Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Joshua260]

Sure the universe could have had a beginning, sure the multiverse could have had a beginning, but still that doesn't necessarily mean the universe is ALL OF REALITY.

I don't know what you mean about "all of reality", but the KCA is talking about the cause of the universe (and the BGV theorem also applies it to multiverses) coming into existence. So you seem to start off by beginning to concede that premise two may actually be true.

Also Vilenkin's models start off with an empty geometry, not absolute nothingness. So his models actually start with "something" at the "beginning".

You're going to have clarify here where you're getting this info because Vilenkin changed from his original view that the universe existed into the eternal past to a view that it began to exist.

And WLC's infinity arguments are ridiculous. He always refers to Hilbert's Hotel, it's a veridical paradox. "A veridical paradox is a counter-intuitive result which can be demonstrated to be true", just like Schrodinger's Cat, and we all know (I hope) that quantum theory is for lack of a better word(s) "dead on".

I don't see here where you actually refuted the evidence I provided above. Were you planning to?

 

[Joshua260]

No. Your protestations and WLC's denials notwithstanding, his arguments have been dismantled six ways to Sunday.

I ask because if you were posting here for the purposes of promoting a commercial website, you would be in violation of this site's spamming rule. As bad as his arguments are, they still sell books.

Two times here you imply that Craig's arguments have been successfully refuted. Were you intending to prove that or just make baseless declarations?

 

[Joshua260]

I just sent Joshua260 a message inviting him to formally debate me. Stay tuned...

I appreciate the offer, but I'm fine with exchanging responses in the regular forums.

 

[Davian]

Two times here you imply that Craig's arguments have been successfully refuted. Were you intending to prove that or just make baseless declarations?

I'm still waiting for you back at post #533.

 

[nonbeliever314]

You're going to have clarify here where you're getting this info because Vilenkin changed from his original view that the universe existed into the eternal past to a view that it began to exist.

"Theologians have often welcomed any evidence for the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God … So what do we make of a proof that the beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist." -Alexander Vilenkin (ON THE SAME PAGE THAT THE QUOTE YOU QUOTED WAS ON.)

"f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning." -Alexander Vilenkin

"What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event " -
Inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.(Dated: January 11, 2003) ) FROM THE ACTUAL PAPER!

I don't know what you mean about "all of reality", but the KCA is talking about the cause of the universe (and the BGV theorem also applies it to multiverses) coming into existence. So you seem to start off by beginning to concede that premise two may actually be true.

You want to treat this universe as literally everything there could be (all of reality), because if your don't, and there is more to it (reality) than we know, your god literally gets tossed out the window.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Joshua260,
PS. Here's the link to the BGV paper. Maybe WLC and you should read it. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

 

[nonbeliever314]

I'd like to say that I'm willing to concede the possibility of a god as a potential answer for how the universe and the rest of reality got here, but that is one possibility of literally millions. I just find god highly, highly unlikely. For all the Christians in this thread, do you concede that there are other possibilities besides god? Because for the most part, it doesn't seem like it....

 

[Joshua260]

I'm still waiting for you back at post #533.

yes, well I intend to stay on topic and in this thread I am addressing the KCA argument.
...and of course you neglected to provide support for your claims about supposedly refuting Craig's arguments. But that' ok. I'm concentrating on KCA in is thread and I don't wish to get sidetracked...I was just pointing out that you were making unsupported claims.

 

[Davian]

yes, well I intend to stay on topic and in this thread I am addressing the KCA argument.

That post was on topic; you are appealing to mainstream science to support your position, and my query was to have you clarify if you accepted that same mainstream science in general, or were you simply cherry-picking as needed for this topic.

...and of course you neglected to provide support for your claims about supposedly refuting Craig's arguments.

To be clear, you are claiming that I am making unsupported claims. I understand that you must, as does WLC, never acknowledge that the argument have any weakness or everything built on it crumbles. You and him are hardly the impartial arbiters of the soundness of that argument.

But that' ok. I'm concentrating on KCA in is thread and I don't wish to get sidetracked...I was just pointing out that you were making unsupported claims.

I do recall post #526. Then there was 527. 529. 535. 536. 537 was a good one. 538. You coherently address all of those and get back to me.

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua260,
PS. Here's the link to the BGV paper. Maybe WLC and you should read it. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012

Did you see the revision:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012v1
that says that "Inflation is not past-eternal"?

 

[Joshua260]

That post was on topic; you are appealing to mainstream science to support your position, and my query was to have you clarify if you accepted that same mainstream science in general, or were you simply cherry-picking as needed for this topic.

