Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Archaeopteryx]

Aha! You're thinking in terms of this universe again, according to your own experiences of reality. Remember that God created this universe! Your understanding of how things work in this universe (sequences of thoughts and so on) doesn't necessarily apply beyond this universe!

So our understanding of causality, which is our derived from our experience within the universe, need not apply in the absence of the universe, which undermines your argument altogether.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) The universe had a cause
4) The best explanation of that cause is God

The interesting thing about the cosmological argument is that while, on the one hand, it appeals to certain intuitions derived from within the universe, it also demands exceptions to those intuitions so as to accommodate the arguer's preconceived theological commitments (captured in 4). The arguer cherry-picks the intuitions that do and do not apply in order to reach a predetermined theological conclusion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I'd like to know why you think the first premise is true. I'm going to assume for now it's because you believe it based upon what's observable in the universe. If that's the case, I'll explain to you why this first premise fails and therefore so does the rest of the argument. If there's some other reason you believe the first premise is true, let me know.

Let's assume though that 1-3 are all true....why does that lead to conclusion 4? It doesn't. Anything imagined as the cause of the universe, including entirely natural processes, has just as much validity as your conclusion based upon the logic you've used. The only reason you made the conclusion you did is because you're implicitly starting with the idea god exists.

Interestingly, accepting 1-3 doesn't necessarily implicate a theological conclusion. All it does is indicate that the origin of the universe remains mysterious and is in need of explanation.

 

[variant]

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe began to exist
3) The universe had a cause
4) The best explanation of that cause is God

Except God doesn't explain how the universe began to exist at all, we know nothing more about this event by positing a God who could do it than we did in sheer ignorance.

 

[Davian]

Aha! You're thinking in terms of this universe again, according to your own experiences of reality. Remember that God created this universe!

Allegedly.

Your understanding of how things work in this universe (sequences of thoughts and so on) doesn't necessarily apply beyond this universe!

Our understanding of how things work in this universe does not necessarily apply beyond this universe. Got it.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause
<snip other unsubstantiated points>

Now you want to apply our understanding of how things work in this universe now to "before" this universe existed.

Contradict yourself much?

 

[Davian]

Hello all,

In your opinion, what's the very best argument for the existence of God? Conversely, what's the top argument against the existence of God? Interested to hear your responses and subsequent reasoning. Thanks!

If we are talking about the biblical-flavoured all-powerful all-knowing do-anything all-supreme-styled deity, I would proffer the argument from design, against.

I can only imagine that such a deity would not have to fuss with "fine-tuning", universal constants that stay constant, Goldilocks zones, and the need for liquid water and all that. We could be creatures living on the surface of a star, or swimming in the atmosphere of Saturn, without the need for just the right set of physics for stellar evolution to create all of those molecules eventually needed for what we call "biology" on this planet. With that kind of deity, why would our ancestors have spent a billion years mucking about as single-celled organisms, with all of that time-wasting evolutionary trial-and-error to work through before getting anywhere? Why bother with DNA at all?

A real super-duper deity could have just popped everything into existence, and with a few thousand years of tinkering, we could be where we are now.

 

[quatona]

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause

Any time this claim is thrown around as though it had some axiomatic power, I am wondering why that is.
a. This can hardly be a statement founded on observation. After all, (except for but very recent findings on the subatomic level which might indicate cases of things "starting to exist") we have never observed anything "beginning to exist" (in the way it´s used here: Created out of nothing). All we have can observe is permanent change of that which already is.
So let´s not pretend we could make any statements concerning the requirements for something "beginning to exist".
b. We might, however, conclude from observations that events have a cause. Funnily enough, though, all we can observe are events having physical causes.
So let´s not pretend we could single-handedly transcend a physical axiom into an allegedly spirtual realm (particularly since this allegedly spirtual realm keeps being claimed to operate differently than the physical one).

2) The universe began to exist

a. Ex nihilo? What do we know about ex nihilo existences? What are our observations, our experiences that allow us to state laws about them? Nothing.
b. Interestingly, the theistic claim "God created physical matter from spirituality" is quite exceptional (matter from spirituality is nowhere to be observed within the universe). Thus, we need to conclude that you have no problems whatsoever to assume that the coming into existence of a universe is not subject to the laws observed within the universe.
Yet, when another exceptional claim about the coming into existence of a universe is made, you complain that it is exceptional.
Quite a double standard.

3) The universe had a cause

Yes, follows from 1 and 2. Unfortunately, 1 and 2 are very questionable premises. So let´s not get ahead of ourselves.
4) The best explanation of that cause is God[/quote]
No, it isn´t an explanation at all. It´s a mere claim, and an exceptional one at that. I have yet to see an explanation how God created a universe.

 

[quatona]

What started the Big Bang? How'd that come about?

I have no idea. Then again, I am not the guy claiming to know what laws must be fulfilled for a universe to come into existence. Remember, you are the guy who claims that the laws observed within the universe must be applied to the universe itself, not me.
So either you demand an explanation based on the laws observed within the universe (which your conclusion "God created the universe out of nothing or out of spirituality" clearly isn´t), or you let go off your premise (in which case any exceptional assumption about the coming into being of a universe is as good as yours).

