Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Archaeopteryx]

Not in the slightest. Let me repeat my analogy from earlier: which is simpler, saying that a tree made a car or an intelligent designer made a car? Obviously the latter. Why? Because a tree can't think, design, etc. Same applies to the universe.

You're cherrypicking, still.

 

[Davian]

Well yes, that's the list I narrowed down to earlier, but I'm going through this little exercise to see if you can figure out any characteristic traits different from what I have already. So far, we've agreed on an immaterial, omnipotent, uncaused,omniscient, free causal agent. So together, we've already narrowed down the list of possible candidates quite a bit.

How could the "Abrahamic God" be immaterial and walk and talk in the Garden of Eden? Is it both immaterial and material, as Achilles6129 claimed?

 

[Davian]

Explain to me how an immaterial, disembodied mind can exist without time. If you can posit such an entity, then what's wrong the suggestion that the material could itself exist without time? You still haven't answered my question though: how do you know that the universe was preceded by nothing, which you defined as nothing material and no time. How does that even make sense, given that the term "precede" is temporal?

[apologist]
If God is powerful enough to create the universe then obviously he's powerful enough to be able to manifest himself materially, and sustain his mind without a brain.

And, being so powerful he can exist both temporally and timelessly.

Obviously.
[/apologist]

 

[nonbeliever314]

The criminal crow argument. (CCA)

1) A collection of crows is called a murder.
2) Murder is a crime.
3) Therefore, a collection of crows is a crime.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Let's take the basic CCA one step at a time, and see where the logic takes us.

 

[Joshua260]

I'm not talking about infinities at this point. I'm asking why you don't show me mathematically where you're argument is going. If you know QM and GR, you know a ton of math and high level physics. You can make a much stronger case that way.

Thanks for the advice.

 

[Joshua260]

I'm just gonna say it. I'm calling out your bluff. I'm convinced you don't know QM and/or GR. Every time I bring it up, you don't give me a direct answer.

You can think what you want. Philosophy is the proper discipline for this discussion.

 

[Davian]

The criminal crow argument. (CCA)

1) A collection of crows is called a murder.
2) Murder is a crime.
3) Therefore, a collection of crows is a crime.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You can think what you want. Philosophy is the proper discipline for this discussion.

What was the point of bringing cosmology into it if you didn't want to discuss it?

 

[nonbeliever314]

You can think what you want. Philosophy is the proper discipline for this discussion.

Then why cite scientific discoveries? The KCA makes claims about cosmology. Cosmology is the scientific study of the origin and evolution of the universe. Cosmologists don't discuss and debate their ideas philosophically.

 

[Joshua260]

The dragon is a joke. I'm not taking it seriously. We can drop the dragon thing.

It doesn't matter whether you intended it as a joke or not. The point is that if p1) everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence and p2) the universe began to exist, then the conclusion that the universe has a cause for it's beginning to exist yields certain consequences. Every day, doing math, science, or just basic living, we use logic to make sense of and interact with our world. Sometimes, logic reveals understandings that sound counter-intuitive to us. For example, Einstein first used logic to come to the belief that gravity could bend light. It was quite some time later that he was able to find the right math to explain it, and he was already convinced that he was correct before non-believers "saw" it with their own "telescopic" eyes. Even now, some people still refuse to believe it.

I think if the universe had a beginning there's more to it naturally speaking than what anyone knows so far.

I understand that you desire to explain the beginning of the universe through a natural cause, but so far, the logic does not support it. I remember Hawking expressing how he was sad to disappoint so many time-travel fans, but he then went on to proclaim that it just doesn't seem to be a realistic possibility.

So this "timeless", "uncaused" stuff doesn't sit well with me. I don't think before the universe there was absolute nothingness.

I understand. Sometimes the logic and evidence doesn't want to support our preconceived notions about reality. When things like that happen, it can be difficult to adjust our beliefs accordingly.

So anyway, so far we've agreed on an immaterial, omnipotent, uncaused, omniscient, free-causal agent as the cause for the beginning of the universe. I think it was also timeless for reasons I explained earlier. By doing so we've been able to trim down the list of possible candidates quite considerably. The logic doesn't point directly to the Christian god, but he certainly possesses all of the characteristic traits we've considered thus far.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It doesn't matter whether you intended it as a joke or not. The point is that if p1) everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence and p2) the universe began to exist, then the conclusion that the universe has a cause for it's beginning to exist yields certain consequences. Every day, doing math, science, or just basic living, we use logic to make sense of and interact with our world.

It's difficult to examine what the consequences of the conclusion are when you haven't defined the terms in the premises.

I understand that you desire to explain the beginning of the universe through a natural cause, but so far, the logic does not support it.

