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 488 by kenblogton]

Your logic is self contradictory AND defeats your own position on other issues.

This was a reductio ad absurdum, the only part you said was "There are no examples of X therefore X is impossible" (paraphrasing).

"There are no examples of X therefore X is impossible" is what your logic is. You have explicitly stated this.
Now allowing X to be the impossibility of y, and seperately substituting y itself in, we have a situation where your logic leads to two mutually exclusive conclusions.

1) y is impossible
2) 1) is impossible (y is possible)

Note that you do once again fail to answer; "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 these things that aren't begging the question. Your logic defeats your position.


Assuming the impossibility because of absence alone is not prudent - it is absence of expected evidence of a thing - that is inconsistent with the existence of that thing - which allows us to say that thing does not exist. It is inherent contradiction (or contradiction with physical laws) in the concept that allows us to say it is impossible.

Your "logic" would allow for the impossibility of something to be logically true and then logically false when an example is discovered. If it's impossible, then there can be no examples. The absence of examples doesn't mean that there cannot be examples.

[Danmark]

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.

1. A false premise based on no evidence.
2. The physical universe may have always been, or it may indeed have come from nothing. See Krauss, A Universe from Nothing
3. Rests on the false assumption noted above.
4. 'God' is not acknowledged as a 'non-physical causal agent. You are simply assuming this to be the case. Your entire argument is circular, and as I have pointed out before on this thread, you are simply defining your way to God. This is not a 'proof.'
5. There is no need to try to 'establish an origin for God' or anything else that does not appear to exist except in your imagination.
6. Therefore there is neither 'proof' nor evidence of the existence of this construct of the imagination.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 483 by wiploc]

Many logical arguments are logical but don't make sense. I can't see how your argument connects with the issue.

Partly the problem is that Christianity always has separated God from the universe. If God is the universe or part of the universe then we are just idol worshippers.

On special pleading. I am reminded of the monty python sketch where they are calling out "bring out your dead" and the man puts another older man on the cart and the old man is special pleading "I'm not dead yet." I hope this illustrates that being alive is not just ad hoc reasoning but it should have been a material difference.

For special pleading to be valid you need to show that the general rule applies first and then you can insist they are special pleading.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 474 by mwtech]

I argue that belief is best when based on evidence, reason or logic.
There is a complete absence of evidence of something coming from nothing.
The reasoning behind something coming from nothing is weak: it's possible. This is no stronger than the reasoning for tooth fairies and green striped rhinos.
Regarding logic, there is none. As I've previously stated:

1. No one has ever given an example of something coming from nothing.
2. mwtech 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 and everything since has come from something.
5. 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.

kenblogton

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 491 by Danmark]

1) is quite simply not a false premise. It is a valid belief about the universe that we all assume all the time. Also premises in a logical argument are assumed true until shown false or illogical.

[kenblogton]

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.

1. A false premise based on no evidence.
2. The physical universe may have always been, or it may indeed have come from nothing. See Krauss, A Universe from Nothing
3. Rests on the false assumption noted above.
4. 'God' is not acknowledged as a 'non-physical causal agent. You are simply assuming this to be the case. Your entire argument is circular, and as I have pointed out before on this thread, you are simply defining your way to God. This is not a 'proof.'
5. There is no need to try to 'establish an origin for God' or anything else that does not appear to exist except in your imagination.
6. Therefore there is neither 'proof' nor evidence of the existence of this construct of the imagination.

I said "1. Something always comes from something." and you said "1. A false premise based on no evidence."
Danmark came from something. There is your evidence. Now, where's your evidence of something coming from nothing?

I said "2. The physical universe came from something." and you said "2. The physical universe may have always been, or it may indeed have come from nothing. See Krauss, A Universe from Nothing "
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 wasn�t 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."

I said "3. Since the physical begins with the physical universe, its cause must be non-physical." and you said 3. "Rests on the false assumption noted above."
What false assumption?

