Best Argument For or Against God's Existence

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

It's amazing how quickly they go from "Everything in our experience supports this thing!" to "But this thing is so totally different from anything we've ever experienced."

 

[Joshua260]

The first premise of the argument isn't necessarily true, which defeats the whole argument imo.

The first premise simply says that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. When all of science relies on this principle (that effects have causes), why would you desire to prove that the universe must be the singular
exception? Why can't this be one of those instances when scientists say something like "ok...I don't know what the cause is, but give science enough time and we'll figure it out."? Why do you have this bias against the universe having a cause for it's existence?

 

[TillICollapse]

The first premise simply says that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. When all of science relies on this principle (that effects have causes), why would you desire to prove that the universe must be the singular
exception? Why can't this be one of those instances when scientists say something like "ok...I don't know what the cause is, but give science enough time and we'll figure it out."? Why do you have this bias against the universe having a cause for it's existence?

It's not about a desire to prove the universe is the exception, nor is it about having a bias against the universe having a cause for it's existence. Part of it is, imo, how we understand causality itself.

You are assuming there are no violations of causality. While violations of causality are currently hypothetical AFAIK, and the few instances where some have concluded it's being violated can be explained otherwise (like with quantum phenomena ... although I don't know if the black hole information paradox has been sufficiently explained yet or not, for example, which could violate causality) ... even if we're talking about the Planck era itself, "cause and effect" may not have the meanings we think of them as. At some point, causality as we know it began from what we can tell ... but HOW it began could have come from previous points within the Planck epoch itself where causality was violated for all we know. Thus to say that "everything that begins to exist has a cause for it's existence" may not even be proper language. Can you demonstrate something beginning to exist ?

In my eyes, it's not about having a bias ... it's about being intellectually honest, looking at what we currently attempt to understand, and saying, "We don't know."

Speculating there is a being responsible makes a leap that raises the same question though: what "caused" the being ? What was it's origin ? And arguably, your own place in the current causal chain facilitates such questioning.

Consider this: suppose the Creator God shows up in an extraordinary way right now, across the entire earth in some manner, and through a series of amazing events and ability demonstrates that He is, for all intent and purposes, what we would consider a "God" and claims to be the Creator. Regardless of the implications of such a being making itself known to ALL in such a manner ... we could still ask, "Okay, so how do we know you are the only one ? Where did you come from ?"

How could we know, definitively, ANY origin claim God would make ? What evidence could God produce to defend a claim that would actually get us to a point where we could no longer logically question God's origins ?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The first premise simply says that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. When all of science relies on this principle (that effects have causes), why would you desire to prove that the universe must be the singular
exception? Why can't this be one of those instances when scientists say something like "ok...I don't know what the cause is, but give science enough time and we'll figure it out."? Why do you have this bias against the universe having a cause for it's existence?

I wrote this a while ago, but I think it's pertinent here also: I don't think scientists assume what you're suggesting they do. The Large Hadron Collider was constructed, in large part, to recreate the conditions of the very early universe so that we may glimpse how matter and energy behave in those conditions, and thereby gain a better understanding of the universe's origins. It isn't merely assumed that our intuitions about causality scale down to the level of particles interacting in the highly dense state of the early universe. The matter is investigated to examine whether that assumption is justified.

 

[quatona]

The first premise simply says that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

And this premise is unsubstantiated and unsubstantiable, as has been pointed out many times before. Nothing within our experience allows us to determine principles concerning the coming into existence of matter where no matter was before (in other words, we never observe anything "beginning to exist" - we just observe changes within that which already exists.
Science would be inacceptably presumptious to establish such a principle concerning something that simply doesn´t happen in this world.

When all of science relies on this principle (that effects have causes), why would you desire to prove that the universe must be the singular
exception?

To be precise, science is about physical causes for changes/events and doesn´t deal with allegedly spiritual/supernatural causes for physical existence. Thus, if you want to appeal to scientific principles you better represent them correctly.
On another note, it´s sort of funny that the very guys who postulate an "uncaused cause" point to causality as a principle that mustn´t be violated.

