Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Davian]

I'll stack the evidence for my god up against yours (Melisandre) any day.

I'd like to see these stacks. Bring 'em out!

 

[Davian]

No. The KCA is not a god of the gaps argument. It does not argue about what we don't know but about what we do know. We know

Who is this "we" that you speak for, kimosabe?

that the cause of the universe was immaterial,

What is it made of?

space-less,

Where is it?

timeless,

Stuck like a bug in amber.

uncaused,

Special pleading.

powerful

How much power is required to create a universe with an observed net energy level of zero?

and personal.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No. The KCA is not a god of the gaps argument. It does not argue about what we don't know but about what we do know. We know that the cause of the universe was immaterial, space-less, timeless, uncaused, powerful and personal.

No, we don't know that. You admitted that this was speculation.

 

[Occams Barber]

IMO the strongest argument against the existence of a (Christian) God is the contradiction inherent in the entity itself.

As I understand it, God is omnipotent and omniscient and wants for nothing and yet, it ‘creates’. Logically such an entity would not ‘create’ anything. It would have no reason to create since the act of creation implies a need or want to create. Perfect omnipotent beings cannot have ‘needs’ or ‘wants’. Logically such a perfect entity would do nothing. It would simply exist. The act of creation is a human quality inconsistent with the nature of such a god.

This humanisation of God goes even further. God is attributed with a gender (male) and a human status (father). As I understand it, this God gets angry and sad, loves and hates, is jealous (of other gods) occasionally vengeful and demands to be worshipped. In short, in spite of its perfect divine nature, this God is apparently endowed with a range of characteristics which are suspiciously human.

The nature of the Christian God seems to argue against its own existence.

 

[Joshua260]

There is no possible way you know any of that with absolute certainty. If you do know that, publish it in a scientific journal and claim your Nobel Prize. Congrats in advance.

Not with certainty. But it's a heck of a lot better argument for the existence of God than you will ever find for "Melisandre"...so there is difference!

 

[Joshua260]

No, we don't know that. You admitted that this was speculation.

Yes. Speculation.

 

[Joshua260]

IMO the strongest argument against the existence of a (Christian) God is the contradiction inherent in the entity itself.

As I understand it, God is omnipotent and omniscient and wants for nothing and yet, it ‘creates’. Logically such an entity would not ‘create’ anything. It would have no reason to create since the act of creation implies a need or want to create. Perfect omnipotent beings cannot have ‘needs’ or ‘wants’. Logically such a perfect entity would do nothing. It would simply exist. The act of creation is a human quality inconsistent with the nature of such a god.

This humanisation of God goes even further. God is attributed with a gender (male) and a human status (father). As I understand it, this God gets angry and sad, loves and hates, is jealous (of other gods) occasionally vengeful and demands to be worshipped. In short, in spite of its perfect divine nature, this God is apparently endowed with a range of characteristics which are suspiciously human.

The nature of the Christian God seems to argue against its own existence.

I think that's one of the worst arguments against the existence of God. It simply does not follow that just because he created, that means he needed to create. He certainly doesn't need us, but he desired to give us joy although he certainly didn't have to.

 

[Joshua260]

I'd like to see these stacks. Bring 'em out!

All I would have to do to show that Christianity is more true than Melisandre is to cite all of the evidence surrounding the Resurrection.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Not with certainty. But it's a heck of a lot better argument for the existence of God than you will ever find for "Melisandre"...so there is difference!

Melisadre was a joke. And everything you stated in your argument is a) not known with any certainty or b) ridiculous, therefore your whole argument is a total failure.

 

[Joshua260]

sigh...I'm sure I answered this before in this thread.

Who is this "we" that you speak for, kimosabe?

People who make a rational analysis of the KCA.

What is it made of?

He's not made of anything in the material universe. It is incoherent that something could create itself.

Where is it?

God is not confined to the spatial universe.

Stuck like a bug in amber.

there is a state of affairs in which God exists without the space-time universe.

