WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

[POI]

I've been debating apologists, pastors, ministers, theists, and others, for a few years now. As I had already suspected, and continue to confirm for myself, is that no amount of logical argumentation later sways one's decision to the opponent's "side". This goes for both theists and atheists alike...

I've delved into the 'psychology of believe', in the passed. However, these topics below look to be my biggest 'findings' thus far, as to why so many believe....

- Most are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of (type 1 errors). We all commit them BTW.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of geography.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to early indoctrination. - It later becomes difficult to shake this early indoctrinated core belief, even if the evidence later suggests otherwise to this recipient.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the notion of 'experiencing god speaking to them' at one point or many.
- (Please add your reason(s) here if you feel I've missed some key topics)

I feel it's safe to assume that we will always have more god believers, verses 'atheists'. Apologetics, though fun to debate, hardly ever IS the reason someone becomes a 'god believer'. "It's been said that logic and reason is not what brought someone to 'god'. Hence, why would you suspect logic and reason could sway such away from god?"

One last thing, before I pose the question(s) for examination...

I was in a heated debate, with a church pastor, about all things... slavery. In the middle, he stopped and asked me.... "Have you ever felt the Holy Spirit?" For which I answered in honesty.... "Though I have had experiences in the passed, for which I cannot fully explain, I do not know whether or not it was me speaking to myself, or if there was the presence of something else, for which was not me." He paused, looked at me, as if he felt sorry for me, and stated... "Okay, this conversation is over." I asked why. He stated that God exists, and He attempts to speak to all of us. If you do not hear Him, this is your fault. I then pointed out that many, around the globe, feel they have communicated with god(s), but also differing god(s) than (yours). He was already done, and just continued to no longer engage, as if he just felt pity for me.

Again, seems all roads, with Christians, seemingly often times leads to Romans 1. Anywho, moving along... Question(s) for debate:

1. Would you mind giving us the MAIN reason you believe? Is it one of the topics above, or other? If you need elaboration on any above, please ask...
2. Is your current belief open for actual debate? Meaning, could ANYTHING shake your faith? If not, why not?
3. Why are you here, hanging out in the apologetics forums? Are you here to convert atheists, or other? On a side note, I suspect apologetics is not what brings Christians to Christianity; so why would you expect different for others?

[We_Are_VENOM]

There are multiple fallacies and problems with the KALAM.

Opinion noted.

This has been pointed out ad nauseam on this forum.

I've debunked these alleged fallacies ad nauseam as well.

It's unbelievable how people can in 2022 with all the immense knowledge and technological advances available, still believe a magical being created the universe ex nihilo (using only words) because of unsound logical arguments(which is basically just a somewhat clever word play).

Again, opinion noted. I will just point out that I've addressed your points in some way or other during my tenure on this great forum.

You and I don't talk much, so I will assume you are unfamiliar with my post activities.

Firstly,

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause".
There is some uncertainty to whether the radioactive decay of an atom or virtual particles have any causes for their beginning. They may be exceptions.

Firstly

This is, of course, the most popular response that is raised by the atheist as it pertains to P1 of the KCA..

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause".

They are quick to point out quantum mechanics, which I'm quite sure they don't even understand (neither do I).

However, what I do know is; there are at least 10 different interpretations of quantum physics (QP), and no one knows which interpretation is correct.

The interpretation that is raised here is the Copenhagen Interpretation, where the particles appear to arise without a cause. But there are other deterministic interpretations of QP, like the De Broglie–Bohm theory, which cannot currently be ruled out.

Secondly

Any indeterministic theory will give you a philosophical problem; and the question will arise as to what is so intrinsically special about virtual particles that they pop in to being uncaused out of nothing...as opposed to horses, money, or bikes.

The state of nothingness isn't so restrictive or selective that only X thing will pop in to being, and not Y, or Z.

Thirdly

To piggyback off the second point, the state of nothingness also isn't so restrictive or selective that it will allow particulars do pop in to being at X time, instead of Y time. Why not sooner, or later?

Makes no sense.

Freedom of will conform the religious is real and therefore has uncaused components. Therefore the first premise is bogus.

?

Secondly,

Our understanding of causality is based on recombination of pre-existing stuff, entities and properties (material cause), which does not apply for divine creation. Therefore there is an equivocation fallacy here as well.
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause." Here he refers to material cause recombination of pre-existing stuff.
"The universe has a cause." Here he refers to divine creation-ex nihilo.

Yup. Creation ex nihilo.

According to the argument against infinite regress (which still stands, btw), there can't be an infinite chain of recombining pre-existing stuff.

A first cause is necessary.

Thirdly,

He makes the fallacy of composition.
If things inside the universe(multiverse or whatever) begin to exist or have a cause for their existence does not mean the universe(multiverse or whatever) itself began to exists or have a cause for it's existence.

The fabric of Space-Time is probably finite and necessarily has a beginning state of minimum entropy(Singularity) and possibly an end state of maximum entropy(Heat Death).
The fabric of Space-time may be just a thing inside the universe(multiverse or whatever).

But that can't be the case. All space, time, energy, and matter (STEM) had to have originated simultaneously.

You can't have matter with no space, because where would you put the matter?

You can't have time with no matter with no space or matter, because when would you put the matter?

It is a space-time continuum.

The KCA applies to the entire universe which includes everything in it, and rightfully so.

Fourthly,

We have also the fallacy of single cause.
The fallacy of the single cause, also known as complex cause, causal oversimplification, causal reductionism, and reduction fallacy,[1] is a fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an
outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

There may be that the fabric of Space-Time(this thing inside universe(multiverse or whatever) or the universe(multiverse or whatever) itself was caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

This reasoning fails in light of the argument against infinite regress.

Fifthly,
Scientists don't know what happened before plank time.
So all this talk is irrelevant and highly speculative.
The reality there is a gap in our knowledge.
Using this gap to make an argument for God just makes one guilty of the fallacy: argument from ignorance and plays right into the God of the Gaps.

The argument against infinite regress is independent of our scientific knowledge. No scientist or cosmologist can save the day.

