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]

[Replying to post 516 by kenblogton]

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

Please see posting 519 on page 52.
Thanks. kenblogton

[Jashwell]

As I've previously stated, given that by "from" you mean "caused by", you are the one making unduly assumptions. Causality is necessarily temporal - the increased conditional probability that is cause and effect is tied to cause>effect through the second law of thermodynamics. A law which describes a transition over time, not a pseudo-transition between "nothing and something" that must first be invented.

Once again, you dodge the dichotomy of nothing/something - if I say "Where did you go?" and you say "nowhere" it means you didn't go. If you say "Where did you come from?" and I say "nowhere", it means I was there the whole time - I didn't come.
But if I say "What did you come from?" and you say "nothing", you think that's different to not coming from anything.
You think that God comes from no thing but not from nothing. This is a strange definition of nothing.

I see no reason to think that the Universe came from anything.

Furthermore, I see no reason to use special pleading in order to allow God to escape what you require of the Universe. First you assert that there are "non-physical things" and then continue to assert that only the physical things need to begin.
You further have to assert that an additional dimension exists in which the reality can transition from "God -> Universe", because there's literally no time to transition across. You also poorly choose to continue to use "before" and "then" - temporal notation - to address moving through this new dimension. But furthermore, you then need to assert that "this dimension is either only important for the context of my argument, or is exactly the same as time for all but the god->universe transition", because of course if it wasn't there would be no requirement for a prior cause.

But furthermore, your own logic is inconsistent. You rely on an argument from ignorance. You propose a question that shifts the burden of proof, and do not address response questions intended to parody this logic.
For example - without begging the question;
Could you give one example of something non-physical that exists in reality?
Could you give one example of atemporal causation?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 516 by kenblogton]

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

Please see posting 519 on page 52.
Thanks. kenblogton

Moderator Comment
Posts 516, 517, 518 and 520 add nothing to the debate Either make an argument or ignore. It is not productive to refer to previous posts with no additional argument.
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.

[Zzyzx]

.

Gullible is defined as easily fooled or cheated; especially quick to believe something that is not true.

Agreed.

Some seem to make a virtue of being gullible and to encourage that in others.

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

AND more easily fooled, duped or cheated – quick to believe something that is not true.

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'.�

I do not disagree with the statement in bold font. It is also suggested that the greater one's educational level the lower their religiosity.

There may be many theories why more intelligent and educated people are less religiously inclined. ONE possibility is that the more intelligent and educated people realize that the claims and stories of supernaturalism are in conflict with what we have learned about the real world we inhabit over the past couple thousand years – and are not emotionally committed to accept unverified tales and beliefs of ancient writers.

It is worthy of note that Christianity is declining in educated, technologically advanced areas and increasing in "backward" (non-technological) areas of Africa, South America and underdeveloped parts of Asia.

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.

Did you experience an Epiphany?

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.

Have you also learned that Atheists are not a united organization, but are individuals than have many various viewpoints, opinions, conclusions?

When I ask for examples of something coming from nothing, atheists react with annoyance, but are unable to give examples.

Perhaps that is because they have not claimed that "something comes from nothing." That appears to be YOUR insistence as the only alternative to believing that "everything came from God."

Do you KNOW (with ability to demonstrate knowledge) that the ONLY two alternatives for origin of the universe are "from nothing" and "from God" – that there cannot be any other alternatives? Kindly do not be so naïve as to ask me to supply an alternative because I only question if it is impossible for another to exist – not that I have any special knowledge of such things).

Many or most Non-Theists ("Atheists all" in the view of many believers) do not pretend to know how the universe originated. Theists seem prone to claim they KNOW the origin and any who disagree with their claims must think "it came from nothing."

A very valid position is "I don't know the origin of the universe and neither do you (unless you can prove otherwise)."

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.

Why is the origin of the universe important or critical information to anyone other than astrophysicists, astronomers and people trying to promote their opinions about a favorite "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.

Perhaps it would be more fruitful to ask FIRST if someone claims that "something came from nothing" before assuming that is their position – or attempting to assign that position to them.

