assert that there definitely NO black swans because you have never seen one. This would obviously be false to someone in the future, who does end up seeing a black swan. There is no way to tule out the possibility of something based on your limited experience with it. Similarly, it would be fallicious to assert that something CANNOT come from nothing because you have never seen it happen. It is just as possible that someone in the future could experience such a thing, and you would be just as wrong as the person asserting there are no black swans. If you have never seen a black swan or something come from nothing, you are in no way required to act on a belief that it does happen. However, you also cannot act on the assertion that they can't happen, because you could be wrong.

No one is suggesting that we discredit God because we know the universe did indeed come from nothing. What I am saying is that you cannot make the conclusion that god created the universe based only on the fact that you say it would have been impossible for the universe to come from nothing. It is not possible for us to say that 1) the universe definitely came from God or 2) The universe came from nothing.
Either of these claims require a level of knowledge and certainty that we cannot posses.
What we can say is that we don't know what caused the universe to begin, and we'll continue looking for the time being. That is the only honest answer a person can give.
It is not possible to make the argument that God created the universe because it couldn't have come from nothing. you cannot prove that it is impossible for something to come from nothing. The only rational postion is to suspend final judgement until we have better information and evidence.[/b]

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 479 by Wootah]

It is special pleading to create an add hoc dichotomy as kenblogton does (physical vs non physical) or as you do ("in the Universe vs not in the Universe") in order to support your argument.

Here's a parody argument to illustrate Jashwell's point:

P1: Everything that isn't blue has a cause.
C: Therefore, we know absolutely that the universe was caused by something blue.

Plus, if we do posit a realm (not in the universe, not physical, outside time, whatever) in which the rules are unfamiliar to us, we don't get to make up rules for this unfamiliar realm. We don't get to say, for instance, that things outside the universe don't need causes.

Plus, we don't get to say that a creator god is unbegun unless we call the rest of the universe unbegun. By any single test, either both are begun or both are unbegun. It is only by equivocation (on the meaning of the word "begin") that one can claim that god is unbegun but the rest of the universe not.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 479 by Wootah]

It is special pleading to create an add hoc dichotomy as kenblogton does (physical vs non physical) or as you do ("in the Universe vs not in the Universe") in order to support your argument.

Special pleading is when we say all children have to go bed before 8pm and a child Admits that they fit that rule but in this case, because it is the holidays for example, they should stay up.

Or when we say that everything needs a cause, except god, because it would ruin our argument if god had a cause.

So the special pleading occurs because their is an acknowledgement that the rule applies but not in this case.

I'm not going to agree with that. That's like saying that "self defense" is special pleading when you're charged with homicide.

Special pleading is a logical fallacy. Special pleading would be saying, "Judge, don't convict me; I'm your daughter!" It's when you're asking not to be treated equally. The rule applies to you, but you want to be an exception because you don't like the rule when it's applied to you.

Saying, "Everything needs a cause except my god, because ... uh ... begun things need causes but my god didn't begin."

That's just making stuff up, completely arbitrary. If everything begun needs cause, why doesn't everything unbegun? If everything but god is begun, why isn't god begun?

At least that's how it looks to us. If there's an actual reason to believe that stuff, I want to know what it is. If you persuade me, I will persuade others.

...

The rule about something cannot come from nothing is a premise for things created within our universe.

It is a premise for everything we have ever observed. If you want to contradict such a well-supported rule, you need a good reason. It can't be arbitrary.

And if you want to claim that outside-our-universe is a real place, you don't get to arbitrarily make up rules for it. You cannot, for instance, say that the rule against infinite regress still applies (because you like that) but the rule against needing causes does not apply (because that would make your argument pointless). For that, you see, is special pleading.

[wiploc]

It is not possible for us to say that 1) the universe definitely came from God or 2) The universe came from nothing.

It looks like you may be granting their dichotomy. Don't do that. Those aren't the available choices.

[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?

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

OK, let's plug our new premise into kenblogton's argument. Here's the original:

First Reply:1. Everything that exists comes from something.
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore the universe comes from something.

Here's the result:

1. Everything that exists in the universe comes from something.
2. The universe exists.
3. Therefore the universe comes from something.

The above argument is invalid. To make it valid would require the following adjustment:

1. Everything that exists in the universe comes from something.
2. The universe exists in the universe.
3. Therefore the universe comes from something.

But this argument's second premise is clearly false, if not unintelligible.

Sorry Wootah. Although your change saves God from my argument against his existence, it sacrifices the argument for God's existence that it was originally intended for.

Feel free to try again.

EDIT:

Also, while we're at it, here's another side effect of your new premise:

P1: Everything that has ever existed in the universe came from something.
P2: Jesus has existed in the universe.
C1: Therefore, Jesus came from something.
P3: God did not come from something.
C2: Therefore, Jesus is not God.

[mwtech]

It is not possible for us to say that 1) the universe definitely came from God or 2) The universe came from nothing.

It looks like you may be granting their dichotomy. Don't do that. Those aren't the available choices.

I am absolutely not suggesting that these are the only options to choose from. I am saying that neither of these (the first being what they say happened, the second, what they keep saying we believe happened even though we did not say this) can be asserted as truth. Nor could any other possible origin of our universe, and there are other possibilities, certainly.

[kenblogton]

[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.

Jashwell said: "Well, you can't give an example of the impossibility of something."

kenblogton replied: I did not, nor have I ever, asked for such an example. However, that is what you and your fellow atheists ask me to do: to believe that something can come from nothing and that infinite regressions are possible, without being able to give an example of such.

Jashwell said: "There are no examples of X therefore X is impossible"

kenblogton replied: Until there are examples of X, we cannot say that X is possible. It is therefore prudent to assume X is impossible until shown to be otherwise. Unicorns, Tooth Fairies, Green Striped Rhinos, etc. would all be examples of X.
The existence of X can be shown by X being observed directly or indirectly by effects that can only be attributed to X. God would be an example of X known by its effects.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

A.

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

B. 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.

Reply to A. What I said was the following in post 449; the part you quoted omits the context:
"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?"

What I am doing is simply using your logic to argue for God. You argue in effect that, while I can't give you an example of infinite regress, maybe there are some. A similar logic says that, because you haven't experienced God doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.
That is not my argument, it is a weak argument; I have used stronger arguments to show the existence of God:
1. Something always comes from something.
2. The physical universe came from something.
3. Since the physical begins with the physical universe, its cause must be non-physical.
4. God is the only acknowledged non-physical causal agent.
5. To try and establish an origin for God leads to infinite regress.
6. Therefore God is the only uncaused something.

Reply to B. What is the argument you are asking me to respond to? Please spell it out. Thanks.
kenblogton