Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Joshua260]

It's in your profile.

You are building your arguments on rabbit holes.

see post 1175.

 

[TillICollapse]

The universe had a beginning because it's subject to time and time must have had a beginning. That's simple philosophy and really has nothing to do with "research."

And yet when asked, you didn't explain the beginning of time.

 

[The Cadet]

No proof at all to substantiate this view. There are quantum models (this is not proof!) that allow that effects can come about without causes, but even more models that don't have effects arising without causes. Effects without causes is still a "pipe-dream" for atheists.

Right. For atheists. Look, if your argument is based around "common sense" and extremely tentative models of how the universe works, I don't think it's a very good argument. And I'm not alone on that one.

 

[Davian]

see post 1175.

What about it?

You are clearly "cherry picking" the work of William Lane Craig, and all of the science that he cites to support his apologetics, while openly holding the position that all of the science you and he are citing have it all wrong. If you are digging for a fallacy at this point, it would be "poisoning the well" ...IF... the argument was that the KCA was weak because you do not adhere to the findings of modern science. I do not see that direct connection being made.

As you cannot, with any intellectual honesty, be the arbiter of your own efforts in these forums, myself and others have asked if there is anyone you can cite in the field of astrophysics that considers any version of the KCA convincing in itself. Got anything?

Should there be an intelligence test? No, but there should be a knowledge test of sorts; I often see many straw-man versions of scientific theories blazing away, even in this thread. Should I make a detailed, researched response to a poster on the subject of astrophysics, only to find out the hard way that they won't let go of the idea that there was a loud 'bang' at the 'beginning' of the universe?

I perceive your "common atheistic tactic" excuse as simple evasion.

 

[bhsmte]

This is what's called an ad hominem attack. Instead of addressing the argument, one attacks the defender of that argument. Some have accused me of "cherry picking", made fun of William Lane Craig, and some have even suggested that there be an intelligence test before some people (referring to KCA defenders) before posting. I just ignore these posts because it's a common atheistic tactic to move the focus way from the actual topic at hand and these attacks have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject.

Would this mean you disagree with Willy when he states the universe and earth is old?

 

[bhsmte]

The KCA has nothing to do with the age of the universe. Nothing we quoted from WLC has anything to do with the age of the universe. It's a line of reasoning based off of simple philosophy.

Agree.

I was inquiring as to why he went along with one argument from Willy, when they disagree on another big one, the age of the universe.

 

[Joshua260]

What about it?

You are clearly "cherry picking" the work of William Lane Craig, and all of the science that he cites to support his apologetics, while openly holding the position that all of the science you and he are citing have it all wrong. If you are digging for a fallacy at this point, it would be "poisoning the well" ...IF... the argument was that the KCA was weak because you do not adhere to the findings of modern science. I do not see that direct connection being made.

As you cannot, with any intellectual honesty, be the arbiter of your own efforts in these forums, myself and others have asked if there is anyone you can cite in the field of astrophysics that considers any version of the KCA convincing in itself. Got anything?

Should there be an intelligence test? No, but there should be a knowledge test of sorts; I often see many straw-man versions of scientific theories blazing away, even in this thread. Should I make a detailed, researched response to a poster on the subject of astrophysics, only to find out the hard way that they won't let go of the idea that there was a loud 'bang' at the 'beginning' of the universe?

I perceive your "common atheistic tactic" excuse as simple evasion.

I could explain my views but I refuse to be drawn down into that rabbit trail because you are trying to deflect from the subject which is the KCA and I will not comply with your diversion tactic. Your replies are less effective when you attack people personally and avoid the actual discussion. Please stay on topic.

 

[Joshua260]

Would this mean you disagree with Willy when he states the universe and earth is old?

I could explain my views, but I refuse to get drawn off-topic. I am not the one "on trial" here. The discussion is about the KCA. Please stay on topic.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

This is what's called an ad hominem attack. Instead of addressing the argument, one attacks the defender of that argument. Some have accused me of "cherry picking", made fun of William Lane Craig, and some have even suggested that there be an intelligence test before some people (referring to KCA defenders) before posting. I just ignore these posts because it's a common atheistic tactic to move the focus way from the actual topic at hand and these attacks have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject.

You don't just ignore those posts. You ignore posts that discuss the topic at hand also, as anyone can see by reading the thread.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why be facetious?

We experience effects everyday and then look for causes of those effects. If we can't understand them now, scientists will usually assert "don't worry, one day we'll figure it out".

I think might be a good idea to quote you a famous atheist, David Hume:
"I never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without a cause".

KC's point was that we don't experience things "coming to be" in the sense in which you appear to be using the word. In short, you appear to be conflating the interaction of matter and energy in spacetime - the kind of causes we are familiar with from experience - with the creation of matter, energy, and spacetime from nothing.

