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.

[Zzyzx]

.

[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

Moderator Clarification

Your posts have been reported many times for repeated unsupported claims related to the "something from nothing" and "infinite regress" points you repeatedly raise. Claiming to know the origin of the universe and/or asking others to answer the origin of the universe question is not debate.

I refrain from making this a Comment or Warning (since I am involved in the thread), but leave that to other moderators at the next infraction " which can lead to Probation, Suspension or Banishment.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[FarWanderer]

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

No they don't. They say the universe begins with the big bang. That's not the same thing as saying the physical begins with the big bang. You're just making that up all on your own.

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.

The faulty assumption is that the physical must be caused at all.

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 1 by Jashwell]

I guess I would answer that with...

Are there good reasons to believe that bigfoot exists?

Are there good reasons to believe that fairies exists?

Are there good reasons to believe that a unicorn exists?

Are there good reasons to believe that Venus is hollow and little blue men living inside it exist?

We can sit around all day and make up "wouldn't it be cool if *fill in the blank* exists" and we wouldn't have to if there was evidence to substanitiate it, outside of subjective philosophy.

[kenblogton]

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

No they don't. They say the universe begins with the big bang. That's not the same thing as saying the physical begins with the big bang. You're just making that up all on your own.

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.

The faulty assumption is that the physical must be caused at all.

Second reply to 1. Space, time, matter & energy are the physical, and they all began at the big bang. At http://space.about.com/od/astronomybasi ... iverse.htm, it states "The second part of the question, as to what existed before the Big Bang, has scientists baffled. By definition, nothing existed prior to the beginning,"

Second reply to 2. Everything physical has a cause. At http://caeits.sciencesconf.org/, it states "Causality plays a central role in the sciences. Causal inference (finding out what causes what) and causal explanation (explaining how a cause produces its effect) are major scientific tasks in fields as diverse as astrophysics, biochemistry, biomedical or social sciences."
At http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-cause ... -bang.html, it states "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?'"
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 623 by kenblogton]

"By definition, nothing existed prior to the beginning [the Universe (probable emphasis on time)]" as it has been said many, many times, this includes no God.
Nothing physical, nothing non-physical. No God.

Your second has been long addressed, I'll search the thread for my response and add it in.
Namely, one of the papers on the conference addresses it.

Of course causality is essential in Science. At http://caeits.sciencesconf.org/, it states "Causality plays a central role in the sciences. Causal inference (finding out what causes what) and causal explanation (explaining how a cause produces its effect) are major scientific tasks in fields as diverse as astrophysics, biochemistry, biomedical or social sciences." To use Al Gore's phrase, you may find causality an "inconvenient truth," but that doesn't change its scientific truthfulness.

I've previously dealt with the illogic of infinite regress. If you'd like it re-explained, please ask.

Actually, I've previously dealt with all of your above objections.

Ditto but it doesn't mean the other agrees.

So first: This is a website for a conference.
A conference that lists sciences that don't deal with major aspects of relativity or areas where time comes into question.

"causal explanation (explaining how a cause produces its effect) are major scientific tasks in fields as diverse as astrophysics, biochemistry, biomedical or social sciences."
Astrophysics is not cosmology or theoretical physics.
Biochemistry, biomedical and social sciences are not cosmology or theoretical physics.


Here's a paper that was submitted to the conference.
http://caeits.sciencesconf.org/conferen ... TS2013.pdf

"This demonstrates that the apparent relevance of causal notions in the quantum and statistical mechanical explanations offered is merely the result of the imposition of a time-asymmetry in the collection of the relevant statistics. This indicates that such theories are not themselves causal."

Please stop re-using disproven arguments until you can address the counter arguments. This is one example of many not addressed.

[kenblogton]

[Replying to post 623 by kenblogton]

1. "By definition, nothing existed prior to the beginning [the Universe (probable emphasis on time)]" as it has been said many, many times, this includes no God.
Nothing physical, nothing non-physical. No God.

2. Your second has been long addressed, I'll search the thread for my response and add it in.
Namely, one of the papers on the conference addresses it.

Of course causality is essential in Science. At http://caeits.sciencesconf.org/, it states "Causality plays a central role in the sciences. Causal inference (finding out what causes what) and causal explanation (explaining how a cause produces its effect) are major scientific tasks in fields as diverse as astrophysics, biochemistry, biomedical or social sciences." To use Al Gore's phrase, you may find causality an "inconvenient truth," but that doesn't change its scientific truthfulness.

I've previously dealt with the illogic of infinite regress. If you'd like it re-explained, please ask.

Actually, I've previously dealt with all of your above objections.

Ditto but it doesn't mean the other agrees.

So first: This is a website for a conference.
A conference that lists sciences that don't deal with major aspects of relativity or areas where time comes into question.

"causal explanation (explaining how a cause produces its effect) are major scientific tasks in fields as diverse as astrophysics, biochemistry, biomedical or social sciences."
Astrophysics is not cosmology or theoretical physics.
Biochemistry, biomedical and social sciences are not cosmology or theoretical physics.


Here's a paper that was submitted to the conference.
http://caeits.sciencesconf.org/conferen ... TS2013.pdf

"This demonstrates that the apparent relevance of causal notions in the quantum and statistical mechanical explanations offered is merely the result of the imposition of a time-asymmetry in the collection of the relevant statistics. This indicates that such theories are not themselves causal."