Why can't this be one of those instances when scientists say something like "ok...I don't know what the cause is, but give science enough time and we'll figure it out."?

Science can take that stance easily, but the problem is that a scientific explanation (physical causality) won´t satisfy you - because you presume a non-scientific non-explanation (IOW you are equivocating "cause" in your arguments).

Why do you have this bias against the universe having a cause for it's existence?

I don´t have a bias against it - as far as I am concerned, it can very well have a cause for its existence, or not.
I am merely taking issue with the argument as presented.

 

[KCfromNC]

The first premise simply says that everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence. When all of science relies on this principle (that effects have causes)

You're already changing the premise. Effects have causes isn't the same as everything has a cause. Which one are you defending here?

 

[Davian]

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.

Again, I have no interest in forming a belief in Christianity. I am seeking accurate descriptions of reality.

As enough people are already poking holes in your KCA, I'll just watch for now.

 

[DeepWater]

Ask any scientist, anywhere.....(letting them use the best and latest technology available) to create one single Rose from nothing.
If he can ever do that from now till the end of time, then God isnt real and the theory of evolution is your best choice.

(good luck Mr Scientist)

 

[TillICollapse]

Ask any scientist, anywhere.....(letting them use the best and latest technology available) to create one single Rose from nothing.
If he can ever do that from now till the end of time, then God isnt real and the theory of evolution is your best choice.

(good luck Mr Scientist)

Can you create a rose from nothing as a believer ? How about healing an amputee ?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ask any scientist, anywhere.....(letting them use the best and latest technology available) to create one single Rose from nothing.
If he can ever do that from now till the end of time, then God isnt real and the theory of evolution is your best choice.

(good luck Mr Scientist)

What if he can create an incredibly lifelike and realistic strawman from nothing?

Would that work???

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Ask any scientist, anywhere.....(letting them use the best and latest technology available) to create one single Rose from nothing.
If he can ever do that from now till the end of time, then God isnt real and the theory of evolution is your best choice.

(good luck Mr Scientist)

Can you show that God created roses from nothing? If you can show God creating anything, literally out of nothing, I will renounce atheism and be a believer the rest of my life. One would still have to make a case for Christianity but I'd at least be a deist and not atheist.

 

[Joshua260]

Can you demonstrate something beginning to exist ?

Began to exist and causes:
a foal: mom and dad horse
egg: mom and dad chicken
car: auto manufacturer
house; construction crew
a wooden baseball bat; woodworker
Beethoven's Fifth; Beethoven
The Reformation; Luther and others
Huck Finn; Mark Twain
a fire; igniting a fuel/mixture ratio
leaf; tree
a painting; artist
an idea; thinker
a falling apple; gravity
a charge; changing electromagnetic field

This is so easy.

abiogenesis; scientists not sure but the atheists ones are confident that one day, we'll figure out how life cam from non-life through natural processes.

man; evolutionists believe man had to evolve from other lower species.

P1 is repeatedly demonstrable every day and no scientific evidence has ever shown it to be faulty. Indeed, we depend on p1 in order to do science!!

So again, why can't this be one of those instances when scientists say something like "ok...I don't know what the cause is, but give science enough time and we'll figure it out? Is that not an acceptable option for you?

 

[Joshua260]

Again, I have no interest in forming a belief in Christianity. I am seeking accurate descriptions of reality.

I wasn't evangelizing to you. Do you not remember that you asked me a question? So, I answered it.

As enough people are already poking holes in your KCA, I'll just watch for now.

Lol! I'm not worried in the least my friend!! This is a very old and much debated argument and I've never seen a successful refutation of it yet!!

 

[TillICollapse]

Began to exist and causes:
a foal: mom and dad horse
egg: mom and dad chicken
car: auto manufacturer
house; construction crew
a wooden baseball bat; woodworker
Beethoven's Fifth; Beethoven
The Reformation; Luther and others
Huck Finn; Mark Twain
a fire; igniting a fuel/mixture ratio
leaf; tree
a painting; artist
an idea; thinker
a falling apple; gravity
a charge; changing electromagnetic field

This is so easy.

