Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Achilles6129]

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

Complicated machinery requires a designer, as far as we know (hence, my example of a car/airplane). I would liken the way the universe works to the way a complicated machine here on earth works.

As a brief example: consider the motion of the planets and stars in the night sky. We can study their motions and predict the locations of the planets/stars one year from now, 30 years from now, 1000 years ago, etc. The reason why we can do that is because the universe works like a machine. If it didn't work as exactly, we wouldn't be able to make such calculations.

As far as we know, a complex machine always requires a maker. Hence, it's more than reasonable to believe that the universe had a maker.

 

[Achilles6129]

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?

See my response to Davian above.

We know there aren't any magical tornado-making beings that produce these things...
Why wouldn't the same hold true for the universe?

Who made the natural laws by which the tornado functions? Your statement is like saying: "Well, I have this car, and I didn't see anyone make it, and no-one's making it right now, so I guess it just made itself."

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

Supernatural. It functions under natural laws designed by the supernatural.

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?

Well, based on the Cosmological Argument, pretty high. Much higher than, say, the Divine Flame.

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?

The ultimate proof of God's existence, as I have said before on this thread, is experiential knowledge given to those who obey God's commands. This concept is all over Scripture. As it is, this is not an Apologetics Forum so I don't like to quote Scripture here, but I'll share this one passage:

"16 So Jesus answered them and said, “My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. 17 If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself." Jn. 7:16-17 (NASB)

I have repeatedly said that the only thing that can be offered with the five senses is a reasonable amount of evidence that a Creator exists. Outside of that, proof is impossible because you could always be being tricked and there could always be an alternative explanation. Hence, real proof lies in experiential spiritual knowledge, given by God (and only God) himself.

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.

If you think that this universe is less complex than a car, then I'm not really sure what to say to that. I guess I'd have to say that we've reached an impasse.

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

Your opinion.

 

[Achilles6129]

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

See my response to Davian above. The universe works like a complicated piece of machinery. Complicated pieces of machinery are, on this planet, designed by an intelligence.

 

[Joshua260]

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

Nothing. Remember that the first premise is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The cause of the universe would have been timeless so there would never have been a time in which he did not exist.

What traits ?

Well, from the KCA, we could surmise that the cause would have to be timeless (since it existed without the temporal universe), space-less and immaterial (for the same reason), it would have to have been very powerful (in order to bring the universe into being), and it has even been argued that the cause may have been personal.

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

Sorry, I missed entering the word "out" in my last reply which I did later. So these beings I suggested (Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the FSM, all of the Greek and Roman gods) would not be suitable candidates

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

That's not how it works. We are not approaching the KCA with a goal in mind. Rather, we use the KCA to extrapolate the characteristic traits of the first cause and then use them as criteria to test possible candidates.

Now, what would cause you to think such a being fit the bill found within the Abrahamic descriptions out of ALL the other possibilities?

I already answered that. The KCA doesn't point directly to the Christian God, but it narrows down the list to a select few.

 

[Achilles6129]

"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...

Sure, probabilities. When have I said otherwise? When have I ever tried to claim you could prove a Creator with the five senses?

"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.

What exactly do you mean by "natural method"? Remember, the Cosmological Argument is saying that the best explanation of the cause is God (based on the Teleological Argument). It's not ruling out all other possibilities.

"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.

No, I didn't. Look at the premises again:

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

Now #2 can be conclusively proven true because we know that time began to exist. I pointed this out in an earlier post. You challenged #1, but the overwhelming majority of evidence is on my side nonetheless. #3 and #4, then, is really where your challenge lies.

As far as your statement "what would any object being 'caused' have to do with another object being caused," the answer is simple: if we detect a pattern whereby all (or nearly all) objects that begin to exist are "caused," then it follows that other objects are going to follow this pattern. Hence, we arrive at premise #3.

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.

We're back where we started. The overwhelming majority (aka, everything else) in the universe has a cause. So again, the overwhelming probability is on my side.

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 don't agree with you on this. Don't you agree that the things within the universe are a part of the universe?