What you have here is a philosophical problem, and philosophical problems cannot be resolved by equations or telescope observations. What happened before plank time is irrelevant to the fact that the past cannot be eternal, and there cannot be an infinite amount of cause/effect relations leading up to the present moment.

Here an interesting read from Sean Carroll (the physicist):

"From the perspective of modern science, events don't have purposes or causes; they simply conform to the laws of nature. In particular, there is no need to invoke any mechanism to sustain a physical system or to keep it going; it would require an
additional layer of complexity for a system to cease following its patterns than for it to simply continue to do so. Believing otherwise is a relic of a certain metaphysical way of thinking; these notions are useful in an informal way for human beings,
but are not a part of the rigorous scientific description of the world. Of course scientists do talk about causality, but this is a description of the relationship between patterns and boundary conditions; it is a derived concept, not a fundamental one.
If we know the state of a system at one time, and the laws governing its dynamics, we can calculate the state of the system at some later time. You might be tempted to say that the particular state at the first time caused the state to be what it was at
the second time; but it would be just as correct to say that the second state caused the first. According to the materialist worldview, then, structures and patterns are all there are” we don't need any ancillary notions."

I fail to see the relevance.

[POI]

So if I have this straight, you were not a God believer until the Kalam was presented to you?

The Kalam is the main reason why I am 100% certain that God exists. Before the Kalam came into my life, everything was based on feelings and blind faith.

Now, it is more than a feeling (Boston). Hahaha.

Sounds to me like the "Kalam" presented the push to solidify your a priori gut feeling that God is indeed real. Meaning, maybe the "Kalam" acted as conformation bias? (i.e.):

the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories

Why do you feel this argument is so compelling? Can you provide some details?

I find the argument compelling because, from what I gather, the premises are more probable than not, which is enough to tip the scale to "Jesus more than likely DID rise from the dead".

And history has always been my favorite subject, and the argument is STRICTLY based on historical inquiry.

I find the argument, if presented correctly, very compelling and elegant.

I don't follow? What do you mean, "if presented correctly"?

I would need details... What specific point(s) of evidence verify that "Jesus rose from the dead"?

Science still is unsure as to whether or not the 'universe' had a 'beginning'?

Actually, the argument is not dependent upon science. The KCA has been around for centuries, well before modern day cosmology....and obviously proponents of the argument weren't appealing to contemporary cosmology to draw their conclusions.

Yet, the conclusions were still drawn....mainly, from philosophical standpoints.

However, the prevailing view in science is that the universe had a beginning, which is of course supported by science.

I'm no cosmologist, and I doubt you are either. But from what I've read on the topic, we do not know whether or not the 'universe' is eternal? Thus, it would be quite presumptuous to state that premise 2 of this argument is validated

I'm not sure if the Kalam applies to the 'universe'?

Since the second premise of the kalam is..

2. The universe began to exist

I would think it does apply to the universe.

"Began to exist", meaning {ex nihilo (or) ex materia}????

But even if it did/does, wouldn't it take special pleading to not invoke this same KCA concept to 'god'?

It wouldn't take special pleading...because we have solid reasons to believe that the universe is finite.

Seems you have missed my point here... Allow me to rephrase a bit. Doesn't it take special pleading to assert an "uncaused cause", or to simply assert an eternal transcendent agent?

Is it more absurd to simply think that material, in some form or another, has always existed? Is it absurd to think that maybe material merely changes form? Is it absurd to think that, before 'plank time', our current known universe was merely in a differing state -- prior to our known environment in which we call the 'universe'?

What exactly could shake your faith?

Since the truth of historical claims cannot be proven with 100% certainty, the door is always open for negations.

But, it will take a lot of historical findings to overturn what is already there.

Seems as though other factors, outside the "Kalam", are what hold your faith By this, I mean we may need to go back to the drawling board, via the OP...

How do you know the 'Lord calls upon you'?

When your conscious really nags at you to do something (that you know is the right thing to do), in Christian circles, we call that the Holy Spirit communicating with you.

This may seem like hocus pocus to an unbeliever, but that is what I experienced.

I find inconsistency in this response... (i.e.)

Some Christians would never think beating your child with a rod is the 'right thing to do'. And yet, other Christians do.... So which one is "right"? If you do not agree with the assertions of the Bible, does this mean you are not receiving instruction from the 'Holy Spirit'? Please clarify...

And how do you reconcile the exact same assertion(s) from the believers of opposing god concepts?

I reconcile it by acknowledging the fact that, on Christian theism, we are in a spiritual war; between God and his angels, and Satan and his angels (demons).

The Bible is clear that Satan is the ruler of this world, deceiving many...and with all this deception come with false religions and false teachings, thus, the same assertions from believers of opposing god concepts.

A "good story" always needs a villain

Couldn't the believer of an opposing god say the exact same thing as you just did above? (i.e. paraphrased) "God's direct adversary is here to deceive"

Meaning, how do you know they are mistaken and you are correct?

Just a hunch.

This does not sound like very critical examination. Especially since we are speaking about such an important topic...

But isn't the KCA a part of apologetics?

Yes, but you were speaking in terms of apologetics being used in bringing people to the faith. Who knows how effective apologetics are in that regard.

However, one thing I do know is my knowledge/use of apologetics helps affirm, strengthen, and keep my faith.

Well, you brought up this argument as deeming God real... (i.e.) more than a feeling/hope/hunch. Thus, I must ask, if the "Kalam" was shown to be no longer relevant to your feeling/hope/hunch, would your conviction(s) for God waiver?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Sounds to me like the "Kalam" presented the push to solidify your a priori gut feeling that God is indeed real. Meaning, maybe the "Kalam" acted as conformation bias? (i.e.):

the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories

Perhaps, yeah. I mean after all, any time you can have outside (external) evidence to support your preexisting belief, that makes your belief all the more valid.

For example; if your mother and grandmother calls you a handsome young man, and you gain confidence in your belief that you are handsome...how much more confidence will you gain if the attractive girl next door, and a few girls at school call you handsome?

Even more, right?

I don't follow? What do you mean, "if presented correctly"?

I retract that statement, as it obviously applies to any argument presented.

I would need details... What specific point(s) of evidence verify that "Jesus rose from the dead"?