And how did the Big Bang (something physical) create something non-physical and immaterial, like God?

While we are at demanding explanations of the mechanisms of "creation", you may want to explain the mechanisms with which God created the universe. Just so we know that you are serious about your demands and hold your own ideas to the same standards you apply to competing ideas.

 

[Jesse2014]

subscribing

I am a terrible debater.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Except God doesn't explain how the universe began to exist at all, we know nothing more about this event by positing a God who could do it than we did in sheer ignorance.

Does substituting the language of physics for the language of theology really advance our understanding of the origins of the universe? Has that sort of substitution ever advanced knowledge?

 

[FireDragon76]

Does substituting the language of physics for the language of theology really advance our understanding of the origins of the universe? Has that sort of substitution ever advanced knowledge?

We still have to do science (which I am certainly not opposed to) if we want to understand the secondary causes of the existence of particular things.

I do not believe that faith in God is ultimately about scientific explanations for the universe. If it is, something is wrong with our faith. Science is one thing, religion another. But belief in God can help sense out of life in a way that science does not. Science doesn't really speak to values, only facts. Science cannot tell me what it means to live a good life, why there is suffering, what happens after we die, or even why there is something rather than nothing at all.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

We still have to do science (which I am certainly not opposed to) if we want to understand the secondary causes of the existence of particular things.

I do not believe that faith in God is ultimately about scientific explanations for the universe. If it is, something is wrong with our faith. Science is one thing, religion another.

I agree, sort of. I'm not sure that we should allow one area of thought - religion - a free pass to make all sorts of dubious and unfounded claims, only to then say "But it's religion! We can do that sort of thing." Okay, you can do that sort of thing. But don't be offended when others start asking questions.

But belief in God can help sense out of life in a way that science does not. Science doesn't really speak to values, only facts.

Disagree. This speaks more to a stereotype of science as being cold and passionless, which is generally not the case.

Science cannot tell me what it means to live a good life, why there is suffering, what happens after we die, or even why there is something rather than nothing at all.

There seems to be an assumption that, because science can't do this, religion can. I don't think religion can answer those questions for you either, though it often pretends to.

 

[KCfromNC]

What we're talking about here has nothing to do with something physical, but rather with something spiritual. It's off limits to the physical world.

Is it? How can you be sure? The idea seems obviously contradictory to me. The very fact you're writing about it here on a physical medium obeying physical laws means that it isn't off limits to the physical world in the least.

 

[variant]

Is it? How can you be sure? The idea seems obviously contradictory to me. The very fact you're writing about it here on a physical medium obeying physical laws means that it isn't off limits to the physical world in the least.

He's actually using the existence of the physical world as evidence for a non physical one.

To turn around and then say that this non physical one is off limits from scrutiny is then just a self serving contradiction.

Does substituting the language of physics for the language of theology really advance our understanding of the origins of the universe? Has that sort of substitution ever advanced knowledge?

Saying "God did it" when you don't know the nature of "God" or how it "does things", when God is defined as "a thing that can do anything" simply doesn't tell you anything.

Such an "explanation" is both so broad and so vague it literally means nothing as it "explains" every possible observation one could possibly make.

So, conclusion 4 that "God" is the best "explanation" for the state of the universe, is simply incorrect, as it isn't an explanation at all.

 

[FireDragon76]

I agree, sort of. I'm not sure that we should allow one area of thought - religion - a free pass to make all sorts of dubious and unfounded claims, only to then say "But it's religion! We can do that sort of thing."

Free pass? No, I don't think so. Otherwise I would think being a Mormon would be just as good as any other Christian.

Okay, you can do that sort of thing. But don't be offended when others start asking questions.

I think questions are OK, and we do at times need to seriously think about why we believe what we do. But some atheists have gone beyond asking questions into just showing contempt in general for religion. That goes beyond a simple live and let live attitude where people agree to disagree.

Disagree. This speaks more to a stereotype of science as being cold and passionless, which is generally not the case.

It does seem passionless to me, left-brained kind of stuff, especially for those types like Dawkins that only want to see the world in terms of a naked, even pitiless and cruel, materialism. There are scientists that buck that trend but its not inherent to science to be right-brained.

There seems to be an assumption that, because science can't do this, religion can. I don't think religion can answer those questions for you either, though it often pretends to.

Perhaps true, but I don't think science can answer those questions either. Religion at least often honestly attempts it, even if the conclusions are wrong. When a scientist tries to answer those things, he is no longer doing science, he's engaged in philosophical speculation.

The reason I don't want to let go of religion is that I believe it can help a person articulate shared values in a community that acknowledges at the heart of life is a profound mystery that should be honored. The fruit of this is not just "public order and decency" kind of thing (as if religion were only about simple explanations or morality), but abundant life where we are fully human. I am not sure that atheism really does that on its own (as you say, it's just a disbelief in God). I guess you could be a Unitarian Universalist and an atheist, but that is still a type of religion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Free pass? No, I don't think so. Otherwise I would think being a Mormon would be just as good as any other Christian.

