"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.
Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?
Moderator: Moderators
-
kenblogton
- Scholar
- Posts: 326
- Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 8:40 am
- Location: Canada
Post #641
[Replying to post 637 by JoeyKnothead]
I'll only reply to the following point:
kenblogton wrote:
3. The nature of the creative entity. The first two points demonstrate that the creative entity itself cannot be created and cannot change. If this creative entity were created or changing, we get into an infinite regress: this changing creative entity is created by another changing creative entity which is created by another changing creative and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, using Occams razor, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.
Joey Knothead replied:
The infinite regress is best solved when we say there the universe is, and I'm sure proud of that.
Instead, the religionist must violate his own "laws" of the universe in order to support their favored "creative entity". You simply refuse to accept that things act according to their properties, where some cause created the Big Bang, but you refuse to accept any possible "mundane" explanation. Instead, it is you who becomes the "creative entity", creating a god where none need be posited.
kenblogton replied:
At http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-cause ... -bang.html, one of many Science websites which say similar things, it says "The real problem with this question of what caused the big bang is ultimately a biological one; our brains have evolved to assume that everything has a cause, we can't imagine any event ever not having one.
But 100 years ago, we couldn't imagine that our galaxy was only one in an ocean of one hundred billion. 200 years ago, we couldn't imagine that the stars were more than 13,000 light years away. 500 years ago, we couldn't imagine that the Earth revolved around the Sun. If our past enquiries into the universe are any guide, the truth of the cosmos is always more than we have imagined.
The answer to the cause of the universe will almost certainly be something strange and, by definition, wholly beyond our experience. Our occluded brains must always be open the answer, especially when asking questions that push the limits of our capacity to understand."
The universe had a beginning, perhaps some 13.7 billion years ago. It came into existence. Prior, there was no space, time, matter, or energy. Nothing physical! It's beginning demands an explanation. The uncreated always was God meets the logical criteria for explaining its beginning.
So the universe had a beginning, and did not spontaneously arise. If not God, what do you suggest caused it?
kenblogton
I'll only reply to the following point:
kenblogton wrote:
3. The nature of the creative entity. The first two points demonstrate that the creative entity itself cannot be created and cannot change. If this creative entity were created or changing, we get into an infinite regress: this changing creative entity is created by another changing creative entity which is created by another changing creative and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, using Occams razor, we cut off the creative entities at one uncreated and unchanging creative entity.
Joey Knothead replied:
The infinite regress is best solved when we say there the universe is, and I'm sure proud of that.
Instead, the religionist must violate his own "laws" of the universe in order to support their favored "creative entity". You simply refuse to accept that things act according to their properties, where some cause created the Big Bang, but you refuse to accept any possible "mundane" explanation. Instead, it is you who becomes the "creative entity", creating a god where none need be posited.
kenblogton replied:
At http://www.deepastronomy.com/what-cause ... -bang.html, one of many Science websites which say similar things, it says "The real problem with this question of what caused the big bang is ultimately a biological one; our brains have evolved to assume that everything has a cause, we can't imagine any event ever not having one.
But 100 years ago, we couldn't imagine that our galaxy was only one in an ocean of one hundred billion. 200 years ago, we couldn't imagine that the stars were more than 13,000 light years away. 500 years ago, we couldn't imagine that the Earth revolved around the Sun. If our past enquiries into the universe are any guide, the truth of the cosmos is always more than we have imagined.
The answer to the cause of the universe will almost certainly be something strange and, by definition, wholly beyond our experience. Our occluded brains must always be open the answer, especially when asking questions that push the limits of our capacity to understand."
The universe had a beginning, perhaps some 13.7 billion years ago. It came into existence. Prior, there was no space, time, matter, or energy. Nothing physical! It's beginning demands an explanation. The uncreated always was God meets the logical criteria for explaining its beginning.
So the universe had a beginning, and did not spontaneously arise. If not God, what do you suggest caused it?
kenblogton
Re: Are there good reasons to believe that a god exists?
Post #642[Replying to post 638 by kenblogton]
I've asked this before, but
Given that you think there is no evidence of things coming from nothing (or physical things or w/e) and that we shouldn't believe it because of that (which is an argument from ignorance), don't you think we shouldn't believe in the non-physical?
"Prior to the big bang there was nothing physical: no space, time ..."
No, prior to the beginning of time there was nothing AT ALL. This is in one of the quotes you use as evidence and is purely logically necessary.
Beginning of x: The first or earliest stage of x
Earliest: coming before all others in time or order
First: coming before all others in time or order; earliest; 1st.
Prior: going before another in time or order
Lets use an order as an example. In the actual case, we'd be referring to time (though that itself can be an order).
We have an order of numbers.
(..?..) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (..?..)
Now, someone tells you that 1 is the beginning or first of the order
If someone else tells you that the number 0 is in the order, prior to 1, are they wrong?
Well, prior means that 0 would go before 1.
But 1 is the beginning - by definition, 1 is before all others - that would include a 0.