Since the origin of the universe is NOT known beyond hypothesis, theory, opinion level, what is the motivation for non-physicists / astronomers to assume it is important knowledge?

I understand that certain god-worshipers wish to credit their favorite god with being the creator of the universe. However, I do not agree they know what they are talking about or that they can support their contentions.

Curious.

If one is actually curious about the position of others in debate it would be prudent to ask their position.

If one asks me (a Non-Theist) my reply is: "I don't pretend to know the origin of the universe and do not consider that information at all related to my life in any way. I am not committed to accept ANY hypothesis / theory / opinion by those who claim to know (but cannot provide convincing evidence)."

[Danmark]

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.
http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/201 ... ent-but-wh...

Please document this claim. You've cited two defective sites.

Where is the evidence that gullibility is related to intelligence? My intuition and experience tells me the reverse. My experience with gullible people, those who are easily fooled, is that they have a lack of knowledge. They know so little in terms of general principles and general factual knowledge that they seem to have no base from which to analyze new claims and quickly understand those new claims are bogus.

If someone walks up to me and claims his mother was a virgin and his father is an invisible God and that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, I have an abundance of knowledge that tells me to reject such a claim. The ignorant gullible has no such library of personal knowledge to protect him from such absurd claims.

An example is your claim that gullible people are more intelligent. It seems ridiculous and counter intuitive to me. And you have not backed up your claim with any evidence. Broken URL's do not enhance the credibility of your claims.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 523 by Zzyzx]

I'll reply to 2 of your comments:

kenblogton wrote:
When I ask for examples of something coming from nothing, atheists react with annoyance, but are unable to give examples.

Zzyzx replied:
Perhaps that is because they have not claimed that "something comes from nothing." That appears to be YOUR insistence as the only alternative to believing that "everything came from God."

kenblogton replied:
I asked for examples of something coming from nothing; I did not claim that everything came from God. Do you have examples of something coming from nothing?

Zzyzx replied:
Do you KNOW (with ability to demonstrate knowledge) that the ONLY two alternatives for origin of the universe are "from nothing" and "from God" – that there cannot be any other alternatives? Kindly do not be so naïve as to ask me to supply an alternative because I only question if it is impossible for another to exist – not that I have any special knowledge of such things).

kenblogton replied:
Do you have alternatives to from nothing & from something?

Zzyzx replied:
Many or most Non-Theists ("Atheists all" in the view of many believers) do not pretend to know how the universe originated. Theists seem prone to claim they KNOW the origin and any who disagree with their claims must think "it came from nothing."

A very valid position is "I don't know the origin of the universe and neither do you (unless you can prove otherwise)."

kenblogton replied:
I have used logic to show:
1. Since the universe is the origin of the physical, the cause of the universe must be non-physical.
2. An uncreated eternal invisible immaterial entity is required.
3. The only such entity i'm aware of is God.


kenblogton wrote:
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.

Zzyzx replied:
Why is the origin of the universe important or critical information to anyone other than astrophysicists, astronomers and people trying to promote their opinions about a favorite "god?"

kenblogton replied:
The origin of the universe is also important to philosophers, deists and theists because its origin demonstrates the need for God, as previously shown.
Also, as the argument against infinite regress shows, there is only one God, who predates Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and so on.
kenblogton

[Zzyzx]

.

Do you KNOW (with ability to demonstrate knowledge) that the ONLY two alternatives for origin of the universe are "from nothing" and "from God" – that there cannot be any other alternatives? Kindly do not be so naïve as to ask me to supply an alternative because I only question if it is impossible for another to exist – not that I have any special knowledge of such things).

Do you have alternatives to from nothing & from something?

This appears to be an admission (perhaps unintentionally) that you do not have knowledge, but have a guess that you deem must be accepted unless it is negated by others.

"Prove my guess wrong or accept it" is not a valid quest for knowledge (or a reasoned argument).

Many or most Non-Theists ("Atheists all" in the view of many believers) do not pretend to know how the universe originated. Theists seem prone to claim they KNOW the origin and any who disagree with their claims must think "it came from nothing."

A very valid position is "I don't know the origin of the universe and neither do you (unless you can prove otherwise)."