Well, unlike the KCA which I believe is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe began to exist...arguments which involve history can't be held to such a high degree, because no one was living today was alive to witness anything that happened thousands of years ago.

So, instead of reasonable doubt burden of proof, the argument pertaining to Jesus' resurrection can be proven (in my opinion) based on the preponderance of evidence, which is of the same degree of any claim as it pertains to antiquity.

That being said...the short version goes a little something like this..in a nut shell..

1. We have historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed

2. We have historical evidence that Jesus' followers believed that he rose from the dead after he died.

3 (conclusion): The best explanation to explain the origin of Jesus' followers belief that he rose from the dead, is that Jesus actually rose from the dead.

Straight to the point, right?

Now, the key point is P2, and the key word is "believe". Why is that word important...well, if Jesus' followers believed that he rose from the dead, then they can't be accused of lying.

So, if they truly believed that he rose from the dead, then why would they believe this? And then, using careful argumentation, you will conclude that they believed it because it actually happened.

Now, there is a lot of stuff to be said in there, and that isn't even close to the tip of the iceberg.

But again, I like the argument because of its elegance, and it doesn't require much philosophical know-how or involve any complex equations...just good old fashioned common sense reasoning, which I can certainly appreciate.

I'm no cosmologist, and I doubt you are either.

That much is true. But one does not need to be a cosmologist to open any contemporary text book on cosmology and find that P2 is supported and has been supported since the 1920's.

But from what I've read on the topic, we do not know whether or not the 'universe' is eternal? Thus, it would be quite presumptuous to state that premise 2 of this argument is validated

The argument against infinite regression not only applies to the universe, but to GOD as well. And if God can't get you infinite regression, then neither can the universe.

This is a philosophical problem and is therefore independent of what science has to say on the matter...which is not even to say that science is silent on the matter, which it isn't, as P2 is empirically supported.

"Began to exist", meaning {ex nihilo (or) ex materia}????

Ex nihilo.

Seems you have missed my point here... Allow me to rephrase a bit. Doesn't it take special pleading to assert an "uncaused cause", or to simply assert an eternal transcendent agent?

I didn't miss your point. It doesn't take special pleading. It is simply going where the evidence takes you. If it takes you to an uncaused cause, then to an uncaused cause is where you go.

Is it more absurd to simply think that material, in some form or another, has always existed? Is it absurd to think that maybe material merely changes form? Is it absurd to think that, before 'plank time', our current known universe was merely in a differing state -- prior to our known environment in which we call the 'universe'?

See, that is the point. If what you postulate is true, then that would mean that infinite regression is possible. But since infinite regression is impossible, what you postulate just simply cannot be true.

I notice that people tend to want to just gloss over the infinite regression problem...and isn't until you truly understand just how absurd and out of touch with reality the concept actually is, that you will not even consider this whole "material has always existed in various forms" notion.

Seems as though other factors, outside the "Kalam", are what hold your faith

Yeah, other factors that we are currently discussing, which is that of Jesus' resurrection.

By this, I mean we may need to go back to the drawling board, via the OP...

I don't see how that logically follows...but hey, you can go back to the drawing board. I am fine right here, thank you.

I find inconsistency in this response... (i.e.)

Some Christians would never think beating your child with a rod is the 'right thing to do'. And yet, other Christians do.... So which one is "right"? If you do not agree with the assertions of the Bible, does this mean you are not receiving instruction from the 'Holy Spirit'? Please clarify...

The instructions received by the Holy Spirit should be in line with the assertions of the Bible. If it isn't, then perhaps the instructions you are receiving isn't from the Holy Spirit after all.

A "good story" always needs a villain

And a hero, too (Jesus Christ). Someone to save the day.

Couldn't the believer of an opposing god say the exact same thing as you just did above? (i.e. paraphrased) "God's direct adversary is here to deceive"

Sure, they can say it, and they do say it.

This does not sound like very critical examination. Especially since we are speaking about such an important topic...

Well, it is important to those who believe. But to unbelievers, I fail to see its importance.

Well, you brought up this argument as deeming God real... (i.e.) more than a feeling/hope/hunch. Thus, I must ask, if the "Kalam" was shown to be no longer relevant to your feeling/hope/hunch, would your conviction(s) for God waiver?

Depends on how you define "no longer relevant". Do you mean if the Kalam was found to be untrue? If that is what you mean, then still, NO, my convictions for God would not waiver because I don't believe that a mindless/blind process (nature) can configure functional human bodies; any more than I can believe that an explosion at a paint factory will give you the paintings of the sistine chapel.

But that is exactly what you are left with once you take intelligent design out of the equation and I am sorry, I just don't have the faith to believe that.

[POI]

Sounds to me like the "Kalam" presented the push to solidify your a priori gut feeling that God is indeed real. Meaning, maybe the "Kalam" acted as conformation bias? (i.e.):

the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories

Perhaps, yeah

Kool

I don't follow? What do you mean, "if presented correctly"?

I retract that statement, as it obviously applies to any argument presented.

Thank you!

I would need details... What specific point(s) of evidence verify that "Jesus rose from the dead"?

That being said...the short version goes a little something like this..in a nut shell..

1. We have historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed

2. We have historical evidence that Jesus' followers believed that he rose from the dead after he died.

3 (conclusion): The best explanation to explain the origin of Jesus' followers belief that he rose from the dead, is that Jesus actually rose from the dead.

Straight to the point, right?

Now, the key point is P2, and the key word is "believe". Why is that word important...well, if Jesus' followers believed that he rose from the dead, then they can't be accused of lying.

Many claimed 'gods' existed, and are even claimed to exist now. Many even believe they are god(s). I don't think I would accuse them of being liars. Just like I do not doubt the conviction of others who make claims about their god(s). So I ask you anew...

What specific point(s) of evidence verify that "Jesus rose from the dead"?

I'm no cosmologist, and I doubt you are either.

That much is true. But one does not need to be a cosmologist to open any contemporary text book on cosmology and find that P2 is supported and has been supported since the 1920's.

The use of 'language' in premise 2 would need to be vetted out... This is why I use the word 'universe' in quotes. It might be prudent to also put quotes around 'began to exist'. The use of language is key.