Therefore, it is logically necessary that they are wrong - as we know that 1 is the beginning.
To apply this to your 'logic':
If God must be prior to X, then by definition X is not the beginning of time or that order.
So, either it is logically necessary that you are wrong or you are dishonestly exchanging temporal order and some made up, ad hoc order ("existentially prior" as some apologists say, for instance).
I doubt the latter.
Also, your reply, deep astronomy is not a credible source. You've mentioned it before, and I've said this before.
Oh, and this is from the same page
I've asked this before, but
Given that you think there is no evidence of things coming from nothing (or physical things or w/e) and that we shouldn't believe it because of that (which is an argument from ignorance), don't you think we shouldn't believe in the non-physical?
"Prior to the big bang there was nothing physical: no space, time ..."
No, prior to the beginning of time there was nothing AT ALL. This is in one of the quotes you use as evidence and is purely logically necessary.
Beginning of x: The first or earliest stage of x
Earliest: coming before all others in time or order
First: coming before all others in time or order; earliest; 1st.
Prior: going before another in time or order
Lets use an order as an example. In the actual case, we'd be referring to time (though that itself can be an order).
We have an order of numbers.
(..?..) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (..?..)
Now, someone tells you that 1 is the beginning or first of the order
If someone else tells you that the number 0 is in the order, prior to 1, are they wrong?
Well, prior means that 0 would go before 1.
But 1 is the beginning - by definition, 1 is before all others - that would include a 0.
Therefore, it is logically necessary that they are wrong - as we know that 1 is the beginning.
To apply this to your 'logic':
If God must be prior to X, then by definition X is not the beginning of time or that order.
So, either it is logically necessary that you are wrong or you are dishonestly exchanging temporal order and some made up, ad hoc order ("existentially prior" as some apologists say, for instance).
I doubt the latter.
Also, your reply, deep astronomy is not a credible source. You've mentioned it before, and I've said this before.
Oh, and this is from the same page
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.
Post #643
Since there's not been any discussion the past week, and most of (if not all of) the thread has been based on cosmological arguments:
Some consider the moral or axiological argument to be a good reason to believe a God exists.
P1) If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist
P2) Objective morality does exist
C (P1 && P2)) God exists
Assuming the above is a valid representation of the moral argument, is this argument sound - and a good reason to believe that a god exists?
//
Personally, I generally see weak justification for P1 if any - it is often assumed by theists (in informal settings) that not only does theism provide an objective morality but that it is the only possible basis for objective morality.
The only real argument I've heard in favour of P1 is this
God is perfect/maximally great/etc and therefore omni-benevolent
The problem with this is it's begging the question. Ignoring semantic arguments about whether perfect would need to include being morally good;
First, if you define God as omni-benevolent you have a trivial solution (even then a problem shows up as will follow). One could just as easily define a new abstract concept as omni-benevolent and then substitute God for it.
The 'other' aspects of God aren't ever shown to be necessary for his supposed omni-benevolence. Why would he need to be a person? Why would he need to be very powerful?
The reality is, he wouldn't need to be anything other than omni-benevolent. Literally the plain concept of objective morality itself could substitute God in this argument. In fact, the mere fact that it can substitute God should prove the premise false.
And second, one can just as easily ask "By what standards is God omni-benevolent?" - if the standard/basis is any of the following: "Because God says so", "Because it is consistent with God's will", "Because it is consistent with God's nature", etc, then you are literally saying "God does what God wants therefore he is perfectly good" or "God is entirely consistent with God's will ...".
One loses the ability (some theists would approve of this) to 'judge' God - not because you shouldn't, or because he's some ultimate judge, but because it would be entirely meaningless. Under this, "God is good" means literally nothing.
I would also object to the second premise. Other than developing a logical or mathematically rigorous morality, which would invalidate the first premise, how could you possibly demonstrate this to any reasonable degree?
Some consider the moral or axiological argument to be a good reason to believe a God exists.
P1) If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist
P2) Objective morality does exist
C (P1 && P2)) God exists
Assuming the above is a valid representation of the moral argument, is this argument sound - and a good reason to believe that a god exists?
//
Personally, I generally see weak justification for P1 if any - it is often assumed by theists (in informal settings) that not only does theism provide an objective morality but that it is the only possible basis for objective morality.
The only real argument I've heard in favour of P1 is this
God is perfect/maximally great/etc and therefore omni-benevolent
The problem with this is it's begging the question. Ignoring semantic arguments about whether perfect would need to include being morally good;
First, if you define God as omni-benevolent you have a trivial solution (even then a problem shows up as will follow). One could just as easily define a new abstract concept as omni-benevolent and then substitute God for it.
The 'other' aspects of God aren't ever shown to be necessary for his supposed omni-benevolence. Why would he need to be a person? Why would he need to be very powerful?
The reality is, he wouldn't need to be anything other than omni-benevolent. Literally the plain concept of objective morality itself could substitute God in this argument. In fact, the mere fact that it can substitute God should prove the premise false.
