Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Archaeopteryx]

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?

You ignored most of the stuff worth looking at and then concluded that people haven't "addressed all of the other support you provided earlier." Yes they have. You ignored it.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Here's a related question that you won't answer: define the terms 'cause,' 'begins to exist,' and 'universe.'

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Joshua260,

 

[Joshua260]

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.

That's it???
I thought we were going to discuss the KCa? You only said one thing about p2, I showed you where your objection was incorrect, and then that's it! I thought you were going to "shred" the KCA?? You barely even spoke about it. Very disappointing.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Which god are we supposed to comment on?

 

[KCfromNC]

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

Plausibly true? Is that anything like "maybe not completely wrong"?

 

[nonbeliever314]

That's it???
I thought we were going to discuss the KCa? You only said one thing about p2, I showed you where your objection was incorrect, and then that's it! I thought you were going to "shred" the KCA?? You barely even spoke about it. Very disappointing.

What's very disappointing is you have faith. There's no way to reason with you. And ignoring the rest of what I said in the last reply is funny too. Certain things are so obvious but you won't let them in. You take you're idea, and when its shattered, you won't accept it. And PS, WLC isn't a physicist.

 

[Achilles6129]

Which god are we supposed to comment on?

Any one you'd like.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Any one you'd like.

My parents are my gods. They created me, and at least there's evidence for that.

 

[KCfromNC]

Any one you'd like.

The logically impossible ones obviously don't exist. Most of the rest are so poorly defined that it would be basically meaningless to even claim to believe that they exist.

 

[nonbeliever314]

My parents are my gods. They created me, and at least there's evidence for that.

Also if my parents were proven NOT to be the ones who created me, I'd accept it. Evidence before parents, ha.

 

[pshun2404]

To know there is no God one would have to know and experience all things, because God could be within an area that they do not know or in which they have not experienced. Even if one were to have all the knowledge and experience of 50% of the Britannica, that would mean that there is 50% they cannot know nor have experienced. So to know God is not, one has to know all.

To know there is no God, one would have to be in all places simultaneously because God could or have revealed Himself in a place where you are not (even to someone now, somewhere else).

You would have to have known all and been everywhere during all of the past, the present, and in all possible futures in case God was revealing Himself when you were not.

Finally, you would have to be aware of all that which is and/or has been known or experienced by all individuals of all times, in case He had revealed Himself to only certain peoples, at certain times.

Now this is rational and logical but only the tip of the iceberg but it should suffice…

So in effect, to know there is no God, you would have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal, and able to experience the experience of all others, for any who may be able to receive illumination or revelation that God is. So to believe with conviction that there is no God, one then has to be exactly what is called God thus proving God IS.

 

[bhsmte]

To know there is no God one would have to know and experience all things, because God could be within an area that they do not know or in which they have not experienced. Even if one were to have all the knowledge and experience of 50% of the Britannica, that would mean that there is 50% they cannot know nor have experienced. So to know God is not, one has to know all.

To know there is no God, one would have to be in all places simultaneously because God could or have revealed Himself in a place where you are not (even to someone now, somewhere else).

You would have to have known all and been everywhere during all of the past, the present, and in all possible futures in case God was revealing Himself when you were not.

Finally, you would have to be aware of all that which is and/or has been known or experienced by all individuals of all times, in case He had revealed Himself to only certain peoples, at certain times.

Now this is rational and logical but only the tip of the iceberg but it should suffice…

So in effect, to know there is no God, you would have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal, and able to experience the experience of all others, for any who may be able to receive illumination or revelation that God is. So to believe with conviction that there is no God, one then has to be exactly what is called God thus proving God IS.

Who is saying, they know for sure there is no God? Most of the atheists typically state, they do not believe there is a God, not that there is no God.

 

[Belk]

To know there is no God one would have to know and experience all things, because God could be within an area that they do not know or in which they have not experienced. Even if one were to have all the knowledge and experience of 50% of the Britannica, that would mean that there is 50% they cannot know nor have experienced. So to know God is not, one has to know all.

To know there is no God, one would have to be in all places simultaneously because God could or have revealed Himself in a place where you are not (even to someone now, somewhere else).

You would have to have known all and been everywhere during all of the past, the present, and in all possible futures in case God was revealing Himself when you were not.

Finally, you would have to be aware of all that which is and/or has been known or experienced by all individuals of all times, in case He had revealed Himself to only certain peoples, at certain times.

Now this is rational and logical but only the tip of the iceberg but it should suffice…

So in effect, to know there is no God, you would have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal, and able to experience the experience of all others, for any who may be able to receive illumination or revelation that God is. So to believe with conviction that there is no God, one then has to be exactly what is called God thus proving God IS.

No, not really. If you claim that your God is omnipresent and directly interacts with humans I have no need to prove that he is not hiding on the other side of the galaxy. I can simply show that he does not exist here to show that, per your definition, he is not to be found where expected.

 

[nonbeliever314]

To know there is no God one would have to know and experience all things, because God could be within an area that they do not know or in which they have not experienced. Even if one were to have all the knowledge and experience of 50% of the Britannica, that would mean that there is 50% they cannot know nor have experienced. So to know God is not, one has to know all.

To know there is no God, one would have to be in all places simultaneously because God could or have revealed Himself in a place where you are not (even to someone now, somewhere else).

You would have to have known all and been everywhere during all of the past, the present, and in all possible futures in case God was revealing Himself when you were not.