"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.

So we'll have to disagree on whether or not the universe is subject to time. I would ask why you think that it isn't.

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.

Very well, then: please tell me how we're supposed to explain a concept like "outside of time" which we've never experienced?

 

[Achilles6129]

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

Yes, and the universe works like a machine.

Not if he's timeless.

You mean outside of time? Please explain how.

Your analogy doesn't appear to be analogous.

Divine Flame = inanimate object. Tree = Inanimate object. Car = complicated piece of machinery. Universe = complicated piece of machinery.

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.

This is a false correlation. We were talking about time, not intelligence or why things need a cause. You can certainly take examples of things that have been designed and compare them to the universe and say that it was most likely designed. If these are false correlations then you have not yet demonstrated why.

 

[TillICollapse]

Nothing. Remember that the first premise is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. The cause of the universe would have been timeless so there would never have been a time in which he did not exist.

So the being would never have began to exist according to this POV ?

Well, from the KCA, we could surmise that the cause would have to be timeless (since it existed without the temporal universe), space-less and immaterial (for the same reason), it would have to have been very powerful (in order to bring the universe into being), and it has even been argued that the cause may have been personal.

What does timeless/space-less/immaterial mean ?

Sorry, I missed entering the word "out" in my last reply which I did later. So these beings I suggested (Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the FSM, all of the Greek and Roman gods) would not be suitable candidates

That's not how it works. We are not approaching the KCA with a goal in mind. Rather, we use the KCA to extrapolate the characteristic traits of the first cause and then use them as criteria to test possible candidates.

So in that context, the bare minimum would be timeless/spaceless/uncaused/immaterial ... right ?

I already answered that. The KCA doesn't point directly to the Christian God, but it narrows down the list to a select few.

You said the Muslim/Jewish/Christian are the candidates. That's why I asked, what would cause you to think such a being fit the bill found within the Abrahamic descriptions.

 

[Joshua260]

So the being would never have began to exist according to this POV ?.

That is correct. He would exist without beginning or end.

What does timeless/space-less/immaterial mean ?

Not temporal, not spatial, not material.

So in that context, the bare minimum would be timeless/spaceless/uncaused/immaterial ... right ?

Oh thanks...I forgot uncaused. I see you extrapolated that trait out on your own...very good. See, it's not hard to do. Just follow the logic. I don't like the language you use "bare minimum" because I'm not sure what other traits could be extrapolated out of that argument, but those are at least some of them.

You said the Muslim/Jewish/Christian are the candidates. That's why I asked, what would cause you to think such a being fit the bill found within the Abrahamic descriptions.

Because it so happens that the Abrahamic type God has all of those traits that we've talked about.

 

[talquin]

Hello all,

In your opinion, what's the very best argument for the existence of God?

The best argument for the existence of a god is to posit a god which can be demonstrated to exist. For example, use 'God' in lieu of lightning. Since lightning can be demonstrated to exist, a god which is actually lightning can be shown to exist far more easily than a god which doesn't manifest itself in reality.

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

Lack of evidence.

 

[TillICollapse]

That is correct. He would exist without beginning or end.

Do you see this as a paradox, to put it one way ? Everything that exists has a cause, except this being. Do you see this as special pleading ?

Not temporal, not spatial, not material.

Oh thanks...I forgot uncaused. I see you extrapolated that trait out on your own...very good. See, it's not hard to do. Just follow the logic. I don't like the language you use "bare minimum" because I'm not sure what other traits could be extrapolated out of that argument, but those are at least some of them.

I didn't extrapolate anything ... I've heard this so many times I honestly thought you'd already mentioned it. If not, it was something I tagged on which happened to apply to your argument.

And yes, it actually is very easy to do. All one has to do, is find a gap in current understanding (i.e. the state of all things before the Planck epoch) and fill it with whatever one wants. If you want to keep it in that gap in a way that has little to no applicable practical application in the current universe, you'll ascribe qualities to it that can't be falsified or proven.

