Does God exist?

[otseng]

Does God exist? What reasons are there to believe that God is real?


Admin note:
This thread used to be called "Does God exist or not?"
I have renamed this thread to be "Does God exist?"
Another thread has been created to discuss God's nonexistence, "Disproving God".

[otseng]

If your concern is to avoid irrelevancy, you would do well to stick to the issue and avoid ad hominem attacks. My participation at this forum, assumptions about my character and suggestions that I go somewhere else are neither of concern to this topic or honest means by which to conduct a debate.

I would agree with Abs on this one. We don't need to question on why someone would want to participate in this forum. Each person has their own reasons. Even a person who would want to convince people that Christianity is wrong is welcome here. Provided that the person argues in a logical and respectful manner.

Also, if someone feels an ad hominem attack has been used, please use the button on the offending post. Or you can also PM a moderator and provide the post number.

Alright, let's reign this discussion back to the main topic.

Note that we are dealing with truth on two levels here, the first being a matter of logical satisfaction. That is one kind of evidence. The second is a matter of physical evidence.

I would agree with this. A lack of physical evidence doesn't nullify a logical answer. Physical evidence might be used to support a theory and to verify it. But, a theory can still be a completely valid theory (even true) before physical evidence is presented.

Also, as Alan pointed out, the problem is that we're dealing with a supernatural entity here. It's difficult, if not impossible, to physically measure something that is beyond our senses. The only way really to do it is through indirect evidence.

Delving deeper we find other theories utilizing string theory that suggest that there was something prior to the Big Bang (Ekpyrotic scenario for example). These don't dispute that the bang took place, but rather than propose a moment of infinite density they suggest a universe predating the bang -- ultimately an infinite universe.

Please elaborate on your theory so that we can add an answer 2 to the list of possible answers on how the Big Bang got started.

[Abs like J']

From Otseng:

A lack of physical evidence doesn't nullify a logical answer. Physical evidence might be used to support a theory and to verify it. But, a theory can still be a completely valid theory (even true) before physical evidence is presented.

...the problem is that we're dealing with a supernatural entity here. It's difficult, if not impossible, to physically measure something that is beyond our senses. The only way really to do it is through indirect evidence.

Okay, so physical evidence aside, what is the purely logical argument for the existence of god? In accordance with Christianity -- which I presume to be the theological view being professed here -- does such an argument of logic preclude the existence of multiple gods, simply "god-like" entities or any number of possibly conceived entities existing outside of the physical experience?

For what reason should one concept of theism be given more favor than another, or for that matter monotheism be given favor over either polytheism or pantheism? If we begin from such a position of ignorance that was seemingly proposed before, there is no basis for favoring one possible concept to the exclusion of all others.

Please elaborate on your theory so that we can add an answer 2 to the list of possible answers on how the Big Bang got started.

Just to be clear, it isn't my theory. Currently a resolution is needed between the theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics to explain what each reveals about the universe. One theory attempting to do so is superstring theory.

As to the Big Bang, the classical view uses the observed expansion of the known universeto trace back to a moment of singularity at which point the four fundamental forces of nature (strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force and gravitation) were unified as a sort of "superforce." As I initially pointed out in response to your claim of only one possible answer, there is no inherent implication of a creator in the classical view to honestly suggest that a god/creator be not only an option, but the only possible option.

Relating to newer cosmological models that take quantum effects into consideration, one pre-Big Bang scenario suggests that the bang is a transition rather than the ultimate origin of our known universe. In one model the universe is infinite with forces such as gravitation beginning weak. As forces grew in strength matter began to clump, sometimes so dense that black holes were formed. The space within the hole expands at an accelerating rate and matter fell toward the center of the hole increasing density until reaching the limit imposed by string theory. Upon the matter reaching the maximum allowed density, quantum effects caused a rebound in the form of a big bang.

Another model utilizes brane cosmology to perceive our universe as a multidimensional membrane existing in a higher dimensional space. According to this model the Big Bang may have been the result of a collision of our brane with a parallel one.

These aren't the only cosmological models out there, but they are two alternatives to the classical Big Bang model. And whether we look to newer models or to the classic, they don't inherently suggest any number of gods or creators. There is no basis for attempting to portray a god/creator as the only possible answer.

[otseng]

Okay, so physical evidence aside, what is the purely logical argument for the existence of god? In accordance with Christianity -- which I presume to be the theological view being professed here -- does such an argument of logic preclude the existence of multiple gods, simply "god-like" entities or any number of possibly conceived entities existing outside of the physical experience?

No, it provides no conclusions on the number of gods or even the nature of the god(s). Just that some supernatural cause started the Big Bang.

For what reason should one concept of theism be given more favor than another, or for that matter monotheism be given favor over either polytheism or pantheism? If we begin from such a position of ignorance that was seemingly proposed before, there is no basis for favoring one possible concept to the exclusion of all others.