But from what I've read on the topic, we do not know whether or not the 'universe' is eternal? Thus, it would be quite presumptuous to state that premise 2 of this argument is validated

The argument against infinite regression not only applies to the universe, but to GOD as well. And if God can't get you infinite regression, then neither can the universe.

This is a philosophical problem and is therefore independent of what science has to say on the matter...which is not even to say that science is silent on the matter, which it isn't, as P2 is empirically supported.

Well, you are jumping ahead of yourself here... We know the 'universe' or 'universes' exist(s). Do we know God(s) exist(s)?

"Began to exist", meaning {ex nihilo (or) ex materia}????

Ex nihilo.

But you see, the 'Kalam' can just as easily argue for ex materia. Hence, the "Kalam" may not even be relevant to your case. But even if it was relevant, and somehow 'proves' 'ex nihilo', the Kalam may merely demonstrate deism, and not theism.

Is it more absurd to simply think that material, in some form or another, has always existed? Is it absurd to think that maybe material merely changes form? Is it absurd to think that, before 'plank time', our current known universe was merely in a differing state -- prior to our known environment in which we call the 'universe'?

See, that is the point. If what you postulate is true, then that would mean that infinite regression is possible. But since infinite regression is impossible, what you postulate just simply cannot be true.

I notice that people tend to want to just gloss over the infinite regression problem...and isn't until you truly understand just how absurd and out of touch with reality the concept actually is, that you will not even consider this whole "material has always existed in various forms" notion.

Inherent problems exist with both infinite regress, as well as first cause On the surface, from a philosophical standpoint, one could argue that you are trading one fallacy for another (i.e.)

first cause = special pleading and/or argument from ignorance
infinite regress = infinite question begging

But it's likely that one of the two turns out not to be fallacious. However, neither has been 'demonstrated' in their resolve.

I find inconsistency in this response... (i.e.)

Some Christians would never think beating your child with a rod is the 'right thing to do'. And yet, other Christians do.... So which one is "right"? If you do not agree with the assertions of the Bible, does this mean you are not receiving instruction from the 'Holy Spirit'? Please clarify...

The instructions received by the Holy Spirit should be in line with the assertions of the Bible. If it isn't, then perhaps the instructions you are receiving isn't from the Holy Spirit after all.

Okay, so the Christians who perpetually disagree with discipline, by way of beating their children, is instead surely getting their messages/intuitions from 'evil'?.?.?.?.?

Couldn't the believer of an opposing god say the exact same thing as you just did above? (i.e. paraphrased) "God's direct adversary is here to deceive"

Sure, they can say it, and they do say it.

Kool, so we are right back to square one. You say it, and a believer of another god also says it? Who do I believe, if any, and why?

This does not sound like very critical examination. Especially since we are speaking about such an important topic...

Well, it is important to those who believe. But to unbelievers, I fail to see its importance.

Well, if it's important to you, as a believer, your conclusion that "yours is right and theirs is wrong" is merely based upon a hunch?

Well, you brought up this argument as deeming God real... (i.e.) more than a feeling/hope/hunch. Thus, I must ask, if the "Kalam" was shown to be no longer relevant to your feeling/hope/hunch, would your conviction(s) for God waiver?

Depends on how you define "no longer relevant". Do you mean if the Kalam was found to be untrue? If that is what you mean, then still, NO, my convictions for God would not waiver because I don't believe that a mindless/blind process (nature) can configure functional human bodies; any more than I can believe that an explosion at a paint factory will give you the paintings of the sistine chapel.

But that is exactly what you are left with once you take intelligent design out of the equation and I am sorry, I just don't have the faith to believe that.

The more we explore, the less the 'Kalam' even seems relevant to your core belief at all? Are you now saying the 'teleological argument' is more-so why you fundamentally believe?

If so, did you happen to follow the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial of 2007?

[alexxcJRO]

This is, of course, the most popular response that is raised by the atheist as it pertains to P1 of the KCA..

"Everything that begins to exist has a cause".

They are quick to point out quantum mechanics, which I'm quite sure they don't even understand (neither do I).

However, what I do know is; there are at least 10 different interpretations of quantum physics (QP), and no one knows which interpretation is correct.

The interpretation that is raised here is the Copenhagen Interpretation, where the particles appear to arise without a cause. But there are other deterministic interpretations of QP, like the De Broglie–Bohm theory, which cannot currently be ruled out.

Discussion of interpretations is not quantum mechanics. It is a completely separate discipline called quantum foundations.
"Quantum foundations is a discipline of science that seeks to understand the most counter-intuitive aspects of quantum theory, reformulate it and even propose new generalizations thereof. Contrary to other physical theories, such as general relativity, the defining axioms of quantum theory are quite ad hoc, with no obvious physical intuition. While they lead to the right experimental predictions, they do not come with a mental picture of the world where they fit."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foundations
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/bl ... n-physics/


Interpretations is akin to bible interpretations it does not gets you to the reality all it gets you it is speculative imaginative things which may well be fantasmagorical or true in part or whole.
Assigning subjective, qualitive terms like "better" to a hypothesis-interpretation and leave it at that instead of trying to prove your hypothesis-interpretation as according with objective reality not just phantasmagorical whimsical imaginations is not very productive.
Engaging in speculative thinking is fun as an imagination exercise. But one cannot base his entire life on just that.
The key point: the uncertainty to whether the radioactive decay of an atom or virtual particles have any causes for their beginning doesn’t disappear because one brings forward talk about subjective things like interpretation. Until it can objectively be showed through experimentation that the process surrounding the radioactive decay of an atom or virtual particles is deterministic in nature the question remains open. Therefore the premise that everything has caused to its existence cannot be said to be true.
Its also always possible the answer is unknowable.
Gödel's incompleteness theorems demonstrates it is impossible to prove everything.
Even after we prove that atom decay and virtual particles happen through deterministic processes we may find other uncertainty down the line in respect to the things that helped us get an answer about atom decay and virtual particles.
This process of proving the universe if fully deterministic may never end-ad infinitum, having always things to gain knowledge about.

