Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Joshua260]

Right, a state of affairs where God exists without creation followed by another state of affairs. Put otherwise, a state of affairs that precedes time.

You should know that if we're going to talk a-temporally, we cannot use temporal terms. You're forcing your presumption that there has to be a "before" before t0, but I prefer to keep to logic. The only way we can speak of that state affairs is to that there is a state of affairs in which God exist without creation, and there is a state of affairs in which God exists temporally.

 

[TillICollapse]

Because although he has somewhat of a theory, he admits that there is absolutely no evidence to support the existence of an "imaginary time".

You keep referring to the beginning of time as we know it, and that is where you insert your need for a being.

I simply proclaim that scientific evidence shows that the universe began to exist, which Hawking agrees with, but he made up this "imaginary time" in order to avoid concluding the existence of a supernatural being...and that's why its a "science of the gaps" argument.

It's been awhile since I've read Hawking at length ... however you keep saying he had no evidence for his proposal, when he points out fluctuations in the CBR right there in the article. Concerning imaginary time ... diff eqs and analytical geometry is as far as I got with math, and that is now Arabic to me at this point in my life (even though I'm not that old, I'm 38 lol ) ... so looking at the page on imaginary time, I'm sorry but it appears a bit more than a made up concept with nothing backing it. HOWEVER ... even if it were, is special pleading suddenly discounted by you ?

No evidence...just a desire for the cause not to be God.

I'm sorry but there is evidence there that raises questions, I already pointed out one such example Hawking brought up which others have brought up to help give support to their theories as well.

Keep in mind I'm not arguing that I know definitively what reality was like before the Planck Epoch. I would argue at this point we don't know. Which is why when hypothesis/theories/proposals/concepts/ideas come up to explain it, evidence is sought along with falsifiability, etc.

And you assuming others have a desire for the cause NOT to be God ... that's an assumption and projecting imo. If you want to get serious about what others think concerning whether or not they desire "God" to be a cause of something, it would probably involve you taking the time to learn what their concept of "God" actually is or not.

I'm wondering...do you think Stephen Hawking...or even you...would ever consider that the existence of God might actually be a possibility?

Sure. I'm a believer, btw. And in my opinion, arguments that attempt to "prove" a deity created the universe at some point are often the worst arguments of all. Not only because they rely upon special pleading, arguments from ignorance, god of the gaps, circular reasoning, unfalsifiable concepts, premises that are often shaky or completely false ... but because they point to something taking place before the initiation of the universe as we know it. If you did somehow provide a coherent argument for a deity that existed then ... how do you know that deity still exists ? And in what way ? Why not conclude some type of deism and go no further ? How would you know that deity was the only one ? It doesn't answer a lot of questions imo.

There is no "before" t0. I believe there is a state of affairs where God exists without creation. However, I would say that now that the temporal "genie is out of the bottle" so to speak, I don't see how if God destroyed the universe, he could ever go back to an a-temporal existence.

Because "God" collapsed the wave function IOW ?

In case you missed it, I was hoping you'd address my post #403.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You should know that if we're going to talk a-temporally, we cannot use temporal terms.

Yes. I noticed you removed temporal terms. They were still implied, however, which is why I added them back in.

You're forcing your presumption that there has to be a "before" before t0, but I prefer to keep to logic.

No, that's your presumption, based on what you've stated.

The only way we can speak of that state affairs is to that there is a state of affairs in which God exist without creation, and there is a state of affairs in which God exists temporally.

See. This is what I mean. You removed the term then, hoping that it would make a difference. I inserted the implied 'then' for you:

The only way we can speak of that state affairs is to that there is a state of affairs in which God exist without creation, and then there is a state of affairs in which God exists temporally.

 

[Joshua260]

People of faith don't own the definition of the word 'faith'.

In any case, that's how we define it.

 

[Joshua260]

It's been awhile since I've read Hawking at length ... however you keep saying he had no evidence for his proposal...,

I believe he said that there was no evidence that their really was an "imaginary time".

And you assuming others have a desire for the cause NOT to be God ... that's an assumption and projecting imo.

Yes, that was an assumption I made that Hawking did not want God to exist, but I find no reason why he would dismiss the possibility unless he had a priori bias against the idea. It seems like in his paper that he was trying to find a way to explain the beginning of the universe purposefully without a God. Second, I happen to know he is an atheist, and he has made several disparaging comments about believers, so I don't consider him to be open-minded about it.