To determine the nature of the supernatural entity, we would have to correlate it with available religious text. The religious texts that fits best with the creation model would then be a basis to determine the nature of the creator.

If one religious text says that the universe has always existed, then that text would not be appropriate. If it says that the universe is an oscillating universe, then it wouldn't fit the Big Bang model either. If a religious text doesn't say anything about creation, then it would, at best, be viewed as nuetral.

So, in my opinion, the texts that fit best to the Big Bang model would be the texts of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. And also, as I've pointed out in another thread, there's only one assumption necessary to fit the Creation story of Genesis and the Big Bang model (the universe is bounded).

Just to be clear, it isn't my theory.

I use you in the general sense, not specifically that you have devised those theories.

Currently a resolution is needed between the theory of general relativity and quantum mechanics to explain what each reveals about the universe. One theory attempting to do so is superstring theory.

While visiting the site, all I could find on the Big Bang was this. However, I can't find how superstrings explain the origin of the Big Bang.

Another model utilizes brane cosmology to perceive our universe as a multidimensional membrane existing in a higher dimensional space. According to this model the Big Bang may have been the result of a collision of our brane with a parallel one.

While visiting the Brane Cosmology link, I also fail to see how it answers how the BB got started.

[Abs like J']

Abs like J' wrote:

Okay, so physical evidence aside, what is the purely logical argument for the existence of god? In accordance with Christianity -- which I presume to be the theological view being professed here -- does such an argument of logic preclude the existence of multiple gods, simply "god-like" entities or any number of possibly conceived entities existing outside of the physical experience?

No, it provides no conclusions on the number of gods or even the nature of the god(s). Just that some supernatural cause started the Big Bang.

The section of my post you're quoting has nothing to do with the Big Bang, Otseng. It's in regards to providing either physical evidence or a logical argument to support the proposed existence of god(s). All of the above questions from my original post still stand.

Getting back to the Big Bang, I fail to see how you can conclude from any scientific data pertaining to the Big Bang that it has any supernatural cause. As I said before, neither the classical model or the newer models incorporating quantum mechanics suggest a supernatural origin.

Quote:

For what reason should one concept of theism be given more favor than another, or for that matter monotheism be given favor over either polytheism or pantheism? If we begin from such a position of ignorance that was seemingly proposed before, there is no basis for favoring one possible concept to the exclusion of all others.

To determine the nature of the supernatural entity, we would have to correlate it with available religious text. The religious texts that fits best with the creation model would then be a basis to determine the nature of the creator.

Again, the portion of my post you've quoted has nothing to do with the Big Bang or comparing religious texts to what current knowledge says regarding the Big Bang. As was the case earlier, the quoted section of my post was in regards to justifying belief in any supernatural entities to begin with. What reason is there to believe in a supernatural entity in the first place, and can a reason be provided for such belief that excludes the multitude of other beliefs pertaining to the supernatural?

Neither the link related to superstring theory or brane cosmology was meant to provide any information as to how the two pertained to the Big Bang; I included them since I didn't imagine many people would know what either were when I mentioned them in the two alternative cosmological models to the classical. The site for superstring theory does go on to briefly address the question of how superstring theory fits in to cosmology if you or anybody else would be interested in the reading.

There are alternative cosmological models related to answering questions posed by the Big Bang. Even were there not alternatives to the classical model -- which, again, doesn't account for quantum mechanics -- the classical model does not in itself say anything about the proposed existence or non-existence of any supernatural entities.

The Big Bang in and of itself does not suggest the existence of any supernatural entities to conclude via the Big Bang that any god(s) or creator(s) exist, are the cause of the Big Bang, or are the only possible answer for the Big Bang. So again, if it's going to be contended that physical evidence cannot be provided, what other reason is there for believing in the existence of god(s)?

[jtls1986]

I will use a very bad example but it seems somewhat relevant.

Since science has dissproved the theory of "spontaneous generation", why are people returning to this newly disguised theory known as the Big Bang? Imagine that there is no being known as God, the Big Bang, does it seem possible that an event like that would occur? If its possible, how? molecules you say! then where did the molecules result from? molecules result from those invisible atoms you say! then where did the atoms comes from?

The word "eternal" is defined as: "being without beginning or end." Based on this definition, would it be logical to conclude that a being known as God has always existed?

[Corvus]

So what you're saying is that energy or matter, which is eternal as far as our knowledge of it goes, and cannot be destroyed or created, could not have had an eternal existence? Why can you accept God alone must be eternal? If one thing can be eternal, so can others, so your logic is somewhat faulty.

[otseng]

Getting back to the Big Bang, I fail to see how you can conclude from any scientific data pertaining to the Big Bang that it has any supernatural cause.

Even if you believe in the superstring theory, it in itself refers to the supernatural since it relies on at least 10 dimensions to exist. (And what I mean by supernatural here is simply things that exists outside of our 4 dimensions).