Secondly

Any indeterministic theory will give you a philosophical problem; and the question will arise as to what is so intrinsically special about virtual particles that they pop in to being uncaused out of nothing...as opposed to horses, money, or bikes.

The state of nothingness isn't so restrictive or selective that only X thing will pop in to being, and not Y, or Z.
Thirdly

To piggyback off the second point, the state of nothingness also isn't so restrictive or selective that it will allow particulars do pop in to being at X time, instead of Y time. Why not sooner, or later?

Makes no sense.

False dichotomy, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available.

Either all things or more things can come uncaused or nothing can come uncaused. It may be the only few things can come uncaused and the rest can’t.
There was no philosophical problem to why the light cannot escape a black hole. What is so intrinsically special about black holes asks the ignorant?
The things are what they are. The are some specific natural exceptions that make in such a way that light can escape mostly any objects but black holes.
Certain natural process may make that only when you get to the very small things you can get uncaused things.
It may be there are chaotic universes where all sorts of weird unintuitively things happen in respect to causality and time.

Yup. Creation ex nihilo.

According to the argument against infinite regress (which still stands, btw), there can't be an infinite chain of recombining pre-existing stuff.

A first cause is necessary.

But one uses two different meanings in this argument therefore equivocation.(Difference which is significant)
Uses every day recombining pre-existing stuff as a way to prove the magical ex nihilo.
Its like using the normal spheres existing in nature to prove there exist a perfectly spherical object(which exist so far only as an abstract concept) in nature.
Its like using the normal fluids existing in nature to prove there exist a perfectly fluid(which exist so far only as an abstract concept) in nature.
Also first one needs to prove such concepts can really happen in objective reality.
In the mind any fantasmagorical abstract thing its possible like ex nihilo causation, perfect circle, perfect sphere, perfect fluid, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent beings that have free will.

But that can't be the case. All space, time, energy, and matter (STEM) had to have originated simultaneously.

You can't have matter with no space, because where would you put the matter?

You can't have time with no matter with no space or matter, because when would you put the matter?

It is a space-time continuum.

The KCA applies to the entire universe which includes everything in it, and rightfully so.

All you have is argument from ignorance. You can’t have anything outside space-time continuum says you.
Many believed regular matter was all there is. Then we learned of anti-matter. Now we talk of Dark matter. There may be caca matter, fhjdstgfae matter, ...

Laws internal to the universe may not necessarily apply to the universe as a whole.
Cause and effect is a law of the universe. That does not mean it applies to the universe itself.
Proponents of the KALAM have to prove that. You cannot just assume things.

Space-time continuum may be a thing inside the universe that began to exist. It therefore does not necessarily applies to the universe itself. Space time continuum may be a thing that resulted from an “explosion” inside the universe.
We don’t know if cause and affect applies outside the universe or if it exists there.
There may be multiple dimensions, where space-time continuum happened to begin to exist in only one dimension.
We don’t know if space-time continuum way it came to be, applies to other dimensions or if there are multiple universes in a multiverse where attributes of a individual universe don’t apply to the whole multiverse as a whole. With each universe having unique weird properties unimaginable to us.


The multiverse/multi dimensional universe may be uncaused not affected like your preferred fantasmagorical magical being.
Also as of 2015, the big bang model has been revised by physicists using quantum mechanical equations to replace the need for the singularity, thus giving the universe the possibility of existing forever.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quant ... verse.html
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9314009381

This reasoning fails in light of the argument against infinite regress.
The argument against infinite regress is independent of our scientific knowledge. No scientist or cosmologist can save the day.
What you have here is a philosophical problem, and philosophical problems cannot be resolved by equations or telescope observations. What happened before plank time is irrelevant to the fact that the past cannot be eternal, and there cannot be an infinite amount of cause/effect relations leading up to the present moment.

Off course gaps in knowledge can be solved by conjuring the ultimate easy fix that requires no really big effort.

Q: How is that not god of the gaps?
I can't thing of anything to solve a gap in my knowledge: "infinite regress". Therefore magical being god. Gap filled.

Freedom of will conform the religious is real and therefore has uncaused components. Therefore the first premise is bogus.

?

Free will acts are outside causal determination in the sense that past events don’t determine our choices. Free actions are caused by the agent himself in an uncaused manner rather than by the agent because of some prior event(memories) or state of affairs(beliefs, knowledge) .
Therefore the premise "Everything to exist has a cause to its existence" is bogus.

[alexxcJRO]

...
1. Would you mind giving us the MAIN reason you believe? Is it one of the topics above, or other? If you need elaboration on any above, please ask...
2. Is your current belief open for actual debate? Meaning, could ANYTHING shake your faith? If not, why not?
3. Why are you here, hanging out in the apologetics forums? Are you here to convert atheists, or other? On a side note, I suspect apologetics is not what brings Christians to Christianity; so why would you expect different for others?

1. I think I have always thought God is real. But, only after I was child it has been questioned, which is why I have thought, why do I believe and more importantly, what exactly I believe. Main reason why I believe in God is the Bible and that world exists as told in the Bible.

2. I think it is open to debate. If this world would not exist, or if Bible would not exist, that could make me to reject the belief. For me faith means loyalty, not belief. And I want to be faithful/loyal to God, because I think He and His teachings are good. For me Bible is mostly about right understanding, and righteousness, not matter of belief. For example idea to love others is in my opinion good and right and that is why I want to do so, not because of some belief. Believing in God's existence is not in my opinion the point, being righteous is.

3. My reason to be hear is to answer questions and also to show that there is also other possibilities than the ones atheists give. I think atheists are often misleading, which is very disturbing to me. I have no problem if people don't believe, I just hope they make the choice with good truthful information.

1. Okay, so indoctrination essentially. Fair enough...

2. Say you were raised in India, as a Hindu, and the justification was the Rig Veda. Does this sound like a 'justified belief' ---- because the Rig Veda exists? And say you think the Rig Veda only preaches 'good' things?

Further, you think all of the Bible's teachings are 'good'? Really?