Sure. I'm a believer, btw. And in my opinion, arguments that attempt to "prove" a deity created the universe at some point are often the worst arguments of all. Not only because they rely upon special pleading, arguments from ignorance, god of the gaps, circular reasoning, unfalsifiable concepts, premises that are often shaky or completely false ... but because they point to something taking place before the initiation of the universe as we know it. If you did somehow provide a coherent argument for a deity that existed then ... how do you know that deity still exists ? And in what way ? Why not conclude some type of deism and go no further ? How would you know that deity was the only one ? It doesn't answer a lot of questions imo.

What faith are you?

I have repeatedly clarified that the KCA does not point directly to the Christian God. I am perfectly happy to concede that the best it can do is imply Deism. That is certainly a possibility, if the KCA is to be considered alone.

Because "God" collapsed the wave function IOW ?

No, because I don't see how God could destroy the universe and then make it like space-time did not exist. But I am totally speculating here. It just seems that once the cat is out of the bag, it may be impossible to go back.

In case you missed it, I was hoping you'd address my post #403.

I think I addressed it.

 

[Joshua260]

No, that's your presumption, based on what you've stated.

Nope. I did not use temporal terms because the KCA implies that the cause of the universe was timeless. That was not a presumption on my part. I was just following the logic of the KCA.

See. This is what I mean. You removed the term then, hoping that it would make a difference. I inserted the implied 'then' for you:

Joshua260" The only way we can speak of that state affairs is to that there is a state of affairs in which God exist without creation, and then there is a state of affairs in which God exists temporally."

You misunderstood me. I used the last "then" you cite as "in addition to", not as a temporal term to mean "after". Please, let's not be silly.

 

[TillICollapse]

I believe he said that there was no evidence that their really was an "imaginary time".

I don't get where he said that at all.

Yes, that was an assumption I made that Hawking did not want God to exist, but I find no reason why he would dismiss the possibility unless he had a priori bias against the idea. It seems like in his paper that he was trying to find a way to explain the beginning of the universe purposefully without a God. Second, I happen to know he is an atheist, and he has made several disparaging comments about believers, so I don't consider him to be open-minded about it.

I don't know whether he's open minded about it or not. However there are other reasons someone may dismiss the possibility a "God" exists. Do you dismiss the possibility Caesar was a god ? Do you dismiss the possibility of Zeus ? Do you dismiss the possibility of leprechauns ? I know someone who believed they were from Arcturus. Do you dismiss that ? The Pirahã people apparently have no concept of "God". A missionary lived amongst them, read them the Bible, told them his concepts of Jesus. When He admitted He had never met Jesus and couldn't introduce them to Him ... they dismissed his claims. For them, they typically require evidence of personal experience for what they are told about the universe, and seek to have it be applicable to their lives. If a person has had no experience, and no way to apply his "knowledge", apparently they dismiss it. It's not they are biased against it, for they had no concept of it ... rather, it was meaningless to consider it.

What faith are you?

Without trying to come off like a prick, if you believe you are capable of deducing so easily what a creator of the entire universe may be like, perhaps you can easily deduce that answer to your own question.

I have repeatedly clarified that the KCA does not point directly to the Christian God. I am perfectly happy to concede that the best it can do is imply Deism. That is certainly a possibility, if the KCA is to be considered alone.

I've already asked how you make the leap from the KCA to Christian God, so I won't go down that rabbit hole again.

No, because I don't see how God could destroy the universe and then make it like space-time did not exist. But I am totally speculating here. It just seems that once the cat is out of the bag, it may be impossible to go back.

Yes, I agree you are totally speculating.

I think I addressed it.

Where ? Can you point it out to me, I may have missed it. Yes I'm opening the door for a "touche" moment if you wish.

 

[Joshua260]

To be clear, my "faith" icon says "seeker". not "faith seeker". I do not seek religion.

Ah. My bad. Apologies to you.

I ask about the KCA, in that if you do not find it convincing, or it didn't convince you, why expect others to find it convincing?

I do not find the KCA to be convincing enough to point to the Christian god all by itself. Rather, I consider this argument in light of several other arguments and Christian evidences. I think the KCA, taken together with the rest, provides an honest seeker with a sufficient knowledge base to form a reasonable belief in Christianity.

 

[Joshua260]

I don't get where he said that at all.