And second, one can just as easily ask "By what standards is God omni-benevolent?" - if the standard/basis is any of the following: "Because God says so", "Because it is consistent with God's will", "Because it is consistent with God's nature", etc, then you are literally saying "God does what God wants therefore he is perfectly good" or "God is entirely consistent with God's will ...".
One loses the ability (some theists would approve of this) to 'judge' God - not because you shouldn't, or because he's some ultimate judge, but because it would be entirely meaningless. Under this, "God is good" means literally nothing.
I would also object to the second premise. Other than developing a logical or mathematically rigorous morality, which would invalidate the first premise, how could you possibly demonstrate this to any reasonable degree?
Post #644
I find the second premise very convincing. It's based on the moral experience that we share on the fundamental level at least.Jashwell wrote: I would also object to the second premise. Other than developing a logical or mathematically rigorous morality, which would invalidate the first premise, how could you possibly demonstrate this to any reasonable degree?
Certainly you cannot demonstrate it in a way that would be satisfactory in a court of law, but that doesn't mean that a convincing argument couldn't be made to support it. Direct experience is a strong argument in my opinion. Whatever argument you make against the reality of our moral experience, I can make an argument along the same lines against the reality of our experience of the physical world. Moral relativism and hard solipsism stand on equally strong grounds in this regard.
Post #645
[Replying to post 643 by instantc]
One can never appeal to subjective experience to justify the existence of objective morals. The moral "sense" is not only diverse (not only is this contrary to what we expect of an objective morality, but what grounds do we have to say our moral sense is right anyway?), but is the only sense of it's kind. Unlike our other senses, we can't compare or contrast it with other senses to validate or invalidate it, or to establish its reliability.
"I sense morality" shows only that subjective morality exists, not objective morality.
Saying "our innate sense of morality is subjective and not objective" is not professing moral relativism, nor nihilism nor any kind of morality. Certainly not extendible into solipsism. It is simply an observation of fact.
One can never appeal to subjective experience to justify the existence of objective morals. The moral "sense" is not only diverse (not only is this contrary to what we expect of an objective morality, but what grounds do we have to say our moral sense is right anyway?), but is the only sense of it's kind. Unlike our other senses, we can't compare or contrast it with other senses to validate or invalidate it, or to establish its reliability.
"I sense morality" shows only that subjective morality exists, not objective morality.
Saying "our innate sense of morality is subjective and not objective" is not professing moral relativism, nor nihilism nor any kind of morality. Certainly not extendible into solipsism. It is simply an observation of fact.
Post #647
[Replying to post 645 by instantc]
I happen to believe in universal morality (whether this is objective or not is another question), but as a logical product of game theory (therefore it wouldn't work with premise 1).
I don't believe there are any good grounds for otherwise believing in any kind of objective morality (as this form of morality is not compatible with the argument). I don't see how there could be.
I happen to believe in universal morality (whether this is objective or not is another question), but as a logical product of game theory (therefore it wouldn't work with premise 1).
I don't believe there are any good grounds for otherwise believing in any kind of objective morality (as this form of morality is not compatible with the argument). I don't see how there could be.
Post #648
Do you believe that there exists objective physical reality?Jashwell wrote: [Replying to post 645 by instantc]
I happen to believe in universal morality (whether this is objective or not is another question), but as a logical product of game theory (therefore it wouldn't work with premise 1).
I don't believe there are any good grounds for otherwise believing in any kind of objective morality (as this form of morality is not compatible with the argument). I don't see how there could be.
Post #649
[Replying to post 647 by instantc]
I think that's a double redundancy.
Yes, I believe in reality.
Reality is the best explanation of our shared sensory experience, confirmed to some degree by the testability of our senses against other senses and against the senses of others.
I think that's a double redundancy.
Yes, I believe in reality.
Reality is the best explanation of our shared sensory experience, confirmed to some degree by the testability of our senses against other senses and against the senses of others.
Post #650
So you give two justifications. It seems to me that neither one is good.Jashwell wrote: Reality is the best explanation of our shared sensory experience, confirmed to some degree by the testability of our senses against other senses and against the senses of others.
The fact that your own senses converge has no bearing on the question whether or not all the data is in fact made up in your mind and not real at all. Whether you are perceiving reality with one sense or five senses doesn't make it more or less likely that reality exists. At the very least, you must accept that if five senses provides you with a justification to believe in the sensed reality, then one sense has to give you at least some level of justification to believe in the sensed reality.
The fact that your senses correspond to those of others is also irrelevant to the question, because it already presupposes that your own sensory data is real. Thus, you are simply begging the question here. The only way you get to know about the sensory data of others is through your own. (Furthermore, with regard to the most fundamental questions of morality, this justification would also apply to moral realism!)
Note that in a dream state, for example, our senses also correspond to each other and to those of others, and yet, none of it is real.
I see no justification for the claim that reality exists, apart from the fact that it appears to exist. The same justification can also be applied to moral realism.
