Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God

[Aetixintro]

"Over 100 Arguments for the Existence of God" presented by Capturing Christianity on YouTube.

In this video, Dr. Chad McIntosh presents over 100 arguments for the existence of God. Each argument is presented in visual form followed by recommended sources for further research.

4.5 hrs of material. Good resource?

For discussion: Is God finally proved to exist?

[The Tanager]

But what exactly does non-physical mean? To my mind, anything that exists in any form can be classified as physical. The only alternative is the imaginary. Trying to create an alternative to the physical about which we have absolutely no information is akin to creating an imaginary construct. It is clearly a necessity for theists because one has to hide gods somewhere.

That definition is, at best, confusing (given the debate over naturalism) and, at worst, irrationally begs the question of whether the physical is all that exists. It would define God out of existence rather than letting one rationally follow the evidence for theism or atheism (in the traditional meaning of atheism).

A better definition for physical would be something like: relating to things perceived through the senses, where a synonym would be 'material'. This definition doesn't beg the above question. The physical may be all that exists, but we don't define it that way. The question of definition has nothing to do with what theism or atheism or naturalism need definitions to be.

Non-physical, then, would be something like: relating to things not perceived through the senses. A synonym would be immaterial. Something other than matter. This definition doesn't mean that non-physical things exist, just like having a definition of 'unicorn' doesn't mean unicorns exist.

[The Tanager]

Verifiable evidence is needed to establish the existence of "non-physical reality."

Science has not detected "non-physical reality." Philosophy can't detect "non-physical reality."

0 = 0
0 = 0
0 + 0 = 0

Adding 0 to 0 is of no value.

Science has not because, by its very definition, it cannot detect non-physical reality. It is the study of physical reality. It cannot tell us whether physical reality is all that exists or if there is any non-physical reality. By its very definition. Philosophy, can go beyond the boundaries of science. Logic can't give us truth by itself, of course, but it can build truth off of other truths because reality is logical, if there is any such thing as knowledge at all.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is a fail from step one. It is nothing but an unsupported assertion. It is of no more value than the unsupported assertion: "God exists." You might as well skip the argument and simply open with this.

Arguments are put into premise-conclusion form to give the audience the basic outline of the claims. Then the one offering the argument will expand upon these and offer the support for thinking they are true. Then critiques will come, followed by more clarifications and further support.

The support for thinking premise 1 is true would be the following:

First, the metaphysical intuition that something can't come into being from nothing. The alternative is to believe that something can pop into being uncaused out of nothing. That is resorting to magic. Some liken creation by God from nothing to "magic". Well, if that's true, then this alternative is resorting to magic without a magician. If you think God doing 'magic' is ridiculous, then how much more so magic without a magician?

Second, the first premise is constantly confirmed in our scientific experience. The alternative has never been observed. That's not 100% certainty, of course, but what is? This is one of the most successful ontological commitments in the history of science. What is the most reasonable thing to believe concerning the first premise?

[brunumb]

First, the metaphysical intuition that something can't come into being from nothing. The alternative is to believe that something can pop into being uncaused out of nothing.

How much weight are we supposed to put on metaphysical intuition as evidence of anything? It does not demonstrate that something cannot pop into being out of nothing, caused or not.

[brunumb]

Non-physical, then, would be something like: relating to things not perceived through the senses. A synonym would be immaterial. Something other than matter.

Energy is not matter, although it may be considered as an alternative form of matter since the two are inter-convertible. I do not consider energy as non-physical. What I don't understand is the existence of things that are not made of 'anything', the immaterial. If God exists it must consist of something rather than nothing. That something should have properties and therefore theoretically able to be examined even if we don't have the technology to do that now. Do you consider an immaterial God to be composed of something like another unidentified form of energy?

[Goat]

Verifiable evidence is needed to establish the existence of "non-physical reality."

Science has not detected "non-physical reality." Philosophy can't detect "non-physical reality."

0 = 0
0 = 0
0 + 0 = 0

Adding 0 to 0 is of no value.

Science has not because, by its very definition, it cannot detect non-physical reality. It is the study of physical reality. It cannot tell us whether physical reality is all that exists or if there is any non-physical reality. By its very definition. Philosophy, can go beyond the boundaries of science. Logic can't give us truth by itself, of course, but it can build truth off of other truths because reality is logical, if there is any such thing as knowledge at all.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is a fail from step one. It is nothing but an unsupported assertion. It is of no more value than the unsupported assertion: "God exists." You might as well skip the argument and simply open with this.

Arguments are put into premise-conclusion form to give the audience the basic outline of the claims. Then the one offering the argument will expand upon these and offer the support for thinking they are true. Then critiques will come, followed by more clarifications and further support.

The support for thinking premise 1 is true would be the following:

First, the metaphysical intuition that something can't come into being from nothing. The alternative is to believe that something can pop into being uncaused out of nothing. That is resorting to magic. Some liken creation by God from nothing to "magic". Well, if that's true, then this alternative is resorting to magic without a magician. If you think God doing 'magic' is ridiculous, then how much more so magic without a magician?

Second, the first premise is constantly confirmed in our scientific experience. The alternative has never been observed. That's not 100% certainty, of course, but what is? This is one of the most successful ontological commitments in the history of science. What is the most reasonable thing to believe concerning the first premise?

