Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Archaeopteryx]

Explain how an inanimate force or object could give rise to something with the complexity of the universe. It's something that doesn't happen in reality and which we have no good reason to assume would happen with the universe. For example, cars don't make themselves, they require intelligence in order to design, and so on.

Intelligences don't just pop out of no where either. Intelligence is complex. So your intelligent designer requires his own designer.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A further problem is that he is not applying the "rules of the universe" consistently anyway. As far as we know, creatio ex nihilo is not a "rule of the universe," yet it's the doctrine he is committed to.

Lol I knew there were more reasons his premise was false! Thank you Arch. In truth, I get lazy after I've come up with one or two solid reductions of any premise and simply stop looking for more. I knew they were out there though, as you've pointed out.

 

[durangodawood]

If you can just SAY, in a debate, that God is eternal and uncreated, then you should be able to just SAY the same about the universe, without any rhetorical penalty.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

If you can just SAY, in a debate, that God is eternal and uncreated, then you should be able to just SAY the same about the universe, without any rhetorical penalty.

The usual counterpoint is that cosmology says that the universe began some finite time ago, so the universe could not have existed eternally. I'm not an astrophysicist, but I think this is mistaken. The Big Bang tells us that the expansion of the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, but what happened before then, if "before" even makes sense, is unknown to us. The universe may have always existed in some form.

 

[durangodawood]

The usual counterpoint is that cosmology says that the universe began some finite time ago, so the universe could not have existed eternally. I'm not an astrophysicist, but I think this is mistaken. The Big Bang tells us that the expansion of the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, but what happened before then, if "before" even makes sense, is unknown to us. The universe may have always existed in some form.

Exactly, there's no certainty that the big bang represents the beginning of the universe in some absolute sense.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The Big Bang tells us that the expansion of the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, but what happened before then, if "before" even makes sense, is unknown to us. The universe may have always existed in some form.

Astrophysicists would agree with you.

Plus, even if the start of the Big Bang wasn't the beginning of the universe, there could still be only a finite time previous. There are a number of different possibilities.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[BL2KTN]

Again, most are continuing to use universe when they mean cosmos.

 

[durangodawood]

Again, most are continuing to use universe when they mean cosmos.

Not necessarily. The universe, as well as the cosmos, could be eternal.

 

[Mediate]

The usual counterpoint is that cosmology says that the universe began some finite time ago, so the universe could not have existed eternally. I'm not an astrophysicist, but I think this is mistaken. The Big Bang tells us that the expansion of the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, but what happened before then, if "before" even makes sense, is unknown to us. The universe may have always existed in some form.

Time and space exist. Time and space do not have to exist for "stuff" to exist. A cosmos can exist without a universe existing. A universe, by its definition, has space and time. A cosmos does not have to. The big bang was the beginning of time and space as we know it. "Before the big bang" is thus an oxymoronic concept.

As for the idea that "stuff" can't become anything without design, then the same must apply to God, if we are to be logical about it. If intelligence is required for the world we live in, with its laws and rules, then how much more is required for a sentient being who can break all those rules and design such a world and live simultaneously both inside and outside it?

Whereas if the universe can "be" without having been made by a designer to "be", then there is no such dilemma.

Zen and quantum physics have a lot to say about this.

 

[Wryetui]

I sincerely doubt arguments are ever going to make people closer to God, or are ever going to give them a chance to meet Him.

 

[bhsmte]

I sincerely doubt arguments are ever going to make people closer to God, or are ever going to give them a chance to meet Him.

Agree.

 

[Davian]

I sincerely doubt arguments are ever going to make people closer to God, or are ever going to give them a chance to meet Him.

Certainly not faulty arguments, or if he does not actually exist.

 

[BL2KTN]

Not necessarily. The universe, as well as the cosmos, could be eternal.

The universe cannot, but the cosmos may necessarily.

 

[Achilles6129]

It was actually all you have. You don't know that the creation of the cosmos required intelligence, do you? Just speculation.

Well, you don't really "know" very much at all. You can only be reasonably sure. So, for example, when we see a car or airplane we're reasonably sure that it took intelligence to create them. Likewise, when we see the universe, we can also be reasonably sure of the same thing. Exactly how is that idea faulty?

I certainly wouldn't call it "speculation."

How did you determine and measure that? What units did you use?

Determine and measure the fact that when you see a car/airplane, you can be reasonably sure it took intelligence to make it...? Please.

Define "God", so we can examine that question.

Already done.

Wild speculation. You do not know, do you?

If God exists (playing Devil's Advocate here - obviously he does), then he freely chose to create the universe and therefore could have freely chosen to create a different one.

 

[Belk]

Well, you don't really "know" very much at all. You can only be reasonably sure. So, for example, when we see a car or airplane we're reasonably sure that it took intelligence to create them. Likewise, when we see the universe, we can also be reasonably sure of the same thing. Exactly how is that idea faulty?

I certainly wouldn't call it "speculation."

Because we know cars and airplanes are things we create. The only criteria we have by which we know something to be created is experience. We do not have any such experience with the universe. Hence you are trying to claim something which requires knowledge you do not posses. That would be the very definition of speculation.

 

[Achilles6129]

"Why would that make my line of reasoning unlikely?"