However by claiming the Abrahamic type God ... I'm trying to jump ahead to that now in this conversation (this will also keep us from going in circles, pointing out the false premises in the argument, the fallacies, etc), because that is more "practical" in certain contexts, since so many people claim knowledge concerning the Abrahamic type God. So let's skip ahead:

Because it so happens that the Abrahamic type God has all of those traits that we've talked about.

Where do you get that the Abrahamic type God has those qualities you listed ? Not temporal/spatial/uncaused/immaterial/etc ?

 

[talquin]

What exactly do you mean by "natural method"? Remember, the Cosmological Argument is saying that the best explanation of the cause is God (based on the Teleological Argument). It's not ruling out all other possibilities.

Which is a better explanation of the cause of the universe?
1) God
2) We don't know

No, I didn't. Look at the premises again:

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

Now #2 can be conclusively proven true because we know that time began to exist.

Incorrect. The universe can't be proven to have began to exist.

There are other flaws in your cosmological argument.
1) You fail to show how you arrived at #4 - that the best explanation of the cause is God
2) You fail to explain what the cause of the God in #4 is.

 

[Joshua260]

Do you see this as a paradox, to put it one way ? Everything that exists has a cause, except this being. Do you see this as special pleading ??

No it's not a paradox because that's not what the first premise says. It specifically says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Since the cause of the universe can exist without the temporal-spatial universe, then he is not constrained by time. Therefore, there never was a time when he never existed.

And yes, it actually is very easy to do. All one has to do, is find a gap in current understanding (i.e. the state of all things before the Planck epoch) and fill it with whatever one wants. If you want to keep it in that gap in a way that has little to no applicable practical application in the current universe, you'll ascribe qualities to it that can't be falsified or proven.

Nope. This is not an argument with a gap in knowledge where we fill it in with God. Rather, this is an argument about what we do know. We can reasonably affirm that the cause must be timeless, space-less, uncaused, very powerful, and even personal.

However by claiming the Abrahamic type God ... I'm trying to jump ahead to that now in this conversation (this will also keep us from going in circles, pointing out the false premises in the argument,
the fallacies, etc),

I've never seen or heard a good objection yet.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of it's existence.

Are you conceding then that the above is a sound argument?

So let's skip ahead:

Where do you get that the Abrahamic type God has those qualities you listed ? Not temporal/spatial/uncaused/immaterial/etc ?

Various versus and concepts of the god described in the bible.

 

[Davian]

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

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


Let's see your testable criteria for your hypothesis.

No definition, no god. Fine by me.

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

More speculation.

Complicated machinery requires a designer, as far as we know (hence, my example of a car/airplane). I would liken the way the universe works to the way a complicated machine here on earth works.

As a brief example: consider the motion of the planets and stars in the night sky. We can study their motions and predict the locations of the planets/stars one year from now, 30 years from now, 1000 years ago, etc. The reason why we can do that is because the universe works like a machine. If it didn't work as exactly, we wouldn't be able to make such calculations.

As far as we know, a complex machine always requires a maker. Hence, it's more than reasonable to believe that the universe had a maker.

Moving those goalposts, I see.

Yet you do not know if universes need "makers", do you? You are guessing, based on observations within a universe.

You have no way to test or falsify this hypothesis, do you?

 

[TillICollapse]

No it's not a paradox because that's not what the first premise says. It specifically says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Since the cause of the universe can exist without the temporal-spatial universe, then he is not constrained by time. Therefore, there never was a time when he never existed.


Nope. This is not an argument with a gap in knowledge where we fill it in with God. Rather, this is an argument about what we do know. We can reasonably affirm that the cause must be timeless, space-less, uncaused, very powerful, and even personal.

I've never seen or heard a good objection yet.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of it's existence.

Are you conceding then that the above is a sound argument?

Various versus and concepts of the god described in the bible.