*facepalm*

Do I really need to prompt you to follow the "and where did THAT begin from ..." trail ?

So an apple, fire, foal ... they didn't exist in some other form before they were apples, fires, foals ?

abiogenesis; scientists not sure but the atheists ones are confident that one day, we'll figure out how life cam from non-life through natural processes.

Generalization bait, and not interested in discussing abiogenesis.

man; evolutionists believe man had to evolve from other lower species.

Not interested in discussing evolution either.

P1 is repeatedly demonstrable every day and no scientific evidence has ever shown it to be faulty. Indeed, we depend on p1 in order to do science!!

At this point, PRATT.

So again, why can't this be one of those instances when scientists say something like "ok...I don't know what the cause is, but give science enough time and we'll figure it out? Is that not an acceptable option for you?

Have you actually read the responses ?

 

[Joshua260]

*facepalm*

Do I really need to prompt you to follow the "and where did THAT begin from ..." trail ?

So an apple, fire, foal ... they didn't exist in some other form before they were apples, fires, foals ?

Generalization bait, and not interested in discussing abiogenesis.

Not interested in discussing evolution either.

At this point, PRATT.

Have you actually read the responses ?

You're making a common mistake here. Whether or not something began to exist from other things or not is irrelevant; the principle remains the same. But if look at my list more carefully, you will find things that do not fall into that same category anyway.

I was not baiting you with abiogenesis or evolution. Those are legitimate examples of things that began to exist and science has sought to determine a cause, instead of presuming that those things began to exist causelessly.

No, you never answered plainly. Is the answer that "there could be a cause but we dont know what it is and maybe one day will figure it out" not an option for you? You seem to keep avoiding a plain answer.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You're making a common mistake here. Whether or not something began to exist from another form or not is irrelevant; the principle remains the same.

Of course the nature of causality is relevant! It is the gear that drives the entire argument. If you want to say "Everything that begins to exist has a cause," then we are right to ask you what you mean by 'begins to exist' and 'cause'. We can only examine whether the premise is supported or not once its meaning is made clear. If by 'cause' you really mean the creation of matter, energy, and spacetime from nothing, then the premise is unfounded, and the argument is unsound.

 

[KCfromNC]

Ask any scientist, anywhere.....(letting them use the best and latest technology available) to create one single Rose from nothing.

Would an apologist have any more luck getting their god to answer this challenge?

If he can ever do that from now till the end of time, then God isnt real and the theory of evolution is your best choice.

Possibly. On the other hand, failing to achieve this feat says basically nothing about the validity of current scientific theories. And even less about gods.

 

[TillICollapse]

You're making a common mistake here. Whether or not something began to exist from other things or not is irrelevant;

Of course it's relevant. If I ask you to demonstrate something beginning to exist, and you simply hand me a book off the shelf and say, "There ... the book now exists in your hands," it's relatively easy to say, "Well you just got that book of the shelf. It already existed right there." I could say this about all the things you mentioned in your list. They already existed in various forms. Trace this all the way back. One of the things the KCA hinges upon is what it means for something to "Begin to exist". You haven't shown anything that "began to exist". All you've done is provide a list of things that already existed, just not in their current form.

the principle remains the same. But if look at my list more carefully, you will find things that do not fall into that same category anyway.

Like what ? Beethoven's 5th ? Huck Finn ? The Reformation ? Products of men brains, actions, events. Grouping together of things already in existence.

Causality is relevant. Otherwise, once again ... if you want to only look at a current slice of the universe and say, "It's here, therefore it began !" and you won't allow any further examination of the very causal chain that is being referenced (which then defeats the purpose of bringing it up in the first place), you are once again special pleading.

I was not baiting you with abiogenesis or evolution. Those are legitimate examples of things that began to exist and science has sought to determine a cause, instead of presuming that those things began to exist causelessly.

