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.

[FarWanderer]

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.

"Since?"

When exactly was it established that the universe is the origin of the physical?

[Bust Nak]

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

A valid answer doesn't mean the correct answer. Answers are easy, demonstrably true answers are a different matter.

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

Its origin can be used to argue for God. Demonstrating it on the other hand, is what you are failing to do.

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

No, it isn't valid, as I have demonstrate previously.

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.

I gave you 4 alternatives:
Infinite regression,
Circular regression,
The big bang,
Super God.

Don't talk about inability or unwillingness to respond when you've yet to address any of my objections.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 529 by Zzyzx]

Zzyzx said: 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).

kenblogton replied: You are establishing yourself as the ultimate authority on the origin of the universe, and claiming that ignorance (I don't know and neither does anyone else) is the answer.
I invite you to refute the following established truths re: the origins of the universe, point by point.
1. The dense singularity/big bang is the origin of the physical; prior, there is no space, time, matter or energy.
2. The universe did not spontaneously arise; it had a cause.
3. Since the physical began with the dense singularity/big bang, the cause of the origin of the universe must be non-physical.
4. The only valid non-physical causal agent I'm aware of is God.
5. To the question "How did God originate?" the answer is "God is eternal - always was." This is essential to avoid the logical trap of an infinite regression of creative entities.
kenblogton

[Danmark]

I invite you to refute the following established truths re: the origins of the universe, point by point. . . .
3. Since the physical began with the dense singularity/big bang, the cause of the origin of the universe must be non-physical.

Your key claim, #3, is not an 'established truth.' It is an established falsity.

"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down."
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Having all the matter in the universe packed into one point with infinite density made it infinitely physical. One might say your claim is not just wrong, it is infinitely wrong.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 521 by Jashwell]

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

kenblogton replied:
1. If you are saying the universe always was, the dense singularity/big bang was an event that occurred, it is typically estimated, 13.7 billion years ago, so the universe is not an "always was."
2. If you are saying the universe spontaneously arose, you are in effect saying it came from nothing. To believe that our present loaded with stuff universe was an uncaused spontaneous or chance occurrence suggests magical thinking - the one time that it is known such an event could have happened in history.
Clarification please.
kenblogton

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 521 by Jashwell]

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


1. If you are saying the universe always was, the dense singularity/big bang was an event that occurred, it is typically estimated, 13.7 billion years ago, so the universe is not an "always was."
2. If you are saying the universe spontaneously arose, you are in effect saying it came from nothing. To believe that our present loaded with stuff universe was an uncaused spontaneous or chance occurrence suggests magical thinking - the one time that it is known such an event could have happened in history.
Clarification please.

The form of the universe is in constant change. To say it has always been is not the same as saying it has always been in the form it exists in at this moment. 'Big Bang' says the universe arose from a super dense singularity over 13 billion years ago; that in that singularity time and the laws of physics did not exist It may collapse again resulting in another 'big bang.' This cyclic theory is controversial.

It is worth noting that Hawking does not claim he disproved the existence of God, only that he shows God is not necessary to explain the universe. It takes a quantum leap of the imagination to suggest 'God' is the cause and a super quantum leap of speculation to suggest that this 'God' is personal; that is, a theistic god. If there were such a 'god,' then 'God' would be a misleading term for this nonbeing that is the unseen and unknown 'cause.' Or, as Paul Tillich put it, God is not a being, he does not 'exist;' he is 'the very ground of being.'

Assigning this alleged God a personality is to imagine this 'god' in our own image.

[kenblogton]

I invite you to refute the following established truths re: the origins of the universe, point by point. . . .
3. Since the physical began with the dense singularity/big bang, the cause of the origin of the universe must be non-physical.

Your key claim, #3, is not an 'established truth.' It is an established falsity.

"At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down."
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Having all the matter in the universe packed into one point with infinite density made it infinitely physical. One might say your claim is not just wrong, it is infinitely wrong.

The universe was not on top of itself - there was no universe prior to the dense singularity/big bang! Since the physical begins with the dense singularity/big bang, it BEGINS with the dense singularity/big bang, just like before there was a Danmark, there was no Danmark. There are no Danmark-attributable events prior to Danmark coming into existence, and there are no physical events "prior" to the dense singularity/big bang.

Since Hawking is an avowed atheist, it is not surprising he would disagree since it demolishes his position. However, the scientific consensus is that the physical: space, time, matter & energy all BEGIN at the dense singularity/big bang, in spite of Hawking and Danmark.

At http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-cause ... -bang.html, a website that also rejects God, it says: "The big bang is our current, most accepted theory for how the universe began. It was inspired by the discovery that the universe is expanding.

It was an unusual and highly counterintuitive event. It was not an explosion, it did not occur inside anything, rather, everything that we are familiar with: left, right, up, down, cause and effect, the stage for all physical laws, was getting larger.

We possess a natural curiosity of the world around us. We want to know how and why things are the way they are.

This curiousity has served us well because it carries significant survival benefits. If we see an event and ask ourselves why it happened or what caused it, we are more likely to spot a threat before it becomes dangerous in the future.

Our curiosity gives us the ability to look beyond the present moment. From it, we have evolved an urge to look for causes, it is an inseparable part of our biology. Because of this, we really can't help ourselves when we attempt to find a cause for creation, it is second nature for us to ask, 'What Caused the Big Bang?'

Any answer to this problem must begin with a key realization: both time and space are contained within the universe and came into existence only AFTER the Big Bang occurred. The cause of the universe must not include them, they are not available to us. It must come from outside our experience."

kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 521 by Jashwell]

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

kenblogton replied:
1. If you are saying the universe always was, the dense singularity/big bang was an event that occurred, it is typically estimated, 13.7 billion years ago, so the universe is not an "always was."

I don't understand how you're not getting this.
This Universe has only existed for a finite amount of time.
The Universe has existed for all of time (which itself is finite in the past) and therefore always.

What you are saying, is like saying that someone who didn't run an unnecessary extra 500m, didn't run the entire race.

2. If you are saying the universe spontaneously arose, you are in effect saying it came from nothing. To believe that our present loaded with stuff universe was an uncaused spontaneous or chance occurrence suggests magical thinking - the one time that it is known such an event could have happened in history.
Clarification please.
kenblogton

I am saying it did (or more importantly could've) come from no thing. In other words, it didn't come from a thing.
As far as you are concerned, the same as God.

While I do for previously given reasons, I don't need to hold the belief that the Universe could arise without cause - simply lack belief. The burden of proof is on anyone that asserts the Universe must've had a cause or must've had a prior state.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 531 by Bust Nak]

kenblogton wrote:

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

Bust Nak replied:

A valid answer doesn't mean the correct answer. Answers are easy, demonstrably true answers are a different matter.

kenblogton replied:

I assume you are unable to answer the question: If God is not the answer to the origin of the universe, what is? If you have no better answer, then I guess that answer wins until a better one comes along.

Again, I invite you to refute the following established truths re: the origins of the universe, point by point.
1. The dense singularity/big bang is the origin of the physical; prior, there is no space, time, matter or energy.
2. The universe did not spontaneously arise; it had a cause.
3. Since the physical began with the dense singularity/big bang, the cause of the origin of the universe must be non-physical.
4. The only valid non-physical causal agent I'm aware of is God.

kenblogton

[kenblogton]

[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]

The irrefutable argument against infinite regress is that there are no valid examples of such, just as there are no valid examples of tooth fairies & of something coming from nothing.

kenblogton