I don't know whether he's open minded about it or not. However there are other reasons someone may dismiss the possibility a "God" exists. Do you dismiss the possibility Caesar was a god ? Do you dismiss the possibility of Zeus ? Do you dismiss the possibility of leprechauns ? I know someone who believed they were from Arcturus. Do you dismiss that ? The Pirahã people apparently have no concept of "God". A missionary lived amongst them, read them the Bible, told them his concepts of Jesus. When He admitted He had never met Jesus and couldn't introduce them to Him ... they dismissed his claims. For them, they typically require evidence of personal experience for what they are told about the universe, and seek to have it be applicable to their lives. If a person has had no experience, and no way to apply his "knowledge", apparently they dismiss it. It's not they are biased against it, for they had no concept of it ... rather, it was meaningless to consider it.

Without trying to come off like a prick, if you believe you are capable of deducing so easily what a creator of the entire universe may be like, perhaps you can easily deduce that answer to your own question.

I've already asked how you make the leap from the KCA to Christian God, so I won't go down that rabbit hole again.

Yes, I agree you are totally speculating.

Where ? Can you point it out to me, I may have missed it. Yes I'm opening the door for a "touche" moment if you wish.

After all this, I still haven't seen any one good objection to the KCA.

You seem to be getting a little upset with me and it's getting late where I am so I think I will close for now. Have a good nite.

 

[TillICollapse]

After all this, I still haven't seen any one good objection to the KCA.

The first premise of the argument isn't necessarily true, which defeats the whole argument imo. Plus, there are too many semantic issues to address. Applying this argument to a "therefore God" conclusion at some point leads to special pleading. Pointing these out to someone ad infinitum is not something I would typically do, that is the circular conversation I try to stay away from. When it gets to a, "Yes it is," "No it isn't" point, I see that as a pointless conversation. I've taken care of patients who found no good objection to the idea that leprechauns were in the room trying to steal their wallets. I just let it go and move on

You seem to be getting a little upset with me and it's getting late where I am so I think I will close for now. Have a good nite.

I'm not upset in the slightest, not sure where you got that from anything I said. The only thing that tends to upset me is if I think I've been trolled and didn't catch it at first

Good nite

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Nope. I did not use temporal terms because the KCA implies that the cause of the universe was timeless.

The KCA implies no such thing. The assertion that the cause must be timeless comes after the conclusion. It does not follow directly from the premises.

That was not a presumption on my part. I was just following the logic of the KCA.

So was I, and I ended up with the Divine Flame, the FSM, the MUMM, and various other explanations.

You misunderstood me. I used the last "then" you cite as "in addition to", not as a temporal term to mean "after". Please, let's not be silly.

You're trying to disguise a temporally laden statement by removing temporally related words. To be clear, you proposed a state of affairs before time, but tried to hide this by omitting words like 'then' from the statement.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I believe he said that there was no evidence that their really was an "imaginary time".

Yes, that was an assumption I made that Hawking did not want God to exist, but I find no reason why he would dismiss the possibility unless he had a priori bias against the idea. It seems like in his paper that he was trying to find a way to explain the beginning of the universe purposefully without a God. Second, I happen to know he is an atheist, and he has made several disparaging comments about believers, so I don't consider him to be open-minded about it.

You apparently have no problem with speculation, so what's wrong with proposing a natural mechanism for the origin of the universe? You seem to be under the impression that any explanation that does not invoke the supernatural in some way is inherently flawed. Why?

I have repeatedly clarified that the KCA does not point directly to the Christian God. I am perfectly happy to concede that the best it can do is imply Deism.

You're being generous. The standard three-line KCA doesn't even imply that much. All it implies is 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.

After all this, I still haven't seen any one good objection to the KCA.

You've been given several good objections in the last few pages alone.

 

[quatona]

That would be illogical. Rather I believe there is a state of affairs where God exists without creation.

Is this state of affairs now?

 

[talquin]

No. There is a state of affairs in which God exist timelessly without creation (space-time). The state of affairs at t0 is when God began to exist temporally with his creation.

How do you know there was a state of affairs prior to t0?

And you seem to be flip-flopping as to whether or not anything existed prior to t0.

 

[talquin]

There is no "prior" in the state of affairs in which God exists without the universe.

The problem with your argument is in order for God to put the universe in motion, there would be a cause and effect. And a cause and effect involves time. So this couldn't all have occurred at t0. There had to be a passage of time.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ok. I looked at the virtual particles site. I don't always take the time to check out sites but it sounded like you might have something interesting to look at, and it was, but it really didn't do anything to destroy the KCA. The particles site was just explaining that virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time, but that's no big news. I read that stuff...gosh 30 years ago. But the thing is that they are not popping into existence out of nothing like what we mean by nothing when we speak of the KCA. When Laurence Krauss talks of the universe popping out of nothing, he is actually referring to a something. Virtual particles go in and out of existence in a field rife with energy. On the other hand, when we speak of the universe coming into existence out of nothing, we mean not anything, not even a virtual particle field.

