Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Joshua260]

As for the KCA, I still would like to see an example of "something that begins to exist", from which we can extrapolate a rule about things beginning to exist that includes the ex nihilo creation of the universe.
Next: "Causation" as a fundamental principle governing within the universe is only meaningful if "cause" is qualified. We do observe that physical events have physical causes. Thinking physical stuff into existence isn´t covered by anything that we´d accept as a "cause". Even if this happens within this already existing world, it is claimed to be a "miracle" by theists.

wow. so much to unpack here.
things that begin to exist:
a car (cause was the manufacturer)
a baby (cause was mommy and daddy)
a tree (cause was a seed that was nurtured)
a song (cause was the songwriter)
an idea (cause was the thinker)
the reformation (cause was people like Luther)
the character Tom Sawyer (cause the author Mark Twain)

note that not all of the causes above are material.

Aristotle classified causes as efficient and material. The efficient cause is like the thing (including a person) that brings the result about while the material cause is like the thing that something was made from. For example, the statue of David was brought about by an efficient cause (Michelangelo) and the material cause was the boulder it was carved from. When Christians say something cannot come from nothing, they mean without any cause (efficient, material, or whatever else type of cause). A cause is something which brings about or produces it's effects. So the universe was brought about by an efficient cause.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Wait a minute. You're saying that most likely what you wrote was wrong, but then you attack me for not being able to understand it? Maybe it wasn't that I "botched it", but rather that your paper was incoherent. I asked you to explain your idea, but you never did.

Nope, the math was fine. The idea could be wrong. Like a mathematical model can be sound, but it doesn't fit the data. But regardless, you should have easily understood the gist of it. It was literally some simple Linear Algebra. I was trying to show that if there is a 3 dimensional space (a very simple universe), with some type of boundary if there actually is one, that it wouldn't make sense that there would be nothing "outside". So the 3 space has to be infinite in extent, or it is encapsulated in a space that has a dimension greater than or equal to it, and if that space has a finite number of dimensions, then another space should encapsulate that one as well, and so on. Point being nothing can't exist on the "outside", if there is an "outside". Just an idea.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

wow. so much to unpack here.
things that begin to exist:
a car (cause was the manufacturer)
a baby (cause was mommy and daddy)
a tree (cause was a seed that was nurtured)
a song (cause was the songwriter)
an idea (cause was the thinker)
the reformation (cause was people like Luther)
the character Tom Sawyer (cause the author Mark Twain)

note that not all of the causes above are material.

Aristotle classified causes as efficient and material. The efficient cause is like the thing (including a person) that brings the result about while the material cause is like the thing that something was made from. For example, the statue of David was brought about by an efficient cause (Michelangelo) and the material cause was the boulder it was carved from. When Christians say something cannot come from nothing, they mean without any cause (efficient, material, or whatever else type of cause). A cause is something which brings about or produces it's effects. So the universe was brought about by an efficient cause.

And what about the material cause? The evidence you draw on to support the first premise - our everyday experience - does not support this. We don't experience things "beginning to exist" with only an efficient cause and no material cause. In other words, you are conflating ex materia with ex nihilo creation.

 

[Joshua260]

Also you should read all the science. Read everything about inflation, preferably the technical articles since you know relativity and quantum mechanics, and then explain to me why the KCA in technical terms, makes sense. But wait, this argument should stay in the philosophical realm, but use scientific evidence when needed.

As Vilenkin (a scientist) said, even inflation models had a beginning. Why are we going back to try to disprove what even most atheistic scientists agree with, that the universe had a beginning? You guys pick like one or two atheists scientist who say that the universe could have always existed, and they only cite theoretical models and not one iota of scientific evidence. The ones who believe that the universe probably did have a beginning can cite not only theoretical models, but also scientific evidences and logic.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

As Vilenkin (a scientist) said, even inflation models had a beginning. Why are we going back to try to disprove what even most atheistic scientists agree with, that the universe had a beginning? You guys pick like one or two atheists scientist who say that the universe could have always existed, and they only cite theoretical models and not one iota of scientific evidence. The ones who believe that the universe probably did have a beginning can cite not only theoretical models, but also scientific evidences and logic.

You haven't been listening, have you?

 

[nonbeliever314]

As Vilenkin (a scientist) said, even inflation models had a beginning. Why are we going back to try to disprove what even most atheistic scientists agree with, that the universe had a beginning? You guys pick like one or two atheists scientist who say that the universe could have always existed, and they only cite theoretical models and not one iota of scientific evidence. The ones who believe that the universe probably did have a beginning can cite not only theoretical models, but also scientific evidences and logic.

I'm not saying I don't think this universe had a beginning, I'm saying if you actually understood the inflation models a little better, you might second guess inserting your God into cosmology.

 

[Joshua260]

Infinite duration makes more sense than timeless. Why? Because I said so. Do you see what I'm getting at?

But logic and evidences indicate that time began. That is why "infinite" does not apply.

At the very least cite your sources. Especially when it's literally copied and pasted. Which it was.

Most of the time I do not copy and paste. I happen to agree with Craig on the KCA. I've read several books on it, and you should not be surprised if I use much of the same language often. I must say, this is a ridiculous complaint. You're not really complaining so much that I did not reference the material, but that my replies are very similar to Craig. So what? This only serves to divert from the actual topic. Instead of attacking me for agreeing with Craig, please stay on topic and address the argument.

