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.

[wiploc]

Can anyone, atheist or not, do either of the following:
1. Give an example of something which comes from nothing?

The Christian god?

2. Give an example of an infinite regression?

Let's look at the possibilities for each:
Regarding 1. a. There are examples, of which X is one, or
b. There are no such extant examples, so we must accept that something comes from something.

In which case, the Christian god must have a physical cause.

Regarding 2. a. There are examples, of which Y is one, or
b. There are no such extant examples, so we must accept that there are only finite regressions.

If there are only finite regressions, then the Christian god cannot be eternal. In which case, he must have a beginning. In which case he must be caused by something else, which must also be caused by something else, etcetera. So infinite regressions must be possible, or else the Christian god cannot exist.

[dianaiad]

Just want to point out, my post here, remained unanswered.

Moderator Comment

While this isn't the sort of one-line comment that annoys everybody, it still doesn't advance the conversation. Perhaps, if nobody has answered a specific post of yours, it would help if you made your points again, in a slightly different way?

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.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 504 by instantc]

Coming from nothing includes if not is not coming
"I come from no thing" -> "I don't come from anything" -> "I don't come"

The verb "come" explicitly requires travel.
To come from nowhere is not to come.
If you don't come, then it stands to reason that you don't come from something (therefore you come from nothing).

Nothing is just a negation, not a thing like it is commonly used as.

So you busted him for linguistic clumsiness? Well done. The fact remains that there are three conceivable options.

1. The being began to exist from something pre-existing
2. The being began to exist, but not from anything pre-existing
3. The being did not begin to exist at all

When he says that God did not come from anything, he is referring to the option 3, when he says that things cannot come out of nothing, he is referring to the option 2. Your objection thereof is completely unnecessary.

There IS issue with what he's saying.
2 is a subset of 3.
2 and 3 are separate issues, and 2 is wholly encompassed by 3.

1) X does not exist prior to A
2) X does not exist prior to A, and it's significantly more probable that it will given Y
3) X does exist prior to A

That's what 2 is. When kenblogton says "from", he means caused by. Causality is a mutually increased conditional probability, typically where P(cause | effect) > P(effect | ~cause). Because the future is less likely than the past (2nd law), effect follows cause. But the 2nd law refers to how entropy increases over time. It's a composition fallacy to say "everything that begins in time follows causality therefore time follows causality".

And time doesn't begin to exist - there isn't "no time" and then time, there's always time by definition. Time is eternal - it's absurd to argue otherwise - it's just that many cosmological models have time being finite.

Too many people, when they imagine a "beginning of time", do the wrong thing and imagine a void and then a Universe. Imagine the beginning of a book. Were there an infinite number of blank pages before it?

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 511 by dianaiad]
Sure, and have it ignored for the fifth time? Still. Here goes:

In responds to the challenge to prove how infinite regression is impossible, kenblogton linked to a site that offered three lines of reasoning:

The first is that if there was an infinite past, then it would be impossible to have gotten to the present.
The second is an appeal to Hilbert's "on the infinite," where he outlined his rejection of actual infinities.
The final being that an infinite regression offers no grand explaination for everything.

My counter arguments are as follow.

The first is question begging as it assumes there is a beginning an infinite amount of time away, from which it would be impossible to arrive at the present. One cannot assume there is a beginning, to argue against the non-existence of a beginning.
The second is an obvious appeal to authority, current science says that Hilbert was premature in denying actual infinite re: the size of the universe.
The final argument is an appeal to consequences, a red herring. The universe does not owe you a grand explaination for everything.

Next, kenblogton offered an argument of his own, where he argued it is irrational to believe that infinite regress is possible in the absence of actual examples. True enough there are no examples of infinite regress, but there are no actual example of an uncaused cause either.

He then attempted to argue that there must be one uncaused cause by ruling out infinite regress due to the absence of actual examples infinite regress. There are two options here (actually there are three options, but the third is not being debated,) neither of them have actual examples. One cannot rule out A because A suffers from Y, when B also suffers from Y.

Finally, there is the charge of special pleading: even if there is an uncaused cause, why stop at God and not the big bang? Why stop at God and not super god?

To conclude, infinite regression isn't one of horns of Münchhausen trilemma for nothing.

[Danmark]

Sure, and have it ignored for the fifth time? Still. Here goes:

In responds to the challenge to prove how infinite regression is impossible, kenblogton linked to a site that offered three lines of reasoning: . . . .

Moderator Comment


Please do not respond to moderator actions in any way except by private message.
Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against users. Any challenges or responses to moderator moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[wiploc]

And time doesn't begin to exist

This seems to me a tactical error. That is, the claim can be argued against in good faith. There's no reason to make a disputable argument when we can do a slam dunk instead.

- there isn't "no time" and then time, there's always time by definition.

This part, I agree with.

On the other hand, if anybody here has read Krauss's book, A Universe From Nothing, I'd like to hear about it. The title may indicate that one person thinks there was nothing first and then something. That's conter-intuitive, but I'm in no position to pit my opinion against Krauss's, so I just want to know if that's what he really believes.

Time is eternal - it's absurd to argue otherwise - it's just that many cosmological models have time being finite.

Again, this invites argument from people (people like me) who think "eternal" means infinite and unending.

Too many people, when they imagine a "beginning of time", do the wrong thing and imagine a void and then a Universe.