To be clear, you are claiming that I am making unsupported claims. I understand that you must, as does WLC, never acknowledge that the argument have any weakness or everything built on it crumbles. You and him are hardly the impartial arbiters of the soundness of that argument.
I do recall post #526. Then there was 527. 529. 535. 536. 537 was a good one. 538. You deal with all of those and get back to me.

again...you do not back up your accusations about Craig. Noted.

Beg pardon, but I'm not interested in getting sidetracked (as you seem determined to do) from the KCA. I see you cited Archaeopteryx's posts. It seems that we cannot have a cordial exchange between us so I'm no longer responding to his posts.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Did you see the revision:
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012v1
that says that "Inflation is not past-eternal"?

Yeah, inflation is not past-eternal. How does that help your argument? Go into "the lab", leave God outside the door and explain.

 

[nonbeliever314]

The universe has a beginning, because inflation has to have a starting point and can't have been eternal. So what?

 

[Davian]

again...you do not back up your accusations about Craig. Noted.

What accusations did I make of WLC?

Beg pardon, but I'm not interested in getting sidetracked (as you seem determined to do) from the KCA.

Where was I off-topic?

I see you cited Archaeopteryx's posts. It seems that we cannot have a cordial exchange between us so I'm no longer responding to his posts.

A red herring, so as not have to address his posts? Am I on ignore too?

 

[nonbeliever314]

Once you stop keeping an open mind, you stop doing science.

 

[Joshua260]

I'd like to say that I'm willing to concede the possibility of a god as a potential answer for how the universe and the rest of reality got here, but that is one possibility of literally millions. I just find god highly, highly unlikely. For all the Christians in this thread, do you concede that there are other possibilities besides god? Because for the most part, it doesn't seem like it....

Whoa! You really jumped the gun there. I was still evaluating the basic KCA with you.
I usually like to work through the logic one at a piece at a time and see where it leads.

So it seems that you are agreeing to the soundness of the basic KCA (since you're willing to concede the possibility of God as a possible cause).
I think it might be a little presumptuous to jump straight from the basic KCA to a rash conclusion like "okay, well obviously the cause is God". Rather, it seems more reasonable to see if we can first extrapolate out some characteristic traits of this "cause" we are talking about.

We can go through them if you like, but I find that I can reasonably tease out the following likely traits about the cause of the universe. The cause must be uncaused, immaterial, space-less, timeless, extremely powerful, and even personal (and I've recently found more). But these traits narrow down the list of possible candidates quite a bit. For example, the cause could not be anything within the universe, which would include all of the Greek and Roman gods, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy...and yes, even the infamous Flying Spaghetti Monster (he's made of material spaghetti!). So no, I don't see how the possibilities could be in "the millions". I simply don't see evidence to support that assumption. But we do find these the traits in the god of Islam, the god of the Jews, and the Christian god. You may find it interesting that the KCA does not rule out a mean and abusive god. I can't think of any other possible candidates, but I'd be willing to "test" some out with you if you can think of any.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Whoa! You really jumped the gun there. I was still evaluating the basic KCA with you.
I usually like to work through the logic one at a piece at a time and see where it leads.

So it seems that you are agreeing to the soundness of the basic KCA (since you're willing to concede the possibility of God as a possible cause).
I think it might be a little presumptuous to jump straight from the basic KCA to a rash conclusion like "okay, well obviously the cause is God". Rather, it seems more reasonable to see if we can first extrapolate out some characteristic traits of this "cause" we are talking about.

We can go through them if you like, but I find that I can reasonably tease out the following likely traits about the cause of the universe. The cause must be uncaused, immaterial, space-less, timeless, extremely powerful, and even personal (and I've recently found more). But these traits narrow down the list of possible candidates quite a bit. For example, the cause could not be anything within the universe, which would include all of the Greek and Roman gods, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy...and yes, even the infamous Flying Spaghetti Monster (he's made of material spaghetti!). So no, I don't see how the possibilities could be in "the millions". I simply don't see evidence to support that assumption. But we do find these the traits in the god of Islam, the god of the Jews, and the Christian god. You may find it interesting that the KCA does not rule out a mean and abusive god. I can't think of any other possible candidates, but I'd be willing to "test" some out with you if you can think of any.

