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]

there is no such thing as an infinite regression; no atheist has been able to give me an example of one. To say "infinite regress" without an example is a hollow alternative.

No more hollow than "God did it." You cannot discount it simply because there are no examples, there are no examples of uncaused cause either.

The universe we live in could be an example of an infinite regression, or it could be an example of an uncaused cause. Therefore, we are not justified to conclude whether examples of those things exist or not.

Moreover, this user is arguing that something cannot come from nothing, since there are no examples of that. However, something can come from God, the universe being an example of that. He knows that the universe is an example of the latter rather than the former, because something cannot come from nothing.

Woefully question-begging as it is, this must be the worst attempt at logic that I have yet seen.

Let's get back to logic 101.
1. The universe is the beginning of the physical.
2. Since it is the beginning of the physical, its cause must, of logical necessity, be non-physical.
3. God is the only viable non-physical cause of which I'm aware.
4. To the question: what caused God, we see that to attempt any affirmative answer leads to impossible infinite regress, leading to the necessary conclusion that God is uncaused.

You see my post as woeful question-begging; I see yours as unfortunate logic-avoiding.

kenblogton

[Cephus]

Let's get back to logic 101.
1. The universe is the beginning of the physical.

Says who? At best you can say it is the beginning of the physical in our individual universe, but for other universes? Who knows? You're making an assertion without evidence.

2. Since it is the beginning of the physical, its cause must, of logical necessity, be non-physical.

Faulty assumption.

3. God is the only viable non-physical cause of which I'm aware.

You are not aware of the existence of God, you are ASSERTING God, you haven't demonstrated that God is any more likely than any invented entity.

4. To the question: what caused God, we see that to attempt any affirmative answer leads to impossible infinite regress, leading to the necessary conclusion that God is uncaused.

No, that's just an arbitrarily assigned characteristic to your imaginary entity. You are assuming, again without evidence, that infinite regress is impossible everywhere. Again, you have no evidence for anything you're saying.

You see my post as woeful question-begging; I see yours as unfortunate logic-avoiding.

You're ignoring all of the logical errors of you claims. These have all been pointed out, you simply refuse to acknowledge them.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 561 by Zzyzx]

Atheism is defined as disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. If I don't believe that God exists, I am in effect saying there is no such thing as God.

To be agnostic regarding something coming from nothing and infinite regressions is simply issue-avoiding.

1. There are no known examples of something coming from nothing. If something always comes from something, then the physical universe came from something, which Deists maintain is God.

2. To ask then where did God come from leads to infinite regress, an explanatory fallacy, logically requiring the acceptance of God as the uncaused cause of the universe.

For people who want an answer to the origin of the universe, 1 & 2 are important questions to answer, not avoid.

kenblogton

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 561 by Zzyzx]

There are no known examples of something coming from nothing. If something always comes from something, then the physical universe came from something, which Deists maintain is God.

You keep harping on this argument which has at least two major flaws.
1. You claim that there is no example of something coming from nothing, then you turn around and arbitrarily claim there is an exception and you call it 'God' with no evidence for this claim.
2. You ignore the fact the universe, in one form or another, may have simply always existed, or you argue against this reasonable assumption, while at the same time claiming that this imagined "God" is the exception.

These refutations to your key argument have been pointed out repeatedly, yet you ignore them.

[kenblogton]

Let's get back to logic 101.
1. The universe is the beginning of the physical.

Says who? At best you can say it is the beginning of the physical in our individual universe, but for other universes? Who knows? You're making an assertion without evidence.

2. Since it is the beginning of the physical, its cause must, of logical necessity, be non-physical.

Faulty assumption.

3. God is the only viable non-physical cause of which I'm aware.

You are not aware of the existence of God, you are ASSERTING God, you haven't demonstrated that God is any more likely than any invented entity.

4. To the question: what caused God, we see that to attempt any affirmative answer leads to impossible infinite regress, leading to the necessary conclusion that God is uncaused.

No, that's just an arbitrarily assigned characteristic to your imaginary entity. You are assuming, again without evidence, that infinite regress is impossible everywhere. Again, you have no evidence for anything you're saying.

You see my post as woeful question-begging; I see yours as unfortunate logic-avoiding.

You're ignoring all of the logical errors of you claims. These have all been pointed out, you simply refuse to acknowledge them.

Reply to 1. All the most reputable Science websites acknowledge the physical begins with the dense singularity/big bang - for instance, see: http://space.about.com/od/astronomybasi ... iverse.htm

Reply to 2. You state that it is a faulty assumption to state that the cause of the physical must be non-physical. A statement is an assertion, it is not logic or evidence. Fiat is argument by decree or arbitrary statement; that too is not logic.

