Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Davian]

...

Based on deductive reasoning there is reason to think intelligence was involved. If it takes intelligence to create a machine (like a car), and the universe runs like a machine, then it's reasonable to deduce that it took intelligence to create the universe.

How do you know that? Perhaps the creation of our cosmos was analogous to a multiversal-toaster-oven event, a popping out of a universe at irregular intervals, and we got what we got. The weak anthropic principle, and all that.

If the constants were not what they are, then we would not be here to discuss it. Very little - if any - intelligence required. Would you worship [the equivalent of] a toaster oven?

 

[Davian]

...
Doesn't matter. You see, other "gods," aliens, fairies, or "the Divine Flame" would have to be powerful enough and intelligent enough to create this universe.
...

The observable universe appears to have a net energy level of zero. What do you mean, "powerful enough"? For what?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Based on deductive reasoning there is reason to think intelligence was involved. If it takes intelligence to create a machine (like a car), and the universe runs like a machine, then it's reasonable to deduce that it took intelligence to create the universe.

As I noted earlier, you're cherrypicking. You're picking and choosing which rules from the universe apply and which do not. According to you, our understanding of how minds work doesn't apply, but our understanding of how design works does. We apparently can't object to the notion of a disembodied, spaceless and timeless intelligence because, according to you, we're applying the rules of the universe to an entity that is exempt from those rules. But when we object to your design argument, you invert this point, and all of a sudden our understanding of design, which is derived from within the universe (e.g., cars and aeroplanes), extends beyond the universe.

 

[KCfromNC]

There's a ton of research into God and time:

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Eternity...8&qid=1434306709&sr=1-2&keywords=god+and+time

http://www.amazon.com/Eternity-Natu...d=1434306752&sr=1-2&keywords=god+time+padgett

I meant actual published research, not Christian apologetics.

It doesn't matter. Whether you have a "multiverse" or God you would still have the same issue with time. The point is that it's far more reasonable to believe God created the universe than anything else.

Really? What reasonable reason is there to believe that god(s) exist in the first place?

Based on deductive reasoning there is reason to think intelligence was involved. If it takes intelligence to create a machine (like a car), and the universe runs like a machine, then it's reasonable to deduce that it took intelligence to create the universe.

Using this deductive "reasoning" we can conclude that humans created the universe. After all, it takes human intelligence to create a machine...

 

[KCfromNC]

Why not? Explain why your natural explanations are better than God?

We know natural processes exist, for one thing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'm still curious as to what the answer to this might be:

Joshua, does intelligence begin to exist? Is intelligence uncaused and disembodied?

 

[bhsmte]

I'm still curious as to what the answer to this might be:

That is a tough one.

Likely some special pleading will be required.

 

[Achilles6129]

1) Natural explanations actually provide results. You try to use those results to argue for something "supernatural".

I would say that you can extend natural explanations back to reasonably deduce a supernatural designer. That's what the KCA and the Teleological Argument are all about.

2) If this universe had a beginning, then time for this universe is finite. Time is part of the universe itself, with space (space-time). There could be an "arrow of time", but also time could possibly be emergent and when the universe is observed a certain way it will appear to be static. It has to do with particle entanglement if I remember correctly.

Are you saying, then, that you believe that the universe could have existed eternally? Stephen Hawking once tried to make a similar claim, based on his understanding of "imaginary time." William Lane Craig addresses that here:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/stephen-hawking-and-god

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/in-defense-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument

Question for you, do you think there was absolutely nothing, not even a vacuum before the universe?

Yes, nothing material, no time, nothing.

The dragon is eternal, not timeless, he doesn't like to be in a static state.
The dragon didn't have a cause since he's eternal.
The dragon is omnipotent.
The dragon is a slave to his own freedom.

So you do believe in God, then!

 

[Achilles6129]

Nooooo. Parsimony would suggest that if something created the universe, the less complex solution would be favored. A god is in no way a less complex solution.

A God is a less complex solution because it's very difficult to see how an inanimate, unintelligent thing could give rise to the universe. God is a much easier solution, because here we have an intelligent Creator who can form the universe purposefully. We don't need some sort of random "accident" in order to make it happen.

Noooooo. Cars and universes are not even remotely similar things, so they can't be compared. If you're going to posit a universe that's designed, you have to contrast it with a universe that was not designed. And since there's no other universes... you can't. Therefore, there's no basis for the position.

We're just going to have to disagree. I'm comparing the workings of a machine with the workings of the universe and saying that since the machine had an intelligent designer, so did the universe. If you disagree then we really can't continue the discussion further.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Question for you, do you think there was absolutely nothing, not even a vacuum before the universe?

Yes, nothing material, no time, nothing.

How do you know this?

 

[Achilles6129]

How do you know this?

Well, I assumed you knew that when I said "immaterial being" I was referring to God. So obviously God would be able to manifest himself materially.

How do you know that? Perhaps the creation of our cosmos was analogous to a multiversal-toaster-oven event, a popping out of a universe at irregular intervals, and we got what we got. The weak anthropic principle, and all that.

If the constants were not what they are, then we would not be here to discuss it. Very little - if any - intelligence required. Would you worship [the equivalent of] a toaster oven?