Finally, you would have to be aware of all that which is and/or has been known or experienced by all individuals of all times, in case He had revealed Himself to only certain peoples, at certain times.

Now this is rational and logical but only the tip of the iceberg but it should suffice…

So in effect, to know there is no God, you would have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal, and able to experience the experience of all others, for any who may be able to receive illumination or revelation that God is. So to believe with conviction that there is no God, one then has to be exactly what is called God thus proving God IS.

If someone claims there is a god scientifically, the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence to the skeptics. I don't think there is a god, I don't know for sure, but I find it highly, highly, highly unlikely. If anything a god(s) could be a highly advanced civilization, where if we came in contact with them, they would appear as "gods" to us.

 

[pshun2404]

If someone claims there is a god scientifically, the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence to the skeptics.

True but I was not speaking of them. Besides most theists do claim they can show God scientifically (though some things can be interpreted to imply something at work more than just the laws of the material universe and random coincidence.

 

[Achilles6129]

My parents are my gods. They created me, and at least there's evidence for that.

So you're not interested in having a serious discussion.

Very well, any other takers? Why is the idea of an inanimate and unintelligent "thing" creating the universe more reasonable than a Creator God?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So you're not interested in having a serious discussion.

Very well, any other takers? Why is the idea of an inanimate and unintelligent "thing" creating the universe more reasonable than a Creator God?

Parsimony.

 

[nonbeliever314]

So you're not interested in having a serious discussion.

Very well, any other takers? Why is the idea of an inanimate and unintelligent "thing" creating the universe more reasonable than a Creator God?

Because people created God to explain nature when they didn't understand it, and then later to give them hope when there was none. Now that we have come to understand nature more, like Neil Tyson said, "God is just a pocket of receding scientific ignorance". I think it's more reasonable that there is something we have yet to uncover about nature, and when we discover it, it will be extremely profound. I mentioned this in another thread "What does 2+2=4 mean?, but I take the side that the universe is a purely mathematical structure (MUH). And if that is somehow proven to be the case, I think our knowledge will dead end when we "can't know" what the physical mechanism is that makes it manifest itself as reality. But at least at that point we'll know our knowledge didn't terminate at some type of intelligent being.

 

[Moral Orel]

To know there is no God one would have to know and experience all things, because God could be within an area that they do not know or in which they have not experienced. Even if one were to have all the knowledge and experience of 50% of the Britannica, that would mean that there is 50% they cannot know nor have experienced. So to know God is not, one has to know all.

To know there is no God, one would have to be in all places simultaneously because God could or have revealed Himself in a place where you are not (even to someone now, somewhere else).

You would have to have known all and been everywhere during all of the past, the present, and in all possible futures in case God was revealing Himself when you were not.

Finally, you would have to be aware of all that which is and/or has been known or experienced by all individuals of all times, in case He had revealed Himself to only certain peoples, at certain times.

Now this is rational and logical but only the tip of the iceberg but it should suffice…

So in effect, to know there is no God, you would have to be omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal, and able to experience the experience of all others, for any who may be able to receive illumination or revelation that God is. So to believe with conviction that there is no God, one then has to be exactly what is called God thus proving God IS.

I found this one interesting because it reminds me of the Universal Law of Uncertainty that I only recently learned about. Basically, it states, that you can't know that you don't know. The example I like to use is the Americas. When they decided to set sail across the Atlantic, they thought that they would find India and China, because they didn't know the Americas were there. So how could they know that they didn't know of the Americas existence without knowing about the Americas?

Let's take it a step further. When people complain that God should prove he exists, it isn't totally possible. If we use the term God to mean an omnipotent, omniscient, and immortal being. A very powerful being could prove that exists and has powers, but couldn't prove that it was God by that definition.

For example, we only live about 100ish years, if we're lucky, so how could God prove that he will never die if we don't live that long to see it? How could God prove that he is omnipotent without displaying for us every single power that could ever be? Again, we don't live long enough for every power to be shown like that. And how could God prove that he is omniscient unless he shares with us everything that could ever be known? But if he did share with us everything that he knows, how could we know that it was everything?

Let's take the Law of Universal Uncertainty one step further to the bad territory. How does God know that he knows everything, if there is something even he is unaware of, then he wouldn't know that he doesn't know.

Perhaps there really is a multiverse of parallel universes out there, and each one has a being that created the Universe inside it. That being has ultimate control over everything inside that Universe, but is unaware of any other powerful beings in other universes. That being would believe that it is omniscient because it knows everything about his universe, but it turns out there is more.

What's more, how could that being know that he is omnipotent? Unless he performs every power that could ever be performed, he can't know that he is capable, and if he is unaware of other powers, such as traveling between the parallel universes previously mentioned, he wouldn't know that he doesn't have a power that he doesn't know exists.

And what's more, how can that being know that he will never die? That being may look as far into the future as he can, and never find a limit, but until the end of an infinite number of years passes, he can't be sure that something won't change because he doesn't know until that point in time that his predictive powers are infallible.

So in short, we can never be sure that God exists or doesn't exist. But at the same time, even God can't know if he is really God.

So if a being claims to be omnipotent, omniscient, or immortal, he must either be unaware of this principle of uncertainty which means he is not omniscient, or is being dishonest because he knows that can't be certain that he has these qualities. Of course there is a chance that this being is omniscient, omnipotent, and immortal, but he would just be lucky to be right if it were true, it wouldn't really be a matter of fact for him.