You made a claim. That claim is 'Everything that beings to exist has a cause'. How do you know that? Can you show that to be true? Now, the first premise might be true in classical physics, but it is denied in some interpretations of quantum mechanics. In 2015, they were able to detect and manipulate virtual particles. Let's see you show the cause of virtual particles. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics are that they have no cause.

[Tcg]

What is the most reasonable thing to believe concerning the first premise?

You've failed to support the claim contained in the first unsupported assertion and are now turning to me for help? As I'm sure you are aware it is not my duty to support your claim, but rather yours.


Tcg

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to Goat in post #51]

Radio-astronomy is indeed scientific! However, you need to add more charitable view when you read previous posts in order to understand all of it. Regardless, here is the following:

There is a scientific way to it. By "ordinary" radio-astronomy (think of WW2 and British air defence radars) nothing special is seen at the fringes of Universe except "something" that's detectable. However, when you configure the radio-astronomy differently to detect "ghosts" at the fringes of the Universe, you get this very special feedback that you can look at and have special experiences with concerning a mind dialogue in your brain. This happens to every human being looking at this feedback. They all become entangled in some kind of dialogue. It's not at all as when you look at "dead objects" like the Moon or stars in general.

Radiology does indeed detect the souls of ghosts these days, comparable to the souls and emission from these given people in general not necessarily those who have passed away.

[brunumb]

However, when you configure the radio-astronomy differently to detect "ghosts" at the fringes of the Universe, you get this very special feedback that you can look at and have special experiences with concerning a mind dialogue in your brain.

Where on earth is this woo coming from. Please at least supply a link to a credible source.

[The Tanager]

Definitions

Non-physical, then, would be something like: relating to things not perceived through the senses. A synonym would be immaterial. Something other than matter.

Energy is not matter, although it may be considered as an alternative form of matter since the two are inter-convertible. I do not consider energy as non-physical. What I don't understand is the existence of things that are not made of 'anything', the immaterial. If God exists it must consist of something rather than nothing. That something should have properties and therefore theoretically able to be examined even if we don't have the technology to do that now. Do you consider an immaterial God to be composed of something like another unidentified form of energy?

I understand energy to be a property that matter has. Energy can thus be examined. Immaterial does not equate to "not being made of anything," it equates to "not being made of anything physical or having no physical properties, such as energy." Being immaterial is still consisting of something, just not something physical. Our technology made to physically examine something, logically, couldn't work.


1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Critique #1: I'm shifting the burden

What is the most reasonable thing to believe concerning the first premise?

You've failed to support the claim contained in the first unsupported assertion and are now turning to me for help? As I'm sure you are aware it is not my duty to support your claim, but rather yours.

That's not what that question meant. I clearly gave two lines of support in post 52 (look for where it says "First,..." and then "Second,..."). I didn't ask you to offer a reason for my case. I'm saying that given our two options:

(a) Something can come into being from nothing uncaused.
(b) Something can't come into being from nothing uncaused.

and based on the two lines of support I gave (and anything else you want to bring in), which of these two is the more reasonable thing to believe? I think it is clearly (b). If you think I've failed to support this claim, then respond to the points I've said to show how it fails or bring in new information that changes the picture. But I'm clearly not shifting the burden.


Critique #2: Metaphysical intuition carries little weight

How much weight are we supposed to put on metaphysical intuition as evidence of anything? It does not demonstrate that something cannot pop into being out of nothing, caused or not.

Metaphysical intuition can certainly play a role in how reasonable one option is over the alternatives. They arise out of our experience of things or knowledge of what concepts mean and entail. We are rational to trust them until we are shown defeaters for such principles.

But I didn't just use metaphysical intuition as support for (b), anyway. I also pointed to the constant confirmation of science towards (b) rather than (a). Science is built on the causal principle. Do people really want to say that this principle should be rejected as true? If so, then you are rejecting much in science.


Critique #3: Some interpretations of Quantum Mechanics disprove this premise

You made a claim. That claim is 'Everything that beings to exist has a cause'. How do you know that? Can you show that to be true? Now, the first premise might be true in classical physics, but it is denied in some interpretations of quantum mechanics. In 2015, they were able to detect and manipulate virtual particles. Let's see you show the cause of virtual particles. Some interpretations of quantum mechanics are that they have no cause.

There is a difference between an interpretation and the truth. Many scientists today are doubting the traditional Copenhagen interpretation and exploring deterministic theories like Bohm's. Quantum cosmologists are especially wary of the Copenhagen interpretation because it would require an observer existing outside of the known universe to collapse the wave function of the universe.

But let's assume indeterminism. Even on that interpretation virtual particles don't come into being out of nothing. They are spontaneous fluctuations of the energy in a subatomic vacuum. The vacuum is an inderterministic cause of their origination. The vacuum is not "nothing," it has a structure and is subject to physical laws. Thus the principle remains.

[brunumb]

I understand energy to be a property that matter has. Energy can thus be examined. Immaterial does not equate to "not being made of anything," it equates to "not being made of anything physical or having no physical properties, such as energy." Being immaterial is still consisting of something, just not something physical. Our technology made to physically examine something, logically, couldn't work.

Not sure that I am following you. Energy, such as electromagnetic radiation, is immaterial by what you are saying. Is that correct? It has properties and we can study it. To my mind it is physical. I still do not understand how there can be anything non-physical other than the imaginary.