Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Archaeopteryx]

In answer to the OP, in my personal assessment, there is no good reason to believe in a God. More precisely, the reasons given in support of theistic belief are insufficient to warrant such a belief. Moreover, many of the most common arguments for the existence of God would only warrant a form of deism at best. In arguing for a particular religion, such as Christianity, providing a compelling case for belief in God is therefore only the first step. Apologists still have many steps to go to establish the credibility of their various other religious claims.

 

[Joshua260]

... And you didn't answer my question either. ...do you concede that there are other ways the universe could have came to be that don't involve God?

Yes I did. I said that I did not believe there could be millions of possibilities for the cause of the universe as you suggested earlier. In fact, I can think of only a few possibilities: the god of Islam, the god of the Jews, the Christian god, and possibly a mean and abusive god.

Wow, you totally misinterpreted that.
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.

Actually, rather than being "scientific" and logical about this, you skipped right over the basic argument and jumped right into the secondary conclusions and are now making baseless statements. Therefore, in order to make sure that we progress through our discussion in an orderly and logical way, I'm going to have to ask that we go back to the core argument and finish up discussing that before we start talking about the possible causes.

I believe that the following argument (taken from reasonablefaith.org...and not from an atheistically-biased Wikipedia) is sound in that the conclusion follows from the premises and I believe that the premises are more plausibly true than not. So, do you believe the argument below is sound or unsound? If you believe it to be unsound please be specific about why you think so.

The basic KCA:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

 

[Joshua260]

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

Because it supports that time had a definite beginning.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Actually, rather than being "scientific" and logical about this, you skipped right over the basic argument and jumped right into the secondary conclusions and are now making baseless statements. Therefore, in order to make sure that we progress through our discussion in an orderly and logical way, I'm going to have to ask that we go back to the core argument and finish up discussing that before we start talking about the possible causes.

Really? You ignore most of the posts discussing the core argument and now you want to go back to it in an "orderly and logical way"? You can start by defining what is meant by the terms 'cause' and 'begins to exist,' which you have neglected to do.

I believe that the following argument (taken from reasonablefaith.org...and not from an atheistically-biased Wikipedia) is sound in that the conclusion follows from the premises and I believe that the premises are more plausibly true than not. So, do you believe the argument below is sound or unsound? If you believe it to be unsound please be specific about why you think so.

The basic KCA:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

See previous posts.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Because it supports that time had a definite beginning.

Just because inflation might have had a beginning doesn't mean anything. Guth, who discovered inflation, said that inflation events probably happen all the time. And said, "it's probably eternal (whatever reality is as a whole, multiverse, etc), but we don't know for sure".

 

[Joshua260]

Just because inflation might have had a beginning doesn't mean anything. Guth, who discovered inflation, said that inflation events probably happen all the time. And said, "it's probably eternal (whatever reality is as a whole, multiverse, etc), but we don't know for sure".

No. Did you not read my reply to your link? BGV updated their submittal (that's what I've said a few different ways) to say that "Inflation is not past-eternal". So he changed his views, and he is now convinced that the universe, no matter what model we talk about, had a definite beginning.

 

[nonbeliever314]

No. Did you not read my reply to your link? BGV updated their submittal (that's what I've said a few different ways) to say that "Inflation is not past-eternal". So he changed his views, and he is now convinced that the universe, no matter what model we talk about, had a definite beginning.

That not what he thinks. Guth said what I quoted last year when Sean Carroll obliterated WLC about the whole cosmology argument.

 

[Davian]

Yes I did. I said that I did not believe there could be millions of possibilities for the cause of the universe as you suggested earlier. In fact, I can think of only a few possibilities: the god of Islam, the god of the Jews, the Christian god, and possibly a mean and abusive god.

By what methodology did you determine that a "god", like one of those, is required as a cause, beyond your own religious presuppositions?

Did it need to be powerful? The net energy level of the resultant universe is zero.

Did it need to be intelligent? We don't know of what choices, if any, were available to this hypothetical deity at the time.

Did the "cause" survive the instantiation of the cosmos?

Perhaps the "cause" of the universe was as dull as a multi-verse equivalent to a toaster-oven, where universes pop out at irregular intervals. Some work out, some don't. Why worship a toaster oven?

Actually, rather than being "scientific" and logical about this, you skipped right over the basic argument and jumped right into the secondary conclusions and are now making baseless statements. Therefore, in order to make sure that we progress through our discussion in an orderly and logical way, I'm going to have to ask that we go back to the core argument and finish up discussing that before we start talking about the possible causes.