Well said. That makes the problem clear.


Okay, more on the slam dunk:

Let's have two definitions of "beginning."

First definition: X begins if it exists at time A, and doesn't exist before time A.

Personally, I like that definition. It seems like what we mean when we say "begins."

Second definition: X begins if it exists at time A, and doesn't exist before time A, and there was time before time A.

This strikes me as a weird and unnatural definition contrived because an argument wouldn't work using the first definition.

The essence of the cosmological argument is surreptitiously switching between these definitions. They'll tell us that god did not begin (because they're using the second definition) but the rest of the universe did begin (because, at this point, they are using the first definition.)

The slam dunk consists of catching them at it, pointing out their equivocation, and making it clear that there is no single definition according to which god didn't begin but the rest of the universe did. Their whole case hinges on changing definitions in mid-stream, and hoping nobody notices.

If we make that case, then we win. There's no comeback, because there aren't two sides to the issue.

But if, on the other hand, you pick one of the two definitions and insist that it is the right one, some people of good will will disagree. And you'll never convince them, because it's just a matter of which definition to choose. And people reading your discussion will conclude that you couldn't carry the day.

So I recommend the slam dunk. Let them pick any definition of "begin" that they want, and hold them do it.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 501 by kenblogton]

Jashwell, you and I are not communicating with the same sense of words and of what is reason. I think it best we just agree to disagree.
kenblogton

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 509 by mwtech]

mwtech, we clearly see and understand things differently. I think it best we just agree to disagree.
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 516 by kenblogton]

Perhaps it's best you try a different argument, if you think there is another suitable one.

[kenblogton]

"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.

Gullible is defined as easily fooled or cheated; especially quick to believe something that is not true. At http://www.elle.com/news/lifestyle/in-d ... ible-women, the article In Defense of Gullible Women by Natalie Matthews states “Years ago, my boyfriend convinced me he was an Olympic athlete. We'd only met a few weeks before, and I knew little background beyond A) he had a paying job and B) he had proper text message punctuation (the dream). So as he painted a detailed portrait of his former life as an Olympic ski jumper (the sushi at Nagano, the well-dressed crowds at Torino), I believed it.
"You're so gullible," he teased afterwards. It was obviously just a flirting thing, but I bristled anyway. To me, gullible meant ditzy—stupid—and I didn't like that implication. But should I really have had such a negative reaction?
Maybe not. As recent research shows, being gullible is tethered to a whole host of good things—including above-average intelligence. (Really. I promise. I'm one of you; you can trust me.) Of course, gullibility is a slippery quality to measure and study. If I told you Lady Gaga would replace Barack Obama as the next President of the United States and you believed it, it'd be a different thing than if I told you she flashed her boobs to concert goers on Sunday night and you believed it (she didn't, but she did moon them). "I suspect that one reason why psychologists and other social scientists have avoided studying gullibility is because it is affected by so many factors, and is so context-dependent that it is impossible to predict whether and under what circumstances a person will behave gullibly," writes Stephen Greenspan, author of Annals of Gullibility.
But gullibility is closely tied to trust, and that is easy to study. "Intelligent people are more likely to trust others, while those who score lower on measures of intelligence are less likely to do so," reports a just-released study from Oxford University. And, the trait might even have health benefits, since "the sensation of being duped" forces "a kind of self-awareness" that can encourage other healthy behaviors. “The feeling of ‘I should have known better’ is the sort of counterfactual that serves to highlight your own shortcomings," says Neal Roese, a psychologist at the University of Illinois. "A good deal of research has shown that these counter-factual insights can kick-start new behaviors, new self-exploration and, ultimately, self-improvement," he told The New York Times.
That's real, people. It's science. Being gullible suggests you're more intelligent, and it means you're more open to self-improvement. Plus, if even Beyoncé gets Punk'd, being a gullible girl can't really be that bad, can it?�

So gullible people tend to be more intelligent, more trusting, and open to self-improvement.

At http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/201 ... t-why.html, it says “Miron Zuckerman, at the University of Rochester in New York State, USA, along with colleagues has conducted a meta-analysis of all the previously-published studies. A meta-analysis is a statistical tool used to pool together different studies, so that you can see the overall picture.

Altogether, Zuckerman dug up 63 studies, dating back to the 1920s. He found that, although there was a lot of variation, there was clear evidence that "the higher a person’s intelligence, the lower the person scored on the religiosity measures"…. Now, there are several theories on why intelligent people are less religious.

One idea is that religion is irrational, so intelligent, educated people simply 'know better'.�

In my early university days, that was also true of me. I believed religion was for the very young, the simple-minded, and the very old – none of whom I believed were very bright. But now back to gullibility.

Recently, I have learned that one area of gullibility with atheists is in believing things for which there is no evidence. One such no-evidence area is believing that something, like the universe, can come from nothing. When I ask for examples of something coming from nothing, atheists react with annoyance, but are unable to give examples. The best they can do is say “maybe� or “possibly somewhere� or “it could happen sometime.� This belief is essential to atheism, because if the universe did not come from nothing, it came from something, and that something, as the Deists are fond of telling us, is God. However, when I tell atheists that the reason for God is more solid than the evidence of something coming from nothing, and provide the reason/logic behind that assertion, it is rejected out of hand, even though they themselves can give me absolutely no evidence of something coming from nothing. Curious.

kenblogton