Wow, you totally misinterpreted that... And you didn't answer my question either. As a scientific person, I must keep an open mind. If I had a list of a million ways I thought the universe and all of reality came to be, God is at the very bottom of that list. KCA doesn't convince me one bit of a god, if anything it makes the existence of God look even more desperate. You can't make a decision as to how you want nature to be, and do anything and everything to try and get it work. That's not how science works. So back to my question, do you concede that there are other ways the universe could have came to be that don't involve God?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Whoa! You really jumped the gun there. I was still evaluating the basic KCA with you.
I usually like to work through the logic one at a piece at a time and see where it leads.

To do that, you must first clarify what is meant by 'cause' and 'begins to exist'. You haven't done so.

So it seems that you are agreeing to the soundness of the basic KCA (since you're willing to concede the possibility of God as a possible cause).

One could accept the basic argument without committing to a theological conclusion.

I think it might be a little presumptuous to jump straight from the basic KCA to a rash conclusion like "okay, well obviously the cause is God". Rather, it seems more reasonable to see if we can first extrapolate out some characteristic traits of this "cause" we are talking about.

Extrapolate from what?

We can go through them if you like, but I find that I can reasonably tease out the following likely traits about the cause of the universe. The cause must be uncaused, immaterial, space-less, timeless, extremely powerful, and even personal (and I've recently found more). But these traits narrow down the list of possible candidates quite a bit.

You need to justify each of these properties. None of them follow from the basic KCA, which suggests that you are speculating here. As I have already demonstrated with the Divine Flame, I can speculate also.

For example, the cause could not be anything within the universe, which would include all of the Greek and Roman gods,

That would rule out intelligence as a cause then. Intelligence is found within the universe and, as far as we can tell, intelligence depends on there being a universe.

Santa Claus, the tooth fairy...and yes, even the infamous Flying Spaghetti Monster (he's made of material spaghetti!).

As I've repeatedly clarified, he is made of immaterial spaghetti. If you can claim exceptions to the "rules" so as to accommodate an unembodied intelligent designer, why can't we?

So no, I don't see how the possibilities could be in "the millions". I simply don't see evidence to support that assumption. But we do find these the traits in the god of Islam, the god of the Jews, and the Christian god.

And the Divine Flame, among countless other possibilities.

I wonder if it's clear to you what exactly this exercise has accomplished. First, you present an argument that reaches the banal conclusion that the origin of the universe is in need of explanation, a "cause," for lack of a better word. Second, you speculate about the nature of that cause, attributing certain traits to it. Third, you notice that the traits you speculated the cause possesses just so happen to be the same traits you attribute to your god. Who would have guessed? Why not merge step two and three and just assert Goddidit, since that's what you want to say anyway.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

That post was on topic; you are appealing to mainstream science to support your position, and my query was to have you clarify if you accepted that same mainstream science in general, or were you simply cherry-picking as needed for this topic.

To be clear, you are claiming that I am making unsupported claims. I understand that you must, as does WLC, never acknowledge that the argument have any weakness or everything built on it crumbles. You and him are hardly the impartial arbiters of the soundness of that argument.
I do recall post #526. Then there was 527. 529. 535. 536. 537 was a good one. 538. You coherently address all of those and get back to me.

the surest sign of a WLC disciple is someone who either ignores or obfuscates the best critiques of his "arguments".

 

[FullEnglishBrekkie]

Hello all,

In your opinion, what's the very best argument for the existence of God? Conversely, what's the top argument against the existence of God? Interested to hear your responses and subsequent reasoning. Thanks!

Again, I have not read all the posts in this thread, but:

For: Well, wouldn't it be great if there was a God who was benevolent, forgiving, supportive and who guarantees beyond any doubt that when I die, I will be saved as a spiritual entity able to commune with all those who have gone before me; all those lost loved ones. A God who will forgive all my transgressions and answer my prayers and bring relief to all the people suffering on the earth. The existence of that God will explain all the mysteries that I cannot understand. It's such an excellent idea and, because such a being is alluded to in ancient texts, and because millions upon millions of folk cannot be so misled, it must be true. Once you have accepted the truth of it, you can then find so much evidence to support that truth.

Against: Every definition of God that I have seen, if and when it develops beyond the superficial, either lacks internal integrity, or is describing a natural world phenomenon, or remains incomplete and lacking significant details. Further, it would appear to me that there are so many different and conflicting descriptions of God provided by Christians themselves. Then there is the good old Occam's; there is no need to invent, or continue with, such a convoluted explanation for natural phenomena when the simple explanation has been discovered.

I may be able to think of better ones in time, but those are the ones that I have come across most.