 

[Joshua260]

I'm not saying I don't think this universe had a beginning, I'm saying if you actually understood the inflation models a little better, you might second guess inserting your God into cosmology.

Good grief!!!
I'm not inserting anything!!! There is no "god of the gaps" reasoning going on here.

The KCA simply concludes that the beginning of the universe had a cause. Nowhere does the argument say that "God did it". It is only when we look at the possible characteristic traits that we find that God is included in the list of possible candidates and that many things are excluded from being a possible cause.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Most of the time I do not copy and paste.

What do you mean "most of the time"? Does that mean that some of the time you do copy and paste without referencing the source?

I happen to agree with Craig on the KCA. I've read several books on it, and you should not be surprised if I use much of the same language often. I must say, this is a ridiculous complaint. You're not really complaining so much that I did not reference the material, but that my replies are very similar to Craig. So what? This only serves to divert from the actual topic. Instead of attacking me for agreeing with Craig, please stay on topic and address the argument.

Unbelievable. You were caught copying his material, word for word.

 

[nonbeliever314]

In terms of the universe having a beginning I'd say probably yes. But there much more we have to figure out. If God did it, your finished, and can sit back and laugh at the rest of us still trying to figure it out.

 

[quatona]

wow. so much to unpack here.
things that begin to exist:
a car (cause was the manufacturer)
a baby (cause was mommy and daddy)
a tree (cause was a seed that was nurtured)
a song (cause was the songwriter)
an idea (cause was the thinker)
the reformation (cause was people like Luther)
the character Tom Sawyer (cause the author Mark Twain)

note that not all of the causes above are material.[/quote]
Sorry, but all of them are material, or themselves caused by something material.

Aristotle classified causes as efficient and material.

1. I´d like to be shown a cause that is efficient but not material (or itself caused by something material).
2. When you postulate "Everything that begins has a cause" - do you mean an efficient cause, a material cause, both or either?

The efficient cause is like the thing (including a person) that brings the result about while the material cause is like the thing that something was made from.

Last time I checked there were no non-material persons.

For example, the statue of David was brought about by an efficient cause (Michelangelo) and the material cause was the boulder it was carved from.

I am looking for an example where the "efficient cause" is not material (or itself caused by something material) - because that would be an equivalent to "God caused matter into existence" that we could start trying to extrapolate from.

When Christians say something cannot come from nothing, they mean without any cause (efficient, material, or whatever else type of cause).

Well, since - as you say - this is a premise Christians claim to be true, it is no big surprise that some of them find the KCA a convincing argument, is it?

A cause is something which brings about or produces it's effects. So the universe was brought about by an efficient cause.

The point is that "Everything that begins to exist [in your definition of "beginning"] has an efficient cause" in every instance that we could possibly extrapolate a rule from, points to an efficient cause that is also material (or itself caused by something material).

And before this strawman is brought up: No, I am not appealing to materialism. I am merely telling you that you don´t get to conclude the necessity for a non-material "spiritual" efficient cause from observations in which all causes are material or themselves caused by something material.
In essence: You are trying to substantiate an exceptional claim by pointing to an empirical rule that doesn´t even cover your claim.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Good grief!!!
I'm not inserting anything!!! There is no "god of the gaps" reasoning going on here.

The KCA simply concludes that the beginning of the universe had a cause. Nowhere does the argument say that "God did it". It is only when we look at the possible characteristic traits that we find that God is included in the list of possible candidates and that many things are excluded from being a possible cause.

You're gapping it, because you're assuming too much. And then you draw your conclusion based on a massive pile of assumptions.

 

[Joshua260]

Nope, the math was fine. The idea could be wrong. Like a mathematical model can be sound, but it doesn't fit the data.

"Sound" implies truth. I think you mean "valid", which you have not even demonstrated that yet. I asked you to print it out because it was difficult to read.

But regardless, you should have easily understood the gist of it.

Maybe, if it was coherent.

It was literally some simple Linear Algebra. I was trying to show that if there is a 3 dimensional space (a very simple universe), with some type of boundary if there actually is one, that it wouldn't make sense that there would be nothing "outside".

Here's your philosophical mistake. You're trying to apply a 3d understanding to something when it does not apply. Aren't you hesitant to say, "what happened before time began?" In like manner, you should be wary when forcing spatial thinking when it does not apply.

 

[Joshua260]

And before this strawman is brought up: No, I am not appealing to materialism.

Materialism: the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

It certainly seems that you are. You are a priori ruling out an immaterial cause for the beginning of the universe.

 

[Joshua260]

You're gapping it, because you're assuming too much. And then you draw your conclusion based on a massive pile of assumptions.

What you call a "gap" is filled with logic and evidences. That's not a gap.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Maybe, if it was coherent.

I'll call your bluff. Tell me whether or not the following vectors form a basis. <1,1,0>, <2,2,0>, <0,0,1>. That should literally take you 10 seconds if you know what you say you know.

 

[nonbeliever314]

Counting down 10..9..8...

 

[nonbeliever314]

I'll give you a minute...

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Materialism: the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.

It certainly seems that you are. You are a priori ruling out an immaterial cause for the beginning of the universe.

Do you rule out the possibility of a material cause?

 

[nonbeliever314]

I'll go have a cigarette, I hope you have the answer by then. It can be done by inspection. No calculation required. Extra bonus if you can tell me why they are or are not a basis.