Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Davian]

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?

Your opinion that creation of the universe required intelligence is not science. It is not testable, or falsifiable.

I certainly wouldn't call it "speculation."

My dictionary has speculation as the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence. That would describe your actions.

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

Let's see your testable criteria for your hypothesis.

Already done.

No definition, no god. Fine by me.

If God exists (playing Devil's Advocate here - obviously he does),

This exchange shows that obviously, that has yet to be established.

then he freely chose to create the universe and therefore could have freely chosen to create a different one.

More speculation.

Are we done here?

 

[Davian]

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

Speculation.

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

Show your math for these probabilities that you are tossing around.

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.

It is also impossible to show that the nonexistent exists.

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

What is more complex about the universe than a car?

 

[TillICollapse]

Start with the Cosmological Argument.

In addition to what others have already commented concerning the premises of the argument ... it's self defeating as it concerns an uncreated or uncaused being, esp towards the qualities of "God" which you ascribe:

1) He's uncreated
2) He's the Supreme Being and subject to no-one and nothing outside of himself
3) He created all that there is

The argument itself defeats the very being you are positing. On what grounds is the being exempt from the argument itself ?

 

[GoldenBoy89]

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

What suggests that natural laws were designed? Where do you see the "tool marks" so to speak, in natural laws?
Seriously. Look at the example I gave... Is a tornado designed by God? It has a defined structure, and is a complex phenomenon that we still don't fully understand, but we know it's governed by natural laws. We know there aren't any magical tornado-making beings that produce these things... Why wouldn't the same hold true for the universe?

Would you call the universe itself, natural? Or is it supernatural?

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

Ok. Let's go with that for a bit. Let's say there is an intelligent being, who is eternal and greater than the universe, who designed and created this universe for us. What are the chances of that happening? Seems pretty fantastic and awfully darn convenient for us, doesn't it? I would say there's very little chance that such a being could exist. I would rather draw the line at the universe, which is the greatest thing that I know exists. Especially after you, yourself said this "being" is undetectable by any of the five human senses.

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.

See?

If you can't show that something exists, in any meaningful way, why should anybody ever believe that it does? Probability can build a case, but it still doesn't give any evidence. It explains nothing about reality, as it is only speculation about what could happen. Well, lots of incredible things could be happening where no one can see. But if we can't detect it in any meaningful way, why should we even care that it's there?

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

I'm not so sure they are. It ultimately would depend how we're defining the universe. If you take the universe to be a collection of matter, energy, the properties of each and the rules that govern them, that's really not too many components to the whole, if you think about it.

Plus, I'd say one hallmark of good design isn't complexity but instead, simplicity.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

In addition to what others have already commented concerning the premises of the argument ... it's self defeating as it concerns an uncreated or uncaused being, esp towards the qualities of "God" which you ascribe:

1) He's uncreated
2) He's the Supreme Being and subject to no-one and nothing outside of himself
3) He created all that there is

The argument itself defeats the very being you are positing. On what grounds is the being exempt from the argument itself ?

Hey, here's a rule that applies to things that exist. Oh, and here's something that I'm trying to convince you exists, but with no evidence to support it. Oh, and that rule I told you about? That doesn't apply to this, one thing that does exist....

 

[Belk]

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.

I disagree. Exactly what qualities are you speaking of and what are they used to determine?

 

[TillICollapse]

Hey, here's a rule that applies to things that exist. Oh, and here's something that I'm trying to convince you exists, but with no evidence to support it. Oh, and that rule I told you about? That doesn't apply to this, one thing that does exist....

Well it makes sense if we apply it to the Marvel or DC universe.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.

"Ah, no, you're mistaken. You see, the Kalam Cosmological Argument is based off of probabilities, that's all."

Ahhh...probabilities, huh? Gee...all this time I've been thinking is a deductive logic argument founded upon empirical observations. Silly me, I'll address your "probabilities" in just a moment...but first...

"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. "

This is a type of logical fallacy known as an appeal to numbers. It's a lot like the appeal to popularity fallacy except without the people. By the same line of reasoning, I could argue "the overwhelming majority of things that begin to exist in the universe are caused by natural events and not the supernatural....therefore if the universe began to exist it was caused by some natural method." See how that works? It's just poor reasoning.