Special pleading.

no it isn't. It is not in the conclusion that God is uncaused. Rathe, it is one of the traits that we extrapolate if the argument is sound (meaning that the conclusion follows from the premises and that the premises are true (including p1, that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Since God exist in a state of affairs timelessly, then he was uncaused).

How much power is required to create a universe with an observed net energy level of zero?

The energy of the big bang was quite powerful.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

The problem is that we have a cause which existed in a timeless state, but the effect existed temporally. It's difficult to see how if the conditions necessary to bring the effect into being coexisted in the same state of affairs as the cause itself, then why didn't the effect also exist timelessly. There are a few different types of causation and one of them is agent causation, in which a free agent brings an effect about. For example, a man existing timelessly decides to stand up. The man (cause) sitting existed timelessly, but he began to exist temporally when he stood up (the effect).[/QUOTE]

 

[Occams Barber]

I think that's one of the worst arguments against the existence of God. It simply does not follow that just because he created, that means he needed to create. He certainly doesn't need us, but he desired to give us joy although he certainly didn't have to.

I'm sorry Joshua. Its a difficult concept to explain. I'll try harder.

The issue is not why God created but whether a being like God would by its nature ever create anything. Perfect means just that, perfect. There can be no possible motive or need to add anything to perfection therefore God, by definition, would not create.

"He desired to give us joy" ???? If God has 'desires' you are seriously short changing your favourite deity. Is God human?

 

[Joshua260]

Melisadre was a joke.

Oh, so you didn't really mean to imply that the Christian could be grouped with Melisadre. I agree, there's quite a difference.

And everything you stated in your argument is a) not known with any certainty or b) ridiculous, therefore your whole argument is a total failure.

I wouldn't say that at all. The conclusion of the KCA is more probably true than not. It doesn't have known with certainty to be a good argument for the existence of God. As I've said many times, I've never seen a good objection to it yet.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I wouldn't say that at all. The conclusion of the KCA is more probably true than not.

The conclusion is simply that the universe has a cause. It doesn't specify the nature or identity of the cause. You speculate that the cause is a deity.

It doesn't have known with certainty to be a good argument for the existence of God. As I've said many times, I've never seen a good objection to it yet.

Several good objections were raised in this thread. You are yet to respond to some of them.

 

[Joshua260]

I'm sorry Joshua. Its a difficult concept to explain. I'll try harder.

The issue is not why God created but whether a being like God would by its nature ever create anything. Perfect means just that, perfect. There can be no possible motive or need to add anything to perfection therefore God, by definition, would not create.

"He desired to give us joy" ???? If God has 'desires' you are seriously short changing your favourite deity. Is God human?

I fully understand you terrible argument. Just because God created, that does not mean that he was lacking anything. It's a sequitur. I don't accept that premise as true.

 

[Joshua260]

The conclusion is simply that the universe has a cause. It doesn't specify the nature or identity of the cause.

Several good objections were raised in this thread. You are yet to respond to some of them.

I certainly didn't miss any for lack of trying. I've tried to respond to as many as I could...without giving up on life in the outside world! Still, no good objections yet

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I certainly didn't miss any for lack of trying. I've tried to respond to as many as I could...without giving up on life in the outside world! Still, no good objections yet

I briefly summarised some of the main issues here.

 

[Joshua260]

I briefly summarised some of the main issues here.

good grief. Yes, I've already answered those objections, and I believe they clearly fail to do any harm to the KCA.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

good grief. Yes, I've already answered those objections, and I believe they clearly fail to do any harm to the KCA.

I don't think you have answered them. You have dismissed them.

 

[Joshua260]

I don't think you have answered them. You have dismissed them.

I may not have answered your response personally, but I'm sure I addressed similar objections elsewhere in this thread. But I tell you what, you answer my problem of evil argument versus lack of belief OP and then maybe I'll answer your post.

 

[Davian]

All I would have to do to show that Christianity is more true than Melisandre is to cite all of the evidence surrounding the Resurrection.

...but not actually true.