3. Your goal here is to challenge atheistic ideas?

One European child gets indoctrinated with Chirstian beliefs using the Bible. That Jesus died for our sins and after death and final judgment one get either a ticket to Heaven or Lake of Fire/Hell.
One other Indian child gets indoctrinated with Hinfu beliefs using the Rig Veda. That reincarnation its real and after death one gets to live again.
Both children get to adulthood being religious and believing both are justified in their beliefs and that their religion is true.
The problem that this image raises is that their beliefs are not justified for hypothesis from Christian dogma and Hindu dogma cannot both be true at the same time because they are mutually exclusive. One being true presupposes the other is false.
Religious belief usually entails indoctrination, unjustified belief, ignorance of the real world, other people religions and science.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

I've been debating apologists, pastors, ministers, theists, and others, for a few years now.

Many of us have been debating the opposing side for years now. As an example, I have debated unbelievers who were scientists, college professors, and authors of books. The fact of the matter is, this debate has been ragging for thousands of years now.

As I had already suspected, and continue to confirm for myself, is that no amount of logical argumentation later sways one's decision to the opponent's "side".

While this may be true in most cases, it is simply a false statement. With this being the case, I would like to make a couple of points here. First, there are a number of folks I could point to, who were absolute unbelievers, who went on to examine the facts, and evidence involved, (logical argumentation) and came away from this being convinced believers. Next, this very site is filled with folks who claimed to have been sincerely convinced believers at one time, who now are unbelievers. Are you suggesting that it would not have been "logical argumentation" which changed their mind?

Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of geography.

You are correct, and I will not attempt to deny this being the case. My question however would be, what would this have to do with the truth of the matter? As an example, if I believed the Sun to be stationary simply because I live in the U.S. where most folks believe this to be true, while another believed the Sun to orbit the Earth simply because most folks where they may live believe this to be the case, would what I believe be any less true? The point is, how would the way in which I come to believe something to be true, affect whether what I happened to believe would be true, or false?

Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to early indoctrination.

Again, I would have to agree this would be true. However, if I were to "indoctrinate" my children to believe the Sun to be stationary, and when they ask questions I simply respond by saying, "do not ask questions, simply believe as I say", how would this cause what they believe concerning the Sun to be any less true?

It later becomes difficult to shake this early indoctrinated core belief, even if the evidence later suggests otherwise to this recipient.

What sort of evidence would there be, which would suggest the information we have in the NT would be false?

Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the notion of 'experiencing god speaking to them' at one point or many.

Again, this may in fact be true. However, while I do not believe any of them have experienced God speaking to them, how would this have any impact upon Christianity being true, or false?

It's been said that logic and reason is not what brought someone to 'god'. Hence, why would you suspect logic and reason could sway such away from god?

My friend, this site is filled with folks who claim to have been convinced believers at one time, who go on to claim that they did not use "logic and reason" to become a believer, who go on to claim that it was in fact, the use of "logic and reason" which lead them to reject what they once believed.

I was in a heated debate, with a church pastor, about all things... slavery. In the middle, he stopped and asked me.... "Have you ever felt the Holy Spirit?" For which I answered in honesty.... "Though I have had experiences in the passed, for which I cannot fully explain, I do not know whether or not it was me speaking to myself, or if there was the presence of something else, for which was not me." He paused, looked at me, as if he felt sorry for me, and stated... "Okay, this conversation is over." I asked why. He stated that God exists, and He attempts to speak to all of us. If you do not hear Him, this is your fault. I then pointed out that many, around the globe, feel they have communicated with god(s), but also differing god(s) than (yours). He was already done, and just continued to no longer engage, as if he just felt pity for me.

Okay, so how does your conversation with someone who knows absolutely nothing about what they are speaking, have to do with Christianity being true, or false? In order to demonstrate this person knows absolutely nothing, please reference any passage in the Bible which instructs us that we will ever "feel the Holy Spirit"? So, you have a conversation with someone who references something that cannot be found in the Bible, and we are to translate this into, "Christianity must be false"?

1. Would you mind giving us the MAIN reason you believe?

I would suggest, if one could give "the MAIN reason" they believe, (as if there would be one main reason) then more than likely it could be one of the reasons you list above. However, if one has actually examined what they believe, and why they believe as they do, then I cannot imagine they could simply have a "MAIN reason" but would rather have a chain of reason, which would be difficult type out in this type of format. Whether believer, or unbeliever, hopefully we have all put a lot of time and effort into what we believe, and why we believe as we do concerning these things? With this being the case, I cannot imagine one being able to list a single "MAIN reason". There are no easy answers here, and to believe that there is, seems to demonstrate a, simple mind.

However, although I cannot possibly give any sort of "MAIN reason" I believe, I can give you one of the lesser reasons I continue to believe as I do, and I will do this as we move on, answering your next two questions together.

2. Is your current belief open for actual debate? Meaning, could ANYTHING shake your faith? If not, why not?
3. Why are you here, hanging out in the apologetics forums? Are you here to convert atheists, or other? On a side note, I suspect apologetics is not what brings Christians to Christianity; so why would you expect different for others?

Of course my "current belief is open for actual debate" which is the reason I am here on this site. In other words, I have never been here in order to attempt to convince others to believe as I do. Rather, I have been here in order to determine if the arguments of those opposed could cause me to doubt what it is I believe concerning these things. As it turns out, after years, and years on this site, the arguments of those opposed, have actually strengthened what it is I believe, and this post here would be an example of this.

Because you see, I do not believe you have any reason to doubt the content of the NT. If you do, it cannot possibly have anything to do with what you have listed above, because as I have demonstrated, none of these things would have a thing in the world to do with Christianity being true, or false. Therefore, it is these sort of post which lead me to believe there is really no reason to doubt.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Discussion of interpretations is not quantum mechanics. It is a completely separate discipline called quantum foundations.
"Quantum foundations is a discipline of science that seeks to understand the most counter-intuitive aspects of quantum theory, reformulate it and even propose new generalizations thereof. Contrary to other physical theories, such as general relativity, the defining axioms of quantum theory are quite ad hoc, with no obvious physical intuition. While they lead to the right experimental predictions, they do not come with a mental picture of the world where they fit."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foundations

The key point: the uncertainty to whether the radioactive decay of an atom or virtual particles have any causes for their beginning doesn’t disappear because one brings forward talk about subjective things like interpretation. Until it can objectively be showed through experimentation that the process surrounding the radioactive decay of an atom or virtual particles is deterministic in nature the question remains open. Therefore the premise that everything has caused to its existence cannot be said to be true.
Its also always possible the answer is unknowable.
Gödel's incompleteness theorems demonstrates it is impossible to prove everything.
Even after we prove that atom decay and virtual particles happen through deterministic processes we may find other uncertainty down the line in respect to the things that helped us get an answer about atom decay and virtual particles.
This process of proving the universe if fully deterministic may never end-ad infinitum, having always things to gain knowledge about.