"Therefore, the overwhelming probability would be on my side and it wouldn't really harm the argument in the slightest"

There's that pesky word again...."probability". I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess you have no idea how statistically probable relationships are formed, do you? There's quite a bit of science to it...It's not something you can do (to my knowledge anyway) without any evidence. For example, if I had three objects in front of me...and two of them are round....that fact will in no way influence the probability that the third object is also round. If I just jumped to the conclusion that the third object is also round, I've made what is known in the land of statistical probability a "spurious correlation".

That's what you've created here...a spurious correlation. You took object A (a chair) and object B (a fish) and decided that since they are both "caused", object C (the universe...which isn't an object so much as it is a set) and decided it's "caused" as well. Why? What would any object being "caused" have to do with another object being caused? Absolutely nothing... that's what. To make that sort of correlation, you'd have to show that one of the properties of everything in the universe is that it must have a cause. I've already shown you that isn't the case with my example of virtual particles.... so the correlation fails. Even if virtual particles did have a cause (and it appears that they don't), a universe Isn't "part of" the universe...a set cannot be considered a member of itself.... so the properties of things within the universe aren't necessarily properties of the universe itself.

" I would assume that the universe is a part of itself"

Achilles...you seem like a reasonably bright guy...you had to understand that a set cannot logically be a part of itself before you wrote that sentence, right? It's a bit like saying that right now, you're both inside and outside your house. It fails to make sense logically. If you still aren't getting it, just let me know, I've thought of a fairly good analogy that should be easy to grasp.

I'll answer the rest of your post in my next reply. This one is getting a bit long.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.



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.



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



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.



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.



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.

"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."

In conversations like this, I always want to add the caveat "as we know it" after the word time... because statements like yours become correct (sort of) when we do. I would disagree with the last sentence... the universe Isn't necessarily contingent upon time as we know it, but time as we know it is contingent upon the universe.

Phys.Org Mobile: No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

That's the theory I mentioned earlier. I'm not saying that it's true, I'm just pointing out that the jury is still out on whether or not the universe "began to exist". You're asking me to answer something that top members of the scientific field aren't sure of.

"I meant it's not meaningless as an explanation of something. Your following example..."

The grumkin example isn't meant to be a perfect analogy, it's meant to be an example of a concept with no meaning as an explanation. I'll try this one more time using a closer analogy...

Suppose you asked me if god existed in time and I told you that he does, but he bends reality into a one-sided tunnel...and that's why he's always existed and he doesn't need a cause. You ask me what it means to "bend reality into a one-sided tunnel"? I tell you that I don't know, nor do I need to...I tell you none of us are ever going to be able to understand it because we aren't god and we can't bend reality.

Even though I just made up that entire explanation for why god doesn't need a creator, it's got just as much meaning and explanatory power as your concept of "outside of time"....which is to say they're both meaningless and explain nothing.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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?

Because we know that cars and airplanes are designed. We know that because we designed them.

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.

Not if he's timeless.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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



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?

Your analogy doesn't appear to be analogous.

You see, the properties of the universe strongly indicate an intelligent maker.

Such as?

The Divine Flame doesn't qualify as intelligent, so it's highly unlikely the Divine Flame made the universe.

You haven't established that an intelligent entity is required. But if you think that helps, then how about the FSM?

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.

You're cherrypicking. You are applying these same rules in order to conclude that the universe was intelligently designed. This is blatantly obvious when you consider the examples you're using - cars and aeroplanes.

 

[KCfromNC]

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.

Same qualities as car parts? Or as cars? Or as the raw materials which make up either or both? Seems that the universe contains all of these things, so choosing one and ignoring the rest seems to be a good example of cherry picking to get to the conclusion you wish were true.

 

[KCfromNC]

Because we know that cars and airplanes are designed. We know that because we designed them.

Perhaps the correct logic here is that things which appear designed, such as cars and airplanes, are designed by human intelligence. Therefore the universe, which appears designed, is designed by human intelligence.

Of course this is obviously wrong, but it brings up the point that using the indications of design we have for human designed things might be totally different than the marks of an omnipotent intelligent designer. Come to think of it, an omnipotent designer could make their designs look like anything which means that there's no possible way to tell if these designs are actually designed. Seems like this whole line of argument is pointless to me.

 

[Joshua260]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause:

"I've already shown you that isn't the case with my example of virtual particles."

You're referring to theoretical models in which some have suggested that particles can come into being without a cause, but that in no way demonstrates that is what actually happens. There are just as many or more models of quantum fields which do not postulate particles coming into being for no reason.