Reply to 3. You say I'm only asserting God. That's clearly incorrect. What I've said many times, to repeat myself, is:
a. the physical begins with the dense singularity/big bang
b. the cause must be non-physical, since the physical originates with the big bang/dense singularity
c. God is the only viable non-physical cause of which I'm aware.
d God is the only uncaused cause, since to argue otherwise gets into an untenable infinite regress

Reply to 4. You said "You are assuming, again without evidence, that infinite regress is impossible everywhere." If it is not impossible, please give me evidence to the contrary; give me one example of infinite regress. If you can't, then YOU are the one assuming without evidence.

kenblogton

[Cephus]

Reply to 1. All the most reputable Science websites acknowledge the physical begins with the dense singularity/big bang - for instance, see: http://space.about.com/od/astronomybasi ... iverse.htm

That's only true of physical matter IN OUR UNIVERSE. Very few scientists think that we've got the only universe anymore, most accept the many-worlds or multiverse model now. Clearly, our Big Bang has no influence on the physical matter in other universes. Once we realize that there may be other universes, your entire argument falls apart.

Try again, without this unjustified assumption. Everything you say relies on it.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 561 by Zzyzx]

There are no known examples of something coming from nothing. If something always comes from something, then the physical universe came from something, which Deists maintain is God.

You keep harping on this argument which has at least two major flaws.
1. You claim that there is no example of something coming from nothing, then you turn around and arbitrarily claim there is an exception and you call it 'God' with no evidence for this claim.
2. You ignore the fact the universe, in one form or another, may have simply always existed, or you argue against this reasonable assumption, while at the same time claiming that this imagined "God" is the exception.

These refutations to your key argument have been pointed out repeatedly, yet you ignore them.

Reply to 1. God does not come from nothing, God is, and always was; uncreated, unlike the physical universe, which came into existence maybe 13.7 billion years ago.

Reply to 2. To say that the universe, which only came into existence 13.7 billion years ago, always existed is baffling. The earlier scientific notion of the universe is that it always was, a kind of steady state. The big bang theory, now accepted by all reputable astronomers, refuted steady state. You can read about it at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/en ... p27bi.html if you're interested. It is nonsense to believe the universe always existed if you're going to rely on logic or evidence to support your claims.

How long will you keep avoiding evidence and logic?

kenblogton

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 561 by Zzyzx]

There are no known examples of something coming from nothing. If something always comes from something, then the physical universe came from something, which Deists maintain is God.

You keep harping on this argument which has at least two major flaws.
1. You claim that there is no example of something coming from nothing, then you turn around and arbitrarily claim there is an exception and you call it 'God' with no evidence for this claim.
2. You ignore the fact the universe, in one form or another, may have simply always existed, or you argue against this reasonable assumption, while at the same time claiming that this imagined "God" is the exception.

These refutations to your key argument have been pointed out repeatedly, yet you ignore them.

Reply to 1. God does not come from nothing, God is, and always was; uncreated, unlike the physical universe, which came into existence maybe 13.7 billion years ago.

Reply to 2. To say that the universe, which only came into existence 13.7 billion years ago, always existed is baffling. The earlier scientific notion of the universe is that it always was, a kind of steady state. The big bang theory, now accepted by all reputable astronomers, refuted steady state.

Your arguments are self refuting. You claim the big bang 13.7 billion years ago is the same as the universe 'coming from nothing,' while at the same time you claim there are no examples of something coming from nothing. Then you make up an imaginary concept or 'being,' call it 'God' and claim a special pleading for it.

This is not what the Big Bang theory says. As Lawrence Krauss points out in his book with a misleading title, A Universe from Nothing, when a physicist uses the term 'nothing,' he means something very different from what a philosopher or layman means when he speaks of 'nothing.' Your argument is typical of the creationist arguments that rely on misleading quotes and only partial understanding of quantum physics and other sciences.

But, for the sake of argument, let us suppose that you are correct; that the universe suddenly 'banged' into existence from absolutely nothing and that there are no examples of something coming from absolutely nothing.
Then you make your special pleading: Except for God: 'God has always been.'
This special pleading has no evidence whatsoever to support it, yet you continue to repeat it as if it were a given, and accuse anyone who points out your fallacy as 'avoiding.'

Another way of characterizing this argument is it is just another "God of the Gaps" argument. When we couldn't explain the cause of lightning, "God must have done it" becomes the simplistic answer. If the universe could not have come from nothing, then "God must have done it" is the answer. Making something up to cover what we otherwise have difficulty explaining is an argument that was always weak. Today it is weaker than ever because now we have natural explanations for 99% of what was previously attributed to 'God.'

[barneythedino]

[Replying to post 614 by kenblogton]

Kalam is turning in his grave

[Cephus]

Reply to 1. God does not come from nothing, God is, and always was; uncreated, unlike the physical universe, which came into existence maybe 13.7 billion years ago.

How do you know this? Where did you acquire this information? Or is it just something that makes you feel good to believe so you don't really care if it's true?

Reply to 2. To say that the universe, which only came into existence 13.7 billion years ago, always existed is baffling. The earlier scientific notion of the universe is that it always was, a kind of steady state. The big bang theory, now accepted by all reputable astronomers, refuted steady state. You can read about it at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/en ... p27bi.html if you're interested. It is nonsense to believe the universe always existed if you're going to rely on logic or evidence to support your claims.

Actually, there isn't any way to refute it since we can't see back farther than Planck time following the Big Bang. For all we know, the universe has been going through an expansion and contraction cycle literally forever. Prove otherwise.

How long will you keep avoiding evidence and logic?

We could ask the same of you, considering we keep pointing out your lack of evidence and irrational and illogical gaffes.