My research on the singularity paper revealed that the scientists involved only meant to posit a lack of a singularity, and that was taken to imply that there was no beginning either, but that's not necessarily the case. In fact, I have seen that model before and it has been pointed out that even though it does not show a singularity, it does show a definite beginning.

So I don't see any of this as destroying the KCA, but thanks for sharing.

When did we start talking about the universe coming into existence from nothing? I don't see where you're getting this...you've already mentioned that your notion of the "beginning of the universe" as we know it (along with the beginning of space and time as we know it) comes from (as you put it) the "top physicists in their field". Since when do these "top physicists" describe the beginning of the universe as "coming from nothing"? I'm fairly certain that I can show.you they don't think this at all. Are you just referring to science when you need it for your argument and discarding it when it becomes inconvenient?

Regardless of your tenuous grasp of science...the first premise of the argument has to do with cause...not the condition of "coming from nothing.". Remember the first premise?
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Well...you just said this...
"The particles site was just explaining that virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time, but that's no big news. I read that stuff...gosh 30 years ago."
The first premise is refuted. Clearly, everything that begins to exist does not have a cause. I'll continue this discussion anyway because you said something else funny....

"My research on the singularity paper revealed that the scientists involved only meant to posit a lack of a singularity, and that was taken to imply that there was no beginning either, but that's not necessarily the case. In fact, I have seen that model before and it has been pointed out that even though it does not show a singularity, it does show a definite beginning. "

Did you research include the article I linked you to? From that page...

"Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end."

So without the first and second premise, the KCA doesn't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Ana the Ist]

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." (Stephen Hawking)

Take it up with Stephen and see what he thinks.

What? No I didn't say that. Of course the universe has a sequence of events, and that's how we measure time...by change. No, I'm not backed into a corner at all. You're apparently constrained to think that a being could not exist timelessly. I'm not making presuppositions but just following the logic of premises backed up by scientific evidence and then evaluating the consequences of the logical conclusion. Interestingly though, it seems to me that you're the one making suppositions by ruling out a timeless being from the outset. Why not just follow the logic? You seem to have a priori bias.

Here's another good quote....

"In the early universe—when the universe was small enough to be governed by both general relativity and quantum theory—there were effectively four dimensions of space and none of time. That means that when we speak of the “beginning” of the universe, we are skirting the subtle issue that as we look backward toward the very early universe, time as we know it does not exist! We must accept that our usual ideas of space and time do not apply to the very early universe. That is beyond our experience, but not beyond our imagination, or our mathematics."
Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design

Why do you suppose he threw in the words "as we know it" into his later works? Obviously the implication is that time could exist in a way we do not yet understand.

"....a sequence of events, and that's how we measure time...by change"

Remarkable...you seem to understand this and yet continue to insist that it's possible for a universe creating entity to be timeless. I've given you the sequence, I've explained how they cannot logically have occurred out of sequence... yet you insist that these things somehow happened without any sequential order.

"....just following the logic of premises ..."

I've already showed you that premises 1&2 are false in several ways. At this point you're following flawed logic out of some reason other than truth. If I had to guess, I'd say dogma.

 

[KCfromNC]

You're seriously suggesting that a foal, a painting, a house, or a car can come into existence without a cause?

You see these things pop into existence from nothingness? You live in a much different universe than I do, that's for sure.

 

[KCfromNC]

The beginning of the universe began at t0...the same moment that God brought it into existence. Both this cause and effect happened within space-time.

Any other examples of things existing before they exist so they can be created inside themselves? Seems like a stretch to me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, I'm not so sure. Some get confused and think that cause and effect is what makes time, but effects can happen concurrently with their causes. I believe that time is better defined as changes from one event to another. Since the cause of the universe would have to be immaterial (and timeless as I said before), I can envision two possibilities: either the cause would have to be an unembodied mind, or things like numbers or sets. However, things like numbers or sets do not have causal properties so that seems to rule them out. So if we're talking about an unembodied mind, and we don't have changes from one event to another, I don't see how the concept of an unembodied mind existing timelessly is a problem.

Consciousness implies a temporal state. Again, it's unavoidable. If you're saying that this entity (god) thinks, which is what I'm assuming you're claiming by saying -"unembodied mind" , then it thinks in a temporal manner. Even thought have a beginning, middle, and end....anything less would be incomprehensible. Also...

"Since the cause of the universe would have to be immaterial (and timeless as I said before),...

All observed "causes" are material and temporal.