I don't really need to explain this to you, do I? You understand why your argument fails... the first premise is wrong for at least two reasons...maybe more if I gave it some real thought. If your first premise is false, and the rest of your argument rests upon that premise, then the entire argument is wrong. Remember your first premise was this...

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Ah, no, you're mistaken. You see, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is based off of probabilities, that's all. All that it says is that it's reasonably certain that God exists. The first premise doesn't fail, as I'll get to here in a second.

Well...now you know that not everything that begins to exist has a cause. There are at least some things which begin to exist without any discernable cause. To account for this new information, we could change your first premise to something like this...

1. Most things that begin to exist have a cause.

Or even...

1. Nearly everything that begins to exist has a cause.

If we changed your first premise to one of these so that we can call it true, does the rest of the argument hold up? Of course not... because now the first premise allows for the universe to be one of those very few things that began to exist without a cause. You would need to prove that the universe is one of those things that begins to exist and has a cause... but your argument doesn't do that.

Actually, in this case the burden of proof would be on you since the overwhelming majority of things that begin to exist do have a cause. You would have demonstrated one thing that began to exist that didn't have a cause (assuming you're right about your interpretation of virtual particles). Therefore, the overwhelming probability would be on my side and it wouldn't really harm the argument in the slightest.

To illustrate the logical flaw in your first premise (because I'm not sure you understood it when I explained that the universe is a set and the "rules of its members don't necessarily apply to it)

I understood, I'm just not sure I agree with you.

take a look at this statement you made a few pages back...

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

Your first premise is based upon the way things appear to work inside the universe. Well, the universe is not inside itself, is it? So the rules that appear to govern the way things work inside the universe don't necessarily apply to the universe itself.

I would assume that the universe is a part of itself. The things inside of the universe are both separate things (like stars, and so on) and also a part of the universe. The universe means all that there is - everything we can grasp with the five senses.

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

Those are both good questions... and I don't know the answer to either of them. There was quite a bit of noise this year about some evidence that perhaps the universe has always existed in some form or another. I don't think anyone can say that theory is proven, but it certainly appears to be a genuine possibility. Maybe you heard about this? If not, I'll be happy to provide a link or two.

Time must have begun to exist since you can't have an infinite series of past events. If you did, you would have never arrived at the present event. Since the universe is subject to time, then the universe began to exist.

"The idea of being outside of time isn't meaningless at all. Perhaps we can't understand it..."

What exactly do you think the term "meaningless" means? When I asked you to tell me what it means to be outside of time... you told me you don't know what it means. How can you know then that something can exist "outside of time"? You don't even know what it means.

I meant it's not meaningless as an explanation of something. Your following example fails because you experienced a "grumkin" (as you put it). No-one can experience what it's like to be outside of time, so we don't know what it's like. However, saying that God is outside of time, since he created it, isn't a meaningless explanation at all - it makes perfect sense. God isn't subject to time and is therefore outside of it.

 

[Achilles6129]

Because we know cars and airplanes are things we create. The only criteria we have by which we know something to be created is experience. We do not have any such experience with the universe. Hence you are trying to claim something which requires knowledge you do not posses. That would be the very definition of speculation.

It doesn't have to do with experience, it has to do with certain qualities that the object possesses. In this case, a car has certain qualities that say a pile of car parts doesn't.

The universe possesses those same qualities.

 

[Achilles6129]

Tell me, what other phenomena or aspects of the universe do you attribute to the supernatural? Are hurricanes or tornados supernatural events, or are they natural occurrences governed by natural laws?

An occurrence, governed by natural laws which have been designed by someone.

If I could explain that, I think I'd win a Nobel Prize.

Right - because there's very little chance at all that an inanimate object gave rise to the universe.

How much time have you spent outside of the universe, that you can say with certainty that there aren't universes bursting into existence at all times?

Again, the point of the Cosmological Argument is to show a probability. No one is claiming to prove anything for certain. As I have said before, it is impossible to show, through the five senses, that God exists.

Right. And cars are not anything like a universe so, your analogy doesn't work. You would need to compare the universe to, well, another universe to make an adequate comparison.

You're right (on the first part). Cars are a lot less complex than the universe.

 

[Achilles6129]

So what evidence is there of anything you are claiming is necessary, and how did you examine this evidence ?

Start with the Cosmological Argument.

 

[Achilles6129]

No, because 'God' is typically conceived of as a person. The Divine Flame is not. It's a flame. It has no consciousness, no personality, no intentions. It doesn't demand your worship, won't listen to your prayers, and is indifferent to humanity.

Very well, we'll use your definition of the Divine Flame.

I already gave you another explanation: the Divine Flame. Explain how your explanation is more likely than mine.

Gladly. As you said, the Divine Flame has no consciousness. Therefore, it has no intelligence - it's inanimate. Explain why it's more likely that an inanimate "Divine Flame" created the universe instead of an intelligent Creator?

To give you an analogous example: explain how it's more likely that a tree created a car than a human being made a car?

You see, the properties of the universe strongly indicate an intelligent maker. The Divine Flame doesn't qualify as intelligent, so it's highly unlikely the Divine Flame made the universe.

Intelligences don't just pop out of no where either. Intelligence is complex. So your intelligent designer requires his own designer.

Again, you're applying the rules of entities that exist in time to one that exists outside of time. We've been through this before.