So far, there is not one demonstrable effect that has come into being without a cause.

The universe began to exist:

"... I'm just pointing out that the jury is still out on whether or not the universe "began to exist". You're asking me to answer something that top members of the scientific field aren't sure of."

I always find it fascinating when atheists actually try to dispute the prevailing scientific theories. All the evidence (even scientific evidence) suggest that the universe began to exist. I see no compelling reason not to believe it.

 

[Joshua260]

You haven't established that an intelligent entity is required. But if you think that helps, then how about the FSM?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster, like all of the Greek and Roman gods, as well as the tooth fairy, unicorns, Santa Claus, etc. are all temporal-spatial beings thusly ruled out by the traits that the first cause would have to possess.

 

[TillICollapse]

I always find it fascinating when atheists actually try to dispute the prevailing scientific theories. All the evidence (even scientific evidence) suggest that the universe began to exist. I see no compelling reason not to believe it.

It's my understanding that to talk about "beginnings" may become largely meaningless when referring to anything before the Planck era, even though there are still theories as to the manner in which things existed before it.

 

[TillICollapse]

The Flying Spaghetti Monster, like all of the Greek and Roman gods, as well as the tooth fairy, unicorns, Santa Claus, etc. are all temporal-spatial beings thusly ruled out by the traits that the first cause would have to possess.

I don't get why it seems to make so much sense to someone, that the very criteria they are attempting to use to posit such a being, they decide not to apply it to that being in order to posit them and somehow that's fine and makes sense. In what way does it make sense to you that such a being is exempt ? Do you not see that as a simple case of presupposing the being to exist and trying to make a special case in order to keep your idea and presupposition afloat ?

 

[Joshua260]

It's my understanding that to talk about "beginnings" may become largely meaningless when referring to anything before the Planck era, even though there are still theories as to the manner in which things existed before it.

It doesn't seem that difficult to speak of it in my view. At t0, the moment God caused the universe to begin to exist, is the exact moment (t0) at which the universe began to exist. The effect occurred concurrently with the cause.

 

[Joshua260]

I don't get why it seems to make so much sense to someone, that the very criteria they are attempting to use to posit such a being, they decide not to apply it to that being in order to posit them and somehow that's fine and makes sense. In what way does it make sense to you that such a being is exempt ? Do you not see that as a simple case of presupposing the being to exist and trying to make a special case in order to keep your idea and presupposition afloat ?

No, I did not presuppose the existence of God to prove God. I simply took the traits that we could extrapolate about the cause of the universe and am using those criteria to test out possible candidates. Since it would be incoherent that something inside the universe could have caused its own existence, that rules out beings such as the FSM, all of the Roman and Greek gods, yada-yada. It's simple logic. When one considers all of the possible candidates for a cause of the universe, the only ones suitable are beings such as the Muslim, Jewish, or Christian god.

 

[TillICollapse]

It doesn't seem that difficult to speak of it in my view. At t0, the moment God caused the universe to begin to exist, is the exact moment (t0) at which the universe began to exist. The effect occurred concurrently with the cause.

And what caused "God" ? It's an obvious question to the context of your statement

No, I did not presuppose the existence of God to prove God. I simply took the traits that we could extrapolate about the cause of the universe and am using those criteria to test out possible candidates.

What traits ?

Since it would be incoherent that something inside the universe could have caused its own existence,

Do you believe something inside the universe could have come about by chance ?

that rules beings such as the FSM, all of the Roman and Greek gods, yada-yada. It's simple logic. When one considers all of the possible candidates for a cause of the universe, the only ones suitable are beings such as the Muslim, Jewish, or Christian god.

Okay lets go with this for a moment. What makes those candidates suitable ? Let's go with the idea for a moment that some entity actually did in fact create all things.

What would be the BARE MINIMUM qualities such an entity would have in your opinion ? I mean, bare minimum.

Now, what would cause you to think such a being fit the bill found within the Abrahamic descriptions out of ALL the other possibilities ? To keep us from going into too many circles, please realize in advance I could point out some of the ways those traditions contradict each other. Take Christianity ... concepts of "God" contradict themselves even within those who claim Christianity. I may also point out some of the ways that certain claims by adherents and believers are seemingly falsified (failed prophecies, miracles which were claimed but didn't take place, etc).