The fact of the matter is simple, those virtual particles you mention may not be uncaused. That is the point.

And I am delighted that you acknowledge the fact that the virtual processes may occur through deterministic processes...and as long as this is even possible, there is really no need to appeal to it...especially considering the other reasons I mentioned as to why it simply CANNOT be the case.

False dichotomy, is an informal fallacy based on a premise that erroneously limits what options are available.

There are only two options..

1. God did it.

2. Nature did it

Please be kind and enlighten me on a third option and I will gladly add it to the list.

Any option you give will fall under those two options, and I challenge you to find a third.

Either all things or more things can come uncaused or nothing can come uncaused.

It may be the only few things can come uncaused and the rest can’t.

And this is determined by what? Nothing, correct? So, the state of nothingness makes restrictions and is selective about what can/can't spring into existence from it???

Makes no sense.

There was no philosophical problem to why the light cannot escape a black hole. What is so intrinsically special about black holes asks the ignorant? The things are what they are. The are some specific natural exceptions that make in such a way that light can escape mostly any objects but black holes.
Certain natural process may make that only when you get to the very small things you can get uncaused things.

The fact that light cannot escape a black hole is based on contingency, meaning that if the natural law(s) were different, then things would be different. Things didn't have to be the way that they are. That is just the way the cookie crumbled, so that is the way things are.

And using possible world semantics, there is a possible world at which light can escape a black hole.

However, there is no possible world at which things can pop in to being, uncaused, out of nothing. Otherwise you are implying that the state of nothingness is restrictive, which is just as absurd as giving the state of nothingness a color, or a smell.

It is logically absurd.

It may be there are chaotic universes where all sorts of weird unintuitively things happen in respect to causality and time.

So basically, "anything explanation, no matter how absurd/outrageous it is, is STILL better than the God hypothesis".

You have to postulate weird and unintuitively (your words, not mines) things just to negate the existence of God.

If that is the price of atheism, you can have at it

But one uses two different meanings in this argument therefore equivocation.(Difference which is significant)
Uses every day recombining pre-existing stuff as a way to prove the magical ex nihilo.
Its like using the normal spheres existing in nature to prove there exist a perfectly spherical object(which exist so far only as an abstract concept) in nature.
Its like using the normal fluids existing in nature to prove there exist a perfectly fluid(which exist so far only as an abstract concept) in nature.
Also first one needs to prove such concepts can really happen in objective reality.
In the mind any fantasmagorical abstract thing its possible like ex nihilo causation, perfect circle, perfect sphere, perfect fluid, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent beings that have free will.

This is a red herring. Please address my argument against infinite regress.

All you have is argument from ignorance. You can’t have anything outside space-time continuum says you.
Many believed regular matter was all there is. Then we learned of anti-matter. Now we talk of Dark matter. There may be caca matter, fhjdstgfae matter, ...

Laws internal to the universe may not necessarily apply to the universe as a whole.
Cause and effect is a law of the universe. That does not mean it applies to the universe itself.
Proponents of the KALAM have to prove that. You cannot just assume things.

I've already stated why STEM would all have to have originated simultaneously, and nothing you've said addresses that point.

The Kalam applies to the universe and EVERYTHING in it.

Space-time continuum may be a thing inside the universe that began to exist. It therefore does not necessarily applies to the universe itself. Space time continuum may be a thing that resulted from an “explosion” inside the universe.

Any time you speak of something that happened within time, you are subjecting whatever you speak of to the argument against infinite regress.

What you are postulating is an infinite causal chain which occurs within the universe, and this is simply impossible.

The universe itself cannot contain an infinite chain of events within it...as that would make the entire domain one big ball of absurdity.

It cannot happen.

We don’t know if cause and affect applies outside the universe or if it exists there.
There may be multiple dimensions, where space-time continuum happened to begin to exist in only one dimension.
We don’t know if space-time continuum way it came to be, applies to other dimensions or if there are multiple universes in a multiverse where attributes of a individual universe don’t apply to the whole multiverse as a whole. With each universe having unique weird properties unimaginable to us.

Infinite regression; impossible.

The multiverse/multi dimensional universe may be uncaused not affected like your preferred fantasmagorical magical being.
Also as of 2015, the big bang model has been revised by physicists using quantum mechanical equations to replace the need for the singularity, thus giving the universe the possibility of existing forever.
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quant ... verse.html
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 9314009381

Ok, so you provide 2 scientific articles from early 2015 which gives rise to the possibility of the universe existing forever.

First off..

1. The articles 7 years old, and they both say a whole LOT without saying anything AT ALL. What you should have provided is the most up-to-date info which gives the latest developments as to where things stand today.

Those scientific articles do the same thing over and over again...they provide readers with a future hope...saying these like "we may have found the missing link"...well, either we found it, or we didn't. Or, "cosmologists point to the possibility of the universe existing forever"...well, sure...maybe it is possible (for arguments sake), but is it probable? Big difference.

And in this case, from the first article, the first sentence reads "The universe may have existed forever." Well, did it exist forever, or has it not existed forever? Which one is it?

Typical cosmo-babble.

2. So again, you provide two articles from early 2015, eh? Well, I will provide one article from LATE 2015.

https://inference-review.com/article/th ... e-universe

This is an article penned by renowned physicist Alexander Vilenkin, who, along with three other physicist, formulated the BGV (Borde, Guth, Vilenkin) theorem, which states that any universe which has been expanding at an AVERAGE Hubble rate greater than 0, MUST have had a beginning...and practically ALL viable cosmological models meets this simple criteria. This theorem applies to cyclic models, higher dimension models, and also quantum models.

