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 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 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.

Second reply to 1: you said "The Universe has existed for all of time - which is finite in the past and therefore always."

We can agree that all of time is, by definition, finite. However, that begs the question. At http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-cause ... -bang.html, a website that rejects God as the cause, 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."

So however you conceive it, there was something "prior" to the dense singularity/big bang. As you say, "I don't understand how you're not getting this."

Second reply to 2. If you understand the website quote in the second reply to 1, it would take an incredible degree of incredulity to believe "I am saying it did (or more importantly could've) come from no thing. In other words, it didn't come from a thing."

And God, as I've explained, but you refuse to accept, is the only uncaused entity.

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 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.

Second reply to 1: you said "The Universe has existed for all of time - which is finite in the past and therefore always."

We can agree that all of time is, by definition, finite.

No, time is likely finite in the past. It may well go on into an infinite future.

However, that begs the question.

Uh.. no and what?

At http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-cause ... -bang.html, a website that rejects God as the cause

A website run by a single person, giving his opinion.

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?'

"We can't help ourselves" -> I'm guessing you don't also use this website to agree with me on the second position.

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."

Uh, no? For instance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartle%E2% ... king_state

I've never said there must be a boundary - a boundary is absurd.

So however you conceive it, there was something "prior" to the dense singularity/big bang. As you say, "I don't understand how you're not getting this."

Then it's not the BEGINNING OF TIME, is it?

Second reply to 2. If you understand the website quote in the second reply to 1, it would take an incredible degree of incredulity to believe "I am saying it did (or more importantly could've) come from no thing. In other words, it didn't come from a thing."

And God, as I've explained, but you refuse to accept, is the only uncaused entity.

kenblogton

One website, that literally give no sources for anything, run by one person, that says "we can't help but ask what the cause is" - which implies that we don't have reason to ask - merely has the rhetorical question "What caused the Universe?", and -

Hang on a second.

In this realm, the solution, whatever it is, will seem very strange to us, and it will almost certainly make no sense to our brains because here, it is possible to have an event with no cause. There is no time, there is no before in which the Big Bang could have occurred, there simply is no cause and effect.

What?

[Danmark]

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.

Why not include God with tooth fairies? There are no 'valid examples' of either. As has been pointed out to you previously, you can't just define your way to God.

You might as well define tooth fairy: "That singular entity that represents the only valid example of something coming from nothing. Uh... and... uh... also he's the guy who leaves a coin under the pillow in exchange for a baby tooth and this is true because I say it is."

This is the essence of your arguments about god that, whatever you can't explain any other way, is god, and you will define him however you like in order to fit your argument.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 541 by Jashwell]

Hi Jashwell
As I've typically observed with our exchanges, we get to a point where I find you do not deal with my points, but rather avoid or go around them.
What I suggest at that point is what I'm suggesting now: Let's just agree to disagree.
However, I would remind you that you have never satisfactorily dealt with the 2 fatal flaws in the atheist argument:
1. Something always comes from something, never from nothing.
2. There are no infinite regresses.
All the best kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 543 by kenblogton]

Given that you consider "Coming from no thing" (not coming) and "Coming from nothing" as two separate things, I have no need to address either point.

But I think I did address both. The former as I disagree with on the basis of (mainly) just a different definition of coming from nothing (not coming from anything)

The latter is an unjustified statement of fact. What counts as a regress of causality?
If A causes B to accelerate, and then B's new displacement causes A to accelerate differently, is that a regress of causality? If so, an infinite regress of causality happens every second many times over.

[kenblogton]

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.

Why not include God with tooth fairies? There are no 'valid examples' of either. As has been pointed out to you previously, you can't just define your way to God.

You might as well define tooth fairy: "That singular entity that represents the only valid example of something coming from nothing. Uh... and... uh... also he's the guy who leaves a coin under the pillow in exchange for a baby tooth and this is true because I say it is."

This is the essence of your arguments about god that, whatever you can't explain any other way, is god, and you will define him however you like in order to fit your argument.

Danmark, you seem to not fully understand logic. There are 2 ways to prove the existence of something:
1 To show it, or
2. To show the evidence of it.
Point 1 works for physical things, which means it doesn't work for God.
Point 2 works to show the existence of God as follows:
a. Since there is no evidence of something coming from nothing, we know that something always comes from something. The most obvious something is the universe.
b. Since the universe is the origin of the physical, the something that caused it must be non-physical.
c. God is the only credible non-physical entity that I'm aware of.
d. To ask about the origin of God leads to infinite regress, another item of which there is no evidence.
e. Therefore we logically deduce that the physical universe was caused by eternal non-physical God.
Hope this makes the logic clear.
All the best kenblogton

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 544 by Jashwell]

Jashwell said: Given that you consider "Coming from no thing" (not coming) and "Coming from nothing" as two separate things, I have no need to address either point.
kenblogton replied: Let me correct you. I consider something coming from nothing and coming from no thing as equivalent; the same thing. In other words, something that comes from nothing or from no thing must arise spontaneously, be self-creating; un-caused. There are no examples of such. Most scientists reject the notion of a spontaneously arisen universe; atheistic scientists, like Hawking, of course must cling to such explanatory fictions. As you are no doubt aware of, UK Professor John Lennox has refuted Hawking's thesis; his arguments are briefly described in the movie "God's not dead."
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

Replying to post 546 by kenblogton

Something that comes from no thing is something that does not come from any thing.

Does God come from a thing?
No? Then God comes from no thing.

I don't believe John Lennox has addressed anything, I haven't seen the movie but from what I remember of the Cambridge Union debate he didn't say anything new or impressive.

[Danmark]

There are 2 ways to prove the existence of something:
1 To show it, or
2. To show the evidence of it.
Point 1 works for physical things, which means it doesn't work for God.
Point 2 works to show the existence of God as follows:
a. Since there is no evidence of something coming from nothing, we know that something always comes from something. The most obvious something is the universe.
b. Since the universe is the origin of the physical, the something that caused it must be non-physical.
c. God is the only credible non-physical entity that I'm aware of.
d. To ask about the origin of God leads to infinite regress, another item of which there is no evidence.
e. Therefore we logically deduce that the physical universe was caused by eternal non-physical God.
Hope this makes the logic clear.

[emphasis applied]
You've done neither.

I have explained this to you several times:
1st, Your premise is false. You keep claiming that there "is no evidence of something coming from nothing."
Then you turn right around and say "God" is something that came from nothing.'

2d, you claim the universe is 'the origin of the physical,'

... while 3d, you postulate an imaginary 'something' that is 'non physical.' To this imaginary 'non physical' something, you attribute the origin of the physical, and call it 'God.'

You have given no evidence whatsoever for your claim that there is something 'non physical,' except your mere claim that God is this 'non physical' "something."

As I have pointed out repeatedly, you are attempting to simply define 'God' into existence. You haven't succeeded.

But, for the sake of argument, let us overlook the flaws in your argument and agree that there is some non physical cause that caused the physical [tho' you have yet to explain how this imaginary 'non physical' could interact with the physical].

What shall we call this 'cause,' this X-factor? What are its attributes and how do we know? Why assume it has a personality? In fact, what is your evidence for assuming anything at all about this 'X'? You have arbitrarily called it 'God' without the slightest basis for your proclamation.

[Danmark]

kenblogton wrote:

...Professor John Lennox has refuted Hawking's thesis....

This is a claim. Support your claim or withdraw it.
Referring to a movie supports nothing, except a claim a movie exists.