I have used logic to show:
1. Since the universe is the origin of the physical, the cause of the universe must be non-physical.
2. An uncreated eternal invisible immaterial entity is required.
3. The only such entity i'm aware of is God.

A "god" being the only entity that YOU are aware of means nothing in debate.

The only alternative that anyone is aware of is no indication that one does not exist.

What you do not (and cannot) show is that there is NO OTHER alternative to "god" for existence of the universe. Then you might have a case.

Even if you could show that no other alternative existed, you would still not have shown that you have any knowledge regarding that "god."

Why is the origin of the universe important or critical information to anyone other than astrophysicists, astronomers and people trying to promote their opinions about a favorite "god?"

The origin of the universe is also important to philosophers, deists and theists because its origin demonstrates the need for God, as previously shown.

As I said, origin of the universe is important to astrophysicists, astronomers and people trying to promote their opinions about a favorite "god."

Also, as the argument against infinite regress shows, there is only one God, who predates Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and so on.

Your argument is only an argument, an opinion that purports to show something about a "god" that has not been shown to be anything more than imagination of various religious groups.



Your entire case appears to be "There is no other alternative to 'god' to explain the existence of the universe" AND "Unless someone provides an alternative I must be right. Do you have examples of something coming from nothing?"

Both are faulty assumptions.

Repeating "Do you have examples of something coming from nothing?" is not debate.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 526 by Zzyzx]

I'll reply to 2 of your sets of comments:

Zzyzx wrote:
Many or most Non-Theists ("Atheists all" in the view of many believers) do not pretend to know how the universe originated. Theists seem prone to claim they KNOW the origin and any who disagree with their claims must think "it came from nothing."

A very valid position is "I don't know the origin of the universe and neither do you (unless you can prove otherwise)."

kenblogton wrote:
I have used logic to show:
1. Since the universe is the origin of the physical, the cause of the universe must be non-physical.
2. An uncreated eternal invisible immaterial entity is required.
3. The only such entity i'm aware of is God.

Zzyzx wrote:
A "god" being the only entity that YOU are aware of means nothing in debate.

The only alternative that anyone is aware of is no indication that one does not exist.

What you do not (and cannot) show is that there is NO OTHER alternative to "god" for existence of the universe. Then you might have a case.

Even if you could show that no other alternative existed, you would still not have shown that you have any knowledge regarding that "god."

kenblogton replied:
If there are alternatives to God, what are they? Merely because you don't like the answer doesn't make it invalid.

Zzyzx wrote:
Why is the origin of the universe important or critical information to anyone other than astrophysicists, astronomers and people trying to promote their opinions about a favorite "god?"

kenblogton wrote:
The origin of the universe is also important to philosophers, deists and theists because its origin demonstrates the need for God, as previously shown.

Zzyzx wrote:
As I said, origin of the universe is important to astrophysicists, astronomers and people trying to promote their opinions about a favorite "god."

kenblogton replied:
I didn't say that, so please don't reinterpret what I say in terms of your own belief framework. How the universe originated has commanded the attention of humans from our earliest days. The why of the existence of the universe is a question that humans have cared about since the beginnings of their existence.

kenblogton wrote:
Also, as the argument against infinite regress shows, there is only one God, who predates Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and so on.

Zzyzx wrote:
Your argument is only an argument, an opinion that purports to show something about a "god" that has not been shown to be anything more than imagination of various religious groups.

kenblogton replied:
The argument is the argument against infinite regress, which is a valid argument; an argument whose validity you have not cast into question.

Zzyzx wrote:
Your entire case appears to be "There is no other alternative to 'god' to explain the existence of the universe" AND "Unless someone provides an alternative I must be right. Do you have examples of something coming from nothing?"
Both are faulty assumptions.
Repeating "Do you have examples of something coming from nothing?" is not debate.

kenblogton wrote:
Your inability or unwillingness to provide an alternative to God and to provide examples of something coming from nothing are not assumptions, they are tacit admissions by yourself that you are unable to do so.
Your inability to do so seems to me that you are conceding your position in this debate.
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 527 by kenblogton]

I fail to see a valid argument against infinite regress.