And in the article, Vilenkin even states how cosmologists have been trying to avoid the theorem by creating competing models, but they simply won't work for one reason or another.

3. You still have the infinity problem, which is (as I keep stressing) independent of science.

Off course gaps in knowledge can be solved by conjuring the ultimate easy fix that requires no really big effort.

Q: How is that not god of the gaps?
I can't thing of anything to solve a gap in my knowledge: "infinite regress". Therefore magical being god. Gap filled.

So basically..

You: You are filling your gaps of knowledge with God!!! Gap filled.

Me: Well, what are you filling your gaps of knowledge with?

You: Science.

Me: Gap filled.

Nice job tap dancing around the infinite regression problem, though. I understand if you'd rather not deal with it. After all, it is very powerful, indeed.

Free will acts are outside causal determination in the sense that past events don’t determine our choices.

I burned my hand on a stove once. Based on this past events, I am making the choice to become more cautious when being around a stove from now on.

So therefore, a past event has determined my future choice(s).

Free actions are caused by the agent himself in an uncaused manner rather than by the agent because of some prior event(memories) or state of affairs(beliefs, knowledge) .
Therefore the premise "Everything to exist has a cause to its existence" is bogus.

Still don't get it.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Many claimed 'gods' existed, and are even claimed to exist now. Many even believe they are god(s). I don't think I would accuse them of being liars. Just like I do not doubt the conviction of others who make claims about their god(s).

Anyone can claim anything.

The point is; if the aim is to decide whether a specific claim has merit, then you have to dig in to the evidence for/against the claim...and if the evidence weighs heavier on the "for" side, then you can conclude that "this claim is more likely than not to be true".

And that is what I gather from the argument for the Resurrection of Jesus.

What specific point(s) of evidence verify that "Jesus rose from the dead"?

Jesus' followers believed that they saw him post-mortem, alive and doing fine...and the best explanation for the origins of their beliefs that they saw him, is because they actually saw him.

That is it, in a nut shell. Now again, there is much more to it than that but that is the gist of things.

The use of 'language' in premise 2 would need to be vetted out... This is why I use the word 'universe' in quotes. It might be prudent to also put quotes around 'began to exist'. The use of language is key.

It is what it is.

Well, you are jumping ahead of yourself here... We know the 'universe' or 'universes' exist(s). Do we know God(s) exist(s)?

Again, the universe began to exist. If the universe is all space, time, energy, and matter (STEM)...then whatever caused STEM to begin to exist cannot itself be a product of STEM, as it is what created STEM in the first place.

So, you can already negate any physical cause of the universe...then it logically follows that there must have been a causal agent outside of STEM that isn't itself dependent upon STEM for its existence.

And that is where the "G" word comes into play. I know you may not like where things go from there, but hey.

But you see, the 'Kalam' can just as easily argue for ex materia. Hence, the "Kalam" may not even be relevant to your case. But even if it was relevant, and somehow 'proves' 'ex nihilo', the Kalam may merely demonstrate deism, and not theism.

Deism and theism is pretty much the same thing...although depending on the context there can be a distinction.

But yeah, you touched on a good point, and I am of the opinion that everyone should at the very least be a deist....as no rational human being can logically think that we are here become of some blind, random process.

Inherent problems exist with both infinite regress, as well as first cause On the surface, from a philosophical standpoint, one could argue that you are trading one fallacy for another (i.e.)

first cause = special pleading and/or argument from ignorance
infinite regress = infinite question begging

But it's likely that one of the two turns out not to be fallacious. However, neither has been 'demonstrated' in their resolve.

Please enlighten me as to why the first cause hypothesis is special pleading, and/or arguing from ignorance...especially considering the fact that I've dedicated an entire thread to the first cause case (while also arguing against infinite regression).

Okay, so the Christians who perpetually disagree with discipline, by way of beating their children, is instead surely getting their messages/intuitions from 'evil'?.?.?.?.?

First off, there is a difference between "beating" your children, and "abusing" your children. Sounds like you are conflating the two, which is a crying shame.

Kool, so we are right back to square one. You say it, and a believer of another god also says it? Who do I believe, if any, and why?

You examine all religions (whichever ones you decide), and follow your heart. Whichever one pulls at your heartstrings the most, then that is the one to believe and follow.

Well, if it's important to you, as a believer, your conclusion that "yours is right and theirs is wrong" is merely based upon a hunch?

Obviously, I was being facetious when I said that. It is much more than a hunch.

The more we explore, the less the 'Kalam' even seems relevant to your core belief at all? Are you now saying the 'teleological argument' is more-so why you fundamentally believe?

Reading comprehension is important.

My beloved Kalam was negated and taken out of the equation, according to the hypothetical that YOU gave. So upon its negation, I appealed to what you correctly described as the teleological argument...an argument that I definitely rock with, but it isn't necessarily the one that I appeal to as I conduct my apologetics.

If so, did you happen to follow the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial of 2007?

"If so" is the beginning of a question that piggybacked off of a false premise (that the kalam is less relevant to my core belief). Therefore, the question is irrelevant.

[JMarshall]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

This topic is probably a good one for my first post.

1. Would you mind giving us the MAIN reason you believe? Is it one of the topics above, or other? If you need elaboration on any above, please ask...
The main reason I believe is that I reached a point where I was convinced that the claims of Jesus "measure up" to truth. Ultimately, I concluded that I'd be willing to bet my eternity that Jesus was not a liar. This resulted from both general and special revelation interacting with my heart, soul, and mind over many years.

2. Is your current belief open for actual debate? Meaning, could ANYTHING shake your faith? If not, why not?
I believe that my faith in God has been refined and strengthened through my life journey to the point where it is not open to debate. My theology approach can now be characterized as "faith seeking additional understanding."

3. Why are you here, hanging out in the apologetics forums? Are you here to convert atheists, or other? On a side note, I suspect apologetics is not what brings Christians to Christianity; so why would you expect different for others?
I am a part-time graduate student in seminary and was looking for additional ways to engage in respectful discourse about God and sharpen my ability to defend my faith.

I look forward to learning more from all of you.