There are alternative cosmological models related to answering questions posed by the Big Bang. Even were there not alternatives to the classical model -- which, again, doesn't account for quantum mechanics -- the classical model does not in itself say anything about the proposed existence or non-existence of any supernatural entities.

Sure, there are other cosmological models, but by both theoritical and physical findings, the Big Bang is the most accepted cosmological model. And even if one accepts another cosmological model, the question of first cause is never removed.

The Big Bang in and of itself does not suggest the existence of any supernatural entities to conclude via the Big Bang that any god(s) or creator(s) exist, are the cause of the Big Bang, or are the only possible answer for the Big Bang.

I would state again that since there are no other explanations to the cause of the Big Bang, then a Creator is the only answer. Until another answer can be given, there is no other logical option.

What other reason is there for believing in the existence of god(s)?

More to come...

[otseng]

What other reason is there for believing in the existence of god(s)?

Another evidence for the existence of God is the Anthropic Principle. This topic is so huge that I've decided to create another thread for it - Anthropic Principle.

[Abs like J']

From Otseng:

Even if you believe in the superstring theory, it in itself refers to the supernatural since it relies on at least 10 dimensions to exist. (And what I mean by supernatural here is simply things that exists outside of our 4 dimensions).

My familiarity with the term supernatural says nothing about differences of dimension, but rather have to do with alleged entities and actions which transcend the laws of nature. Posited additional dimensions do not transcend the laws of nature.

Sure, there are other cosmological models, but by both theoritical and physical findings, the Big Bang is the most accepted cosmological model. And even if one accepts another cosmological model, the question of first cause is never removed.

The Big Bang has cosmological models all of its own. Neither of the two alternate models I presented had anything contrary to the Big Bang, but rather provided possible explanations for the bang itself. Neither of them or the classical model imply any supernatural cause for the Big Bang.

When you say first cause, are you merely referring to the cause of the Big Bang or are you hinting at an overall argument of first cause?

I would state again that since there are no other explanations to the cause of the Big Bang, then a Creator is the only answer. Until another answer can be given, there is no other logical option.

Again, you would be incorrect. There are explanations available which neither rely on any concept of the supernatural, much less a singular deity or creator. Not even the classical model of the Big Bang need invoke the supernatural to relate a possible cause. At best all you have is the hypothesis of a deity/creator on par with all possible scientific explanations. On top of that, the hypothesis of a singular deity or creator would have no more validity to it than a hypothesis of multiple deities or creators.

Assuming that a Creator could be the only answer with no other logical options would only be true if there were no other possible options. There are other options, however, both theologically and scientifically speaking. Only further examination of the facts can elevate one option over the other and as yet there is nothing to elevate the presumption of a singular creator over all others. And really, any theistic hypothesis (of either singular or multiple creators) would only be necessary or logical if all nontheistic hypothesis were ruled out.

Another evidence for the existence of God is the Anthropic Principle. This topic is so huge that I've decided to create another thread for it...

Having briefly looked at your new topic, I imagine the last quote sums it up best from the perspective of a theist:

• "The observation that the universe has all the necessary and narrowly-defined characteristics to make man and his sustained existence possible. The view that the universe is conspicuously 'fine-tuned' for human existence. "

...though the "intelligent observers" present in the other definitions indicate that the observer need not necessarily be human.

First of all, nothing is known about the possibility of life in universes different from ours. For all we know other universes could support life, even if it were of a type completely unfamiliar to us. To say that only a universe such as ours could support life goes beyond anything we know today and is an argument of ignorance about the physics and nature of other possible universes.

Secondly, advances in quantum physics have led to quantum cosmological models that posit the possible existence of multiple universes. Following such models there may be countless universes with many different combinations of physical constants which would allow a few to support life solely by chance.

Given the possibility of other universes outside of our own and our ignorance of what universes of different properties might yield, the anthropic principle might help support the beliefs of theists, but it is by no means evidence for the existence of any deity or creator consistent with those beliefs.

[otseng]

My familiarity with the term supernatural says nothing about differences of dimension, but rather have to do with alleged entities and actions which transcend the laws of nature.

However, it is not too far of a step to guess that things can exist in those additional dimensions. It doesn't have to be Jehovah or any other god. But, it can be entities of any sort to dwell in those dimensions.

Posited additional dimensions do not transcend the laws of nature.

Why not? The laws of nature only deal with the 4 dimensions. Additional dimensions are posited by theories, not laws.

I would state again that since there are no other explanations to the cause of the Big Bang, then a Creator is the only answer. Until another answer can be given, there is no other logical option.

Again, you would be incorrect. There are explanations available which neither rely on any concept of the supernatural, much less a singular deity or creator.

Somehow I keep on missing your alternate explanations. Please state the other explanations that you are referring to on how the Big Bang got started.