"we'd never "get here"" - aside from the A-theory assumptions, and examples like zeno's paradox, and mathematical sequences, given that you believe God caused the beginning of time, in your belief temporal progression is not a necessity for causal progression. Therefore an infinite causal chain could take no time whatsoever.


Also, see [Post 521 by Jashwell]

[Zzyzx]

.

I'll reply to 2 of your sets of comments:

It is not surprising when people choose a couple points from a post that they think they can argue.

BTW, there is a tutorial on use of the quote function at http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... .php?t=582 if that will be helpful in presenting ideas clearly.

A "god" being the only entity that YOU are aware of means nothing in debate.

The only alternative that anyone is aware of is no indication that one does not exist.

What you do not (and cannot) show is that there is NO OTHER alternative to "god" for existence of the universe. Then you might have a case.

Even if you could show that no other alternative existed, you would still not have shown that you have any knowledge regarding that "god."

If there are alternatives to God, what are they?

I do not pretend to know the origin of the universe and the alternatives that may be available.

Because I do not profess knowledge does NOT indicate that an alternative you prefer is the only one available or that it is correct.

Merely because you don't like the answer doesn't make it invalid.

Answer to what question?

What is THE answer?

Why is the origin of the universe important or critical information to anyone other than astrophysicists, astronomers and people trying to promote their opinions about a favorite "god?"

The origin of the universe is also important to philosophers, deists and theists because its origin demonstrates the need for God, as previously shown.

As I said, origin of the universe is important to astrophysicists, astronomers and people trying to promote their opinions about a favorite "god."

I didn't say that, so please don't reinterpret what I say in terms of your own belief framework. How the universe originated has commanded the attention of humans from our earliest days. The why of the existence of the universe is a question that humans have cared about since the beginnings of their existence.

Notice the difference between my "important and critical information" and your "cared about."

Yes, people have wondered about the sun, moon, planets, stars. Some have evidently become fixated or obsessed and have worshiped them and/or invented or imagined various "gods" to explain what they did not know.

As knowledge of the solar system and beyond increased the "gods" became less appealing as answers to questions about the universe or nature. Some remnants of the antiquated belief / worship systems still exist.

Also, as the argument against infinite regress shows, there is only one God, who predates Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, and so on.

Your argument is only an argument, an opinion that purports to show something about a "god" that has not been shown to be anything more than imagination of various religious groups.

The argument is the argument against infinite regress, which is a valid argument; an argument whose validity you have not cast into question.

Does an argument of "infinite regress" (a tern from Philosophy meaning "causal or logical relationship of terms in a series without the possibility of a term initiating the series") prove or disprove the existence of "gods" or explain the origin of the universe?

If not, it is best discussed in the Philosophy sub-forum. In this thread the topic is "Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?"

BTW, how, exactly, does "infinite regress" show that there is only one god for numerous religons?

Your entire case appears to be "There is no other alternative to 'god' to explain the existence of the universe" AND "Unless someone provides an alternative I must be right. Do you have examples of something coming from nothing?"
Both are faulty assumptions.
Repeating "Do you have examples of something coming from nothing?" is not debate.

Your inability or unwillingness to provide an alternative to God and to provide examples of something coming from nothing are not assumptions, they are tacit admissions by yourself that you are unable to do so.

Correction: My position, clearly stated repeatedly, is that I do not know the origin of the universe and neither does anyone else (beyond opinion, speculation, hypothesis, theory and/or religious belief).

I do not speculate or offer opinions about matters that are beyond my knowledge. If I ever offer a guess it is clearly labeled as such and not falsely claimed as knowledge.

Those who claim knowledge are expected and required to substantiate their claims (with something more that additional speculation, opinion, and "you haven't proved an alternative."

One who was inclined to guess about the origin of the universe could propose that an evil spirit or Satan was responsible (as an alternative to "gods").

Your inability to do so seems to me that you are conceding your position in this debate.

It is amusing to see people declare themselves victorious in debate – or to erroneously suggest that others have "conceded."

Readers will decide for themselves which ideas have merit – and whether "If you can't explain the origin of the universe (or 'something from nothing'), you concede to the 'god' cause" is valid.