It is a free pass, in the sense that many people seem to think that, if a belief is "religious," it is immune from criticism. And if it is criticised, then the critic is all too often accused of "wanting to sin" or being "angry at God." I'm sure you've seen this happen many times on this forum.

It does seem passionless to me, left-brained kind of stuff,

As a fledgling neuropsychologist, I cringe whenever I hear this sort of characterisation. I know it's not pertinent to the conversation at hand, but the sharp pop psychology distinction between left-brain and right-brain "personalities" is a gross oversimplification. It's an incredibly persistent neuromyth.

especially for those types like Dawkins that only want to see the world in terms of a naked, even pitiless and cruel, materialism. There are scientists that buck that trend but its not inherent to science to be right-brained.

Reading through Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow, the opposite conclusion seems more apparent, at least to me. I don't understand how some people can listen to scientists' wax lyrical about the wonders they are studying, only to come away feeling that science is a cold and passionless affair.

Perhaps true, but I don't think science can answer those questions either. Religion at least often honestly attempts it, even if the conclusions are wrong.

That last point matters, because it relates to the first point - honesty.

When a scientist tries to answer those things, he is no longer doing science, he's engaged in philosophical speculation.

And there's nothing wrong with that. The Pale Blue Dot is an iconic image produced by an amazing scientific instrument. But the image is not just a point of data. It's the stimulus for a deep conversation on what it means to be a human being in an amazingly vast universe full of so many unknowns. Some people think that such a conversation is restricted to religion; that it's a religious activity. I disagree. It's a human activity.

 

[TillICollapse]

Religion at least often honestly attempts it, even if the conclusions are wrong.

Do tabloids "honestly attempt" to convey facts ?

Consider the difference between one of those magazines in the checkout line at a grocery store that "report" alien babies were born in Argentina last week, Elvis was found eating at a restaurant, and such and such about some pop star is new and shocking information.

Now contrast that with, say, the Wall Street Journal or the BBC (which are apparently some of the most trusted sources for news according to a recent survey).

What are the difference do you think ? Are the expectations for truth ... even honest attempts at truth ... different when one is reading the Enquirer or something similar, verses when one is tuning into a "trusted" news source ? Is accountability different for one over the other ?

What's the difference between say ... gossip, and attempting to report actual facts ?

 

[Achilles6129]

Who says this is the very definition of God ? Why ? And what would God be subject to ?

God is by definition the Supreme Being, someone who is subject to no-one and nothing. In the case of your example, God would be subject to the universe itself since he was created by the universe. In that case, the universe would actually be God. By definition, God is uncreated, because his being created by anyone or anything would mean he's subject to someone or something.

Really ? So such a being coming about in some fashion in a physical world, would be a lesser deity in your opinion, if they would even be recognized as a deity at all ?

Yep. They certainly couldn't be defined as "god" - they would be subject to whatever created them - in this case, the universe.

So the idea that a being could come about in the natural universe, and then usurp some aspect of the universe in order to be deemed "God" in some fashion ... that's a no go ?

I would say so. I would certainly wonder why you would find that more compelling than the idea that God is outside of the universe and created the universe. Unless, that is, you're biased against that idea from the start.

 

[Achilles6129]

First of all, there are things in our universe which do come from nothing without any real cause. I'm sure this is a bit of a shock to you, so here's a short and very basic article explaining the phenomena.

For starters, you can't actually know whether or not "virtual particles" come from nothing without any real cause. Maybe you're seeing some other phenomenon and you think they're "coming from nothing" when they're really not. Regardless, even if you've found one example of something that does come into existence from nothing, it wouldn't really matter, because everything else in our universe that begins to exist does have a cause. In other words, 99.9999999999% of our universe has a cause, and .00000000001% of it doesn't. Why would that make my line of reasoning unlikely?

So just this little bit of knowledge annihilates your first premise and subsequently your entire argument.

Not really. You'd just replace "everything" with 99.9999999999% of things. It doesn't really make the argument less likely.

Secondly though, logic dictates that the the properties of members of a set are not necessarily also properties of the set. In the argument you outlined, the universe would be the set and everything in the universe would be the members of the set. So even if everything that begins to exist in the universe has a cause (and the link I provided shows this isn't actually true) that doesn't mean the universe itself must have a cause. The universe cannot be considered a member of itself.

Did the universe begin to exist, or not? Did time have a beginning?

Here's the most important thing you brought up....

"I don't know what it means to be "outside of time," nor do I have to."

You don't know what it means to exist "outside of time". Wonderful. We're now in agreement that the idea of being "outside of time" is meaningless...and as such, it's not worthy of consideration nor useful in explaining anything.

Since we're in time, and have always been in time, how exactly are we supposed to know what it's like to be "outside of time"? The idea of being outside of time isn't meaningless at all. Perhaps we can't understand it, but that doesn't mean it's not a valid explanation.

 

[Achilles6129]

How ever it happened, it was most likely a natural occurrence and not the magical powers of a cosmic deity.

I see. And what convinces you of this idea?