You are mischaracterizing the argument again. Why not just be fair and honest in our discussion?
All of the scientists I've quoted believe that the universe probably had a beginning. I'm not cherry-picking them (I could list a whole bunch Christian scientists who agree with me but you wouldn't believe them, would you?), but choosing them specifically because they are atheists who believe that the universe had a beginning.

As has been pointed out numerous times already, some cosmologists are of the opinion that the universe has a beginning, whereas others think that it is very likely eternal. As Sean Carroll pointed out, they are free to disagree because, at present, the information available is insufficient to reach a definitive conclusion. In any case, in relation to the KCA, this shows that the second premise is far from established - it's contestable.

It is when we get to extrapolating our the characteristic traits of the cause of the beginning of the universe that we get into whether or not God is the cause, and that is a question for philosophers.

What are you extrapolating from?

It is when we get to extrapolating our the characteristic traits of the cause of the beginning of the universe that we get into whether or not God is the cause, and that is a question for philosophers.

Are you suggesting that this is not a question for scientists? Are you further suggesting that it is not possible for the cause to be a natural process?

 

[Davian]

I could explain my views but I refuse to be drawn down into that rabbit trail because you are trying to deflect from the subject which is the KCA and I will not comply with your diversion tactic.

Evasion noted.

Your replies are less effective when you attack people personally

Where have I done that?

and avoid the actual discussion. Please stay on topic.

Sure. That's a very nice argument for gods that you have there. But, I think I'd like to take it for a drive around the block before I make an offer in it. I can see from here that it could use a coat of paint.

Stuck

• Davian
• Mar 9, 2012

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Instead of being condescending and rude, how about showing where the KCA (as shown below) fails to show that the universe probably had a cause?

We have literally spent pages examining this very issue only for you to ignore the main points. As a result, this has ceased to be a serious discussion. What more is there to say?

 

[KCfromNC]

Joshua260:"This premise is supported by two philosophical arguments and three scientific evidences."


I have supplied this evidence several times on this thread. And these scientists and philosophers not only say that it's a possibility, but that it's a probability that the universe began.

Then why doesn't the word chance or probability appear anywhere in P2? Seems like you're leaving some stuff out, or maybe you don't trust your own experts. Something here doesn't add up.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why be facetious?

It is a serious question. Why do you think that things we see here in the universe will tell us anything about the behavior of whatever was there before the universe existed?

I think might be a good idea to quote you a famous atheist, David Hume:

Why would it be a good idea? You can find philosophers who will say pretty much anything. They're pretty much the last group you'd want to go to for questions about reality. Well, maybe I'd go to them before talking to a lawyer.

You are mischaracterizing the argument again.

Nope. If your alleged experts say that something probably happened, then you'd better include some statement of probability in the premise rather than presenting it as an absolute fact.

 

[KCfromNC]

No proof at all to substantiate this view. There are quantum models (this is not proof!)

Weird how cherry-picked speculation from scientists counts as a good reason to accept various propositions, but an actual verified scientific model is only a "pipe dream".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It is a serious question. Why do you think that things we see here in the universe will tell us anything about whatever was there before the universe existed?



Why would it be a good idea? You can find philosophers who will say pretty much anything.



Nope. If your alleged experts say that something probably happened, then you'd better include some statement of probability in the premise rather than presenting it as an absolute fact.

Presumably that's because more precise wording of the argument would render it less useful to apologetics. For example:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to expand 13.8 billion years ago and is expanding still.
3. Therefore, the expansion of the universe has a cause.

The KCA's apologetic utility depends on the premises being vague enough to allow for easy equivocation. Does the first premise refer to creatio ex materia or to creatio ex nihilo? Does "the universe" refer to "all of physical reality" or "nature" or does it refer to our local spacetime universe, which may or may not be "all of physical reality"? Does the second premise refer to the expansion of our universe, which began 13.8 billion years ago, or is it claiming that matter, energy, and spacetime were created ex nihilo? What does the arguer mean by "beginning to exist"? As the premises are open to multiple interpretations, determining whether they are supported or not depends on the answers to these questions.

 

[TillICollapse]

Presumably that's because more precise wording of the argument would render it less useful to apologetics.

Exactly. The more vague and open to interpretation it remains, the more useful it is for the apologist. It is essentially their version of a cold reading type of cosmology.

 

[Joshua260]

Then why doesn't the word chance or probability appear anywhere in P2?

Because that is not the nature of philosophical arguments.
For example, the (atheistic) problem of evil is stated thusly:
1. An all-powerful god could prevent evil.
2. An all-loving god would prevent evil.
3. Evil exist.
4. Therefore, an all-powerful, all-loving god does not exist.

Do you see the word "chance" or "probably" in there anywhere?

 

[nonbeliever314]

In the KCA define "cause".

 

[Joshua260]

They're [philosphers] pretty much the last group you'd want to go to for questions about reality.

Wow. Are you serious? They are exactly the people we would consult about the nature of reality!!!