I believe that the following argument (taken from reasonablefaith.org...and not from an atheistically-biased Wikipedia)

You mean, reality-biased Wikipedia.

is sound in that the conclusion follows from the premises and I believe that the premises are more plausibly true than not. So, do you believe the argument below is sound or unsound? If you believe it to be unsound please be specific about why you think so.

The basic KCA:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

That we observe within our universe. Conditions at the instantiation of our cosmos - or "prior" to it (if that even makes sense, and I don't claim it does) cannot be verified.

2. The universe began to exist.

As I have pointed out before, English as a language may not properly describe what may have been the start of space+time. Actual astrophysicists to not talk of "cause and effect", they talk of "models and equations".

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Insufficient information.

However, even if we were to hypothesis that a "cause" was needed, you will still need to define your "god" in somer testable, falsifiable manner.

Got anything?

 

[Achilles6129]

I would ask those who don't believe in God why God creating the universe is more unreasonable than some inanimate and unintelligent "thing" creating the universe.

 

[Davian]

I would ask those who don't believe in God why God creating the universe is more unreasonable than some inanimate and unintelligent "thing" creating the universe.

The absence of evidence for gods like that in the Bible. The latter requires no such evidence, and is more parsimonious. Occam's razor, and all that.

 

[bhsmte]

I would ask those who don't believe in God why God creating the universe is more unreasonable than some inanimate and unintelligent "thing" creating the universe.

Here is the deal.

As time goes on, we are learning more and more about the universe from science and no where in these discoveries, are we seeing any element we can not explain with natural explanations. Science will continue to supply answers as time goes on, as it has for centuries.

Now, could a God have created the universe or got the ball rolling? Sure, I will say it is possible, but highly unlikely, until I see some evidence to support that claim.

And by the way, if a God created the universe, which God are we talking about?

 

[Moral Orel]

I would ask those who don't believe in God why God creating the universe is more unreasonable than some inanimate and unintelligent "thing" creating the universe.

First, let's take out the part where you accuse people who don't believe in God of believing that it was "created". For me, at least, in the same way you believe God always existed, I believe the stuff that exists in the universe always existed. Nothing needs to be "created" it just needs to be formed. And since we can watch things be formed without the use of God, we don't need to attribute that to him either.

Look at everything you have ever seen from beginning to end. Has anything started out as something complex? Or does everything start out as simple and become more complex over time? A man starts out as a baby before he ever reasons. A tree starts out as a seed before it ever grows. A car starts out as mostly a deposit of ore before it is manufactured.

If I were to take a guess about how some thing started out without being able to directly observe it, I would base my guess around how things start. If everything I know starts out simple, then I should only guess that everything I don't know started out simple as well. To assume there was a creator, even if I assume he started things out simple by causing the big bang, I would have to assume that creator started out complex.

Is it possible that God always existed and created everything? Of course, but it would have to go against everything I have ever known and therefore defy human logic.

 

[nonbeliever314]

If you want to hear what an actual physicist and one of the authors of BGV have to say about William Lane Craig's cosmology argument, then here you go.

After watching this, if you still want to believe BGV and KCA are evidence and/or arguments for the existence of God, you just have faith. And that's sad. I'm surprised WLC actually posted this, everything he tries to use literally gets shot out of the sky when a REAL PHYSICIST tells him what the "evidence" he uses actually means.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

If you want to hear what an actual physicist and one of the authors of BGV have to say about William Lane Craig's cosmology argument, then here you go.

After watching this, if you still want to believe BGV and KCA are evidence and/or arguments for the existence of God, you just have faith. And that's sad. I'm surprised WLC actually posted this, everything he tries to use literally gets shot out of the sky when a REAL PHYSICIST tells him what the "evidence" he uses actually means.

I like that debate. WLC got thrashed, like he always does when he tries to debate specific topics where he can't rely on his script.

 

[Joshua260]

That not what he thinks. Guth said what I quoted last year when Sean Carroll obliterated WLC about the whole cosmology argument.

I think Vilenkin made it abundantly clear in his quote. Since you keep denying it, I thought it might be a good idea to repost it:
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."
Alexander Vilenkin

Ok. So you have been trying to dispute my contention that premise two (that the universe began to exist) is more plausible than not. You have failed to make your case here and you have not addressed all of the other support I provided earlier. So much for shredding the KCA. Do you have anything else worth looking at concerning p2, or are you finally willing to concede that premise two is more plausible than not and we can move on?

Let's stay on track.

Here is the basic KCA again:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

 

[Joshua260]

If you want to hear what an actual physicist and one of the authors of BGV have to say about William Lane Craig's cosmology argument, then here you go.
After watching this, if you still want to believe BGV and KCA are evidence and/or arguments for the existence of God, you just have faith. And that's sad. I'm surprised WLC actually posted this, everything he tries to use literally gets shot out of the sky when a REAL PHYSICIST tells him what the "evidence" he uses actually means.