No I'm not conceding that the above is a sound argument ... because I think some of the premises are meaningless and/or incomplete as well as vague. What I was trying to do, was focus on some of the other contexts of your belief and overlook certain aspects of the premises to see what some of your personal reasonings were. I wouldn't call it giving the argument the benefit of the doubt either ... it would be more like exploring aspects of what you are claiming in the context you are claiming it. If someone comes up to me and tells me vampires just attacked them in their house, if I ask, "What did they sound like ?" it doesn't mean I concede anything, or even believe them. Even if I say, "Did they attempt to bite your neck ?" it doesn't mean that I saw them either lol.

At this point, I would point out how various interpretations of standard Protestant scriptures (I'm assuming you're not referencing the Koran, Talmud, Book of Mormon, Enoch, etc) can show quite the opposite of what you've suggested. And while you've taken the time to respond to me and I appreciate that ... I'm honestly getting a little bored with going in these circles in this thread So excuse me if I drop it for now

 

[talquin]

Do you see this as a paradox, to put it one way ? Everything that exists has a cause, except this being. Do you see this as special pleading ??

No it's not a paradox because that's not what the first premise says. It specifically says that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Since the cause of the universe can exist without the temporal-spatial universe, then he is not constrained by time. Therefore, there never was a time when he never existed.

Joshua - He's correct. The KCA does engage in the fallacy of special pleading. It says that God is exempt from creation, yet the universe isn't. That's special pleading and kills the entire KCA.

And yes, it actually is very easy to do. All one has to do, is find a gap in current understanding (i.e. the state of all things before the Planck epoch) and fill it with whatever one wants. If you want to keep it in that gap in a way that has little to no applicable practical application in the current universe, you'll ascribe qualities to it that can't be falsified or proven.

Nope. This is not an argument with a gap in knowledge where we fill it in with God. Rather, this is an argument about what we do know. We can reasonably affirm that the cause must be timeless, space-less, uncaused, very powerful, and even personal.

If it's about what we do know, then the entire KCA is invalidated by the first two premises.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.

We don't know for sure that either of those are true.

However by claiming the Abrahamic type God ... I'm trying to jump ahead to that now in this conversation (this will also keep us from going in circles, pointing out the false premises in the argument,
the fallacies, etc),

I've never seen or heard a good objection yet.

You'll find an excellent refutation of the KCA at Cosmological Kalamity

Please read it and if there is anything about it you don't understand, I'll be happy to explain.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause of it's existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of it's existence.

Are you conceding then that the above is a sound argument?

The only thing that's sound about it is that the conclusion #3 does follow the two premises (#1 & #2). The problem is you haven't shown how you arrive at your conclusions of #1 and #2.

 

[Davian]

See my response to Davian above. The universe works like a complicated piece of machinery. Complicated pieces of machinery are, on this planet, designed by an intelligence.

Provide an example of something in nature that is not "designed by an intelligence".

 

[Ana the Ist]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause:



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 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.

So...

I'm not sure exactly when you jumped in on this conversation, but did you happen to read the articles I linked to as support for my statements? I'm guessing you didn't since the first one actually addresses the point you've made here about virtual particles being placeholders for theoretical models.

Also, had you read my posts just a few pages back, you'd see that I'm not trying to dispute any prevailing scientific theories. I merely took the position of "I don't know" and then provided evidence that the universe may have always existed.

Edit- if you don't feel like looking back through a few pages, I should have those articles bookmarked. I've found that's generally a good idea for posters who're late to the party.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Even if that were possible (and for the sake of your position I'll assume it is) you're still saying that the universe began to exist. The meaning of that claim itself implies that the universe didn't always exist.

So now we have a moment "before" the universe exists...and your theoretical moment when the universe is created and begins to exist. Even if all we have are these two moments, they still occur in a temporal sequence....ergo, time.

Back to square one.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Everything that begins to exist has a cause:



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.

What about an efficient cause without a material cause (i.e., creatio ex nihilo)?

The universe began to exist:

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.

You seem to misunderstand both what atheists have said and the prevailing scientific view. We don't deny that the universe "began to exist". What we question, however, is what apologists take this to mean.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

No they're not. They're not bound by space-time. If you demand exceptions, why can't anyone else?