Generalizations about atheists was the bait I was referring to. I'm assuming, based on your list ... that you would give your own thread post as an example of something beginning to exist then, right ? And I don't believe I've ever stated definitively that the universe or anything known within it began "causelessly". I believe I've stated a couple of times that I don't believe we know whether such language or views of causality would even hold up at certain points during the first moments of the universe and/or before causality appears to have begun as we recognize it.

No, you never answered plainly. Is the answer that "there could be a cause but we dont know what it is and maybe one day will figure it out" not an option for you? You seem to keep avoiding a plain answer.

I did answer plainly. "We don't know". There could be something like a cause, or there couldn't be. That's not what the KCA states though. With it, you keep asserting a PRATT.

If you're just going to keep re-asserting "Yes it does, because it does," and all you have to offer for things beginning to exist are ideas and books and apples ... then once again I'll probably step out of the circular convo. No need to go round and round with the same things over and over again.

 

[Joshua260]

Of course it's relevant. If I ask you to demonstrate something beginning to exist, and you simply hand me a book off the shelf and say, "There ... the book now exists in your hands," it's relatively easy to say, "Well you just got that book of the shelf. It already existed right there." I could say this about all the things you mentioned in your list. They already existed in various forms. Trace this all the way back. One of the things the KCA hinges upon is what it means for something to "Begin to exist". You haven't shown anything that "began to exist". All you've done is provide a list of things that already existed, just not in their current form.

Your book example is flawed. It already existed on the shelf before I handed it to you. However, it began to exist as the author created it. Surely, you can tell the difference, or can't you?

Like what ? Beethoven's 5th ? Huck Finn ? The Reformation ? Products of men brains, actions, events. Grouping together of things already in existence.

Already in existence? So Beethoven's 5th existed before Beethoven brought it into existence? Did it exist 2000 yrs ago? And the Reformation already existed before the 31 A.D? Surely you jest.

Causality is relevant.

I never said it wasn't.

I did answer plainly. "We don't know". There could be something like a cause, or there couldn't be. That's not what the KCA states though.

Um, yes it does. Premise 3 says "Therefore the universe had a cause for it's existence."

Thanks for clarifying that you believe it is acceptable to say that the KCA shows that the universe could have had a cause. I asked you to clarify because you've been all over the map in this thread.

Observe:
1st, you attacked the characteristic traits that could be extrapolated from the KCA and I answered that.
2nd, you attacked p2 (that the universe began to exist) and I responded with philosophical arguments and scientific evidence, and also showed you that even prominent atheist Stephen Hawking believes that the universe has a definite beginning.
3rd, you replied that even though Hawking believes in a definite beginning to time and space, he postulated an alternate cause of the universe coming into existence.
4th, finally you switched to attack p1 (that everything that begins to exist has a cause) and that's why I had to ask you to clarify your position. It made me wonder why you spent so many posts trying to show that Hawking postulated a cause for the universe to begin and then you go and attack p1. Obviously, Hawking agreed with p2, and he must have felt that p1 applied to the universe also and that's why he formulated his theory about an alternate cause for the beginning of the universe. Apparently Hawking agrees with p1 (that even the universe, if it began to exist, must have had a cause for it's existence), so for you to go back and attack p1 seemed contradictory. But judging from all you've said so far, especially taking into account your Hawking sidebar discussion, it sounds like you agree with him that the universe had a beginning and that it probably also had cause. Therefore, it sounds like your main objection to the KCA is not the argument itself, but the extrapolated traits of the conclusion that we talked about in item 1.

 

[Davian]

I wasn't evangelizing to you. Do you not remember that you asked me a question? So, I answered it.

My point was, forming a belief in Christianity does not make it an accurate description of reality, it only tricks you into thinking so.

Lol! I'm not worried in the least my friend!! This is a very old and much debated argument and I've never seen a successful refutation of it yet!!

Physicist Sean Carroll explained, in response to the typical apologist's "causality" argument, how the reality is that astrophysicists do not talk about "cause and effect", they talk of "models and equations".

While the KCA might sell books for WLC, it is not an argument of concern to astrophysicists.