Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

In other words, you're speculating.

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.

It also rules out Yahweh.

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.

How so? You just stated that it is incoherent to reason that something we are familiar with from within the universe (e.g., an intelligent agent) could have brought the universe into being.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, and the universe works like a machine.

Evidence?

You mean outside of time? Please explain how.

Being timeless means he is changeless. He has no latitude to contemplate or select any other design.

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

You haven't established that this analogy even holds. I see no reason to consider the universe a machine.

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.

No, you were cherrypicking, and you are still. You're picking and choosing which rules from the universe apply and which do not. According to you, our understanding of how minds work doesn't apply, but our understanding of how design works does. We apparently can't object to the notion of a disembodied, spaceless and timeless intelligence because, according to you, we're applying the rules of the universe to an entity that is exempt from those rules. But when we object to your design argument, you invert this point, and all of a sudden our understanding of design, which is derived from within the universe (e.g., cars and aeroplanes), extends beyond the universe.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not temporal, not spatial, not material.

It's funny how apologists sometimes laugh at atheists, saying "What? You think the universe came from nothing?", only to later describe an "entity" that sounds like the very definition of nothing.

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

So do countless other supernatural explanations.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Then you should apply this consistently, in which case premise 3 should read: "the universe had an efficient and a material cause." You don't want to say that, however, because that would bode ill for the doctrine of creatio nihilo.

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.

The universe is not an "object"; it's the set of all objects. What is true of members of a set is not necessarily true of the set itself.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

How did you verify that this entity did not begin to exist?

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.

Well, you can speculate, yeah... But anyone can do that.

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?

The above argument tells us nothing about the nature or identity of the cause. It could simply be read as saying that the origin of the universe is mysterious and in need of explanation – a banal conclusion that one could accept without making any theological commitments.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Let's see how much of a mess the KCA really is...

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. [An efficient and material cause?]
2. The universe began to exist. [Sure, in the sense 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.]
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. [I presume you really to mean say "Therefore, creatio ex nihilo." That conclusion doesn't appear to follow from either (1) or (2).]

 

[FireDragon76]

the argument just says "a" cause. I don't see why the universe must have a material cause for the argument to be true.

 

[talquin]

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

Because he doesn't realize that his position has already been defeated largely due to his need to use the fallacious argument of special pleading.

 

[talquin]

Let's see how much of a mess the KCA really is...

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. [An efficient and material cause?]
2. The universe began to exist. [Sure, in the sense 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.]
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. [I presume you really to mean say "Therefore, creatio ex nihilo." That conclusion doesn't appear to follow from either (1) or (2).]

Even more on how the KCA fails - read Cosmological Kalamity by Dan Barker. Cosmological Kalamity

 

[Archaeopteryx]

the argument just says "a" cause. I don't see why the universe must have a material cause for the argument to be true.

The first premise deliberately leaves the term 'cause' vague for this reason. Otherwise the arguer would have to conclude that the universe was created ex materia.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Even more on how the KCA fails - read Cosmological Kalamity by Dan Barker. Cosmological Kalamity

I like Dan's point about begging the question: If God is the only entity in the category of things not beginning to exist, then the argument begs the question for a deity. Something similar occurs in the moral argument, whereby "objective moral values and duties" are defined as God-given moral values and duties.

 

[TillICollapse]

Let's see how much of a mess the KCA really is...

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. [An efficient and material cause?]
2. The universe began to exist. [Sure, in the sense 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.]
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. [I presume you really to mean say "Therefore, creatio ex nihilo." That conclusion doesn't appear to follow from either (1) or (2).]

I just find this argument nearly pointless to address anymore :/ What sometimes interests me more is how someone can take this argument or it's variants, and then make some of the "Therefores" they make. But still :/

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I just find this argument nearly pointless to address anymore :/ What sometimes interests me more is how someone can take this argument or it's variants, and then make some of the "Therefores" they make. But still :/

It's an argument built on a number of assumptions that have not been justified by the arguer. However, in its most basic form, the KCA can simply be taken to say that the origin of the universe is mysterious and in need of explanation. (I've seen WLC make a strawman of this point by suggesting that atheists believe the universe requires no explanation. There may be atheists who hold this view, but I'd wager they are in the minority.) The need for an explanation does not automatically lend credence to whatever supernatural speculation happens to come blundering by.

 

[Belk]

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.

No, the universe works like a universe. That you can use mathematics to calculate the movement of the stars and planets is no great feat since that was the whole reason we started learning math. It no more shows the universe is designed then being able to calculate the rate of gravity shows intelligent falling.

 

[KCfromNC]

Complicated machinery requires a designer, as far as we know (hence, my example of a car/airplane).

More specifically, a human designer. Follow that through to the logical conclusion and see how absurd your claim is.

I would liken the way the universe works to the way a complicated machine here on earth works.

I wouldn't. There are many things which show consistent behavior. Only some of them are known to be designed by intelligent beings. Heck, the vast majority of the universe isn't known to be caused by anything so if we're playing with probabilities, that says the universe is very likely not caused by a known being as well.

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.

So? Why does "working in a predictable way" have anything to do with "designed by an intelligent [human] being"? In this universe we see lots of things which were obviously not created by humans and yet still show consistent behavior. Pretending that must mean that god is designing them on the fly is begging question.

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.

Again, the only examples we have are human designs. Using you logic, it is more than reasonable to believe the universe had a human maker. To me, that points out an obvious problem in whatever it is you think you're demonstrating here.

 

[KCfromNC]

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause

Do you have any examples of anything beginning to exist? Seems that all we have here in the universe are things changing shape and form. The only things which legitimately can be said to come to exist out of nothing are virtual particles and similar quantum phenomena, and at that level cause and effect doesn't work the way you're claiming here.

So where do you get the idea that this premise has anything to do with reality?

 

[KCfromNC]

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

We're supposed to ignore this problem with the argument. The whole jist of it is that humans create stuff via natural means therefore the universe was created by a supernatural god through magic. There's some slight of hand to pretend that these two things are identical, but they really have nothing to do with one another. It is a shell game where we're supposed to pretend that we can know anything about the conditions before the universe began simply by looking at a child putting together a set of Legos, since there's obviously no difference at all between the two. Except for the fact that Jesus, uh, I mean the intelligent designer is uncased and capable of infinite magic.

 

[KCfromNC]

the argument just says "a" cause. I don't see why the universe must have a material cause for the argument to be true.

If it doesn't, then the argument is equivocating on the word cause. The one discussed in the first premise is designers using natural means to create normal everyday material objects here in the universe. If that's not the definition of cause used in the rest of the argument, the whole thing is a giant logical fallacy.

 

[FireDragon76]

The first premise deliberately leaves the term 'cause' vague for this reason. Otherwise the arguer would have to conclude that the universe was created ex materia.

I see your point.

BTW, the Kalam cosmological argument is from Islam. I am not sure the way it is being presented is in keeping with the original argument. There are further Islamic arguments why the cause of the universe must be personal being rather than impersonal cause.

 

[FireDragon76]

If it doesn't, then the argument is equivocating on the word cause. The one discussed in the first premise is designers using natural means to create normal everyday material objects here in the universe.

I don't see that as so. You are overreading the argument. It says "everything that begins to exist has a cause". That doesn't refer to something that is ordinary material object. Plenty of things begin to exist without a material cause, such as ideas, for instance.