Please stop re-using disproven arguments until you can address the counter arguments. This is one example of many not addressed.

Reply to 1. There was nothing physical prior to the big bang. Science says nothing about the non-physical; your statement "Nothing physical, nothing non-physical. No God." is atheistic wishful thinking.

Reply to 2. Your quote "This demonstrates that the apparent relevance of causal notions in the quantum and statistical mechanical explanations offered is merely the result of the imposition of a time-asymmetry in the collection of the relevant statistics. This indicates that such theories are not themselves causal."[/quote] is a theoretical physics notion. In the real world of space, time, matter and energy, all events are caused, without exception. You have never given me even one example of something coming from nothing, which underscores the necessity of causation.

kenblogton

[kenblogton]

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.

What evidence do you have of any universe besides our own? Speculation that such may be possible is no more fruitful than supposing unicorns may exist somewhere.
kenblogton

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 623 by kenblogton]

1. "By definition, nothing existed prior to the beginning [the Universe (probable emphasis on time)]" as it has been said many, many times, this includes no God.
Nothing physical, nothing non-physical. No God.

2. Your second has been long addressed, I'll search the thread for my response and add it in.
Namely, one of the papers on the conference addresses it.

Of course causality is essential in Science. At http://caeits.sciencesconf.org/, it states "Causality plays a central role in the sciences. Causal inference (finding out what causes what) and causal explanation (explaining how a cause produces its effect) are major scientific tasks in fields as diverse as astrophysics, biochemistry, biomedical or social sciences." To use Al Gore's phrase, you may find causality an "inconvenient truth," but that doesn't change its scientific truthfulness.

I've previously dealt with the illogic of infinite regress. If you'd like it re-explained, please ask.

Actually, I've previously dealt with all of your above objections.

Ditto but it doesn't mean the other agrees.

So first: This is a website for a conference.
A conference that lists sciences that don't deal with major aspects of relativity or areas where time comes into question.

"causal explanation (explaining how a cause produces its effect) are major scientific tasks in fields as diverse as astrophysics, biochemistry, biomedical or social sciences."
Astrophysics is not cosmology or theoretical physics.
Biochemistry, biomedical and social sciences are not cosmology or theoretical physics.


Here's a paper that was submitted to the conference.
http://caeits.sciencesconf.org/conferen ... TS2013.pdf

"This demonstrates that the apparent relevance of causal notions in the quantum and statistical mechanical explanations offered is merely the result of the imposition of a time-asymmetry in the collection of the relevant statistics. This indicates that such theories are not themselves causal."

Please stop re-using disproven arguments until you can address the counter arguments. This is one example of many not addressed.

Reply to 1. There was nothing physical prior to the big bang. Science says nothing about the non-physical; your statement "Nothing physical, nothing non-physical. No God." is atheistic wishful thinking.

Do you actually read the 'evidence' you cite?

By definition, nothing existed prior to the beginning.

Not to mention the fact that nothing exists before the beginning of time, as I've stated multiple times, as your quote states, by the very definition of beginning of time.

Unless you want to redefine 'before', this is just flat out wrong and has shown to be so countless times. If there was something before X, then by definition X is not the beginning of time.

Reply to 2. Your quote

"This demonstrates that the apparent relevance of causal notions in the quantum and statistical mechanical explanations offered is merely the result of the imposition of a time-asymmetry in the collection of the relevant statistics. This indicates that such theories are not themselves causal."

is a theoretical physics notion. In the real world of space, time, matter and energy, all events are caused, without exception.

1) "Is a theoretical physics notion. In the real world, " Because physics isn't real.
2) "In the real world, ... all events are caused, without exception." Begging the question.
3) I don't think you've understood what it says or implies. Causality is the illusion that results from the second of thermodynamics. Nothing more. No Universal law of causality.

You have never given me even one example of something coming from nothing, which underscores the necessity of causation.

Are you really still asking this?

Please read the following slowly and thoroughly. I'm not even going to address the argument from ignorance (or the million counterexamples given to you).

You have said on many occasions that you believe coming from nothing and not coming from something are different. In other words, you believe that their are three scenarios:
1) Comes from nothing (you think this impossible)
2) Comes from something
3) Doesn't come from something "but doesn't come from nothing" (your God)

3 means that you don't believe everything has a cause.

[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.

What evidence do you have of any universe besides our own? Speculation that such may be possible is no more fruitful than supposing unicorns may exist somewhere.

There are very convincing mathematical models that show that other universes are extremely likely. Show me anything like that for the existence of God.

I thought not.

[Zzyzx]

.

What evidence do you have of any universe besides our own? Speculation that such may be possible is no more fruitful than supposing unicorns may exist somewhere.

I agree that it is not fruitful to speculate that unicorns exist somewhere (and I include universes).

How, exactly, is it fruitful to speculate that "gods" exist somewhere?

If ancient tales, testimonials and opinions about unicorns are not regarded as anything more than imagination, why should god tales based on the same level of evidence be regarded as truthful and accurate?



Edited to add: Of course, even ardent religionists dismiss speculation about thousands of proposed "gods" (and often regard them as imaginary or false). However, "My favorite god is real even though all others are false" (and the evidence is similar).