What you're claiming isn't very reasonable to believe.

The observable universe appears to have a net energy level of zero. What do you mean, "powerful enough"? For what?

The idea that the universe has a "net energy level of zero" is something that I think currently is impossible to establish. Regardless, it doesn't have any bearing on the power necessary to create the universe. God still has to be powerful enough to create everything in the universe (black holes, galaxies, and such). So does your "Divine Flame."

 

[Achilles6129]

How do you know this?

Because of the impossibility of an infinite regress in time.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Because of the impossibility of an infinite regress in time.

That doesn't explain why you think the universe was created from nothing. The universe need not have come to be from nothing. So the question is still relevant: how do you know?

 

[Davian]

...

Lol!!!! No, in fact, even with all the attacks on this thread, the KCA has stood rock solid and no one has offered a good objection to it yet.
...

One might expect that your opinion your own efforts here is that they are exemplary. However, one should not be the arbiter of one's own opinions.

Is there an individual, or group of individuals, qualified in astrophysics, that consider the KCA to be convincing in itself, or to be of any significance?

 

[Davian]

Well, I assumed you knew that when I said "immaterial being" I was referring to God.

I do not make any assumptions about gods. At this point in this discussion they are only characters in books.

So obviously God would be able to manifest himself materially.

How do you know this? Do you just make this up as you go along? Am I to accept these assertions at face value?

What you're claiming isn't very reasonable to believe.

I have yet to see any god concepts that are reasonable to believe. All I am doing is speculating about a more parsimonious explanation.

The idea that the universe has a "net energy level of zero" is something that I think currently is impossible to establish.

"A generic property of inflation is the balancing of the negative gravitational energy, within the inflating region, with the positive energy of the inflaton field to yield a post-inflationary universe with negligible or zero energy density.[4][5] It is this balancing of the total universal energy budget that enables the open-ended growth possible with inflation; during inflation energy flows from the gravitational field (or geometry) to the inflaton field—the total gravitational energy decreases (i.e. becomes more negative) and the total inflaton energy increases (becomes more positive). But the respective energy densities remain constant and opposite since the region is inflating. Consequently, inflation explains the otherwise curious cancellation of matter and gravitational energy on cosmological scales, which is consistent with astronomical observations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

Regardless, it doesn't have any bearing on the power necessary to create the universe. God still has to be powerful enough to create everything in the universe (black holes, galaxies, and such).

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with inflation theory before parroting that again.

So does your "Divine Flame."

Not my "Divine Flame", but if we look to modern cosmology, it would seem that very little "power" would be needed to create the cosmos.

 

[TillICollapse]

For NBA Game 5 fans who will get this

 

[ToddNotTodd]

A God is a less complex solution because it's very difficult to see how an inanimate, unintelligent thing could give rise to the universe.

I'm not sure you're understanding what the law of parsimony means. Your incredulity as to a possible natural origin of the universe has no bearing on its complexity. We're talking about complexity in terms of the fewest assumptions.

God is a much easier solution, because here we have an intelligent Creator who can form the universe purposefully.

An omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenvolent thinking being with plans and goals and emotions, and who exists in three distinct persons, is by definition much more complex than a physical law or force without any of that extra baggage. You can't rationally argue against that.

We don't need some sort of random "accident" in order to make it happen.

Who's saying the non deity-related creation of the universe was a "random accident"? That tends to be something that only Christians say. That statement seems to be in the same vein as "If we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?".

We're just going to have to disagree. I'm comparing the workings of a machine with the workings of the universe and saying that since the machine had an intelligent designer, so did the universe.

Right, a completely unfounded assumption. If someone replies to you and says the universe doesn't seem like a designed machine at all, and asked you to prove it, what would you say?

If you disagree then we really can't continue the discussion further.

I'm always willing to continue a logical discussion to a conclusion, but that's just me...

 

[nonbeliever314]

Are you saying, then, that you believe that the universe could have existed eternally? Stephen Hawking once tried to make a similar claim, based on his understanding of "imaginary time."

This universe no. Refer to my earlier post as to why I don't think that. #966 Go through it and I'll explain it later.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Well, I assumed you knew that when I said "immaterial being" I was referring to God. So obviously God would be able to manifest himself materially.



What you're claiming isn't very reasonable to believe.



The idea that the universe has a "net energy level of zero" is something that I think currently is impossible to establish. Regardless, it doesn't have any bearing on the power necessary to create the universe. God still has to be powerful enough to create everything in the universe (black holes, galaxies, and such). So does your "Divine Flame."

Power necessary to create the universe.....

P = dW/dT, the amount of work done over time. Did God have to do some work to get the job done?

If God had to be "powerful enough", he'd need to have matter, and time. That's what power requires as I just stated above. So from a physics perspective, God is not "timeless" and immaterial.
Power requires work which requires energy/matter and time.

So if he's immaterial and timeless, how can he be powerful?

 

[nonbeliever314]

Also if you say how much energy is required to create the universe, refer to Davian's reply a few above this one.

On a side note, energy can be thought of as matter's potential to do work. And E = m, if we use units where the the speed of light (c) is 1.