What reason do you have to think that it is impossible for a universe to form through natural processes that are, as yet, poorly understood?

So anyway, so far we've agreed on an immaterial, omnipotent, uncaused, omniscient, free-causal agent as the cause for the beginning of the universe. I think it was also timeless for reasons I explained earlier. By doing so we've been able to trim down the list of possible candidates quite considerably. The logic doesn't point directly to the Christian god, but he certainly possesses all of the characteristic traits we've considered thus far.

See previous comments on this. You've ignored most of the relevant responses to this.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Here is an interesting debate on the KCA between Jeremy E Walker and cjlr. The debate illustrates why terms need to be defined before examining whether the premises are supported. Joshua260 seems to be adopting a strategy similar to Jeremy's. For example, what does Joshua mean when he says "the universe began to exist"? If he means that the expansion of the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, then the premise is supported. If he means something else, however, then it might not be.

 

[TillICollapse]

Here is an interesting debate on the KCA between Jeremy E Walker and cjlr. The debate illustrates why terms need to be defined before examining whether the premises are supported. Joshua260 seems to be adopting a strategy similar to Jeremy's. For example, what does Joshua mean when he says "the universe began to exist"? If he means that the expansion of the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, then the premise is supported. If he means something else, however, then it might not be.

This is perhaps the first stumbling block I find every time I look at the KCA: it's too vague and undefined. And if the one who is pushing the KCA as an argument relies upon the audience to define the goalposts for them and then moves those goalposts as it suits their agenda, I find that to be intellectually dishonest.

 

[nonbeliever314]

I understand that you desire to explain the beginning of the universe through a natural cause, but so far, the logic does not support it. I remember Hawking expressing how he was sad to disappoint so many time-travel fans, but he then went on to proclaim that it just doesn't seem to be a realistic possibility.

Did you even look at my very simple mathematical example I posted on here? I didn't get too technical. Look at that, and get back to me. I attempt to explain in a very simple way, why I don't think this universe is all there is to it in the grand scheme of things.

Post #966

Don't ignore it this time please.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is perhaps the first stumbling block I find every time I look at the KCA: it's too vague and undefined. And if the one who is pushing the KCA as an argument relies upon the audience to define the goalposts for them and then moves those goalposts as it suits their agenda, I find that to be intellectually dishonest.

The same problem affects the first premise also. If by 'cause' and 'begins to exist,' he means the creation of matter, energy, and spacetime from nothing, then he cannot appeal to our experience of causality as support for the first premise. We don't experience things 'beginning to exist' in this way.

 

[nonbeliever314]

The same problem affects the first premise also. If by 'cause' and 'begins to exist,' he means the creation of matter, energy, and spacetime from nothing, then he cannot appeal to our experience of causality as support for the first premise. We don't experience things 'beginning to exist' in this way.

They want to think that everything came from absolutely nothing, and that this is the one and only universe.

 

[TillICollapse]

The same problem affects the first premise also. If by 'cause' and 'begins to exist,' he means the creation of matter, energy, and spacetime from nothing, then he cannot appeal to our experience of causality as support for the first premise. We don't experience things 'beginning to exist' in this way.

This is essentially the second stumbling block I find as well ... at P1. Depending on context (i.e. "If by ________ he means _______"), speaking in terms of causality itself may become meaningless and/or insufficient, since the laws of physics as we understand them are unclear during the Plank era (and before, obviously).

Thus, jumping into the hamster wheel that is the KCA, as it stands, and undefined by the one arguing it ... is like trying to extrapolate practical and objective application from a fortune cookie.

 

[Davian]

Who's intelligence? Ours? If you're referring to our intelligence, then yes it began it exist. It's not uncaused and it's not disembodied (since it's within our bodies, obviously).

The only minds and intelligence we observe are processes, properties of brains; how does that work without a brain (for your god)? Is that like a waterfall without the water?

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

How powerful?

and intelligent enough to create this universe.

Why? What choices, if any, could be made?

All that you've done is substituted the "gods," aliens, fairies, or "the Divine Flame" for God. So you really do believe in a God, you just labeled him differently.

Not at all. God-with-a-capital-G carries with it thousands of years of dogma that those others do not, making it much harder for it to get over the evidential or parsimony bar.

 

[nonbeliever314]

I understand that you desire to explain the beginning of the universe through a natural cause, but so far, the logic does not support it. I remember Hawking expressing how he was sad to disappoint so many time-travel fans, but he then went on to proclaim that it just doesn't seem to be a realistic possibility.

I'm the one using logic. You're literally taking a 2000 year old philosophical argument, using misinterpreted science and literally trying to make God fit it somehow.