I watched it when it came out. WLC did just fine and demonstrated very clearly that even Carroll's model showed a clear beginning.

 

[Joshua260]

By what methodology did you determine that a "god", like one of those, is required as a cause, beyond your own religious presuppositions?

Did it need to be powerful? The net energy level of the resultant universe is zero.

Did it need to be intelligent? We don't know of what choices, if any, were available to this hypothetical deity at the time.

Did the "cause" survive the instantiation of the cosmos?

Perhaps the "cause" of the universe was as dull as a multi-verse equivalent to a toaster-oven, where universes pop out at irregular intervals. Some work out, some don't. Why worship a toaster oven?

You mean, reality-biased Wikipedia.

That we observe within our universe. Conditions at the instantiation of our cosmos - or "prior" to it (if that even makes sense, and I don't claim it does) cannot be verified.

As I have pointed out before, English as a language may not properly describe what may have been the start of space+time. Actual astrophysicists to not talk of "cause and effect", they talk of "models and equations".

Insufficient information.

However, even if we were to hypothesis that a "cause" was needed, you will still need to define your "god" in somer testable, falsifiable manner.

Got anything?

I'm willing to talk about the KCA, but please on topic.
The basic KCA is:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Instead of asking unrelated questions or making generalized statements, please demonstrate why p1 or p2 is not plausibly true, or demonstrate that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Show us why you think the KCA is an unsound argument.

 

[Davian]

By what methodology did you determine that a "god", like one of those, is required as a cause, beyond your own religious presuppositions?

Did it need to be powerful? The net energy level of the resultant universe is zero.

Did it need to be intelligent? We don't know of what choices, if any, were available to this hypothetical deity at the time.

Did the "cause" survive the instantiation of the cosmos?

Perhaps the "cause" of the universe was as dull as a multi-verse equivalent to a toaster-oven, where universes pop out at irregular intervals. Some work out, some don't. Why worship a toaster oven?

You mean, reality-biased Wikipedia.

That we observe within our universe. Conditions at the instantiation of our cosmos - or "prior" to it (if that even makes sense, and I don't claim it does) cannot be verified.

As I have pointed out before, English as a language may not properly describe what may have been the start of space+time. Actual astrophysicists to not talk of "cause and effect", they talk of "models and equations".

Insufficient information.

However, even if we were to hypothesis that a "cause" was needed, you will still need to define your "god" in somer testable, falsifiable manner.

Got anything?

I'm willing to talk about the KCA, but please on topic.
The basic KCA is:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Instead of asking unrelated questions or making generalized statements, please demonstrate why p1 or p2 is not plausibly true, or demonstrate that the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Show us why you think the KCA is an unsound argument.

I didn't think so.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I watched it when it came out. WLC did just fine and demonstrated very clearly that even Carroll's model showed a clear beginning.

No he didn't. Like a typical creationist, he tried to invoke science he has no grasp of to serve his apologetics, and got schooled by an actual scientist. He sounded like a braying jackass.

 

[nonbeliever314]

I watched it when it came out. WLC did just fine and demonstrated very clearly that even Carroll's model showed a clear beginning.

Yes I did. I said that I did not believe there could be millions of possibilities for the cause of the universe as you suggested earlier. In fact, I can think of only a few possibilities: the god of Islam, the god of the Jews, the Christian god, and possibly a mean and abusive god.

Alright. I'm done debating this. It is abundantly clear at this point that you're faith overpowers your reason. No matter how unlikely I find god to be, I at least can admit it as a possibility. But you can't even admit that there are other possibilities besides a god.

I'm not trying to convince you that there is no god, I'm trying to see if at very least, people can open up just a little bit, but it doesn't work. You can be presented with facts, have things explained by professional scientists, and when anything is so obviously proven not to be in your favor, you still press on and it's mind-boggling to me. When the author(s) that wrote the very heart of your argument say to you "that is not the case, and you're wrong", you still dig and dig. It's an insult to the scientific community, these people devote their lives to figuring the world out, and accepting whatever the truth is. You take what they find when it's in your favor (or think it is), and try to shove god in there. The scientific work you cite is found by people who let the evidence do the talking, and they don't shove there hopes and dreams into it. Nietzsche said "God is dead", but I don't think he is yet, he is in his bed with a death rattle, and the rattle is this desperation from his followers to keep him "alive" because they know he is on his way out. And the desperation you show is what makes "God's terminal illness" so, so obvious.