I said "4. God is the only acknowledged non-physical causal agent." and you said "'God' is not acknowledged as a 'non-physical causal agent. You are simply assuming this to be the case. Your entire argument is circular, and as I have pointed out before on this thread, you are simply defining your way to God. This is not a 'proof.'"
Point 3 shows the need for a non-physical cause. If the physical begins with the dense singularity/big bang, and everything comes from something, then the universe must come from something non-physical.
4. What other non-physical agent do you acknowledge?

I said 5-6 "5. To try and establish an origin for God leads to infinite regress.
6. Therefore God is the only uncaused something."
and you said 5-6 "'
5. There is no need to try to 'establish an origin for God' or anything else that does not appear to exist except in your imagination.
6. Therefore there is neither 'proof' nor evidence of the existence of this construct of the imagination."

5. We agree there is no need to establish an origin for God.
6. Please reread 1-3 for proof.
kenblogton

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 491 by Danmark]

1) is quite simply not a false premise. It is a valid belief about the universe that we all assume all the time. Also premises in a logical argument are assumed true until shown false or illogical.

The statement in issue is:
"Something always comes from something."
You're right. I was wrong to call it a false premise.
It is an unproven premise.

My own belief/premise is that the universe has always been. It did not 'come' from anything. It has just always been. This is the same premise or belief that theists subscribe to. I understand that physicists who understand the subject much better than I do, say it came from 'nothing.' But this 'nothing' is not the same 'nothing' philosophers mean when they use the term. Whether it is a cyclic process or something else, I do not pretend to know. But I believe the universe in one form or another has always been. In what way is this belief different from the theist's belief that 'God' has always been?

[wiploc]

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

Until there are examples of gods, we cannot say that gods are possible. It is therefore prudent to assume gods are impossible until shown to be otherwise. Gods are like unicorns, tooth fairies, and green striped rhinos.

If you don't like this argument, you shouldn't make this argument. If you make this argument for things you don't want people to believe, but don't apply it to things you do want people to believe, then you are engaged in special pleading, a logical fallacy.

[wiploc]

1. Something always comes from something.

If you believe that, then, logically, you must also believe one of two things: Either
- god came from something else, or
- god is nothing.

If you don't actually believe one of those, then you shouldn't be claiming that something always comes from something. That premise destroys the conclusion of any argument for the existence of an uncaused cause.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 483 by wiploc]

Many logical arguments are logical but don't make sense.

That's crazy talk. Don't take that pitch on the road.

I can't see how your argument connects with the issue.

Okay, then.

Partly the problem is that Christianity always has separated God from the universe.

Jehovah used to live on the sky, and he used to use a pillar of fire to get up and down. Jesus was born of a virgin woman. Your claim, therefore, seems to me an obvious falsehood, unsupportable.

I request that you support your claim or withdraw it.

If God is the universe or part of the universe then we are just idol worshippers.

I won't touch that with a ten foot pole.

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.

For special pleading to be valid you need to show that the general rule applies first and then you can insist they are special pleading.

Pick any rule you like. What is a beginning? Apply the rule to god and the rest of the universe equally, and guess what? Either god and the rest are both begun, or god and the rest are both unbegun.

The only way to claim that god is unbegun and the rest of the universe is begun is to use one definition to test whether the rest of the universe began, and then surreptitiously two-step to another definition when you are testing to see whether god began. Then you have to hope that nobody noticed your equivocation.

Here's an example of someone equivocating:

Joe: "My car is better than yours, because it has a white top."

Sara: "But my car has a white top too."

Joe: "Well, but your car is blue on the bottom, so it is inferior."

Sara: "Your car has a blue bottom too."

Joe: "But my car has a white top, see? So mine is better."

Joe uses one test for her car, and another for his own. The only way he can make his case is to switch back and forth from one test to the other. He's equivocating. He's special pleading.

Theists equivocate on the meaning of the word "begin" in order to show that a god is unbegun but the rest of the universe is begun. They don't all do this, of course. And most of them who do do it are unaware that they are doing it. But the cosmological argument depends entirely on this sleight of mouth trick. If you don't do special pleading, then you can't have a cosmological argument.